When it comes to championship games, sportswriting is usually more forgiving than at any other time. There is no benefit to a sportswriter to harp on the negatives of a losing team with their dreams so recently crushed at the very last step, while such an slant could alienate coaches and players that they may need to deal with at a future date. It's better to praise the winner, then praise the loser, only less ardently. Failures on one side are easily re-written to be successes by the other. Bad QB play morphs into a story about a great defensive game plan. 0-13 with RISP becomes a footnote in an article about clutch reliefing pitching. Blowout losses change into dominating performances by teams for the ages. This is especially true in college where the big payroll bully doesn't exist to give the writer an easy villian, only "kids" playing "for the love of the game". Most post-championship articles will read like the results of a pre-school foot race: There are no losers, only different degrees of winners.
Sometimes though, the storyline written by reality demands some unflattering attention paid to the loser. Usually this is a single play or player that gets the scorn, that way it can be played off as "I wasn't talking about you guys" or "if not for this play, you guys were worthy of the championship". But rarely, once in a blue moon, a team plays so utterly horrible that you can't write an article about the championship and skirt around this fact. Last night was such an occurance.
Butler shot horribly, at one point missing 21 of 22 shots. Only the most asinine of sportswriting can make that mostly about Connecticut's defense, or write an article about their season and not mention this as an absolutely horrible ending. (though the "most asinine" subgroup probably accounts for 25% of the sportswriting at any time - so don't expect to see none of these articles out there) The reality is that Butler was terrible. They lost the game. It was "one of those nights" for a team that isn't a great scoring team anyway. "One of those nights" that just happens occasionally to all but the very best teams. But it did happen, and it can't be ignored.
So thank you Butler, for giving us something so very rare. Post-championship articles where the losers lost because they played poorly.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Perhaps the world will change for Ian
It's been 3 games and what have we learned?
Nothing.
No really - three games tells us nothing. Three games gives us hints, glances, ideas, but nothing firm. I know, I know. We say this every year, but it needs to be repeated because it's sooo damn tempting to read something into games that, you know, actually matter. Games played by guys actually trying to get people out and get on base and not working on stuff.
Anyway - to the column title - if you haven't noticed Desmond struggled terribly in the opening series. He's 0 for 2011 and he's made an out every time he's been up. Getting a lot of outs is kind of a strange quality to look for in the guy you are giving the most at bats to.
So what do you do for this guy? Do you tell him - "Hey you! Don't make so many outs!"? Not if you're the Nats.
What should the Nats do with Ian? Well, if they don't want to mess with his approach they should drop him down in the order. Not to 8th - but down there somewhere. If they want him to bat leadoff, they should work with him to be more patient. What they shouldn't do is keep trying to fit the round peg into the square hole.
Nothing.
No really - three games tells us nothing. Three games gives us hints, glances, ideas, but nothing firm. I know, I know. We say this every year, but it needs to be repeated because it's sooo damn tempting to read something into games that, you know, actually matter. Games played by guys actually trying to get people out and get on base and not working on stuff.
Anyway - to the column title - if you haven't noticed Desmond struggled terribly in the opening series. He's 0 for 2011 and he's made an out every time he's been up. Getting a lot of outs is kind of a strange quality to look for in the guy you are giving the most at bats to.
So what do you do for this guy? Do you tell him - "Hey you! Don't make so many outs!"? Not if you're the Nats.
The Nationals don't want Desmond to change his approach at the plate.... The team wants him to be the player who hit .326 while batting in the second spot in the order last year.I want him to be the guy that hit that home run that one time, doesn't mean it will happen. Look Ian did great hitting 2nd, and most of us think it had something to do with being protected by Ryan and seeing a lot of fastballs. But it also had something to do with it being only 46 games and having an abnormally high .371 BABip. It isn't a surprise Ian makes outs. His OBP was .308 last year. .318 two years ago. .326 in the minors. You don't play him because he gets on base, you play him (in theory) because of his defense and moderate power.
What should the Nats do with Ian? Well, if they don't want to mess with his approach they should drop him down in the order. Not to 8th - but down there somewhere. If they want him to bat leadoff, they should work with him to be more patient. What they shouldn't do is keep trying to fit the round peg into the square hole.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Tiny Little Hurdles
Good Ol' Needham notes that "Hey, the offense will probably suck this year because nobody gets on base". He's right but that doesn't mean the offense can't be better. Last year the Nats offense scored 655 runs, good for 14th in the NL. However, it really wasn't significantly worse that the 11th place team (Dodgers - 667) and it was significantly better than the 15th place team (Houston - 611). Meaning what? Let's not make it out to be more than it is. The Nats weren't the worstesest but they were stuck in a glob of teams with well below average offenses.
How can the Nats get unstuck from this morass of mediocre mashers? Let's look at the OBP and SLG lines for each position from last year and think if the Nats can beat that line this year. (Yes, I should be looking at isoOBP and isoSLG but that's a lot more work for not much gain)
C: .285 / .352 - Depends on how much Ramos plays. Pudge is no better than this, probably worse. Ramos will beat that slugging given enough opportunity. The OBP maybe, but probably not by much. He was the kind of guy that would bat .310 and have an OBP of .340 in the minors. He's not batting .310 this year.
1B: .358 / .533 - I'm going to compare Dunn to Werth rather than LaRoche, because that's how I see it. Werth=Dunn, LaRoche=Willingham. Werth will have a hard time matching the slugging of Dunn, even with generally a higher average year in and year out, Jayson only hit Dunnian levels of slugging last season. He should get on base more than Dunn though, thanks to Dunn's low batting average.
2B: .312 / .350 - Espinosa is most likely a minor popper with patience who can't hit for average. He should best the SLG, but the OBP is roughly where he'll fall. It'll be with a decent amount of walks though since he'll hit like .240.
SS: .317 / . 394 - Can Desmond beat Desmond? I don't know. Everyone else who played SS last year actually raised the OBP and SLG of the position, so I'll bet on "No", but it'll be basically the same.
3B: .370 / .473 - Can Ryan beat Ryan? Last year was his best average and OBP year so far, but he's slugged better. I think he can beat that SLG number and raise the position with him. (the non-Ryans must have been terrible to bring down the numbers this far in like 15% of the at bats)
RF: .327 / .439 - I'll put Morse in here, since LaRoche is going to go up against LF. The odds are yes, he can beat both these numbers, though it probably won't be by as much as people were hoping.
CF: .310 / .303 - Ankiel and Hairston are so terrible at getting on base that they should actually get on base less than the Nyjer Morgan led CFers did last year and at times it seemed like those guys were trying NOT to get on base. Ankiel's bat should easily best the SLG, though Hairston's bat won't help much with that either.*
LF: .352 / .436 - The OBP is a little high for Adam, the slugging is a little low. He's not necessarily better than Willingham. In fact I'll just come out and say it - he's not better than Willingham, BUT he is better than 110 games of Willingham and 50 games of filler. That's the risk you take with Josh.
The end result? Just as Chris said - nobody is getting on base for the Nationals this year. They'll probably see minor gains at catcher, WerthvDunn, and "Morse-field" but that'll be offset by minor losses in the LaRoche v Willingham, et. al. battle and in center. The rest will float around the same numbers. They will see improvement though and it will be in slugging. They should see gains at catcher, second, Laroche over Willingham+, and a big gain in center. I also wouldn't be surprised if Ryan upped his slugging a bit this year. This will more than offset the loss in slugging the Nats will see moving from Dunn to Werth.
It's a better offense this year. Not much better (OBP is more impt than SLG) but maybe enough to move them to the top of the morass of mediocre mashing. That's a start, I guess.
*Can I rant again how ridiculous it is that Hairston is platooning for a major league team in center field in the year 2011? This is a guy who hasn't been a starter since 2005. Who's been good one year since 2006. Who's only played more than 22 games in center ONE SEASON in his career. And yet here he is for the 2011 Nats, primed to play about a quarter of the games in most important outfiled position. I thought the Nats topped themselves last year when they brought in Willy Taveras and didn't cut him immediately, but a platoon with Hairston? How do they beat this next year?
How can the Nats get unstuck from this morass of mediocre mashers? Let's look at the OBP and SLG lines for each position from last year and think if the Nats can beat that line this year. (Yes, I should be looking at isoOBP and isoSLG but that's a lot more work for not much gain)
C: .285 / .352 - Depends on how much Ramos plays. Pudge is no better than this, probably worse. Ramos will beat that slugging given enough opportunity. The OBP maybe, but probably not by much. He was the kind of guy that would bat .310 and have an OBP of .340 in the minors. He's not batting .310 this year.
1B: .358 / .533 - I'm going to compare Dunn to Werth rather than LaRoche, because that's how I see it. Werth=Dunn, LaRoche=Willingham. Werth will have a hard time matching the slugging of Dunn, even with generally a higher average year in and year out, Jayson only hit Dunnian levels of slugging last season. He should get on base more than Dunn though, thanks to Dunn's low batting average.
2B: .312 / .350 - Espinosa is most likely a minor popper with patience who can't hit for average. He should best the SLG, but the OBP is roughly where he'll fall. It'll be with a decent amount of walks though since he'll hit like .240.
SS: .317 / . 394 - Can Desmond beat Desmond? I don't know. Everyone else who played SS last year actually raised the OBP and SLG of the position, so I'll bet on "No", but it'll be basically the same.
3B: .370 / .473 - Can Ryan beat Ryan? Last year was his best average and OBP year so far, but he's slugged better. I think he can beat that SLG number and raise the position with him. (the non-Ryans must have been terrible to bring down the numbers this far in like 15% of the at bats)
RF: .327 / .439 - I'll put Morse in here, since LaRoche is going to go up against LF. The odds are yes, he can beat both these numbers, though it probably won't be by as much as people were hoping.
CF: .310 / .303 - Ankiel and Hairston are so terrible at getting on base that they should actually get on base less than the Nyjer Morgan led CFers did last year and at times it seemed like those guys were trying NOT to get on base. Ankiel's bat should easily best the SLG, though Hairston's bat won't help much with that either.*
LF: .352 / .436 - The OBP is a little high for Adam, the slugging is a little low. He's not necessarily better than Willingham. In fact I'll just come out and say it - he's not better than Willingham, BUT he is better than 110 games of Willingham and 50 games of filler. That's the risk you take with Josh.
The end result? Just as Chris said - nobody is getting on base for the Nationals this year. They'll probably see minor gains at catcher, WerthvDunn, and "Morse-field" but that'll be offset by minor losses in the LaRoche v Willingham, et. al. battle and in center. The rest will float around the same numbers. They will see improvement though and it will be in slugging. They should see gains at catcher, second, Laroche over Willingham+, and a big gain in center. I also wouldn't be surprised if Ryan upped his slugging a bit this year. This will more than offset the loss in slugging the Nats will see moving from Dunn to Werth.
It's a better offense this year. Not much better (OBP is more impt than SLG) but maybe enough to move them to the top of the morass of mediocre mashing. That's a start, I guess.
*Can I rant again how ridiculous it is that Hairston is platooning for a major league team in center field in the year 2011? This is a guy who hasn't been a starter since 2005. Who's been good one year since 2006. Who's only played more than 22 games in center ONE SEASON in his career. And yet here he is for the 2011 Nats, primed to play about a quarter of the games in most important outfiled position. I thought the Nats topped themselves last year when they brought in Willy Taveras and didn't cut him immediately, but a platoon with Hairston? How do they beat this next year?
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Opening Day!
As Banks once said (Josh not Ernie) : "It's a terrible day for a ballgame. Let's play 5 innings and go home and have some hot chocolate"
Will it be a season where the Nats surprise? A step in the right direction? Or the same old, same old? I'm at least excited about this year as opposed to previous ones. There's only one aging and bad player starting (hey pudge!) on offense and any dislike of seeing Pudge out there will be mitigated by seeing Ramos play more and more. In fact three young guys (Ramos, Desmond, Espinosa) should get a ton of playing time. Morse, while probably no better than Willingham, has the air of mystery on his side. Werth, Zimm, and LaRoche should do what they do. Really only CF sits out there as a stinker of a position, but hey it's the Nats. It's their heritage. (really though - Hairston in an OF platoon? I mean... like... seriously? Tomorrow is April Fool's right?)
The pitching staff is less interesting to watch. Really it's a "how good is ZNN going to be" situation but the rest should be decent and I would name my first son Gorzelanny if he could hold down the 5th position (no I wouldn't) and not subject us to the Martin, Atilano, Mock, etc. AAA Revue. I guess closer is of interest too but whatever. It's relievers. It'll work itself out one way or another as people stress way too much about at bats of random importance that happen to take place in the 9th inning.
As all bloggers, columnists, beat guys, etc. do, it's time for me to make my win total prediction. I'll go with 79 wins. This would fall in the "step in the right direction" category, but the inability to get to 80 wins would be a nice psychological barrier between believing the season was a success or a failure. Your guesses?
Some other crazy predictions that are sure to be wrong:
Guess the Rotation
The rotation ended up as Livan, Lannan, ZNN, Marquis, and Gorzelannnnnny. Obviously no one went 5 for 5, because of Strasburg but who won? A three way tie between Hoo, Cass, and me. Hooray me!
Hoo and I both had Lannan, ZNN and Marquis in the rotation. In fact we were the only two to have Lannan at all. Boo everyone for their Lannan hate. Cass had Zim, Marquis and Livan. Lots of Mayas and Wangs pushed everyone else to 2. Surprisingly - no one bombed out with 1 or 0. Considering we were making these guessing early last August - I say good job to all.
Guess the Nats LF
Morse took the lead early and ran away with it. Bdrube, cass, and Jack all had that scenario playing out. I give bdrube extra credit for calling the Morgan departure as well. (Unfortunately the Ankiel/Hairston platoon ruined his perfect record). There was a lot of Morse platoons, most with Ankiel who is a starter in a platoon so that's pretty close. You guys bought into Mike a lot earlier than I did. Only I was completely wrong as I had Bernadina in center (and if I let myself keep talking I would have had Morgan in center - probably Restovich in right the way I was going).
Will it be a season where the Nats surprise? A step in the right direction? Or the same old, same old? I'm at least excited about this year as opposed to previous ones. There's only one aging and bad player starting (hey pudge!) on offense and any dislike of seeing Pudge out there will be mitigated by seeing Ramos play more and more. In fact three young guys (Ramos, Desmond, Espinosa) should get a ton of playing time. Morse, while probably no better than Willingham, has the air of mystery on his side. Werth, Zimm, and LaRoche should do what they do. Really only CF sits out there as a stinker of a position, but hey it's the Nats. It's their heritage. (really though - Hairston in an OF platoon? I mean... like... seriously? Tomorrow is April Fool's right?)
The pitching staff is less interesting to watch. Really it's a "how good is ZNN going to be" situation but the rest should be decent and I would name my first son Gorzelanny if he could hold down the 5th position (no I wouldn't) and not subject us to the Martin, Atilano, Mock, etc. AAA Revue. I guess closer is of interest too but whatever. It's relievers. It'll work itself out one way or another as people stress way too much about at bats of random importance that happen to take place in the 9th inning.
As all bloggers, columnists, beat guys, etc. do, it's time for me to make my win total prediction. I'll go with 79 wins. This would fall in the "step in the right direction" category, but the inability to get to 80 wins would be a nice psychological barrier between believing the season was a success or a failure. Your guesses?
Some other crazy predictions that are sure to be wrong:
- I'll go with Lannan being the best pitcher in the rotation. Livan worst.
- I think I've convinced myself that Desmond won't be starting at short all year long.
- Ankiel will have most starts in center, but he won't get to 81 games there.
- Storen will stick as closer. H-Rod won't pitch in the majors until September call-ups.
- Over/Under on Wang + Maya starts for the Nationals at 4. Who wants the over?
- "Team Leader" Pudge, the super veteran / professional becomes an unhappy distraction as he loses playing time to Ramos.
- 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
Guess the Rotation
The rotation ended up as Livan, Lannan, ZNN, Marquis, and Gorzelannnnnny. Obviously no one went 5 for 5, because of Strasburg but who won? A three way tie between Hoo, Cass, and me. Hooray me!
Hoo and I both had Lannan, ZNN and Marquis in the rotation. In fact we were the only two to have Lannan at all. Boo everyone for their Lannan hate. Cass had Zim, Marquis and Livan. Lots of Mayas and Wangs pushed everyone else to 2. Surprisingly - no one bombed out with 1 or 0. Considering we were making these guessing early last August - I say good job to all.
