Jayson Werth. You wouldn't know it by the way he's often brought up in my blog but I really, really like Jayson Werth the player. This guy, in his prime, did everything right. He ran well. He fielded great. He hit for power. He got on base. He saw a lot of pitches and he could hit for decent average.
He never got the respect due to him because he was a jack of all trades, master of none, and we love nothing more than our masters. Give us the HR kings and the BA champs, even if that HR king is a lummox in the field hitting .240 or that BA champ is a slap hitter who can't hit a double and won't take a walk. We like it when our player's greatness is easily defined. Jayson's wasn't. In his prime, those 2008-2010 Phillies years, he was arguably one of the Top 10 players in the game, without ever being a Top 15 player over that time in any meaningful category. He was flawless but not spectacular.
Now we are seeing glimpses of the player Werth might have been the past two years if not for injuries and, let's be honest, age beginning to catch up with him. Is it real?
Well back when Werth was in his prime he was a dead-red hitter. He punished fastballs from 2008-2010. When he got to the Nats though that skill went away. Now in 2013, that skill has returned. (fancy stat link)
Over the past two years, Werth has tried to compensate for his lost ability. In part, he's done this by making more contact. He also started swinging at some pitches he might not have before trying to make something happen. His contact rates, around 78% in Phillies days, went up to over 82% for the Nats, and his O-Swing% (swings at pitches outside the zone) bumped up from say 21% to 25%. That's not a great combination as making contact at pitches outside the zone usually ends up with badly hit balls. Jayson saw a big increase in GB% during this time, from down near 36% in '09-'10 to over 42% in '11 & '12. He was trying hard to do something and ended up grounding out a lot on pitches outside the zone.
This year, with the ability to hit fastballs back, we've seen a combination of the skills he learned during this rough period and his previous ones. He's still swinging more and making more contact, but his high contact rate is based much more on pitches inside the zone than out. The end result is a lots more line drives this year and a lot fewer ground balls. Now that whatever ailed him is in the rearview, he's back to being a very good offensive player.
Just very good? Well remember we said he became great by being very good at everything, if that makes sense. The average is what stands out right now and that is certainly too high, a product of a .377 BABIP that would easily be the highest of his career. (yes you can argue more LDs would increase the average, but a younger faster Werth hit a lot of LDs and never had a BABIP this high) A more reasonable BABIP would have his average around the .300 mark, which history has shown to be his ceiling. The power is basically just a tick behind his prime years, understandable because of his age. His eye is still there.
Now of course this doesn't paint the full picture of Jayson's value. He is getting older. While he's still a decent baserunner, that skill is quietly eroding. He also can't field like he used to. So he's not that Top 10-esque player he was. Which brings us to the elephant in the room - that contract.
That's when I've talked about Werth in the past few years. That hideous contract. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it wasn't horrible but I'll tell you again and again it was. On a pure money level there is no real evidence that bad teams have to overpay for players. Do they have to have the highest bid out there? You bet. But, if you think that's overpaying well then every team overpays who gets a player, bad or good. The instances where a bad team has put out the most money and been rejected are few and far between. Hell, the most recent high-profile example we've seen of a player doing that is Cliff Lee who passed on the Yankees, not the Astros, to go to Philly. No, it's far more likely the player takes the most money and then justifies going to the bad team than refuses the cash to be on a winner.
I've gone over the contract timeline, the various thoughts and numbers bandied about at the time and there is no question the Nats didn't just put out the highest bid, they overpaid grossly on years and dollars. It was a ridiculous deal then and it still is now. It was only going to ever be worthwhile if Werth the player could maintain that level of play for the next 7 years. That wasn't going to happen. Even now, hitting like he has, possibly better than ever, he's not worth what he was then because the other skills have faded. Oh the intangibles? He changed the clubhouse? Ummm, so what's going on this year? He brought in free agents? Who, exactly? The only two decent FAs the Nats signed after Werth and before getting good were LaRoche and Edwin Jackson. Jackson came here because the Nats gave him the deal he wanted when he couldn't get that long-term one from anyone. LaRoche came here because he was paid the most here after other 1B, who the Nats might have liked better at the time (Carlos Pena) were picked up.
No, what the contract did, the only thing that it did right, was it made the fans feel like the team cared. That's not meaningless and as long as the team is fine spending around Jayson's deal, well then, who cares? But let's accept these facts please.
The most important thing to me about Jayson's return to offensive form is that the Nats may not be hurt by the deal over the next couple years. Jayson is going to play. The contract dictates it (shut up about your sunk cost!) The past 2 years painted a scary picture of a decrepit old man stumbling around in the field and swinging punchless at the plate. While he might not avoid that first part, at least it looks like the last part will be delayed by a year or two. That matters. It was never going to be the perfect contract. I'm sure the Nats knew those last couple years might be rough and were paying a premium on the first few. If they can squeeze a couple more good years at the plate from Jayson, they'll be about where they expected to be with him when they signed the deal.
In the end it's going to be a question of whether they won when he was good, as winning takes care of most ill will. If that's the case, maybe Werth will get the national love he probably should have gotten all those years ago, as one of the best players of the late 2000s. (he's always been loved by the fans of the team mainly for intangible reasons, which makes me think that can be a fan reaction to knowing they are seeing a great overall player but finding that they can't point to any single stat that backs them up) Then it's going to be a question of how the team deals with the back end of a deal they knew would be trouble.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Thursday, August 22, 2013
New goals. Sad goals.
Last night I realized something depressing. All year we've been comparing the Nats to the 2012 98 win Nats. Obviously they aren't going to get there but here's the thing. Right now, if the Nats play as they have up until this point, they won't even match the 2011 Nats. The 2011 Nats had an OF that primarily featured Laynce Nix and Rick Ankiel. Alex Cora and the corpse of Pudge played quarter seasons. Chris Marrero, who isn't ready for the majors this year, got up to the plate over 100 times. Lannan, Livan and Marquis all pitched over 120 innings. Wang started 11 games. This wasn't a good team.
And yet here are the Nats projected final standings
2011 : 80-81
2013 (projected) : 80-82
Who would have thunk that?
The Nats need to go 19-17 in order to "pass" their 2011 team in wins. Seems easy enough, but nothing's been easy for the Nats this year. The played that well to start the season, and June through early July was about that good. Every other 6 week stretch you can pull out though, the Nats couldn't play that well. It's a toss up. I like 2013's chances but God knows they've disappointed every step of the way.
Luckily for the Nats there aren't any more past teams sitting out there to embarrass them. People have very fond memories of the 2005 squad that went 81-81 and crazily led the NL East for a good long while before reality caught up with them so a comparison to them wouldn't be terrible. The next "best" Nats team was the 2007 73-89 Nats. You might remember the immortal names in the rotation like Matt Chico, Mike "Acheived goal of being an obscure trivia answer" Bacsik, Jason Bergmann, Shawn Hill, Tim Redding, and Jason Simontacchi. To not pass them the Nats would have to go 11-25 or worse. These Nats aren't good but they're not that bad.
Ugh, what a terrible terrible season. Still baby steps are taking place. 2-1 so far only 2-2 to reach the very modest 4-3 road trip goal I set out before them. Royals are starting to play more like the Royals. Maybe just maybe they can end on a high note, instead of placing themselves behind Riggleman's Last Stand in Nats history.
And yet here are the Nats projected final standings
2011 : 80-81
2013 (projected) : 80-82
Who would have thunk that?
The Nats need to go 19-17 in order to "pass" their 2011 team in wins. Seems easy enough, but nothing's been easy for the Nats this year. The played that well to start the season, and June through early July was about that good. Every other 6 week stretch you can pull out though, the Nats couldn't play that well. It's a toss up. I like 2013's chances but God knows they've disappointed every step of the way.
Luckily for the Nats there aren't any more past teams sitting out there to embarrass them. People have very fond memories of the 2005 squad that went 81-81 and crazily led the NL East for a good long while before reality caught up with them so a comparison to them wouldn't be terrible. The next "best" Nats team was the 2007 73-89 Nats. You might remember the immortal names in the rotation like Matt Chico, Mike "Acheived goal of being an obscure trivia answer" Bacsik, Jason Bergmann, Shawn Hill, Tim Redding, and Jason Simontacchi. To not pass them the Nats would have to go 11-25 or worse. These Nats aren't good but they're not that bad.
Ugh, what a terrible terrible season. Still baby steps are taking place. 2-1 so far only 2-2 to reach the very modest 4-3 road trip goal I set out before them. Royals are starting to play more like the Royals. Maybe just maybe they can end on a high note, instead of placing themselves behind Riggleman's Last Stand in Nats history.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Learning with Boz
So last time we went through a Boz Q&A (or was it column) we decided it wasn't to be taken as a ripping, but rather as an opportunity to learn. I can't promise it'll stay that way if Boz drifts into the ridiculous (Don't make me bring up his 2005 Guzman opinion again! I'll do it! I swear!) but for now that seems better than picking on the minutia of someone writing macro-level columns or trying to write quickly back to a bunch of fans over the course of a morning.
One of the things we "learned" from looking at a question in his Q&A I put into yesterday's post. The Nats' arms in the minors aren't really anything special and will be of questionable help for 2014. What else can we glean?
The Nats have a poor record in close and low scoring games. So is season more "bad luck" than "bad play", an odd distributional fluke? Or maybe it is about the fundamentals?
Short answer : No, not really.
Long answer : If the Nats season was really a fluke, the first and biggest sign would be a gap between their actual record and the Pythagorean expectation. Anything in the 5+ win range is enough to give credence to the unlucky POV. The Nats record 61-64, their Pythag expectation? 59-66. Forget that it's a little bit better. This isn't meant to be spot on. +2 is in range.
So why are the Nats NOT unlucky? I mean a 4-12 record when giving up 3 runs seems pretty unlucky. It comes down to two things. First, Boz is using the average scoring team to determine that the Nats should have 10 more wins when giving up 2 or 3 runs. The problem is the Nats are not an average scoring team. They are 3rd worst in the NL. They aren't going to win 65% of these games. They'll win fewer. How much fewer? For the sake of not doing regressions to link the RS of a team to WP in these type of games, let's just estimate 3 fewer.
Ok so they are still 7 under where they should be here. Why isn't that unlucky? Well it IS but it's more a product of small sample size than anything else. Look at any individual scoring result and you'll see fluky results. The Phillies are just about as bad as the Nats scoring runs. What is their record in games where they give up 3 runs? The exact opposite of the Nats, 12-4. When you look at all runs allowed scenarios for the Nats you see places they got lucky. They've never been shutout 1-0 this year. They've won 32% or so of games when giving up 5 or more runs when the average team only wins 26% or so of these. (and that's as a worse scoring team) So let's give them a 1 run loss and a 3 more 5+ losses to even out the luck there.
