The pitching - well it's not very good but we can't just go ahead and make assumptions that it'll stay that way. Maybe it will get better! (or worse!)
About a month ago I looked at the starters and tried to figure out who was "real" there. I said Irvin could be a poor innings eater and Litell really was bad. Well May has not been kind to Irvin. He might have broke. On the other hand Litell looked much better. I said I didn't know about Miles and I still don't. Mikolas has been a weird mixed bag, shutting down ATL for 5 then two starts later getting pounded by MIA. I do think we still don't know what this guy is from capable mid-rotation guy to coaching high school baseball. I said Foster Griffin wasn't an ace (he's not) and Cavalli should be better (he has been)
I think it means the starting pitching can maintain it's current "not very good but maybe good enough not to drag the team down" trajectory. Cavalli is an actual not back of the rotation major league starter. Four the rest of the four, I'd say something decent is there each time around from Litell, Griffin, Mikolas, and the last spot while also two not so decent things and a bad thing. That's a below average rotation but one that 2 out of every 5 days is good enough and you might get lucky another 2 with this offense.
The relief pitching hasn't been good either and there's a decent argument it should get worse with Schultz, Lovelady, and Beeter seeing important innings and all should get worse based on stats. To me though if Varland, Lord, and Ribalta are real that's enough to hold down your wins.
Again we're not looking for the pitching staff to win, we're looking for them to hold place. They are currently one of the worst staffs in baseball but not the complete drag the Cubs or Giants rotations are. I think they can hold that. The relief staff is decidedly belwo average but not game losing... I think they might be a little worse that that actually. Just more guys who are doing better than you'd expect. Maybe you can dial that in. It's hard to say because if one position is still in the "it's early" stage - it's relief pitching. A couple bad outings for a guy who throws 17 innings can really screw things up. So while I THINK they might be worse than that, it's what I'm least confident about.
Where does this leave the Nats as a team?
I think it's a team who's bats and staff are both a little overperforming. They've basically earned their .500 record 62 games in but I'd be surprised if they matched it in the final 100. But also 40-60 would be a surprise. 45-55 makes more sense to me which puts this at a 76 win team. Is that good enough?
I think cooling down right now might be best because people were getting excited in a "playoffs maybe possibly, if I squint my eyes?" way and that was an overreach. That isn't this team. I think what will get people properly excited is if the season ends with kids like King and Morales up and looking good and a sensible pitching plan for 2027 that isn't "find what scraps you can put behind Cavalli"
1 comment:
Realistically, I'm looking at this team like the 2005 nats. Being a legitimate part of the playoff discussion well into August will be great. Then we'll settle down and start looking at the year in perspective.
You're right - the pitching has gone from a complete disaster to "not very likely to lose the game."
I hope they can find a way to hang on to Griffin. I think the "long relief rotation" is a great idea; I've been banging the drum about that for years. Take 3 guys who aren't good starters but are too good to just pitch the 7th every few days, and give them long relief stints. Lord, Parker and Alvarez are on pace to get 100 innings each, which is a great way to deploy your arms.
I'd feel a lot better if they got 2 more guys who could go 6 innings and 2-3 runs every 5 days. They score a ton of runs, so "game manager" is all I really want out of the pitching staff at this point.
Post a Comment