Guess the Nats LF
Morse took the lead early and ran away with it. Bdrube, cass, and Jack all had that scenario playing out. I give bdrube extra credit for calling the Morgan departure as well. (Unfortunately the Ankiel/Hairston platoon ruined his perfect record). There was a lot of Morse platoons, most with Ankiel who is a starter in a platoon so that's pretty close. You guys bought into Mike a lot earlier than I did. Only I was completely wrong as I had Bernadina in center (and if I let myself keep talking I would have had Morgan in center - probably Restovich in right the way I was going).
Monday, March 28, 2011
Nyjer Nyjer Burning Bright
The Nats traded Nyjer Morgan to the Brewers for a guy who's biggest claim to fame (positive or otherwise) is that his father was a good player for a couple of well-known teams full of jerks (oh, what? The 86 Mets are the 86 Mets, and as for the 93 Phils - nothing is worse than a legitimately good team pretending that they are getting by on pure scrap). Cutter Dykstra is a side note here - a mediocre minor leaguer who finally did some good at an age where you'd hope he'd being doing good two steps up (A+, then AA). Let's leave him be until the Nats trade him to the Rockies so he can be "Coors" Cutter and Coors can finally bring back their non-alcoholic beer (Cooooooooooooooors Cutter!).
No, this is just a Nyjer dump pure and simple. I'm disappointed. Look at Nyjer's stats and his 2010 stats scream "off-year" as much as his 2009 Nats stats screamed "fluke", too. His most likely year wasn't great but it was enough to warrant starting him at least for a couple more months before giving up on him. Was he a long term answer? No, at his age and with his skill set you might get 2-3 more years from him but last year was the FIRST YEAR in Nationals' history that they went into the season with possibly viable plan for CF. Dammit if they couldn't keep that going for a second year. (An Ankiel and Hairtston is not viable, for one - Hairston, for two Ankiel's last season's worth of NL stats aren't any better than Morgan's and he's older)
so yeah - disappointed. not that Morgan was great or anything. Just wanted them to commit to a plan for an appopriate amount of time - or at least if you give up on your plan make sure you have a decent alternative.
No, this is just a Nyjer dump pure and simple. I'm disappointed. Look at Nyjer's stats and his 2010 stats scream "off-year" as much as his 2009 Nats stats screamed "fluke", too. His most likely year wasn't great but it was enough to warrant starting him at least for a couple more months before giving up on him. Was he a long term answer? No, at his age and with his skill set you might get 2-3 more years from him but last year was the FIRST YEAR in Nationals' history that they went into the season with possibly viable plan for CF. Dammit if they couldn't keep that going for a second year. (An Ankiel and Hairtston is not viable, for one - Hairston, for two Ankiel's last season's worth of NL stats aren't any better than Morgan's and he's older)
so yeah - disappointed. not that Morgan was great or anything. Just wanted them to commit to a plan for an appopriate amount of time - or at least if you give up on your plan make sure you have a decent alternative.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Hey I was brought up!
as smart even! (Well, I guess just smarter than Adam thinks he is. Let's assume he thinks he's a genius.)
At quick glance, I don't see anything really wrong with Adam's math. I guess he should use Ankiel's OBP against righties if he's making the platoon assumption but given the small percentage difference between that stat (about .315) and what Adam used (.298) and the small difference in at bats we're looking at (about what, a little more than 5%?) I don't think you'll see a difference of more than a couple outs, if that.
To be completely picky the question was:
Assuming that they just moved Werth-Zimmerman-LaRoche-Morse up one spot each then you'd have to figure each ones increase in outs made (with more at bats) and then figure in that 25 saved by moving Ankiel. Off the top of my head I'd guess it'll probably be real minor change , maybe a couple outs for each one. So you're still probably looking at 15-20 outs saved by the move.
(I could also argue a better lineup means more plate appearances across the board - so that should be scaled up, but really what? 5 more at bats? 10? It's not going to matter)
At quick glance, I don't see anything really wrong with Adam's math. I guess he should use Ankiel's OBP against righties if he's making the platoon assumption but given the small percentage difference between that stat (about .315) and what Adam used (.298) and the small difference in at bats we're looking at (about what, a little more than 5%?) I don't think you'll see a difference of more than a couple outs, if that.
To be completely picky the question was:
How many outs will the Nationals save by Ankiel hitting sixth instead of second?
Assuming that they just moved Werth-Zimmerman-LaRoche-Morse up one spot each then you'd have to figure each ones increase in outs made (with more at bats) and then figure in that 25 saved by moving Ankiel. Off the top of my head I'd guess it'll probably be real minor change , maybe a couple outs for each one. So you're still probably looking at 15-20 outs saved by the move.
(I could also argue a better lineup means more plate appearances across the board - so that should be scaled up, but really what? 5 more at bats? 10? It's not going to matter)
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Batting second...
Jayson Werth? OK this is very interesting.
On one hand - this barely matters. As counter intuitive as it may seem the order of your lineup isn't as make or break as you would think it is. Even if you were an idiot and set the exact worst lineup out everyday, something like Pudge, Pitcher, etc. etc. it wouldn't kill your team. Oh you'll lose a few more games, but it wouldn't be like 20. It'd be more like 5, maybe 10. You might see a bigger difference because of luck in 1-run games. (I can point you to some analyses if you like - who doesn't love Markov Chains? Probably the people he locked up in them... ha! Where's my ALF picture?)
And that's comparing your worst lineup to your best. The normal lineup - scrappy fast guy, good BA no power, best hitter maybe, or else best hitter here (usually the guy with more power between the two), decent hitter with power, last guy you have with power left, dregs... - is only going to be a win or two different from the "best" lineup. There are a ton of things that can effect a season a game or two. In other words, what's been used for 100 or so years really is good enough.
On the other hand, you might as well get every win that you can and going with a strategy that puts your high OBP guys up first is a step toward optimizing runs. Werth is a high OBP guy and batting him 2nd is a ballsy move. A GOOD ballsy move. The Nats should get more runs out of it. Sure he might drive in fewer runs, but not that much fewer since some of that loss of people to drive in will be mitigated by the increase in at bats he should see. At the same time Werth should also SCORE more runs batting second. I don't love it, but I do like it.
Two things though:
(1) I wonder how long this will actually last. Generally new and different ideas in baseball only last as long as the team is successful and the Nats don't have the talent to be that successful. It's the culture. It's fine to fail with old ideas. Hundreds of teams have done it before. You're just one of us. But fail with something new, even if it should be better in the long run, you are screwed. Who do you think you are? You think you're smarter than John McGraw? That you're better than Stengel?
(2) What happens to Desmond? I've said before I think he needs to be in a position where he sees a lot of fastballs to succeed. If the Nats truly are concerned with OBP then he can't bat first so that puts him....6th protected by Ramos or Espinosa? I'm not putting money in Desmond futures if this is the case
On one hand - this barely matters. As counter intuitive as it may seem the order of your lineup isn't as make or break as you would think it is. Even if you were an idiot and set the exact worst lineup out everyday, something like Pudge, Pitcher, etc. etc. it wouldn't kill your team. Oh you'll lose a few more games, but it wouldn't be like 20. It'd be more like 5, maybe 10. You might see a bigger difference because of luck in 1-run games. (I can point you to some analyses if you like - who doesn't love Markov Chains? Probably the people he locked up in them... ha! Where's my ALF picture?)
And that's comparing your worst lineup to your best. The normal lineup - scrappy fast guy, good BA no power, best hitter maybe, or else best hitter here (usually the guy with more power between the two), decent hitter with power, last guy you have with power left, dregs... - is only going to be a win or two different from the "best" lineup. There are a ton of things that can effect a season a game or two. In other words, what's been used for 100 or so years really is good enough.
On the other hand, you might as well get every win that you can and going with a strategy that puts your high OBP guys up first is a step toward optimizing runs. Werth is a high OBP guy and batting him 2nd is a ballsy move. A GOOD ballsy move. The Nats should get more runs out of it. Sure he might drive in fewer runs, but not that much fewer since some of that loss of people to drive in will be mitigated by the increase in at bats he should see. At the same time Werth should also SCORE more runs batting second. I don't love it, but I do like it.
Two things though:
(1) I wonder how long this will actually last. Generally new and different ideas in baseball only last as long as the team is successful and the Nats don't have the talent to be that successful. It's the culture. It's fine to fail with old ideas. Hundreds of teams have done it before. You're just one of us. But fail with something new, even if it should be better in the long run, you are screwed. Who do you think you are? You think you're smarter than John McGraw? That you're better than Stengel?
(2) What happens to Desmond? I've said before I think he needs to be in a position where he sees a lot of fastballs to succeed. If the Nats truly are concerned with OBP then he can't bat first so that puts him....6th protected by Ramos or Espinosa? I'm not putting money in Desmond futures if this is the case
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Yay! Nonsense!
I almost posted yesterday that I wondered when the Nats' "brawl" with the Cardinals would get taken by some no-talent reporter as a sign of the Nats having toughness/scrappiness/redassness/true grit/black swan/ecksteinian power/etc. etc.
Man, I wish I would have posted that.
Oh Boswell, it was just 11 short months ago when you were proclaiming that LAST year's Nats were full of fight and vigor and crackerjacks and CheezIts. What happened?
I'll tell you what happened. They lost. A lot. And teams that lose a lot simply don't care. They don't have that fight in them, obviously. You must have been mistaken about that new spirit. You shut up and never mention again how you thought that year's team had a different attitude. Then you bring up the same argument again the next season and again and again ad infinitum until the team wins. Then you talk about how you KNEW this year's team seemed to have a different attitude. Calvin would be proud. Not this one. This one.
I'm not even going to bother to rehash the whole column here. It's just a bunch of macho quotes that sound tough and mean nothing. The team philosophy version of "being in the best shape of their lives" columns. One paragraph though, does warrant a bit more discussion.
Second the idea that preparation and concentration can make a dozen game difference actually makes sense... if one team is preparing and concentrating and the other team is just randomly showing up surprised that baseball is taking place that day. In reality all teams are preparing and concentrating. Some a little more than others, true. But to the point where two teams with .500 talent would find themselves winning 87 and 75 games respectively? I submit to you sir that that is utter nonsense. If teams are that far apart it's not the prepartion, it's not the concentration, it's the TALENT.
Man, I wish I would have posted that.
Oh Boswell, it was just 11 short months ago when you were proclaiming that LAST year's Nats were full of fight and vigor and crackerjacks and CheezIts. What happened?
I'll tell you what happened. They lost. A lot. And teams that lose a lot simply don't care. They don't have that fight in them, obviously. You must have been mistaken about that new spirit. You shut up and never mention again how you thought that year's team had a different attitude. Then you bring up the same argument again the next season and again and again ad infinitum until the team wins. Then you talk about how you KNEW this year's team seemed to have a different attitude. Calvin would be proud. Not this one. This one.
I'm not even going to bother to rehash the whole column here. It's just a bunch of macho quotes that sound tough and mean nothing. The team philosophy version of "being in the best shape of their lives" columns. One paragraph though, does warrant a bit more discussion.
They will soon. In theory, there are now a dozen Nats, including old pros Pudge Rodriguez, Jason Marquis and Hernandez, who should be quick to tell ’em the correct way to play the ultimate game of detail. In baseball, pregame preparation and in-game concentration over six grueling months can separate teams of equivalent talent by a dozen games.First - all the guys you named WERE ON THE TEAM LAST YEAR. If you are so sure they can make the team play better by uttering a few words about what they've learned facing the Ol' Hoss Hershiser or "White Whale" Hrbek then why didn't they do this LAST YEAR? And yes you brought in Werth and LaRoche... who take the place of Dunn and Willingham who have roughly the same experience.
Second the idea that preparation and concentration can make a dozen game difference actually makes sense... if one team is preparing and concentrating and the other team is just randomly showing up surprised that baseball is taking place that day. In reality all teams are preparing and concentrating. Some a little more than others, true. But to the point where two teams with .500 talent would find themselves winning 87 and 75 games respectively? I submit to you sir that that is utter nonsense. If teams are that far apart it's not the prepartion, it's not the concentration, it's the TALENT.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Odds revisted
I put up a post on odds the young players would go on to have standout careers the other day that generated some nice comments. Here are a few things I thought warranted a revist.
Mike Morse's odds were overrated. In my imaginary made up oddworld (we'll get to that later) Mike Morse sat only behind Danny Espinosa and Wilson Ramos in his chances to have a standout career. Pretty much everyone said I was overrating him because his age (29 tomorrow, somebody bake that man a cake!) made it very unlikely he could put together the length of career necessary. If you be a bit generous and count last year, to get a standout career Morse would still have to produce at a good to very good level until he's 34. That doesn't seem like too much but consider that we're talking about a guy yet to play a full season in the bigs, who may not be long for an outfield position, who is seen right now as a platoon player. It's asking a lot for him to string together 6 straight years of good play now. So you're right, I'm wrong. In my made-up odds he should probably be bumped back much closer to the back group. No higher than like 25 to 1, but possible lower.
Jordan Zimmermann's odds were too low. Ok well here I think we'll end up just disagreeing. As I noted, to come back from Tommy John surgery to the place you were before generally requires more than a year. So we have two things two consider - (1) Does last year count as a year? (2) Where was the place he was before?
(1) Personally I don't think so. Jordan pitched only 70 innings last year, more than half in the minors. That's about a third of a season. In it his K's were down (not terribly but still down) and he was giving up WAAY too many home runs. I think he's going to need this year to get back into his groove and it will be 2012 (his age 26 season) when he is back to normal.
(2) I called Jordan's opening season "average" but that was selling it short a little bit. As Commenter Wally pointed out - his WAR was 1.8 in 90 or so innings - extrapolating out to a whole season that's in the 3.5-4.0 range (he gets a bump up if you think he'll throw more than 200 innings). That's not a #1 but it's a solid #2. (We could run through his other stats if you like but the point would be the same) Personally I question assuming that he'll match that run - but I'll concede, it was better than "average".
In theory then he'll be back to being GOOD in 2012. Is his odds too low then considering he'd only need a run from 26-32? I'm going to say no IF ONLY because he's a pitcher with injury history. I just don't see 7 straight post-surgery injury free years. I took a look at pitchers with Tommy John surgery and outside of Tommy John himself, I didn't see anyone who pitched that many injury free years as a starter in a row. Maybe I missed someone but Chris Capuano made it 5 (before needing another one). Granted a lot of these are "In progress" but so far... That's where I make my odds. I'll stand by it.
My odds stink Commenter Brent noted that my odds seem WAY too low to him. Looking at similar players based on Baseball Refs similarity scores (something I did the other week to say Ryan is teh aweseomm!) it seems that a good number of players that compare to Desmond, for example, had standout careers. It would seem that Desmond would have maybe 3 to 1 odds at worst. My argument from the other day could knock him down a peg or two but 40 to 1? Crazy!
My first instinct (other than to agree - I just pulled these numbers out of the air) was to say you can't rely on simularity scores for these guys because there are so few numbers to go on, but having so few numbers is kind of the point of looking at these things in the first place. Since we can't use just a season of data to extrapolate on Desmond's career we have to use something else. There are only a certain number of players who played SS for a season at Desmond's age and hit like Desmond did. How they did at least is another piece of decent information for comparison.
What do these say (roughly - only looking at sort of recent players)
Detwiler: 2 in 4? If he became Al Leiter that would be great.
Desmond: Somewhere around 2 (julio franco, with stephen drew likely) in 7, 3 in 7 if you feel Orlando Cabrera was a standout and not a faker.
ZNN: 1 in 4 or so if you like Jamie Shields
Morse: Really no chance - a bunch of guys with maybe a couple good years.
The other guys had none listed. To really compare these players though we'd have to explore their minor league stats, development, and how they got their major league stats that compare, but that's more work.
Short of it is - my odds probably do stink. They probably are too low for the back end guys. I'd argue against Desmond being anywhere near 5 to 1 (tomorrow or Wed), but 40 to 1 is probably equally ridiculous.
Mike Morse's odds were overrated. In my imaginary made up oddworld (we'll get to that later) Mike Morse sat only behind Danny Espinosa and Wilson Ramos in his chances to have a standout career. Pretty much everyone said I was overrating him because his age (29 tomorrow, somebody bake that man a cake!) made it very unlikely he could put together the length of career necessary. If you be a bit generous and count last year, to get a standout career Morse would still have to produce at a good to very good level until he's 34. That doesn't seem like too much but consider that we're talking about a guy yet to play a full season in the bigs, who may not be long for an outfield position, who is seen right now as a platoon player. It's asking a lot for him to string together 6 straight years of good play now. So you're right, I'm wrong. In my made-up odds he should probably be bumped back much closer to the back group. No higher than like 25 to 1, but possible lower.
