Not you guys but Nats news. Anyone care?
Zuckerman is doing his thing over at Substack asking a good question - who's going to be the closer. I'd bet on Clayton Beeter, who I like in part because it's unlikely the Dodgers (a great minor league operation) and Yankees (a minor league that readily develops decent relievers) are both wrong about the guy having solid skills. Cole Henry could also be the choice as a long time org favorite. But given that closer doesn't matter as much as using the best guys in the best spot maybe you let a Drew Smith have it and use Beeter and Henry when you need them? This is more a contract question for these guys than what's best for the team because whoever gets the role can get more money.
If that race doesn't get you going, the "excitement" in Spring turns to the kids. Watching Eli Willitis a legit prospect get his first major league camp swings in is a real thing to be interested in, but it'll be at least late 2027 before we see him, one would think. So we're relying on Riley Cornelio (think budget Brad Lord) to be the breakout Spring player? Yikes.
This is one spring where I'd actually be happy about getting excited about a random guy doing real well. Why not?
In decreasing order of importance and predictive power, the encouraging details that I've noticed are:
ReplyDelete1. House's first HR (the one off Alacantra).
2. Decent enough 1B defense from Ortiz.
3. 20 year old Jorgelys Mota hitting a ball 115 MPH
4. New pitches and initial effectiveness from Parker and Rutledge.
5. Shuman and Sinclair up a couple of ticks. They are still very fringy prospects, of course, but velo jumps are one of the few things that are quickly real.
6. That outfield assist from Pinckney was gorgeous. I don't even care about what it means. Best play so far this season.
The problem, though, is that even if I can make myself believe in and get excited about these signs of possible improvement, it's still double edged. Because a big part of my reaction, in futures where the team overperforms and lots of the core players take real steps forward, is to be pissed that they traded Gore and didn't sign Murakami etc. It's a double bind - if we suck as expected, I'll be miserable, and if we don't suck, I'll be even more furious at the penny pinching. I'm certainly still rooting for good play and good results, but I know I won't be able to fully enjoy it.
I wish that the save and win would go away. They're worthless stats, and the save is especially distortive. IIRC, there was once a "game winning RBI" stat, which was eventually abandoned.
ReplyDeleteA better fireman stat would be awarded to a reliever who comes in with men on base. It would have to be weighted by the number of men on which base, the number of outs, and the runs allowed.
I'm following Ortiz. As SMS pointed out, he does not seem to be a defensive liability, and certainly has power. And "Abimelec" is a great name--meaning something like "father king."
I couldn't agree more. I also really think the "leverage" statistical usage is driven by a misunderstanding of how the game works. That guy who stretched a single into a double and then scored in the 3rd is just as important as getting that extra K in the 9th. There are a lot of cases where your starter falls off really quickly in an earlier inning and you need your best reliever to clean up the mess. Once that's taken care of, let "just a guy" handle the 9th.
DeleteI mean those stats exist. WPA and RE24 both capture the "input-output" of a player's performance, i.e. the situation they came into the game in and the result. But those, like the RBI, are still flawed because they are still weighted by things largely out of the player's control
DeleteThe best stats in my opinion boil down to the "plus" metrics. for batters, i like wRC+, for pitchers i like FIP+. but there's really no one perfect metric, you have to take in a lot of different details
@pessimistic I agree. For pitchers, I'm a fan of the run-expectancy matrix. It basically sums up the 24 states of outs and which bases are occupied, and how many runs are often scored (as well as how many times any runs are scored, which is an important difference if you're down 1 in the 9th) and what happened. Starting an inning, it's like 0.65 runs. Loaded no outs is like 1.35 or something. So if a guy walks the 3 leadoff batters and leaves, he's added 0.7 runs. If the next guy comes in and gets 3 outs w/o giving up a run, he's removed 1.35 runs from the ledger. You can have negative "ERA", but it's a great way to track the real results.
DeleteIt's also a great way of measuring the result of an at-bat. A ball in play might advance runners (or GIDP) but you can really get a sense of when swinging away is worth the risk.
Is there any level of Nationals spring training success that can justify optimism? If so, what would have to go right to justify fans feeling that way?
ReplyDeleteIt's complicated, because the long-term outlook of the franchise is bleak if the Lerners are determined to run the place like the Pirates. BUT I am really curious to know how deficient the Rizzo regime was in player development, and the results of both developing top talent (Wood, Crews, House) and turning nobodys into major leaguers (a very long list) are things to be optimistic about. And if this whole thing flops, well, we're another year closer to the next attempt.
DeleteSo, how bout those DC Defenders?
What I wanna know is: "Who are these guys?" Toboni convinces the Lerners to let youth take over, overturn long-term old-school GM Rizzo's regime. Hires are all young, they bring in newfangled equipment, promises of a top-to-bottom rebuild. A few press conferences, a few moves -- definitely not enough to address basic needs of a competitive team. Waiver claims. But otherwise, closed doors -- not much for the fan to see. Activity, though.
ReplyDeleteSpring training at least puts everything out in the open. I'm watching Wood, assessing whether he is recovered from the late season funk.