The question now is - do they do something about it?
The Nats pen has been known to be bad. They currently have the second worst ERA in the majors at 5.05 and yes it was a little better before this series but it was still well ensconced in the bottom group of teams, ahead of the Twins. They've giving up the third most walks (172) and by FAR the most home runs (61). To be fair they've been asked to pitch way more than any other team. Their 392 innings is 10% more than the 3rd place Mets. That doesn't sound like much but trust me it is.
So it IS connected to the starting pitching. In order to save the arms of a perfectly average starting pitching staff they are throwing fewer innings. Which then go to a bad relief staff.
So one correction is right there in front of the Nats. Time to take the training wheels off and let the starters go 6+ innings if they can. But that still doesn't solve the problem that by the fancy stats they Nats have one good reliever (Alvarez) and two ok ones (Lord, Ribalta). Beyond that Beeter and Schultz are currently usable and the rest are trash. And the depth is worse. There is no real help expected to come from the minors.
It's unlikely the starters can be as good pitching longer but it's also known that the relievers aren't good pitching as much as they have. The Nats have let it go because they've won enough early to just accept it, but if they want to really win they need to fix the problem
Which then begs the question : do they really want to win in 2025?
My guess is no so while some relievers might be available out there, I don't think we'll see them here. These are your 2026 Nats. These are the results they will get. Buckle up.
11 comments:
Yeah, I agree there's a good chance that Toboni sees a silver lining in all this as far as it supports his (I believe, pre-existing) commitment to be sellers this season.
I just hope that he and the Lerners are also regretting his decision to cut payroll as low as they did. It really wouldn't have taken much for this team to be right in the thick of it come September.
That really is the infuriating part. You could have spent just a little bit of money and gotten a couple guys like Tyler Rogers or Sean Newcomb or Luke Weaver. Imagine the difference that could've had on this team. I get the offense is most definitely performing better than the FO could have expected, but come on did they really have to just sign castaways from other teams?
I'm not sure that the relief staff is worked as hard as it seems to be. The Rochester Express is mighty busy these days, constantly bringing fresh meat to the slaughter--to scramble a metaphor.
I wish they would have added payroll and invested more in some quality pitching, because it would have made a difference and put them in position for October baseball.
…But—and I can’t believe I’m saying this—I don’t fault the the FO for doing what they did. Did anyone truly believe that this Nats team would be the #1 offense in the league? Hopefully it entices some frontline starter to sign here in the offseason. Similar logic to 2010-2011 where we had some great SPs and young position player talent in the pipeline. Just needed that middle of the order, high-profile FA hitter to make us a balanced threat.
But that's a false choice!
If the team was running a $140M payroll, and I was here saying it should have been $190M - then fair enough.
It is true that we weren't supposed to be this good and I agree it would be unfair to to retrofit those expectations onto the past offseason and demand a payroll in line with what the team had during its peak contention years.
But they aren't running a below average $140M payroll. They are running a rock bottom $96M payroll. And $45M of that isn't on the active roster! (Though I did read that TW is starting his rehab soon.)
They didn't have to be so cartoonish about it. And one big reason that teams shouldn't completely punt on seasons before they start is that baseball is very weird and we don't know anywhere near as much as we think we do about the upcoming season. So try a little just in case, and then if things go badly, which they usually will, the consolation prize is some extra prospects at the deadline. What's not to like?
Hard to argue with this. I would love some investigative journalism into why ownership doesn’t want to spend on this team. My gut tells me it’s because they want to sell, but haven’t gotten an offer they like. So we’re stuck.
But what’s frustrating is when you look at the teams near the bottom of the payroll rankings, a lot of those teams historically don’t spend a dime (PIT, MIA, As, etc.) Why the hell are we down there? Financial trouble? Someone please press ownership for an answer on this.
Cole Henry is doing OK in Rochester. I wonder why he hasn't been called up...
FWIW Steve "Ghost" Mears on Nats.Talk-DC Sports seems to have some contacts in the organization and has said on a couple of occasions that Toboni did not completely spend the budget that the Lerners gave him.
@John C - Assuming that it wasn't a trivial amount of money - say, $25M or more - that's very encouraging. I don't think I'm alone in believing that the most consequential unknown for this team is the willingness of the Lerners to spend. And this year's penury coming from Toboni is a way better datapoint than if it were a directive from ownership.
I very much doubt there will ever be reporting on this, but I'd love to know more details of Toboni's decision here. Was it that they just couldn't come to terms with a sewuence of targeted FAs or did Toboni decide at the outset that "no, this isn't the time to spend"? And, if he regrets it now, what might he change about his process to make better decisions in the future?
Speaking of bad...RHIII was DFA'd to make room on the 40-man and will be exposed to the waiver wire...that's how much the Nats now think of this former great prospect...Yeeesh
That's why they're called "prospects." Guaranteed no-fails are rare in any draft, and one of them is named Dylan Crews. (He might still not fail, but nobody is guaranteeing him any more.)
Post a Comment