Jordan Zimmermann's odds were too low. Ok well here I think we'll end up just disagreeing. As I noted, to come back from Tommy John surgery to the place you were before generally requires more than a year. So we have two things two consider - (1) Does last year count as a year? (2) Where was the place he was before?
(1) Personally I don't think so. Jordan pitched only 70 innings last year, more than half in the minors. That's about a third of a season. In it his K's were down (not terribly but still down) and he was giving up WAAY too many home runs. I think he's going to need this year to get back into his groove and it will be 2012 (his age 26 season) when he is back to normal.
(2) I called Jordan's opening season "average" but that was selling it short a little bit. As Commenter Wally pointed out - his WAR was 1.8 in 90 or so innings - extrapolating out to a whole season that's in the 3.5-4.0 range (he gets a bump up if you think he'll throw more than 200 innings). That's not a #1 but it's a solid #2. (We could run through his other stats if you like but the point would be the same) Personally I question assuming that he'll match that run - but I'll concede, it was better than "average".
In theory then he'll be back to being GOOD in 2012. Is his odds too low then considering he'd only need a run from 26-32? I'm going to say no IF ONLY because he's a pitcher with injury history. I just don't see 7 straight post-surgery injury free years. I took a look at pitchers with Tommy John surgery and outside of Tommy John himself, I didn't see anyone who pitched that many injury free years as a starter in a row. Maybe I missed someone but Chris Capuano made it 5 (before needing another one). Granted a lot of these are "In progress" but so far... That's where I make my odds. I'll stand by it.
My odds stink Commenter Brent noted that my odds seem WAY too low to him. Looking at similar players based on Baseball Refs similarity scores (something I did the other week to say Ryan is teh aweseomm!) it seems that a good number of players that compare to Desmond, for example, had standout careers. It would seem that Desmond would have maybe 3 to 1 odds at worst. My argument from the other day could knock him down a peg or two but 40 to 1? Crazy!
My first instinct (other than to agree - I just pulled these numbers out of the air) was to say you can't rely on simularity scores for these guys because there are so few numbers to go on, but having so few numbers is kind of the point of looking at these things in the first place. Since we can't use just a season of data to extrapolate on Desmond's career we have to use something else. There are only a certain number of players who played SS for a season at Desmond's age and hit like Desmond did. How they did at least is another piece of decent information for comparison.
What do these say (roughly - only looking at sort of recent players)
Detwiler: 2 in 4? If he became Al Leiter that would be great.
Desmond: Somewhere around 2 (julio franco, with stephen drew likely) in 7, 3 in 7 if you feel Orlando Cabrera was a standout and not a faker.
ZNN: 1 in 4 or so if you like Jamie Shields
Morse: Really no chance - a bunch of guys with maybe a couple good years.
The other guys had none listed. To really compare these players though we'd have to explore their minor league stats, development, and how they got their major league stats that compare, but that's more work.
Short of it is - my odds probably do stink. They probably are too low for the back end guys. I'd argue against Desmond being anywhere near 5 to 1 (tomorrow or Wed), but 40 to 1 is probably equally ridiculous.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Riggle it, just a little bit.
Jason Reid wrote his first piece on the Nats today saying how the Nats should give Riggleman a long term contract because, well, it isn't quite clear to me. Oh, he has reasons in there but the vibe that comes across is more of a "because" than a strongly argued position. Let go over the points
1) "In 237 games with the Nationals, Riggleman’s record is 102-135. In the 237 games before Riggleman led them, the Nationals were 82-155. That's progress."
He's right. That is progress. But 82-155 is TERRIBLE. It amounts to a 56 win season if measured out to 162 games. It's a record that if you pulled a guy from the stands during a game and said "Hey, you there! Manage this team." I'd give him a decent shot of improving. Plus it happens to coincide with a more concerted and well-planned effort to make the team decent then we've seen years. All in all if they didn't severely improve in the last 237 games we'd have to question whether Jim was in the right line of work. Let's not go crazy about Riggleman managing this squad to what amounts to a 70 win pace.
2) "Managers really earn their money directing bullpens when teams have weak rotations, and many Nationals starters lacked big league caliber stuff. Riggleman deftly handled the team’s relief corps, mixing and matching in one of the best performances I’ve seen from a manager."
Wow. That's high praise. I thought he did a decent job. He rightly realized early that Capps and Clippard were the only ones pitching well to start and he rode them hard. That might not be the best thing for a young team (If Clippard is as good this year I'll eat my hat. And by HAT I mean a Ham, Avacado, and Tomato sandwich), but then again it's not the worst (relievers are a dime a dozen). If Riggleman was so great at managing bullpens why did the 2009 Nats pen put up ERAs of 4.30 and 4.50 that June and July, then 5.07 and 5.42 in August and September when he came in?
Rizzo supplied Riggleman with decent arms, Riggleman used them correctly. There's reason to praise him here, I've seen managers that can't even do that, but best eva? I'm not going that far.
1) "It’s not hard to manage with essentially a one-year deal. It’s downright impossible"
This is really Reid's argument. It's too hard to make unpopular decisions like lineup changes and dropping guys from the rotation and maintain player support without a long term deal. That without stability players may stop listening to Riggleman because he won't be here next year. That may be true. Really, I would guess alot of "manager respect" rises and falls like "team chemistry", meaning players respect the manager when they feel the team is improving in wins and tune him out when they feel like they are losing more than they should, but I'll give that there is probably something to it.
Though Reid couldn't leave this effect, vague and hard to capture with hard evidence, just sitting there:
"Unless you’ve spent significant time in baseball clubhouses, it’s impossible to understand the dynamic that exists among managers, coaches and players — especially on bad teams."
That, my friends, is the "you never played the game" for journalists. A truth that matters, but one that shouldn't be used as a trump card. I'm not terribly bothered by it's use in this argument because the role of a manager is such a "squishy" thing. You're dealing with a lot of abstracts like "dealing with the media" and "motivating a clubhouse". It's hard to show any real effect when comparing most managers, but instinctually feels like there really should be one. But still, pulling out that line so early makes me wonder if every argument he makes might get pointed back to that one statement. Something to think about.
.
.
.
Oh Riggleman? I don't care. I think he can not mess things up, so if the Nats don't have a better option they are looking at then they might as well extend him. They could easily find someone worse.
1) "In 237 games with the Nationals, Riggleman’s record is 102-135. In the 237 games before Riggleman led them, the Nationals were 82-155. That's progress."
He's right. That is progress. But 82-155 is TERRIBLE. It amounts to a 56 win season if measured out to 162 games. It's a record that if you pulled a guy from the stands during a game and said "Hey, you there! Manage this team." I'd give him a decent shot of improving. Plus it happens to coincide with a more concerted and well-planned effort to make the team decent then we've seen years. All in all if they didn't severely improve in the last 237 games we'd have to question whether Jim was in the right line of work. Let's not go crazy about Riggleman managing this squad to what amounts to a 70 win pace.
2) "Managers really earn their money directing bullpens when teams have weak rotations, and many Nationals starters lacked big league caliber stuff. Riggleman deftly handled the team’s relief corps, mixing and matching in one of the best performances I’ve seen from a manager."
Wow. That's high praise. I thought he did a decent job. He rightly realized early that Capps and Clippard were the only ones pitching well to start and he rode them hard. That might not be the best thing for a young team (If Clippard is as good this year I'll eat my hat. And by HAT I mean a Ham, Avacado, and Tomato sandwich), but then again it's not the worst (relievers are a dime a dozen). If Riggleman was so great at managing bullpens why did the 2009 Nats pen put up ERAs of 4.30 and 4.50 that June and July, then 5.07 and 5.42 in August and September when he came in?
Rizzo supplied Riggleman with decent arms, Riggleman used them correctly. There's reason to praise him here, I've seen managers that can't even do that, but best eva? I'm not going that far.
1) "It’s not hard to manage with essentially a one-year deal. It’s downright impossible"
This is really Reid's argument. It's too hard to make unpopular decisions like lineup changes and dropping guys from the rotation and maintain player support without a long term deal. That without stability players may stop listening to Riggleman because he won't be here next year. That may be true. Really, I would guess alot of "manager respect" rises and falls like "team chemistry", meaning players respect the manager when they feel the team is improving in wins and tune him out when they feel like they are losing more than they should, but I'll give that there is probably something to it.
Though Reid couldn't leave this effect, vague and hard to capture with hard evidence, just sitting there:
"Unless you’ve spent significant time in baseball clubhouses, it’s impossible to understand the dynamic that exists among managers, coaches and players — especially on bad teams."
That, my friends, is the "you never played the game" for journalists. A truth that matters, but one that shouldn't be used as a trump card. I'm not terribly bothered by it's use in this argument because the role of a manager is such a "squishy" thing. You're dealing with a lot of abstracts like "dealing with the media" and "motivating a clubhouse". It's hard to show any real effect when comparing most managers, but instinctually feels like there really should be one. But still, pulling out that line so early makes me wonder if every argument he makes might get pointed back to that one statement. Something to think about.
.
.
.
Oh Riggleman? I don't care. I think he can not mess things up, so if the Nats don't have a better option they are looking at then they might as well extend him. They could easily find someone worse.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Breakouts?
The scare with Danny Espinosa yesterday ("Oh no!!1! He's frajile!!!" says Stupid Fan #1) highlights how fleeting major league success can be. One day you're a star to be, the next day you've been auf'd by an errant foul ball. (Yes, I made a Project Runway reference. It's my blog.) Chances of long-term success for any one player, even the best of them (see Strasburg, Steven) start slim and get slimmer.
Yet hope springs eternal for every young player and for every old baseball scribe. Which is why it's no surprise the Nats resident Spirit Squad leader Tom Boswell wrote this article the other day. In it he tries to be calm but you can sense the excitement in the overall theme. Surely one or two of Morse, Espinosa, ZNN, Detwiler, Desmond, Maya, Ramos, Bernadina, Storen, and Kimball will be a standout, right? Maybe even a star, right? Sure none of these are good bets but other teams get lucky, right?
Right?
Since there is so much hedging in the article it's hard to disagree with Boz. But really I guess it depends on what you mean as a "standout". A decent major leaguer for 3-4 years, that's not a standout to me. I'm thinking a good 7-10 year long career, with an outside shot at an all-star game in their best years. (think what Willingham will likely end with) I thought about it and put these odds on the 8 players listed above - ignoring the relievers because what do I care about relievers?
Totally unscientific, just based on opinion odds at being a standout player, from worst odds to best -
Bernadina : 100 to 1 : Not terribly old but not terribly good either. Like Morse he'll probably spend a lot of time being jerked around. Unlike Morse it's because he doesn't really do anything good enough to make teams not want to take a look at someone else. He's good enough to play everyday and not embarrass the team, at least for a few years, but nothing more than that.
Maya : 75 to 1 : Rizzo isn't a fool. He didn't push Maya too fast. He thought "hey the guy is 28 and been pitching for years. If he's not ready now, when will he be?" He wasn't. He is being asked to face the hardest competition in his life just when he's starting to lose his stuff. Could the Nats get a couple decent years out of him? Maybe. But that's not a standout is it?
Detwiler : 50 to 1 : Like Zimmerman in that he's already had an injury - and one harder to figure out. He probably doesn't need another year to recover, but he also hasn't impressed yet in the majors. He has control issues that need to be cleared up and his K:BB ratio in Spring is less impressive because players don't walk out of Florida. (the isoOBP in Spring is noticeably lower than during the regular season). Age 25 is generally when standouts round into form with a couple ok years in the books, not when they still are trying to figure things out. This pedigree as a batter would be more forgiving but pitchers have a much spottier track record.
Desmond : 40 to 1 : He's made the majors so that's going for him. On the other hand is that post from the other day.
ZNN : 10 to 1 : He's a great talent but he's 25 and already had serious arm issues. It'll take him more than last year to get back to form from TJ, and he's lost crucial time where he should have been learning to pitch with his best stuff. Still he should be good in the years that matter for the Nats. I'm not hopeful much beyond that - at least as a starter. Squeeze what you can get from those years.
Morse : 8 to 1 : He hit in the minors, he hit in the majors when given the chance. Thing is he's getting to the age where he'll start to decline. He's not the best fielder in a time where fielding is starting to be looked at more and more (possibly too much). He's got a reputation as "not a starter". I think he's got a few good years in him but most likely he'll be jerked around too much to have that lengthy career.
Espinosa : 5 to 1 : Yes, Boz I DO care that he strikes out. It means he has trouble making contact. But he supposedly fields well enough so that all he has to do is hit in the .250 range to have an extended career bopping 15-20 homers. That's harder than it sounds, especially for a guy that never hit for average in the minors, but given his age, it's not a crazy bet at all.
Ramos : 3 to 1 : He probably won't ever be a league leading hitter overall, but he's hit for average and some pop while being young for every level AND he did it while playing catcher. He should easily hurdle that low bar that is "offense for a catcher" into a nice long career.
Totally unscientific odds that none of them become a standout? Somewhere around 40%
(But if it makes you feel better if we were just looking at the 2012-2014 range I do like Morse and ZNN to be productive at some point during that time period. So the odds that none of these would be a standout during those years would be probably like 15%... or 3324% what do I know I'm just making this up)
Yet hope springs eternal for every young player and for every old baseball scribe. Which is why it's no surprise the Nats resident Spirit Squad leader Tom Boswell wrote this article the other day. In it he tries to be calm but you can sense the excitement in the overall theme. Surely one or two of Morse, Espinosa, ZNN, Detwiler, Desmond, Maya, Ramos, Bernadina, Storen, and Kimball will be a standout, right? Maybe even a star, right? Sure none of these are good bets but other teams get lucky, right?
Right?
Since there is so much hedging in the article it's hard to disagree with Boz. But really I guess it depends on what you mean as a "standout". A decent major leaguer for 3-4 years, that's not a standout to me. I'm thinking a good 7-10 year long career, with an outside shot at an all-star game in their best years. (think what Willingham will likely end with) I thought about it and put these odds on the 8 players listed above - ignoring the relievers because what do I care about relievers?
Totally unscientific, just based on opinion odds at being a standout player, from worst odds to best -
Bernadina : 100 to 1 : Not terribly old but not terribly good either. Like Morse he'll probably spend a lot of time being jerked around. Unlike Morse it's because he doesn't really do anything good enough to make teams not want to take a look at someone else. He's good enough to play everyday and not embarrass the team, at least for a few years, but nothing more than that.
Maya : 75 to 1 : Rizzo isn't a fool. He didn't push Maya too fast. He thought "hey the guy is 28 and been pitching for years. If he's not ready now, when will he be?" He wasn't. He is being asked to face the hardest competition in his life just when he's starting to lose his stuff. Could the Nats get a couple decent years out of him? Maybe. But that's not a standout is it?
Detwiler : 50 to 1 : Like Zimmerman in that he's already had an injury - and one harder to figure out. He probably doesn't need another year to recover, but he also hasn't impressed yet in the majors. He has control issues that need to be cleared up and his K:BB ratio in Spring is less impressive because players don't walk out of Florida. (the isoOBP in Spring is noticeably lower than during the regular season). Age 25 is generally when standouts round into form with a couple ok years in the books, not when they still are trying to figure things out. This pedigree as a batter would be more forgiving but pitchers have a much spottier track record.
Desmond : 40 to 1 : He's made the majors so that's going for him. On the other hand is that post from the other day.
ZNN : 10 to 1 : He's a great talent but he's 25 and already had serious arm issues. It'll take him more than last year to get back to form from TJ, and he's lost crucial time where he should have been learning to pitch with his best stuff. Still he should be good in the years that matter for the Nats. I'm not hopeful much beyond that - at least as a starter. Squeeze what you can get from those years.
Morse : 8 to 1 : He hit in the minors, he hit in the majors when given the chance. Thing is he's getting to the age where he'll start to decline. He's not the best fielder in a time where fielding is starting to be looked at more and more (possibly too much). He's got a reputation as "not a starter". I think he's got a few good years in him but most likely he'll be jerked around too much to have that lengthy career.
Espinosa : 5 to 1 : Yes, Boz I DO care that he strikes out. It means he has trouble making contact. But he supposedly fields well enough so that all he has to do is hit in the .250 range to have an extended career bopping 15-20 homers. That's harder than it sounds, especially for a guy that never hit for average in the minors, but given his age, it's not a crazy bet at all.
Ramos : 3 to 1 : He probably won't ever be a league leading hitter overall, but he's hit for average and some pop while being young for every level AND he did it while playing catcher. He should easily hurdle that low bar that is "offense for a catcher" into a nice long career.
