It's pretty safe to say the Nats won't make the playoffs. The Nats are clearly the 4th best team in their own tough division leaving one WC spot for them to contest. To do that they'd likely have to get something in the neighborhood of 16 games better, a huge jump when you're not starting at 50 wins. Even when you make a concerted effort to improve by leaps and bounds that's too big an ask and the Nats didn't make a concerted effort to improve that much.
But the Nats are better, or at least should be slightly. Offensively for sure. First base, with the addition of Nathaniel Lowe, likely becomes very solid. Paul DeJong a 3B isn't going to wow anyone anymore but could hardly be worse than the Lipscomb/Senzel/Vargas/Tena manning. There are real possibilities of breakouts from Wood and/or Crews and Abrams and Garcia both can also improve. Only Bell replacing the 2/3rds a year of Winker stands to be worse.
Starting pitching is a bit of a mystery with a lot hinging on the development of Gore and the reliability of Williams (both health and results). The other guys are here to be average. There's a lot of ways this can swing as there doesn't seem to be anything reliable here outside of Gore should not be bad. But letting it all even out and land on an average, if unexciting, rotation seems the simplest answer.
Relief pitching probably does take a step back. Neither Poche or the likely roster maker Sims match up to Law and Floro in expectations (and that's not a high bar) and the loss of Harvey also hurts. But unless the pen totally implodes that's unlikely to matter more than the improvement at the plate.
On the basepaths the Nats were very aggressive and that really helped support the team's offense. The team is still young and none of the losses and additions suggest a change in approach so we'll assume the same stategy and results.
Fancy stats wise the Nats were basically the team they showed as, 71-91. If they are slightly better I can see them getting to 74-75 wins. If that isn't because of a fast start that means not only do the Nats not make the playoffs, but they aren't ever really in the picture. That's what most of the pundits are thinking. I would say that's fair.
This is a team that could have been built to be over .500 and have a shot to get into the playoffs if things broke their way. It wasn't. The Nats continued their slow improvement looking toward the kids for any real push forward. With a handful of top prospects that could happen, but I'm going with the safe bet and just expect a few games better in 2025 and the set-up for a make or break off-season between the ownership and the fans.
74-88
12 comments:
I'm pretty much in that same ballpark. Going by team stats by position on fangraphs:
1B: 0.2 fWAR last year -> let's say 2.5 so +2.2
2B: 2.8 -> 3 (small step forward for Garcia) +0.2
SS: 2.3 -> 2.5 (small step for Abrams) +0.2
3B: -0.4 -> 0.5 (barely replacement for DeJong+) +1.1
LF: 2.1 -> 3 (small improvement + full season of wood) +0.9
CF: 2.3 -> 2 (i suspect a little regression from Young) -0.3
RF: 2.5 -> 2.5 (yeah we get Crews, but he's still a rookie so not expecting lights out right away) +0
So for batting, that nets out to +4.3 wins
On the pitching side, we had 17.4 WAR last year. With the RPs looking like a step down and the SPs being about the same, I'd say they look at about 15 wins, so a drop of ~2.
Net, then, gives 2 more wins over last year, so 73 wins. Could go as high as 75 or as low as 70 just given luck.
But, if guys really step up on offense (say Wood and Crews are both 6+) and they get similar results to last year on pitching (they were 6th overall in WAR, there's not that much higher to climb), the team could be fighting for... .500.
Doesn't make me super jazzed about this year, but it's something. I was pretty high on Herz so it sucks to see is spring troubles were likely structural
I'll guess 78-84.
Similar method to CP, but some slightly different numbers, mostly around the addition by subtraction via Meneses, Rosario and the rest.
C: -0.1 -> 1.5 (Ruiz just needs to be mediocre and not awful at both defense and offense. He can do it. I believe in him.)
1B: 0.2 -> 3 (Lowe's worst recent year was 2.7, plus the retained 1B bench pieces gave positive WAR last year.)
2B: 2.8 -> 3 (Garcia was actually worth 3.0 fWAR last year, Vargas was below replacement. I'm expecting similar from Luis and a slight improvement from the bench.)
SS: 2.3 -> 2.5 (Fair enough median estimate, but the error bars here are huge.)
3B: -0.4 -> 1 (I have DeJong a bit better than CP)
LF: 2.1 -> 3 (Wood could do much better than this, but only if he fixes his defense, and I'm unfortunately a bit skeptical about that at this point)
CF: 2.3 -> 2.5 (Young was actually worth 2.7 last year. Rosario brought it down.)
RF: 2.5 -> 2.5 (Yeah, fair enough here too)
DH: -2.3 -> 0 (Bell et al just being replacement level is one of our biggest bumps up)
SP: 13.1 -> 12 (Corbin was weirdly worth +1.7 fWAR last year, and we're losing Herz's contribution as well. Parker's median outcome doesn't quite match the 2.4 fWAR he produced either. I'm guessing a net of ~1 win lost.)
RP: 4.3 -> 3 (3 fWAR would put us a bit below average, and that feels right to me.
That all nets out to +7.4. I think trading away some of the upside of our vets is more likely than surprisingly effective call ups from House etc (and certainly more likely than us buying at the deadline ourselves), so I'm rounding that down to +7, so 78 wins.
Whoa. 78 wins? That's a lot! While the starter war might add up (to 72 wins), team depth is shallow. After a few substitutions, they'll win 70.
I’m going with 75 but can see why some would go closer to .500, but then again can see why some could be closer to last year’s total
While I really want to predict 80 wins, and feel optimistic about Woods, Crews, etc., I think the bullpen is going to be a consistent problem all season and they end up 70-92.
I'll go for 76 wins, based on vibes alone. But baseball being baseball, a 76-win team on paper can often win 83 games IRL, and an 87 paper-win team might only win 80. (And the Phillies are old: good but brittle.) So I wouldn't rule out a third-place finish for the Nationals, although it is pretty unlikely.
Upon reflection, this is too too optimistic on the starters. It's assuming Soroka is at least solid and either no more significant injuries or equivalent performance from the replacements. Both of those assumptions are clearly more optimistic than median.
I'm dropping 2 wins to make my final answer 76-86.
Hedging my bets here. If the starting pitching holds together, and the bullpen is cromulent, then 80-82. If not, then 72-90. Most likely scenario: 74-88.
Still looking forward to the season though - it’s always fun to see young players develop, and the greater variance they bring can introduce a lot more uncertainty, in a good way.
Gotta say I’m a bit surprised by the acceptance/complacency of a a lot of people. I’m not expecting a ton, but it has been long enough for that expecting at least a few more wins. Should be the norm even without a bunch of flashy off-season acquisitions. There’s been more than enough time for young bucks to get up to the bigs and contribute
I'm feeling pretty pessimistic -- let's say high 60s wins? I'm guessing the pen will be a tire fire, Bell is done, very skeptical of DeJong, and with Herz already down they're pretty close to ending up with pitchers getting MLB innings who shouldn't be (not saying that's where they are now, just if a couple of guys get injured or underperform there's not a great AAA plan anymore). Not feeling optimistic about Ruiz. And I guess I'm feeling there are as many young guys who could step backwards as forwards. Yeah, Wood and Crews will probably be better, but Abrams and Garcia and Young could all get worse. Hope I'm wrong!
Matt checking in on the DOOM side.
Me, I haven’t the foggiest idea of where to put this team other than somewhere between “bad” (~60 wins) and “solid” (~80). Looking forward to the season either way. I’ll be at the game today.
70. Ambiciously, 75
Post a Comment