Nationals Baseball

Gary Carter

2012-02-17T06:17:00.000-08:00

Let's be serious. Despite this being a blog about the franchise that Gary Carter was once a part of, I'm not going to have much to add to the conversation. As a Yankees fan growing up in NY in the 80s - Carter was a Met. As a guy that started casually following then blogging about the Expos in the early/mid 2000s, Carter was already long gone. As a guy that blogs about the Nationals after the team moved to DC, Carter is less of a hero to the people reading this than Frank Howard or Walter Johnson (really? Baseball was that bad in DC we have to go back to Walter Johnson for Hero #2?) You're going to get better reads about Carter from someone else. That being said here are your better reads:

From the Montreal Gazette
Column #1
Cowan
Johnson
McDonald

Lupica

Kurkijan (for ESPN where Carter's death is almost as important as the Bulls winning a regular season game over the now 15-14 Celtics)

Verducci

and last but not least Bill Ladson

Ian Desmond - 20th century leadoff man

2012-02-15T07:22:00.002-08:00

In his latest Q&A session, the hardest working man in Nat business, Bill Ladson, notes somewhat offhandedly:

The Nationals still believe in Desmond, who is projected to become the leadoff hitter...

Hmm maybe that didn't need a block quote... anyway, I hadn't really thought about it much but that seems about right. Desmond was the leadoff hitter for the last month and a half of the year. He seemed to be doing pretty well in that spot, and it sort of feels like he fits that spot. Here's the thing, though - Ian Desmond doesn't get on base very well.

Ian's career OBP is .304. His OBP last year was .298. This isn't a fluke. His career minor league OBP is .326 and that includes the 2009 year that seems more and more out of place the longer we see Desmond play.

Now it is true that Desmond did better in the leadoff spot, but he still wasn't good at getting on base. He had an OBP of .318 while batting first. You could parse it further and say he did even better than that the second time around as a leadoff hitter - He did have an OBP of .342 after being set in that role in mid-August - but it was a batting average driven .342 (not to mention only 40 games). He only had 8 walks during those 41 games. If he hits say... .280, a completely respectable batting average that's about 20 points over his career average, that OBP is more like .317. That's terrible, somewhere around 75th if we look at the 100 NL batters with the most at bats. Unless you believe he will be a .300 hitter, Ian isn't the type of guy you want leading off.

Wait a second, you might say, I remember you saying that batting order doesn't really matter. Well, you're right. I did say that, and I believe it. Putting the wrong guy in the wrong spot isn't going to dramatically change the prospects of a team. But it might change it by one win and the Nats are in a position where that one win could really matter. If they were worse or better, maybe you can start Desmond as the leadoff hitter and hope he grows into that role. But lose one more game than they need to in 2012 and that may be the difference between being the 2nd WC and packing it up at season's end. This is a year where the Nats have to look toward optimizing everything to squeeze out as many wins as they can from day one.

Here's the dilemma though. Who does leadoff then? The Nats don't get on base. You aren't going to put Zimmerman or Morse as leadoff hitters. Putting Werth at leadoff was possibly Riggleman's most inspired move, but Jayson's terrible season derailed that move before it could get started, and I don't see Davey making the same sort of move, unfortunately. Ramos will get enough hits to get on base more, but he's a catcher and convention demands a base stealer at the top of the lineup. Espinosa will walk enough to get on base more and can steal a base, but has a natural power that people don't want "wasted" at the top of the lineup. LaRoche and Ankiel would be terrible choices for a couple reasons. That's it - that's everyone. Desmond gets to leadoff and not get on base... by default? Because everyone is too good to get more at bats? Because the improvement is minimal, even over the course of an entire season, so it's easier to go with the standard line-up than deal with the distraction of one that's probably better?

I'm not sure what the Nats are gonna do. They need every win they can get, but since they don't have a prototypical lead-off hitter any alternate player put in that spot will have to succeed immediately or else the 150 years of convention weighing down on the team will force a change. I'd honestly love to see Werth in that position again because he only needs to hit like .250 to lead this bunch in getting on base, but I don't see that happening, so I'm hoping for a Ramos/Espinosa at the top of the lineup in either order. It's not typical, but it's not crazy either, and it has the built-in "trying to get my best young hitters as many at bats as possible" argument that can stand against most fans of convention. I think that's the best I can hope for.

Update - Nats Blog had a take on this too. Just yesterday. Quick summary : "Yep, there are no good choices". But worth a read just to see how badly in numbers the Nats failed at finding a leadoff hitter last year (and in general)

Thank you Mark DeRosa

2012-02-14T06:17:00.001-08:00

For being the age you are (in other words - older than me).

This team is so young! They are all babies! Literally the team can't play noon games on a weekend because it's nap time. Lombardozzi hits a home run and Davey Johnson has to carry him in a Baby Bjorn around the bases. Chris Marrero is out indefinitely with a bad case of diaper rash. (but seriously when/if Bryce makes the team - he IS so young. He has no memory of the baseball strike. There has always been a wild card. He has no memory of the hideous awful time when the Yankees weren't good (I still love you Roberto Kelly!). Kristi Yamaguchi is like Peggy Fleming to him. It's crazy!)

Cespedes an A?

2012-02-13T11:12:00.001-08:00

That renders one point moot. What's next the Nats do sign Oswalt for the ultimate Spring Training split squad team?

I didn't expect that and a couple notes

2012-02-13T07:10:00.000-08:00

So if you didn't read through the comments of Friday's post virtually everyone said start Bryce in the minors. Is this just a savvy internet readership? An acceptance that 2012 might still be the year before the year that matters? A reaction to an attitude that fits a 19 yr old, but is not necessarily how most expect a major leaguer to act? I don't know. From the comments I would summarize the opinion as "He hasn't forced the issue yet, so why not keep him down in the minors and let him learn a bit more, all the while taking advantage of the extra year of arbitration and free agency you might get if he stays down there long enough." Seems sound to me, but I'll say I expected a lot more "bring him up"s.

The most interesting thing from the weekend in regards to the Nats actually had to do with the Marlins. By all accounts they were in the driver's seat for landing Cespedes, and now they it looks like they are closing in on a signing. It will be very interesting if they land him because we'll have the whole "the Nats should have signed him / lucky they didn't sign him" drama play out with a rival team right in front of us. If Cespedes makes an immediate impact, plays good CF, AND puts the Marlins ahead of the Nats in the standings, will the Nats brass feel the need to react? Should the Nats brass feel the need to react?

Explain to me again why the Nats would be better off with one year of Edwin Jackson as opposed to one-year Roy Oswalt? Not that he would have signed with the Nats, but Rizzo seemed to target Edwin Jackson rather than Oswalt. It must be about the innings because if we're talking value here, a year of Oswalt at 10 million is almost certain to be a better value than a year of Edwin Jackson.

Do you want Bryce to start the season with the team?

2012-02-10T06:54:00.000-08:00

He wants to. Davey wants him to (mainly I assume because the team's lefty power is up to Ankiel, Espinosa's bad side, and LaRoche who slugged about .023 last year), Rizzo might not but seems to be warming to the idea. But a year of Bryce now is likely a year less of Bryce down the road.

I'm sure you'd do it if you could have Jason Heyward's first year for Bryce, but I'm also sure you wouldn't do it if you'd follow up with Heyward's second. Jason had more impressive AA numbers than Bryce. Could another year of seasoning prevented the fall back and what was essentially a wasted year at best?

I don't think we can answer these questions, or at least we can't do it better than the guys watching him play everyday. His minor league stats suggest he can hang in the majors, but do you want him just to hang or do you want him to thrive? Rizzo seems to lean toward thrive. He's the type that wants his young players to force the issue in each league before moving up. Bryce hasn't done that just yet.

Looking from the other side, the Nats could certainly use Bryce and are on the cusp of being in the WC race wihtout needing luck. A ROY type year from Bryce would surely put them square in WC contention, rather than the... not "outskirts"... maybe "suburbs", where they are now. It could also help him get acclimated for next season when we all expect one more big move to go from WC to division crown challengers.

And we still haven't talked about the elephant in the room, that just a couple months of minor league time now would ensure a whole season more before arbitration and save the Nationals millions of dollars.

Based on the situation and your gut, what say you? If Bryce looks good, but not great, in Spring Training, do you want the Nats to bring him up to start the year?

The Bench

2012-02-08T07:14:00.000-08:00

A good bench not only fills a teams simple positional needs but it covers the weaknesses in their starting lineup. Last year the Nats had a mediocre (at best) bench filled with guys that maybe could steal a base (Bernadina), or play decent D (Pudge, Cora, Ankiel in a pinch); but no one that could get a hit and especially no one that could hit a home run. Expectedly, things got even worse after injuries. Is it going to be any different this year?

Well let's first see what arguably the Nats biggest starting lineup weaknesses are, from biggest to smallest.

AVG: Usually you ignore average, but when it comes to the bench it matters. Sometimes a walk isn't good enough. Sometimes you need that hit. The Nats regular lineup was pretty terrible at doing that simple task. Morse, even with a slight slip, Zimmerman, and maybe Ramos can get a hit. I wouldn't bet on anyone else

isoSLG: Other times you need more than just a hit, you need a home run. As a team the Nats were mediocre at hitting the long ball. Individually, Morse was the only one who was great at it but you have to worry about him keeping up a top 10 in the league level. The next best guy on the team just to get the big hit was Nix, who is gone now. Zimmerman being healthy could pick this up, and Espinosa and Ramos aren't bad, but really LaRoche is the key here. He was a decent power threat if he was anything but I'm not sure I want to bet on someone coming back from injury hitting for power especially one hitting so feebly before going out.

OF defense: It all depends on the lineup. If it were Bernadina-Ankiel-Werth , maybe you can live with that, but that seems an unlikely starting group. Something like Morse-Bernadina-Werth is far more likely, but it's also asking for trouble defensively. With Morse seemingly set in left and CF maybe manned by Werth (who is aging and had an offyear as a corner OF last year), or Bryce (who no one really likes as a CF, but he may be not terrible enough to start) having a great OF defensive player is that much more important.

OBP: Again pretty mediocre. Outside of Werth no one could take a walk, but Morse, Zimmerman and Ramos hit well enough that they are decent bets to get on. It's a little better bet that whoever is up for the Nats can get on base than can get a hit or slug a homer, in my mind.

Handedness : The Nats lineup is righty heavy. Espinosa switch-hits but is better from the right side and Ankiel lost the split advantage last year. LaRoche will help, but a lefty bat on the bench is still a need.

MI/3B defense: This is the inflection point. Everything above here is definitely a weakness (sorry - but the offense could be kinda bad this year), everything below this I'd consider a strength or at least something not to worry about. This one itself is a bit tricky. Zimmerman had an off year, and Desmond has his issues, but fielding stats can be fickle. I trust that these guys can hold it down. Then again that's two years now where Desmond hasn't become that great fielder the Nats think he should be. There probably is worth in carrying a slick-fielding SS.

Speed: Not too bad. Werth, Espinosa, and Desmond are good baserunners and no starter last year was a big liability. That won't be the case this year as LaRoche is a plodder, and post-injury Zimmerman will be a touch slower. Still, a pinch runner isn't so big a need that you can't let it get filled as a side product of filling something else above (like OF defense)

1B defense: LaRoche is pretty good. We'll see if that stays true but this is only an area of need if your first baseman is terrible defensively. LaRoche isn't.

C defense: Ramos is very good defensively. The back-up need not be.

OK now let's see what the current bench bring to the table. Let's assume Flores, Bernadina, DeRosa, Teahen, and Cameron for now, and look at Lombardozzi.

Flores has to be there. He might be a bat with decent pop. Hard to tell.
Bernadina can give you speed, and play corner OF well. He also bats left.
DeRosa is not really good at anything - maybe give you decent corner OF D? You can't say get on base given what he did in '09 and '10.
Teahen is even worse - let's hope he doesn't break with the team. He does bat left. I can't deny that.
Cameron probably can still play CF well. Offensively a black hole though.
Lombardozzi by all accounts is a good 3B/MI fielder. I'll trust that, but the minor league stats say he's a singly Joe, and one that hasn't shown up in the majors yet. Switch hits and not a bad baserunner.

Ugh. Well as you can see the Nats bench does nothing to address the biggest weaknesses in the Nats lineup. There are no guys good at getting a hit, no one good at hitting the home run, and no one good at getting on base. Right now you'd have to hope Flores starts showing one of those skills, or maybe Lombardozzi starts rapping a few singles. Defensively though things look ok if Lombardozzi and Cameron are on the squad. Honestly though, beyond Flores, the only guy I feel the Nats need to keep on the bench is Bernadina. While you all know I don't like him as a starter at all, he makes a very nice bench guy for this team.

Is there anyone out there that can help the Nats? Probably no one that will take a bench role rather than retire. I think Derrek Lee could help with pop, and JD Drew has always had a good eye, but I imagine both will go home rather than ride the pine for the Nats. Ibanez could bring a lot, if you think 2011 was fluky, but most believe he's completely done. Vlad Guerrero or Magglio Ordonez could be decent "just a hit" guys but that's all they would bring and they are looking at AL teams for one last chance to DH. Aaron Miles is probably the most interesting guy the Nats could get. He can get a hit and bats lefty. Maybe Jason Varitek as a slug only guy? But neither of these to is anything to get excited about.

Truth is it's hard to get guys that are good, even at one thing, for your bench because if you are good enough at that one thing, some team will likely find a spot-starting role for you. You have to move fast, take a chance or two and get a bit lucky. The Nats moved slowly on putting together a bench looking at character as much as skill. Hopefully that won't cost them when they need a bit hit down the road.

Plan K : sign Ankiel to play center

2012-02-06T08:54:00.000-08:00

Actually not a terrible signing, as long as the role he plays is appropriate. It's a minor league deal, like the one for Cameron so if the Nats decide to go in another, more productive, direction they can let these guys go, or keep one for the bench or whatever. But don't kid yourself about Ankiel, he's not the lefty bat off the bench Davey wants. He doesn't get on base, he doesn't hit for average, and he's living off reputation in terms of being a power hitter. He hasn't hit for good power in years.That had been, in no small part, to being absolutely useless versus lefty pitchers, but last year he didn't even slug righties well.

No, Ankiel would be a defensive replacement primarily, much like Cameron. Which is fine. You can have that as the last guy on the bench, just not as the last guy in the regular batting order.

Don't trade Lannan!

2012-02-02T11:26:00.000-08:00

Don't do it! Don't!

I'm not going to explain to you why Edwin Jackson, who the Nats are close to signing, is worse than John Lannan, because that would be hard to do objectively. Lannan's success is based mostly on an ability to stop right-handed bats from slugging against him, even though they hit him just fine. It is an ability that no one has quite been able to pin down on WHY he can do it, so therefore most just ignore it and assume that it won't be repeated. Even though it has. For every healthy season he's been in the majors. I think that's fine for one season but for season after season after season I prefer to give in and find fault in my own analysis for being unable to match the world, not in the world for being unable to match my analysis.

Edwin Jackson is a fine pitcher, and in pretty much every other way, better than John Lannan. He gets hit harder against lefties now that Lannan has figured out how to pitch to them, but that's to be expected, since he is right handed. He gets hit more often but not that much more often. He should be better than John and a more than fine #3 type pitcher. Why did the market seemingly dry up for him then? I'm not sure, but given the complete reluctance in giving him a multi-year deal, I would guess that the teams believe, despite 3 years to the contrary, that Jackson could suddenly lose control again and when he does, because he gives up so many hits, it will get ugly fast. Do I know more than 30 teams closely scrutinizing each player? I don't believe so, but then again I just said with Lannan we have to believe, first in foremost, in the results on the page, if they are repeated over and over again. Jackson's been fine for 3 years and is not really in a decline phase of his career so there's no reason to believe he won't be at least a equal substitute for John.

But I don't believe that. And I'm not sure why.

Inevitable scenario - Lannan and a couple prospects are traded to the Mets for ~~Angel Pagan~~ Andres Torres. On Sept 14th, with the Nats 2 games out of the WC and needing a win Lannan pitches a 6 hit, 5 walk, no K, 2 run game to beat the Nats and put them out of reach of some other surging team.

This ain't the movies, kid.

2012-02-02T06:41:00.000-08:00

Awards in sports always have always been a funny thing to me. I get the idea of awards in other fields, the arts especially. Actors want Oscars because the difference between a great performance and a good one can vary by person. The Oscar serves as a necessary tangible validation of that great performance. Sports aren't subjective. There are already tangible results that can be objectively compared. You did well or you did not do well. There is little room for debate. Things like "All-Star", "MVP", "Hall of Famer" are nice to have but are ultimately meaningless because they don't change the actual results on the field. You were one of the best players that season or not. You were one of the best players ever or not. It all seems so insecure to be taken so seriously. You play to do your best so your team can win games and hopefully, ultimately win a championship. You don't play to win an ESPY, even one with more history and prestige, which is all something like "Hall of Famer" really is.

Which makes this whole fuss over the #1 ranking thing kind of funny. If the Nats were #2 or #3 they would still have a great farm system. Mike Rizzo and his staff would still have done a great job using the resources the Lerners gave them to repair a broken organization that was bereft of talent. But does Rizzo send the same email to his people if they aren't #1? If this collection of individuals decides that team X is slightly better, do the Nats receive as much attention? Probably not. As Kilgore says in his opening line, this is a "jolt of validation" but it's nothing more than that. Validation of good work in a field where there is an hard tangible goal out there (winning), shouldn't be a big deal. It shouldn't be taken with more than a "that's nice, we're glad we're appreciated, but that's not our ultimate goal" type of attitude. It feels that the team is taking this celebration way too seriously, like jumping up and down at mile 25 of a marathon when they found out they were voted "Most Improved Runner".

Bah bah bah. I'm a spoil sport, fine. There's nothing wrong with celebrating awards, fine. I just hope Rizzo is sending out congratulatory emails when the team breaks .500, makes the playoffs, wins a playoffs series, etc. because those are the huge days that should be made big deals out of.

Boundless optimism

2012-01-31T06:59:00.000-08:00

What's different about this season can be boiled down to the first question in Ladson's mailbag this week:

Since Stephen Strasburg will be under an innings limit in 2012, why not have him start in mid-May of this year so he can pitch into the postseason?
-- Paul D., Warrenton, Va.

Follow-up: In the World Series do you bat Bryce Harper 5th where he has been hitting all season, or do you move him down a couple spots so he doesn't feel too much pressure to produce? I'll hang up and listen.

Silly question, sure, but one that couldn't have been asked by any sane person in any season prior to this one.

Next year may really be next year, are the Lerners ready?

2012-01-30T08:50:00.000-08:00

You know that I don't think the Nats should have signed Prince Fielder. Or more accurately, they shouldn't have matched or beaten that contract that he got in order to bring him to Washington. The only way you commit to a contract that has that much potential wasted money on the back end is if you are sure the player can make a playoff difference NOW. For the Tigers, Prince can. The Nats, though, have too much variability in their expected performance to feel sure that they are just one player and one season away. Another year will help whittle down the problem areas further (one hopes) so they can go into next off-season with laser focus and get the pieces they really need (assuming it all hasn't come down like a house of cards. Unlikely but still not outside the realm of possibility. I give it... 15% chance? Something like that. So before you say I'm being negative that's an 85% chance they are still on the playoff track come 2013.)

One of the things the Nats could use next year is one more arm to make the rotation one of the best in baseball. (especially since the free agent bats are going to be slim pickings) Next offseason looks like a fantastic one for free agent pitching. Cain, Greinke, Hamels are all currently slated to be free agents. These are potential top of the order starters who will be under 30 in 2013. But if they do get into free agency they are going to be pricey. It starts with 5 for 85 (Weaver's extension) and goes up from there (for Cain and Hamels at least, we have to see how Greinke does this season for him to be up there). If anyone gets signed (Grienke was talking extension, Cain seems to be the Giants priority over Lincecum...) the price for the remaining guy gets that much higher.

The Nats have show real reluctance in paying the market price for free agent pitching. While rumors had the Nats going well over 20 million for Prince at a reasonable contract length, the Nats essentially lowballed Mark Buehrle. Rizzo seems to have a sense that competitive teams don't have to overpay for free agents even though that is disproven every off-season. Based on all this can you really see the Nats giving out the Sabathia like deal that they'll need to, to get a Hamels or Cain?

By not ridiculously overpaying for Prince the Nats have set the fanbase up to expect them to ridiculously overpay for a young arm next offseason. Of course that's right now. Maybe the rotation will bust out and Detwiler will become a stud while Purke and Meyer cruise through the minors, leaving the Nats with no need for that last arm. Maybe. But if this doesn't happen and if there is any faltering with the Strasburg, ZNN, Gio triumvirate the Nats fans will expect that type of big move. I still don't trust that they will make it.

Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern. The Werth deal sets the precedent but does not by itself create a new normal. The Lerners need to come through with that next big deal to make me believe they are willing to pay, and coming in second with big money doesn't count. Continually offering just enough to NOT get the deal done does not make one a big spender, it makes them as effectively cheap as the guy that doesn't even bother to put out deals. No, they have to actually pull the trigger. Will they? We'll may find out in 11 months or so.

Lidge signs

2012-01-26T09:19:00.000-08:00

Via Ladson. A fine signing for cheap (I'm pretty much a sucker for any one year cheap deal for someone that used to be good). Big questions are whether he can stay healthy and what of last season was a fluke and what was real. If we think his historical stats make more sense this is what I think

He can still make them swing and miss (K/9 rate 10.71 last year - 11.57 career), but is no longer has good enough control (BB/9 6.05 - 5.14). GB rate screams fluke (57.4% GB last year - 40.7% career) but it could be a function of pitch selection (slider percentage way up, fastball way down last year). Of course that means either he stays in one-pitch territory with a pitch he can't place, or he goes back to mixing in pitches that will get hammered. The former sounds more likely and more appealing.

A decent enough reliever to have in the pen that can maybe give you the K, when you can afford a walk. Then again - isn't that what Henry Rodriguez is around for?

What this tells us

2012-01-25T07:56:00.000-08:00

Not signing Prince is disappointing but it does clear up a couple things that were cloudier just a week ago:

The Lerners are not going to use their vast fortune and position in a wealthy, powerful city to make the Nats the Yankees/Red Sox of the National League. If you had dreams of the Nats being in the Top 5 in payroll every year while making the playoffs with regularity you can probably forget it. Now fans must hope for the "big payroll for a few years at the end of a rebuilding cycle" type of team. That looks like where the team is headed, but I do get the feeling Rizzo will need to keep pushing the Lerners through this.