Totally unscientific odds that none of them become a standout? Somewhere around 40%
(But if it makes you feel better if we were just looking at the 2012-2014 range I do like Morse and ZNN to be productive at some point during that time period. So the odds that none of these would be a standout during those years would be probably like 15%... or 3324% what do I know I'm just making this up)
Monday, March 14, 2011
Offensive Keyhole : Ian Desmond
Last year I introduced the idea of an "offensive keyhole". This was a player that fit 3 criteria
There aren't many other options. Zimmerman, Werth, and LaRoche all have a long enough track records that any performance other than the expected respective awesome, very good, and average would be a surprise. Morgan is a complete wild card after last years crash. Morse, Bernadina, Espinosa, and Ramos all don't have enough major league time for good evaluation. It falls to Desmond almost in default. If the Nats' spring wasn't filled with worrying about 4th/5th starters and two OF positions and the showing of the most heralded power prospect of this generation things might be different. Fans might be paying more attention to Ian rather than setting and forgetting him, but that is what's going on.
What ARE Nats fans expecting from Ian Desmond? I don't think it's too much. Last year he put up a line of .269 / .308 / .392. Projections have him in the .275 / .325 / .420 range - so a couple more hits, a couple more homers. Is that line crazy? . 275 and a mere 15 homers? It just may be.
Remember that Ian was moving up the minors at a snails pace before 2009. Often he was bumped up not because he forced the issue, but because it was necessary for his development not to linger too long in the low levels. He never had high averages. He never showed much interest in walking. His power came in bursts here or there. Since he always seemed to hang on at the higher level it didn't seem crazy that he'd make the majors, but it was getting more and more likely that it would be after age 25 in maybe a reserve role.
Then in 2009, Desmond "got it". He hit .300 with pop in 42 games in AA, .350 in 55 games in AAA. With SS manned by the offensive mediocrity of Cristian Guzman there was no reason to hold him back. But a closer look at 2009 shows some numbers that are disturbing. He had a batting average of balls in play of .371 in AA and .425 in AAA. Those are numbers that suggest luck as much as skill. One could argue that the AA performance was Ian finding his groove and crushing the ball all over the place. I wouldn't think so, but with those power numbers I think the argument could be made. Those AAA numbers though, that reeks of a lucky streak.
It does seem odd to argue that a player was "lucky" for what amounts to a season, but really it was <100 games. We've all seen players have a hot season up until the All-Star break then cool off. That's 90 games. I'm not saying I don't think Desmond improved, but I'm thinking he got better AND was really lucky.
Worse yet the major league numbers from last year show a player who may not have what it takes. Remember, Ian was this close to being sent down around the All-Star break last year before going on a tear. After that hot July and August, he finished the season by going .239 / .288 / .330 in September. His walk rate for the season was the lowest of qualified batters in the NL. His K-rate was up there where the sluggers swing and miss*. His LD% (rough percentage of hits that are line drives) was among the lowest in the league. These are all bad things.
*To give you an idea - the only guys around in K-rate to Desmond with less power were the two complete disasters of leadoff hitters (Michael Bourn and Nyjer) and a Petco guy Chase Headley. Other guys around him with maybe a bit more power - Garrett Jones, Dexter Fowler... these aren't the guys you want to be compared to.
Looking at how he was pitched - it is easy to see what happened. He got a TON less fastballs to hit (went from 77% of pitches thrown to him in his brief 2009 sting to 57% last year), and he swung at these off-speed pitches all the time (Swinging percentage of pitches out of the strike zone jumped from 25% to 33%). I suppose it could be something Desmond could learn to deal with but he was never forced to since being brought into the Nats system. He was pushed up despite being the hitter he is not because of it.
I'm glad Desmond is being batted 2nd because he isn't the type of hitter that can take being pitched around in the 8th hole, but it might in fact be a problem. It is quite possible that rather than Desmond prospering because he is batting 2nd ahead of a trio of good to great hitters, that instead it's the only thing propping him up. That in any other spot in the lineup Desmond would fail and fail hard.
Desmond is still most likely to hit his projections - that's what these things are for - and I was wrong last year (though only in a "worse than expected" way) so I could be wrong this year too. But I'd say there's a decent chance that Nats fans who have not thought about Desmond because they were sure he'd be fine this year might be in for a nasty surprise.
- will start the season or play a lot of games at a position
- have presented a projection that we believe in but could be wildly off for non-injury reasons.
- who's performance could significantly effect the performance of the team.
There aren't many other options. Zimmerman, Werth, and LaRoche all have a long enough track records that any performance other than the expected respective awesome, very good, and average would be a surprise. Morgan is a complete wild card after last years crash. Morse, Bernadina, Espinosa, and Ramos all don't have enough major league time for good evaluation. It falls to Desmond almost in default. If the Nats' spring wasn't filled with worrying about 4th/5th starters and two OF positions and the showing of the most heralded power prospect of this generation things might be different. Fans might be paying more attention to Ian rather than setting and forgetting him, but that is what's going on.
What ARE Nats fans expecting from Ian Desmond? I don't think it's too much. Last year he put up a line of .269 / .308 / .392. Projections have him in the .275 / .325 / .420 range - so a couple more hits, a couple more homers. Is that line crazy? . 275 and a mere 15 homers? It just may be.
Remember that Ian was moving up the minors at a snails pace before 2009. Often he was bumped up not because he forced the issue, but because it was necessary for his development not to linger too long in the low levels. He never had high averages. He never showed much interest in walking. His power came in bursts here or there. Since he always seemed to hang on at the higher level it didn't seem crazy that he'd make the majors, but it was getting more and more likely that it would be after age 25 in maybe a reserve role.
Then in 2009, Desmond "got it". He hit .300 with pop in 42 games in AA, .350 in 55 games in AAA. With SS manned by the offensive mediocrity of Cristian Guzman there was no reason to hold him back. But a closer look at 2009 shows some numbers that are disturbing. He had a batting average of balls in play of .371 in AA and .425 in AAA. Those are numbers that suggest luck as much as skill. One could argue that the AA performance was Ian finding his groove and crushing the ball all over the place. I wouldn't think so, but with those power numbers I think the argument could be made. Those AAA numbers though, that reeks of a lucky streak.
It does seem odd to argue that a player was "lucky" for what amounts to a season, but really it was <100 games. We've all seen players have a hot season up until the All-Star break then cool off. That's 90 games. I'm not saying I don't think Desmond improved, but I'm thinking he got better AND was really lucky.
Worse yet the major league numbers from last year show a player who may not have what it takes. Remember, Ian was this close to being sent down around the All-Star break last year before going on a tear. After that hot July and August, he finished the season by going .239 / .288 / .330 in September. His walk rate for the season was the lowest of qualified batters in the NL. His K-rate was up there where the sluggers swing and miss*. His LD% (rough percentage of hits that are line drives) was among the lowest in the league. These are all bad things.
*To give you an idea - the only guys around in K-rate to Desmond with less power were the two complete disasters of leadoff hitters (Michael Bourn and Nyjer) and a Petco guy Chase Headley. Other guys around him with maybe a bit more power - Garrett Jones, Dexter Fowler... these aren't the guys you want to be compared to.
Looking at how he was pitched - it is easy to see what happened. He got a TON less fastballs to hit (went from 77% of pitches thrown to him in his brief 2009 sting to 57% last year), and he swung at these off-speed pitches all the time (Swinging percentage of pitches out of the strike zone jumped from 25% to 33%). I suppose it could be something Desmond could learn to deal with but he was never forced to since being brought into the Nats system. He was pushed up despite being the hitter he is not because of it.
I'm glad Desmond is being batted 2nd because he isn't the type of hitter that can take being pitched around in the 8th hole, but it might in fact be a problem. It is quite possible that rather than Desmond prospering because he is batting 2nd ahead of a trio of good to great hitters, that instead it's the only thing propping him up. That in any other spot in the lineup Desmond would fail and fail hard.
Desmond is still most likely to hit his projections - that's what these things are for - and I was wrong last year (though only in a "worse than expected" way) so I could be wrong this year too. But I'd say there's a decent chance that Nats fans who have not thought about Desmond because they were sure he'd be fine this year might be in for a nasty surprise.
Friday, March 11, 2011
How good can Ryan be?
When I wrote the Crash/Soar post I half-jokingly said that I hoped Ryan Zimmerman would be the "soar" because it would be great to cover the undisputed best player in baseball.* But could this actually happen? What does a cursory glance at history tell us?
*If you didn't know Ryan's offense & defense have combined to give him the 9th and 4th highest WARs the past two years. That gives you a general idea of how good an all-around player Ryan has been. Top 10 certainly, Top 5 arguably.
It's hard to guess how he'll do defensively in any single year so let's focus on offense. One way to guess how Ryan will do at the plate is to look at similar players. Baseball Reference makes this kind of easy by providing us with the "most similar" players to Ryan. If we look at his "contemporaries" on the similar batters through his current age, we see a pattern emerge. Eric Chavez's best year? When he was 26. Hank Blalock? 26. Sheffield's best 2-year stretch? 26-27. This is interesting because Ryan's age for the majority of next year will be... oh come on, you know... 26!.
We see this even if we look at similar batters regardless of age. Both Dave Nilsson and Garrett Atkins had their peak year at age 26. Not every player agrees, but there isn't much disagreement that Ryan should be better in the next few years. Scott Rolen peaked 28-29. Brad Hawpe at 28.
On the flip side Fernando Tatis and Jorge Cantu peaked earlier but I'm really having a hard time seeing them as similar batters. David Wright so far had his best year at 24 but it's a bit too early to say anything for sure about him. (He actually took a step back at 26, though many blame the move to a new park.)
This isn't anything surprising. It's well known that baseball players generally peak around 26-29 depending. Since Ryan entered the league so young, I'm not surprised he matches up with several players that peak on the early side of that range. (much harder to peak at 26 if you enter the league at 25) History would suggest we're in for a few great years of hitting from Ryan. If his defense holds (and if Pujols starts aging) - the Nats could have the best player in the majors.
A couple "bad news" notes though. First, while Ryan could like see improvement over the next 3 years or so, it's far more likely to be small to moderate, rather than a breakthrough. .310 with 30 homers, or .300 and 35 is probably what we're going to see, not .330 and 40. (although in any given year anything can happen right?). Second, Ryan is almost certainly not going to be a slam-dunk, shut-your-mouth, potentially unanimous first-ballot type of Hall of Famer. These guys almost all tend to show incredible offensive skills at very young ages. In other words, they almost all have had better offensive years than Ryan's best one so far, at ages younger than Ryan is now. Sorry. He could still be an ordinary, let-me-think about it, ok he's in on the second ballot type of Hall of Famer. (Not really "bad news", is it? That's why I used quotes people)
The Nats are far from a perfect team, but they have a player that very well could be the all-around best player in the league a couple times in the next few years. That's something special. Don't let it pass you by worrying about Strasburg and Bryce.
*If you didn't know Ryan's offense & defense have combined to give him the 9th and 4th highest WARs the past two years. That gives you a general idea of how good an all-around player Ryan has been. Top 10 certainly, Top 5 arguably.
It's hard to guess how he'll do defensively in any single year so let's focus on offense. One way to guess how Ryan will do at the plate is to look at similar players. Baseball Reference makes this kind of easy by providing us with the "most similar" players to Ryan. If we look at his "contemporaries" on the similar batters through his current age, we see a pattern emerge. Eric Chavez's best year? When he was 26. Hank Blalock? 26. Sheffield's best 2-year stretch? 26-27. This is interesting because Ryan's age for the majority of next year will be... oh come on, you know... 26!.
We see this even if we look at similar batters regardless of age. Both Dave Nilsson and Garrett Atkins had their peak year at age 26. Not every player agrees, but there isn't much disagreement that Ryan should be better in the next few years. Scott Rolen peaked 28-29. Brad Hawpe at 28.
On the flip side Fernando Tatis and Jorge Cantu peaked earlier but I'm really having a hard time seeing them as similar batters. David Wright so far had his best year at 24 but it's a bit too early to say anything for sure about him. (He actually took a step back at 26, though many blame the move to a new park.)
This isn't anything surprising. It's well known that baseball players generally peak around 26-29 depending. Since Ryan entered the league so young, I'm not surprised he matches up with several players that peak on the early side of that range. (much harder to peak at 26 if you enter the league at 25) History would suggest we're in for a few great years of hitting from Ryan. If his defense holds (and if Pujols starts aging) - the Nats could have the best player in the majors.
A couple "bad news" notes though. First, while Ryan could like see improvement over the next 3 years or so, it's far more likely to be small to moderate, rather than a breakthrough. .310 with 30 homers, or .300 and 35 is probably what we're going to see, not .330 and 40. (although in any given year anything can happen right?). Second, Ryan is almost certainly not going to be a slam-dunk, shut-your-mouth, potentially unanimous first-ballot type of Hall of Famer. These guys almost all tend to show incredible offensive skills at very young ages. In other words, they almost all have had better offensive years than Ryan's best one so far, at ages younger than Ryan is now. Sorry. He could still be an ordinary, let-me-think about it, ok he's in on the second ballot type of Hall of Famer. (Not really "bad news", is it? That's why I used quotes people)
The Nats are far from a perfect team, but they have a player that very well could be the all-around best player in the league a couple times in the next few years. That's something special. Don't let it pass you by worrying about Strasburg and Bryce.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Look at them, they can't be, centerfield
The idea of a mess in centerfield must bring up the same sensations as coming home to a Nationals fan. From the team's inception, the land of Mantle and Mays has been a defining problem. They've played guys who could have been centerfielders at one point, just not when the Nats tried them (Wilkerson, Preston Wilson). They've played guys who would eventually be good enough, just not when the Nats tried them (Marlon Byrd). They've occasionally started guys better suited for 4th or 5th OF slots (Willie Harris). They occasionally treated like a 4th or 5th OF guys better suited to start (Ryan Church). They've started guys that they hoped would learn to hit (Nook Logan), and guys that they hoped would learn to field (Lastings Milledge).
Last year was supposed to be different though. Nyjer Morgan could certainly field and even if he would never hit again like he did in those last 50 games with the Nats in 2009, his career numbers suggested a guy that would at least be average. Now me being super s-m-r-t and all - I kind of felt Nats fans were getting ahead of themselves. Morgan's "career stats" were too limited to really draw any sort of conclusion from. I thought he could do worse than expected. Then he surprised everyone by being the worst offensive CF in baseball.
The Nats are back to square one now. No good options in center. They have three guys, in Bernadina, Ankiel, and Nix that COULD play center and COULD hit, but for none of the three is it their natural position. Any of the three could ending up failing both in the field and at the plate and it wouldn't be that much of a surprise. Which is why I'm for starting Nyjer Morgan in center. I feel pretty confident that despite the hiccups last year, he can play the position better than anyone on the Nats roster right now. If the Nats are really going defense first it would be silly to take arguably the 2nd most important defensive position and go with another "hope this works out" situation.
If the Nats were dealing with someone younger (I'm looking at you Corey Brown) or more offensively adept I'd probably be on the "No Morgan" bandwagon. But Ankiel is older, Nix is the same age, and Bernadina, the baby, still turns 27 in a few months. There isn't anyone aging into his prime here. As for offensively, yeah Morgan sucked last season (.253 / .319 / .314) but so did Bernadina (.246 / .307 / .384). Ankiel wasn't quite as bad (.232 / .321 / .389) but that's still not good and the year before he had the same average and slugging with a .285 OBP.
Defensively, there is even less in favor of switching from Morgan. All the fancy fielding stats (UZR, Total Zone, and Fielding WAR, if you must now) favor Nyjer over these two in admittedly a BAD year from him in the field. If you are pulling for Roger or Rick I have to ask, what exactly is your motivation?
(which brings up by omission the interesting point that Laynce Nix is the only one of the four that was good at the plate last year and didn't have a terrible season offensively in one of the past 2 years. He hasn't played enough CF in years to be a good judge of how well he'd do there now, but he was excellent in left for the Reds last year and unlike Bernadina and Ankiel, he hasn't proven he CAN'T play center at a high level. Which means OF COURSE he's only being considered for the spot as an emergency back-up. Let's be serious, this is still the Nats here.)
Morgan shouldn't have the leash he had last year. If he struggles mightily at the plate again, then he can be pulled and pulled pretty quickly. One year is an aberration, two is a pattern. But if he does struggle enough to get pulled, I won't care who plays the position after him. (Unless it's Corey Brown). Whoever it is it will almost certainly be just another chapter in the sorry CF mess the Nats suffer through year after year. The never ending curse of Inning-Endy Chavez.
