ASB P2 - Again we argue the future

What almost every ownership group wants is obvious. They want to be the Tampa Bay Rays or possibly the Cleveland Indians.  They want to be a team that wins constantly with a low payroll. That's the goal. What's more important out of the two? Sadly the low payroll, so if they don't win that's not the worst thing that can happen.

This differs from what the fans want which is simply to win.  They want to see playoffs and championships. If the team doesn't win that IS the worst thing in the world. And that's where the conflict happens, or at least where it should happen. Now spending money is FAR from a guarantee of success, but the numbers are pretty clear that spending money is better than not spending money in regards to making that happen.

An ownership group has three options then (1) ignore the fans as they aren't the most crucial money driver unless you create a big fandom, (2) give in to the fans and spend some more money, or (3) convince the fans they are wrong and spending money is actually bad.  Despite the multiple Dodgers titles and the Yankees and Phillies always in the playoffs, they've done a very good with (3). "We can put that money back into player development!" "Sure we could have an ok team now, but don't you want a GREAT team later?"   

That's where the Nats are now... well sort of. What we know is the Nats have a do fun team now that could still make the playoffs and could have had a better shot if the Nats FO did something earlier. It wouldn't have been likely to really contend but with nothing certain for the future is it better to lean in when opportunities are presented to you?  That's the philosophy question I suppose. What is increased chances at a long set of playoff runs and real title contention worth to you? 

In theory that could be worth a lot, but I think fans tend to skew those chances, (and they aren't helped because that's what the owners are always selling you).  In their minds it's like "sure we could go to a 66% chance of a WC spot for the next couple of years, but we can have like a 90% chance of a long playoff run starting in three years if we don't!" But the reality is more like "sure we could go to a 66% chance of a WC spot for the next couple of years, but the Nats have a 20% to have another long run starting in the next couple of years, we can up it to maybe 35%!" That's what you are throwing away pushes right in front of you for.  

This is an all-time argument in baseball though and not one easily answered, because those long run results ARE so good and these short unexpected runs usually are just a couple of meaningless fun series. But it IS risk / reward.  The payoff is high, sure you could be the Rays or Indians but the risk is real, you could also be the Athletics or Pirates or Rockies or Royals...  

My question though is - do fans really want to be the Rays? The key to the Rays is the constant churn.  Have a guy, he gets good, send him off for some young guys to replace him, rinse, repeat. There is no core set of players you are rooting for, only truly a set of laundry that guys fill aged 20-27 before heading off elsewhere. If you do it right occasionally that group comes together to matter, but when they don't you have a team that is bad that also engenders no loyalty. The Rays are consistently one of the lowest teams in attendance good or bad. These things are connected. 

But maybe the Nats are already one of these teams? Bryce Harper, Anthony Rendon, Juan Soto, Trea Turner.  All stars. All gone. What made the Nationals different was never a commitment to young players to age with the team but the willingness to go out and grab 1-2 big time FAs to be the final pieces. If the Nats don't keep CJ Abrams, that's nothing new, but simply the Nats being the Nats. Where things would be different is if after that happens they don't spend any money. There is no follow-up Scherzer or Corbin. 

Really the most important thing here is we don't know what this Nats organization is going to be like. This isn't the Pirates or Rockies with decades of proof they don't know what they are doing and don't care. This Nats org could trade Abrams and use that saving to then bring in Skubal. So all these arguments about should the Nats have done more this year are sort of made in this great vacuum of knowledge.  If the Nats are a team committed to winning that just want to set-up the best team possible when spending money then no they shouldn't do anything now (or really it was ok they didn't do anything earlier - it's a bit too late now). If the Nats are a team just hoping to "out-organization" to be the next cheap-o Rays or Pirates whatever the results may be then they should have gone for it. But we don't know.  

As far as getting that knowledge the trade deadline will tell us something. The off-season will tell us more.  

ASB P1 - Are the Nationals for real and can they make a run for the playoffs?

We have rounded the crest of the season are are heading into the dog days where seasons for all but the worst teams are won or lost. The Nationals have shown themselves clearly not to be one of the worst teams so what does the next month have in store for them? Well it boils down to the two answers above. 