The Nationals are not going to challenge for a National League East title in 2012. They had more go right for them (lights out bullpen, no major injuries to the Opening Day rotation, LaRoche's injury leading to Morse's career year, Ramos and Espinosa performing well, rookie pitchers doing great at year's end, a decent-season from Laynce Nix) then go wrong (Zimm injury, no Strasburg, Werth's collapse), and they were still lucky to win 80 games. The likely reversal of those three wrongs are big corrections, but some of those rights are likely to reverse as well, and the Nats need to pick up another 7 wins to feel good about WC chances, let alone a division title. That's too much to ask. Wild Card challengers, sure. Division champs, unlikely.

Bryce Harper needs to have immediate impact if the Nats are going to contend* over the next few years. The Nats offense was not good last year. A full year of Zimm and a rebounding Werth will help, but we'll see a lot more of declining Werth in the years to come, not to mention Morse should come back to earth. While I like Ramos and Espinosa, neither are game changers, and right now every other position mentioned is a big black hole. The Nats need at least one more big bat. FA is slim next year and any CF they want isn't going to have a big lineup impact outside a BJ Upton hitting like people think BJ Upton should hit, not how BJ Upton actually does hit. People love Rendon but as always I want to see him in the minors before I decide he's gonna make it. So right now the Nats have one star potential bat and that's Bryce. He should be good, but good is not good enough. He needs to be great and he needs to be great soon.

*serious WS contension

Also we learned something new

Davey Johnsons said this :
"When I was [managing the New York Mets], they never signed one free agent, so I'm used to playing without going out in the free-agent market," Nationals manager Davey Johnson said.

Pshaw I said. Then I checked it out. It's pretty much true. They signed Rafael Santana just around when Davey got there then basically no other offensive starter. They did sign some decent pieces, like Ed Lynch, Doug Sisk, Rusty Staub, but very few and no big names. Now, of course Davey makes it sound like they didn't get big names at all. That is misleading. They didn't sign anyone big, but they did trade for them quite often. Keith Hernandez (season before Davey), Gary Carter, Kevin McReynolds, Bob Ojeda, David Cone... So true, but missing the point. Davey's used to not going in the FA market, but he is used to getting infusions of talent from other organizations.

Hey I tweeted

2012-01-24T14:10:00.000-08:00

Warning. Can't promise this will be as soulessly focused on baseball as the blog is though.

https://twitter.com/#!/harpergordek

Port-a-Prince

2012-01-24T12:33:00.000-08:00

Because he's like a Port-a-John for not coming to DC! And it's Haiti's capital! Sort of. Wait... I think

Anyway to Detroit is the strong rumors.

9 years 214 million is CRAZY. No fault to the Nats on passing on that price if it's true.

Maybe they are just warming up with the signings

2012-01-23T06:59:00.000-08:00

While we all wait for news on Prince Fielder, the Nats made a couple of "signings". I put that in quotes because really neither Gio Gonzalez or Mike Morse were going anywhere next year. Both were up for arbitration, the Nats offered Morse and weren't going to let Gio walk, so consider these signings a... formality of sorts.

As a player you are usually an incredible bargain while still under a minor league deal. Even a 4th OF or MI sub is worth more to a team than the couple hundred thousand you are pulling down. A good 22, 23 year old is highway robbery.

As a player you are also usually not worth the money you get in free agency. Maybe for a year or two, you produce enough to justify the large salary you are pulling down, but in most cases you are hitting free agency at 28 or 29 years old. This is the general time frame where most players begin a decline. You simply can't keep up the same numbers that were the basis for your contract.

In between these two contract times is the arbitration years where someone is going to try to figure out what is the fair market value for a player. It's kind of an extended game of contract chicken between players and owners. If a player believes he can stay healthy and keep performing well (or better), arbitration is the way to go. This favors the player eventually because when dealing with decent major league talent the salaries out there for comparison include a lot more overpaid veterans than underpaid young guys. Look at Lincecum. But most players favor a moderate payday in exchange for the security of a long term deal. A team may want to play the arbitration game with a player they don't feel secure about, either because of performance or injury risk, because it might mean a lower overall payday in the end, and allows them an annual flexibility long term deals do not. Then again, that same uncertainty means an inability to project payroll accurately even just a couple years down the road.

Oh so Mike and Gio. Both signed deals that are probably going to be under value for how they will perform. But in the end they get security and, let's face it, a lot of money anyway. Both contracts eat up all their arbitration years so the Nats now can write down in ink the money spent on these two guys. This helps when planning out what they can spend on those other long term deals (like Prince's). I'm rarely going to be against a two-year deal, and I really like Mike's. It seems likely that he will outperform this contract easily, but there are enough questions, with his lack of experience and his age, that a deal in the 4+ year range would be real suspect. To grab him for 2 years for about 5 million per? That's a nice move by Rizzo.

The Gio deal I like a little less, if only because they had so many arbitration years left and really could have squeezed a few million over the next two years that might be useful otherwise. It could be that they think Gio will shine in the NL, but given the Morse deal I really think this was about controlling future payroll potential. I think given Gio's wildness and the general tendency of pitchers to get injured that betting on him to NOT greatlly succeed would be the smarter move. Get a few years of real deals (probably average 4-6 million the next two arbs), then sign him to a 3 year deal in the high 20 millions if he's still healthy and pitching well. Still the deal isn't terrible by any means. He'll likely give the Nats more value than they are paying for over its life and there is a lot of flexibility at the end with all those options if the Nats are still close to winning. In the end that makes it a good deal for the Nats, just not a great one.

Now onto the important signing, John Lannan (and oh yeah - that fatty with the big bat, too)

And so we enter... endgame

2012-01-19T07:24:00.000-08:00

Yu's been signed. Not only is this great for baseball and Texas headline writers, it means Scott Boras can stop holding "maybe the Rangers will sign him" over Prince's head... well maybe not. For a quick rundown of where we stand right now, the suitors appear to be narrowed down to the Rangers, Cubs, and Nats. Despite what you have heard you can't discount either of these other two teams.

The Rangers just signed Yu and don't necessarily NEED Fielder. They scored the 3rd most runs in the AL last year and don't expect to have major roster changes. However, a big chunk of that came from the over 30 crowd and early speculation has them letting both Josh Hamilton (after 2012) and Ian Kinsler (after 2013) walk. They could use the bat. They have the money. And they were/are THIS close. They may see the window as closing, as opposed to the Nats who see it as opening. That's a pretty good impetus.

The Cubs are looking at a rough season. That's nothing new, of course, but what's worse, the Cubs don't have anyone who the fans can rally behind and could be in for a big power drop next season. They already were 10th in the league in homers, Aramis Ramirez is gone and they are likely to let Carlos Pena walk (which also opens up first base). Given the age of ~~Aramis Ramirez (34) and~~ Alfonso Soriano (36) and the fact that their young star is a slappy hitter and you can see a 100 homer season on the horizon. Fielder provides automatic 40 homer power, fills a gap at first, and provides a personality to draw in the fans and sell jerseys. You know the Cubs have the money to do it. The question is whether the new management, headed by Theo Epstein, see Fielder as someone that can still be a cog with the team after they finish their rebuild.

The Nats aren't bidding against themselves. The competition is out there. However, it's looking more and more that with the questions these teams have that the 8 year megadeal won't happen. Can the Nats pull off 6 years, 120 million? Or will Boras try to play a dangerous waiting game with a short term deal, with the hopes over a bigger pay day down the road?* If he does, does that play into the Rangers hands given their new position as playoff regulars?

Time to earn the paycheck, Rizzo.

*Seriously - Boras has a big issue if Prince wants to play first right now, The Angels are good until 2021, Red Sox are good until 2018, Phillies 2017, Yankees 2016. There's some shifting the Sox or Angels can do but you wouldn't move Pujols or AGonz for Prince. Other usual big spenders, the White Sox, Mets, Cubs, aren't in any position to make a big move this year. The Giants are concerned with their upcoming free agent pitchers. The Twins are concerned with their payroll, I'm sure. The best best may be a 4 year deal. Perhaps after 2015 Prince would agree to play DH. At that point the Tigers may have an opening (but Cabrera hits the FA market), the Yankees might be willing to eat the last year of Teixeira's deal, and maybe the Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox, Mets, or someone else would need Prince as that last piece.

HAT eating

2012-01-17T06:17:00.000-08:00

Last spring I casually mentioned that I thought there was no way Tyler Clippard would be as good in 2011 as 2010. In fact, I said "If Clippard is as good this year I'll eat my hat. And by HAT I mean a Ham, Avacado, and Tomato sandwich"

2010 : 3.07 ERA, 41 walks in 91 innings
2011 : 1.83 ERA, 26 walks in 88 innings

Hmmm. Now I can dig into the fancy stats and pull out the one or two ways he didn't surpass 2010, and I could try to bring up that that big decrease in ERA was due to a completely unsustainable LOB%, but even after all that I'd be just wasting everyone's time. He certainly was at least a little better than 2010, if not alot, so point Clippard.

Just so you know I'm not a liar, here is the sandwich.

The lesson learned was that I should have given in on this bet in August, rather than hold out for a September crash, so I could have used ripe tomatoes. Next time I'll pick an edible item more fall related. Like a Ham, Apple, and Turnip salad or something. Beacuse Clippard surely isn't going to be as good next year. I mean come on!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

2012-01-13T07:18:00.000-08:00

You don't have to go too far to find parallels to the Nats situation. Most teams aren't in the Yankees / Sox (more Yankees than Sox though, am I right? Stupid Red Sox!) position of having a playoff position feel guaranteed at year's start. They have a good idea that they could compete for a playoff/division spot but one or two more players would certainly help. Since nearly ever team has a couple guys in AA and AAA doing well, the question is forever in baseball: do you go for it with a big signing, or do you see if your own young guys can rise to the occasion. Last year we saw things fail both ways.

For those that don't want the Nats to commit to a long term deal for Fielder, there's the Chicago White Sox. Despite being one of the more successful regular-season teams of the past 15 years, the White Sox have more often than not been also-rans finishing around .500 and out of the playoffs. 2010 was no different, with good but not great pitching and fair hitting leading to a 88 win season and nothing more. So the White Sox made a bold move, signing Adam Dunn (you may remember him) to help bolster the offense and put the Sox over the top. Instead they crashed. Their young 2nd baseman regressed, their young hitting prospect did not do well in his first time up, their OF with possibly questionably good offensive numbers the year before cratered, and most recognizably their big signing of a big guy with a big swing came crashing down as he has possibly the worst season in the league. Can anyone see this happening to the Nats?

For those that want the Nats to sign Prince, there's the San Francisco Giants. A team who's success was predicated on the awesomeness of their young pitching had seen 2010 be "that year" where everything went right for them and they came home with a WS title. However, there was a big problem with the team as a mediocre at best offense seemed to be keeping the team from becoming the dominant force that the pitching would suggest it could be. They really needed another bat. However money concerns kept them from moving forward. They had made a couple of bad deals in the recent past that tied up money in fading veterans, and were very concerned about signing their young guys a few years down the road. So they went with what they had hoping that it would be enough. Unfortunately their best offensive player got injured and missed most of the season, the guying who played first base the season before with the oddly good year regressed, no young batter developed to be anything special, and their veteran signings ended up doing nothing. Despite the great pitching again by the young staff, they couldn't compensate for a terrible offense. Can anyone see this happening to the Nats?

There's not much of a point other than success and failure for most teams on that 85-92 win edge rises and falls with injuries and unexpected performances, good and bad. If you think signing Prince will guarantee the Nats a spot in the playoffs, it won't. He's not that good. If you think not signing Prince will help the Nats start a multi-year title run down the road, it almost certainly won't. There are too many things that have to go right for the Nats for this to happen.

Now if you think signing Prince AND signing or trading for someone else will virtually guarantee the Nats that spot and continuing this level of spending will ensure the Nats a multi-year title run down the road then you are probably right. Unfortunately, you don't own the Nats and some people didn't buy this team thinking it would cost them the gold toilet fixtures on their second yacht.

Added stop for Ahmadinejad

2012-01-12T12:51:00.000-08:00

Paradise Valley, Ariz! Congrats Commish 4 Life!

So what'd I miss...

2012-01-10T10:40:00.001-08:00

Hmmm nothing. It's quiet out there. Too quiet. No really. We've kind of exhausted all the Prince angles and need something else to talk about.

I see a lot of nonsense in Boz's Q&A this week so maybe that'll do, pig.

Forget about Fielder, there's apparently not enough room at the inn already with LaRoche AND Morse being such great first base options! Can we play two guys at first?
Boz thinks he can figure out who can afford to spend money by looking at payroll, then guess at where the Nats might fit in. Just so you know, if a team can afford to spend $100 million it does not mean they do it. This is nonsense. An informed look by Forbes magazine, which I trust slightly more than a Boswell pulling stuff out of his ass, had the Nats with a cool 35+ million left to spend. That's with an uninterested fanbase. 100 mill, and it's inflation equivalent going foward, should be at the very least what the Nats average over any rebuild - win - wind down time frame.
Boz brings up the 1998 Yankees in explaining why the Nats may not need Fielder. The 1998 Yankees? Why does Boz always have to compare TO THE EZXTREMEZZZ!!!! The Yankees didn't have HR hitters true but they had great hitters. They didn't win because they got good players and rode out their consistency. They won because Williams and Jeter were great hitters at positions where great hitters are rare, and Posada an up and comer they could count on at another hard to fill position. That let them carry a guy like Martinez who, ok was simply good (but good for a 1B in this era was pretty impressive and unlike a lot of them he was a very good fielder) and guys like Brosius and Strawberry who they could gamble on having a career or bounceback years (which they did respectively). Oh yeah - they also had O'Neill, who was, if not great, very very good during this time frame, Knoblauch, a good hitter at the 4th of 4 positions that are hard to get good hitters for, the best pitching in baseball, and the 2nd highest payroll in the game.

Congrats to Barry Larkin, who should have been the first National in the Hall Of Fame, especially after his last run at glory in 2005 helped the Nats squeak into the playoffs during their inaugural season. Never forget what Guzman stole from you!

Dancing with Myself : Signing Fielder

2012-01-06T07:44:00.000-08:00

I realized that I haven't actually said the Nats should or shouldn't sign Fielder. I guess part of that is because it depends a lot on the terms of the contract. If Prince walks into the Nats front office and says "I'll play for 4 years, 60 million", you make sure the ink is dry before he sobers up. If Boras is meeting with the Nats and says "The Pujols deal is a good starting point", you reply "Well, I'm sorry we couldn't work this out", put your arm around his back and lead him to the exit. Then right before he crosses the threshold, you slam his head into the door frame and stand over his prone and bleeding body screaming "You think you can cheat me, punk?! You think you can cheat me?!"

Figuring though that Werth got 7/126, I'm going to say that Fielder (being the better and younger player) will get more. Let's go ahead and assume that 8 years, 160 million gets it done. Now, based on those numbers, would I do it if I were the Nats? Let's argue it out with myself.

8 years, huh?

What about it?

Just a long time to have anyone signed. He'll be what... 35 at the end of the deal?

So what? He's a great player.

Even great players age. That 35 season is probably gonna be rough. You know how many guys that age or older played 140 games last year and put up good offensive seasons? Not great, just good?

I don't know, 20?

Six. Hell, through in age 34 and it's only eight. Go from 32 on and it's only 11.

Prince is a great hitter though - chances are better he'll be one of those 11 or 8 or 6 than just some random player.

Maybe you're right, but we haven't even factored in how bad his defense will be at that point. A third of those guys on the list are DHs for a reason. Or the fact that his body type tends to age worse than others. Or...

FINE! That back end will probably be bad. But you know what? That's the cost of signing guys like this. Every deal is not going to bring you good value right to the very end. He's 28 next year. Stop focusing on five or six years down the road. Think about what he could do for this team now.

Which is?

He's gonna be 3-4 games better than LaRoche, and that's figuring in defense. Even in the absolute worst case scenario (barring injury of course) you aren't going to move backward at all. You take Prince's worst season of WAR in the past five years, you give it to Adam LaRoche and you're satisfied. You take his 2nd worst and LaRoche is having the season of his life!

But couldn't the Nats have LaRoche AND whatever else they can get for that 20 million? Wouldn't that also be 3-4 games better and not saddle the Nats with a terrible contract down the road? When they'll need money to sign Strasburg and Bryce etc etc?

Sure. But where do you see them spending that money this offseason? Who else is out there worth signing?

Oswalt.

Do you see them signing Oswalt?

... no. But next year! Next year they could sign some one, like Michael Bourn or BJ Upton to finally solve their CF issues and a pitcher like Hamels or Cain or Grienke. And it gives them this year to see if Bryce or Werth can play center, if Desmond can hang in the majors, or Espinosa for that matter. If Rendon can make an immediate impact. If any of those young starters are ready to break through. If Morse was a fluke, if..

Hey now. Morse wasn't a fluke.

Maybe not being good, but being THAT good definitely. Basically no one has ever struck out that much and hit that well. Like NO ONE. In the history of the game. It's been around for a long time you know.

Maybe he's different? Damn it, stop depressing me. And back to your "next year" talk, I like your plan but that's a tall order. Are those guys even going to be available in the offseason? And are they going to want to come to Washington? It's not like other teams don't need these players. The Nats can get Prince now. He is available. The big boys don't need first baseman. He can help the Nats win now.

Sure win now, but if they don't make the playoffs what good is it?

Argh. I hate that argument. Wins are wins. I want more of them. But for your sake yes they will make the playoffs. The won 80 games last year, with Strasburg back, Zimmerman healthy, Werth bouncing back, a full season of ZNN, Gio here, they are bound to win a bunch more games, and that's without Fielder. Factor him in and you have a division challenger and a wild card lock.

Basically if everything goes right, huh? I'll give you they should be better, even with the inevitable bumps in the road. But for an 78 win team (by runs scored/allowed) I figure without Price they are around 85 wins maybe. The NL East is that tough. With him... 88? 89? That's fighting for a wild card, with a good shot at it, but not a lock.

You know what? That's good enough for me. Fans of this team sat through years of low payroll and crap teams. As far as I'm concerned those 60 million dollar payrolls meant 40 million went into a bank to spend later. Now IS later. Now they can be in the playoff hunt and I want them to be and not because of a lucky fluke like Lannan and LaRoche both having their best seasons ever, while the bullpen is the best in the NL, and the Nats go 15-5 in one run games. I want it to be because they are good enough to challenge for a spot regardless of luck.

I just can't go along. I want them to be good but I want them to be good for a long time.

They can spend money later you know.

Yes, but I have no faith in that. Hell, it's a lot of faith just to think they'll raise the payroll to 120 million or so when it's time. Forget about adding more to a 150+ payroll if the Nats are just missing where they need to be. I say wait it out, see what they need next year and make those big moves on pitching and defense. Let Bryce pick up the offense, maybe Rendon too.

I want to win now. You want to win...next year.

I think it's a smarter plan to spread out that monetary commitment to guys that won't have to be buried in a piano box someday.

Uncalled for! But the Nats are still going to have to pay.

Oh no doubt.

So even if we can't agree on signing Prince or not, we can agree that the Nats do need to up their payroll by 25 million (not including Zimmerman resigning) in the next two seasons.

Yes. It may even be that they have to spend more next year with my plan, just to outbid the big boys. The time might not be now, but it's soon.

At 8 years, 160 million, I think I fall in more with Mr. Red. I do. Sorry. I don't think signing Prince is a bad idea. I don't think the Nats should be allowed to pretend they're poor. It's just that I think they could go into next offseason with a ton of issues to deal with. A re-injury to Strsaburg or ZNN, and the failure of Desmond (both not crazy events) and the Nats could need a top flight SP AND a CF AND a MI. Or Desmond could stabilize, Rendon could be great enough that they try to move him to first, and Bryce could be great and capable in center and all of a sudden they don't need really Fielder and can spend in a bunch of ways to really finish out this team.

This isn't a veteran team that needs that one last piece. It's a team falling into place and I'd like to see where it falls for one more year before moving forward at full speed. Yes, it's worrying about the future rather than the present, but it's not spending in 2016 that I'm worried about, it's how to best form this team in 2013. If I had any faith the Lerners would spend with abandon then yes, sign Fielder. But I don't. I think Rizzo will have to fight to get that payroll up to a decent level and if that's the case it's gonna be better to spread out that Fielder money to a couple positions.

Do I feel the same way if I'm a die-hard Nats fan, instead of a souless automaton? Probably not. Do I feel the same way at a shorter or more reasonable deal? I'm not sure. That may be enough to tip me toward signing Fielder. I know basically anything 3-5 years, the Nats would be stupid not to jump at regardless of the annual cost.

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today, and also one Tuesday

2012-01-04T06:50:00.000-08:00

The Nats don't have teh moneyz!!!! Poor Tin Cup Ted!!! If they sign Fielder they'll have to let Zimm walk! It's like Sophie's choice except harder because neither of those kids could hit a curveball!

Zuckerman put out two recent articles that attempt to put things in perspective but don't exactly hit at the right points.

The first one notes that if the Nats were to sign Fielder AND re-up Zimmerman they'd likely be paying 3 guys 20+ million from 2014-2017 (Werth being the 3rd). That's a lot of money and he points out that only three teams; the Yankees, the Phillies, and the Angels are currently in line to do that (and in the Angels case it's only currently for one year far down the road). Ok a few things here:

First - man that Werth contract is TERRIBLE. Just soooo bad. Like unforgivable. I'm sorry that I keep harping on it but ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh. I changed my mind. I'm not sorry.   It's that bad it deserves to be talked about over and over.

Second, if you are speculating about the Nats, it's only fair to speculate about other teams. The Red Sox, with Crawford and Gonzalez making a ton for the forseeable future, are almost certain to get on this list. The Tigers are one big signing away from joining the 3x20Mill Club and they could use one of those nice pitchers up for FA next year. The Dodgers, if they re-up Billingsly and sign anyone else big, would be in the same boat. I'm sure another team could pop up between now and 2016 and join the club. Let's say three teams do fall into this group before the Phillies fall out.   That would mean there would be 6 teams with this kind of financial commitment. That may not seem like a lot but there are only 30 teams. Fully 20% of the teams in major league baseball would be spending money in this manner. Twenty percent is not an elite club. Nobody is holding up signs on Wall Street saying "We're the 80%".

