Final Standings

I'm sick right now so this'll be brief but this is real improvement.  This is something to be excited about. In September you are playing other teams full of youngsters or teams vying for playoff spots.  To come out with a winning record means your young'uns are pretty good.  And the Nats ones are. 

It'll be an interesting offseason.  We've talked about how the Nats need one more arm in the rotation, but do they really?  If they just keep everyone they have now wouldn't that work?  There's nothing wrong with getting another solid arm, but I think it would. 

Then again the offense (12th in runs scored) is an issue.  They have no reliable superstar bats.  Zimm should be good - but he's starting to get injured more than you'd like.  Morse should be good - but it is a season that has "career year" written all over it.  Ramos and Espinosa could be better, could. Werth should be better, should.   There's a lot of question marks here and to bring in one more reliable bat (presumably in center) would help alot.  To do that they may need to deal one of the young arms they have now.  Then the team would have to go out and get another arm.  So it's not needing another arm, because they don't have the arms here now.  It's needing another arm because they won't have the arms there later.

Get excited for next season and in the meantime... Go Yankees

Over / Under challenge Update :

Mike Morse :  .300 average  - OVER (.303)

Danny Espinosa :  20 homers - OVER (21)

Pudge Rodrgiuez : 1 hit. - OVER (2)

Ian Desmond : 4.0 K / BB ratio - UNDER (3.97)

Jayson Werth : 100 OPS+  - UNDER (97)

Nats Offense : .700 OPS.  - UNDER (.691)

Strasburg : 18 innings pitched.  - OVER (24)

John Lannan :  9 wins.  (over or match bet) - OVER(10)

Milone + Peacock + Detwiler : 5 wins - OVER (7)

Tyler Clippard - 2.00 ERA - UNDER (1.83)

Drew Storen - 39 saves.  - OVER (42)

Fancy chart is at work so it'll have to wait till tomorrow to fins out who won. 

Third!

Third!

After losing the second game to the Astros on the 10th of September the dream was dead.  The Nats would have to go 15-3 (or better) in their last 18 to hit .500.   Welcome to slumberland, little Nemo.  The Nats are 13-3 in their last 16.  Two wins to go for over .500.

Everyone knows a good thing when they see it, even mediocre veteran outfielders. Rick Ankiel wants to stay.  So does Jonny Gomes.  Better get your act together Laynce!

And now Ozzie is coming to the NL East.   Next year looks like it's gonna be all sorts of fun.

.500 dreams vs the Nats' arch enemy

The Nats took 2 of three from the dying Braves with gems from Wang and Detwiler and a stinker of a game from that bum Strasburg.  Make way for the good pitchers Stephen! Like I said the other day - this is a good problem to have - too much good pitching. But don't get ahead of yourselves just yet.  If the Nats re-sign Wang, that doesn't mean Rizzo's gamble paid off.  It'll pay off if Wang can pitch decently for the majority of next year. Detwiler has had strong finishes before (1.90 ERA in 4 Sept starts in 2009).   The Nats could have one of the best staffs in the NL next year. Could. Be excited but don't just assume it'll be great.

The Nats now stand three games away from a .500+ record (remember it's only above .500 or below, they can't hit it exactly).  You'd think facing the Marlins would be good news since they aren't very good but the Nats have historically had issues with the Marlins. 45-77 all-time v Marlins,  19-49 post 2007. There will be more than one ghost exorcized if they can get a sweep.


Over / Under challenge Update (those in italics are set):

Mike Morse :  .300 average  - OVER (.304)

Danny Espinosa :  20 homers - OVER (21)


Pudge Rodrgiuez : 1 hit. - MATCHED

Ian Desmond : 4.0 K / BB ratio - OVER (4.18)

Jayson Werth : 100 OPS+  - UNDER (99)  pending update but I think this'll hold.

Nats Offense : .700 OPS.  - UNDER (.693)

Strasburg : 18 innings pitched.  - MATCHED

John Lannan :  9 wins.  (over or match bet) - OVER(10)

Milone + Peacock + Detwiler : 5 wins - OVER (7)

Tyler Clippard - 2.00 ERA - UNDER (1.85)

Drew Storen - 39 saves.  - OVER (42)


Unless I  screwed something up the leader in the clubhouse is calindc with 8 out of 11 correct right now (and two no one could have right currently).  Only Ian Desmond (1 walk, 10Ks in last 10 games) stands in his way of the best possible outcome.  John O'Connor is in the worst shape taking the under on Danny's homers, 9 wins for Lannan, and the Under on the combined young guy win total.  Don't quit your day job to become a professional blog over/under guesser, John.