Are the Nationals for real?   Yes.  They have finally been caught for the most R/G in baseball (by the Pirates!  Someone go back so I can make that bet) but they have a very healthy lead on most of the other teams in baseball.  Sixth is the Twins nearly a half-run back. The questions from earlier in the season remain, Can Wood keep this up for an entire season? Does CJ have an extended slump in him? Is Ruiz really this good? But 95 games in it looks like the answers are Yes, No, and good enough.  Add to that Luis Garcia developing a power swing and Curtis Mead being a perfectly decent Joey Meneses, Mike Morse "found this guy who can only hit for 1-3 years of help" and you have a Top 5 in the Nats lineup that can literally hang with any teams.  The bottom four isn't as fun but Lile and Vivas are livable and Nunez and Young have made themselves not terrible in exchange for their plus defense. Is the bench pretty much a horror show? Yeah, but that's the understandable cost of not actually building the team for this year. Your main set-up can be solid but there's nothing behind it. 

When you have the best offense in baseball you can challenge for .500 even if you have the worst pitching and that's a good thing because the Nats might have the worst pitching. While they are only 3rd they are behind two bad teams playing in weird situations (Rockies and Athletics) that effect their results. The Nats "weird situation" is that they don't want to put anything toward getting better. On the mound the Nats are hanging on by their fingernails. Cavalli looks fine, not an ace, but likely able to be relied on in a #2/#3 role. Foster Griffin's great results are living on borrowed time but he should also be rotation worthy.  The rest of the pack is a group of "let's see what we get from this guy tonight" guys. You can't rely on these guys but the alternatives are worse.  Almost every team throws one of these guys out there, most two. Three is a little much but this rotation is still enough to get into the playoffs with that offense. We all know the starting pitching isn't the issue. 

The Nats relief pitching is among the worst in baseball and the ERA has been pushing 6.00 for the past couple months. You don't necessarily need a deep pen with this offense, just a reliable 3 man set that can hold leads late. The Nats don't have even that.  Andrew Alvarez is possibly the best arm, but he's been forced into game start duties leaving his innings high and making him unavailable for late relief. That literally left Orlando Ribalta and Brad Lord as your go to guys, two arms best suited to be the 3rd man in that reliable 3rd man set. Poulin might be decent enough against lefties and right now that's it. Your "three man set" is two guys who might occasionally be able to do it and a guy you can sort of trust against lefties.  And if these guys are tired or hurt (Lord is currently out) or otherwise unavailable? You have absolute trash. Like the Nats offensive bench this is the cost of not trying for the year but why the initial pen was so bad? That was a choice. 

And worse for Nats fans, it's a choice that we haven't heard word one of changing from the men in charge. The Nats aren't really trying and they aren't going to start. The powerful offense is a great thing to see making this season interesting but it's only applicable in respects of the decisions made for upcoming years or this year's trade deadline. 

To answer the questions from the title - Yes the Nationals are for real but no they can't make a run for the playoffs. And the reason for the no is because the front office doesn't have interest in doing that this year. 

What does that mean for next year? It depends on the decisions they make particularly with Abrams and Garcia. Abrams is likely to be kind of this good going forward (and also a continued liability at SS). Garcia is still young enough that this power burst could be for real, but it also just might be a career year for a guy that's more an average bat.  Still they are two bats you'd want for a team looking at 2027. At the same time the Nats have a solid top of bats in the minors.  Willits, King, Fitz-Gerald, Cruz are all solid prospects with Willits being one of the top ones in baseball. The quantity is there to potentially trade Abrams and/or Garcia away to bolster the Nats future pitching depth which currently relies on Jarlin Susana and the TJ recovery of Travis Sykora. But if they do deal these guys away what it means for next year is that there isn't a next year, or at least there won't be a real challenge for the playoffs then either. 2027 will be moving guys up and seeing what they got and figuring out how to put that playoff team together for 2028. 

Monday Quickie - back from vacation

 The Nats are where they have been now for a while which is fun and good because where they are is "about .500 and in the playoff discussion".  

About a month ago we talked about the playoffs and while we'll go over that deeper in a week during the ASB I want to look at my assumptions about the other teams to see how they held up. If so, it's likely worth checking them out again the same way at that time. 