Third, 20 million is just an arbitrary number. Is it that different if the Nats are paying 20 mill and 21 mill to Zimm and Werth and the Rangers are paying 16 million a piece to Michael Young and Adrian Beltre? Payroll is what matters. The total spent on the entire team. For example, the Yankees have 12 players scheduled to make 5 million or more next year. The Phillies and Angels both have 8. The Nationals? Three. Zuckerman though has that covered in his second piece. What he's saying is that the payrolls will go up without any signings due to escalating contracts and arbitration eligibility. What he doesn't even hint at is that without those signings the speculated payroll for 2015 would only have been the 12th highest payroll last year. Basically if the Nats don't sign anyone they'll be spending like the average team... in four years... maybe. I'm not trying to count for the usual inflation that happens.   If they sign Zimmerman and Fielder that's another say... 45 million.   Ok, that would have been 4th last year. Definite big boy territory but isn't that what they want to be?

The Nats can afford Fielder. Bringing him in would be a gutsy bold move that would signal the Nats are ready to compete now, and it may very well signify a shift that the Nats are ready to become a different type of team. The type that spends to get into the playoffs year after year. That's ultimately what we're finding out this offseason (and next, I won't fully turn on the teams management unless they fail to spend money next offseason as well.   Maybe they have a dominant pitching plan.). Do they want to consistently make the playoffs or do they want to spend just enough to have a chance to get in and hope luck takes them the rest of the way during that postseason, because who knows when they'll be back? Hey, it works for the Cardinals.

The Prince of the next few free agent 1B hot stoves

2012-01-03T06:56:00.000-08:00

While some are fully on board the "sign Prince" bandwagon, others are wondering why the Nats would do such a thing. They have a decent first-baseman in Adam LaRoche (assuming he's healthy), and they have a back-up plan everyone loves in moving Mike Morse to the position. Why bother with Prince?

The possible answer lies in not in what Prince is, but what the other guys available are. In the next two seasons the pickings at 1B will be slim. Next year the "prize" is probably Mike Napoli, but he appears to be in line for a contract extension. After that... a position switched 37 year old Lance Berkman? James Loney? Ty Wigginton? No long term answers here.

Before 2014, there are a couple names that might sound good but who knows who'll test the waters by then. Joey Votto looks to be the big fish. But if he re-signs (or you fail to get him) then what? A 37 year old Paul Konerko? A possibly concussed out of baseball Justin Morneau? A Kendrys Morales who hasn't played in so long because of injury baseball-reference lists him as having a "final game"?

No, if the Nats don't get Fielder, there is next to no chance they can get an impact first baseman through free agency. Trade is always a possibility but also very hard to rely on. So that becomes plan B to Bryce coming up and moving Morse. If you're looking to go on a successful run of playoff appearances you don't want your "Plan A" to be bringing up a rookie and forcing a guy exiting his prime with less than two full seasons of success in the majors to switch to a position he barely played the year before (assuming LaRoche plays out his contract). Of course, maybe Morse will repeat 2011, and maybe Bryce will tear up the minors and the majors next year. It's not the best bet, but it's certainly not a bad one. Thing is, good teams don't bet like that. Good teams bet that the guy they just signed that's awesome doesn't break his leg in a freak vegetartian food truck rodeo accident.

What's the worst that could happen : Gio and HRs

2011-12-29T09:22:00.000-08:00

Steven from FJB, noted that while Gio's HR numbers are low they may not be driven by a low GB%, but instead a particularly low (re: lucky) HR/FB percentage, helped in part by his home park. The early projections expect a increase in rate to say 9.3%. Given roughly the same number of FBs that would lead to about 4 more homers. Is this real?

Well, as far as I think, that's the worst case scenario. Gio's rank in HR/FB does follow pretty closely with his rank in GB%. (2010 13 out of 43 qualified AL pitchers in HR/FB, 13/43 in GB%; 2011 18/42 and 15/42). No, that isn't the best way to judge these things, but it shows that he isn't out of whack when it comes to these stats. It even suggests that he may be doing just right. Of course the home and road splits can't be ignored. In 2010 Gio had a HR/FB rate of 6.4% at home and 8.6% on the road, in 2011 the difference was 8.2% to 9.8%. Obviously the park was helping him. So what to believe?

Just to get an idea of how bad he could be in Nats park, I went ahead and pulled his worst FB% in the past 2 years (38.2% 2010 home), his worst balls in play (2.83 per inning 2011), and his worst HR/FB ration (the 9.8% noted above). Put that all together in a 200IP season and you get.... 21 homers. (assuming my back of the envelope calculations are right). So it seems like the projections are expecting the worst. (well the worst that could reasonably be expected.) All this is also figuring he won't pitch any different in a different park while his splits suggest he did allow more flyballs at home.

The short of it, for those that don't like fancy numbers, is that while his home park helps him with home runs it's not to a degree that Nats fan should worry about it. My expectations are that he will give up a couple more homers. There's just no way to deny that his home park helped him keep the ball in the park. But just 4 more would be about the limit of what I think could happen. There's virtually no chance in my mind that he suddenly gives up 25+ bombs and becomes a much worse pitcher because of that.

Merry Christmas

2011-12-23T19:01:00.000-08:00

I like the deal. I don't love it, because the Nats didn't steal Gio, nor does his acquisition guarantee the Nats any sort of playoff spot. But I do like the deal.

In general I think you can view a trade in 3 ways, how much does the deal help the Nats right now, how much does the deal hurt the Nats later on, and what alternates to the trade could have been made.

On the first point - it helps the Nats, not a great deal, but enough to make a difference. You've probably read a lot about Gio the past few days but to sum it up, he strikes out a ton (plus), doesn't give up a lot of home runs (plus), but walks a bunch (minus). If he ever got control he could be special, if he ever loses control he could be terrible, but really he's got enough innings under his belt that he's likely shown everyone who he is, which is a good 2/3 type of arm. That's a damn good bet to be better than Milone, Peacock, and Cole next year. (And as always I love the AL -> NL move.)

One the second point - that's always conjecture at this point but it's likely not to be a big deal in the immediate future. Milone is not an impact player and Norris and Cole are still a few years off. Only if Peacock turns into a better pitcher than Gio right now will it matter and I'd bet on Gio everyday. A few years down the road things might be different. Norris and Cole could be impact players, Peacock being a few years younger could be bringing a decent level of production while Gio starts to tail off. But it's foolish to worry too much about seasons 3,4, 5 years down the road. So much can happen between then and now, so much can change, unless it's a slam dunk star you're losing (re: Bryce) you have to make these type of deals, especially when you can absorb it organizationally.

Now the third point - that's a sticker. Forget about Edwin Jackson, he might be a better value than Gio but he's NOT a better pitcher and the Nats need wins, not praise for good deals. But Roy Oswalt, he might have had a similar or even stronger impact on the rotation over the course of the next 2 years for only the cost of money, rather than prospects. Also, if the Nats were willing to part with these prospects could one or two more gotten back a real prize? The latter is hardly worrying over. You're looking for problems if you are looking there. But the Oswalt thing... that's something to chew over. Certainly you'd rather have Gio than Roy from 2012-2015, but 2012-2013? And are we looking much past that? If they do make moves like signing Fielder, extending Zimmerman, getting another player under control until 2015/6 then signing Gio makes more sense. If this is it, than you could easily argue that getting Oswalt would have been a smarter move. It would take a whole another offseason of nothing to prove you right but you could argue the point.

In the end - again, I like it. I am all for trading prospects for quality major leaguers because the prospect success rate is much lower than we like to believe. You put enough guys in there the more questionable it becomes, but even with these four I still like it.

Gio to the Nats

2011-12-22T17:06:00.000-08:00

so they say

Peacock, Milone, Cole, Norris.

First Thoughts

They don't need any of these (in particular because they got a pitcher back in trade) but it's still a high price. Would have prefered they actually UPPED the package and gone for something better. But still Meyer, Purke, and Detwiler are still there. So is Solis and Robbie Ray.

From weakest to strongest

Milone is the weakest of the bunch. His upside was Lannan, which isn't bad but it meant that he'd spend most of the next few years getting passed by guys the Nats liked better.

The Nats kept thinking that Norris would be special but he hadn't turned that corner yet. He's young and catchers develop slower, but the average could be a killer and he was never going to be the defender Ramos was even if he was improving. With Ramos in place, Norris was going to be traded at some point.

Peacock. One great year. Tell yourself that. One great year. The command could go at any moment and Peacock isn't THAT good that he can pitch around bad control.

Cole is a NICE prospect, all the tools of Peacock and might be putting it all together now. TNSSAAPP? Is that it? He's the crown jewel here even if Peacock might hurt sooner.

Even Boz is into it

2011-12-22T08:06:00.000-08:00

Boz rips the Nats

Tons of great points.

Nats have tons of money coming in soon. Most teams spend when that's the case. The Nats aren't (Harper Note: for another example see: Nats, New ballpark)
Nats said what they wanted, seemingly had a bunch of different options to do it, and have done nothing.
Nats are probably overvaluing their own youth in regards to refusing to deal them
Most likely this is all because you have to do a song and dance to convince Ol Man Ted to give you a nickel for some penny-whistles at the general store.

It's not that doing nothing in the offseason of 2012 is in itself terrible. But in context it feels pretty bad. For years the Nats did nothing. Last year's Werth signing was supposed to be a signal that things would be different. They even went into this offseason being very explicit in what very expensive pieces they wanted. Then they did nothing, just like every other off-season.

To the average fan psyche the reaction is not:

"It's ok. I'm sure they'll do a decent job of patching things together this year while we watch the youngsters develop. Then next year they'll make that big push! Go Nats!", it's :

"Those cheap bastards are screwing up this team again!"

and you can't blame them. That's what experience has taught them.

Boz is the team's greatest cheerleader. He wants the team to succeed in DC so bad, I've seen him sacrifice a kitten on an altar of Wade Boggs' discarded chicken bones to the spirit of Walter Johnson*. When he's telling you this, things have gone too far. The offseason isn't over. Oswalt is still out there. A CF trade might still be possible (not likely though - I think here Nats fans are just going to have to suck up the inevitable Greatest Show on Werth situation). Let's see what they do.

*may not be true.

(on a side-note - I'm getting a bit tired of this whole minor Edwin Jackson love fest. The guy isn't better than Danks, isn't better than Gonzalez. He's not significantly worse and he'll come cheaper true, but THIS ISN'T ABOUT VALUE - IT'S ABOUT WINS)

Expectations

2011-12-21T06:50:00.000-08:00

For a couple years now, we've all assumed that the Nats have been building toward 2013. Why 2013? Well for one, it gave them a fair amount of time to internally develop some high quality young players. The other, bigger reason though, was that Zimmerman is due to be a free agent after the 2013 season. You have to figure if the franchise can't come up with a legit playoff team in 9 years, that he'd be ready to walk for greener pastures, despite all the "promise" the Nats can lay at his feet. Lose Zimmerman and you've made competing that much tougher.

But after last year's rise toward .500 and the introduction of the 2nd Wild Card, things have been different. It now looks like the Nats, with some luck and a couple of key moves, could compete in 2012. The fanbase sees this, is ready to go after 7 years of terrible baseball, and has to be managed delicately so as not to create outsized expectations.

Oops.

It's not so much that the Nats tried to get a starter and a centerfielder and failed (so far). It's that they let everyone know they wanted to get a starter and centerfielder, then went out and failed. Expectations were set and quickly not met.

The Nats could use a starter because here are the number of major league innings pitched by the Nats early rotation not named John Lannan : 192.1, 97, 92, and 62. Oh, did I mention that this was for 2011 AND 2010 combined? And that every single one of these guys has had a major injury in the past 2+ years? So they need that extra Livan-like arm, but it doesn't have to be a Buehrle. A 1-yr deal for any decent arm would give the Nats security that they won't have to burn through the bullpen and a chance to go through a bunch of their young arms to see who can survive, and maybe thrive, in the majors.

The Nats could use a centerfielder because they don't have one. But maybe with one more year of Roger Bernadina stop gap, Bryce Harper proves competent enough to man that position while he's in his youth. Then instead of a CF the Nats could focus on getting a much easier to find corner outfielder or first baseman for their 2013 push.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't put the Nats in the best shape to do nothing this year. It's hard to do everything you want in a single off-season and rather than see problems get solved with time, it's more likely that new problems will open up (say Desmond fails again and the Nats bullpen implodes). They really should do something but they don't have to do something. If the goal is "Playoffs in 2013" then the expectations should remain there. Let Rizzo have the rope to hang himself or swing across the bow of the ship like a swashbuckling hero.

The Marlins problem

2011-12-20T07:19:00.000-08:00

The Nats have gotten an unexpected nasty surprise this offseason. They already knew they'd have to contend with the Braves and the Phillies, but now the Marlins are looking like they might be in the thick of things. Are the Marlins actually a team to be worried about?

How much better are the Nats than the Marlins really?
Last year ended with the Nats 8.5 games better than the Marlins, 80 wins to 72. We all know wins and losses can be a bit skewed so we take a look at Pythag records and... the Nats are at 78, Marlins right on 72. Seems ok, but even things like runs scored can be bumped around by things like a off-year by the team with RISP. What about BP's adjusted win totals?   Here the Marlins leap ahead coming in around 79/80 wins while the Nats are right around 78. Given the likely variance involved you're looking at two teams that are about the same.

This isn't to say I think the Nats and the Marlins were equal teams last year. I don't. But if there is a difference in the Nats favor, it's likely to be much closer to a game or two, rather than the 8+ suggested by the standings.

How much better do Reyes and Buehrle make the Marlins?
Worst case scenario (assuming Hanley stops pitching a fit and gets in line) - Reyes replaces Dobbs in the lineup. If you like WAR... Jose is roughly a 5 WAR type player (6.2 last year but 2.9 the year before, then again around 6 from 2006-08... I like 5 as a rough estimate of the package) , Dobbs maybe is a 1, probably not even that. That would suggest 4 wins or so.   If you don't like WAR, Jose is a much better hitter than Dobbs. You probably got a sense that Jose doesn't hit for much power or walk alot. He hits for more power and walks more than Dobbs. (Dobbs is pretty damn mediocre at the plate). Reyes is a much better baserunner. Dobbs was not a great fielder and you have to believe Hanley could do better there, and Jose is probably a touch better than Ramirez at short. All in all that's more than just a win or two difference.

We can do the same exercize for Mark, but suffice to say Buehrle is probably worth about 3 wins more than whatever dregs the Marlins would have put out in the 5th spot in the rotation. That doesn't seem like a lot, and it isn't A LOT, but it is still pretty significant.

These two signings along with a change in luck to just average could turn the Marlins from a 72 win team to a 83/84 win team.

Anything else the Marlins have in their pocket?
Hanley, Hanley, Hanley. Both Buck and Coghlan played poorly but I don't think there's enough to say they'll definitely bounce back. Everyone else was right on board* except the mecurial shortstop.   Let's understand this now. If Hanley Ramirez hits like he can, he is a great hitter at any position. Let no Boswell type person tell you otherwise. In 2010 he put up a .300 / .378 / .475 line. That .853 OPS would have been 3rd among NL 3rd basemen last year. That year was significantly worse than his 2009... or 2008... or 2007.   He can be a .330 30 HR guy. If he bounces back to 2010 form that's a couple more wins right there. If he bounces back to his form before that... look out.

*I guess you could say Stanton might be in for a crash but really there isn't enough to go onto be definitive.

On the mound there's Josh Johnson. He only pitched in 9 games for the Marlins last year but when he's healthy he's one of the best pitchers in the game. WHIP the last 3 years or 1.158, 1.105, and 0.978. K/9 over 8, HR/9 well under 1. The guy is Cy Young candidate, start in the All-Star game good. If he can come back, then the Marlins have added another bunch of wins.

So you're saying they are going to be pretty good then, huh?
I think the Marlins are going to be much better than last years record. No doubt. Like 10 games better easy. That's the money bet. That's what adding two All-Stars to positions of weakness can do for you. That in itself is enough to be a thorn in the side of a Nats team that hopes to improve by a few more wins into the fringes of the new wild card race. If the Nats don't develop like the management is hoping they might be passed by this Miami team.

Now can they make an even bigger jump? That depends on the two All-Stars they already have. If Johnson is healthy and Hanley can put behind him all this and get back to being awesome, it would be like the Marlins added two All-Star position players and a #1 and #2 pitcher in this offseason. That's crazy. That's like adding Cliff Lee + Gio Gonzalez + Troy Tulowitski + Starlin Castro. That's gonna get you 10+ more wins, easy. With average luck, that would propel Miami to the upper 80s in wins and right past the Nats.

The Nats better hope that Johnson is hurt and that Hanley remains a petulant little child. If not, they could watch themselves "improve" all the way to an 79-83, 4th place finish is an ultra-competitive NL East.

No Aoki.

2011-12-19T09:08:00.000-08:00

The Brewers won the Aoki posting at 2.5 mill. 2.5 million! I'd love to hear what Rizzo thought "fair market value" was for Aoki. 300 yen and a Cleveland Indians jersey signed by "Isuro Tanaka"? A Hello Kitty backpack with a copy of "Mr. Baseball" inside?

If you try to build a team through only fair deals, you end up with only a fair team.

The Nats didn't post on Darvish

2011-12-16T12:19:00.000-08:00

Good. To me the only way a bid could have "worked out" for the Nats is if they bid like 45 million and someone bid 50. They made a serious offer, but didn't have to actually pay for the 100 million dollar shot in the dark. Of course that's predisposing that they now use the money / resources to get a centerfielder, sign a great bench, and get a reliable 2-3 year starter while the 5-7 guys in the minors figure themselves out. Who knows about that. (And yes, they could have done all this, and that's the type of team almost every fan wants their team to be, but I don't actually consider that a possible option in this reality. Prove me wrong, Lerners. Prove me wrong.)

Also why'd they wait until today to say anything? My best guess is they wanted to get an idea of the posted bid before they'd say anything just in case it ended up being like 20 million and everyone would say they were stupid for not posting on that. Of course they'd also say they were stupid for posting under that so really... why wait? Some sort of news control thing? Maybe they weren't sure if they did post a bid? To not distract Nats fans from the big news that Jeff Fulchino is now in the organization?

Maybe it's just me but this kind of thing seems typical Rizzo-Nats. There a way of doing things. Then there's the way the Nats do things which is just. a. bit. different. You don't know why. There doesn't seem to be any effect, positive or negative. But every once in a while, there it is. Still better than the Bowden-Nats though where Jimbo would have talked all week about the Nats posting 60 mill for Darvish, who was the next Halladay mixed with Lee but also like Pedro and the Big Unit, we would have watched them do nothing, then he would have explained that they liked Ryan Perry just as much as Darvish. Oh, and he would have thrown a racist Asian joke in there somewhere.

In other Bowden-era news Nats Insider has a "fun" look at the largest contracts in Nats history. I really wanted to put largest in quotation marks but sadly, I couldn't. These really are the largest ones. Remember when I said I didn't consider going after Darvish AND fixing the other issues a realisitc possibility? Yeah. When your 2nd biggest contract is for your sole marquee homegrown player and it would be considered a bargain, when nearly everything below it is for veteran place holders, when Cristian Guzman appears on the list TWICE, I think you can see what kind of team you are money-wise. Right now Werth remains an exception

(And what a terrible exception! It's like telling a little kid he needs to stop spitting out his food, only to watch him shove the entire bowl of it in his mouth at once.)

Don't post Darvish

2011-12-14T10:27:00.000-08:00

He could be great. He could be good. He could disappoint even if he throws a magic gyro ball.

Whatever becomes of him, it's a gamble in the neighborhood of 5years, 100 million total. That's a gamble a team with a depth of pitching prospects and a lot of positional uncertainty* does not need to make.

*Honestly other than a healthy Zimmerman who do you 100% trust to be productive next year? Ok, I'll give you Morse, I don't see him suddenly becoming bad. No, I won't give you Ramos. I like him too but 100% is 100%. The other Nats at or above average at the plate last year? Espinosa (If I'm not giving you Ramos, I'm certainly not giving you Espinosa), Nix, and Hairston.

What was up with that Werth deal?

2011-12-13T07:37:00.000-08:00

I don't mean that in the "it was a terrible deal" sense. Of course it was, but it's not the terribleness that I'm wondering about. It's the sheer money and years put in. It could have been for an actual great player who was young and I'd still be confused. Why confused? Because that was a win now move and the Nats don't seem to be that kind of team, even when they could possibly... you know... win now.

Last week we found out that the Nats WAY underbid (or more likely - reasonably bid and the Marlins overbid but that's semantics) for Mark Buehrle. 3 years for 39 mill, vs the 4 years 58 mill he got. They underbid on years and dollars. Roy Oswalt is still out there but he wants a 3 years deal. Since he hasn't signed I'm assuming the Nats didn't offer him that 3rd year (or anything). BJ Upton is available - though the Rays have to be blown away. Since he's not a Nat now I'm assuming the Nats didn't blow anyone away. The Nats are playing it the same way they've always played it, except that one time. They are looking for fair deals, or maybe something slightly in their favor. Are they smart? Cautious? Cheap? Make your own judgement, but the one thing that remains - that Werth deal doesn't make any sense.

If they were playing to win sooner rather than later - then there is no reason not to overpay in a deal or a trade for a guy that'll help you win now. If they brought in Werth to lure in other free agents, shouldn't they have lured in some other decent free agents by now? Even just to validate the original deal? But no, right now nothing has happened, which makes that Werth deal look like a crazy aberration, only explained by the fact the Nats actually thought he was worth what they paid.

What was that about? A monentary lapse in judgement? A grasp for relevency in case the young players didn't pan out? Blackmail?

Rule V losses

2011-12-08T07:25:00.001-08:00

Yankees pick up Brad Meyers, STL picks up Erik Komatsu.

A fellow blogger (For the Cubs at View from the Bleachers) asked about Meyers earlier, so I got a little thing ready about him,

As crazy as it may sound he doesn't fit well into the Nats plans. He'd likely be the 4th starter in AAA next year (behind Peacock, Milone, and Detwiler) and does not have an age advantage despite being only 26. Lannan is only a year older and Zimmermann, Strasburg, and the three guys I mentioned are all the same age or younger. Plus they have 5 guys (Purke, Meyer, Solis, Cole and Ray) they'd love to be able to move up to AA and AAA if needed. So as good as he seems, he might not be in their top 10 pitchers projecting a couple years into the future.

It also doesn't help that Purke, Anthony Rendon, and Bryce Harper are all taking up roster spots even though none are likely to play more than a month and half in the majors next year. So really the Nats only have 37 spots on the 40 available and they got players to sign.

