The Nats are fun team this year.
Well sort of.
If you like high-scoring baseball you are in luck because the Nats are scoring the 3rd most runs in the game, almost a run more than average. Also the Nats are allowing the MOST runs in the game, over 1 and a half runs more than average. That's a losing combination but it's an entertaining losing combination.
What adds to the fun is pound for pound the NL East is starting the season as the weakest division in baseball. Meaning the Nats issues aren't putting them in last place staring up as they would be in the NL Central, or in the middle but a good distance from third as they would be in the NL West. They are bad but other teams are worse and other teams that expected to be good are worse leaving the Nats relatively feeling pretty good about themselves.
The Braves are running away with the division right now and the stats have a team that is the 2nd best hitting team in baseball with the best staff. That'll do it. The Braves staff is getting real lucky. Their rotation is pitching to a 4.00 ERA but seeing a 2.50. Their relief corps has four guys with ERAs under 1. But the key is more staying healthy than doing silly things as injuries derailed last year. Offensively Dom Smith (yes Nats legend Dom Smith!) can't be this good nor Mauricio Dubon but they haven't gotten what than can from Acuna. C Drake Baldwin being a star makes a huge difference from a position you are usually hoping for mere non-embarrassment (Ruiz... failing at that)
The Marlins are an average squad in their results. They've put together a nice reliable starting staff, but with the same soft underbelly issue in the pen as the Nats. The offense is literally full of guys you never heard of having wildly different years from Otto Lopez looking like an MVP at SS to Heriberto Hernandez and Graham Pauley doing whatever that is called with the bat. It's seemingly more smoke and mirrors than the Nats so maybe the Nats can be 2nd place for a while.
The Phillies are struggling everywhere. Bryce and Schwarber are still stars but their homegrown "talent" continues to disappoint. Alec Bohm and Bryson Stott in particular. When the lineup is four batters deep pitchers can work around that. The starting pitching really isn't this bad though. Basically bad luck right when it can't be washed out in the full season sample. They should be better but unless the offense clicks I'm not sure they will be playoff good.
The Mets, in the midst of a 1000 game losing streak are pitching perfectly well. There are some ups and downs with the vagaries of the early season but it's a perfectly reasonable playoff staff that is middle of the pack now and should be better. The offense is a mess though. Lindor is in one of those extended slumps he can go through and Bichette looks lost. Brett Baty and Mark Vientos, guys they were counting on to be average are just bad. This puts a lot on Soto's shoulders... and he's out with no good replacement. It shouldn't be this bad and it won't be, but I'm not sure it will be good.
The Nats are in a nice spot then I guess. The Marlins have a slightly better record but should come down, possibly a lot. The Phillies and Mets are worse and should come up, but maybe not as much as they need. It's a bunch of games against opponents that shouldn't knock the Nats around. FWIW the Nats are probably not this good relying a lot on Abrams and Wood and luck to score runs to cover for a bad staff. But the record is fair. this is a team that if lucky gets to 70 wins. And maybe this year in the NL East that keeps them in spitting distance of 2nd place.
fun and infuriating describes this season so far. if they could have just signed a couple of mediocre RPs instead of bottom feeders, the Nats would be looking at a 4-5 game swing in the win column (they've blown 8 saves this year) which puts them at 14-9 or 15-8 and in a wild card position
ReplyDeleteone can only hope that the offense keeps this up and we start to see some arms emerge in the lower levels. unfortunately, with all the injuries, its not like the Nats are going to be able to afford any arms on the open market
8 blown saves in 23 games.
ReplyDeleteFor a full season that would be 56. The record since 2002 (which is how far back FG has the stat) is 36.
I mentioned this a while back - Perez is getting $1.9M and the rest are all pre-arb. I bet there's never been a less resourced bullpen.
I think this is mostly right, especially on the pitching (hard to argue with “worst run prevention in the league” as a limiting factor). But I do think the offense is getting a little lumped into the “April noise/luck” bucket when there’s at least some evidence it’s more process-driven than that.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn’t look like a fluky HR binge or BABIP heater. Lately they're generating consistent traffic (walks + baserunners), running up pitch counts, and getting contributions from multiple spots in the lineup. That’s not to say they’re actually a top-3 offense—almost certainly not—but it feels more like something that regresses to “above average” than collapses entirely.
To me the more interesting question isn’t “are they this good?” (probably no), but: If the offense settles in as legitimately solid, how much does the pitching actually need to improve for this to be more than just an entertaining 70-win team?
Because even moving the staff from “worst in baseball” to just “bottom third” changes the ceiling quite a bit.
Curious how much of the offensive improvement you buy as real vs early-season variance, and what you’d be watching over the next few weeks to make that call.
Interesting note. The NL Central has been amazingly strong in the early going - the entire division is not just over .500, but multiple games over .500. The Nats' early season schedule has been heavy on NL Central teams. The four NL Central teams that the Nats have played are collectively 54-37 (.593). The Nats are 8-5 in games against those teams. Given that the whole division is within 2.5 games of each other, one could assert that the reason that the Reds are currently in first place is that they haven't played the Nats.