Now they are still 3 under where they should be and that isn't crazy. It may be the teeniest tiniest bit unlucky but really its more about our prediction method being imperfect than the Nats getting screwed in some way.
Oh and the fundamentals? Nats have a better record in one-run games than other games. The Phillies are 12-4 in games where they give up 3 runs and no one is screaming that they get the fundamentals right. It may be true but it's noise.
The Cards were 8 1/2 out and caught the Braves for the Wild Card. Does that mean the Nats have hope, even a tiny bit?
Sure. It's not IMpossible. Hindsight tells us that the Braves were probably a little overachieving at the time and the Cardinals a bit underachieving, making the comeback make a little more sense. Problem is, the underachieving part might apply to the Nats (depends on how you look at it), but really the only overachieving team above the Nats is actually the Pirates, who are 13 games ahead of the Nats. They may come down, the Nats might come up, but they aren't going to make up 13 games. The Nats don't need teams to simply play to their level. They need a team to collapse in a way that would be completely unexpected.
Another thing working against the Nats is that the Cardinals, on Sept 5th, were 74-66. In other words they were playing like a GOOD team. The Nats would have to go 12-2 in their next 14 to find themselves in a similar place. I don't see it. The Cards were a good team that got hot and caught another good team that was playing above expectations. The Nats are a middling team looking up at a bunch of good teams playing as they should.
Do teams really fold under the pressure of expectations?
I'm not going to say no. Like I've said before, pressure is one of those things that exist but can't be quantified so I'm not going to deny it. I will look for more obvious answers though. Let's look at some examples brought up.
The 2013 Giants? They lost Melky and didn't make up for that. Vogelsong got injured and Cain stopped pitching well. (Hard to see a team that won 2 WS recently folding under pressure anyway)
The 2013 Blue Jays? Every starting pitching gamble failed in someway that could have been predicted, though not expected all at once.
The 2013 Angels? Two major bats in Hamilton and Pujols underperformed due to injury and age, and kept offense from being elite. Weaver injury killed what was already a suspect rotation.
2008 Rockies? In 2007 nearly every pitcher had one of their better years of their career. Obviously couldn't keep that up. Tulo and Helton would miss major time and the bench was not good enough to compensate (sounds oddly familiar this scenario)
1990 Cubs? Again the rotation died. Sutcliffe got injured and they couldn't replace him. Bilecki had his best year in 89 and was more normal (bad) in 1990.
1987 Red Sox? In 1986 Hurst would have his best year, Schiraldi was lightning in a bottle for an otherwise bad pen, and Seaver was dependable help for a few months. In 1987 Hurst was average, Seaver was retired, and Schiraldi stopped being magic.
1971 Reds? 1970 Reds had two ROY candidates (Simpson - SP & Carbo - OF) that would basically never play that well again. Another OF contributor would get injured and another SP would fail, leaving them with gaping holes to fill. Also 1970 Reds played 11 games over Pythag.
1967 Orioles? Ok maybe! They got a little worse but played oddly well under (12 games) Pythag and were basically good before and after.
Really looking through these does tell us a few things.
One of the things we "learned" from looking at a question in his Q&A I put into yesterday's post. The Nats' arms in the minors aren't really anything special and will be of questionable help for 2014. What else can we glean?
The Nats have a poor record in close and low scoring games. So is season more "bad luck" than "bad play", an odd distributional fluke? Or maybe it is about the fundamentals?
Short answer : No, not really.
Long answer : If the Nats season was really a fluke, the first and biggest sign would be a gap between their actual record and the Pythagorean expectation. Anything in the 5+ win range is enough to give credence to the unlucky POV. The Nats record 61-64, their Pythag expectation? 59-66. Forget that it's a little bit better. This isn't meant to be spot on. +2 is in range.
So why are the Nats NOT unlucky? I mean a 4-12 record when giving up 3 runs seems pretty unlucky. It comes down to two things. First, Boz is using the average scoring team to determine that the Nats should have 10 more wins when giving up 2 or 3 runs. The problem is the Nats are not an average scoring team. They are 3rd worst in the NL. They aren't going to win 65% of these games. They'll win fewer. How much fewer? For the sake of not doing regressions to link the RS of a team to WP in these type of games, let's just estimate 3 fewer.
Ok so they are still 7 under where they should be here. Why isn't that unlucky? Well it IS but it's more a product of small sample size than anything else. Look at any individual scoring result and you'll see fluky results. The Phillies are just about as bad as the Nats scoring runs. What is their record in games where they give up 3 runs? The exact opposite of the Nats, 12-4. When you look at all runs allowed scenarios for the Nats you see places they got lucky. They've never been shutout 1-0 this year. They've won 32% or so of games when giving up 5 or more runs when the average team only wins 26% or so of these. (and that's as a worse scoring team) So let's give them a 1 run loss and a 3 more 5+ losses to even out the luck there.
Now they are still 3 under where they should be and that isn't crazy. It may be the teeniest tiniest bit unlucky but really its more about our prediction method being imperfect than the Nats getting screwed in some way.
Oh and the fundamentals? Nats have a better record in one-run games than other games. The Phillies are 12-4 in games where they give up 3 runs and no one is screaming that they get the fundamentals right. It may be true but it's noise.
The Cards were 8 1/2 out and caught the Braves for the Wild Card. Does that mean the Nats have hope, even a tiny bit?
Sure. It's not IMpossible. Hindsight tells us that the Braves were probably a little overachieving at the time and the Cardinals a bit underachieving, making the comeback make a little more sense. Problem is, the underachieving part might apply to the Nats (depends on how you look at it), but really the only overachieving team above the Nats is actually the Pirates, who are 13 games ahead of the Nats. They may come down, the Nats might come up, but they aren't going to make up 13 games. The Nats don't need teams to simply play to their level. They need a team to collapse in a way that would be completely unexpected.
Another thing working against the Nats is that the Cardinals, on Sept 5th, were 74-66. In other words they were playing like a GOOD team. The Nats would have to go 12-2 in their next 14 to find themselves in a similar place. I don't see it. The Cards were a good team that got hot and caught another good team that was playing above expectations. The Nats are a middling team looking up at a bunch of good teams playing as they should.
Do teams really fold under the pressure of expectations?
I'm not going to say no. Like I've said before, pressure is one of those things that exist but can't be quantified so I'm not going to deny it. I will look for more obvious answers though. Let's look at some examples brought up.
The 2013 Giants? They lost Melky and didn't make up for that. Vogelsong got injured and Cain stopped pitching well. (Hard to see a team that won 2 WS recently folding under pressure anyway)
The 2013 Blue Jays? Every starting pitching gamble failed in someway that could have been predicted, though not expected all at once.
The 2013 Angels? Two major bats in Hamilton and Pujols underperformed due to injury and age, and kept offense from being elite. Weaver injury killed what was already a suspect rotation.
2008 Rockies? In 2007 nearly every pitcher had one of their better years of their career. Obviously couldn't keep that up. Tulo and Helton would miss major time and the bench was not good enough to compensate (sounds oddly familiar this scenario)
1990 Cubs? Again the rotation died. Sutcliffe got injured and they couldn't replace him. Bilecki had his best year in 89 and was more normal (bad) in 1990.
1987 Red Sox? In 1986 Hurst would have his best year, Schiraldi was lightning in a bottle for an otherwise bad pen, and Seaver was dependable help for a few months. In 1987 Hurst was average, Seaver was retired, and Schiraldi stopped being magic.
1971 Reds? 1970 Reds had two ROY candidates (Simpson - SP & Carbo - OF) that would basically never play that well again. Another OF contributor would get injured and another SP would fail, leaving them with gaping holes to fill. Also 1970 Reds played 11 games over Pythag.
1967 Orioles? Ok maybe! They got a little worse but played oddly well under (12 games) Pythag and were basically good before and after.
Really looking through these does tell us a few things.
- Great years are often combinations of individuals having career years and the team as a whole outperforming expectations.
- Collapses are often centered around SP staff implosions, which makes sense for a number of reasons.
- Generally great teams who come out of nowhere, return to nowhere.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
What's wrong with ZNN? I don't know but I know it needs to be fixed.
My standard quick perusal of the fancy stats got me nothing substantial. Perhaps some deep digging would find something but I'm not so sure.
July looks like the "regression" month. BABIP went way up (.221 in June to .357). HR/FB went way up (6.3% to 21.4%). LOB% went way down (70.9% to 62.5%) Sure bad pitching could be the reason, but you don't usually turn on a dime like this, and those July values are out of whack for anything but a terrible pitcher. Just like those June values were out of whack in the other direction (well not LOB% but that was way favoring ZNN in Apr and May). So you could, if you wanted, just write off July as bad luck, everything going wrong for ZNN to make up for 3 months of things going right.
August though, doesn't lend itself to the same narrative. All the fancy stats are back within a normal range. Nope, in August it's more about ZNN's lack of control. His walks per 9 are up to 4.09, 4.40 since the break. He hasn't had a month remotely that bad since coming back form surgery in Sept of 2010. Now it's not like he's missing the zone a ton more than he used to. He's around 35% balls in August, worse than the previous 3 months but close to April and he's had months around this before. So what is it?
Like I said I don't know. I'm assuming the Nats don't know either. Could it be an injury to ZNN? God knows this team makes a sport out of dismissing injuries and watching their players flail around like A-ball rejects on the field. Could it be a change in approach from the opponents? They are swinging a lot less overall (swing rate down from 50.7% before the break to 44% now). Perhaps Jordan has tendencies deeper in the count that other teams are noticing and taking advantage of? You'd think the Nats, who see Jordan everyday, would be the first to be on top of something like that.
Gah Gah Gah. The Nats need Jordan to be ok. Assuming Haren is allowed to walk (the right move unless he wants to come back for some super cheap one year deal). The back of the Nats rotation will be a giant question mark heading into next season. It's one thing to fill one rotation spot. You can do that with some tape and glue assuming 1 through 4 are set. Filling two is super hard though. If the Nats need to work on three? Forget it. See you in 2015.