Last year was supposed to be different though. Nyjer Morgan could certainly field and even if he would never hit again like he did in those last 50 games with the Nats in 2009, his career numbers suggested a guy that would at least be average. Now me being super s-m-r-t and all - I kind of felt Nats fans were getting ahead of themselves. Morgan's "career stats" were too limited to really draw any sort of conclusion from. I thought he could do worse than expected. Then he surprised everyone by being the worst offensive CF in baseball.
The Nats are back to square one now. No good options in center. They have three guys, in Bernadina, Ankiel, and Nix that COULD play center and COULD hit, but for none of the three is it their natural position. Any of the three could ending up failing both in the field and at the plate and it wouldn't be that much of a surprise. Which is why I'm for starting Nyjer Morgan in center. I feel pretty confident that despite the hiccups last year, he can play the position better than anyone on the Nats roster right now. If the Nats are really going defense first it would be silly to take arguably the 2nd most important defensive position and go with another "hope this works out" situation.
If the Nats were dealing with someone younger (I'm looking at you Corey Brown) or more offensively adept I'd probably be on the "No Morgan" bandwagon. But Ankiel is older, Nix is the same age, and Bernadina, the baby, still turns 27 in a few months. There isn't anyone aging into his prime here. As for offensively, yeah Morgan sucked last season (.253 / .319 / .314) but so did Bernadina (.246 / .307 / .384). Ankiel wasn't quite as bad (.232 / .321 / .389) but that's still not good and the year before he had the same average and slugging with a .285 OBP.
Defensively, there is even less in favor of switching from Morgan. All the fancy fielding stats (UZR, Total Zone, and Fielding WAR, if you must now) favor Nyjer over these two in admittedly a BAD year from him in the field. If you are pulling for Roger or Rick I have to ask, what exactly is your motivation?
(which brings up by omission the interesting point that Laynce Nix is the only one of the four that was good at the plate last year and didn't have a terrible season offensively in one of the past 2 years. He hasn't played enough CF in years to be a good judge of how well he'd do there now, but he was excellent in left for the Reds last year and unlike Bernadina and Ankiel, he hasn't proven he CAN'T play center at a high level. Which means OF COURSE he's only being considered for the spot as an emergency back-up. Let's be serious, this is still the Nats here.)
Morgan shouldn't have the leash he had last year. If he struggles mightily at the plate again, then he can be pulled and pulled pretty quickly. One year is an aberration, two is a pattern. But if he does struggle enough to get pulled, I won't care who plays the position after him. (Unless it's Corey Brown). Whoever it is it will almost certainly be just another chapter in the sorry CF mess the Nats suffer through year after year. The never ending curse of Inning-Endy Chavez.
Monday, March 07, 2011
When it's ok to look at Spring Training stats
Sort of.
Normally I speak out against the evils of looking at Spring Training performances. It's been proven time and again that they just don't correlate with how a player does during the regular season. Yet, there is one time when it's perfectly acceptable to me to use Spring Training statistics to make a decision: When you have no idea what to use.
When you have several guys with a mish-mash of experience, fighting over one spot, why not just use the Spring Training stats? There is no clear-cut favorite between Detwiler, Maya, and Gorzelanny (forget about Wang for now... in fact I'd forget about Wang period since he was always a pitcher who was skating on the edge because he put so many balls in play. Now he's the same thing, except 31 years old and coming back from a 2-year injury). The stats, in my mind, don't really favor anyone. Ideally we'd expect the team's coaches are looking at a guy's delivery and stuff and making a decision based on improvements and minute changes that we don't see reading box scores from hundreds of miles away. Maybe this is happening. In reality though, the guys that are doing great in Spring Training are, duh, almost certainly going to look the best, and coaches can't help but be influenced by these things.
Livan, Marquis, Lannan, ZNN should be set in stone, regardless of how well they fare in Spring. For that last spot though, it can be a battle of who pitches best in March. It'll probably work out just as well, and it's a lot more fun than who's delivery looks the strongest.
Normally I speak out against the evils of looking at Spring Training performances. It's been proven time and again that they just don't correlate with how a player does during the regular season. Yet, there is one time when it's perfectly acceptable to me to use Spring Training statistics to make a decision: When you have no idea what to use.
When you have several guys with a mish-mash of experience, fighting over one spot, why not just use the Spring Training stats? There is no clear-cut favorite between Detwiler, Maya, and Gorzelanny (forget about Wang for now... in fact I'd forget about Wang period since he was always a pitcher who was skating on the edge because he put so many balls in play. Now he's the same thing, except 31 years old and coming back from a 2-year injury). The stats, in my mind, don't really favor anyone. Ideally we'd expect the team's coaches are looking at a guy's delivery and stuff and making a decision based on improvements and minute changes that we don't see reading box scores from hundreds of miles away. Maybe this is happening. In reality though, the guys that are doing great in Spring Training are, duh, almost certainly going to look the best, and coaches can't help but be influenced by these things.
Livan, Marquis, Lannan, ZNN should be set in stone, regardless of how well they fare in Spring. For that last spot though, it can be a battle of who pitches best in March. It'll probably work out just as well, and it's a lot more fun than who's delivery looks the strongest.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Don't. Just don't.
It's Spring Training. You know better.
No? You don't know better? You're out buying Maya jerseys as I type? Let's do the drill then.
Last year - who was 2nd in batting average for Spring Training for the Nats? That's right Alberto Gonzalez. 4th? Willie Harris. 5th? Desmond. 6th? Pudge. Most RBIs? Desmond. How did Adam Dunn do? .208 average, and NO homers.
Who had the best ERA? Aaron Thompson. With 10+ innings? John Lannan. Brian Bruney had a 3.60 ERA. Matt Capps had a 7.71 ERA.
We can do this for other years if it'll make you feel better. How a guy looks in Spring Training has almost no correlation to how he'll do that year.
As for Maya - may I also bring in another bit of context. It's often brought up how he pitched much better in the Winter Dominican League (1.32 ERA!) and earned their pitcher of the year award. Who led the Winter Dominican league in hitting? Hector Luna. A 31 year old AAA player who batted .138 in limited at-bats with the Marlins last year and who hasn't been startable since 2006. Homers? Brad Nelson. A 27 year old with 2 total major league extra base hits, rated the #23 prospect in America... in 2003, now entering his 5th season in AAA.
It's no different this time. Your ex-girlfriend will cheat on you again. Your deadbeat cousin won't pay you back. The politician you voted in won't shake things up. Guys you love in Spring Training will play at their talent level come the regular season.
No? You don't know better? You're out buying Maya jerseys as I type? Let's do the drill then.
Last year - who was 2nd in batting average for Spring Training for the Nats? That's right Alberto Gonzalez. 4th? Willie Harris. 5th? Desmond. 6th? Pudge. Most RBIs? Desmond. How did Adam Dunn do? .208 average, and NO homers.
Who had the best ERA? Aaron Thompson. With 10+ innings? John Lannan. Brian Bruney had a 3.60 ERA. Matt Capps had a 7.71 ERA.
We can do this for other years if it'll make you feel better. How a guy looks in Spring Training has almost no correlation to how he'll do that year.
As for Maya - may I also bring in another bit of context. It's often brought up how he pitched much better in the Winter Dominican League (1.32 ERA!) and earned their pitcher of the year award. Who led the Winter Dominican league in hitting? Hector Luna. A 31 year old AAA player who batted .138 in limited at-bats with the Marlins last year and who hasn't been startable since 2006. Homers? Brad Nelson. A 27 year old with 2 total major league extra base hits, rated the #23 prospect in America... in 2003, now entering his 5th season in AAA.
It's no different this time. Your ex-girlfriend will cheat on you again. Your deadbeat cousin won't pay you back. The politician you voted in won't shake things up. Guys you love in Spring Training will play at their talent level come the regular season.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Nationals Baseball Left Field Challenge!
Today the Nats are starting their "real" lineup (sorry Kevin Barker fans!). Other than Chris Marrero playing at first for a sore Adam LaRoche this looks like a lineup that the Nats could have on Opening Day.
1. Nyjer Morgan, CF
2. Ian Desmond, SS
3. Jayson Werth, RF
4. Ryan Zimmerman, 3B
5. Michael Morse, LF
6. Adam LaRoche, DH
7. Ivan Rodriguez, C
8. Danny Espinosa, 2B
9. Chris Marrero, 1B
There are a couple things of interest here.
Personally I'm going to go with Roger Bernadina to be named flat-out starter. Call me crazy but that's who I think the team wants in there and unless he stinks in Spring Training, I think that's where he'll be, even though Spring Training stats are meaningless. I think his leash might be short but he'll be there Opening Day.
(remember - we're waiting on the results from last year's Guess the Opening Day Rotation post. We're all wrong, because we all had Strasburg, but let's see who gets 4 of 5.)
1. Nyjer Morgan, CF
2. Ian Desmond, SS
3. Jayson Werth, RF
4. Ryan Zimmerman, 3B
5. Michael Morse, LF
6. Adam LaRoche, DH
7. Ivan Rodriguez, C
8. Danny Espinosa, 2B
9. Chris Marrero, 1B
There are a couple things of interest here.
- Ian Desmond is batting 2nd, thank god. He took his most hacks last year at 2nd and at 8th and the differences were stark. 2nd : .326 / .359 / .489 8th : .254 / .304 / .388. He doesn't have to bat 2nd but he's not the type of patient hitter who can work with being pitched around in the 8th position. It's good to see the Nats realize that and not try to bat Pudge 2nd for example.
- Werth 3rd and Zimmerman 4th looks funny, but I think I like it. Both get on base and hit, so really they are interchangeable, but historically Werth does better at taking the walk so putting him before Zimm makes sense. (for however much batting order matters)
- Morse is 5th and LaRoche is 6th, but I just can't believe that Riggleman will go R-R-R-R-L 2 through 6. I'm thinking this is just a temporary thing and LaRoche will settle in at 5 once he's over his little soreness.
- Pudge is 7th and Espinosa 8th. On one hand it makes sense. Espinosa can take a walk, Pudge can't. You need a patient hitter in front of the pitcher. On the other hand, Pudge should get as few at bats as possible.
Personally I'm going to go with Roger Bernadina to be named flat-out starter. Call me crazy but that's who I think the team wants in there and unless he stinks in Spring Training, I think that's where he'll be, even though Spring Training stats are meaningless. I think his leash might be short but he'll be there Opening Day.
(remember - we're waiting on the results from last year's Guess the Opening Day Rotation post. We're all wrong, because we all had Strasburg, but let's see who gets 4 of 5.)
Monday, February 28, 2011
Twelve-Sided Bryce
Yes the headline makes no sense. I kind of want to exhaust all bad Bryce headlines before he even gets out of Spring Training so prepare for even dumber ones over the next couple weeks.
Today is National(s) Bryce Day - He's going to come off the bench during the Mets game. Other than not getting beaned in the head, I should be ambivalent to his performance. It is meaningless Spring Training. But dammit if the media blitz hasn't sacked my attention. (See what I did there? I'm a terrible writer! It's not even a sentence!) I'll be listening this afternoon. Of course I probably would have anyway, I work better with background noise, but I'll actually pay attention when Bryce is up.
I'm a sucker, at least for one day.
Update - Bryce can't handle the TANK (Dennis Tankersley). 3 pitch K. Right after Morse went deeeep. What did you expect? A home run every time up?
Igarashi got him in the 9th, with another K. GAME OVER FOLKS!!! Trade him for bench help!
Today is National(s) Bryce Day - He's going to come off the bench during the Mets game. Other than not getting beaned in the head, I should be ambivalent to his performance. It is meaningless Spring Training. But dammit if the media blitz hasn't sacked my attention. (See what I did there? I'm a terrible writer! It's not even a sentence!) I'll be listening this afternoon. Of course I probably would have anyway, I work better with background noise, but I'll actually pay attention when Bryce is up.
I'm a sucker, at least for one day.
Update - Bryce can't handle the TANK (Dennis Tankersley). 3 pitch K. Right after Morse went deeeep. What did you expect? A home run every time up?
Igarashi got him in the 9th, with another K. GAME OVER FOLKS!!! Trade him for bench help!
Friday, February 25, 2011
CRASH and SOAR
I like to think every year there is one guy with some level of major league experience on each team that does a lot better than you'd expect, and one guy that does a lot worse (with no injury explanation). Last year it pretty much worked out this way. While everyone else pretty much matched expectations, Nyjer Morgan crashed and burned and Livan had a out of nowhere successful season.
Looking back over the years it doesn't quite work one and one, someone crashing and someone soaring but it's not too far off.
2009: CRASH: None. SOAR : None, really. Hardly anyone did anything special. Willingham and Dunn had career years but nothing crazy. Morgan was crazy good for the Nats but in a limited time frame.
2008: CRASH : Austin Kearns. Paul LoDuca before he was gone, though the at bats might have been too limited to count. SOAR : Ronnie Belliard. (Maybe Odalis Perez considering he was league average after being terrible the two previous seasons and he was out of baseball after this)
2007: CRASH: Felipe Lopez (even though he wasn't good - it was a surprise he was THAT bad) SOAR : Dmitri Young (looked like he was fading out, came back with his 2nd best season ever)
2006: CRASH : really no one, Jose Guillen was terrible but injuries explain some of that. SOAR: Alfonso Soriano.
2005: CRASH : Cristian Guzman. (it took an awesome September to keep the guy from having a historically bad season. I hate the player but he was never this terrible). SOAR : Brian Schneider (Believe it or not - he never came anywhere close to this merely average year playing full-time) John Patterson, probably. He'd had enough innings in there to make you think he'd never come quite together as he did this year.
Two points become obvious.
It's hard to get players in either of the categories. For SOAR, I just think it's a matter of luck. You can't luck into two guys with sort of well defined expectations dramatically outperforming them. You're better off hoping for one and a bunch of more mild improvements. For CRASH, I think it's luck, too. But also a matter of playing time. If you're that terrible you just don't get up. Like Wil Cordero in 2005. Oh he was bad before but he was crazy wretched in 2005. So the Nats just eventually got rid of him.
If the Nats tended to have higher highs than lower lows why have they been so bad? Simple. They've had a lot of mediocre to bad players meeting expectations. This is especially true for starting pitching. A lot of never-wases and never will bes have pitched for the Nats in the past 6 years.
OK so what this gets down to I guess is if you could pick one player on the Nats to CRASH and one to SOAR, which two would it be?
For CRASH, I desperately DON'T want it to be Jayson Werth. I couldn't take 5 years of "I can't believe he got THAT money" (I expect that talk in the last 2 years of the deal regardless). I'm going to go with... well there aren't many choices, are there? I guess Adam LaRoche, but it's a half-hearted guess.
For SOAR, I really want it to be Zimm because it would be totally awesome to cover a team with the unarguable best player in baseball. Don't think it will be though. I'll go with John Lannan. Something about his performance at the end of last year I really like. Though I could see an argument for him being a CRASH too.
Looking back over the years it doesn't quite work one and one, someone crashing and someone soaring but it's not too far off.
2009: CRASH: None. SOAR : None, really. Hardly anyone did anything special. Willingham and Dunn had career years but nothing crazy. Morgan was crazy good for the Nats but in a limited time frame.
2008: CRASH : Austin Kearns. Paul LoDuca before he was gone, though the at bats might have been too limited to count. SOAR : Ronnie Belliard. (Maybe Odalis Perez considering he was league average after being terrible the two previous seasons and he was out of baseball after this)
2007: CRASH: Felipe Lopez (even though he wasn't good - it was a surprise he was THAT bad) SOAR : Dmitri Young (looked like he was fading out, came back with his 2nd best season ever)
2006: CRASH : really no one, Jose Guillen was terrible but injuries explain some of that. SOAR: Alfonso Soriano.
2005: CRASH : Cristian Guzman. (it took an awesome September to keep the guy from having a historically bad season. I hate the player but he was never this terrible). SOAR : Brian Schneider (Believe it or not - he never came anywhere close to this merely average year playing full-time) John Patterson, probably. He'd had enough innings in there to make you think he'd never come quite together as he did this year.
Two points become obvious.
It's hard to get players in either of the categories. For SOAR, I just think it's a matter of luck. You can't luck into two guys with sort of well defined expectations dramatically outperforming them. You're better off hoping for one and a bunch of more mild improvements. For CRASH, I think it's luck, too. But also a matter of playing time. If you're that terrible you just don't get up. Like Wil Cordero in 2005. Oh he was bad before but he was crazy wretched in 2005. So the Nats just eventually got rid of him.
If the Nats tended to have higher highs than lower lows why have they been so bad? Simple. They've had a lot of mediocre to bad players meeting expectations. This is especially true for starting pitching. A lot of never-wases and never will bes have pitched for the Nats in the past 6 years.
