One thing before we get into off-season position discussions. I've alluded to this a few times but the Nats weren't as good as their record suggests they were.
I would think we all know by now about the "Pythagorean" record, but maybe some don't so a quick refresher that your W/L tend to scale along with the number of runs you score and runs you allow. It does so in a fairly regular way and has over the years. Given that when your actual record skews far off from your Pythagorean one, you can fairly safely attribute it to luck. Attempts to suggest it was something else, don't seem to hold going forward or looking back*, nor do they necessarily match up with the best and worst teams in the league.
Luck happens. We all know it does. Part of having a good year is actually minimizing that luck, but really you just hope it breaks for you. You don't get the one or two injuries you can't afford. You sneak out a couple more close wins than you probably should. Anyway the Nats won 71 games last year. Their Pythagorean record says they should have won around 67. That's probably low enough to suggest the Nats were a little lucky.
But some stats guys have even gone beyond that trying to adjust also for strength of schedule and the actual talent on the teams you faced when you faced them. These "adjusted standings" try to get a more accurate picture of the team as it stands. The same ones I noted last year had the Nats as more of a 61 win team that had misfortune. This year they were more of a 63 win team.
Now of course what does this matter? It certainly doesn't matter at all for this year. No one is going to "correct" the win totals of teams. They went out there, won those games and that's done with. What it does though, is give you a reasonable suggestion of where you should start your analysis for next years Nats team. When it comes down to it they did not have the talent of a "in a vacuum" 71 win team. It was more like 67 or 63. If you said 65 that would probably be fair. It's from that point the Nats are trying to improve.
That makes the jump to competitive that much harder, but you want to be realistic. The Nats don't need to add ~10 games to get in the conversation, they need to add ~16. That's another superstar or two more good players.
I think the Nats know this, if not directly in this manner. They know they aren't potentially a competitive team in 2024 without everything going their way. This is why the off-season FA talk is muted. It's not going to take 2 smart signings to make things work, it'll take 4 and they aren't ready to do that. When instead they can maybe wait another year and have developing players cover a couple of those spots. My response is fine. Think this. But make two signings anyway. Set up needing less to make it work going into 2024. Guarantee a step forward even if the minors don't provide help. Commit to a run at the playoffs, if only a flawed one for a couple years. Prove you aren't going to pack it all back in, slow walk the guys in the minors and move your sights to 2027.
The Nats still need a lot of work, more than last season would have you believe. But they are losing time to do that work. It's time to start with the understanding it may very well likely take even more next off-season.
*in other words, "espirit d' corps" if it exists for some reason only seems to last season.
9 comments:
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of largely agreeing with the soulless automaton. We should both immediately reconsider our views.
I agree in that I don't think that the Nats are in a position to expect to compete for a playoff spot in 2024 as the team is currently constituted. But I also think that it's important to lean a little bit into firming up the foundation. No, they're not going to sign Ohtani, Sonny Gray, or Yamamoto. I'd love it if they made a serious run at Jordan Montgomery, but he may have pitched himself out of the Nats' price range. Giolito and Snell are possibilities if the risk they come with is factored into the contract. Shota Imanaga is a possibility. Sign one of those guys and a bounce back candidate like Montas or Mahle.
The 2024 goal is respectability, not playoffs. The team isn't quite respectable as presently constituted, even allowing for the probable improvement of a young roster. You don't need a pitching ace to be respectable, but you need a good solid #2 pitcher: maybe two of them if reasonably priced. That, plus a few hopeful Candelarios on the corners, is what we need for 2024.
Anon - what would "respectable" be? I ask because if there's a win total to aim for one of the things about being a 65 win team is you could get like 8 games better (a nice jump and tracking for at least playoff talk in 2025) and with some bad luck win only 4 more games. Except this year you got really lucky and won 71 games so you'd be much better... and win fewer games.
Respectable = 72 to 75 wins, with the young players showing some improvement and new players showing promise in the major leagues. Plus a #2 free agent pitcher.
I'm pretty close to PotomacFan on my definition. I would view a respectable team as one that wouldn't shock anybody if it went .500, but is likely to fall a few games short. Another way of putting is that a respectable team often wins home series against good teams.
Maybe a Pythagorean W-L of about 74-76 games? It's a reasonable hope, if the Nats do well on the market (#2 pitcher and a Candelario-type pillow contract at the corners) and the youngsters do no worse than expected.
Respectability would be something like the Tigers did this year (in year ... 6? of their latest rebuild). Torkelson, Greene, and Carpenter taking steps into "potential star" territory, some young arms showing more flashes like Manning, Skubal, Olson, mid-70s win total.
Just don't sign a Javy Baez and trade a potential all-star (Paredes) for a guy who may never play again (Meadows) and we should be good.
I agree with PotomacFan and Anonymous about what "respectable" would mean. Solid improvement from 2023. Something like this year's Marlins--not the part where they actually made the playoffs, but the part where you look at the team and say, "yeah, if the breaks all fell right, I could see them lucking into a WC slot."
Mostly, though, my hopes for the offseason is that the FO will actually try to do things that will improve the team towards the playoff push. Not just the Candelario type who, even if they work out (and he did!) would be expected to be there to the All-Star break, but moves for players like Werth or Gio who are both actual good players now and who are expected to be actual good players when/if the young guys join them. Not necessarily stars, but a couple of guys who could be expected to put up something in the 3 WAR range of performance. Established, above-average major league baseball players.
Would definitely like to see some FA this offseason. Maybe go after a Chapman or a Bader if you go the bat route, and then maybe a Gray/Montgomery type on the SP front. Start to set the team up for the window opening in 2025 if all goes according to plan.
At the same time, though, I can see just biding time again and seeing which prospects develop before committing to buying players. Maybe Cavalli and Gore prove to both be 1A/1B aces, then instead of grabbing Montgomery, you grab yourself a Pivetta type to eat innings as a #4. Or say the Nats hit on each of Woods/Hassell/Crews, then you only need an able-bodied Drury or something to fill out the lineup.
The risk with waiting, though, is you could still strikeout. Look at the Giants last offseason as a perfect example of a team looking to spend and just not able to get anyone to sign on the dotted line
The other thing is, even if, say, Gore and Cavalli somehow both turn into #1 starters, they're still getting paid the same as if they were #3 starters, so I'd rather have another high-tier SP in Montgomery than an innings-eater. You can never have too much starting pitching.
Though I wouldn't sign a FA outfielder. Between Thomas and Garrett plus the three high-tier prospects, OF is the area where the Nats are actually pretty well-equipped, whereas 1B/2B/3B are kind of a mess. Hoskins, Bell, Polanco (if the Twins don't pick up his option), Chapman, Candelario all are worth looking at.
Post a Comment