Why so dismal? I thought the Nats had a lot of arms they liked in the minors? News flash : 25 teams have a lot of arms they like in the minors. The Nats have some pitching prospects but nothing really more exciting than you'd find elsewhere. Taylor Jordan's success is heartening and he should be given a chance in the rotation next season assuming he keeps this up. I'm not saying he'll succeed. In fact, I think I'd bet against it just like I did with Detwiler. But I think it be silly not to give him a shot at sticking on, unless something better is brought in. That's one spot. What are the other names we've heard bandied about?
Tanner Roark? Older, and it's questionable if this year is a fluke or not. Might be ok in pen, but wouldn't bet on him to be a worthwhile rotation guy, which is what we are talking about here.
Nathan Karns? No control. AAAA type guy in the mold of H-Rod. Could be very good, more likely not good enough to ever stick.
Sammy Solis? Stats aren't that impressive even if results are. Super old (25 right now) for league (A+ ball)
Lucas Giolito? Not part of any immediate solution at his age and current setting. Late 2015 at best.
AJ Cole? Ok AJ is interesting. I like what I see there, but let's not forget he wasn't that impressive in A-ball before moving to AA and we've only seen 30 innings there.
Robbie Ray? Less interesting than AJ, but on the right track.
All in all, it's a familiar mixed bag. Like most teams you have a couple guys on top like Jordan, Caleb Clay, etc, who aren't really prospects but you could toss into a #5 slot and see if you get lucky. Then you have a couple of live arms a bit lower that you are seeing if they develop into something special. The Nats have a few arms like that but right now they don't have anything special. Without that you can't really plan on them for 2014.
The Nats have enough problems trying to figure out how to fix an offense who's main problem is having too many guys that are average to better than average but not great. They need the rotation next year to be a simple as signing one good pitcher to be #4 and letting #5 settle out between Jordan, Detwiler, whoever pops up, and whatever couple legitimate arms Rizzo brings in as depth. ZNN needs to be good.
July looks like the "regression" month. BABIP went way up (.221 in June to .357). HR/FB went way up (6.3% to 21.4%). LOB% went way down (70.9% to 62.5%) Sure bad pitching could be the reason, but you don't usually turn on a dime like this, and those July values are out of whack for anything but a terrible pitcher. Just like those June values were out of whack in the other direction (well not LOB% but that was way favoring ZNN in Apr and May). So you could, if you wanted, just write off July as bad luck, everything going wrong for ZNN to make up for 3 months of things going right.
August though, doesn't lend itself to the same narrative. All the fancy stats are back within a normal range. Nope, in August it's more about ZNN's lack of control. His walks per 9 are up to 4.09, 4.40 since the break. He hasn't had a month remotely that bad since coming back form surgery in Sept of 2010. Now it's not like he's missing the zone a ton more than he used to. He's around 35% balls in August, worse than the previous 3 months but close to April and he's had months around this before. So what is it?
Like I said I don't know. I'm assuming the Nats don't know either. Could it be an injury to ZNN? God knows this team makes a sport out of dismissing injuries and watching their players flail around like A-ball rejects on the field. Could it be a change in approach from the opponents? They are swinging a lot less overall (swing rate down from 50.7% before the break to 44% now). Perhaps Jordan has tendencies deeper in the count that other teams are noticing and taking advantage of? You'd think the Nats, who see Jordan everyday, would be the first to be on top of something like that.
Gah Gah Gah. The Nats need Jordan to be ok. Assuming Haren is allowed to walk (the right move unless he wants to come back for some super cheap one year deal). The back of the Nats rotation will be a giant question mark heading into next season. It's one thing to fill one rotation spot. You can do that with some tape and glue assuming 1 through 4 are set. Filling two is super hard though. If the Nats need to work on three? Forget it. See you in 2015.
Why so dismal? I thought the Nats had a lot of arms they liked in the minors? News flash : 25 teams have a lot of arms they like in the minors. The Nats have some pitching prospects but nothing really more exciting than you'd find elsewhere. Taylor Jordan's success is heartening and he should be given a chance in the rotation next season assuming he keeps this up. I'm not saying he'll succeed. In fact, I think I'd bet against it just like I did with Detwiler. But I think it be silly not to give him a shot at sticking on, unless something better is brought in. That's one spot. What are the other names we've heard bandied about?
Tanner Roark? Older, and it's questionable if this year is a fluke or not. Might be ok in pen, but wouldn't bet on him to be a worthwhile rotation guy, which is what we are talking about here.
Nathan Karns? No control. AAAA type guy in the mold of H-Rod. Could be very good, more likely not good enough to ever stick.
Sammy Solis? Stats aren't that impressive even if results are. Super old (25 right now) for league (A+ ball)
Lucas Giolito? Not part of any immediate solution at his age and current setting. Late 2015 at best.
AJ Cole? Ok AJ is interesting. I like what I see there, but let's not forget he wasn't that impressive in A-ball before moving to AA and we've only seen 30 innings there.
Robbie Ray? Less interesting than AJ, but on the right track.
All in all, it's a familiar mixed bag. Like most teams you have a couple guys on top like Jordan, Caleb Clay, etc, who aren't really prospects but you could toss into a #5 slot and see if you get lucky. Then you have a couple of live arms a bit lower that you are seeing if they develop into something special. The Nats have a few arms like that but right now they don't have anything special. Without that you can't really plan on them for 2014.
The Nats have enough problems trying to figure out how to fix an offense who's main problem is having too many guys that are average to better than average but not great. They need the rotation next year to be a simple as signing one good pitcher to be #4 and letting #5 settle out between Jordan, Detwiler, whoever pops up, and whatever couple legitimate arms Rizzo brings in as depth. ZNN needs to be good.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Monday Quickie - death by a thousand cuts
Here's a nice little way to look at the Nats Braves series
Nats 2-run wins : 2
Nats 1-run wins : 2
Braves 1-run wins : 6
Braves 2- run wins : 2
Braves 3-run wins : 2
Braves 3+ run wins : 2 (7 and 9 run Brave wins, if you must know)
These teams have played some close baseball games but the Nats have found themselves on the mat when the bell rang over and over again.
Is it luck? I suppose but throw RS and RA into the Pythag expectation theorem and the Nats were expected to win... 4 to 5 games out of the 16. They've won 4.
The take away is more, once again, a failure of offense. The average O scores 4 runs a game. The Nats have scored four or more runs vs the Braves all of two times. Here's the distribution
0 : 1
1 : 5
2 : 4
3 : 4
4+ : 2
That's terrible.
Anyway the Nats play one, count 'em, one decent team from now until the next Braves series on the 16th of September and it's the Royals. Again let's forget about the WC right now and concentrate on playing some good baseball. Start with a winning road trip (4@CHC, 3@KC so let's shoot for 4-3) then we'll look up again.
Nats 2-run wins : 2
Nats 1-run wins : 2
Braves 1-run wins : 6
Braves 2- run wins : 2
Braves 3-run wins : 2
Braves 3+ run wins : 2 (7 and 9 run Brave wins, if you must know)
These teams have played some close baseball games but the Nats have found themselves on the mat when the bell rang over and over again.
Is it luck? I suppose but throw RS and RA into the Pythag expectation theorem and the Nats were expected to win... 4 to 5 games out of the 16. They've won 4.
The take away is more, once again, a failure of offense. The average O scores 4 runs a game. The Nats have scored four or more runs vs the Braves all of two times. Here's the distribution
0 : 1
1 : 5
2 : 4
3 : 4
4+ : 2
That's terrible.
Anyway the Nats play one, count 'em, one decent team from now until the next Braves series on the 16th of September and it's the Royals. Again let's forget about the WC right now and concentrate on playing some good baseball. Start with a winning road trip (4@CHC, 3@KC so let's shoot for 4-3) then we'll look up again.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Back in time for that
Since getting swept by ATL the Nats have gone 5-1. That's good. Unfortunately the Reds, the team the Nats need to catch to make the 2nd Wild Card, have gone 6-1. That's better. And the out of the realm of possibility Braves have gone 4-2. That's not to shabby either. A week of hard work and the Nats have LOST half a game in the WC standings and cut the NL East lead all the way down to 14.5 games. THIS IS THE HOLE THEY DUG. We're about at last call. The Nats could go 30-12 to finish the year the Reds can go 21-20 and beat them out. The Nats need to be world beaters and even then the Reds only have to be a .500 team to take that last spot.
In fact I might have wrote off the Nats if it wasn't for the slumping Cardinals (only a half-game better than the Reds). Since the Nats have a 3-game series with the Cards at the end of the year (right before the season ending D-backs one) it's worth keeping one eye half-open drowsily looking in their direction before drifting off to the big sleep. Anything you can do right? Anyway in 3 weeks we should know for sure. The Reds play the D-backs series after next. They play the Cards seven times before the first week of September is over. If there is any hope we'll know by then. (assuming the Nats don't crash and burn themselves, but I don't see it)
(I know, I know I said I wouldn't talk about the playoffs but what else is there really? We could talk about the playoffs for two more weeks and still have ALL of September and the post-season to talk about the off-season. Gotta fill the blog.)
Why are the Nats winning? They are scoring more. Like any sport, at a very base level, the game is simple to understand. Score more than you give up and you win. Here's a fun little rolling 10 game graph of the difference between runs scored and runs allowed (blue line) and the Nats winning percentage (red line). Don't worry that it has super small numbers to read. The actual numbers aren't important as noticing the fact these lines pretty much follow each other. This isn't anything new. It's the whole basis for that Pythagorean thing. But it's nice to see the base assumptions confirmed so obviously. It's that simple. Score more than you give up = win.
The Nats haven't scored. In only 28 of 110 rolling 10 game averages has their scoring been over the current league average of 4.03. They haven't pitched super great either. Only 56 of 110 has their runs allowed been less than average. So they lose. And since they don't usually succeed together (10 times) or fail together (36 times) you've seen a lot more middling play than crazy swings of winning and losing.
Anyway, you'll read a lot of claptrap about the type of team the Nats are and experience and proving themselves. Comparisons to other teams that made runs or didn't make runs but came back in another year and won. All that really matters to the 2014 Nats are the 2013 Nats and the changes made in the offseason. The lessons learned shouldn't be about struggles and heart. It should be about putting together a good bench and starter depth because things never go exactly as planned. It should be about the fact a strength can become a weakness overnight (bullpen, Espy) and your ability to damage control will be tested.
The Nats, when healthy, are a pretty decent club. Good rotation now that Haren has evened out. Solid lineup with only one hole, Span, who provides them with excellent defense. Workable pen. They will win more than they lose. In the next 42 games, given the schedule, they'll probably go something like say... 23-19? 25-17? Something like that. End up 84-76 or so. Good, not good enough. But that 25-17 shows the base talents you're dealing with, a 90 win type club. That's the starting point, in my mind. Not 98. Not 84. When healthy. Work on minimizing variance when injuries do happen and you'll have a playoff team again.
