It's the bullpen. That's what we hear. It isn't wrong. The Nats bullpen is 2nd worst in the major leagues, worst in the NL, a good 3/4 of a run worse than the Mets, who along with Miami are themselves a good 3/4 of a run worse than the 12th "best" in the NL Dodgers. It's bad. Historically so. But does that explain a 12-15 start?
How good would the Nats be with an average pen? Let's off the top it first. 15-12? Well then the bullpen is worse 3 wins over 27 games or probably something like 18 over the course of the season. Do we really think a pen this bad would transform a 90 win team to a 72 win squad? Remember that's not a 90 win team with a great pen. That's a 90 win team with an average one. Seems like a bit of a stretch.
Ok let's be a bit more realistic. The Nats pen has given up 59 runs in 80.2 innings so far, 56 earned. The average NL squad has an ERA of 4.29. So over 80.2 innings that average squad would give up.... 38-39 earned runs. About 20 runs less. Plug that into the pythag and 13-14 (their current pythag record) becomes... 15. Or technically being as precise as I can be it's a difference of just under 2 wins, like 1.6. But remember that's 15 from 13 not 12. Basically what the numbers say is the difference between this and an average pen is something more like 9-10 wins over the course of a year. It's not 18 but that's HUGE. It could take a playoff team fighting for best record in the league of 95 wins and make it a 85 win also-ran. That's the power of a historically bad bullpen, a run and a half worse than what the bottom of the league probably should be.
But there's another point here - where does that leave the Nats overall? Well given an average pen the Nats expected W/L record would be 90-72. That feels kind of right. They are a game unlucky so far (which is why they are 12-15 and not 13-14) so that doesn't go away... 89 wins? With out Trea. I suppose that is right. But while it's right it's not NL East worthy. So even with an average pen this team is not a division winner. Part of that is Turner and Rendon, but this early giving each of their missed time a game seems extravagent. maybe together a game? Point is - it's not injuries either. With an average pen this team had been a Wild Card team.
And that's taking the overview. If we break the season into parts the first part - the NL East gautlet, ended with the Nats 6-5 when really they probably should have been 7-4 or better. Four of their losses were within 3 runs, while only 3 of their wins were and they had several blowout victories. It was team that just wasn't quite catching the breaks. Since the end of the Phillies series though - 16 games, the Nats have scored 4.18 runs per game and given up 5.125. They've gone 6-10. They have been deservedly bad and a good part of that is a below average offense.
This could easily change once Rendon is healthy and Turner is back. Rendon is star worthy, Turner a plus offensive player. This jives with what I see looking at the two week and one week batting splits it's not really one thing (though Robles is having a tough time - and probably will until he Ks less). It's more a lack of balance. There aren't enough hitters doing well to balance out those doing poorly. It's one or two batters off.
There are two issues here - the first is as long as Rendon and Turner are out this isn't a good offensive team (nor should it be expected to be). The relief pitching is bad, meaning the starting pitching needs to be flawless to carry it through. Instead it's been an off start for the better pitchers and a bad one for the back of the rotation. There is no recourse here other than to batten down the hatches and hope. Once Rendon and Turner are back though - this is still a ~90 win team and that's if the pen gets to average. If they fall too far behind now there isn't enough talent to catch up. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Stras, Max, and Corbin will be in the Cy Young race. Perhaps Rendon will continue being an MVP and Robles and Kieboom will fight for the MVP. That's a squad that could roll with an average pen. But I don't think so. I think the Nats need some real luck over the next few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Luck, or an above average pen.
I'm thinking you mean Carter and Robles to fight over ROY. Great post as always, this team is less inspiring with every passing game. At least we in DC still have the perennial contenders in the Skins and Wizards, right guys?
Did anyone see the Zimmerman quote about his foot? If it were September, I'd just push through it. It's better to get it taken care of now." Uhh, Ryan the season will be over come September. I can't wait for that guy to be gone.
Boswell wrote in his chat on Monday that Rizzo absolutely love Davey Martinez. The worst thing about the Nats horrible bullpen is that it hides the fact that Davey has no clue what he is doing. Still.
Read somewhere that Rizzo is a gambler at heart. That would explain Rosenthal and Dozier and the entire approach to the bullpen, which seems to be the only guy worth paying anything for is possibly the closer. Everyone else you gamble on and maybe you get lucky.
But there were other gambles as well--that Eaton would be back to form, that Soto would not regress, that Robles will be a great rookie ready to establish himself, that Zim would stay healthy.
When you look at it that way, that's just too many gambles. I think Harper noted this pretty clearly in the off-season, and lot of us, myself included, Boswell included, got into the excitement of possibility.
It isn't looking great so far. But maybe Soto figures out off-speed stuff and becomes a beast, Robles stays dynamic but also settles down a bit (starts walking, taking good routes, plays a bit less impulsively), maybe Adams is fine in place of Zim, Dozier wakes up all the way, Trea and Rendon are healthy and productive, and the pen stabilizes (with or without Rosenthal) and Kieboom turns out to be a find. But that's a lot of maybes. Too many, perhaps.And that doesn't even tap into the worries some of us have about the starting pitching.