Obviously the somewhat recent injury and the necessity to keep him in the majors all season weren't deterrents enough. My guess is the Yanks do go ahead and try him as a starter first then push him into a reliever role if that fails.

Erik Komatsu? At 23 he still might become something as he has a good eye and has hit well for average more often than not, but he doesn't have the fielding ability to play CF and he doesn't have the pop in the bat to play the corners. The most likely scenario that I see is that he has a couple cups of coffee in the majors, maybe ends up as a 4th OF somewhere. I'm really not sure what the Cardinals see that they'd keep a guy like this on the roster all year long.

If you don't like the Nats losing these guys, I'll warn you that it's not going to get any better. I'd keep an eye out each of the next couple years on the Nats minor league FAs and Rule V guys. With the depth of starters they are bound to have some useful pieces they can't protect.

Miami Mark

2011-12-07T17:32:00.001-08:00

More tomorrow but the Marlins just signed Mark Buehrle. Does it matter for the Nats? Yes. Should you feel bad? Not really. Yes the fans want playoffs but there is still one big step to take to get there (not to mention the avoidance of bad luck). The Nats seem to have what it takes to make that big step but not for one more year at least. And if you love great pitching, next offseason is the one that could have the big pitching prizes. Of course you don't know which will test FA but if the Nats improve and play their cards right they could set up the leagues best rotation on paper for 2013-2016.

Nothing would feel worse than it actually is

2011-12-05T06:47:00.001-08:00

Jose Reyes signs with the Marlins. It's not like the Nats were interested (despite what some baseball guys believed) and by itself it doesn't make the Marlins better than the Nats... necessarily*. But a team in your own division making a big-time signing does promote a level of envy.

Layne Nix signs with the Phillies. It's not like the Nats needed to bring Nix back. But he would have been a useful 4th OF, providing lefty pop off the bench, and a team in your own division grabbed him up (let's hope the Phillies have to play him everyday - although it sounds like they'll platoon him which would be perfect for the guy) meaning they are filling up those roster holes while you aren't.

The Nats want Mark Buehrle but so do the Marlins (who obviously will spend), the Rangers (who obviously are in a nice position if you want to make a championship run), and the White Sox (who obviously hold some advantage as the team he has been on for his entire career).

The Nats' Plan B is Roy Oswalt, whose plans are up in the air.

The Nats Plan C is CJ Wilson, who is the Plan A for at least 2 other teams, and is drawing similar interest from attractive teams like the Red Sox who are perennial contenders, and the Angels, who are much closer to his home in Southern California.

If the chips fall the wrong way the Nats could end up with nothing. It would be disappointing but it would not mean that 2012 is any less exciting. This is still a team on the rise and barring injury you have to believe that the 2012 Nats will be better than the 2011 version, even without considering the rise of such players like Bryce, Rendon, and the stable of young arms. I feel like there should be more here to say but there really isn't. The Nats could end up with nothing. It could pretty easily happen. And that's ok.

*The Marlins were bad last year, but had a pretty unlucky year. Outside of rookie sensation Mike Stanton and, I don't know, Greg Dobbs? Who outperformed their expectations last year? Josh Johsnon - who could be as good as Strasburg - was out most of the year. Hanley Ramirez - an all-star before last year - didn't just disappoint, he was flat out bad. With one more signing I could see this as a team that wins 15 more games.

The ChrisMarreroEra Part I comes to a close

2011-11-29T07:31:00.001-08:00

Marrero, who was likely gonna be the back-up first baseman next year because... well because

he is cheap,
he has seemingly topped out in the minors, and most importantly
he doesn't seem good enough that you care he isn't getting at bats,

has gone down with a torn left hammy. The Nats don't really have any in-house options (they actually care about Tyler Moore and want him hitting everyday). Ladson's article notes Mark DeRosa as a back-up possibly since he can fill in at more than one position. That is true. He can. So can I. Also true. And while we're going over truths let's remark how DeRosa is too old to field any thing but the "bad fielding" positions (corner OF and 1B) with any sort of skill, yet at the same time is too old to hit well enough to be stuck in those positions. Just noting.

But the choice of DeRosa wouldn't be in a vacuum. Are there better choices out there? Yes, but not many. If you can convince Derek Lee that it's time to back-up I think he'd make an ideal one but he had a strong finish to 2011. Good enough to make him and some GM believe he can start all year somewhere. The Nats would be served well with some lefty pop if Nix and Ankiel both don't return. But Hinske and Giambi both took small contracts to stay with their teams. Juan Miranda, maybe? That would be more interesting to me than DeRosa but you can see we're at a point where you wouldn't fault the team for going with DeRosa. (a totally intriguing option would be Jorge Posada - but that would take convincing him he should never bat righty nor play catcher, and he should switch leagues, to a team that might not make the playoffs... so not gonna happen)

Maybe you can sign a better bat and move them to first, I guess. But at that point you might as well re-sign Nix or Ankiel as a 4th OF and move Morse over to first if something happens

Did you know : Paul Maurice

2011-11-28T12:11:00.001-08:00

I know this isn't about baseball or about DC; but living in Durham Paul Maurice's career has always fascinated me as a testament to having the right friends. How do you get a head coaching job in the NHL at age 28? How do you keep it for so long being nothing special? How do you get re-hired after another non-special stint elsewhere? Be buddies with the GM. Hey Mike Rizzo, want to get a beer somewhere? Did you know:

Paul Maurice is the youngest coach to coach in 1000 NHL games. For someone to break his record they would have to start coaching at age 31 and coach over 12 consecutive years. (Chien-Ming Wang was 31 this year) Currently the coach hired at the youngest age in the NHL was 36 when he was hired.
Paul Marice is a year younger than the young Kirk Muller hired to replace him
Paul Maurice is 14th on the list for games coached, and 21st for games won despite a winning percentage of just over .500 (Boudreau had a .672 regular season winning percentage. For contrast for those that know nothing of hockey, Earl Weaver, arguably the best modern manager, had a winning percentage of .583)
Paul Maurice coached for 9 seasons before coaching a team that was completely made up of players younger than he was
Paul Maurice was currently the 8th youngest coach in the NHL

Someone help me out

2011-11-22T14:07:00.001-08:00

It seems like the whole "this collective bargaining agreement hurts the competitive balance" is based on a very tenuous assumption that the spending that the Royal, Nationals, Pirates were doing would continue to only be done by a small number of small-market teams. It seems to me as this method proved itself to be more and more successful (and fiscally responsible in comparison to FA signings) that more and more teams would do it and thus negate the advantage gained by these teams (as well as the large market teams doing similar things - like the Red Sox and Yankees).

as Scott Boras gently weeps

2011-11-22T11:35:00.001-08:00

The labor deal was signed and there are some changes worth noting.

Expanded Playoffs start next year. Talked about this the other day, I don't like it, because if you played 162 games and won 85 you clearly aren't the best team so what the hell are you doing in the playoffs to determine the champion? I'm sure it will add excitement and revenue, though. And for some reason the wishes of the bulk of the fans and the league matter more than my own. (Side note: I would have loved to see a "winning record" clause added though, where as a division winner who finishes under .500 can't make the playoffs.)
"The agreement eliminates the Type A and Type B rankings for free agents, who will be subject to compensation if their former club offers a guaranteed one-year contract with a salary equal to the average salary of the 125 highest-paid players from the prior season." That average is about $12 million for 2012 from what I read. Unless I am understanding something wrong (and feel free to correct me - a quick scan at lunch is all I could afford today), this applies to all free agents. So if you are looking to get compensation for a free agent lost the cost has gone way up for mediocre to good players, but actually drops for great players. It's doubtful it will have much of an effect on the great players leaving (you'd be silly to not give up a draft pick for Pujols or Fielder this year, or Zimm after 2013) but we will probably see a few more Jonny Gomeseses on the market.
"The penalties for exceeding a calculated monetary figure on Draft picks -- who can be signed only to Minor League contracts -- will be between 75 and 100 percent of the overage, as well as the potential loss of first- and second-round selections." This really forces teams to use MLBs "slot" figures on draft deals, to the point where if you try to buy your way to being good through the draft (like Washington has done recently) you could lose picks. I don't see anyway young players can get around this as there is no age restriction, or restriction on signing with other professional leagues. Also once you enroll in a high school in the USA you are considered a US resident in terms of the draft. So to circumvent the draft your parents would have to move to a foreign country (not Canada) before you were in high school. Maybe home school?
"Teams with the lowest revenues and in the smallest markets will have an opportunity to obtain additional Draft picks through a lottery." Huh? Need to read more about this but in general I think baseball is agressively trying to even the playing field, for better or worse.
"In addition, the 15 teams in the largest markets will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing by 2016." I now what this does in spirit but I'm not sure what this really does in practice, since I can't think of a large market team accused of tanking in order to gain revenue. Fifteen does seem pretty arbitrary a cut off though. I don't know how they figure it but this definitely includes DC. Houston is another one that won't escape. the Marlins, Mariners, Rays, and Twins all could sneak in depending.

Just saw over at the post that Shairon Martis got picked up by the Pirates. Good for them. Martis is a talent that is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Forget the 3.05 ERA (well, put it aside at least). He gave up 2.6 BB/9 and have 9.9 K/9, he didn't give up a bunch of homers and didn't give up a bunch of hits. A 24 year old, who pitched well in AA is worth a signing. Why'd the Nats let him go? Well FA, Strasburg, ZNN, Lannan, Wang, Detwiler, Peacock, Milone, Purke, Meyer, Solis, Cole... he's getting squeezed out.

Any other Nats minor league FAs worth noting? I think Matt Antonelli will be a big help to the Orioles next year. Sorry if that makes you mad for some reason. But again with Espinoa, Zimm and Rendon (and maybe Lombardozzi) a 26 year old is not gonna get his chance. Still, I'll miss checking the blog. Here's him in a tub for the ladies! Archie Gilbert was a guy who might have finally gotten it on the field last year (or it could have been a fluke). He's speedy too which means some team will be willing to pick him up, even if he might not have gotten it together off the field.

OK that's clever

2011-11-21T07:21:00.001-08:00

You all by now know of my minor obsession with internet "headline" writing.

Playoffs Now? ... How about now?

2011-11-18T13:09:00.001-08:00

Weekend question for you - would the addition of an extra playoff spot (the one-game WC knockout game) change your view on whether the Nats should make a playoff push in 2012 or not? How about with one less team to deal with?

Here's some facts to chew on. Since 2001 in the NL:

the average WC team won 91 games, the average firstteam out won just under 89 games;
Only twice has a team made the playoffs winning less than 90 games, where as the first team out has only won more than 90 games twice.
the most wins for a WC team is 95
the fewest wins for a first-team out is 85

Previously
>92 wins - virtual lock for playoffs
90-92 wins- better chance than not
88-89 wins - possible with some luck
<88 wins - forget about it

New scenario
>89 wins - virtual lock
88-89 wins- better chance than not
85-87 wins - possible with some luck
<85 wins - forget about it

(of course I HATE the addition of any more teams to the playoffs. But I'm a "Playoffs as a reasonable way to find the best team" kind of guy, not a "Playoffs a fun and exciting way to crown a champion" one. You are probably the latter. Most people are. jerks)

Oh and Cole Kimball is back as Toronto tried to sneak him through waivers and the Nats claimed him. So he'll sit on the 40 for half a year. You would think that doesn't make sense, if they needed the space then - they should need it now, too, but maybe the CF trade talks are involving multiple guys that sit on the 40 or multiple guys they would normally protect in Rule V?

Coley Kimbrall we hardly knew ya

2011-11-16T13:55:00.001-08:00

Cole Kimball was claimed off waivers today by the Blue Jays. The Nats needed space on the 40-man to prepare for the Rule V draft and Kimball wouldn't pitch until half-way through the season so he (along with the unwanted Corey Brown) were the most sensible men to try to get back to the minors. Unfortuantely for the Nats Kimball was good enough, and his contract situation so favorable, that the Blue Jays were willing to sit him on their 40-man while he recovers.

Is it a loss? Yes, but not a big one. After spending 2009 adjusting to being a reliever, Kimball had been very successful in that role posting ERAs under 2.50 at every stop, including the majors. He's big with the K, doesn't miss in a way that's easy to hit, and doesn't give up the long ball. That sounds great but he also walks too many guys (7.1 BB/9 in the majors, over 5 in AA and AAA stints the last two years) right now to be the type of crunch-time reliever you rely on every day. With Clippard and Storen in line right now, at best he's a 7th inning man next year and 8th inning guy if/when Clippard leaves. Could he develop like Hanrahan did? Sure, but you can say that about a lot of minor league relievers with live arms. Kimball's a guy you can have pitch an inning and feel pretty confident the game isn't going to get away from you, and he's a guy that can come in when you NEED a K but can afford a walk. Valuable but if your organization is any good, replaceable.

This is also one of the downsides of signing all those high draft picks. The Nats have three guys on your 40-man who didn't play last year in the majors and could likely not play most of this year, Bryce, Purke and Rendon. Of course if losing a bullpen arm is part of the cost of signing guys like this, you sign guys like this every time.

And in case you don't care about defense

2011-11-14T11:27:00.001-08:00

and thought the Nats might deal for Matt Kemp. Ain't happenin' (but is misbehavin'... anyone? anyone?)

Matt Kemp was a consistently below average fielding CF, with the possibility of shifting to awful as he ages. But oh that offense. A .300+ hitter with very good power will (and should) make you forget about D every time. The Nats were never serious contenders for the guy, but if you are on the World Series in the next two-three years bandwagon, then Kemp in center would have worked. Of course if you can live with him in center because of the offense, you probably can do the same for Bryce.

Really, though I point this out to show you how much he costs. Twenty mill a year for 8 years. That's almost Werth money! Coupled with the Melky trade, you can see how (over)valued CFs are right now. Upton will be very expensive. Fowler would cost more than you think. We should all be able to understand if the Nats can't make a deal for one and end up with a fill-in, much like Ankiel last year. (Except on purpose not because Rizzo got mad one day and decided to give up on Nyjer for pennies on the dollar.) Signing a Corey Patterson or Endy Chavez is not a playoff move, because with one slumping player you'd have that dead end of the lineup 7-9 you don't want to have, but if the Nats are serious about Bryce in center and/or don't want to overpay in trades or contracts, it may just be the best move for 2012.

(personally I say overpay in trades for Upton.)

Oh and speaking about Bryce, he's hitting .263 with 0 HR, 0BBs, and 6 Ks in his last 5 games. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Bryce and his talent - I'm just noting this because if he went .450 with 5 HRs during that time span I'm sure we'd be hearing all about it. We need to look at his stats over extended periods for evaluation, not validation of what we think we already know. We'll get back to this when the AFL wraps up in a couple weeks.

Ramos SAFE!

2011-11-11T19:31:00.001-08:00

Thank God.

Post.

Jesus Christ ESPN - does not even this warrant your front page?

Ramos Update - Friday Morning

2011-11-11T06:05:00.001-08:00

Still no good news to report. No familial or police contact from the kidnappers.

The family is confident Wilson is alive and will be returned safely.
Zuckerman believes that if you read between the lines, it's likely the Nationals or MLB itself are the ones that have been contacted.
Kilgore notes that the expert thinks the ransom could be in the many millions.
A FreeWilsonRamos site is up.
Fans are organizing a candlelight vigil at the park, 6PM tonight. No word on the team's involvement in this.

Ramos Update

2011-11-10T10:28:00.000-08:00

Of course you probably know all this but :
- No contact with kidnappers
- Local police confirm he is alive
- Nats (nor any other mlb teams) have no official plans to pull players from Venezuela

Sources you should be following
Kilgore at the Post
Zuckerman at his blog
Juan Dominguez's Twitter feed
Rafael Rojas's Twitter feed

Anyone else surprised this isn't "front page" news on ESPN (or SI or Sportsline or Foxsports)? Yahoo Sports is the only one that makes it even a top story.

Update: For those that don't read Spanish - Google's translate tool works very well.

Fine, I'm not here to offend

2011-11-10T07:37:00.000-08:00

But I'd still like a discussion on this. This is how I deal with things, with humor. Even the most terrible things I try to find something amusing, not for a cheap laugh but to keep from being overwhelmed on how horrible the thing actually is. Is the only proper way to act to pass off a short statement of concern then never say anything again?

For those that are offended by humor, what did you think of the Onion's 9/11 response? Certainly it was funnier but were you offended by that as well? Is it time? Tone? Or is humor never acceptable when dealing with difficult situations?

Wilson Ramos kidnapped - seriously

2011-11-09T17:16:00.000-08:00

Let's all hope for a swift and safe return.

Veteran pitcher free agent bonanza

2011-11-09T10:30:00.000-08:00

Last week Rizzo said he wanted a veteran guy for the staff who could show the youngsters on the team " how to pitch 200 innings in a season many, many times in your career."

Most people read that as "We want Mark Buehrle", which is fine. Assuming the deal is fair and not for too long you could easily do worse and you know how I love the AL -> NL ptichers. But what if he meant someone else and is kind of setting up the fanbase for the switcheroo if he can't get Mark? Who else is there that fits that bill?

The first question is how many seasons is "many, many". Certainly more than 5. I'm thinking that is the threshold for a single "many". 6? 7? Let's say 7. And let's not limit it to strictly 200+, because I don't want an errant couple of 196 and 192 seasons to knock someone off this list. Let's go 190+. How many pitchers fit that bill - 7 seasons or more of 190+ innings pitched? Turns out it's 18.*

We can rule out several. Sabathia, Halladay, and Hudson aren't going anywhere. I can't see the Brewers dealing Wolf, or Angels dealing Haren now. If he wanted Livan he could have signed him. Even if you liked him, Zito's contract is still too terrible to pick up, same with Arroyo. The Indians seem to want Lowe's last year. So that leaves 8 other guys that aren't Mark Buehrle, and all but one are free agents.

I'll go ahead and knock off two more since I doubt Jeff Suppan (8) and Ryan Dempster (7) fit Rizzo's description well. Suppan isn't a winner or leader but a back of the rotation innings eater. Dempster spent half his career in the pen and doesn't seem to be the type to teach guys about consistently pitching 200 innings. Plus he's the guy with the (expensive) year left. Who's left?

Mark Buehrle (11 times meeting my criteria) - broken 200IP every season he's started. Definite "leader" type. Certainly a strong possibility
Javy Vazquez (11) - after a horrid start pitched very well to end the year in Florida. There's an inconsitency here though that has to be worrying, and has he ever been the leader of his staff? Should get a pretty nice deal too. On the doubtful side.
Jon Garland (8) - again not a leader, injured last year and really a West Coast guy through and through. No chance.
Kevin Millwood (8) - After nobody wanted him finally caught on with the Rockies and did pretty well. Pitched 198 innings in 2009 but really hasn't been consitently reliable since 2003. Was a staff leader for a while. Seems doubtful.
Roy Oswalt (7) - great pitcher who fits the leadership criteria. Injured last year though and Rizzo kind of hinted the guy he's looking for may not have the "best stuff" Oswalt's stuff is great. A better pitcher than Buehrle but Buehrle sounds more like Rizzo's guy.
Bartolo Colon (7) - A workhorse in his younger days, last broke 200 in 2005. This year was his first year of close to full season starting since then so it's hard to bet on him helping a rotation for a full year. Pretty old now (38) and would you call him a leader?
Freddy Garcia (7) - Similar to Colon, except more of a leader and more dependable right now. Dark horse emergency candidate.**

Even with more pitchers being FAs than I would have imagined, it's pretty clear he was talking about Buehrle. You have to think he's the target with an outside chance of it being Oswalt. If they lose out on both those guys, you might see a cheap deal offered to Garcia or maaaaybe Millwood, if Rizzo is committed to get exactly the type of pitcher he said he was looking for.

*interesting to me side note #1 - at 6 seasons you find both Matt Cain (27 next year) and Felix Hernandez (26). These guys are studs. Cain will be a FA next year. Just saying.

**interesting to me side note #2 - the 2006 White Sox rotation featured Garcia, Buehrle, Garland AND Vazquez. All broke 200 IP. The 5th pitcher was Jose Contreras who gave them 196 innings. Only one start came from someone outside these 5. Why didn't they win? It was Buerhle and Garcia's worst years up to that point and Vazquez's second worst (and Garland and Contreras weren't that good to begin with)

Damn you Jerry Sandusky

2011-11-08T10:53:00.000-08:00

Moralizing sportwriting (quite possibly the worst kind of sportswriting) is up like 1000% in the past few days. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a overwrought, preachy column these days. Can't we talk about the BCS or something?

(yes and damn him for the child abuse too)

If you're thinking about getting Upton cheap

2011-11-07T12:09:00.000-08:00

Melky Cabrera, who is

A worse hitter than BJ Upton,
A worse fielder than BJ Upton,
A worse baserunner than BJ Upton,
on a contract no longer than BJ Upton's (though admittedly will be several million cheaper);

cost the Giants Johnathon Sanchez AND another (older) pitching prospect. (and some people think the Royals should have gotten more)

Detwiler + Flores != BJ Upton
Desmond + Marrero + Kimball != BJ Upton

Hot Stove - Outfield

2011-11-04T07:50:00.000-07:00

This is a tricky offseason for Mike Rizzo.   It seems pretty cut and dried. He should go out and get a CF, maybe get a pitcher and roll with that until 2013 when the team will likely have full seasons of Bryce, Strasburg and some free agent first baseman (or maybe Rendon). But what if he needs to trade a MI to get that CF or pitcher? Then he needs to get a MI too. What if he decides to bring up Bryce? Then he needs to somehow deal LaRoche (or Morse I guess) to make room. There's a lot of moving parts to this offseason. Let's look at each area in question individually and we'll start in the outfield

We all know Werth (6 yrs 112 million left) is set. They aren't going to give up on their big signing one year in and even if they wanted to, no one is going to take that contract off the Nats hands. Mike Morse will likely take the 2nd spot in the outfield. While it's tempting to say the Nats should start Morse at first over LaRoche, it doesn't make much sense, at least to start the year. Thanks to his injury Adam is non-tradeable, but beyond that there are too many good reasons to play him. The Nats want to be a pitch to contact good-field team. All the fancy stats agree, Morse is not a good fielder and LaRoche is. Adam, prior to the injury, was consistently a positive offensive player. And of course, the Nats are paying him 8 million dollars next year. What's the converse? Why do you not start Adam? Because Mike Morse seemed more comfortable at first? Because you want to bring up Bryce now? To me these are nice back-up plans to have but at season's start, if he's ready, LaRoche should be manning first.