OK so what this gets down to I guess is if you could pick one player on the Nats to CRASH and one to SOAR, which two would it be?
For CRASH, I desperately DON'T want it to be Jayson Werth. I couldn't take 5 years of "I can't believe he got THAT money" (I expect that talk in the last 2 years of the deal regardless). I'm going to go with... well there aren't many choices, are there? I guess Adam LaRoche, but it's a half-hearted guess.
For SOAR, I really want it to be Zimm because it would be totally awesome to cover a team with the unarguable best player in baseball. Don't think it will be though. I'll go with John Lannan. Something about his performance at the end of last year I really like. Though I could see an argument for him being a CRASH too.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Anyone hear anything about Bryce Harper?
Just wondering.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the biggest story for the Nationals is someone who likely won't see the majors until 2012 stopping in during meaningless Spring Training to take even more meaningless batting practice?
He sure looks like a major leaguer! Confidence! What's going on with his eye black!? Swagger! Did he just put his hat on backward... like GRIFFEY?! Youth!
Good or bad for the 2011 Nats, Bryce Harper is the story for the team this year, just like Strasburg, whether he was going to make the majors or not, was the story last year. It's not like all those other scintillating stories about who's going to be the back-up infielder and which failed young starter will be the long reliever have gone away. There still here. When Bryce, like Strasburg, is eventually dropped out of major league Spring Training all those boring stories that bubbled up between his interview sessions will flood back and they'll be the only thing to talk about for 3 weeks.
Even if it's a bad sign for the team this year, I guess it's good then, in general, that we have meaningless Bryce stories to pass the time. It's something different for the fans and something different for the guys that have to try to make team stretching exercises interesting for a month and a half. I just wish they'd tone it down just a... Wait, did he say he loved the YANKEES!? Swoon! More Bryce talk!
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the biggest story for the Nationals is someone who likely won't see the majors until 2012 stopping in during meaningless Spring Training to take even more meaningless batting practice?
He sure looks like a major leaguer! Confidence! What's going on with his eye black!? Swagger! Did he just put his hat on backward... like GRIFFEY?! Youth!
Good or bad for the 2011 Nats, Bryce Harper is the story for the team this year, just like Strasburg, whether he was going to make the majors or not, was the story last year. It's not like all those other scintillating stories about who's going to be the back-up infielder and which failed young starter will be the long reliever have gone away. There still here. When Bryce, like Strasburg, is eventually dropped out of major league Spring Training all those boring stories that bubbled up between his interview sessions will flood back and they'll be the only thing to talk about for 3 weeks.
Even if it's a bad sign for the team this year, I guess it's good then, in general, that we have meaningless Bryce stories to pass the time. It's something different for the fans and something different for the guys that have to try to make team stretching exercises interesting for a month and a half. I just wish they'd tone it down just a... Wait, did he say he loved the YANKEES!? Swoon! More Bryce talk!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Math Problem
How does this work?
There are 162 games for 15 set of teams (30 divided by 2 since it takes two to tango) * 170 minutes (in 2009 the average length of a game was 2 hours and 51 minutes)
That is...413,100 minutes.
Ok well the number of minutes in a day is 24 hours * 60 minutes or 1440 minutes. So it would take... 413,100 minutes / 1440 minutes to watch every game or... 287 days. Hmm the average baseball season is no more than 270 days long (no baseball in Dec/Jan/Feb)- really a lot closer to 210 days. Hmm I guess they could watch the games in "Speedo-vision" where they take out the inbetween pitches. That cuts games a lot, so maybe it's possible, but I didn't count in holidays.. or weekends... or sleep.
I assume MLB is putting you in a room with a bunch of TVs so you can "watch" all the games at once, not one at a time. Still it would be at least 8 hours a day (7ET - 11 PT) almost every day from April 1st to Oct 30th. I love baseball but that sounds awful.
There are 162 games for 15 set of teams (30 divided by 2 since it takes two to tango) * 170 minutes (in 2009 the average length of a game was 2 hours and 51 minutes)
That is...413,100 minutes.
Ok well the number of minutes in a day is 24 hours * 60 minutes or 1440 minutes. So it would take... 413,100 minutes / 1440 minutes to watch every game or... 287 days. Hmm the average baseball season is no more than 270 days long (no baseball in Dec/Jan/Feb)- really a lot closer to 210 days. Hmm I guess they could watch the games in "Speedo-vision" where they take out the inbetween pitches. That cuts games a lot, so maybe it's possible, but I didn't count in holidays.. or weekends... or sleep.
I assume MLB is putting you in a room with a bunch of TVs so you can "watch" all the games at once, not one at a time. Still it would be at least 8 hours a day (7ET - 11 PT) almost every day from April 1st to Oct 30th. I love baseball but that sounds awful.
Danny Espinosa, I do not know you.
(Sung to the tune of "Gary, Indiana" from The Music Man)
Dan-ny Es-pi-NO-sa,
Dan-ny ES-pi-no-sa,
Dan-ny Es-pi-no-SA!
...what? The kids don't like musicals that cast pool as the great evil anymore? Bah!
As far as the Nats offense goes I feel like I got a pretty good grasp on how almost everyone is going to do. Those with a lot of major league experience (Werth, Zimm, The French Rock) are easy enough to predict. I think Morgan and Desmond will fall nicely into "better than last year, still not as good as fans hope". Pudge will have an empty batting average and stink. Ramos will have an empty batting average and not stink. But Danny Espinosa eludes me.
Honestly he should elude me. He only played 28 games in the majors last year and only 24 in AAA. Those stats are hard to take as meaningful.
AA (99 games) .259 / .332 / .461
AAA (24) .295 /.349 / .463
Maj (28) .214 /.277 /.447
Worse yet they don't seem to be saying the same thing. Up until Danny made the jump to AAA, his minor league stats were pointing in the same direction. He'd be a low average major leaguer with decent pop, and just enough patience to make him worthwhile. His AAA numbers suggest a player that can sacrifice a little patience and power for a much higher batting average. His major league numbers suggest someone who could sacrifice a little batting average for much bigger pop. Is either of these more indicative of what he can do going foward?
It's easy to just ignore these two short stints and go with the AA and below minor league stats, (if you look at his projections - that is basically what we are seeing) but it's not like we're talking about years of numbers here. It's one even shorter stop in low A-ball that doesn't seem relevant at all, followed by 1 1/2 seasons worth of games (232 to be precise) all while moving up to harder competition than faced the year before. We haven't yet seen Danny get to "normalize" in a league playing there for 2+ years, getting used to the talent level in front of him. Contrast that with Ian Desmond who got to play parts of 3 years in each of A+ and AA ball.
All I'm saying is that I don't know.
I don't know what to expect from Danny Espinosa. He could watch his crazy power drop as teams figure out how to pitch him (see Ian Desmond again ) while he struggles to keep his batting average out of the .220s. He could, for the first time playing in the same league a 2nd year in a row, quickly get it and end up a ROY candidate, batting .270+ with pop. Twisting my arm I see both - I see a struggle of a 2011, with streaks of impressive play, that may even end up sending him back to AAA once or twice. The Ks just indicate a player who can be pitched to. At the same time I see real talent from his consistent ability to adapt to a higher level of talent every year, and I see a player who could very well bust out in 2012 and beyond.
Still like I said, I don't know, and I'm glad I don't know, because that means Danny Espinosa will be interesting to watch all season long.
Dan-ny Es-pi-NO-sa,
Dan-ny ES-pi-no-sa,
Dan-ny Es-pi-no-SA!
...what? The kids don't like musicals that cast pool as the great evil anymore? Bah!
As far as the Nats offense goes I feel like I got a pretty good grasp on how almost everyone is going to do. Those with a lot of major league experience (Werth, Zimm, The French Rock) are easy enough to predict. I think Morgan and Desmond will fall nicely into "better than last year, still not as good as fans hope". Pudge will have an empty batting average and stink. Ramos will have an empty batting average and not stink. But Danny Espinosa eludes me.
Honestly he should elude me. He only played 28 games in the majors last year and only 24 in AAA. Those stats are hard to take as meaningful.
AA (99 games) .259 / .332 / .461
AAA (24) .295 /.349 / .463
Maj (28) .214 /.277 /.447
Worse yet they don't seem to be saying the same thing. Up until Danny made the jump to AAA, his minor league stats were pointing in the same direction. He'd be a low average major leaguer with decent pop, and just enough patience to make him worthwhile. His AAA numbers suggest a player that can sacrifice a little patience and power for a much higher batting average. His major league numbers suggest someone who could sacrifice a little batting average for much bigger pop. Is either of these more indicative of what he can do going foward?
It's easy to just ignore these two short stints and go with the AA and below minor league stats, (if you look at his projections - that is basically what we are seeing) but it's not like we're talking about years of numbers here. It's one even shorter stop in low A-ball that doesn't seem relevant at all, followed by 1 1/2 seasons worth of games (232 to be precise) all while moving up to harder competition than faced the year before. We haven't yet seen Danny get to "normalize" in a league playing there for 2+ years, getting used to the talent level in front of him. Contrast that with Ian Desmond who got to play parts of 3 years in each of A+ and AA ball.
All I'm saying is that I don't know.
I don't know what to expect from Danny Espinosa. He could watch his crazy power drop as teams figure out how to pitch him (see Ian Desmond again ) while he struggles to keep his batting average out of the .220s. He could, for the first time playing in the same league a 2nd year in a row, quickly get it and end up a ROY candidate, batting .270+ with pop. Twisting my arm I see both - I see a struggle of a 2011, with streaks of impressive play, that may even end up sending him back to AAA once or twice. The Ks just indicate a player who can be pitched to. At the same time I see real talent from his consistent ability to adapt to a higher level of talent every year, and I see a player who could very well bust out in 2012 and beyond.
Still like I said, I don't know, and I'm glad I don't know, because that means Danny Espinosa will be interesting to watch all season long.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Pudge-ing everything up.
Kill-Gore over at Nats Journal is reporting that Riggleman said that Pudge is the starting catcher. This is not a surprise but it doesn't mean it isn't terrible news.
We all should agree that at this point in his career Pudge is a terrible offensive player. There is no arguement to be had. He hasn't cracked a 90 OPS+ since 1996. He doesn't get on base effectively (66 walks in the last 4 years combined - less than Josh Willingham had in 114 games of one injury riddled season). He doesn't hit for power (23 extra base hits last year - less than just the homer totals of 48 players last season). He was 27th out of 29 catchers with 300 or more plate appearances last year in OPS. And that's saying something because catchers aren't usually good hitters. He's a liability at the plate.
The idea that he "just got tired" is also nonsense (sorry Adam). Here's his monthly splits from last year.
April/March .413/.449/.524
May .233/.242/.350
June .250/.284/.297
July .176/.195/.230
August .277/.286/.313
Sept/Oct .259/.317/.407
That's an awful offensive player who had a lucky month, not an ok one that wore down. Past years also show that he's doesn't start fast and wear down. In 2009 his best month was May and August was second best. In 2008 it was June and July. He may get slightly worse in the 2nd half but it's going from terrible to slightly more so.
But the Nats are not playing Pudge because he's good offensively they're playing him because he's a leader that helps his pitchers and plays great D! Right?
Well you know I think the first two points are nonsense spouted out in order to justify playing terrible offensive players. But if you must I'll remind you that the Nats starting pitching was awful last year and they won only 69 games. Unless you want to give Pudge all the credit for winning 10 more games than in 2009 or say he selectively decided to help Livan and the bullpen but let everyone else fend for themselves, these arguments fail.
The catcher defense argument holds a bit of weight, I'll admit. Catcher defensive metrics are even more difficult to gauge than the ones for other fielders but both The Hardball Times and Beyond the Boxscore have Pudge as the 2nd best defensive catcher in the league. Though to be completely fair a lot of his value comes from passed ball and wild pitch numbers* which haven't been controlled for by staff, and the Nats staff doesn't strike me as agressively hard to handle. I'm a little reticent to believe he's really #2, but I'll buy that he's still a good to very good defensive catcher.
*as opposed to caught stealings. He's still ok at that - 7th out of NL catchers with 600+ innings in caught stealing rate - but it isnt' that better than a typical catcher and nothing like Yadier Molina. I do think his presense does depress attempts though, since he's 3rd in NL catcher in attempts per 9 innings and more significantly different from the average. Again he's no Yadier Molina - who is #1 in both. This means he's only getting the fastest guys in the best opportunities running against him and he's still throwing out almost 50% of them. The guy is a MONSTER behind the plate when it comes to caught stealing.
But is that enough? If we look at the same 29 catchers in WAR, which tries to account for both offense and defense, Pudge does move up from 27th but only to 25th. His defense is barely making an effect in how much the Nats win. A good to very good defensive catcher will help but overall he has to be incredibly good like Yadier Molina to make that big a difference.
Should the Nats get rid of Pudge? I don't necessarily think so at this point. While grossly overpaid it is "only" 3 million, and I do like to think youngsters can learn from veterans. I also don't like putting two young guys competing for the same spot as starter and back-up. I think managers are quicker to pull the trigger on young guys struggling and I think neither would benefit from the few weeks in, few weeks out that may happen because of it. I do think though that Ramos and Flores should be fighting for the starting nod, with Pudge set as back-up ready to play 60-80 games as necessary (preferably closer to 60). The starter should get a good half-season to show his stuff, and if he's struggling come late June and the guy in AAA looks good to go - switch them up and play out the rest of the season with the other guy as the starter. I think moving foward this is the best play for the Nats, not giving Pudge 100+ games while trying to figure out which young catcher is best from the back-up slot.
We all should agree that at this point in his career Pudge is a terrible offensive player. There is no arguement to be had. He hasn't cracked a 90 OPS+ since 1996. He doesn't get on base effectively (66 walks in the last 4 years combined - less than Josh Willingham had in 114 games of one injury riddled season). He doesn't hit for power (23 extra base hits last year - less than just the homer totals of 48 players last season). He was 27th out of 29 catchers with 300 or more plate appearances last year in OPS. And that's saying something because catchers aren't usually good hitters. He's a liability at the plate.
The idea that he "just got tired" is also nonsense (sorry Adam). Here's his monthly splits from last year.
April/March .413/.449/.524
May .233/.242/.350
June .250/.284/.297
July .176/.195/.230
August .277/.286/.313
Sept/Oct .259/.317/.407
That's an awful offensive player who had a lucky month, not an ok one that wore down. Past years also show that he's doesn't start fast and wear down. In 2009 his best month was May and August was second best. In 2008 it was June and July. He may get slightly worse in the 2nd half but it's going from terrible to slightly more so.
But the Nats are not playing Pudge because he's good offensively they're playing him because he's a leader that helps his pitchers and plays great D! Right?
Well you know I think the first two points are nonsense spouted out in order to justify playing terrible offensive players. But if you must I'll remind you that the Nats starting pitching was awful last year and they won only 69 games. Unless you want to give Pudge all the credit for winning 10 more games than in 2009 or say he selectively decided to help Livan and the bullpen but let everyone else fend for themselves, these arguments fail.
The catcher defense argument holds a bit of weight, I'll admit. Catcher defensive metrics are even more difficult to gauge than the ones for other fielders but both The Hardball Times and Beyond the Boxscore have Pudge as the 2nd best defensive catcher in the league. Though to be completely fair a lot of his value comes from passed ball and wild pitch numbers* which haven't been controlled for by staff, and the Nats staff doesn't strike me as agressively hard to handle. I'm a little reticent to believe he's really #2, but I'll buy that he's still a good to very good defensive catcher.
*as opposed to caught stealings. He's still ok at that - 7th out of NL catchers with 600+ innings in caught stealing rate - but it isnt' that better than a typical catcher and nothing like Yadier Molina. I do think his presense does depress attempts though, since he's 3rd in NL catcher in attempts per 9 innings and more significantly different from the average. Again he's no Yadier Molina - who is #1 in both. This means he's only getting the fastest guys in the best opportunities running against him and he's still throwing out almost 50% of them. The guy is a MONSTER behind the plate when it comes to caught stealing.
But is that enough? If we look at the same 29 catchers in WAR, which tries to account for both offense and defense, Pudge does move up from 27th but only to 25th. His defense is barely making an effect in how much the Nats win. A good to very good defensive catcher will help but overall he has to be incredibly good like Yadier Molina to make that big a difference.