Am I wrong to think that last year the bullpen troubles had a way of piling up? What I'm looking for is the effect where a bullpen goes from bad to worse because the reliable guys get overused and then injured.
But maybe that's just if you have an inexperienced manager who is worried about losing his job.
On the positive side. Rosenthal gone. Check. Ross and Fedde playing acceptably. Bear Claw, Sipp, Suero righting the ship. Check. Bull pen ERA down significantly.
Starters acceptable. Barely.
Now the problem is scoring runs. Zimm, Rendon, Turner out of line-up. Youngsters under-performing. Dozier a lost cause.
Mediocrity.
At this point, a Rendon extension will fit the teams' financial and performance needs much better than a Harper extension would have.
Its hard to blame Rizzo. As he says, players need to perform like whats written on their baseball cards.
That is all.
When Harper breaks things down, it appears to me like things aren't as dire as I might think.
I then watch the game(s) and get totally flustered when Dave goes to the pen and the first pitcher out walks a batter or two, then hits the next guy to load 'em up.
It's no longer early, but since it's a new month, and Rendon should be off the IL on the 7th . . .
Isn't Davey what his recored says he is? Cue Dennis Green and his "We were who we thought they were." The fact that it is now May made zero difference last year. Other teams have had injuries - the Phillies and Yankees to name just a few.
For years we've seen the Nats' runs-per-game average inflated artificially by the random double digit run outburst game in the middle of ten or more games where they don't score squat. RPG average really means nothing. How many runs are they actually plating in a typical game? The Nationals played 25 games in April. In 12 of them they scored three or fewer runs. They lost three games in which they scored more than three runs, but two of those were in Colorado, the place that puts an asterisk by all statistics. The point being that for all the (justified) whining and moaning about the bullpen, the offense is an even bigger problem. When you can't score more than three runs in half your games, the problem ain't the bullpen. When you get two or three runs early then get zero HITS for the last six innings of the game, the problem ain't the bullpen. Everybody bitched about the bullpen giving up six runs in the tenth inning last Saturday. Nope, sorry, don't blame the bullpen. When you're going to extra innings because you can't score more than TWO runs in nine innings, THE PROBLEM AIN'T THE BULLPEN!
They also need better 4th and 5th starters. One of two they currently have would be OK with an average pen, but having to pitch 4 innings of relief for every game those two start with an average to below average pen is not a recipe for success.
I tend to be skeptical of small sample sizes and a part of me wants all of baseball played before May to be considered a small sample size. There is still a lot of season to be played after all. All is certainly not lost. Last year's Dodgers come to mind. But it is already 1/6 of the season...
Per Baseball Reference, it looks like only 38 teams have made the playoffs with a losing record through April since 1996. That's 38 teams out of the 198 that have made the playoffs (~19%). 2 have won the World Series (Angels in '02 and the Fish in '03) and 6 others have made it there. {1996 cutoff because '95 started late, and prior to that there were no WCs}
https://www.baseball-reference.com/tiny/E1wKt
If there is hope, it's in these outliers. I'm starting to lose hope though. I've been to 5 games all season. Lost all five.
Someone else mentioned it the other day, but we stink in series openers. Psychologically that has to impact the team. I think that's why all the cabbage was being smashed. There has been a sense of needing to win in the games where the team has actually won because of the holes they keep digging for themselves.
Sammy, you bring that argument up all the time about run variance. And while I am inclined to agree with you about the fact that this team has a tendency to rack up scores, so do a lot of (good) teams. Let's look at last year. Top 5 teams in run scoring variance?
1) Nats (14.8)
2) Dodgers (14.0)
3) Indians (12.8)
4) Cubs (12.7)
5) Red Sox (12.6)
All 4 of the other top 5 teams made the playoffs. Run variance has little impact on projected wins and losses. If anything, it's a positive correlation
well Max's FIP today should be 0.00...
I think the manager is a PROBLEM.
1) He leaves Hellickson in TOO long.
2) He spent April batting the pitcher @ 8.
3) He had Dozier batting 2nd, and Robbles last; a difference of @ 20+ plate appearences there.
WTF???????????????????????
I'd say 2-3 games difference there...
I have to admit, I kinda got a brief moment of joy when I saw the highlight of Phillies fans booing Harper...not that I hate Harper, but I think most of us on this blog knew that was coming, even if it took until May as Harper is underperforming in their estimation...
Oh well, we had a good run. Playoff teams in '12, '14, '16, and '17. Maybe we'll get another shot someday.
So Scherzer threw 110 times with 85 strikes, IIRC. Unfortunately, a hit ball counts as a strike so he's now . . . 1-4? All because the Nats can't score with RISP. Even counting a mis-play or two, one run doesn't win ball games. We can't blame the pen for this one (or any of the last . . . three or four?).