And please don't get your butts kicked by the Braves again.
In fact I might have wrote off the Nats if it wasn't for the slumping Cardinals (only a half-game better than the Reds). Since the Nats have a 3-game series with the Cards at the end of the year (right before the season ending D-backs one) it's worth keeping one eye half-open drowsily looking in their direction before drifting off to the big sleep. Anything you can do right? Anyway in 3 weeks we should know for sure. The Reds play the D-backs series after next. They play the Cards seven times before the first week of September is over. If there is any hope we'll know by then. (assuming the Nats don't crash and burn themselves, but I don't see it)
(I know, I know I said I wouldn't talk about the playoffs but what else is there really? We could talk about the playoffs for two more weeks and still have ALL of September and the post-season to talk about the off-season. Gotta fill the blog.)
Why are the Nats winning? They are scoring more. Like any sport, at a very base level, the game is simple to understand. Score more than you give up and you win. Here's a fun little rolling 10 game graph of the difference between runs scored and runs allowed (blue line) and the Nats winning percentage (red line). Don't worry that it has super small numbers to read. The actual numbers aren't important as noticing the fact these lines pretty much follow each other. This isn't anything new. It's the whole basis for that Pythagorean thing. But it's nice to see the base assumptions confirmed so obviously. It's that simple. Score more than you give up = win.
The Nats haven't scored. In only 28 of 110 rolling 10 game averages has their scoring been over the current league average of 4.03. They haven't pitched super great either. Only 56 of 110 has their runs allowed been less than average. So they lose. And since they don't usually succeed together (10 times) or fail together (36 times) you've seen a lot more middling play than crazy swings of winning and losing.
Anyway, you'll read a lot of claptrap about the type of team the Nats are and experience and proving themselves. Comparisons to other teams that made runs or didn't make runs but came back in another year and won. All that really matters to the 2014 Nats are the 2013 Nats and the changes made in the offseason. The lessons learned shouldn't be about struggles and heart. It should be about putting together a good bench and starter depth because things never go exactly as planned. It should be about the fact a strength can become a weakness overnight (bullpen, Espy) and your ability to damage control will be tested.
The Nats, when healthy, are a pretty decent club. Good rotation now that Haren has evened out. Solid lineup with only one hole, Span, who provides them with excellent defense. Workable pen. They will win more than they lose. In the next 42 games, given the schedule, they'll probably go something like say... 23-19? 25-17? Something like that. End up 84-76 or so. Good, not good enough. But that 25-17 shows the base talents you're dealing with, a 90 win type club. That's the starting point, in my mind. Not 98. Not 84. When healthy. Work on minimizing variance when injuries do happen and you'll have a playoff team again.
And please don't get your butts kicked by the Braves again.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
The perfect 85 win team
Still on vacation but wanted to note that beating PHI and SF is what you should do. PHI is bad. SF is worse. On one hand that's good. You need to beat these teams. On the other hand doing this without beating actual good teams serves to put you in your place.
The Nats can't beat playoff teams. 4-18 vs Braves, Dodgers, and Cardinals. They did go 4-3 vs the Reds (real early in the season) and stand at 2-1 vs the Dbacks so far but all the other non-losing records are vs losing teams.
The Nats are seemingly noticeably better than the bad but noticeably worse than the good. That sets them up to finish exactly where they feel most likely to, a few games out of the playoffs. It's something to take account into planning for next year. It's not just about getting better its about enough getting better than the good teams to make a difference
Monday, August 12, 2013
Monday Quickie
So real quick : Too little, too late.
It's nice to sweep, especially the Phillies (for some of us, honestly I harbor no ill will toward the Phillies) but the Nats are still behind the 8-ball. I know I said no playoff talk until .500 but a quick note is not really talking is it? Noting, that's all. Anyway the Nats swept the Phils and made up one game on the Reds (and one on the Braves for that matter). Again we'll revisit this if (when) the Nats get to .500. 3 more games perhaps?
Last night's game wasn't what you want to see if you are a Nats fan - bunch of singles really (3 walks, no XBH). But the previous 2 had the walks, and the XBH (11 of each in the 2 games) That's the offense that would will a bunch of games. This is the way it's supposed to work. Desmond and Ramos have 3 straight multi-hit games, that makes up for the slumping Bryce (1 hit in series). And the slumping Bryce still got 2 walks which turns a hideous series into merely a bad one.
We'll see what happens now. If NatsEnquirer and his Back to the Future esque Sports Almanac is right, you got 12 more wins left. (why is he using it for Twitter predictions and not gambling? You saw what happened to Biff didn't you? What an empty existence he was leading)
It's nice to sweep, especially the Phillies (for some of us, honestly I harbor no ill will toward the Phillies) but the Nats are still behind the 8-ball. I know I said no playoff talk until .500 but a quick note is not really talking is it? Noting, that's all. Anyway the Nats swept the Phils and made up one game on the Reds (and one on the Braves for that matter). Again we'll revisit this if (when) the Nats get to .500. 3 more games perhaps?
Last night's game wasn't what you want to see if you are a Nats fan - bunch of singles really (3 walks, no XBH). But the previous 2 had the walks, and the XBH (11 of each in the 2 games) That's the offense that would will a bunch of games. This is the way it's supposed to work. Desmond and Ramos have 3 straight multi-hit games, that makes up for the slumping Bryce (1 hit in series). And the slumping Bryce still got 2 walks which turns a hideous series into merely a bad one.
We'll see what happens now. If NatsEnquirer and his Back to the Future esque Sports Almanac is right, you got 12 more wins left. (why is he using it for Twitter predictions and not gambling? You saw what happened to Biff didn't you? What an empty existence he was leading)
Friday, August 09, 2013
Going on vacation
I'll say hi to the Nationals offense when I see it.
A couple people said they liked Boz's column and you know what, that's ok! It was a good column. It was a right column (well most of it was). It was just at the wrong time. If the Nats were fighting for a division crown or even a WC spot than that column works. You want to be the best team you can. The Nats disregard for stolen bases is comical and their skill in performing basic baseball tasks could be improved. Is it something that could make a difference in more than say, 1 to 3 games? Probably not. But when you are fighting for a specific spot then 1 or 2 or 3 games really matter. The goal of the organization should be to maximize their chances to win prior to the situation by putting together the best team & best minor league system they can, getting them to play as well as they can, and then seeing what happens.
Problem is now the Nats aren't fighting for anything. 1 to 2 to 3 games don't matter. So the column is complaining about the location of the band-aid on the sliced artery. You can maximize it but it's still not solving the problem (unless your goal is .500)
I want to reiterate something that is just remarkable to me. One month ago the Nats were only 4 games out of first. That's right. On the morning of July 8th the Nats were only 4 games behind the Braves. (they were also 4 games out of the 2nd WC). In 30 days they lost 11.5 games of ground. That is hard to do. Even more amazing to me on July 28th the Nats were 8.5 games out. They lost 4.5 games to the Braves in three weeks. In the next 10 days they lost 7 games. SEVEN! (The Nats have actually lost "only" 6 games in this time frame but the Braves won on both the Nats days off)
It's just crazy how this season, where the Nats basically spent 10 weeks trailing the Braves by 6 games or so, suddenly ended in the span of 10 days.
A couple people said they liked Boz's column and you know what, that's ok! It was a good column. It was a right column (well most of it was). It was just at the wrong time. If the Nats were fighting for a division crown or even a WC spot than that column works. You want to be the best team you can. The Nats disregard for stolen bases is comical and their skill in performing basic baseball tasks could be improved. Is it something that could make a difference in more than say, 1 to 3 games? Probably not. But when you are fighting for a specific spot then 1 or 2 or 3 games really matter. The goal of the organization should be to maximize their chances to win prior to the situation by putting together the best team & best minor league system they can, getting them to play as well as they can, and then seeing what happens.
Problem is now the Nats aren't fighting for anything. 1 to 2 to 3 games don't matter. So the column is complaining about the location of the band-aid on the sliced artery. You can maximize it but it's still not solving the problem (unless your goal is .500)
I want to reiterate something that is just remarkable to me. One month ago the Nats were only 4 games out of first. That's right. On the morning of July 8th the Nats were only 4 games behind the Braves. (they were also 4 games out of the 2nd WC). In 30 days they lost 11.5 games of ground. That is hard to do. Even more amazing to me on July 28th the Nats were 8.5 games out. They lost 4.5 games to the Braves in three weeks. In the next 10 days they lost 7 games. SEVEN! (The Nats have actually lost "only" 6 games in this time frame but the Braves won on both the Nats days off)
It's just crazy how this season, where the Nats basically spent 10 weeks trailing the Braves by 6 games or so, suddenly ended in the span of 10 days.
Thursday, August 08, 2013
Losing is FUNdamental!
The past three days have gone as badly as they possibly could have. Looking for a sweep to give hope to a miracle late season charge to the division crown, the Nats instead got swept themselves. So now they can re-focus on the Wild Card, right? Well, while they were busy losing both the Reds and D-Backs won 2 games in a row moving the Nats wild card hopes from slim to grim.
At six games under on August 8th, the game has changed. It's now a fight for .500 and if they happen to reach that sooner than the end of the year, we can check out where they are in the WC standings. New rule. You don't get to .500 you don't get any playoff play from me. Sorry.
The Nats have been an unquestionably big disappointment and the question of why remains on everyone's mind even though we figured it out a while ago. As Boz writes in his column :
I'm not going to kill Boz for the column he wrote. It's human nature that when you are looking for something, you'll find it. Boz, and many, many others, want to see something explicit on the field they can grab on to to explain the dramatic turnaround. Yes Haren was bad for a while and Espy's career died on the surgical table he never got on, but just two players and a bench? That's not enough! So a missed bunt here and an error there becomes not the minor issues that they are, but symptoms of a larger problem that explains why a good team has gone bad.
Rather than mock Boswell for this, can we simply explain it away? Using, you know, stats and stuff? Let's go back to the column.
"The Nats can’t sacrifice bunt or execute basic situational hitting."