Ok then who gets the third spot?   The popular choice is still Bryce. He's tearing it up in the AFL right now and could likely at the very least hang in the majors offensively in 2012. A couple things though. First, Rizzo has stated several times in the past he likes a slow deliberate build to the majors for his stars. Bryce didn't dominate AA last year. It's completely conceivable Rizzo would want to see that before moving the kid up. Also, the kid is still learning how to play the outfield. He's more of a corner outfielder, but to put him there would mean moving Werth to center. Moving a guy at 33 to the most important defensive position in the outfield is risky business. You could play him in center, which the Nats are trying to teach him, but all word is he's not good enough yet. Given Rizzo's emphasis on D, I just don't see it to start 2012. Everything here feels a year away.

Nix, Gomes, Bernadina? Ha ha ha. (by the way Gomes did hit himself out of Type B FA status so chalk that one up in the loss column for Rizzo)

Free agency isn't really viable. Grady Sizemore is the lottery ticket in CF. Prior to injuries he was a plus fielder in center and a great hitter. If he were to get back to that any team that signs him would have a huge steal. Of course most lottery tickets are losers. The injuries happened and it's been a long slog back just to be a bad major leaguer. He's played 100 games the last 2 years and hit .220 / .280 /.379 while doing it. This isn't a gamble, it's a sucker bet. If you get lucky it's by the grace of whatever deity Rizzo worships. Unless he can get him on a Wang-esque deal this doesn't seem to be Rizzo's type of guy.   The other name bandied about is Coco Crisp. Here are some numbers

34 years old .301 / .323 / .426
32 years old .264 /.314 / .376

The latter is Coco Crisp who I figure will get a multi-year deal around 10 million. The former?   Endy Chavez. Granted it's just one year (which is why you don't expect those middle stats to be repeated), but he's a plus fielder who you could plug in center for a year and pay very cheaply. I'm not advocating getting Endy. I'm saying there's no point in getting Coco. There just ins't value there. If Rizzo insists on going that route then yes, bring in a Chavez or Corey Patterson, or hell, bring back Ankiel. But that's not a smart idea. That's an acceptable non-move.

This leaves trades. We discussed this plenty back around the deadline, but the general consensus is that Upton will be rather expensive, Span too now that the Twins were able to unload Delmon Young, and Fowler is obtainable but seems unable to progress in any fashion in the majors. (Michael Bourn was the last name talked about but he got dealt to the Braves and is there in 2012) Rizzo has pieces to deal, guys like Norris and Detwiler, but ask yourself this; rumors suggested Rizzo balked at dealing Storen and Bernadina for Span. That's a reliever, a damn good one but still a reliever, and a 4th OF. Do you think he could he bring himself to deal a position player or starter? Guys with a ton more potential value? I don't see that either. Rizzo's (very typical by the way, so don't blame him. almost every GM is like this) over-valuation of his own talent / fear of losing a trade makes a deal for Upton or Span a non-starter in my book.

Which leaves the Nats with what in the end? A potential deal for Fowler. A guy who may very well benefit from a change of pace but at the same time might give the Nats nothing. He might be obtainable for the level of talent Rizzo would be willing to part with. Not exactly the big move Nats fans are looking for, but this is what I see.

Goodness In Baseball Bravery, Yep?

2011-11-01T11:33:00.001-07:00

I don't know if I like or don't like the fact this article was written as if I knew what the acronym "GIBBY" stood for.

I would have been rooting for the Cards all along

2011-10-31T07:49:00.000-07:00

If I knew this was the end result.

Here's a Monday Philosophical Question for you folks. What is the obsesssion with "going out on top"? Like why is that such a good thing? I've thought about it and I can't wrap my head around it.

I can see how some people would want to go out at a time of their choosing. Me, personally, if I was doing something that I loved and was getting paid exorbitantly for doing it, my "chosen time" would be when they kicked my ass out, but that's me. I get some people are prideful. But you don't have to go out "on top" to go out on your own volition. A couple years later when you are still good but can admit that it's gonna take a miracle for you to go out as a star again would still accomplish that. Think Derek Jeter, if he left this year.

No, the only reason I can see for wanting to go out on top is if what other people thought of you was so important that you wanted to make sure everyone thought of you as only a winner. (I can totally see that being true for Tony LaRussa by the way) Don't we teach our kids not to worry about what other people think? That it only matters if you're happy? Why the disconnect when it comes to entertainers, in this instance, sports figures?

This is a pet peeve of mine, along with back hair and dates who only talk about themselves. Nothing makes me madder than hearing some talk radio idiot spout off about how player X should retire because they are embarrassing themselves. Tell me how I'm wrong here. Tell me how Willie Mays should have stopped playing before he wanted to because some schmo 40 years from now will somehow still be focused on a dropped flyball and not 660 home runs over 20+ years of a hall-of-fame career.

Clarification : I guess I went a little off the rails in the middle there - but the question is more about us than them. I don't see Tony LaRussa's retirement as any better timed than say Whitey Herzog or Frank Robinsons. In fact it may be worse-timed if he still wanted to manage some more. John Elway's isn't better than Joe Montana's. Michael Jordan and Brett Favre didn't "ruin anything" by coming back. What's the counter argument? Win me over. It seems like a lot of people, I'd dare say the majority, feel the other way.

Ugh

2011-10-27T22:22:00.000-07:00

The Cardinals and Anya win in the same night? Double ugh. Am I right?

What a terribly played, terribly managed, terribly exciting game. It's a shame it didn't just end with Nelson Cruz trying really hard to miss that line drive because that really captured what Game 6 was all about.

Roy Oswalt talk

2011-10-25T08:30:00.000-07:00

Philly made it official, declining the 16 million dollar option on Roy Oswalt's option. With arbitration being extremely unlikely to get the Phillies the deal they want, Oswalt is going to be the free-est of the free agents, one that can be signed without losing any draft picks. That's a big bonus for draft pick loving Mike Rizzo. But there's more to Oswalt than just a typical free agent.

Oswalt has long made it clear the baseball life isn't really for him. He said before his last deal that he could very well retire when this contract is up, and every reporter seems to believe he's serious. This talk, and his last contract, make everyone believe that his next deal, if ithere is one, will be of the one or two year variety. That type of short-term investement and the lack of draft pick compensation would make him very attractive to the Nats... and everyone else. Oswalt will most likely get to pick and choose his next spot from a dozen suitors. Philadelphia could be it, but why take less money to throw in a hitters park, a long way from home, for a team possibly looking at an off year? It seems unlikely that he'll be back to me.

But pick and choose doesn't exactly bode well for the Nats. They should be good next year but can they guarantee a playoff spot? Is DC any practical distance closer to Mississippi than Philly? Texas, Atlanta, and St. Louis all could offer closer locations to home and arguably better shots at the playoffs. If he can't be wowed by the money then I just don't see Washington winning the bidding war for him.

Do the Nats even want Oswalt? Yes they do. The narrative of the season is a little alarming. The drop in K-rate (6.02 K/9 this year - 7.35 career) and the overwhelming reliance on his change (up from 15% of his pitches last year to 19% last year) rather than his breaking stuff (down from 29% to 20%) says "pitcher on the decline". But this narrative is misleading. First off everything else remained stable. He was walking the same, giving up the same type of hits. Sure his HR/FB ratio was a little lucky (0.65 this year, 0.75 career) but the BABIP he had was a little unlucky (.316 , .296). Nothing else says decline. More importantly, if you look at his splits before and after injury, you can see that the back was bringing him down. He was at 15% breaking stuff and a 5.3 K/9 when he went out. He came back and pitched more in line with what you'd expect from Oswalt.

Roy Oswalt going to pitch well. If healthy, he could be great. If like this year, he's still good. As a one or two year gamble, any team would do well to pick up Oswalt. I don't see it being the Nats.

Driving While Disappointing Advertisers

2011-10-24T07:26:00.001-07:00

Phew. We were one Napoli swing away from "Cardinals staff is better than you think" articles.

Also, Joe Torre is thinking about banning beer in all clubhouses. This is insane. Oh it's not insane that they are thinking about doing it. Sure it's an overreaction that infantilizes grown men, but this is sports- they do that all the time. No, it's insane because it's not a DUI or a death that causes this issue to reach a head, it's because THE RED SOX MISSED THE PLAYOFFS.

"Step out of the vehicle, sir."
"What's going on, officer? What did I blow?"
"A nine-game lead for the Wild Card, sir".

Bryce might not be a first-ballot Hall of Famer

2011-10-20T07:39:00.000-07:00

Maybe.

His slow start in the Arizona Fall League (.200 / .282 / .400 over 9 games - though his last games was a 3 hit affair with a double and a homer) shouldn't worry anyone. He just, like Sunday "just", turned 19. He could spend 2 more whole years figuring out how to hit good pitching, come up in the spring of 2014, and still be a super young rookie.

But I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to dial the hype machine down just a tad. All the way back in early summer this year the comparisons made were to Griffey and A-Rod and Mantle. These comparisons didn't just come from slobbering fanboys but from places where you'd expect reason to reign. And they were fair comparisons.

18 year old A-ball stints
Junior : .338 / .431 /.575
A-Rod : .319 /.379 /.605
Bryce : .318 /.423 / .554

But things get a little less favorable for Bryce during each players brief AA stints the same year.
Junior : .279 /.353 /.492
A-Rod : .288 / .391 / .441
Bryce : .256 /.329 / .395

"But Harper" you say (well actually YOU probably say "But Mr. Blogger Man!" because "Harper" is Bryce to you. You are wrong. I'm Harper!) "It's only 37 games for Bryce (and 17 for Griffey and A-Rod) in AA. That's not enough of a sample size to make a fair comparison!"You're right. But neither is the 72, 65, and 58 games spent in A-ball. We all want Bryce to be the next big thing. Nats fans obviously , but there also seems to be a push from everyone to anoint Bryce the greatest thing ever. Why? Well I think because we're in a little bit of a dry spell for great young players.

I looked up players who amassed WARs of 25 or more by the age of 25. You have a lot of guys that have hit speed bumps on their way to dominant offensive careers. Mauer - injured and not yet recovered, Sizemore - injured and maybe not ever recovering, Wright - just suffered through his worst year (which actually wasn't that bad. Mets fans don't appreciate this guy like they should), and Hanley Ramirez - just suffered through HIS worst year (which actually was that bad). Jose Reyes just had a great year but his value is tied up a lot in his defense. He's more of a good bat with great D than an offensive force. Almost all these guys are 28 (Hanley is 27) so chances of an explosion into something REALLY special are rapidly dwindling.

There are only two great young bats out there yet to get sidetracked, Miguel Cabrera and Evan Longoria, and both of them are on the low end of WAR totals in comparison to the guys we are looking at. For Longoria that's is pretty fair. He's a great fielder and a very good hitter but he's not in the "OMG" highest echelon. He's still young enough to go on a Frank Thomas like tear through his later 20s, but that's a tall order. Cabrera on the other hand is hanging in there with the bat. He's just terrible in the field.

There isn't much coming. The "young" guys rounding into form like Ellsbury, Kemp, Tulo, are all 27/28. Maybe Mike Stanton can turn a corner? Elvis Andrus can start hitting .330? Zimm can be that new Frank Thomas? The best hope is Justin Upton who finally broke through to what people expected from him but he's 3 years behind the Griffeys and the A-Rods of MLB history and has yet to repeat this level of awesomeness.

In terms of an elite, first-ballot, no-doubter, you know when he's 27 enjoy the ride, type guy, baseball hasn't lacked one since the late 70s. Henderson and Ripken rolled into Bonds, who rolled into Griffey, who rolled into A-Rod, who rolled into Pujols. There isn't one out there right now. Baseball is hungry for Bryce to be that guy. Can he be? Yes. Will he be? Maybe, but let's wait until he's in the majors putting up MVP seasons at the age of 21 before we go there, ok?

Offseason for everyone

2011-10-18T07:46:00.000-07:00

With only 4 or 5 games left in the season (I'm picking the Rangers in 5 so gotta at least believe in myself) the baseball season is pretty much done. The Nats might be active in trades and free agency, but then again they might not be. 2012 is still not about the playoffs. They could choose to wait it out another year and see how all those young players progress before making any moves. 2013 also looks to have a deeper free agent class and LaRoche will be done giving the Nats some more flexibility. While I expect one trade, for either a starter or a CF, don't be disappointed if they do nothing. Well... I can't tell you how to feel, so scratch that. Don't be surprised. Because I told you nothing might happen. I think that's fair

Given nothing is happening, the posts are slowing down. Look for more 3 posts a week than 5 posts a week during the offseason. I'm also might get on Twitter (mainly because I still get confused at times reading tweets by those symbols and I don't like feeling that out of touch) so if you are dying for Nats baseball information there might be that.

Dammit again.

2011-10-17T07:30:00.000-07:00

When the playoffs start I generally break teams down into 4 groups. The team(s) I'm rooting for, the teams I wouldn't mind seeing win, the teams I just don't care about, and the teams I don't want to win. Because I'm a hooker with a baseball of gold, few teams fall into the last two categories. I can usually find some reason to be interested in a team and there aren't many dislikable teams in baseball (at least to me). In this year's playoffs almost any combination would have been an ok world series to me, but one of the few (two?) that wouldn't is the one we got. Nice.

I don't care about the Rangers. In theory I should be able to get behind Josh Hamilton, since he appeared in the small Christmas parade that goes right in front of my house before he had his breakout year, but I just can't get up any sort of emotion. I'm not interested in seeing any of their pitchers. There isn't a batter on the team who's at bats are can't miss. They don't compel. Watching the Rangers for me is watching baseball because I want to watch baseball. That's not a bad thing but you hope for something more out of the World Series than "last chance to watch baseball".

Of course that's better than the Cardinals, who were the only team that made the playoffs that would bother me if they won it all. Most of that is because of LaRussa. The guy is an insufferable pain who thinks he's 10 times smarter than everyone. You can't watch him without wanting to punch him in the face. He's the Bill Maher of major league managers. Plus I'm not over the 2006 WS winning team. Those guys represent everything that's wrong with the playoff system. You want to try to find the best team in the league not a mediocre squad that sneaks into the playoffs, gets hot at the right time, and ends up champion because the team they are facing keeps tripping over its own two feet. They even got David Eckstein an MVP! David Eckstein! For being the 4th best hitter on his team during the series and having a misplayed fly ball end up being his "big hit". Forget Maris and Bonds, this team should have an asterisk. At least let enough time pass so I can forget what an abomination that series was before putting yourself back in line to win another championship. (on the plus side - I can get behind Berkman winning a ring and Pujols is appt watching)

Any way so there you go. Go Rangers, I guess.

Nonsense hypotheticals blogs are made for

2011-10-14T08:47:00.000-07:00

If Rizzo is ready to win, he should go get Josh Beckett.

Not saying he's available, because trading him would be dumb (listen to this guy, not this guy) but the fans are clamoring for one of the drinking, chicken-eating pitchers to go*. It's not going to be Lester. He's good young and cheap. It's not going to be Lackey. He's terrible and is paid like a bazillion dollars for a million years. (Unless the RedSox eat like 80% of the salary and if so.. well go get Lackey It'd be 3 million a year for 3 years. I'd take that gamble) So it would have to be Beckett.

Would you deal for Beckett? What would you give up for him. He's good and young and durable so you're talking top prospects here. Rendon. Cole and Purke. Something like that.

*Speaking of which - how dumb is that? The Red Sox didn't make the plaoyffs because (in no particular order) Crawford has the worst year ever, Youkilis missed 40 games and underperformed when he played, JD Drew finally gave up the ghost, Jed Lowrie regressed, Wakefield finally started failing, Clay Buchholz missed half the year, they could never find a decent 5th starter, and they had issues with bullpen depth. None of that can be blamed on shenanigans (I left out Lackey sucking - because I guess you could link those if you wanted) All that couldn't be made up for their only positive surprise - Ellsbury's MVP season. And yet fans want to blame some guys having beer and chicken on their off-days. Fans are stupid.

Statistical Meandering and Bad Stats

2011-10-13T07:35:00.000-07:00

While watching the games last night I was informed of two things.   The first was the advantage the team winning game 3 gets, after splitting the first two games.   I'm not exactly sure, but I believe they said that 78% of such teams went on to win the series. Ok, fine. But is that a tangible advantage or a simple mathematical one? And by that I mean - what would the odds be if wins were just randomly assigned?

There are 10 possible combinations remaining for the games involved. Making two big assumptions, equal probability of winning and no home field advantage, the odds work out that the Cardinals would win this sereis 68.75% of the time if each of the future games was decided by a coin flip. (25% chance they win in 5, 25% chance they win in 6, 18.75% chance they win in 7). That is noticeably smaller than 78% so that would suggest there would be a psychological advantage in winning game 3.

Of course that's way too simple. Home field advantage should be factored in. Unfortunately, that involves going back and looking at each of these series individually. In the interest of time, I'm not going to do that. That other assumption though, I can make a run at that. If a team has won 2 of 3 games, it makes more sense to believe that they are the better team. If that's the case, they would win more than 50% of the games against their opponent. (Note I'm not saying the Cardinals are better than the Brewers. I'm saying if we looked at all these series that the winner of game 3 would be objectively better than the loser more often than not). What does that mean for the chance of winning?

If we simply bump up the percentage chance of winning an individual game to 52%, the odds of winning the series gets bumped up to 71.7%. Is 52% high? I don't think so. That's like saying if these two teams played a 162 game season solely against each other, the better team would win 84 games. To get to a 78% advantage, though, you are looking at a 57% win chance. That's in the better team winning 92 games area. That does seem high. These teams don't win much more than that against a mix of all sorts of teams. To win that many solely playing against a good squad seems unlikely.

There are other things to be considered, too, notably how many such series they are actually looking at and the strength of the starters due to pitch. This isn't anything more than playing with numbers, though. We're sitting at a chance of winning the series in the low 70s right now. Off the top of my head, I'd say I'm still not convinced that that 78% is anything more than a blip of a few percentage points caused by small sample size.

BAD STAT ALERT

The bad stat that I was informed of was made in an attempt to say how unlikely it was that the Cardinal bullpen would hold the lead. They noted that only YOUR Washington Nationals had more blown saves.   That didn't seem right to me so I looked it up. It's true. But you'll also see on that link why that's a bad stat. The Nats had more save opportunities than all but one other team. Their save percentage wasn't great but it wasn't near the worst in the league. Same for the Cardinals.

If you want to evaluate the relief core fairly, well there's a lot of directions you can go. ERA (Cardinals 11th, Nats 4th), xFIP (7th and 8th), looking individually at the players involved and their applicable situational stats :
Salas: 2.28 ERA, 3.62 xFIP
Lynn : 2.22 ERA, 2.21 xFIP
Rzepczynski : held lefties to a .163 / .256 /.221 line with 37 Ks in 118 at bats
Motte : 2.25 ERA, 3.39 xFIP.

Looking at this it's not that suprising the Brewers didn't score again. You would have expected baserunners, and maybe 1 run was more likely than zero, but the story here isn't "How is this flawed bullpen doing this?", it's "smart managing of an average bullpen".   But never let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

Please lose St. Louis

2011-10-11T21:53:00.000-07:00

Please

(Sorry Lance Berkman)

No Gomeses and Dykstras in 2012, please.

2011-10-11T06:59:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I off-handedly mentioned Jonny Gomes might have lost his Free Agent B status. I checked it out, and the reverse engineerer at MLB trade rumors seems to think so, too. These aren't official by any means but he's shown a good track record of getting it right.

What does this mean? Rizzo traded away something of value on a good bet that he'd make his team worse. Gomes was hitting .211 / .336 / .399 when he was dealt. It couldn't have shocked the team when he followed up with 2 months of .204 / .299 / .366 baseball. Oh he did ok starting against lefties, but that wasn't the point of bringing in Gomes. It was to provide righty pop off the bench and hopefully get the Nats a draft pick. Gomes got all of 0 hits in 18 PH at bats (presumably mostly against lefties). He likely won't bring back any compensation if the Nats were to offer him arbitration. Manno and Rhinehart are not huge losses but when your buddy hands over $3 for a bag of magic beans, you still gotta call him out on being stupid.

This isn't the first time Rizzo has given up something for nothing. Whatever you think about dealing Nyjer Morgan, and the fanbase truly is split, it was a bad trade. Morgan had value. Cutter Dykstra was a waste of a minor league space in 2011.

These deals fly in 2011 if only because each individual win wasn't important. So what if he made smarter deals and got the Nats a win or 2 more? It doesn't change the fortunes of the squad. I've liked the job Rizzo has done so far. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. But it's time for Rizzo to reign in his less successful qualities. Don't obssess over getting one more draft pick. Don't throw guys away for nothing just because you don't like them. In 2012 each individual win may very well matter.

2011 Review - Trades

2011-10-10T07:26:00.000-07:00

It's the off-season and with deals likely to be bandied about over the next few months, now's a good time to go back and look at the trades made this season and what the early indications are based on post-trade performance. This is not to settle "winners and losers", given it's only been 3 months since the latest of these deals took place, it's just to give of a feeling of how these may end up when we look back at them years from now.

Traded Josh Willingham (.246 / .332 / .477, 29 homers) to the Oakland Athletics. Received Corey Brown (AAA .235 / .326 / .402, 134Ks in 124 games) and Henry Rodriguez.(3.56 ERA 45BB 70 K 14 WP)

It would have been nice to have Willingham's pop but it probably would have been at the expense of Mike Morse playing. Right there this looks like a good deal for the Nats. Corey Brown's nice AA stint looks like a fluke and feelings are trending toward the idea he'll never make enough contact to hang in the majors. Henry Rodriguez remains a mystery. Is he Brian Bruney or Joel Hanrahan? Still no answer and until we figure that out this trade is more of a nothing for nothing deal.

Traded A.J. Morris (didn't pitch in 2011), Graham Hicks (3.98 ERA in A-ball ) and Michael Burgess (.225 20HR in A+ ball) to the Chicago Cubs. Received Tom Gorzelanny.(4.46 ERA as a starter, 2.42 as a reliever)

Gorzelanny might have flopped out of the 5th starter role, but he'll be an inexpensive and effective long reliever / spot starter in 2012. AJ Morris was the big get for the Cubs but his injury recovery from shoulder surgery was slow. Graham Hicks and Burgess are both 21 meaning they will both be old next year for the league they were in, especially for high school guys. Nothing about Hicks line makes you think he'll make the majors. Burgess still has a ton of power but until he can get that average up he's not going anywhere. Right now it's looking good for Rizzo.