ReplyDeleteFor all of those complaining about the team not investing in relief pitchers, I will poing out that plenty of teams, including the 2025 Nats, have thrown money at bullpens and gotten terrible results. It's not as simple as it seems.
I mean sure, relievers can be a gamble, but you can't really argue that this bullpen is underperforming or anything, it's performing as expected with multiple guys who don't belong on an MLB roster
DeleteI think we all recognize that you can't just buy WAR at the WAR store for $8M a pop, and that for any specific FA neither injury nor underperformance are shocking outcomes, but it's just bonkers to argue that production and spending are uncorrelated.
DeleteAnd it's especially bonkers in the context of bullpen that is a distant outlier for both lack of resources and terrible results.
Management thought this would be another learning year for the bats (the end of last season was so painful) and apparently under-estimated them, leaving a good lineup without pitching support. With decent pitching, next year (post lockout) the team could contend.
ReplyDeleteMiles Mikolas has got to go. I'll give Zach Littell a few more chances, but he looks like a fail also. Maybe give Mitchell Parker a chance. And Andrew Alvarez. They can't be worse than Mikolas and Littell.
ReplyDeleteThe recent evolution of starting pitching reminds me of how the NFL market has evolved around running backs. So many NFL teams use RB-by-committee because of several factors: injury risk, shorter career effectiveness, easier to find starter-level production lower in the draft, etc. The New Nats, like their ideological forefathers (Rays/Brewers), seem to be leaning into this approach. Why rely on Ezekial Elliott/Miles Mikolas when you can platoon Elliott/Mikolas and Rico Dowdle/Andrew Alvarez with 4IP/twice through the lineup. This approach means you have fewer 1IP guys in your pen (that you presumably save for games you're winning), but might reduce the number of disastrous innings from a tired starter.
ReplyDeleteI am curious about the new coaching staff (across all levels) and the accompanying strategies they sound like they've implemented in the early goings of the season. I know we always say that coaching is difficult to quantify, but I don't see any other way to rationalize the offensive production.
ReplyDeleteThe production in the first inning alone as pretty remarkable. They lead the league by a margin of 6 runs with 25 runs scored in the first inning of games played so far. While their team .432 BABIP in the first inning is incredibly high, I think says less about luck and PERHAPS a noticeable shift in prioritizing exit velocity and loud contact over the small ball approach from Coles and Martinez.
From what I've read about Coles, his hitting philosophy prioritized low strikeout rates, putting the ball in play and "not losing an at-bat" by forcing the defense to make a play. And if we were honest, he succeeded. In 2024, the Nats had the second highest groundball rate in the league (45.8%). He encouraged hitters to be aggressive early in the count before the opposing pitcher could get to their "put away" breaking balls. Unfortunately, this led to very short plate appearances and allowed the opposing starter to breeze through the lineup on a low pitch count.
In short, Coles taught the young Nats hitters how to "not lose an at-bat." I think Butera/Borgschulte is teaching these young players how to "win an at-bat."
And from all that's been reported on, the Nats appear to have completely overhauled/expanded their player development and analytical personnel. This looks like it's paying early dividends so far across all levels.
I know it's a small sample size but look at the positive signs throughout the minor affiliates. Take a look at the BA/OBP differential this year for our top hitting prospects (compared to 2025):
1. Willits, E. (A): 0.132 (0.097)
3. Ford, H. (AAA): 0.113 (0.125)*
5. Fien, G. (A): 0.093 (0.047)*
7. King, S. (AA): 0.140 (0.050)
8. Dickerson, L. (A): 0.073 (0.107)
9. Fitz-Gerald, D. (A+): 0.130 (0.126)*
12. Petry, E. (A+): 0.138 (0.099)
17. James, C. (A): 0.178 (n/a)
18. Franklin, C. (AAA): 0.149 (0.118)
19. Pinckney, A. (AAA): 0.084 (0.079)
20. Cabrera, Y. (A): 0.141 (0.108)*
22. Petersen, S. (AA): 0.144 (0.106)
23. Feliz, A. (A+): 0.143 (0.109)
24. Ortiz, A. (AAA): 0.143 (0.099)*
25. Cruz, R. (A+): 0.121 (0.044)*
27. Lomavita, C. (AA): 0.114 (0.065)
28. Morales, Y. (AAA): 0.066 (0.074)
On average, our Top 30 prospects have increased their BA/OBP differential by over 30 points - a significant jump. I think what we're seeing here are the early returns over a complete shift in coaching, hitting philosophy, and instruction for the future of our franchise. Of course this will come back to earth (the .432 BABIP is not sustainable). But fans should be excited from stuff like this.
I still have no idea what is wrong with the pitching aside from the talent level being bottom-of-the barrel.
Not a big fan of sports teams making roster personnel changes that benefit the short term at the expense of the long term because the division is weak, unless the team has a realistic shot of actually winning the championship. That is weak sauce.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, I am not accusing the Nationals of doing that. Just a soap-box about the lameness of treating playoff entry as the end goal and not means to the end goal of winning a championship.