This is easy enough to prove, thanks to baseball-reference. The Nats are on the low end of successful sacrifice bunts at 69%. However they aren't far from average. It would take only 2 of those failed bunts (in 61 attempts) to be successful to get the Nats to average status. To get to an incredible success rate the Nats would need 8 failures to be successes. How many games does 8 successful bunts change? They aren't going to score in all these attempts, and certainly not win all those games. More damning is taking a look at where the other teams fall. The only two teams worse than the Nats at sac bunting? Atlanta and Los Angeles. The best teams? Philadelphia and San Francisco.
BR also has a stat called "productive outs" which measures a mish mash of moving runners over and sacrifice flies and stuff. The Nats are not great here either, but again are not far off the average. They sit at 30% the NL average is 31% It would only have taken 4 or so failure to be successes (out of 366 times) for the Nats to be average. The best teams are only successful around 35% of the time. And again, two very good teams (Atlanta and St. Louis) are actually worse at this than the Nats, while San Francisco and Miami are in the Top 3.
One more thing - the 2012 Nats? Below average in both these stats.
The take away is that even though the Nats might be a little worse than they need to at these things, they really are not far from being average at all, and success in these things does not correlate with winning. Some good teams aren't any good at this. Some bad teams are very successful. It may matter, but it's a fringe thing. It's a win here and there, but not a major swing.
"...overanxious Adam LaRoche dribbled out to first base on a 2-0 fastball that was six inches inside and would have been ball three. That’s the Nats: neglecting what’s easy or trying too hard at what’s difficult."
But why was that at bat important? Because in the previous at bat Jayson Werth drew a walk. This doesn't seem to me to be a Nats problem. It seems to be an Adam LaRoche problem
On Monday, the Nats lost, 3-2, because Stephen Strasburg, who had fabulous stuff that night, allowed an uncontested steal of second that turned into a two-out run.
Now on one hand this is REALLY REALLY true. The Nats are OMFG Gossip Girl XOXO terrible at keeping the other team from stealing. 13% when the average 29%. But here's the thing, it's the organization's philosophy. Ignore the runner and get the batter out. Let him steal second but don't let him disrupt your pitching. You know who was also really bad at throwing runners out at 2nd? The 2012 Nats. 17%.
Personally I think this matters a bit more than the sac bunts and situational hitting because it's completely solvable and it's, you know, actually a problem, but again it's something on the margins that unless you have a superior catcher, would only save a few runs here and there.
He should be working on his craft before bad habits become ingrained. Maybe some of those commercials or styling in home run derbies can wait.
Now this paragraph was about Bryce Harper not being able to hit lefties. Completely true. He's been awful at it this year. But it's this sentence, and one he had earlier about practicing bunting more, that miffs me. This isn't thought, it's emotion. If a talented player is disappointing in some way it MUST be because he doesn't care enough. He's not putting enough effort into it. He's worried about other things. Could it simply be that he's no good at it? Or that it's actually really really hard to do?
Some guys can't bunt. Some lefty batters can't hit lefty pitching. If you want to call Bryce out about not practicing then I want some quotes. I want a batting coach saying "We told Bryce he needs more practice vs lefties but he went off for a photo shoot" That's fair. Just pulling out a stat and saying "well must be because he participated in the HR derby while everyone else in baseball was in a batting cage working out kinks" is something an angry fan writes on a message board.
It’s time for Zimmerman to find out where his arm strength stands and stop playing shallow
Again - Yes. But again, not a huge deal in terms of Ws and Ls. Remember how the Nats were way leading the league in errors? Not anymore. 77. Still above league average but not that far above it.
Actually there is a problem with defense but it's not a fundamentals problem (outside of Zimm maybe putting himself too shallow). LaRoche is getting old. Werth is getting old. Bryce is probably just a mediocre fielder getting by on athleticism. The best fielding player on the team was sent to the minors because he couldn't hit. The fielding is getting worse, but it's not lack of fungo drills that's causing it.
I want to wrap this up by going back to the productive out number. The Nats did allright there percentage wise but let's look at the raw number of times when they were in position to make a productive out. The Nats could have done it 366 times, last in the NL. 40 fewer times than league average, 100 fewer times than the best of the best. This is what matters. The Nats could be above average in getting these productive outs and still be 13th in the NL in the raw number. It's not a failure of executing with men on base, it's a failure to get men on base.
Boswell could find a genie and make the Nats the best bunting team, the best situational hitting team, the best team at throwing out baserunners, the team with the fewest errors and you know what? They might be .500. The Nats need to hit better and pitch better and field better across the board in order to get back to the team they were last year. Picking at the little things is fine, a game or two can matter, but worry about them when the big things are solved.
At six games under on August 8th, the game has changed. It's now a fight for .500 and if they happen to reach that sooner than the end of the year, we can check out where they are in the WC standings. New rule. You don't get to .500 you don't get any playoff play from me. Sorry.
The Nats have been an unquestionably big disappointment and the question of why remains on everyone's mind even though we figured it out a while ago. As Boz writes in his column :
Their bench, strong last season, has been horrible, with six key players combining for an abysmal .521 on-base-plus-slugging percentage through Tuesday night in more than 1,000 trips to the plate. Their fifth starter was a disaster for 100 games. Their second baseman’s career imploded. General Manager Mike Rizzo’s biggest team-tweaking decision, trading for Denard Span, proved misconceived, subtracting offense from a team that has plummeted in scoring.You think that would be enough, or at least it would be enough if you also realized, ZNN, Gio, Detwiler, Stammen, Mattheus, Storen, Duke, Zimm, Desmond, and LaRoche have also played worse this year, from minor setbacks (Desmond) to outright abject failures (Storen). There you go, end of story. Except of course it's not. Not when there are two months to fill and cliches to cover.
I'm not going to kill Boz for the column he wrote. It's human nature that when you are looking for something, you'll find it. Boz, and many, many others, want to see something explicit on the field they can grab on to to explain the dramatic turnaround. Yes Haren was bad for a while and Espy's career died on the surgical table he never got on, but just two players and a bench? That's not enough! So a missed bunt here and an error there becomes not the minor issues that they are, but symptoms of a larger problem that explains why a good team has gone bad.
Rather than mock Boswell for this, can we simply explain it away? Using, you know, stats and stuff? Let's go back to the column.
"The Nats can’t sacrifice bunt or execute basic situational hitting."
This is easy enough to prove, thanks to baseball-reference. The Nats are on the low end of successful sacrifice bunts at 69%. However they aren't far from average. It would take only 2 of those failed bunts (in 61 attempts) to be successful to get the Nats to average status. To get to an incredible success rate the Nats would need 8 failures to be successes. How many games does 8 successful bunts change? They aren't going to score in all these attempts, and certainly not win all those games. More damning is taking a look at where the other teams fall. The only two teams worse than the Nats at sac bunting? Atlanta and Los Angeles. The best teams? Philadelphia and San Francisco.
BR also has a stat called "productive outs" which measures a mish mash of moving runners over and sacrifice flies and stuff. The Nats are not great here either, but again are not far off the average. They sit at 30% the NL average is 31% It would only have taken 4 or so failure to be successes (out of 366 times) for the Nats to be average. The best teams are only successful around 35% of the time. And again, two very good teams (Atlanta and St. Louis) are actually worse at this than the Nats, while San Francisco and Miami are in the Top 3.
One more thing - the 2012 Nats? Below average in both these stats.
The take away is that even though the Nats might be a little worse than they need to at these things, they really are not far from being average at all, and success in these things does not correlate with winning. Some good teams aren't any good at this. Some bad teams are very successful. It may matter, but it's a fringe thing. It's a win here and there, but not a major swing.
"...overanxious Adam LaRoche dribbled out to first base on a 2-0 fastball that was six inches inside and would have been ball three. That’s the Nats: neglecting what’s easy or trying too hard at what’s difficult."
But why was that at bat important? Because in the previous at bat Jayson Werth drew a walk. This doesn't seem to me to be a Nats problem. It seems to be an Adam LaRoche problem
On Monday, the Nats lost, 3-2, because Stephen Strasburg, who had fabulous stuff that night, allowed an uncontested steal of second that turned into a two-out run.
Now on one hand this is REALLY REALLY true. The Nats are OMFG Gossip Girl XOXO terrible at keeping the other team from stealing. 13% when the average 29%. But here's the thing, it's the organization's philosophy. Ignore the runner and get the batter out. Let him steal second but don't let him disrupt your pitching. You know who was also really bad at throwing runners out at 2nd? The 2012 Nats. 17%.
Personally I think this matters a bit more than the sac bunts and situational hitting because it's completely solvable and it's, you know, actually a problem, but again it's something on the margins that unless you have a superior catcher, would only save a few runs here and there.
He should be working on his craft before bad habits become ingrained. Maybe some of those commercials or styling in home run derbies can wait.
Now this paragraph was about Bryce Harper not being able to hit lefties. Completely true. He's been awful at it this year. But it's this sentence, and one he had earlier about practicing bunting more, that miffs me. This isn't thought, it's emotion. If a talented player is disappointing in some way it MUST be because he doesn't care enough. He's not putting enough effort into it. He's worried about other things. Could it simply be that he's no good at it? Or that it's actually really really hard to do?
Some guys can't bunt. Some lefty batters can't hit lefty pitching. If you want to call Bryce out about not practicing then I want some quotes. I want a batting coach saying "We told Bryce he needs more practice vs lefties but he went off for a photo shoot" That's fair. Just pulling out a stat and saying "well must be because he participated in the HR derby while everyone else in baseball was in a batting cage working out kinks" is something an angry fan writes on a message board.
It’s time for Zimmerman to find out where his arm strength stands and stop playing shallow
Again - Yes. But again, not a huge deal in terms of Ws and Ls. Remember how the Nats were way leading the league in errors? Not anymore. 77. Still above league average but not that far above it.
Actually there is a problem with defense but it's not a fundamentals problem (outside of Zimm maybe putting himself too shallow). LaRoche is getting old. Werth is getting old. Bryce is probably just a mediocre fielder getting by on athleticism. The best fielding player on the team was sent to the minors because he couldn't hit. The fielding is getting worse, but it's not lack of fungo drills that's causing it.
I want to wrap this up by going back to the productive out number. The Nats did allright there percentage wise but let's look at the raw number of times when they were in position to make a productive out. The Nats could have done it 366 times, last in the NL. 40 fewer times than league average, 100 fewer times than the best of the best. This is what matters. The Nats could be above average in getting these productive outs and still be 13th in the NL in the raw number. It's not a failure of executing with men on base, it's a failure to get men on base.