Traded Justin Maxwell (.260 16 homers in 48 games) to the New York Yankees. Received Adam Olbrychowski (4.16 ERA in A+).

Olbie is a failed starter that's looking very much to be a failed reliever. If 22 is on the old side for non-college A-ball guys what is 24? Maxwell showed crazy power (a homer every 3rd game) in AAA before injuring his shoulder. If Maxwell can come back from injury the Yankees should get some value from him where I doubt the Nats are going to get anything from Adam, but still that's an "if". Pretty nothing deal right now.

Traded Nyjer Morgan (.304 , plus defense in CF) to the Milwaukee Brewers. Received Cutter Dykstra (.212 / .265 / .265 line in A+ ball) and cash.

Terrible trade. You can argue whether or not the Nats should have dealt Morgan, but you can't argue that the Nats got nothing of value back for him. Nyjer was a major league CF with at least a few good years left and a decent track record of success at the plate and in the field. You have to get something more back for him than a kid who's still in the minors because of one good year and a famous last name.

Traded Alberto Gonzalez (.215 / .256 / 283) to the San Diego Padres. Received Erik Davis (5.30 ERA in A and AA) and cash.

Erik Davis is another 24 year arm that didn't produce in A and AA, but it was very much a surprise that he performed that badly. Alberto is nothing but a defensive replacement. Nats might have thought they were getting a steal here, but again nothing for nothing right now.

Traded Bill Rhinehart (.287 / .380 / .513 in AA) and Christopher Manno (0.53 ERA, 31 K , 6 BB in 13 games in A+ ball, ) to the Cincinnati Reds. Received Jonny Gomes (.204 / .229 / .306 3 homers in 43 games) and cash.

Jonny Gomes did nothing good for the Nats. He didn't play well enough to hope he'd decline arbitration. (He might have even played himself out of Type B status at that) He didn' help Nix by putting him in a platoon situation. He didn't hit well enough to give the Nats a win or two. Rhinehart kept doing what he's doing - heading toward a few years on the bench in the majors. Manno though, Manno looks like he's only getting better. It was only 17 innings with the Reds, but he was that good with the Nats before hand. It's a long way from A+ to the majors but this could be a stinker of a deal for the Nats in a few years. A good lefty is a good lefty.

Traded Jerry Hairston (.274 / .348 / .379) to the Milwaukee Brewers. Received Erik Komatsu (.234 / .298 / .297 in AA).

Komatsu took a step back after coming over. It doesn't look good but like Davis he had a decent track record. Unlike Davis he's 23 and ended the year in AA, not 24 in A+. He gets more leeway. We'll see how he does next season. Hairston helped the Brewers with his continued decent play, but the Nats didn't need him and the trade was pretty fair. I can't fault Rizzo here.

Traded Jason Marquis (9.53 ERA) to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Received Zachary Walters (.293 / .336 / .371 in A+).

Walters lost a little pop as the Nats moved him up from A-ball to A+ball, but he played decent enough to maybe move up to AA next year. That's good enough to lay off him for the time being. The real shame here is the Nats sitting on Marquis rather than dealing him while he was (relatively) hot. Walters is a fair return for the Marquis they dealt, but the Marquis sitting at 3.50 at the end of June with 7 runs given up in his last 5 games could have brought more. The trade itself isn't a loser, but it isn't what it could have been for the cost of maybe a win or two.

Tigers

2011-10-07T11:57:00.000-07:00

Part of me wants to root for the Tigers the rest of the way. The other part of me cannot stand another round of "POOR DETROIT NEEDS THIS!!!!" talk. Right now the first part is stronger. Make your move, media.

2011 Review - My Predictions

2011-10-07T07:53:00.000-07:00

I feel like if you are going to make predictions you need to go back and look at them otherwise they are pretty pointless. So today I'm going to go over what I said on Opening Day and how they turned out. I'm pretty terrible at these things and admit as much so be kind. I'm not picking on any of the crazy statements made by you commenters.

"79 wins"
Hey not bad at all! One of the key points to picking this many wins was knowing that 2010's team was a bit unlucky and should have won a few more games. I wasn't really thinking 10 game improvement as much as 7 game. I was betting on improvement from the offense and the starting pitching, but I'm sure I was thinking Werth and LaRoche would help and we'd get average starts from #2-#5 (unlike 2010s terrible back-end) not that Morse and ZNN would be borderline All-Stars.

"I'll go with Lannan being the best pitcher in the rotation. Livan worst"
Lannan was good but ZNN was clearly the best. You could argue Livan was the worst (4.47 ERA), but really Gorzelanny couldn't even hold his spot. That's gotta be worserer. And I'm sure I was thinking something far worse than a 4.50 ERA for Livan.

"I think I've convinced myself that Desmond won't be starting at short all year long."
Real close for a while (at least in the Should World), but a August/September pick-up and the fact that Lombardozzi was a complete dud in his first major league try meant that Ian never lost his spot.

"Ankiel will have most starts in center, but he won't get to 81 games there."
Yes and No. Ankiel would start 84 games in center (and play in 105 games there). Jesus, that's a lot of Ankiel.

"Storen will stick as closer. H-Rod won't pitch in the majors until September call-ups."

Yes and No. (I got to stop bundling these). Nailed the Storen bet. You could argue H-Rod still needed to work on his control in the minors but that's not the bet. He came up at the end of April 30th and hung around the whole year pitching in 59 games.

"Over/Under on Wang + Maya starts for the Nationals at 4. Who wants the over?"
Not even close. Maya himself started 5 games (3 too many) and I feel I was right in spirit on him. But Wang finally got over his injury and started 11. Way off.

"Team Leader" Pudge, the super veteran / professional becomes an unhappy distraction as he loses playing time to Ramos."
I was even more wrong here. Pudge showed nothing but class about being regulated to back-up duty. I have to say that I feel I haven't appreciated Pudge enough. Oh he shouldn't be playing regularly on a major league team, but his defense is still good enough to be a back-up at a position where back-ups regularly can't hit OR field. And it's not his fault the Nats gave him that silly contract and played him everyday. He loves the game so he should go out and play it. It's the Nats that made him hateable.

"I'll go with the Marlins crashing below the Nationals and the Braves to take the division as the Phillies offense implodes with the combination of Utely's injury, Howard's aging, and Rollins being only sometimes good anyway. Take that Cliff Lee - you big jerk"
Another Yes and no. The Marlins did crash below the Nats. Well crash is probably too strong a word but they did go from 80 wins last year to 72 this year, good for tied for 12th in a fairly competitive NL. The Braves though didn't pass the Phillies. Utley was limited, but Howard didn't take another step back like he did in 2010, Rollins had a bounce back year, and somehow Shane Victorino had the year of his life. Cliff Lee is still a jerk though.

Goddammit

2011-10-07T06:35:00.001-07:00

Am I supposed to console myself with 5 World Series titles, the last of which was only 2 seasons ago? I am?

Oh well, yeah that works ok, but no promises for next year.

Lazy Sportswrting 201 - Losing in the Playoffs

2011-10-06T06:28:00.000-07:00

This is not just a blog about the Nationals. Oh no. It's is also a service blog for young journalists aspiring to be lazy sportswriters. With the next two days filled to the brim with elim... ination games (see how lazy that was? Take notes!) I figured I would help out those plucky kids with a guide to what type of column they should write if their team loses. All they have to do is answer two simple questions and find the corresponding column below.

Is your team young, in its prime, or aging?
In the last 3 years or so have they not made the playoffs, made the playoffs and lost, or made the playoffs and won it all?

That's all it takes. With those questions answered and the knowledge of whether the team won or lost, you can fill in the names like Mad Libs. While this doesn't hold true 100% of the time (losing all the time like the Cubs, or winning all the time like the Yankees creates a different scenarios) it works amazingly well. Ask all those Red Sox writers typing madly about team unity. For those wondering if these columns will be creative enough, you have the word of someone who named his blog "Nationals Baseball", what more do you need?

Young - No Playoffs
"Can't handle the pressure yet" Everyone knows that young players can't handle the pressure cooker that is the playoffs! Pressure cookers are hot! Stay out of this hot kitchen, rookie! Bring up a few clutch moments where they failed, talk about how they probably shouldn't have even been here, (because they are so young!) and finish with how they'll probably be here again. Make sure to note how the team loved their taste of the playoffs and the fans should be excited about the team's hungriness to get back. So hungry! Also remember that since they are young they are probably a bunch of fun guys. I bet they did the shaving cream pie thing or had some fun symbol they did after every big play. Talk about that, too. Everybody likes fun guys.
Young - Playoff Losers
"Missing Piece" Similar to the "Can't handle the pressure yet" column (they are still young and learning, aren't they) but with more focus on the places they need to improve. And let's be honest - unless there is an obvious hole - what they need is some veteran presence! The vigorousnessness of youth is actually hindering the team in some unknown way. Remember how last year they were fun? Maybe they are too fun this year. They need some focus. Veterans have laser focus. Examine the team that beat them and point out a veteran guy on that squad. That guy was so veteran! Note that they would stand a better chance with someone who's been there before who can lead the team to success just by merely standing next to players much more talented than he is currently. (If there is an obvious hole, then they need that... and some veteran presence)
Prime - No Playoffs
"Chokers, Blame Someone" Teams don't lose in the playoffs because it's a tiny number of games dominated by which pitchers happen to be hot right now. That's crazy talk! What are you? Living in your mother's basement? Nerd Alert! Am I right? Teams lose because someone messed up. Hopefully that person made it easy for you and went 0-13 or something but sometimes you have to dig deeper. Here's some help. It was probably the manager. If not him, than anyone in particular that is unpopular that underperformed will do, but also maybe the manager. Kind of hint that if they changed this one thing that they might win next time, but don't go too hard in this direction though because they probably won't change that one thing and they could very well win next year.*
Prime -Playoff Losers
   "Chokers, Blame Everyone!" What a bunch of arrogant jerks, am I right? They believe their own press. They felt entitled! Entitled! 25 players - 26 cabs! (one guy paid for a empty cab to follow him just to put more space between him and his teammates) They thought they could just cruise to a title without even trying! The manager has lost the clubhouse! The GM doesn't know what he's doing! This team has no heart! Look at the team that beat them! That's a TEAM! Chemsitreamwork! ARRGELGLEGLE! (Congratulations! You hit the lazy sportswriter lottery. Take every little thing and blow it out of proportion. If they won like 5-8 years ago be sure to write about how things were better when they had guys like Scrappy Joe around. Fans eat that up.)
Old - No Playoffs
   "Happy to be there" These guys just didn't give up. Despite having some failing that kept them out of the playoffs or World Series in most of the recent years (which you can bring up offhandedly) they kept plugging at it until they finally made it. Fighters. Battlers. Warriors. Really just making it was a success, so focus on that. Talk about all they've done individually over the years like All-Star appearances. Mention aches and pains as battle scars, close call seasons as heartbreaks, and just how old they are. Old old old. Also good here are "what if" columns. If they traded away or let a guy go in free agency that became real good you can get something from that.
Old - Playoff Losers
   "Didn't have what it takes" Losers. Chokers.That's what these guys are. They made the playoffs over and over and just couldn't get over the hump. They didn't have what it takes, pure and simple. Point out some scrappy player on the other team and compare him to a well paid player that didn't do well in his playoff at bats. Say the team needed more of those guys. Talk about how you could see the pressure get to them. They tried too hard. They needed guys that were more relaxed like that team that beat them. Maybe go ahead and throw some valid reasons in there if you feel like it, but it's not vital. (oh and don't think too hard about why these guys are choking losers and the guys that didn't even make the playoffs all those years are fighters to be praised. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS)
Young/Prime - Winners
"Normal Column" - Fans are still happy that the team won in the past couple of years so there is no real reason to make anyone angry. If you're lucky maybe there is a free agent to be or a player retiring that you can focus your column, or maybe a big injury. If not write the same boring end of the year column you'd write for a not good team that missed the playoffs. Good here, bad there, blah blah blah, next year. This ain't rocket science.
Old - Winners
"End of an Era?" Old winning teams will eventually not win and for the lazy sportswriter you have to always be half-heartedly looking for that time. Maybe it can be a "lost their hunger" column but you're probably better just talking about how they were too old to get it done. Definitely bring up an old guy that didn't do well this time. Maybe someone stumbled in the field so you can bring up Willie Mays. Old teams always have nagging injuries, don't forget those. I'm sure someone is slow or struck out too much. Assume it was because of old age. My recommendation on an overall column theme? Focus on one of the older vets cleaning out his locker. It's pretty symbolic. Powerful stuff.

*Actually don't go hard unless you are ready to be THAT columnist who just says things with the hopes he can eventually get on TV. If you are, then go right ahead and write... nay DEMAND they make that change. Don't worry about making sense. Worry about being loud. The louder you are, the better. When they don't make that change and lose again next year (because 31 teams do lose, the chances are pretty damn good) you can ride this train all the way to a half-hour on a local network and a 2 hour radio show. You're on your way to moderate local celebrity. Comped at Applebees, baby!

Playoff Nats

2011-10-05T07:17:00.000-07:00

If you are interested in rooting for teams based on former Nats that played for them this season, here you go. (and let me know if I missed any - it was late when I put this together)

Brewers
Nyjer Morgan*
Jerry Hairston Jr
Wil Neives
Felipe Lopez
Marco Estrada*
Josh Wilson

Diamondbacks
Wily Mo Pena
Armando Galarraga (ok he didn't really ever play for the Nats but it feels like it, doesn't it?)
Jason Marquis

Phillies
Brian Schneider*
Pete Orr

Cardinals
Corey Patterson
Miguel Batista

Rangers
Endy Chavez*

Yankees
Luis Ayala*

Tigers
None

(thanks Steven at FJB for a couple more names - and yes, I cut the Rays out. Losers walk. Oh and I don't count the days of Colby Lewis in Spring Training. Only Major League experience and guys we've argued about his level of importance in a trade for years)

*FINE - on Postseason rosters. It's not like anyone other than Morgan will get significant time in important innings.

Lucky or Unlucky - 2011 version

2011-10-04T07:53:00.000-07:00

As I talked about last year, seasons are usually made or broken by things you didn't plan for. Players either suprpassing expectations or falling well below them. Taking a look at if your team had more "luck" when it comes to these things can be one more piece to figure out where to set expectations for next year.   Ok you can just use the pythagorean record*, that pretty much does the same thing, but I like to take it a bit deeper.

*If you must know - based on the Nats runs scored and runs allowed the Nats were "expected" to win 78 games. Their adjusted standings (at Baseball Prospectus), which tries to adjust even further for the level of competition faced and take out things like the randomness of clutch hitting, pegs the Nats at around 79 wins. So they seemed to be right on target in 2011.

EXPECTED / FORSEEABLE
Bench was terrible. CF was a huge mess. Pudge couldn't hit. Espinosa and Ramos held their own in year 1. Ian Desmond struggled for relevance at the plate. Lannan, Livan, Marquis, Gorzelanny all pitched as expected. Stockpiled bullpen arms were good. Strasburg good upon return.

LUCKY
Mike Morse - While you might have pegged Morse as a big contributer to the Nats in 2011, nothing about the previous three years screamed .300 30 HR hitter. (.303 and 31 to be precise). The Nats really lucked out here when you think about it, because a healthy LaRoche could have very well regulated Morse to part time duty for a good part of the season.

Clippard - Clippard is a very good relief pitcher, but dominant seasons like he had this year don't come around often. Just look at last year. The ERA leaders (70 IP) were Brian Wilson (1.81), Tim Stauffer (1.85), Heath Bell (1.93), Daniel Bard (1.93), and Jonny Venters (1.95).   This year their ERAs were 3.11, 3.73, 2.44, 3.33, and 1.84, in a year when offense continued to decline. Clippard will still be good going foward but this is a lightning in a bottle year.

Zimmermann - Jordan came back from injury and pitched better than he ever had before sporting a 3.18 ERA and 124 ks in 161 IP. Watching ZNN in 2009 there was certainly a feeling he could be this good, but he could be a tiny bit wild and was homer happy leading to an ERA in the mid 4.00s. Improvement to say a 4.00 ERA in an injury return year would have been great. To do this well in 2011 was well beyond anything that Nats fans could have hoped for.

The results from Detwiler, Milone, Peacock - Generally when you bring up young pitchers, they struggle, especially if they aren't the "can't miss" Strasburgs of the world. Milone (3.81 ERA), Detwiler (3.00 ERA), and Peacock (0.75 ERA) seemed to do fine. Scrape the surface of the fancy stats, though, and you'll see that they should have given up more runs than they did, (for example - Peacock allowed 13 base runners in 12 innings, didn't K people like you think he would - only 4 - and gave up a ton of fly balls. His xFIP was 6.27. Yet he only gave up 1 run. This is called "pushing it")

Rotation health - every pitcher the Nats had this year gave them pretty much every start you'd expect. Lannan 33, Livan 29 then shut down for youth at year's end, ZNN 26 then shut down innings limit, Marquis 20 then traded. Starter health goes a LONG way toward team success.

UNLUCKY
LaRoche goes down - The Nats brought in damaged goods. The good-field, good enough hit Laroche only squeaked out a quarter season of awful baseball before going under the knife. It didn't end up killing the Nats thanks to Morse, but the typical Laroche year is better than what Nix put out last year. They definitely lost something at the plate (not to mention the field)

Zimmerman's missing time - Ryan Zimmerman is a key player for the Nats. He can't miss a lot of time without it hurting the team. He missed 60 games this year.

Werth crash - Despite the fact we all know he was overpaid, no one could have predicted it would have gotten this bad, this quickly. The guy hit .282 / .380 /. 506 the past 4 years. Even for those that "knew it was coming" because he only hit great in Philly, his away numbers in 2010 were .266 / .371 / .457 and that was the worst year he had on the road in the past 4. .232 / .330 / .389?   That came out of nowhere.

What does this mean? Most likely the pitching could suffer a bit while the hitting bounces back, but there's a lot of caveats here. For the pitching, there should be an injury concern and whichever of D/M/P makes the rotation could struggle. But it's not this years rotation that this is happening to, it's 2012's, the one that includes Strasburg. And while Zimmermann's 2011 might have been lucky, a repeat in 2012 wouldn't be. As long as that injury doesn't happen to Strasburg or ZNN the rotation should be in about as good shape as this year and could be better even with less luck. Bullpens tend to have off years and great years, so that's a crap shoot but at a base level I'd expect them to be at least average tilting better.

For the hitting you'd expect a bounce back from off-years and injuries to key players but it could swing wildly. Think about this - Morse hits .275 with 23 homers, Werth has another off year, Zimm get injured, Espinosa and Ramos both regress a little, LaRoche is no good anymore. Anything unexpected or unlucky here? No, and the hitting would collapse to about worst in the league. Now think about this - Morse hits .290 and 28 homers, Werth bounces back, Zimm plays 150 games, Espinosa and Ramos both improve a litte, LaRoche comes back as gives a decent year? Again, nothing unexpected or out of the world lucky here, but now your looking at an offense that's... well it's middle of the road to top third, but that's a big improvement.

Twist my arm and I'll repeat what I said - pitching will suffer a bit while hitting bounces back - but that's not a strong bet to make. THe pitching part is based on the Nats having a near perfect year on the mound in 2011 avoiding bad luck, and the hitting is based on 6 key players all of whom who could have wildly divergent results in 2012 without anything surprising happen. Better to wait to see what they do in the offseason and see if that clears things up any.

Monday!

2011-10-03T07:26:00.000-07:00

It's the best day of the week, am I right?

Over/Under results

9pts - WINNER
Calindc (only missed on the Pudge 2 hit barrage)

8 pts
Hoo
Michael K
7pts
Nattydread
6pts
Me!
Wally
Donald
Cass
5pts
John O'Connor
Froggy
4pts
Dezo

Smarties -

Donald was the only one to go with Pudge getting more than one hit and presumably paid off Davey and a couple pitchers to make it happen. Hope it was worth it Donald.
Calindc was the only one to not believe in Werth. In the last 2 weeks of the season, Jayson hit .200 / .256 / .300. Way to finish strong there.

Dummies -

John O'Connor was the only one not to believe in John Lannan. BOOOOOO! BOOOOOO!
Cass was the only one who had Clippard going over 2.00 in ERA. From Sept 5th to the end of the year Clip pitched 14 2/3 innings, gave up 1 run (solo homer), 6 hits in total, 2 walks, 16 Ks.

Notes

Davey Johnson or Terry Francona? Does it matter? When Davey got hired I noted that there seemed to be no "Lay off" effect for managers. So he should be ok. Francona should be ok. I'd say keep Davey because if it doesn't matter then why rock the boat.

Pitcher Needed? Yes. But only if they get an outfielder first and trade a pitcher to do it. (or if they let Wang walk - which I'm ok with but I'm not the fan of Wang that some people here are).

Anyone else excited about the prospect of Nyjer Morgan in the World Series?

Final Standings

2011-09-29T10:37:00.000-07:00

I'm sick right now so this'll be brief but this is real improvement. This is something to be excited about. In September you are playing other teams full of youngsters or teams vying for playoff spots. To come out with a winning record means your young'uns are pretty good. And the Nats ones are.

It'll be an interesting offseason. We've talked about how the Nats need one more arm in the rotation, but do they really? If they just keep everyone they have now wouldn't that work? There's nothing wrong with getting another solid arm, but I think it would.

Then again the offense (12th in runs scored) is an issue. They have no reliable superstar bats. Zimm should be good - but he's starting to get injured more than you'd like. Morse should be good - but it is a season that has "career year" written all over it. Ramos and Espinosa could be better, could. Werth should be better, should. There's a lot of question marks here and to bring in one more reliable bat (presumably in center) would help alot. To do that they may need to deal one of the young arms they have now. Then the team would have to go out and get another arm. So it's not needing another arm, because they don't have the arms here now. It's needing another arm because they won't have the arms there later.

Get excited for next season and in the meantime... Go Yankees

Over / Under challenge Update :

Mike Morse : .300 average - OVER (.303)

Danny Espinosa : 20 homers - OVER (21)

Pudge Rodrgiuez : 1 hit. - OVER (2)

Ian Desmond : 4.0 K / BB ratio - UNDER (3.97)

Jayson Werth : 100 OPS+ - UNDER (97)

Nats Offense : .700 OPS. - UNDER (.691)

Strasburg : 18 innings pitched. - OVER (24)

John Lannan : 9 wins. (over or match bet) - OVER(10)

Milone + Peacock + Detwiler : 5 wins - OVER (7)

Tyler Clippard - 2.00 ERA - UNDER (1.83)

Drew Storen - 39 saves. - OVER (42)

Fancy chart is at work so it'll have to wait till tomorrow to fins out who won.