 

Gap would grow between the Nats and Braves/Dodgers/Brewers

Was 11.5 behind ATL, 8.5 behind MIL, 8.5 behind LAD 

Now 7.5 behind ATL, 10.5 behind MIL,  13 behind LAD

Well the one that matters I was wrong. Basically the rest of June was a horror show for the Braves going 4-13 to end the month. They've picked it back up recently and I still think I'm basically right in my call here that these are just better teams. 

Cardinals and Phillies are likely no worse than Nats, catchable but likely to hold lead

Was 3 behind STL, 2.5 behind PHI

Now 3 behind STL, 4.5 behind PHI

PHI has shown that the horrible start was just that and they are a perfectly decent team. That plus the general advantages should keep them ahead of the Nats depending on trade deadline machinations, injuries, and general luck 

Arizona and San Diego are worse than Nats and definitely catchable 

Was 1 game behind ARI, 1 game behind SDP

Now  1 game ahead of ARI, 1 game ahead of SDP

Yep, these guys aren't as good. 

Cubs and the Pirates are better than the Nats and might widen tiny gap 

Was 0.5 games behind PIT, 0.5 games behind CHC

Now tied with PIT, 4.5 games behind CHC. 

One team proved me right with the Cubs big push in June ending the month 14-4.  The Pirates seemed more on par with the Nats when they faced. 

Cincy is a mirage, but maybe the Marlins are real? 

Was 2 games ahead of CIN, 2.5 games ahead of the Marlins

Now  4 games ahead of CIN, 3 games BEHIND the Marlins

Well look at that. Marlins are on a 23-8 run currently while whatever luck Cincy had has petered out. 

 

The short of it - yeah those assumptions mostly held up. Really only one team surprised from what I was thinking and that was the Braves. Most did exactly what the numbers said they would and the others didn't stray that far. So yeah worth while to look again, see what has changed and where the Nats fit. But that's for a couple weeks. 

The Nats have a good run into and out of the ASB. Into it's the middling Astros, the Yankees who can't hit without Judge and he isn't expected back before the ASG, and the bad A's. Out of it it's the bad Rockies and the middling Dbacks and Blue Jays. If they really are contenders for a playoff spot they'll take these 18 games and go like 11-7, 12-6. Tread water and trades of good players and a crash out to end 2026 seems more likely 

 

Ok that was all bad

The question now is - do they do something about it? 

The Nats pen has been known to be bad. They currently have the second worst ERA in the majors at 5.05 and yes it was a little better before this series but it was still well ensconced in the bottom group of teams, ahead of the Twins. They've giving up the third most walks (172) and by FAR the most home runs (61).  To be fair they've been asked to pitch way more than any other team.  Their 392 innings is 10% more than the 3rd place Mets. That doesn't sound like much but trust me it is. 

So it IS connected to the starting pitching.  In order to save the arms of a perfectly average starting pitching staff they are throwing fewer innings. Which then go to a bad relief staff. 

So one correction is right there in front of the Nats. Time to take the training wheels off and let the starters go 6+ innings if they can.  But that still doesn't solve the problem that by the fancy stats they Nats have one good reliever (Alvarez) and two ok ones (Lord, Ribalta).  Beyond that Beeter and Schultz are currently usable and the rest are trash. And the depth is worse. There is no real help expected to come from the minors. 

It's unlikely the starters can be as good pitching longer but it's also known that the relievers aren't good pitching as much as they have.  The Nats have let it go because they've won enough early to just accept it, but if they want to really win they need to fix the problem

Which then begs the question : do they really want to win in 2025?

My guess is no so while some relievers might be available out there, I don't think we'll see them here. These are your 2026 Nats. These are the results they will get. Buckle up. 

OK that was bad

Baseball, huh? 

The crazy part wasn't the loss. A two out single and homer meant the game was tied and going into extras it's basically anyone's game. No the crazy part was with two outs the Phillies went :

Single - Homer - Single - Single - Homer - Walk - Single - Double - Walk - Single 

They didn't just bat around - after two outs they batted around and no one got out. Forget the runs, I just want to know the last time 10 straight men made it on base safely in a game. 