Boswell could find a genie and make the Nats the best bunting team, the best situational hitting team, the best team at throwing out baserunners, the team with the fewest errors and you know what? They might be .500. The Nats need to hit better and pitch better and field better across the board in order to get back to the team they were last year. Picking at the little things is fine, a game or two can matter, but worry about them when the big things are solved.
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
So how about that 3rd Wild Card spot?
Well that was an inauspicious beginning to the WC hunt, wasn't it? Nats lose. Reds win. D-Backs win.
Another game, another wasted pitching effort. Here is what Strasburg and Gio have had to put up with this year. The Nats have scored 2 or fewer runs in ten of Gio's starts. That's about right considering they've done this over fifty times this year, but they've scored 0 or 1 run in eight of those ten. Strasburg has been given 2 or fewer runs fifteen times this year.
Gio has had some games go in his favor and his run support is actually ok. Strasburg on the other hand has the 2nd worst run support in the majors and in 22 starts the Nats have scored more than 3 runs for him only four times. Ugh.
Some are focusing on the RISP slumps but those are going to happen. Here are some stats for you
Nats 2013 : .241 / .300 / .385
Nats 2013 RISP : .237 / .320 / .368
It's really not that much different. It's not that the Nats can't hit with RISP, it's that the Nats can't hit.
Think about it. If you're team is hitting .241 with a .385 slugging, getting two hits with RISP in eight tries and having one be an XBH is performing sightly above expectations.Let's not forget with that slash line, what exactly are the chances of you getting 8 runners in scoring position anyway?
We all think that this offense should be good enough. So what's the problem? Well, one problem is this offense isn't hitting together enough. Suzuki comes in for Ramos? Big drop. Tracy comes in for LaRoche? Big drop even though LaRoche hasn't hit well. Lombardozzi comes in for anyone? Big drop. The Nats lineup is not strong enough to absorb hitters who are as bad as the Nats bench has been.
Since Ramos came back, when the Nats have had the expected line-up (Ramos, LaRoche, Rendon, Desmond, Zimmerman, Werth, Bryce, and either Span or Hairston depending) the Nats are averging 4.5 runs a game in14 outings. That's good. Take out the 14 run game and they still are averaging 3.8 runs a game which isn't good but it's in the general vicinity of all the other below average teams. When they have to sub anyone in, which has happened 15 times, that average drops to 3.06 runs a game. That's "put away the bats and hope to HBP your way to a win" terrible.
What should the Nats do? Forget mixing things up and do exactly what you think you should. Start the base 7 every game. Start Ramos as much as you can, three out of every four games, four out of every five. Platoon Hairston and Span to take advantage of Hairston's lefty mashing. Keep doing this over and over. If you have to rest a good player and put in a bench guy, do it on a Suzuki day. Don't spread out the pain. It may not make the Nats a good offense, but it will keep them from being an awful one for the rest of the year.
Another game, another wasted pitching effort. Here is what Strasburg and Gio have had to put up with this year. The Nats have scored 2 or fewer runs in ten of Gio's starts. That's about right considering they've done this over fifty times this year, but they've scored 0 or 1 run in eight of those ten. Strasburg has been given 2 or fewer runs fifteen times this year.
Gio has had some games go in his favor and his run support is actually ok. Strasburg on the other hand has the 2nd worst run support in the majors and in 22 starts the Nats have scored more than 3 runs for him only four times. Ugh.
Some are focusing on the RISP slumps but those are going to happen. Here are some stats for you
Nats 2013 : .241 / .300 / .385
Nats 2013 RISP : .237 / .320 / .368
It's really not that much different. It's not that the Nats can't hit with RISP, it's that the Nats can't hit.
Think about it. If you're team is hitting .241 with a .385 slugging, getting two hits with RISP in eight tries and having one be an XBH is performing sightly above expectations.Let's not forget with that slash line, what exactly are the chances of you getting 8 runners in scoring position anyway?
We all think that this offense should be good enough. So what's the problem? Well, one problem is this offense isn't hitting together enough. Suzuki comes in for Ramos? Big drop. Tracy comes in for LaRoche? Big drop even though LaRoche hasn't hit well. Lombardozzi comes in for anyone? Big drop. The Nats lineup is not strong enough to absorb hitters who are as bad as the Nats bench has been.
Since Ramos came back, when the Nats have had the expected line-up (Ramos, LaRoche, Rendon, Desmond, Zimmerman, Werth, Bryce, and either Span or Hairston depending) the Nats are averging 4.5 runs a game in14 outings. That's good. Take out the 14 run game and they still are averaging 3.8 runs a game which isn't good but it's in the general vicinity of all the other below average teams. When they have to sub anyone in, which has happened 15 times, that average drops to 3.06 runs a game. That's "put away the bats and hope to HBP your way to a win" terrible.
What should the Nats do? Forget mixing things up and do exactly what you think you should. Start the base 7 every game. Start Ramos as much as you can, three out of every four games, four out of every five. Platoon Hairston and Span to take advantage of Hairston's lefty mashing. Keep doing this over and over. If you have to rest a good player and put in a bench guy, do it on a Suzuki day. Don't spread out the pain. It may not make the Nats a good offense, but it will keep them from being an awful one for the rest of the year.
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
WC scenarios
I told you I'd call it and I have. It's over. The Braves can start taking estimates for the making of a 2013 NL East Pennant. The facts are that the Nats, even if they were to sweep the Braves in their remaining 8 games (which why would you think that would happen?), would have to make up 5.5 games in 42 remaining games. That's at the edge of believability, especially considering for the first 110+ games the Braves have played much much better than the Nats. Each single win from the Braves versus the Nats takes more of the "nigh" out of the nigh-impossible task I listed above. Nats go 6-2? Great, now make up 9.5 games in a month and a half.
So the NL East is over, but there is still the WC play-in play-off. What's the current situation look like?
St. Louis +4.5
Cincinnati 0
Arizona 4.5
Washington 7.0
Ok, that isn't promising but its not thirteen and a half games. I won't worry about San Diego or Colorado who sit a few games behind the Nats because if they pass the Nats... well playoff dreams are likely over too. And let's not worry about St. Louis either. 7 games is one thing, 11.5 is completely another.
Are there any head to head match-ups left with these teams?
The Nats were done with Cincinnati before April ended (4-3). They play the D-Backs in a 3 game set in Arizona to end the season. Cincinnati will host Arizona in a four game set from the 19th-22nd.
Who has the easiest schedule?
The Nats do, but it's not as super obvious as you might have believed at the beginning of the year now that we know the Nats aren't one of the best teams in baseball.
Including finishing out some of these current series the Nats have 6 series (17 games) against above .500 teams. The Reds and Arizona both have 7 (22 games apiece). Even better for the Nats it's only 3 between now and September 15th, meaning if they are going to make up ground now (or really Aug 27th-Sep15th) is prime time to do it.
Also in the Nats favor each team ends the season heavy with in-division games and the runs scored/allowed numbers say the NL East is the weakest of the three.
What's not on the Nats side? They play more games away (26) than the D-Backs (24) or the Reds (22)
Any injuries to take note of?
Everyone has got their nicks and bumps to deal with but Cincy has the biggest guy out with injury. Johnny Cueto has been out since early June and there isn't a timetable on his return. The sooner he comes back the more things tilt in the Reds favor.
Any young players coming up?
Probably not. The D-Backs have the best prospect in Archie Bradley, but he likely will be held back until 2014. They have a couple live bats in AAA with Chris Owings and Matt Davidson, but they aren't going to unseat Hill and Prado, and they like Gregorious at SS for his D. If they do come up in September it'll be on the bench. Tyler Skaggs has busted out of the majors twice this year, not sure he'll get a 3rd chance. Most interesting for the D-backs is Adam Eaton who came back about a month ago from injury. He's a good prospect but hasn't shown it yet. Could come on strong down the stretch.
For the Reds, they don't have much. Billy Hamilton doesn't seem bat-ready for the majors yet. They could call him up to pinch-run and utilize his all world speed, but is that enough reason to start the clock? Tony Cingrani is it, and he's been up for a while doing a good job in the rotation.
The Nats will need a pitcher to fill in but no budding star is ready to fill in. Rendon's progress is going to be critical down the stretch.
First impressions?
The D-backs (4) and the Nats (3) will play a chunk of good teams in the next 2 and a half weeks. The Reds should expand their lead a bit during this time. If we wake up on August 26th , though and find someone within 4-5 games of the Reds, things could get interesting in September.
Really though, you have to like the Reds with the 4.5 games in hand and enough games vs Milwaukee and Chicago to offset those vs St. Louis and Pittsburgh. If Cueto comes back anytime relatively soon, they could even run away with 2nd WC.
Nats goals?
Catch and pass the D-backs first. They have to finish a series versus the Rays, then after a Mets interlude, they'll face the Orioles and Pirates. If the Nats can close 2.5 games by then, we'll be at the Reds/D-backs series where the Nats, if they win their games vs the Cubs, will be certain to catch up to someone.
So the NL East is over, but there is still the WC play-in play-off. What's the current situation look like?
St. Louis +4.5
Cincinnati 0
Arizona 4.5
Washington 7.0
Ok, that isn't promising but its not thirteen and a half games. I won't worry about San Diego or Colorado who sit a few games behind the Nats because if they pass the Nats... well playoff dreams are likely over too. And let's not worry about St. Louis either. 7 games is one thing, 11.5 is completely another.
Are there any head to head match-ups left with these teams?
The Nats were done with Cincinnati before April ended (4-3). They play the D-Backs in a 3 game set in Arizona to end the season. Cincinnati will host Arizona in a four game set from the 19th-22nd.
Who has the easiest schedule?
The Nats do, but it's not as super obvious as you might have believed at the beginning of the year now that we know the Nats aren't one of the best teams in baseball.
Including finishing out some of these current series the Nats have 6 series (17 games) against above .500 teams. The Reds and Arizona both have 7 (22 games apiece). Even better for the Nats it's only 3 between now and September 15th, meaning if they are going to make up ground now (or really Aug 27th-Sep15th) is prime time to do it.
Also in the Nats favor each team ends the season heavy with in-division games and the runs scored/allowed numbers say the NL East is the weakest of the three.
What's not on the Nats side? They play more games away (26) than the D-Backs (24) or the Reds (22)
Any injuries to take note of?
Everyone has got their nicks and bumps to deal with but Cincy has the biggest guy out with injury. Johnny Cueto has been out since early June and there isn't a timetable on his return. The sooner he comes back the more things tilt in the Reds favor.
Any young players coming up?