The manager can't go out and hit/pitch/catch for all nine guys so is it right to blame Dave?
It’s not just Dave. It’s not just the bullpen. It’s not just the hitting. It’s not just the SP. Its all of them. It’s a team game. There are good teams and there are talented teams. The Nats are a talented team that can’t seem to put all phases of good baseball on the field at once. They rarely win games by executing in all phases, most their wins come from sheer talent and just being plain better than their opponent. But with injuries, the talent is an even playing field, and now, especially with yesterday’s lineup, that was an “L” as soon as the lineup card was posted.
This has always been the problem with the Nats. Rizzo fields a good team every year. We have the 6th highest payroll in the league. If we spent it on the pen, we are skimping somewhere else. We have been fortunate to have super talented squads pretty much every year since 2012. But somehow, this team can’t put it all together. I think it has to do with leadership, or lack thereof. Typically, that finger gets pointed at the manager, and in this case I tend to agree. I don’t think Dave is the right guy. But I don’t think firing him is going to light a fire under this laid-back crew. It’s just a culture in the clubhouse. I thought it was Werth. I thought it was Bryce. Now I don’t know what to think, but it’s so embedded in the franchise.
I’m losing faith fast for his group as far as 2019 is concerned.
Andrew Gentsch said...
I think the manager is a PROBLEM.
1) He leaves Hellickson in TOO long.
2) He spent April batting the pitcher @ 8.
3) He had Dozier batting 2nd, and Robbles last; a difference of @ 20+ plate appearences there.
WTF???????????????????????
I'd say 2-3 games difference there...
1) Who do you bring in to replace Hellickson? There are no good bullpen options.
2) Not only is batting pitcher 8th sabremetrically sound, but WE HAD A BETTER RECORD when the pitcher was batting 8th.
3) Dozier batted 2nd very few games. At least for the last seven games, Robles has batted second and Dozier has batted seventh. If you look up actual plate appearances by batting order and games played, you'll find the ACTUAL difference is less than eight plate appearances. And taking into account the batting averages of Dozier and Robles, you are looking at less than two hits.
I'd say you don't know what you are talking about. At all. #math
(I failed to mention in the previous comment that Robles (.308) and Dozier (.304) have the same OBP.)
(I also failed to mention that 23 question marks after "WTF" is unnecessary; one will suffice.)
Robles batting second: .211/.250/.316
Robles batting ninth: .283/.338/.550
Robles batting second: .211/.250/.316
Dozier batting second: .216/.293/.297
@ Anonymous, I am not a sabermatrician, and frankly I don't want to be. So I must admit I'm unlearned in the jargon of that part of the game, and even with Google's help I don't know the significance of what you're calling run scoring variance. I just watch real life baseball. And, yes, I frequently point out the difference in the statistic of runs per game average and the reality of the number of runs scored in a typical game. There's a darn good reason for it, especially vis a vis our beloved Washington Nationals.
Judging a team's offensive production by that one statistic is simplistic at best, and downright deceitful at worst. Yet, it's the yardstick that gets trotted out every time someone suggests the offensive production of the team is wanting. I wish I had a nickel for every time my laments through the years about the lack of run scoring has been met with the retort that "The Nats are scoring over 4 runs a game," when they most certainly are not. AVERAGING four runs a game is just not the same as SCORING four runs a game.
Scenario: in a ten game stretch, Team A scores two runs every game except for game 7 when they score 12, and their opponents--Teams B, C, and D--each score three runs every game except for game 7 when Team D scores 2. Team A will have a RPG average of exactly 3.0; their opponents will have an RPG average of 2.9 for those ten games. But instead of going 10-0 or even 5-5, Team A will have gone 1-9. Anybody that's been a Nationals fan for very long has seen this scenario play itself out in various forms and combinations dozens of times.
Obviously you want your team's RPG average to be as high as it can get. But you simply cannot conclude from a good RPG average that a team is scoring effectively. Yet, people do it all the time.
Hey Ric,
Thanks for your response. You made some good points.
1) Everyone knows Hellickson is batting practice after twice around the order so I think taking him out after then is the right way to go. I'd suggest following him with Ross.
2) As I know it (and I am not one of those guys who knows everything) the 2nd lead-off batting 9th works in the AL. I don't see how it works in the NL. Could you share your sabermetric data?
3) Thanks for doing the research to make your points. I wish I had time to do things like that. That being said, I still don't think it was a good idea to have the batting order Davey used at the beginning of the year. Davey seems to agree with me at this point, since he has stopped doing it.
Again, THANKS for your response!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Sammy Kent. Saying the offense is more of a problem than the bullpen is just nonsense. The bullpen is the worst pen in baseball. The offense before it was decimated by injuries was acceptable. Now you literally have your 2-5 hitters all on the IL, so yes...look for the offense to be terrible for the near future. But the bullpen has been historically terrible with everybody healthy.
Post a Comment