It also kind of stinks that Ribalta was looking good and probably could have handled the 8th (or at least deserved a shot) but they have a plan and that plan in their head that said Lovelady into Beeter. They want that 8-9 set up because it makes things easier. Even if it's probably not better, there is something to be said for roles being known for clubhouse headspace and all. But they failed and Lord and Schultz both pitched so they won't be exactly fresh for tonight and the Phillies will have seen them once - which as we saw with Lord and Beeter tonight - makes a difference.  WIll it matter? Better hope it's the rarer good Mikolas that shows up tonight. 

The Nats get Nola tonight and Sanchez tomorrow which you can't feel is in your favor.  Rolling through a 4 game set with the Phillies and not getting both Wheeler and Sanchez demands you take 2 of 3 from the other guys.  It's 1-1 right now. 

Monday Quickie - is this worrying?

 On May 22nd the Nats were 25-27 and looking like they were going to stay in that area - flirting with .500, maybe going a game or two over but likely dropping back under - for the rest of the year. That had been the story of the season after the 3-1 start, and fit with the pre-season expectations mixed with what we were seeing on the field. But since then they've gone 15-8 and have put themselves squarely in the "huh, we need to check in on these guys before the All-Star Break and see how real they are".   But it's not all good news. 

On May 22nd the Nats were in 3rd place in the NL East. 11 games behind ATL, 1 game behind PHI, 2 games ahead of MIA.

On June 22nd the Nats are tied for 3rd place in the NL East. 9 games behind ATL, 2.5 games behind PHI, and tied with the Marlins. 

They are undoubtedly in a better position today than a month ago.  They were 4.5 games out of the 3rd Wild Card while today they are a half-game out, but there isn't an NL East team they've played more than twice. If the NL East is really this solid there are a lot of hard games coming. They'll play 4 more against Philly this week then it's NL East free until August where they'll cram all the rest of their inter-division games into the last two months. 

The tendency is to sort of say - hey the Phillies aren't real and the Marlins REALLY aren't real but how does that apply to them and not the Nationals?

The Phillies stats suggest their record should be a lot lower, but taking a closer look at it, it's more that when they stood at 13-19 to start May they should have been like 10-22 or worse. The recent Phillies have been scoring runs and pitching well. 

The Marlins stats suggest they should be a LOT better. Like one of the B-Tier teams in baseball behind the Yankees, Brewers and Dodgers. What they have is a lineup with no obvious low points (hey Nasim! What are you doing here? And you brought Jose today? How relevant!) and a very solid pitching staff that is deep with maybe the best bullpen in baseball.*

At this point we are taking the Nats to be real so we have to do the same for these other teams. Which means we have to move forward thinking if the Nats are going to compete for a Wild Card, it'll be a dog fight within their own division and someone is likely to be left out if that's the case. 

 

*Fun fact?  The Marlins have the best inherited runner scoring % at 22%. The Nats have the worst at 44%. 

Foster Griffin - the actual find?

There was an article somewhere recently about the turn around for Littell and Mikolas.  I kind of dismiss that because major league pitchers aren't going to go out there and throw like trash for 30 games. There are ups and downs and adjustments and injuries and chances are if you started slow you'll look better. I don't pretend those guys aren't what they are. 

But Foster Griffin was a pull from overseas. A former 1st rounder that couldn't control anything that now is mixing like 8 different pitches for success.  Is he real?

I want to say yes but that HR rate is what's keeping me from doing that. Giving up a homer plus every game is not a recipe for success.  His last 5 homers have been solo shots where as that was more like half his early homers. Yes he's keeping guys off base with limited walks, but his hit rate isn't that great and that first set makes more sense to me. 

What's that mean?  It means that we should be looking at a future around where his ERA was before this solo shot barrage.  4.00ERA+.  But hey - that's STILL a find. 

I don't mean OMG they found a star, but they did grab a cheap guy that isn't just filling in innings at the back of the rotation. An ERA of say 4.15  puts him around the 75th best starter in the game. That's a legit 3/4 type arm. 

Littell and Mikolas are rotation fillers. Don't think that isn't important. Having a slight turnaround from "maybe they should quit baseball" to "ok as a 5" is important for the Nats because the bullpen is so bad. An inning more of under 5.00 ERA ball matters to this team. But maybe you can dredge this up from the minors or any rando free agent. That's what they did this year and the last few (Irvin, Parker). Finding a guy you need in your rotation or else you take a big hit is something else. And I think Griffin is that guy