Probably not. The D-Backs have the best prospect in Archie Bradley, but he likely will be held back until 2014. They have a couple live bats in AAA with Chris Owings and Matt Davidson, but they aren't going to unseat Hill and Prado, and they like Gregorious at SS for his D. If they do come up in September it'll be on the bench. Tyler Skaggs has busted out of the majors twice this year, not sure he'll get a 3rd chance. Most interesting for the D-backs is Adam Eaton who came back about a month ago from injury. He's a good prospect but hasn't shown it yet. Could come on strong down the stretch.
For the Reds, they don't have much. Billy Hamilton doesn't seem bat-ready for the majors yet. They could call him up to pinch-run and utilize his all world speed, but is that enough reason to start the clock? Tony Cingrani is it, and he's been up for a while doing a good job in the rotation.
The Nats will need a pitcher to fill in but no budding star is ready to fill in. Rendon's progress is going to be critical down the stretch.
First impressions?
The D-backs (4) and the Nats (3) will play a chunk of good teams in the next 2 and a half weeks. The Reds should expand their lead a bit during this time. If we wake up on August 26th , though and find someone within 4-5 games of the Reds, things could get interesting in September.
Really though, you have to like the Reds with the 4.5 games in hand and enough games vs Milwaukee and Chicago to offset those vs St. Louis and Pittsburgh. If Cueto comes back anytime relatively soon, they could even run away with 2nd WC.
Nats goals?
Catch and pass the D-backs first. They have to finish a series versus the Rays, then after a Mets interlude, they'll face the Orioles and Pirates. If the Nats can close 2.5 games by then, we'll be at the Reds/D-backs series where the Nats, if they win their games vs the Cubs, will be certain to catch up to someone.
Monday, August 05, 2013
Monday Quickie - Calling the East
Really we shouldn't be having this conversation, and we wouldn't be if it wasn't for the fluke situation that makes the Nats the Braves closest contender to the crown. The Nats are in 2nd place in the NL East and have been for much of the year. Yet the reality of the situation is that they are 12 and a half games out. The Yankees are in 4th place in the AL East behind the team with the most wins in baseball and they are 3 games closer to the division lead than the Nats. The Giants are in last place in the NL West and they are a half-game closer. The Nats are nowhere near winning the East.
Which is why in all good conscience we should call this race right now. Hell, it should have been called 2 weeks ago. NO! I WON'T DO IT!
I won't do it not because of any silly slogan handed out on a t-shirt. Nor won't I do it because the Providence GrassCutters in 18-dickety-2 won 20 out of 22 to end the season and win their division from the same spot the Nats are in now.* No, I won't do it because I don't want to. Give up the NL East and all you have is the Wild Card, an undesirable 1 game playoff that is baseball's equivalent to the NCAA tournament's play-in games. Give up the NL East and the season becomes a lot less fun.
But I don't want to deny the grim reality in front of the Nats so as a compromise I've set this unwavering goal in front of the Nats. Sweep the Braves and we'll keep talking. Sweep the Braves and I'll at least consider the Nats are starting a miracle run to a pennant. Lose one game, though, and I have to call it and we can start discussing WC possibilities.
Other Notes :
You may have been blinded by those wins but the Nats scored 7 runs in two games vs Donovan Hand and the Brewers emergency bullpen staff fillers.
There is a Werth appreciation article coming. No the guy isn't back to being as good as he was when he left the Phillies. This year's production is more average based and the average is high BABIP based (but not unsustainable - just on his high end). But he has been real good at the plate when healthy and that's important. He will be terrible and the Nats will be paying him a lot to BE terrible. The goal is to keep that time frame as short as possible. His performance this year says - that won't be a 4 year thing, and probably not 3. If you can get it down to 1... I can live with that.
What do the two above notes have in common? A lot. After Werth the next best National hitter in the past week has been Rendon. His line? .250 / .316 / .438. Hope Stras and Gio are ready.
After hitting nine homers in June, Ian Desmond hit one homer in July.
Is Dan Haren better? Signs point to yes. He's basically abandoned his normal fastball and throws nothing but cutters, sinkers, and splitters. Looks like it's working. He won't face another good offense until Sept 16 if the rotation holds so we could see this last the rest of the season. (still - don't resign him please)
*The 1996 Orioles are the newest "Nats could be this team" team. The O's at 103 games? 51-52, 5 games out of the WC. The Nats? 49-54, 9 games out of the 2nd WC. O's at 111 games 57-54. Nats at 111 games? 54-57. By the time August 16th rolled around the O's were 9 games over .500 and 1 game out of the WC. For the Nats to be in the same basic situation assuming the Reds go .500 over that time like the '96 White Sox did, they'd have to win their next 11 in a row. Anyone betting on that? Just because something has happened, that it could happen, doesn't mean it will happen.
Which is why in all good conscience we should call this race right now. Hell, it should have been called 2 weeks ago. NO! I WON'T DO IT!
I won't do it not because of any silly slogan handed out on a t-shirt. Nor won't I do it because the Providence GrassCutters in 18-dickety-2 won 20 out of 22 to end the season and win their division from the same spot the Nats are in now.* No, I won't do it because I don't want to. Give up the NL East and all you have is the Wild Card, an undesirable 1 game playoff that is baseball's equivalent to the NCAA tournament's play-in games. Give up the NL East and the season becomes a lot less fun.
But I don't want to deny the grim reality in front of the Nats so as a compromise I've set this unwavering goal in front of the Nats. Sweep the Braves and we'll keep talking. Sweep the Braves and I'll at least consider the Nats are starting a miracle run to a pennant. Lose one game, though, and I have to call it and we can start discussing WC possibilities.
Other Notes :
You may have been blinded by those wins but the Nats scored 7 runs in two games vs Donovan Hand and the Brewers emergency bullpen staff fillers.
There is a Werth appreciation article coming. No the guy isn't back to being as good as he was when he left the Phillies. This year's production is more average based and the average is high BABIP based (but not unsustainable - just on his high end). But he has been real good at the plate when healthy and that's important. He will be terrible and the Nats will be paying him a lot to BE terrible. The goal is to keep that time frame as short as possible. His performance this year says - that won't be a 4 year thing, and probably not 3. If you can get it down to 1... I can live with that.
What do the two above notes have in common? A lot. After Werth the next best National hitter in the past week has been Rendon. His line? .250 / .316 / .438. Hope Stras and Gio are ready.
After hitting nine homers in June, Ian Desmond hit one homer in July.
Is Dan Haren better? Signs point to yes. He's basically abandoned his normal fastball and throws nothing but cutters, sinkers, and splitters. Looks like it's working. He won't face another good offense until Sept 16 if the rotation holds so we could see this last the rest of the season. (still - don't resign him please)
*The 1996 Orioles are the newest "Nats could be this team" team. The O's at 103 games? 51-52, 5 games out of the WC. The Nats? 49-54, 9 games out of the 2nd WC. O's at 111 games 57-54. Nats at 111 games? 54-57. By the time August 16th rolled around the O's were 9 games over .500 and 1 game out of the WC. For the Nats to be in the same basic situation assuming the Reds go .500 over that time like the '96 White Sox did, they'd have to win their next 11 in a row. Anyone betting on that? Just because something has happened, that it could happen, doesn't mean it will happen.
Friday, August 02, 2013
More Rizzo, more Rizzo, more Rizzo.
The next time Ted and Stan Lerner tell their driver to decorate the Saturday car with a bumper sticker, look for it to say "I roll with Rizzo" or something like that. The Nats have gone all-in on Mike Rizzo. While it might seem like the Nats are shouting "I WILL sign that long-term lease!" from the driver side window of a car sinking into a lake, this was move really decided months ago. The team has improved a bunch since Rizzo has been involved with them. The Lerners like Rizzo. He likes being here. I imagine it was only the Lerners' penurious attitude toward spending that kept this from happening earlier in the year when it made more sense.
Also Rizzo is a hypocrite who doesn't mind moaning through private channels about not having a long-term deal, while publically saying people should just "own the job" and shut up about contracts. But, such is life. For a lot of people, what works for everyone else doesn't necessarily apply to them.
Rizzo is in the midst of a terrible season. He signed Haren. Didn't work out. He traded for Span. Didn't work out. He bet on LaRoche rather than Morse. Didn't work out. He let Gorzelanny go for Duke and kept trying to make H-Rod something. Didn't work out. He signed Chris Young and kept Maya around for pitching depth. Didn't work out. He traded for Scott Hairston. Didn't work out. He believed in the bench he built last year to start the year (didn't work out), then failed to make the necessary moves when it was obvious they were failing (didn't work out). Add to that a bunch of call-ups, most notably Rendon but also Marrero, Karns, Kobernus, Solano & Davis, that showed how shallow the Nats organization was at the upper levels, and this season was almost a complete and utter failure for the GM.
Only a deal for Soriano (which may not have been his idea, and helped lead to the downfall of Storen but that's more Storen's fault than anyone's) and the success of some mid/late-season pitching filler (Ohlendorf, Krol, Jordan) are on the positive side of Rizzo's ledger for 2013. Sure you can defend a lot of these moves. You might even have made a lot of the same moves. I would have. But you know what? Me and you, we would also have failed at our jobs this year and shouldn't have gotten extensions right now.
Imagine this : Danny Espinosa comes to Rizzo and demands a long-term deal. He had success in previous years. He was the 7th most valuable 2nd baseman across 2011-2012 because of his combination of pop and defense. He has somethings this year that he can point to as successes (still a plus defender). Does he get a deal? Absolutely not. He'd be laughed out of Rizzo's office (or more likely he'd be shamed out with a "Go out and do your job" tough guy talk) And yet here is Rizzo in a similar situation gobbling up a long term deal with no talk yet of how he's screwed up this year and needs to work harder/smarter to get the Nats over the hump.
If the Nats had made this deal even 3 months ago, no one would have blinked an eye. I would have been all for it. But we've had an extra 3 months right in front of us that screamed "HEY WAIT!" and a deal in place that already allowed the Nats another season to play with, and 2015 was an option as well. Why not wait? If my hand was forced, would I have kept Rizzo on? Yes. But their hand wasn't forced.
All in all, right now I have a hard time believing this is anything more than bad timing. Rizzo seems competent. He's helped, with some notable draft position luck*, turn this from a go nowhere franchise to one that was favored to win the series this year. That's quite an accomplishment. He'll probably be at least fine, if not good. But if midway through 2014, another couple Rizzo signings are failing, the organization is filled with broken arms and B-prospects, and the team is looking at missing the playoffs again, we'll all look back a today and wonder why the trigger was pulled now, when it seems like the gun is pointing straight down.