Should the Nats get rid of Pudge? I don't necessarily think so at this point. While grossly overpaid it is "only" 3 million, and I do like to think youngsters can learn from veterans. I also don't like putting two young guys competing for the same spot as starter and back-up. I think managers are quicker to pull the trigger on young guys struggling and I think neither would benefit from the few weeks in, few weeks out that may happen because of it. I do think though that Ramos and Flores should be fighting for the starting nod, with Pudge set as back-up ready to play 60-80 games as necessary (preferably closer to 60). The starter should get a good half-season to show his stuff, and if he's struggling come late June and the guy in AAA looks good to go - switch them up and play out the rest of the season with the other guy as the starter. I think moving foward this is the best play for the Nats, not giving Pudge 100+ games while trying to figure out which young catcher is best from the back-up slot.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Too bullish on 2012?
Commenter DSK said yesterday that he wasn't exactly on the bandwagon when it comes to the idea that the Nats could have one of the better starting staff in the NL in 2012. Fair enough. Perhaps I did go a step too far, but let's see.
Let's set up some guidelines. First off - what makes a staff one of the better ones? For me, I say if you are Top 5 or so that's good enough. Second - for ease of calculation we're going to assume that each starting position throws the same amount of innings. That isn't true (I'm pretty sure it's weighted such that the #1 pitchers throws more than the #2, etc. etc.) but for the sake of a quick analysis I think it's fair enough.
What's been the ERA that could get the Nats a Top 5 rotation in the NL? Over the last 3 years it's been 3.98, 3.71, and 3.80 (before that offense was still killing pitching and the numbers are much different). Looks like the 3.80 that would have done it last year is a fair guess going forward.
What would it take to get a 3.80 starter ERA? An easy way it could happen would be a group of starters with the following ERA set.
3.40, 3.60, 3.80, 4.00, 4.20.
Hmm ok let's tweak that and say...
3.20, ERA2 , 3.90, 4.20, ERA5 (you'll see why I did it this way in a second)
What I said yesterday was that if the Nats staff hit their modest 4.30 starter ERA goal it could bode well for the future. The most likely way the Nats will hit this goal, is for their pitchers to hit their projections. Granted this "most likely" scenario is like <10% given all the moving parts involved but it's more likely than any other combination. In this scenario Jordan Zimmerman is hitting a 4.00 ERA and John Lannan is sitting around 4.30. To me if they pitch this way in 2010. I like them to have a modest improvement in 2011 to 3.90 and 4.20. In other words they fill those #3 and #4 spots above.
The #1 throwing a 3.20 is a returning Stephen Strasburg, of course. Is that too much to expect? I'm not sure. On one hand he will be coming back from injury. On the other hand as a raw rookie he had a 2.91 ERA. I don't think putting up a 3.20 is being overly aggressive.
This leaves two spots (ERA2 and ERA5) for the Nats to fill in a way so the average for all 5 would be 3.80. Simple math tells us any combination that adds up to 7.70, would do it, say... 3.30 and 4.40 pitchers. A 4.40 pitcher is JD Martin terriotry. The Nats haven't been lucky or good in finding this type of mediocre fill-in but they are out there. If you want to give the Nats more leeway at the back of the rotation then a top notch starter with an ERA of 3.00 or lower would give them more flexibility to waste starts on someone with an ERA closer to 5.00.
Having a Top 5 rotation in 2012 breaks down to three steps:
Let's set up some guidelines. First off - what makes a staff one of the better ones? For me, I say if you are Top 5 or so that's good enough. Second - for ease of calculation we're going to assume that each starting position throws the same amount of innings. That isn't true (I'm pretty sure it's weighted such that the #1 pitchers throws more than the #2, etc. etc.) but for the sake of a quick analysis I think it's fair enough.
What's been the ERA that could get the Nats a Top 5 rotation in the NL? Over the last 3 years it's been 3.98, 3.71, and 3.80 (before that offense was still killing pitching and the numbers are much different). Looks like the 3.80 that would have done it last year is a fair guess going forward.
What would it take to get a 3.80 starter ERA? An easy way it could happen would be a group of starters with the following ERA set.
3.40, 3.60, 3.80, 4.00, 4.20.
Hmm ok let's tweak that and say...
3.20, ERA2 , 3.90, 4.20, ERA5 (you'll see why I did it this way in a second)
What I said yesterday was that if the Nats staff hit their modest 4.30 starter ERA goal it could bode well for the future. The most likely way the Nats will hit this goal, is for their pitchers to hit their projections. Granted this "most likely" scenario is like <10% given all the moving parts involved but it's more likely than any other combination. In this scenario Jordan Zimmerman is hitting a 4.00 ERA and John Lannan is sitting around 4.30. To me if they pitch this way in 2010. I like them to have a modest improvement in 2011 to 3.90 and 4.20. In other words they fill those #3 and #4 spots above.
The #1 throwing a 3.20 is a returning Stephen Strasburg, of course. Is that too much to expect? I'm not sure. On one hand he will be coming back from injury. On the other hand as a raw rookie he had a 2.91 ERA. I don't think putting up a 3.20 is being overly aggressive.
This leaves two spots (ERA2 and ERA5) for the Nats to fill in a way so the average for all 5 would be 3.80. Simple math tells us any combination that adds up to 7.70, would do it, say... 3.30 and 4.40 pitchers. A 4.40 pitcher is JD Martin terriotry. The Nats haven't been lucky or good in finding this type of mediocre fill-in but they are out there. If you want to give the Nats more leeway at the back of the rotation then a top notch starter with an ERA of 3.00 or lower would give them more flexibility to waste starts on someone with an ERA closer to 5.00.
Having a Top 5 rotation in 2012 breaks down to three steps:
- Have Jordan Zimmermann and John Lannan pitch to expectations in 2010 (or have any two pitchers that the Nats have under control beyond this year toss out ERAs of about 4.00 and 4.20 - Maya, Detwiler, Gorzelanny, anyone)
- Have Strasburg recover from injury enough that he's about at average for him in 2012 and have the pitchers in step one show ever so modest improvement
- Get a #1 caliber signing
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Nats Questions on Crashburn Alley
I answered some Nats related questions at Crashburn Alley. Go check them out and correct the parts where I talk about how Esteban Loaiza looks really good this year.
The ZNN Rules
Riggleman noted yesterday that Jordan Zimmermann will have an innings limit this year. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, especially for Jordan. He's never thrown a lot of innings. 134 in 2008, 99 in 2009 and 70 last season. To have him throw 230 innings would be silly.
But I hope the Nats aren't strict interpreters of pitch limits. It's Feb 16th. The Nats have a number in their head on how much ZNN should pitch this year. That's fine... for right now. Come April 1st they should have another number. May 15th another, the All-Star break another. ZNN needs to be evaluated on an ongoing basis. With that being said - it's best if the Nats don't actually release their number to the press. Right now all that's been said is "not 200" - which is fine. I don't think the Nats are going to run into a scenario where Jordan NEEDS to pitch that last week. The minute they put a 150 or 175 out there, that will become a focus for the media covering the team and that interest may hurt the Nats making adjustments to it along the way.
The other day I noted the (potential) staffs ERAs for this season. I think they were reasonable numbers. Averaged the Nats would have a starter ERA in the neighborhood of 4.30. Last year it was 4.61. You could look at this in two ways.
The staff won't be good next year, but it will be better.
OR
The staff will be better next year, but it won't be good.
Same notion - two different take-away feelings. I tend to fall into the latter group (big surprise) where the takeaway feeling is one of general disappointment. This is because even with an improvement of 0.30 in ERA the Nats will only move from 14th in the NL all the way to 13th. The median value is right around 4.00, which means the Nats would have to have another significant jump in them, after the expected one, to be even "average". The improvement is not so much about the Nats getting better but about the Nats being very very bad last year. I can't get excited about a mere move to meh.
I will say though that the move IS important for the season after this one. If they can get to the 4.30 range this year and Strasburg comes back to pitch in the neighborhood of how he did in 2010, it bodes well for a staff that's at LEAST average in 2012. Maybe a savvy signing, some unexpected development, or a good trade and the Nats are looking at a one of the better starting staffs in the NL the year after next.
But I hope the Nats aren't strict interpreters of pitch limits. It's Feb 16th. The Nats have a number in their head on how much ZNN should pitch this year. That's fine... for right now. Come April 1st they should have another number. May 15th another, the All-Star break another. ZNN needs to be evaluated on an ongoing basis. With that being said - it's best if the Nats don't actually release their number to the press. Right now all that's been said is "not 200" - which is fine. I don't think the Nats are going to run into a scenario where Jordan NEEDS to pitch that last week. The minute they put a 150 or 175 out there, that will become a focus for the media covering the team and that interest may hurt the Nats making adjustments to it along the way.
The other day I noted the (potential) staffs ERAs for this season. I think they were reasonable numbers. Averaged the Nats would have a starter ERA in the neighborhood of 4.30. Last year it was 4.61. You could look at this in two ways.
The staff won't be good next year, but it will be better.
OR
The staff will be better next year, but it won't be good.
Same notion - two different take-away feelings. I tend to fall into the latter group (big surprise) where the takeaway feeling is one of general disappointment. This is because even with an improvement of 0.30 in ERA the Nats will only move from 14th in the NL all the way to 13th. The median value is right around 4.00, which means the Nats would have to have another significant jump in them, after the expected one, to be even "average". The improvement is not so much about the Nats getting better but about the Nats being very very bad last year. I can't get excited about a mere move to meh.
I will say though that the move IS important for the season after this one. If they can get to the 4.30 range this year and Strasburg comes back to pitch in the neighborhood of how he did in 2010, it bodes well for a staff that's at LEAST average in 2012. Maybe a savvy signing, some unexpected development, or a good trade and the Nats are looking at a one of the better starting staffs in the NL the year after next.
Monday, February 14, 2011
DL Wangly
Yes that's a DL Hughley joke. Yes, it's also possibly funnier than anything that was ever on "The Hughleys".
For those wondering where Wang was in the rotation discussion well here you go. Starting the season on the DL very likely. The guy hasn't pitched in the majors since early July 2009. He's still has yet to throw off a mound. (Ed note - He threw in the instructional league - that had to be off a mound, right?) I'm not going to take Wang in the rotation seriously until he at least has a couple decent minor league starts, contract or no contract.
For those wondering where Wang was in the rotation discussion well here you go. Starting the season on the DL very likely. The guy hasn't pitched in the majors since early July 2009.
A number 1 problem
Not all the pitching projections are in yet but a quick flip through them shows us a Nats rotation that is... well... not the best. The rough averaged projected ERAs of "Harper's Official Nats Rotation 2010" (+Gorzelanny -Maya) are as follows : 4.00, 4.25, 4.30, 4.45, and 4.60. OK, fine the Nats don't have a great rotation. (though if they got those numbers it would improve on last year's Starter ERA of 4.61). That's not the discussion here. This post is about how that 4.60, the projected worst starter on the Nationals in 2010, is their #1 guy. Livan Hernandez will start Opening Day for the Nationals and could very well be their worst starter in 2010.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Livan was headed toward the scrap heap when he came to the Nationals last year. Even those who loved Livan and wanted him back (like me) saw him as 200 inning of 5.00 ERA pitching. He was just someone to soak up innings. His previous 4 seasons went like this
2006 : 4.83 ERA (1.500 WHIP, 5.08 xFIP)
2007 : 4.93 (1.595, 5.53)
2008 : 6.05 (1.667, 4.90)
2009 : 5.44 (1.563, 4.78)
The ERAs obviously show a pitcher who is pitching terrible. The last two numbers - Walks+Hits over Innings Pitched, and expected Fielding Independent Pitching - show that he wasn't unlucky. The fancy stats concur. Livan was a bad pitcher.
All of a sudden though, Livan starts out 2010 as the best pitcher ever. He carried a 1.04 ERA into mid-May. Was it mostly luck? You're damn right it was. But then a funny thing seemed to happen, Livan didn't crash as one would expect he would. Oh his next 6 starts were "normal", and the 6 after that had 4 bad ones mixed in. That looked more like the Livan we expected. Usually bad, with rare instances of brilliance. But then he followed up with 7 starts probably better than the ones to begin the year. It caused some idiots to gush that Livan had become a markedly better pitcher.
Then he crashed.
Three terrible starts and one not much better mixed in with an 8 inning shutout and last start where he gave up one run. A 5.70+ ERA. In other words, classic Livan Hernandez.
So what does this have to do with 2011? A lot. Livan is the one pitcher the Nats are sending out there that they are relying on. Marquis, Lannan and ZNN are all injury returns. Gorzelanny is an unknown. Maya is untested and rushed. The innings they get from these guys could vary wildly. I guarantee at least one will be pulled from the rotation by June 1st for some reason or another. Livan, though, is going to be trotted out to the mound every 5th day simply because they Nats know they can.
The problem is he's very likely to put the Nats in a losing position more often than not. Outside of that miracle run to open last year he's been a bad pitcher for 4+ years now. He's only a year older. The fancy stats agree with what you can eyeball with a look at his starts last year. He was lucky to open the season. Those starts aren't indicative of the pitcher Livan is. I can easily see a season where Livan starts slow and keeps slow, yet starts every time out ("He is our #1 guy" says by-the-book Riggleman) pulling a 5.50+ ERA into the All-Star break.
There's not much the Nats can do about this. They tried to get a dependable good arm and failed. This is what they are left with. And no one should begrudge Livan his Opening Day start considering what he did last year. But Nats fans should be prepared for a season of frustration as Livan gives up 5 runs in 6 and a third, then 7 runs in 4, then 1 run over 8+, over and over. I hope that I'm wrong like last year, but I think the Livan revival was a one year thing. This year we get the Livan we expected last season, someone to soak up innings with a 5.00 ERA. That's not a bad thing, not for this team, but it is probably less than what a lot of fans are expecting.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Livan was headed toward the scrap heap when he came to the Nationals last year. Even those who loved Livan and wanted him back (like me) saw him as 200 inning of 5.00 ERA pitching. He was just someone to soak up innings. His previous 4 seasons went like this
2006 : 4.83 ERA (1.500 WHIP, 5.08 xFIP)
2007 : 4.93 (1.595, 5.53)
2008 : 6.05 (1.667, 4.90)
2009 : 5.44 (1.563, 4.78)
The ERAs obviously show a pitcher who is pitching terrible. The last two numbers - Walks+Hits over Innings Pitched, and expected Fielding Independent Pitching - show that he wasn't unlucky. The fancy stats concur. Livan was a bad pitcher.
All of a sudden though, Livan starts out 2010 as the best pitcher ever. He carried a 1.04 ERA into mid-May. Was it mostly luck? You're damn right it was. But then a funny thing seemed to happen, Livan didn't crash as one would expect he would. Oh his next 6 starts were "normal", and the 6 after that had 4 bad ones mixed in. That looked more like the Livan we expected. Usually bad, with rare instances of brilliance. But then he followed up with 7 starts probably better than the ones to begin the year. It caused some idiots to gush that Livan had become a markedly better pitcher.
Then he crashed.
Three terrible starts and one not much better mixed in with an 8 inning shutout and last start where he gave up one run. A 5.70+ ERA. In other words, classic Livan Hernandez.
So what does this have to do with 2011? A lot. Livan is the one pitcher the Nats are sending out there that they are relying on. Marquis, Lannan and ZNN are all injury returns. Gorzelanny is an unknown. Maya is untested and rushed. The innings they get from these guys could vary wildly. I guarantee at least one will be pulled from the rotation by June 1st for some reason or another. Livan, though, is going to be trotted out to the mound every 5th day simply because they Nats know they can.
The problem is he's very likely to put the Nats in a losing position more often than not. Outside of that miracle run to open last year he's been a bad pitcher for 4+ years now. He's only a year older. The fancy stats agree with what you can eyeball with a look at his starts last year. He was lucky to open the season. Those starts aren't indicative of the pitcher Livan is. I can easily see a season where Livan starts slow and keeps slow, yet starts every time out ("He is our #1 guy" says by-the-book Riggleman) pulling a 5.50+ ERA into the All-Star break.
There's not much the Nats can do about this. They tried to get a dependable good arm and failed. This is what they are left with. And no one should begrudge Livan his Opening Day start considering what he did last year. But Nats fans should be prepared for a season of frustration as Livan gives up 5 runs in 6 and a third, then 7 runs in 4, then 1 run over 8+, over and over. I hope that I'm wrong like last year, but I think the Livan revival was a one year thing. This year we get the Livan we expected last season, someone to soak up innings with a 5.00 ERA. That's not a bad thing, not for this team, but it is probably less than what a lot of fans are expecting.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Truly the Meat Hook
I never cared for him much as a player and the interview is nothing special, but it is AWESOME that Dmitri Young went to be interviewed in a Rudy's Texas BBQ t-shirt.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Just for the hell of it
Would you trade Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg for Albert Pujols (with guaranteed contract extension)?
