If you were hoping Gore would take a step forward, yesterday's game was a dream come true. With all the caveats (First real game for everyone, only one game, afternoon game where it's notoriously harder to hit) Gore looked amazing. He was completely in control letting only one Phillie reach the basepaths and striking out 13 in only 6 innings. A masterful performance.
Also if you understand the importance of Keibert Ruiz being good (giving he's sort of set to be the starting C for at least a couple more years) seeing him get around on a pitch and drive it over fence - along with having another hit made you smile, too. Ruiz doesn't have to be good in any certain way. Low average power hitter instead of high-average line-driver? That's fine. He just has to be above average. Good start.
The Nats also didn't give up. Down late they mounted a comeback to send the game to extras.
Of course the Nats didn't win the game there and there were a couple of "well as long as this isn't that bad" and "no way this could be as bad as last year" that were the reason why prompting deserved worry just one game in.
Gore probably had another inning in him but at 93 pitches on Opening Day, these days most managers would opt to go to the pen. For all of this teams "old school" stylings this team doesn't stray from the script here. The pen was brought in and it looked TERRIBLE. Both Poche and Sims, guys that weren't good and where you looked at Spring and said "oh well they are going to be cut" made the team and immediately performed poorly, blowing the game in the 7th and the 10th respectively. This is a big worry for a team who's pitching staff is most likely going to be 4ish guys keeping the game respectable for 6 innings. They need the last 3 innings to also be respectable.
Also although not directly responsible for the loss, Paul DeJong looked every bit the guy that would be let go by the White Sox because he's not good anymore. Paul has always been a pretty high strikeout guy and when he gets past that point where he can connect with enough pitches hard to matter he's going to be unplayable. Yesterday suggested he might be there. Third base was a huge hole for the Nats last year, if it's a huge hole again well then there goes some of the expected gains at the plate.
Which Nats do you want to focus on - the promise or the horror? Opening Day gave you both.
20 comments:
For me it’s easy, stick with the positives. The negatives are very short term and realistically could be cut in a month and have no impact on the future. Nobody was expecting taking flyers on these bullpen arms in Paul DeJong to be part of the next championship caliber nationals team. But McKenzie Gore taking the step to potentially a true number one starter and keyboard Ruiz just being a solid catcher? Those have major impacts on the future of the organization.
I suppose, but it's also not even April yet.
It's boring, but the only story really possible after one game is "well, that's baseball".
Hard to see the releivers as a short term problem when the whole bullpen needs to be replaced.
Well, the bullpen needing to be replaced (pretty much literally, as only a handful of them are even under contract for next year) makes it a short-term problem because it has to be addressed in the short term and next year's bunch will be completely different. If Finnegan, Law, Lopez, and Ferrer can be functional relief pitchers, then Sims and Poche can sink to the depths of the low-leverage pool. I'm more worried about the fact that Rizzo has shown that year after year he can't build a functional bullpen. Even when the team was good, the bullpen has mostly been 1-3 more or less trustworthy players and a whole lot of nothing. (Remember 2017, for example, when Matt Albers--not even a member of the intended bullpen on Opening Day--was the only trustworthy bullpen member until the deadline trades? Or 2019, when Hudson and Doolittle were the only pitchers--justifiably--that Martinez would trust in a game not already lost once the playoffs hit?)
I was referring to the comment "short term and realistically could be cut within a month ..." Not sure how you can cut the whole bullpen. I see this as an immediate problem, very difficult to solve. If the team were actually competing mid season, a trade ike the ones you referred to would be necessary. Maybe Paplebon would come out of retirement for us.
at the time Papelbon cost us Pivetta; might be nice to have him now.
It might be nice to have Pivetta now. Of course he'd have been a free agent to sign by now so the trade is irrelevant at this point. And I'll note that Pivetta put up a princely 0.6 WAR for the Phillies over four seasons. He's just firmly in the category of former Nats whom we only notice when they are good (so we can bash the org) and pretty much ignore when they aren't.
This gets me to wondering - just how hard can it be to assemble a good bullpen? If you convert a starter to relief, can you not convert him back? How many young pitchers do the Nats have who might be useful relievers?
In other questions, must every reliever be used one inning at a time? I'm sure there are lots of failed starters who could go once through a lineup smoothly -- take the 4th and 5th starters in Rochester and have them face every MLB opponent once per series. That's a good chunk of innings, and if those guys have any future as starters, they should be able to at least not get pummelled.
I guess we should assume one of our players would never be extended
Assembling a good bullpen is really easy from the sofa or the keyboard. It’s much harder to do IRL.