Third!

2011-09-27T05:43:00.000-07:00

Third!

After losing the second game to the Astros on the 10th of September the dream was dead. The Nats would have to go 15-3 (or better) in their last 18 to hit .500. Welcome to slumberland, little Nemo. The Nats are 13-3 in their last 16. Two wins to go for over .500.

Everyone knows a good thing when they see it, even mediocre veteran outfielders. Rick Ankiel wants to stay. So does Jonny Gomes. Better get your act together Laynce!

And now Ozzie is coming to the NL East. Next year looks like it's gonna be all sorts of fun.

.500 dreams vs the Nats' arch enemy

2011-09-26T06:27:00.000-07:00

The Nats took 2 of three from the dying Braves with gems from Wang and Detwiler and a stinker of a game from that bum Strasburg. Make way for the good pitchers Stephen! Like I said the other day - this is a good problem to have - too much good pitching. But don't get ahead of yourselves just yet. If the Nats re-sign Wang, that doesn't mean Rizzo's gamble paid off. It'll pay off if Wang can pitch decently for the majority of next year. Detwiler has had strong finishes before (1.90 ERA in 4 Sept starts in 2009). The Nats could have one of the best staffs in the NL next year. Could. Be excited but don't just assume it'll be great.

The Nats now stand three games away from a .500+ record (remember it's only above .500 or below, they can't hit it exactly). You'd think facing the Marlins would be good news since they aren't very good but the Nats have historically had issues with the Marlins. 45-77 all-time v Marlins, 19-49 post 2007. There will be more than one ghost exorcized if they can get a sweep.

Over / Under challenge Update (those in italics are set):

Mike Morse : .300 average - OVER (.304)

Danny Espinosa : 20 homers - OVER (21)

Pudge Rodrgiuez : 1 hit. - MATCHED

Ian Desmond : 4.0 K / BB ratio - OVER (4.18)

Jayson Werth : 100 OPS+ - UNDER (99) pending update but I think this'll hold.

Nats Offense : .700 OPS. - UNDER (.693)

Strasburg : 18 innings pitched. - MATCHED

John Lannan : 9 wins. (over or match bet) - OVER(10)

Milone + Peacock + Detwiler : 5 wins - OVER (7)

Tyler Clippard - 2.00 ERA - UNDER (1.85)

Drew Storen - 39 saves. - OVER (42)

Unless I screwed something up the leader in the clubhouse is calindc with 8 out of 11 correct right now (and two no one could have right currently). Only Ian Desmond (1 walk, 10Ks in last 10 games) stands in his way of the best possible outcome. John O'Connor is in the worst shape taking the under on Danny's homers, 9 wins for Lannan, and the Under on the combined young guy win total. Don't quit your day job to become a professional blog over/under guesser, John.

Sweeping Disorder

2011-09-23T07:12:00.000-07:00

Yay! More "sweep" jokes. Don't get a chance to do that alot when you blog about this team. (Maybe next year though). Was this a Phillies team running on full cylinders? No. ~~Did the Nats miss Halladay and get Blanton? Yep.~~ But a Phillies lineup resting a guy here or there is still pretty decent and those starters they have aren't rolling over because it's year's end. Still an accomplishment.

Just in case you were wondering the sweep keeps the dream of .500 alive but just 2 losses ends it. Can the Nats go 5-1 or 6-0 to end the year? Sure. My feeling is that they'll be out of contention by the time we meet again on Monday. (of course I predicted the Braves and not the Cardinals as the WC so I'm biased.)

Other Notes:

Ian Desmond hasn't slowed down a bit in September. (.284 / .308 / .443). That OBP is still remarkably terrible but you aren't looking for Desmond to be a stud at this point (at least I hope you aren't). You are looking for him to hold his own in the lineup. Since Mid-July he has been, with a decent average and ok pop.

Remember the Type B FA gamble that we all assumed was the reason to A) trade for Jonny Gomes b) not trade Laynce Nix? Yeah that's been a terrible move. Gomes has hit terribly since being regulated to pinch-hitter duties in late August (.154 / .281 / .192) and has played himself down to the border between Type Bs and nothings. Even if he made Type B, offering him arbitration looks like making a bad move worse. Laynce has hit poorly since the All-Star break (.204 / .274 / .359) and hasn't had an XBH in three weeks. He's got virtually no chance at ending up as a Type B. THIS IS WHY YOU TRADE A GUY LIKE NIX. (older guy outperforming what their plethora of historical stats would have you believe they should do). They are outperforming so you sell high on whatever you can get. By keeping him you not only do you not get some random young lottery-ticket of a player that you might get lucky on, but you also hurt your team as the guy plays through his likely decline. It's lose-lose. It's looking very much like Rizzo came up empty on pretty much every OF move this year (hell even Morse was only a beast while he was playing first, for whatever reason)

Ten Wins!

2011-09-22T07:49:00.000-07:00

Yay, Lannan. Brow's he do it!

He really should have done it before now, and on a better team he would have. It's just hard to win 10 games when your team is only winning 60. I'm not saying Lannan would be a 20 game winner on a different team but when you're making 30+ starts and you got an ERA under 4.00, you expect a win total of at least 10. Doubt me? Since 1996 there have been 528 seasons as I've described. In 493 of them (93%) you get 10 wins. It not only takes a bad team it takes some bad breaks too.

[Side note : looking this up the worst luck year appears to belong to Clayton Kershaw in 2009. He had a 2.79 ERA over 30 games and yet won only 8 times. This is for a team that was 4th in the league in runs scored and won 95 games. The oddness doesn't end there - the team leader in wins was Billingsly with 12 (32 starts). Wolf was next with 11 (34 starts). Kuroda won 8 in 20 starts. For the mish-mash of guys that started the other 42 games they won 22 times.]

Here's brow he didn't do it the past 3 years. (9,9, and 8 wins respectively)

In 2008 John got to 6 wins in Mid-July (game 98) but wouldn't get another one until the end of August when he won back to back games. He'd only win one in September (for a team that went 7-17), losing games 4-0 and 4-3 and another one where he only allowed 1 earned run over 7 innings. (oddly enough in his only badly pitched game in September that year the Nats scored a ton of runs and he got a no-decision).

In 2009 John got his 8th win on August 5th (game 108), leaving him two whole months to get just 2 more wins. He would proceed to lose games 3-2, 5-3, 3-2, 4-1 and got no decisions in 3-2 and another one where he only allowed 2 earned runs over 7 innings.

In 2010 John started the year terribly and got bumped to the minors (much to the glee of a certain segment of baseball fans. Let's call them S-rmetricians. No, that's too obvious. How about SaberMs?) and then the DL. He was sitting at 2-5 going into his August 6th start. He'd get a decision in his next 8 starts going 6-2, but he ran out of time.

So finally, John has crossed into double-digit territory. Congratulations. Small victories!

Speaking of which the Nats "Science" Number is down to 2.

Pitching Staff 2013

2011-09-21T06:59:00.000-07:00

Nats "Magic" Number : 3 (any combo of 3 Nats wins or Marlins losses will ensure a season finish of 4th or better. Small victories)

Ross Detwiler pitched pretty well last night didn't he? Brad Peacock has pitched well too. So has Wang recently.   Milone hasn't been bad either.

It's a problem every team would like to have. Too much pitching.   Along with Lannan, Strasburg, and ZNN the Nats have 7 viable pitchers for 5 spots. And this offseason could potentially bring in another top-end rotation guy if the Nats feel that is needed. (it kinda is)    Let's assume they don't trade or sign someone for now. What's the team to do?

1) Keep 'em all, let them pitch in ST, choose the best 5.

Positives: Seven pitchers for 5 spots isn't crazy. I pretty much expect to lose one starter to injury or performance over the course of the year, and at some point it's very likely two will be down at the same time. You need extra arms to keep seasons going. Strasburg isn't going to pitch a full year you know.

Negatives: Probably not the best use of resources given that there's a gaping hole in CF and MI might use a talent boost. If there isn't enough turn-around, some guys could get stuck at minor leagues below their level because there isn't a place to put them in the upper one. Hard to see what anyone but Peacock could learn in AAA (and he could easily show good enough control in just a few games) Tempting for a GM to constantly fiddle around with the back of the rotation rather than give young guys a good long chance to get it together.

2) Trade Lannan, Keep Wang, work with 6

Positives: You are probably working with the most talented bunch (I'd argue Milone isn't noticeably more talented than Lannan but he does have the age edge)

Negatives: Lannan is the only one with a recent history of lasting full major league seasons. He's also probably ready to move into the "absorb innings" role that Livan will abandon if he doesn't come back as a starter (and considering he's ok with coming back as a long reliever I think that writing is on the wall). Rotation likely heavily righty.

3) Let Wang walk, Keep Lannan, work with 6

Positives : No negotiations to likely overpay someone you already gave millions to for a handful of starts. Wang's age and recent history probably make him the biggest injury risk. Two lefties at least in the rotation.

Negatives : Feels like those millions were just thrown away to help wherever he goes next, doesn't it? Wang has the cache of being on a winner and is a high-profile foreign player - two things that can help sell tickets, even if it's just a few more. Team defense built for a guy like Wang.

4) Trade a youngster, Keep Wang and Lannan, work with 6

Positives : It's going to be a Peacock or Detwiler package that's gonna bring back something worthwhile. Keeps a couple of guys in the rotation you might feel ok with pulling if any of the young studs burn through the minors.

Negatives : You hate to give up young pitching. No telling which of the 3 will break out, make the deal for the wrong guy and you could have years of looking bad.

5) Trade Lannan, Let Wang walk - go full youth

Positives : Exciting isn't it?   Will show really soon who is good and who is not.   Every young guy gets a good long chance in the majors

Negatives : Insanity. Leaves the innings pitched burden all on ZNN, not a full 2 years after undergoing major surgery. Any injuries or talent shortfalls would leave the Nats in the familiar position of bringing up AAAA talent guys to throw junk innings.

Out of these.. you know, I probably like #1. Maybe #4, next. Pitching is so prone to changes that I think keeping everyone around is the best option. Worry about having too many guys when that issue comes up. This could all blow up if Meyer, Purke, Cole, and/or Solis have great next seasons, but that's the type of blow-up you want. There is no song "Mo' pitchers, Mo' problems". If they have to deal someone - deal a youngster and get someone good back. No middling deals just to free up a spot. Damn the chances that the one traded becomes great. Sure it could happen, more likely though is that he gets injured, or is mediocre, or has a few good years and nothing more.

If they do get someone in the offseason, then I see no reason to keep Wang around, unless someone else is dealt. But you know me, I'm a complete Lannan apologist and will always side with keeping him around over talent that's not proven to be better in practice.

Jayson and the disappearing swing

2011-09-20T07:32:00.000-07:00

Losing a ground ball in the lights? Nice. Maybe it is time to retire. Then the all but crowned ROY "focusing in" and letting a guy who hits about 6 homers a year jack a 380 foot shot. He wouldn't have hit that off Danny Espinosa (mostly because Danny would pitch too slow or walk him or give up an easy line drive hit - but you can't say I'm wrong!)

In other news, I want to like Jayson Werth. I really haven't hammered him because he's been mostly hmm... let's say "productive" at the plate (it was a hideous June that made everything look so bad), he's been decent in the field, and he's been good on the basepaths. All the while he's mostly held his head up during this whole thing. No, he hasn't been perfect with the media but he easily could have turned on everyone and been a surly jerk and that doesn't seem to have happened. Plus, everyone is entitled to a bad year right? It's not his fault that the Nationals stupidly offered him all that cash.

But then I read articles like this and I can't. No he isn't surly but he sure does sound like he's making excuses. He lost his swing and he had no one that could help him because his swing is sooo unique and only a couple of Phillies could possibly understand it. It is the specialist of special flowers. And he didn't have his videos! I know I can't hit a wiffle ball without my VHS copy of Days of Thunder. What's next, locusts?

This whole "I lost it but now I've found it and am doing good" really doesn't jive with what we saw this year. Well, I'll take that back. It jives with the first two months. April was bad, but only BA wise. He was seeing and slugging the ball fine. Fancy stats suggest that he was hitting the ball on the ground WAY too much and not connecting squarely at all. Perhaps that slow start was an swing issue. Then he fixed it. May was his best month. Everything was fine. It was classic Werth more or less. It was June where it went to hell. He stopped hitting the ball at all. It wasn't a huge change in how he was hitting it, he just wasn't hitting it with any authority. He caught some bad breaks too making the month horrible, but the same issues carried on into July where he didn't catch the same bad breaks but was still a hole at the plate. He seemed to set things right in August but only at the expense of his patience. Now in September things have gotten bad again - he's hitting nothing square. So "I lost it, then I found it, then I lost it again, then I found it again, then I lost it?" Or maybe, just maybe, it's not that simple.

Werth doesn't deserve the grief he's taking for living up to a contract he wasn't worth. But at the same time by taking that contract you have to expect that grief, deserved or not. You took the money, you didn't deliver, you "did wrong". When you do wrong the best way to move forward is not to make lame excuses that don't explain everything. Just keep your head down, chin up, and tell everyone what they want to hear, then make what you say a reality. For Jayson Werth that's saying it's on off-year, you're working on it and expect to be much better in 2012. That's all they want to hear right now. Then make it a reality.

Monday

2011-09-19T06:48:00.000-07:00

Somehow the Nats turned a 4 game Mets sweep into a must win game against the Marlins on Sunday but hey, they wouldn't be the Nats if they didn't, right? The Nats offense has been pretty miserable but a combination of good pitching and bad opponents has kept them out of last. Could they still fall past the Marlins? Sure. But with a 5 game lead in the loss column it would take something crazy. For example if the Nats go a mediocre 3-7 in their last 10, the Marlins would have to go 7-2 to pass the Nats. Seriously, not this year.

Over / Under challenge Update:

Mike Morse : .300 average - OVER (.302)

Danny Espinosa : 20 homers - UNDER (19)

Pudge Rodrgiuez : 1 hit. - UNDER (still no at bats)

Ian Desmond : 4.0 K / BB ratio - UNDER (3.94)

Jayson Werth : 100 OPS+ - UNDER (97)

Nats Offense : .700 OPS. - UNDER (.691)

Strasburg : 18 innings pitched. - UNDER (14) but set up to pass

John Lannan : 9 wins. (over or match bet) - MATCH (still at 9)

Milone + Peacock + Detwiler : 5 wins - UNDER (4)

Tyler Clippard - 2.00 ERA - UNDER (1.84)

Drew Storen - 39 saves. - UNDER (38)

A good half of these are counting stats so don't be discouraged by the domination of the UNDERs.

Last place? Not this year

2011-09-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

No Comeuppance!

Nats Over / Under Challenge

2011-09-15T07:37:00.000-07:00

We're nearing years end so how about an over/under challenge to make the last weeks a little more interesting?

Mike Morse : Over/Under .300 average
Morse is struggling down the stretch (.208 ave in Sept) but it would still take a 3-4 game hitless streak for him to fall under .300.

Danny Espinosa : 20 homers
Danny is sitting on 19 so it'll just take one to ruin the under bet, but he has no homers in Sept and only 2 since July 18th (Really? ... Yep, really)

Pudge Rodrgiuez : 1 hit.
Pudge is in a reserve role now and has only had one at bat this month. Given he's a bit banged up chances are he won't get more than a handful of at bats, if that.

Ian Desmond : 4.0 K / BB ratio
Ian sits at exactly 4 strikeouts for every walk. It seems like he should be an easy bet to drop that down given his decent offensive Sept but the truth is he's having his worst month in this respect 1 walk in September to 12 Ks so far. (for those thinking - "See! This is what Desmond needs to do!" Just swing the bat!" - know that his second highest K/BB ratio went with his worst .217 / .255 / .228 month)

Jayson Werth : 100 OPS+
This season is a lost one for Jayson no matter how you cut it. However, if he can keep his OPS+ over 100 (it's at 101 now) he can at least say he provided more offense than your average National Leaguer. He's on a roll now. While no one has been watching he's put up a September you probably would have accepted for a yearly total. .277 / .393 / .489

Nats Offense : .700 OPS.
Even though they have their holes, the Nats aren't the worst hitting team by far. In most part thanks to their slugging, if you can believe it. They have an OPS of .695 so far. All it takes is a couple of big games...

Strasburg : 18 innings pitched.
The Nats have him scheduled for 2 more games for sure with a maybe 3rd lying out there. His pitch count limits make it nearly impossible for a long game but 5/6 innings should be the average. He's at 8 IP now. This depends a lot on whether you think he gets that 3rd game in.

John Lannan : 9 wins. (over or match bet)
Did you know John has never won 10 games? Jesus, if he was on a good team he'd probably be approaching 60 wins in total by now. 9 wins now - 2 or 3 shots depending on how the Nats work their rotation.

Milone + Peacock + Detwiler : 5 wins
Sitting at 3 now. Hard to see them only getting to 4 but hard to see them getting to 6 either. That's how the gamblers make their money, kids.

Tyler Clippard - 2.00 ERA
He's got a 1.89 ERA now. That gives him about a 1 run in 1 inning cushion before hitting that 2.00 ERA threshold. It's tempting to bet against him but then again he did keep his ERA under 2 for 5 1/2 months. What's 3 more weeks?

Drew Storen - 39 saves.
At 37 now. Can he get to 40? (in case you are wondering Nats record is 47 by Cordero in 2005)

Make your guesses. No choosing the middle, except for the Lannan bet. This is over/under. Not make your own rules game. Winner gets the pride of knowing he's a winner at something in his or her life.

I don't get the Clemente Award

2011-09-14T07:58:00.000-07:00

Bored last night I checked out the list of Roberto Clemente Award winners and saw that there were no stiffs among these guys. This surprised me, because surely the act of being charitable and deeply involved in service does not go hand in hand with talent level. Then I read the definition of the award.

... recognizes the player who best exemplifies the game of baseball, sportsmanship, community involvement and the individual's contribution to his team.

Oh. So in essence it's kind of like the MVP award. That goes to the best player with the qualification that that player is on a team vying for a playoff spot. The Clemente award goes to the player with the best character, the qualification being that player is also a pretty good major leaguer, too. (OK maybe not Harold Reynolds - but it did come after a couple of years where he was fantastic in the field)

Not to be a jerk - I'm sure these guys all deserve praise - but should that really be what this award is about? On the page talking about this year's award they start by listing the important traits of who should be up for this award. Character. Responsibility. Generosity. Dedication. Humanitarian. Hero. Nowhere do they say "All-Star Caliber Talent". It shouldn't matter.

Trying to wrap my head around why it would matter all I can think of is they don't want to "sully" the award named after a great player like Clemente by giving it to the Jamey Carrolls or Joe Horgans of the world. That the award is trying to find other Clementes, other caring superstars. That's fine and all I guess, but then the award isn't about service as much as it is about praising which superstar can deign to take the time out of their busy schedules to help others. It doesn't feel right for this type of award. It's like if they were giving out an award to the most charitable woman in Hollywood and included a provision that read "No oldies or fatties".

I would like to tell you to then go vote for the worst player available but that misses the point too. These are the people up for the award so if you are into voting for things like this read through and vote for who you think deserves it the most. (Ian Desmond is the Nats' nominee this year. Yes he might also be the worst player up for it but don't let that influence you.)

Catch Those Mets

2011-09-13T07:03:00.000-07:00

September is time for modified goals. No longer are you seeing what players can do in the long term. Now you are just trying out guys to see who you might invite to Spring Training next year. And no longer are you shooting for a playoff spot. Instead you are aiming lower : .500 record, more wins than last year or in the Nats case - finishing third would be nice.

To finish third the Nats need to catch the Mets. The Mets have a 2 game lead which normally is nothing. But this late in the year that's nothing to scoff at. The Mets have 15 games left. If they go a completely reasonable 7-8 to finish up the Nats would have to go 10-6 to finish ahead of them (by percentage points 78-83 to 78-84 - the Nats won't make up that game v the Dodgers) 10-6 is a good finish. The Nats aren't a good team.

The Nats do have two things going for them. First they have a head to head series with the Mets right now. Each win = Mets Loss = gained ground. They won the first game last night. Take two of the next three and suddenly they are only a game behind. Of course it works both ways. Lose two of the next three and it's a 3 game Mets cushion with 12 or so games and the Nats are looking at having to go 10-2 or hope for the annual Mets collapse.

The second thing is schedule. Both teams take on PHI and ATL one more time. For the other two series the Nats have the Marlins. The Mets have the Cardinals and the Reds. The Nats should win more of these games than the Mets (though they never seem to do that do they?)

The Nats had some lofty goals as late as mid August, but those have passed. Now it's time to go after something more reasonable but symbolically important. Pass the Mets. Everyone thinks the Nats are a rising team. If they pass the Mets and finish 3rd then the talk next year will be about making the next step to take on the big boys. That's the talk the Nats want to hear.

Monday Quickie

2011-09-12T12:10:00.000-07:00

Like I said on Friday that homestand pretty much ruins any magical run to .500. Now it would take a 14-4 finish for the Nats to hit .500 and the Nats aren't going 14-4. They still are going to beat last year's win total (a 3-15 finish will do that). Most likely... 8-10? 7-11? So yeah - 75 wins.

Some notes

Give Lombardozzi time. He's a 22 year old in his first week in the majors. He may end up not being very good but it's been a handful of games. It's not like he's a 25 year old with 1200 major league plate appearances or something.
Ian Desmond just might be saving his starting role, or at least his "I'm the one to beat" seat with a average August and September. He's been actually decent since hitting leadoff. The main problem with that is his OBP (.333) is still not what you want from a guy leading off. This has all the makings of an issue to be in 2012.
It's gonna be hard for Strasburg to get to 70 pitches if you don't let him get to 60. Ok Davey, listen. The average inning in the NL is 16 pitches or so. The average Strasburg inning is 14 pitchers or so. Granted he looked worse against Houston but by pulling him 13 pitches away from his limit you are basically saying you have no faith you can get even a decent inning out of him. (Against the corpse of Carlos Lee, maybe ok Brian Bogusevic and career non-starter Matt Downs, no less) At this rate Strasburg won't start any inning if he's within 20 pitches of 70.
While everyone is waiting for Danny to break-out of his slump, WIlson Ramos quietly has picked himself back up. .385 / .500 / .577 in September. That is very important because Derek Norris really floundered in AA this year. It's hard to see how he'd be up in the majors soon.