Update : Also for the hell of it... let's say the extension is - 7 years at 200 million, taking him to age 38.
Update : Also for the hell of it... let's say the extension is - 7 years at 200 million, taking him to age 38.
Bizzo? Rowden?
It was cute for a while, this Bowden impression, but signing Alex Cintron, that's going too far. That makes me want to send Anthony Hopkins out to Viera to see if Rizzo has been demonically possessed by Bowden's spirit. (And yes I mean really Anthony Hopkins - it's not like Rizzo is actually possessed so what's a priest going to do? Sir Anthony would be fun).
For those that don't know Alex has basically failed out of baseball in the past two years, sucking it up with the Nats in 2009 and in Buffalo in 2010. If you weren't sure Buffalo still does not have a major league franchise. He's 31, toolsy and played for Rizzo's former team. It's Bowden redux.
I can see bringing in Coffey and Meredith - you always need arms. Ankiel and Nix both have something to offer (though it's pretty much the same thing and you got it much cheaper from one than the other). But Hairston and Cora? Does the team have a quota for 35 yr old middle infielders? And now Cintron?
I know it doesn't hurt the team, not really. Minor league deals are a dime a dozen. Still it doesn't mean you should waste that precious playing time on guys who haven't been good since Buffy the Vampire Slayer was still on the air.
For those that don't know Alex has basically failed out of baseball in the past two years, sucking it up with the Nats in 2009 and in Buffalo in 2010. If you weren't sure Buffalo still does not have a major league franchise. He's 31, toolsy and played for Rizzo's former team. It's Bowden redux.
I can see bringing in Coffey and Meredith - you always need arms. Ankiel and Nix both have something to offer (though it's pretty much the same thing and you got it much cheaper from one than the other). But Hairston and Cora? Does the team have a quota for 35 yr old middle infielders? And now Cintron?
I know it doesn't hurt the team, not really. Minor league deals are a dime a dozen. Still it doesn't mean you should waste that precious playing time on guys who haven't been good since Buffy the Vampire Slayer was still on the air.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Nats on the march
Yesterday the Nats moved stuff to Florida. Hey, if it makes you happy by all means be happy. As long as teams don't charge fans to watch trucks roll out of a stadium I have no complaints.
I do think it's appropriate that they used JKmoving.
It's the start of the 2011 season.... JK! OMG! !11!1!
I do think it's appropriate that they used JKmoving.
It's the start of the 2011 season.... JK! OMG! !11!1!
Monday, February 07, 2011
Who's going to get on base?
Not that this wasn't a problem last year but I was perusing the latest Ladson column at MLB.com and in it he has his projected lineup (a good bet for Opening Day at least) and their respective stats from last year. Without naming names, here's the OBPs :
.319, .306, .388, .388, .320, .294(Thanks Pudge!), .307, .277
That's a 3/4 of the lineup having a .320 OBP or less. If we look at all players last year that would put the 3rd best guy in the Nats lineup at getting on base... about 110th overall. That's not good and it's worse than last year. Last season the Nats had three guys on their team that could work a walk. They got rid of two, Dunn and Willingham, of them and brought in one, Werth. So right there is a step back.
Of course looking at last season alone isn't exactly fair. Adam Laroche can do a little better. I guess you can also expect (hope?) Morgan and Danny Espinosa can bring up their averages which will pump their numbers up, but I don't see this being a lineup that puts men on. There's not much help coming from the bench either. Mike Morse can take a base on balls, but Wilson Ramos, JHJ, and Rick Ankiel aren't those type of hitters.
Simply put, you score by getting on base and getting big hits. Nats fans better hope that guys like Desmond and Espinosa develop their power and get more big hits, because the team doesn't look to be getting on base any better than last year.
.319, .306, .388, .388, .320, .294(Thanks Pudge!), .307, .277
That's a 3/4 of the lineup having a .320 OBP or less. If we look at all players last year that would put the 3rd best guy in the Nats lineup at getting on base... about 110th overall. That's not good and it's worse than last year. Last season the Nats had three guys on their team that could work a walk. They got rid of two, Dunn and Willingham, of them and brought in one, Werth. So right there is a step back.
Of course looking at last season alone isn't exactly fair. Adam Laroche can do a little better. I guess you can also expect (hope?) Morgan and Danny Espinosa can bring up their averages which will pump their numbers up, but I don't see this being a lineup that puts men on. There's not much help coming from the bench either. Mike Morse can take a base on balls, but Wilson Ramos, JHJ, and Rick Ankiel aren't those type of hitters.
Simply put, you score by getting on base and getting big hits. Nats fans better hope that guys like Desmond and Espinosa develop their power and get more big hits, because the team doesn't look to be getting on base any better than last year.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Simple Rule
Any minor league deal for a guy around 30 or younger with some sort of major league talent / success is generally a good deal.
Hence - good for the Nats signing Laynce Nix.
I'm busy today so quickly - he's a good field, can't hit lefties batter. Which spells trouble for Roger Bernadina or would spell trouble if Roger was really a major league starter - which he isn't, so I guess it spells "reality check" or something like that.
Don't be fooled by last years stats, he had some crazy luck with his batting average for balls in play. His career numbers are just under .300, and this usually falls a bit as you age and lose speed. Last year he had like a .360. Not going to happen. 2009 is more of what you can expect, and what that is is a guy with decent pop against righty pitchers. A platoon of him and Morse could be extremely interesting.
As the Nats keep putting together a traditional bench - my view of the Hairston signing becomes dimmer and dimmer. Because he can play infield and outfield well enough, he offers a National league team flexibility to use a bench spot on a pure hitter - let's say a Russell Branyan type. A guy that can't play a position but can slam a homer in a pinch. If you aren't going to use that flexibility to your advantage then Hairston is just a poor, old, kind of expensive MI bench player
Hence - good for the Nats signing Laynce Nix.
I'm busy today so quickly - he's a good field, can't hit lefties batter. Which spells trouble for Roger Bernadina or would spell trouble if Roger was really a major league starter - which he isn't, so I guess it spells "reality check" or something like that.
Don't be fooled by last years stats, he had some crazy luck with his batting average for balls in play. His career numbers are just under .300, and this usually falls a bit as you age and lose speed. Last year he had like a .360. Not going to happen. 2009 is more of what you can expect, and what that is is a guy with decent pop against righty pitchers. A platoon of him and Morse could be extremely interesting.
As the Nats keep putting together a traditional bench - my view of the Hairston signing becomes dimmer and dimmer. Because he can play infield and outfield well enough, he offers a National league team flexibility to use a bench spot on a pure hitter - let's say a Russell Branyan type. A guy that can't play a position but can slam a homer in a pinch. If you aren't going to use that flexibility to your advantage then Hairston is just a poor, old, kind of expensive MI bench player
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Hey, It's Cla Meredith!
I remember that name! From stories like this!
First thought : Interesting - the Nats might have made another shrewd move catching a good player off of a couple bad years.
Second thought : First thoughts can be wrong.
I didn't realize it had been that long since Meredith had been good. 5 seasons to be exact. That 2006 season was really a fluke. It's hard to decipher much from his minor league numbers since the Red Sox rushed him up so quickly but his longer stays seem to show a pitcher who gives up a lot more hits than he did in that magical year. It's not that he's been bad since then, but high 3.00 ERA bullpen guys are a dime a dozen. Worse yet, in an effort to get that mojo back he's losing control. He's seen his BB/9 jump from 1.1 in the majors in 2006 to 1.9, 3.1, and 3.4 in subsequent seasons. Last year he had a 4.0 in the minors. That's bad. He did manage a 2.4 rate in the majors but probably uncoincidentally he couldn't keep the ball in the park anymore. Fancy stats show this wasn't just a fluke - he was giving up more flyballs then he ever did in his career.
I guess if you are willing to let him walk a guy or give up a hit, right now he can be useful if you absolutely don't want to give up a homer. Since he'll only be 28 next year it doesn't hurt to kick the tires on him, but since he's never had much strike out success in the majors (6.7 K/9 was his best rate - the Nats had 7 of 8 relievers who pitched more than 30 innings best that number just last year) even if you can get his wildness back under control he'll be nothing better than another arm in the pen.
First thought : Interesting - the Nats might have made another shrewd move catching a good player off of a couple bad years.
Second thought : First thoughts can be wrong.
I didn't realize it had been that long since Meredith had been good. 5 seasons to be exact. That 2006 season was really a fluke. It's hard to decipher much from his minor league numbers since the Red Sox rushed him up so quickly but his longer stays seem to show a pitcher who gives up a lot more hits than he did in that magical year. It's not that he's been bad since then, but high 3.00 ERA bullpen guys are a dime a dozen. Worse yet, in an effort to get that mojo back he's losing control. He's seen his BB/9 jump from 1.1 in the majors in 2006 to 1.9, 3.1, and 3.4 in subsequent seasons. Last year he had a 4.0 in the minors. That's bad. He did manage a 2.4 rate in the majors but probably uncoincidentally he couldn't keep the ball in the park anymore. Fancy stats show this wasn't just a fluke - he was giving up more flyballs then he ever did in his career.
I guess if you are willing to let him walk a guy or give up a hit, right now he can be useful if you absolutely don't want to give up a homer. Since he'll only be 28 next year it doesn't hurt to kick the tires on him, but since he's never had much strike out success in the majors (6.7 K/9 was his best rate - the Nats had 7 of 8 relievers who pitched more than 30 innings best that number just last year) even if you can get his wildness back under control he'll be nothing better than another arm in the pen.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Angelos had a better offseason, are the Os now better than the Nats?
Now that the Orioles signed the Duke, who the Nats had interest in, after grabbing Derek Lee from the Nats hands, I've heard a tiny bit of rumbling about the Angelos' Orioles having a better offseason than the Nats. (I'm going to assume this rumbling is all about the Angelos/MASN connection and not some crazy city rivalry. I refuse to accept that anyone would care about that.) With the cash from the Nats TV deal going to help support the Baltimore 9, it's at least of mild interest to see if that's true and how the Orioles now stack up in comparison to the Nats.
It is true. The Orioles have so far had a more successful offseason, but it's also true that they needed to. While their records were similar, 66 wins for the Os to 69 for the Nats, most indications were that the Orioles were lucky to win that many and the Nats were a bit unlucky not to win more. The Pythagorean records have them almost 10 games apart, a better indication of the talent difference. And if you doubt that you only have to look at the Orioles infield.
The Orioles infield was horrible last year. Here's how the players they had with 400+ at bats ranked and scored in WAR last year, compared to their AL peers.
1B - Wigginton : 0.3 WAR : 3rd to last
2B - no one (Roberts injured)
SS - Izturis : -0.3 WAR : last
3B - Tejada : -0.1 WAR : last
The Nats infield with Zimmerman (7.2 - like top 3 over all NL position players) and Dunn (7th out of NL firstbasemen) was obviously going to be better, but even Desmond (1.1 WAR) and Espinosa (0.4 WAR in limited play) outperformed these guys. It's not even close. They are Cey-Russell-Lopes-Garvey compared to the Orioles infield. The fact that the Os infield was allowed to be that bad in the first place was a crime. So they needed to get better just so they wouldn't be an embarrassment anymore. Reynolds, Hardy and Lee will definitely help them - but these aren't game changers. Even with LaRoche manning first instead of Dunn, the Zimmerman advantage will give the Nats at least an equally productive infield. And if Espinosa can play a decent full year, or he or Desmond take a step up the Nats will have a definite advantage.
A Nats fans might say now - "but they had Jones and Markakis in the OF, while the Nats had Bernadina and Morgan and etc". That is true. It's also true that Markakis and Jones were actually pretty average last year. Neither one was significantly better than Willingham and neither is the player that Werth is. Of course you'd want either one of them instead of Josh because of their ages but we're not talking about that (or else the Nats would have a bigger IF advantage then they already do). While they had a significant advantage in the OF last year, the Werth bump, much like Zimmerman in the infield, closes a lot of ground. They have potential, due to the age difference to be significantly better, but the safe bet is that the Os will only be a step better.
All in all I like the Nats offense better. They have two stars and a couple potential breakout players. The Orioles have more of a "no weakness" lineup. The pitching difference - well there I like the Os better than the Nats. I think missing out on the Duchscherer actually is worse for the Nats than losing out on Lee. I like Lee better than Laroche for his potential to have one big year left in him. If he doesn't, and that the better bet, they'll be pretty equivalent players over the next couple years. But the Nats need as many arms as they can get in their starter pool. None of the arms the Nats have outside of Zimmermann are impressive on their own. The breakout that they could have would be more of a Livan 2010 "what the hell?!?" variety. Therefore the more in there to choose from, the better chance of finding a guy having that type of year. The Duke was just the type of pitcher that could have a good year in him (and an AL to NL guy. Love those).
So in the end are the Os better than the Nats? The best guess is no, but they've probably closed the gap to the point were the talent levels on the field in 2011 are close to equal. The Nats having a slight offensive advantage and the O's better starting pitching as their young guns mature. (The Nats should be better in the bullpen - but anything can happen there). Given the amount of young players that are key on either side there is a lot of room for variation but I figure both have about 70-75 win talent on the table. A nice step up for an Orioles team that had drifted in the wrong direction the last few years, a disappointing lack of movement for a Nats team looking for a breakout year sooner rather than later.
It is true. The Orioles have so far had a more successful offseason, but it's also true that they needed to. While their records were similar, 66 wins for the Os to 69 for the Nats, most indications were that the Orioles were lucky to win that many and the Nats were a bit unlucky not to win more. The Pythagorean records have them almost 10 games apart, a better indication of the talent difference. And if you doubt that you only have to look at the Orioles infield.
The Orioles infield was horrible last year. Here's how the players they had with 400+ at bats ranked and scored in WAR last year, compared to their AL peers.
1B - Wigginton : 0.3 WAR : 3rd to last
2B - no one (Roberts injured)
SS - Izturis : -0.3 WAR : last
3B - Tejada : -0.1 WAR : last
The Nats infield with Zimmerman (7.2 - like top 3 over all NL position players) and Dunn (7th out of NL firstbasemen) was obviously going to be better, but even Desmond (1.1 WAR) and Espinosa (0.4 WAR in limited play) outperformed these guys. It's not even close. They are Cey-Russell-Lopes-Garvey compared to the Orioles infield. The fact that the Os infield was allowed to be that bad in the first place was a crime. So they needed to get better just so they wouldn't be an embarrassment anymore. Reynolds, Hardy and Lee will definitely help them - but these aren't game changers. Even with LaRoche manning first instead of Dunn, the Zimmerman advantage will give the Nats at least an equally productive infield. And if Espinosa can play a decent full year, or he or Desmond take a step up the Nats will have a definite advantage.
A Nats fans might say now - "but they had Jones and Markakis in the OF, while the Nats had Bernadina and Morgan and etc". That is true. It's also true that Markakis and Jones were actually pretty average last year. Neither one was significantly better than Willingham and neither is the player that Werth is. Of course you'd want either one of them instead of Josh because of their ages but we're not talking about that (or else the Nats would have a bigger IF advantage then they already do). While they had a significant advantage in the OF last year, the Werth bump, much like Zimmerman in the infield, closes a lot of ground. They have potential, due to the age difference to be significantly better, but the safe bet is that the Os will only be a step better.
All in all I like the Nats offense better. They have two stars and a couple potential breakout players. The Orioles have more of a "no weakness" lineup. The pitching difference - well there I like the Os better than the Nats. I think missing out on the Duchscherer actually is worse for the Nats than losing out on Lee. I like Lee better than Laroche for his potential to have one big year left in him. If he doesn't, and that the better bet, they'll be pretty equivalent players over the next couple years. But the Nats need as many arms as they can get in their starter pool. None of the arms the Nats have outside of Zimmermann are impressive on their own. The breakout that they could have would be more of a Livan 2010 "what the hell?!?" variety. Therefore the more in there to choose from, the better chance of finding a guy having that type of year. The Duke was just the type of pitcher that could have a good year in him (and an AL to NL guy. Love those).
So in the end are the Os better than the Nats? The best guess is no, but they've probably closed the gap to the point were the talent levels on the field in 2011 are close to equal. The Nats having a slight offensive advantage and the O's better starting pitching as their young guns mature. (The Nats should be better in the bullpen - but anything can happen there). Given the amount of young players that are key on either side there is a lot of room for variation but I figure both have about 70-75 win talent on the table. A nice step up for an Orioles team that had drifted in the wrong direction the last few years, a disappointing lack of movement for a Nats team looking for a breakout year sooner rather than later.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)