I'm not talking about what I want from the Nats. I'm talking about a plan to be ok. A plan the Nats are following. If you can be mediocre, you can be entertaining. Maybe not directly off a run of great play, but definitely off a run of bad play, which is where the Nats are.
The Nats last year were 12th in runs scored in the NL and 14th in runs allowed. This year they are 13th in runs scored (!) and 8th in runs allowed. The difference is noticeble but doesn't seem to explain a rise from a lucky 70 win team to one that is knocking at the door of 80. Surely average + below average doesn't equal average?
But it's rank getting confused with actual talent level.
Last year the Nats ended the season about a third of a run scored (.36) from average. They were below average but were worst or second worst in a crowded field of mediocre as close to 8th as to 14th. That's not actually a huge problem. Pitching though the Nats ended the season over half a run (.56) worse than average, and were further from 10th than 10th was from 3rd. They were significantly worse than everyone.
This year the batting is only one rank lower but closer to average (.31). Really though they are a little worse off being in a group 11-14 a drop from the more average teams are. In comparison to the teams they play they feel and are a step worse offensively. But pitching wise they are 8th and .10 BETTER than average. They kind of clump in with the Pirates as right around average not quite good enough to be good like the Reds or Padres have been, but not bad enough to be a problem like the Cubs and Cardinals.
The drop in runs scored does signify a slightly worse situation, a little more likely to have issues outscoring opponents based on this distribution, but just a little. The pitching s a significantly better situation, going from outright losing games because of the pitching to having the pitching consistently keep them in games.
What that means is that while the offense struggles in a general sense there are a lot of teams that they have a chance against. Only teams with good pitching and not bad hitting would have a clear advantage. Phillies and Dodgers of course, the Brewers. The Reds and the Padres. And that's it. The Nats won't finish 6th best in the National League but if the pitching holds there is no reason they couldn't expect to win a series against a team that good. And yes, it is in part because the NL is crap this year with only 5 teams like this but the AL is only going to have like 7-8 teams that fit this bill. That's your average total in a year.
That's really all it takes to be competitive. Don't be terrible. Don't have a gaping problem with your team that puts you in a hole game in and game out. The Nats haven't been able to do that having terrible pitching compared to the league average since the pandemic year. Now they have it.
6 comments:
It's interesting, right? It feels better than the objective reality of a mediocre team with a 2% chance at a wild card spot. You're right that part of that is that we were so bad the last few years, and part of that is that we're hitting the high end of our preseason expectations, but I also think it is mattering how we're winning and losing games.
It's very frustrating when the bullpen blows it or when we can't get any offense going, but that frustration comes from the loss feeling a little fluky and even undeserved. When the starting pitching fails, it's not frustrating, it's depressing. That's not really happening to us very much - our starters have been really solid, a bit better than the league average overall - and certainly when you add in our low expectations for wins this season in the first place, there have been way more good vibes than bad.
And I think that even understates it somewhat. Corbin's results this season don't matter (outside that 2% I mentioned above) and, really, William's don't matter much either. If you drop both of them, you see that Corbin is hurting the average way more than Williams is helping and the new rotation-wide ERA and FIP drops by about 25 points. That would be like the 8th or 9th best rotation in baseball. Not enough to carry a team to a WS, but not a weakness either, even among contenders.
If you just look at Gore + Irvin + Parker, it gets even better - 3.25 ERA and 3.33 FIP. I know it's not fair to compare that to other teams or the league average since those include all the spot starts etc, but it's still incredibly encouraging. That's 60% of a winning rotation through 2027.
No guarantees but "expected playoff appearances before 2030" has to have gone up by at least 1 maybe 2 over the course of the season. No wonder we're all feeling cheerful.
Which leads to an interesting question. Who gets the credit?
The pitchers, the pitching coach or the manager? Or maybe it is just dumb baseball luck?
You know a lucky bounce of the ball here and a bloop single there. Hopefully, Rizzo can figure it out because he has some relievers who can be a core of a playoff team and not just fodder for some double A lottery picks.
Credit is a good question. I keep looking at what separates the Nats from the Mets. Money and stars obviously, but inverse to expectations.
Another thing that's important (and laudable) is that to be a .500 team, you have two options: 1 is to have a superstar and a bunch of stiffs, and the other is to have more-or-less average guys up and down the roster.
If you look at the Nats' roster this year, they're much closer to the latter than the former, and have survived the hard part of their schedule at 4 games under .500.
How so? The non-Corbin rotation is pretty reliable for 6 innings and 2ish runs, the bullpen's really strong when the good guys are available.
1B is bad and C is bad, OK. 2B solid. SS good. RF is good. LF is fine. CF is plus-plus glove and isn't an automatic K, so that's good enough. 3B is okay.
Unlike Redskins/Commanders fans, who think that 5-11 for decades means they're just a QB away from the super bowl, this team really is a couple stars from being legitimate contenders.
And, if you look at the positions they need, they're pretty easy to fill. They need a better 3b (Brady House might do), they need a better DH (just adding any hitter anywhere will solve that problem) and they need a better 1B. (essentially see above.) James Wood will solve one of those problems.
The commentariat will tell you that you need "a true ace", but the Nats' true ace in 2019 was a non-factor in the playoffs. What you need is a STAFF of good pitching. And they kinda have that right now. What they need is for any two of Gray/Williams/Cavalli to join the rotation and Corbin's out of the way, and they really could use another setup guy so they don't overuse Harvey & Finnegan. That's a pretty easy shopping list.
The next question(s) to address are what to do for 2025 and onward. No Corbin. I'd love to retain Williams or clone him somehow - getting short-but-great starts for $7M is a bargain, and easily pays for a middle reliever to bridge the gap between his short start and the setup/closer. They'll need the usual starter depth, those are February signings. What they really need are another setup guy, a market-rate good bat, and a great hitter. It so happens there's a guy in NY who's in his walk year and is a great hitter, just as the Nats open up a ton of cap space.
@KR - The 2019 team had two true aces. One won the WS MVP and the other threw 30 postseason innings of 2.40 ERA. Presumably you're saying the latter was the non-factor, but I think you're only making that mistake because you're comparing it to Stras's historic dominance.
Also, yes, obviously Williams pitching like he has been this season is a steal for $7M, but he's going to demand more money and more years if he returns healthy and effective. Given that his results are clearly at least somewhat luck-driven, I don't see why he'd be a good bet over our internal pipeline. I don't mind his 20 batter limit, but I absolutely don't want to bet $35M/3 on his HR/9 staying 0.32.
You're technically right that you don't need an ace to contend. Teams do it. But the path is much much easier with one or hopefully two, if Gore can also take the last step.
(That said, if you're just saying that you'd sign Soto over Burnes all else equal, I think I agree, despite rejecting the premise that they can only afford one. I just love watching Soto.)
I agree with a lot of this, though I think they’ll need a *little* more FA help, but the rebuild plan has mostly worked beautifully (you could even throw in Soto underperforming for the Padres but he’s great in New York).
But the Nats’ “true ace” didn’t show up in the 2019 playoffs?!? Scherzer had a 2.40 ERA across six appearances and Stras had the best pitching postseason in history!
Post a Comment