So ummm...

2011-09-09T10:45:00.000-07:00

sweep the 'Stros?

Barring that cirucumstance we can pretty much wrap up the "Nats get to .500 talk" Yeah, I know that talk mainly went away after that 6 game slide to end August, but when I looked at what it would take to get there a few posts ago it wasn't THAT crazy. Certainly it was more likely that not beating last year's win total. But now going 2-4 at home so far, yeah that''s just not going to cut it. So resign yourself to mid-70s, and watch those kids.

How are the kids? Way too early to tell. Get back to me at the end of the year. Only Marrero has really piled up the playing time. And why is that exactly? I'm thinking it's as much for Morse as for Chris. The more time Morse plays in left the better because it's unlikely he'll be at first next year. Slick-fielding, still under contract LaRoche or a big bat seems more likely.

Lombardozzi got his first start... at 2nd base. I suppose you could say it's because Danny Espinosa was tired, and Davey cites the 7 Ks in the last two games. But in the two games before that the kid was 4-5 with 2 walks and a HBP. Not to mention that ~~Lombardozzi~~ Espinosa was primarily a SS in the minors (I have no idea what I was thinking. Where's my blog editor? I don't have one? Well then where is all that money going?) . No, once again they are bending over backward for Ian Desmond. You better get better Ian, because this team acts like the prospect pecking order is Strasburg/Bryce, then Ian Desmond, then everyone else.

An embarrassment of $20 bills

2011-09-07T06:01:00.000-07:00

Last night Strasburg started. Peacock and Lombardozzi were also called up. Milone has been here for a few days, as has Marrero. Never have the Nationals had so much talent and promise show up at the end of the year. The thing is... it really isn't that much talent and promise.

Ok ok Strasburg is Strasburg, but the other guys are nothing special in terms of "prospecti-ness". Yes, everyone loves Brad Peacock now but Peacock was a fringe Top 10 prospect for the Nationals to start the year, meaning he was on noone's radar. His stock has risen a lot this year but that'll happen with minor leaguers all the time. There isn't much information on them and they switch level of competition constantly. One very good year can turn a team's #10 into a team's #3.

Milone, Lombardozzi, and Marrero were at the same general level of Peacock. The guys that judge talent for a living question Milone's stuff, Lombardozzi's bat, and Marrero pop and glove. None of these guys are slam dunk stars or even slam-dunk starters. Rendon is a better prospect. Purke and Meyer and Cole and Solis are better prospects. And of course there's Bryce.

It's not that Nats fans shouldn't be excited. They should be. Minor league promise can be fool's gold but the team really looks to be on the cusp of being truly competetive, with a wave of decent young guys up now and likely a better wave to follow over the next two years. It's just that... hmm... I don't know how to exactly phrase this. You see, Nats fans are the starving man gushing over the taste of a Wendy's hamburger. You want to say "Slow down there hoss. It's just a fair fast food burger you got there. We're going to hit up that fancy burger truck this weekend." but at the same time the man is starving. Let him enjoy his burger, right?

Hmmm. Ok. Enjoy your burger, Nats fans.

Other Thoughts:

Can we all thank the Nats for not pulling Strasburg last night because the mound was wet? That would have been terribly silly. Either he's ready to pitch or he's not, and if he's ready to pitch he should, you know, pitch. You don't want him to get injured in a meaningless game? Are you going to keep pulling him until you're sure the games are meaningful? Will he not pitch in bad conditions until June of 2013?
Mock was Dfa'd. I don't see any reason why he won't get back down to the minors untouched. For whatever that's worth.
I get why Corey Brown was called up, even though he's not ready. I get why Stammen is here, even though he's no good. But don't expect me to be happy Matt Antonelli didn't get the call too. Surely Alex Cora's feeling aren't that important.

But not THAT big an "Uh Oh"

2011-09-06T05:38:00.001-07:00

First things first : Strasburg!

So over the weekend commenter Tombo wrote in and in short, said the Nats better get good quick or they might not be in Washington for long. Anyone who follows the Nats knows that this is pretty much nonsense, but occasionally it's good to go over why - especially if there are people reading the blog that don't follow the Nats.

To start Tombo's most general point is fair. The 2011 Nats scenario, spend a ton of money on questionable contracts, win nothing, draw nobody - IS unsustainable. However, that doesn't mean relocation is on the horizon. Let's review why.

First off losing money isn't a big deal if the owner is ok with losing money. The Lerners are worth billions of dollars. If the Nats were losing 20 million a year (a staggering sum) they'd have to lose it for 50 years in a row for the Lerner's to lose 1/3 of their estimated wealth. Because the Nats ownership main business is not the Nats there isn't the same impetus to sell if things go badly for a while.
And things haven't been going badly for a while (not money wise anyway) The 2011 model is just that, the 2011 model. Prior to last August the Nats had really made one big financial move, paying for Strasburg. They signed no big contracts and actually walked away from paying large bonuses to draft picks. From 2007 through 2009, they had one of the lowest payrolls in baseball. Upping spending a bunch the Nats are still only 22nd in payroll. So even if they are losing a bunch of money now, it's a now thing, not an ongoing thing.
And they probably aren't even losing money now. Teams rarely just earn money from tickets sales. The smarter owners get sweetheart stadium deals from the gullible public and rake in the cash through concession deals, parking, local real estate, TV and radio deals, etc. etc. Add to that the fact that the Lerners are infamous for not letting Bob Cracthit put some extra coals on the fire and you end up with a team that is actually likely generating cash, not losing it. Forbes estimates the Nats are 2nd in operating income among all teams. Money is not an issue.
And even if it was an issue there are lots of other things to consider for a team to leave. Stadium leases need to be broken. TV deals reworked (the Nats are intertwined with the Orioles on MASN, and no way Angelos is going to give away a cash cow without a protracted legal battle) division alignment maintained, where would the team move (the ownerhsip is locally based). Not to mention that having baseball in the nation's capital was a long term goal of Bud Selig and baseball in general. There is far more impetus for the team to stay and if the owners were losing money and wanted to get out (they're not and they don't), first thing would be a sell off of the team - not a move.
Because of the stories of the "Greatest Generation" of baseball, we think relocation is more of a threat than it really is. From 1953 to 1972, a couple decades, 10 teams relocated, but that's the exception. Between 1903 and 1953 - two teams relocated. From 1972 to now - 1 team has, and that took a concerted effort from MLB to destroy baseball in a city (but we won't go into that again).

Relocation is not a threat. It just isn't. Could it ever be? Maybe, but we're a couple decades away from that. Hopefully the Plan expects success in that range of time.

Other Notes:

Say hello to the Chris Marrero you have, not the Chris Marrero you want. Can he hit for average? Maybe. Can he hit for power? Doubtful. Even though he's young the trending in the minors is all in the wrong direction. There are a bunch of great first-baseman out there. The market for the mediocre-fielding singly-joe first baseman died with Frank Chance. (where are the Frank Chance defenders!)

Strasburg!

Uh oh

2011-09-02T07:28:00.000-07:00

Anyone else out there worried about a total and complete collapse down the stretch? I mean, still go ahead and bring up those youngsters, and give them time (mainly because I don't think they are much worse, if at all, than who they'd be replacing), but doesn't it kind of feel like the Nats are reverting back to the "Nats Classic"?

I didn't have huge goals for the Nats this year. Despite my prediction of 79 wins, the 75 they are on pace for now would be fine. A six game improvement based on no luck? That's good. But a win total in the low 70s would feel kind of bad. Mainly because of the amount of improvement that would be needed to compete for real next year. From 75 wins you still need to get at least 10 wins better. That's a lot of wins. To ask for a 13 or 14 win improvement? Just to be on the outskirts of competition? I don't think anyone wants to wait one MORE year.

The good news it theyy won't be as bad as last year. The numbers just don't add up. A quick review. The Nats sit at 63-72. Last year they won 69 games. To finish 69-93 the Nats would need to go 6-21. It's not impossible, but that's about as bad a month as you can have. Of course the same logic makes having a strong enough finish to turn this into a "good" year hard to believe in as well. To finish 81-81 the Nats would need to go 18-9. Again not impossible, but it would be the best month the Nats have had since their 20-6 June in 2005.

The Nats are pretty much set at finishing with 7x wins, but will it be a disheartening 72 or so? or an affirming 78? A crushingly weak schedule and a lot of home games suggest the latter (a season long problem beating the teams they should beat and a lack of off-days would lean toward the former). Let's start it off right. 10 game homestand against the Mets (66-69), Dodgers(66-70) and Astros (47-90)? Gotta expect to win every series. That's a 7-3 at minimum. Hit that and then maybe we talk about something more.

At least the Marlins are doing their part keeping the Nats out of last.

In other news : Don't expect Archie Gilbert to get that call-up.

Fun with arbitrary cut-offs

2011-09-01T06:18:00.000-07:00

Since 2008 there are 11 pitchers currently season-age 27 or younger that have pitched at least 690 innings with an ERA <4.00.

They are :
Tim Lincecum
Felix Hernandez
Jon Lester
Matt Cain
Cole Hamels
Zack Greinke
Ubaldo Jimenez
John Danks
Matt Garza
Chad Billingsly

AND

John Lannan.

Yay John!

(I'm not saying John is as good as these guys. All have pitched at least 50 more innings and 8 out of the "other" 10 have significantly better career ERAs. However I do think that John's accomplishment of pitching so many quality innings, even if the fact that those innings ended up as quality is inexplicable to some, at such a young age is kind of big deal. Can it happen with average pitchers? Sure. Going back to 1994 you find Bobby Jones did it. Joey Hamilton. But the vast majority of guys that are able to do this are very good to great pitchers. In other words - it's not easy to do at all.)

Who gets called up?

2011-08-31T06:03:00.001-07:00

Marrero is here and it's already down that Tom "MayDay" Milone will get some starts. Who else will get the call?

Peacock is one we all want to see and after a rough patch, he's seemingly earned it. He has a 3.19 ERA in 48 AAA innings and in his last 4 games he's given up 3 runs in 22 2/3 while striking out 25 guys. Walks are still an issue (9 over the same time frame) but given how his stuff has been talked up it would be disappointing to fans if he didn't get a chance at a start or two. Lombardozzi is also a favorite (.320 / .364 / 426 in 64 games at AAA) but he's been slumping a bit and the current MI combo is a bit sensitive about the possibility of giving up time. I would say that actually makes me want to see him up even more. Ian and Danny don't run the team and should be able to take things like this as they come.

Other possibilities? Hitting wise there really isn't much. It be a shame if "good story" Matt Antonelli didn't get a few games in (.299 / .393 / .463 in 84 games) as at the worst he could showcase himself into an interesting trade piece. Other than that you're probably reaching. They'd love to bring up an OF I bet but the best in AAA is Bernadina and in AA it's 28 year old Archie Gilbert. I would like to see Archie get a couple at bats as a reward for not only his nice season, but being a career minor leaguer who stuck it out. Still that's not anything to get excited about. Anyone else? Michael Aubrey? Not firing up the juices.

On the pitching side, any reliever could come depending on what they are looking for. Zech Zinicola (1.88 ERA in 24 innings in AAA) might have the best chance but who knows? It's more likely they'd bring up a guy that has stuff they like than worry about who had the best performance over a 30+ innings. Starters - I just don't see it. No room.

Any ideas who you want to see?

Side Notes

The Nats can't hit well. The Giants are even worse. Jair Jurrjens ERAs against these teams are respectively 9.90 and 7.50. Ok it's only 3 games but his worst ERA against any other team is 3.38.

Thanks to generous draft contracts the Nats have 3 guys on their 40 man (Bryce, Purke, Rendon) who they have no intention of playing until they're ready. I don't think it will matter next year. It's not like 37 guys for a month isn't enough if they happen not to be ready. But I guess a rash of injuries coupled with a playoff push could make things interesting.

By the way Bryce's current AA stats? .256 / .329 / .395. For comparison A-Rod went .288 / .391 / .441 in very limited action before moving to AAA. Griffey went .279 / .353 / .492. Please note that Bryce still is only 18 and I'm comparing him to two Hall of Famers. He'll still be here sooner rather than later and he'll still be good, but hopefully this helps you realize that it may not be next year and he may not be the greatest player ever. Would 2013 and a multi-year All-Star be that bad?

Shockingly - I'm not always right.

2011-08-30T06:43:00.000-07:00

The Dog Days are almost over and thankfully that'll mean some new topics to talk about. I can rehash stuff about Desmond until the cows come home (where did they go?) but it's getting tiring, right? You know what's better than that? Strasburg.

Strasburg. Strasburg. Strasburg.

Before we get the influx of new Strasburgian topics, let's take a second to look back at a couple of things I had wrong.

On ZNN

Back in Mid May commenter Wally noted that Zimmermann was on his way to a 3.5 WAR season if he pitched 160 innings. I of course, expected less. What did he end up with? 161.33 IP, and a WAR of 3.5. That's very very good as Jamie Mottram notes.

It may look like ZNN never faltered, but he did have an iffy July. A fantastic June and very good August helped balance that out, though. Looking at it - you can really see the impact of luck on a given game/time period. His June featured a mediocre strikeout rate of 5.7. His July had a much better K-rate (8.1) and an incredible 2 walks in 30 innings. Yet his June was epic and his July was below average. Why? HR-rate and BABIP. In June he gave up 1 homer in 42 innings and opponents had a BABIP of .256, in July he gave up 3 in 30 and the BABIP was .356. Part of that was pitching (more LDs in July) but part of that was luck, too.

But I feel like I'm getting away from the point. What you have with Zimmermann is a pitcher who pitched well all-season. He caught some breaks here, he didn't there, but that'll happen over the course of a year. In the end the HR-rate evened out, the BABIP evened out and he was STILL very good. Like Wally said he would be, and better than I thought.

On Clippard

In March I said that there was no way Clippard would be as good this year as last. Short and sweet - he HAS pitched better. It still isn't sub-2.00 ERA better (he has had a lot of things go his way this season) but better is better.

Really the lesson I'm learning here is never to say a reliever is going to do anything. It's like saying a pinch-hitter is going to hit .100 or .300. The sample size is going to be so small that anything is possible. Clippard could have pitched the same way he did this year, had a few GBs go in the wrong spots and ended up with a worse ERA than last year, which would have been totally unrepresentative of how well he's done. Hell, that happens to starters throwing close to 200 innings.

Anyway - there's a sandwich eating to come.

monday quickie

2011-08-29T11:02:00.000-07:00

As usual.

I hate to be a Kill(gore)joy but even though Desmond has reacted well to moving the the leadoff spot, it's only been two weeks. I can pull out a 11 game segment from early June where he hit .319. Granted that wasn't as good (he barely walked and had 0 XBH) but still you have to see the point. YOU HAVE TO SEE IT.

More importantly though - it is true that since the All-Star break he's been hitting better. Has he been hitting well? That's debatable. Has he been hitting well enough for a SS? Yes definitely.

Of course here's the thing.

Pre All-Star game : 85 games
Post All-Star game : 40 games

Don't let recency fool you. Those 85 games count.

Also - both by the eyeball test and the fancy stat test, Ian's fielding has gone downhill as the season's gone on.

You still bring up Lombardozzi. You still spot start him. You still see if Desmond can keep this up through the last 30 games of the season. If he can... well you've got a debate on your hands on what to do in 2012. If he can't then... well you don't.

Disregarding Livan?

2011-08-26T07:57:00.000-07:00

In all our talk about next year's rotation, Nats fans have pretty much dismissed the prospect of bringing back Livan Hernandez. On the surface it makes sense. He's old. He's not a top of the rotation guy. If the Nats are going to go "young" and have two open rotation spots (behind Strasburg, ZNN, and Lannan) there is no need to bring him back. If the Nats are going to go "good" and try to get a top of the rotation starter then there is no need to bring him back (they need at least one rotation spot open for trials). Right?

Well there's two arguments that I think can be made here. (1) What if the Nats simply try to go "stable" and sign a FA innings eater. Would they be any worse with Livan than someone else? (2) Why does Livan automatically fall behind Lannan?

Let's attack #2 first. No one is a bigger supporter of Lannan than I. (Usually I hate when people say that but come on, it's true. The Nats screwed him again last night. Screwed!) But there is a kernel of truth here. Livan's last 4 xFIPs are 4.84, 4.72, 4.57 and 4.17. Lannan's are 4.24, 4.64, 4.36, and 4.25. There really isn't any big difference here. Livan will give more innings (though Lannan is no slouch there). Livan will likely strike out more and walk less. Livan is a much better hitter. Livan is cheaper.

Man, that's a lot in favor of Livan. What does Lannan have? Age and the arm he throws with.

Lannan will be 27 next year. He could still improve and it's doubtful that he will suddenly collapse due to an age-related issue. Livan will be 37 next year which means that he almost certainly won't get better and he could very well collapse. I'm not saying it's a good bet to say that Livan will collapse, but it IS a good bet to say if one of these guys is to collapse it would be Livan. This isn't Livan's fault. It's just the way it is. There's a reason there are only 3 regular starters age 37 or older in the majors this year. (Wakefield, Lowe, Colon) The body just breaks down.

Lannan also pitches left-handed and has in the last 2 years become good at getting lefties out. Strasburg and ZNN are both righties. Teams want changes of pace. Could Detwiler or Milone or Free Agent X be that lefty? Maybe. But when you have one on hand that's relatively cheap why go with something unknown?

Because of the last two points, despite having a lower salary it's Livan that needs to be significantly better than Lannan to grab that 3rd spot. He isn't.

Ok so what about #1? The boring old "FA Innings eater" situation. In that I have a hard time reasoning why it shouldn't be Livan. We're not talking Buerhle or Oswalt here. We're talking Marquis or Harang. Is someone like that going to be that much better than Livan to justify the extra money? What about the likely 2nd year they'd want? Livan could almost certainly be signed for one-year and depending on how all those young guys are doing, could be dismissed after 2012 just as easily as now.

It's not cut-and-dried. The age thing is going to hover over Livan until he IS out of baseball. For a team that wants to be better next year again, the slight increase in security that a Jon Garland type will give you a #4 starter year in 2012 might actually be worth those extra dollars. But I'm not that sure. At the very least it's worth looking at more closely if the Nats go down this path.

Extra - Livanonymous brought up that he thought Livan was mostly doing his job (keeping the team in games) and really his stats were being brought down by a couple lousy games. Is this true?

Well one quick and dirty way to look at it is to look at Game Scores. If this is true than by removing Livan's # worst starts we should see more improvement in his average GS than the average pitcher. I looked at him in comparison to Lannan, ZNN, and Marquis removing their 5 worst starts each and what I found was inconclusive. He did see more improvement than Lannan or ZNN but it was Marquis that seemed to be the one that was really having his stats being negatively effected by a few rotten games.

I also looked at just the middle starts which would try to control for the occasional good start as well and that didn't turn out in Livan's favor either. He was actually more consistent than any of the four.

Still I think more work is needed to say anything definitively.

UPDATE
Just saw "Air Screech" video. New plan. Livan retires. Takes golf club to all various Screeches like they were old men standing outside of a warehouse. Becomes new mascot. Eats Dippin Dots in a barcalounger on top of the dugout.

Rick Ankiel stinks

2011-08-25T06:16:00.000-07:00

Anyone want to argue that? Anyone?

"Fun" fact : The guy with the second most walks on the Nats is Danny Espinosa. He's tied for 41st in the NL. The guy with the third most walks on the Nats is Wilson Ramos. He's tied for 81st.

I don't mind Rizzo's infatuation with the strikeout. A lot of people will tell you that strikeouts aren't even that bad. It's the same as any other out if there are two outs in an inning, and a good part of the "not moving anyone over, not forcing the other team to make a play" is muted by the fact you rarely get two outs on a strikeout.

Here's the thing though. You find guys that are good at hitting for power and good at getting on base and hope they don't strike out too much. You do NOT get guys that strike out too much and hope they are good at hitting for power and good at getting on base.

Just saying.

Every game is a hard one for Jordan Zimmermann

2011-08-24T06:10:00.001-07:00

ZNN doesn't know how to win. That must be it, right? It's not that the team won't score runs for him. No. He just hasn't learned to pitch to the game. He's anti-clutch. Trade him for John Lackey! That guy is 12-9 despite an ERA close to 6! The new Jack Morris!

In all seriousness, part of Jordan must be happy he'll be hanging up the spikes in a start or two given the grief he gets put through every start. He has the 11th worst run support in the majors. Take away SF (3 in the Top 9) and Seattle (3 in the Top 12) and you could call him the 6th most unluckiest pitcher out of the teams you expect to score runs this year. He by far gets the worst support on the Nationals (Livan gets the 2nd least support and he's 41st in the league). But it's a funny type of lack of support.

In 15 of Zimmermann's 25 starts the Nats have scored 3 or fewer runs. That may seem like a lot (and it is) but it actually isn't too out of line with what we'd expect. The Nats have scored 3 or fewer runs 64 times this season in 127 games, or roughly half (side note: ugh). Given an equal distribution of bad luck we'd expect Jordan to have 12-13 games of this type. Fifteen is a tiny bit high but not a crazy number.

Where the problem lies is at the other end. The Nats have scored 7 or more runs 21 times this year. You'd expect that they'd have done it about 4 times for Jordan. How many times have they done it? Once. And it was the infamous 14 inning how-many-saves can we blow White Sox game. A game where they had 0 runs after 7 innings and 3 after 9. The Nats never make it easy on Jordan.

Take a look at the 9 games the Nats scored 4-6 runs when Jordan was pitching. You can argue that 4 runs should be enough to win a well-pitched game. In what inning did they end up scoring that 4th run?

1st: 0
2nd: 0
3rd: 0
4th: 1
5th: 2
6th: 2
7th: 1
8th: 3

Basically the Nats never staked Jordan to an early lead. Even when scoring a decent amount of runs. Every game is tight one for ZNN. I'm kind of glad the Nats are shutting him down. These have been 160 tough innings.

Wandy?

2011-08-23T11:52:00.000-07:00

Off handedly heard that the Nationals claimed Wandy Rodriguez. No confirmation, no source. Just rampant speculation. The best kind!

It's the Rockies. Let the rampant non-speculation commence! Finish up those emails. Go get ready for supper. Pick the kids up. (rampant speculation is a lot more fun)