*Imagine this years team minus Strasburg and Bryce and plus Dustin Ackley and Jameson Taillon.
Also Rizzo is a hypocrite who doesn't mind moaning through private channels about not having a long-term deal, while publically saying people should just "own the job" and shut up about contracts. But, such is life. For a lot of people, what works for everyone else doesn't necessarily apply to them.
Rizzo is in the midst of a terrible season. He signed Haren. Didn't work out. He traded for Span. Didn't work out. He bet on LaRoche rather than Morse. Didn't work out. He let Gorzelanny go for Duke and kept trying to make H-Rod something. Didn't work out. He signed Chris Young and kept Maya around for pitching depth. Didn't work out. He traded for Scott Hairston. Didn't work out. He believed in the bench he built last year to start the year (didn't work out), then failed to make the necessary moves when it was obvious they were failing (didn't work out). Add to that a bunch of call-ups, most notably Rendon but also Marrero, Karns, Kobernus, Solano & Davis, that showed how shallow the Nats organization was at the upper levels, and this season was almost a complete and utter failure for the GM.
Only a deal for Soriano (which may not have been his idea, and helped lead to the downfall of Storen but that's more Storen's fault than anyone's) and the success of some mid/late-season pitching filler (Ohlendorf, Krol, Jordan) are on the positive side of Rizzo's ledger for 2013. Sure you can defend a lot of these moves. You might even have made a lot of the same moves. I would have. But you know what? Me and you, we would also have failed at our jobs this year and shouldn't have gotten extensions right now.
Imagine this : Danny Espinosa comes to Rizzo and demands a long-term deal. He had success in previous years. He was the 7th most valuable 2nd baseman across 2011-2012 because of his combination of pop and defense. He has somethings this year that he can point to as successes (still a plus defender). Does he get a deal? Absolutely not. He'd be laughed out of Rizzo's office (or more likely he'd be shamed out with a "Go out and do your job" tough guy talk) And yet here is Rizzo in a similar situation gobbling up a long term deal with no talk yet of how he's screwed up this year and needs to work harder/smarter to get the Nats over the hump.
If the Nats had made this deal even 3 months ago, no one would have blinked an eye. I would have been all for it. But we've had an extra 3 months right in front of us that screamed "HEY WAIT!" and a deal in place that already allowed the Nats another season to play with, and 2015 was an option as well. Why not wait? If my hand was forced, would I have kept Rizzo on? Yes. But their hand wasn't forced.
All in all, right now I have a hard time believing this is anything more than bad timing. Rizzo seems competent. He's helped, with some notable draft position luck*, turn this from a go nowhere franchise to one that was favored to win the series this year. That's quite an accomplishment. He'll probably be at least fine, if not good. But if midway through 2014, another couple Rizzo signings are failing, the organization is filled with broken arms and B-prospects, and the team is looking at missing the playoffs again, we'll all look back a today and wonder why the trigger was pulled now, when it seems like the gun is pointing straight down.
*Imagine this years team minus Strasburg and Bryce and plus Dustin Ackley and Jameson Taillon.
Thursday, August 01, 2013
The upbeat family with heart and camaraderie who wants to win
Well it's August at least. In July the Nats were supposed to face another weak part of their schedule and they finally had everyone back. It was break out time! Instead, they ended up with their worst month of the year. In fact it was their worst month since May of 2011, a month where Jerry Hairston & Alex Cora started a bunch of games, and even Brian Bixler worked his way into the starting lineup a couple times. (even that team averaged 4.07 R/G in May). Ugh.
Will it change? Can it change? I'm not sure. And we want to be sure about it before calling it a season.
The head-to-head factor
Some out there take issue with "pace" notes. You know, when someone says "If the Braves go X and Y the Nats need to go A and B to catch them". They don't like it because it exaggerates the impossibilty of tasks when there a lot of head to head games left. This is because in a head to head game your win and their loss are not separate events. You win and they lose (or vice versa).
Let's say you had 3 games left and needed to make up 3 games of ground. If you think your team will win 60% of the time and the team you are trying to catch will also win 60% of the time vs who they are playing, then your odds of catching up would be (.6)*(.6)*(.6) * (.4)*(.4)*(.4). In written words, it would be the odds of you sweeping multiplied by the odds of them being swept. However, if you are facing eachother and put the odds at 50% you win any game then your odds of catching up would be (.5)*(.5)*(.5), the odds of you sweeping. There is no separate three games to factor in for the other team. Your sweep is them getting swept. Your odds change from the nigh-impossible 1.3% to a reason for hope 12.5%.
Anyway that's the crux of the argument and it does matter but it's a lot less powerful an argument the more you trail and the more other games you have to play. The Nats do have 9 games left vs the Braves and trail by 11. If they were to sweep the Braves in those 9, they'd still have to outplay them by 2 games in the other 45 to tie them. Two games over 45 is not crazy, but when you start the argument with "if we sweep them over the 9 games" you really don't want anything else making your odds even worse.
It was a lot easier to see a path back when the Nats trailed by 5-6 games. In that case a more reasonable (but still hard) 6-3 record vs the Braves to finish the season would leave the Nats with a task that wasn't daunting. Now though, now it's all come down to a dream sweep. Even a 7-2 record in the remaining head-to-head games would only make up 5 games and leave the Nats with the task of making up 6 over a month and a half worth of games. In that case you can work the pace. If the Braves go 23-22 can the Nats go 29-16? It just doesn't feel like it'll happen. But I'll give the Nats the next series to catch up at least.
The heart factor
I wanted to address this just because I wanted to clear up what I think is a misconception about "intangibles". Things like momentum, heart, pressure, clubhouse atmosphere, scrappiness, whatever, it's NOT that they don't exist or that they don't effect the outcome of games. We all can relate to having our performance suffer or appear to be better depending on circumstance and mood. It's that we can't accurately measure these things. There's simply no way to know really things like "who's out hustling who", "who wants it more", "who's getting rattled". We dismiss it because there isn't a way to bring it into the argument without adding a ton of bias. People themselves aren't always good judges of how their performance is being effected. Forget about being on the outside trying to make judgements. Managers have a puncher's chance, maybe. Reporters are just fooling themselves. Fans might as well be making stuff up.
Plus, there are all these other things we can measure that do a really good job of leading us to the right outcomes. All those fancy and non-fancy stats. We focus on what we know, not what we think. It's the best way to being successful more often than not.
So when Bryce goes off on heart and family, I don't dismiss it as pure nonsense. Maybe it does matter. But it's hard to think it matters more than LaRoche's 33 year old body, or Rendon's lack of experience, or the base talent level of Span, the bench and the back of the rotation. I suppose one or two of those things could turn around. But all of them? Or the actual talent of the team going on a stretch where they only hit highs and no lows? I just don't see it.
The Nats may be a good team trapped in a terrible season, but even a good team can't make up this much ground. I'll give them to the Braves series because I want the idea of one last stand to turn it around but we're at the point where the doctor says "There's nothing more medically we can do. It's in HIS hands now"
Will it change? Can it change? I'm not sure. And we want to be sure about it before calling it a season.
The head-to-head factor
Some out there take issue with "pace" notes. You know, when someone says "If the Braves go X and Y the Nats need to go A and B to catch them". They don't like it because it exaggerates the impossibilty of tasks when there a lot of head to head games left. This is because in a head to head game your win and their loss are not separate events. You win and they lose (or vice versa).
Let's say you had 3 games left and needed to make up 3 games of ground. If you think your team will win 60% of the time and the team you are trying to catch will also win 60% of the time vs who they are playing, then your odds of catching up would be (.6)*(.6)*(.6) * (.4)*(.4)*(.4). In written words, it would be the odds of you sweeping multiplied by the odds of them being swept. However, if you are facing eachother and put the odds at 50% you win any game then your odds of catching up would be (.5)*(.5)*(.5), the odds of you sweeping. There is no separate three games to factor in for the other team. Your sweep is them getting swept. Your odds change from the nigh-impossible 1.3% to a reason for hope 12.5%.
Anyway that's the crux of the argument and it does matter but it's a lot less powerful an argument the more you trail and the more other games you have to play. The Nats do have 9 games left vs the Braves and trail by 11. If they were to sweep the Braves in those 9, they'd still have to outplay them by 2 games in the other 45 to tie them. Two games over 45 is not crazy, but when you start the argument with "if we sweep them over the 9 games" you really don't want anything else making your odds even worse.
It was a lot easier to see a path back when the Nats trailed by 5-6 games. In that case a more reasonable (but still hard) 6-3 record vs the Braves to finish the season would leave the Nats with a task that wasn't daunting. Now though, now it's all come down to a dream sweep. Even a 7-2 record in the remaining head-to-head games would only make up 5 games and leave the Nats with the task of making up 6 over a month and a half worth of games. In that case you can work the pace. If the Braves go 23-22 can the Nats go 29-16? It just doesn't feel like it'll happen. But I'll give the Nats the next series to catch up at least.
The heart factor
I wanted to address this just because I wanted to clear up what I think is a misconception about "intangibles". Things like momentum, heart, pressure, clubhouse atmosphere, scrappiness, whatever, it's NOT that they don't exist or that they don't effect the outcome of games. We all can relate to having our performance suffer or appear to be better depending on circumstance and mood. It's that we can't accurately measure these things. There's simply no way to know really things like "who's out hustling who", "who wants it more", "who's getting rattled". We dismiss it because there isn't a way to bring it into the argument without adding a ton of bias. People themselves aren't always good judges of how their performance is being effected. Forget about being on the outside trying to make judgements. Managers have a puncher's chance, maybe. Reporters are just fooling themselves. Fans might as well be making stuff up.
Plus, there are all these other things we can measure that do a really good job of leading us to the right outcomes. All those fancy and non-fancy stats. We focus on what we know, not what we think. It's the best way to being successful more often than not.
So when Bryce goes off on heart and family, I don't dismiss it as pure nonsense. Maybe it does matter. But it's hard to think it matters more than LaRoche's 33 year old body, or Rendon's lack of experience, or the base talent level of Span, the bench and the back of the rotation. I suppose one or two of those things could turn around. But all of them? Or the actual talent of the team going on a stretch where they only hit highs and no lows? I just don't see it.
The Nats may be a good team trapped in a terrible season, but even a good team can't make up this much ground. I'll give them to the Braves series because I want the idea of one last stand to turn it around but we're at the point where the doctor says "There's nothing more medically we can do. It's in HIS hands now"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)