I know but what I’m saying is that relievers are extremely transient. There are very few relievers good now that will be good in a handful of years. Many are solid for a year or 2 then fade away. Not to mention relievers are much cheaper and more available as opposed to aces (gore potential) or solid, roughly league average catchers (Ruiz potential).
@Sherrif and John C: I know it's harder than it looks - it has to be given that GMs aren't stupid and yet fail so often. But I just wonder if maybe they're missing something. Decades ago, it was normal for a AAA starter to start his MLB career in the bullpen. (Then again, decades ago, it was normal to bunt a lot.) BUT: Here's my logic - given the "transaction cost" of getting loose, getting into the game, not to mention the cost of warming up without getting in, you're limiting the number of innings your "workhorse" relievers can pitch in a year. Your top guys, the fireman/closer types, they only get used in the highest-leverage spots, fine. But in a lot of cases, a solid 6th inning means the 9th isn't even a save situation.
Also, by working guys in one-inning shifts, they run a solid chance of facing the same hitter multiple times in a 3-game set. That's the best way to give up big hits.
So, injuries aside, the Nats had a couple of five-and-dive starters. What if you took 2 of them and just decided they'd get a once-through-the-order appearance every 3 days? They'd get regular work, a max of 54 appearances, but probably upwards of 100 innings. Plus given the balanced schedules, probably almost never face the same hitter more than once all season. Those 2 guys would take a lot of load off the other "just a guy" parts of the bullpen, meaning your worst relievers do the least amount of damage, and would probably carry the game into the 8th or 9th, where you can decide if you need to save a win or rest the staff and try again tomorrow.
Finally, it's a way to manage workloads. We know that a guy like Cavalli would be on an innings limit if he ever comes back anyway, and if you have a 23-year-old starter who's promising, this lets him really help the big club without overworking him.
Six innings of masterful and entertaining pitching by Gore. Max on a good day. I'll take that ace any day.
Bullpen? Sure, you get what you pay for. But a fixable problem.
I’m not sure I understand Davy’s strategy today of going first to the same two relievers that blew the game the other day. Didn’t want to at least try someone else? Anyone else? Someone from the stands?
Maybe he’s trying to make a point to Rizzo that he gave him an awful bullpen?
While I think it can be difficult to create a good bullpen, I think a lot of it is how much you prioritize it. Rizzo has historically prioritized starting pitching over relievers. If you have a reliable 7th, 8th and 9th inning guy, with shaky guys filling out the rest, this probably works out. But when you have trash, this is what you get. I hope Davey continues to run out that same dreadful guys until Rizzo is forced to make a change.
Getting someone who struggled back on the field ASAP after a bad showing to (a) demonstrate faith in the player; and (b) let them get the bad outing behind them is a pretty standard managing technique.
No talk about Crews going 0-11 with 9 strikeouts to start the season? Including a crucial dropped fly ball in corner that blew the game open.
Well it worked an absolute treat.
Ah, the joys and perils of hot takes based on a single game.
After one game: "Paul DeJong looked every bit the guy that would be let go by the White Sox because he's not good anymore. Paul has always been a pretty high strikeout guy and when he gets past that point where he can connect with enough pitches hard to matter he's going to be unplayable. Yesterday suggested he might be there. Third base was a huge hole for the Nats last year, if it's a huge hole again well then there goes some of the expected gains at the plate. "
After three games, that same guy is playing very good defense and OPSing .956 (including two doubles).
There is also Crews' bad start after three games, but while he looks lost so did a guy named Willie Mays once (0-12, 1-26 and not looking so good either). So let's see how that plays out.
I think the worry is more merited on the bullpen because Poche and Sims not only looked terrible twice, they didn't look so good in Spring Training *and* have a meh to bad track record. So as Rizzo likes to put it, even if they "play to the back of their baseball cards" they still won't be very good.
Yeah, I'm genuinely worried about the 'pen. I'm somewhat worried about the starters (especially without Herz available for the entire season, so right off the bat we're out #6) b/c Soroka was lousy as a starter last year and generally hurt and bad recently, and Williams was great last year but worse than Corbin the year before last so I don't know what we'll get from him, but that's a general anxiety and not based on in-game performances. Gore, Irvin, and Parker I at least expect to be competent, and they were better than competent in their first starts. The offense...honestly, check back in a month. At least Bell and DeJong are the only "veteran retreads" in the bunch, and they're at least not likely to be Gallo/Rosario/Senzel levels of bad even if they don't break out with actual success, so there's a lot more hope and upside with this group.
Post a Comment