Sweeping Disorder

Yay!  More "sweep" jokes. Don't get a chance to do that alot when you blog about this team.  (Maybe next year though).  Was this a Phillies team running on full cylinders? No. Did the Nats miss Halladay and get Blanton? Yep. But a Phillies lineup resting a guy here or there is still pretty decent and those starters they have aren't rolling over because it's year's end.   Still an accomplishment. 

Just in case you were wondering the sweep keeps the dream of .500 alive but just 2 losses ends it.  Can the Nats go 5-1 or 6-0 to end the year?  Sure.  My feeling is that they'll be out of contention by the time we meet again on Monday. (of course I predicted the Braves and not the Cardinals as the WC so I'm biased.)

Other Notes:

Ian Desmond hasn't slowed down a bit in September.  (.284 / .308 / .443).   That OBP is still remarkably terrible but you aren't looking for Desmond to be a stud at this point (at least I hope you aren't).  You are looking for him to hold his own in the lineup.  Since Mid-July he has been, with a decent average and ok pop.

Remember the Type B FA gamble that we all assumed was the reason to A) trade for Jonny Gomes  b) not trade Laynce Nix?  Yeah that's been a terrible move.  Gomes has hit terribly since being regulated to pinch-hitter duties in late August (.154 / .281 / .192) and has played himself down to the border between Type Bs and nothings.  Even if he made Type B, offering him arbitration looks like making a bad move worse. Laynce has hit  poorly since the All-Star break (.204 / .274 / .359) and hasn't had an XBH in three weeks. He's got virtually no chance at ending up as a Type B. THIS IS WHY YOU TRADE A GUY LIKE NIX. (older guy outperforming what their plethora of historical stats would have you believe they should do). They are outperforming so you sell high on whatever you can get.  By keeping him you not only do you not get some random young lottery-ticket of a player that you might get lucky on, but you also hurt your team as the guy plays through his likely decline.  It's lose-lose.  It's looking very much like Rizzo came up empty on pretty much every OF move this year (hell even Morse was only a beast while he was playing first, for whatever reason)

Ten Wins!

Yay, Lannan.  Brow's he do it!   

He really should have done it before now, and on a better team he would have.  It's just hard to win 10 games when your team is only winning 60.  I'm not saying Lannan would be a 20 game winner on a different team but when you're making 30+ starts and you got an ERA under 4.00, you expect a win total of at least 10.   Doubt me?  Since 1996 there have been 528 seasons as I've described.  In 493 of them (93%) you get 10 wins.  It not only takes a bad team it takes some bad breaks too.

[Side note : looking this up the worst luck year appears to belong to Clayton Kershaw in 2009.  He had a 2.79 ERA over 30 games and yet won only 8 times.  This is for a team that was 4th in the league in runs scored and won 95 games.  The oddness doesn't end there - the team leader in wins was Billingsly with 12 (32 starts). Wolf was next with 11 (34 starts).  Kuroda won 8 in 20 starts.  For the mish-mash of guys that started the other 42 games they won 22 times.]  

Here's brow he didn't do it the past 3 years. (9,9, and 8 wins respectively)

In 2008 John got to 6 wins in Mid-July (game 98) but wouldn't get another one until the end of August when he won back to back games.  He'd only win one in September (for a team that went 7-17), losing games 4-0 and 4-3 and another one where he only allowed 1 earned run over 7 innings.  (oddly enough in his only badly pitched game in September that year the Nats scored a ton of runs and he got a no-decision).

In 2009 John got his 8th win on August 5th (game 108), leaving him two whole months to get just 2 more wins.  He would proceed to lose games 3-2, 5-3, 3-2, 4-1 and got no decisions in 3-2 and another one where he only allowed 2 earned runs over 7 innings.

In 2010 John started the year terribly and got bumped to the minors (much to the glee of a certain segment of baseball fans.  Let's call them S-rmetricians.  No, that's too obvious. How about SaberMs?) and then the DL. He was sitting at 2-5 going into his August 6th start.  He'd get a decision in his next 8 starts going 6-2, but he ran out of time.

So finally, John has crossed into double-digit territory. Congratulations.  Small victories!

Speaking of which the Nats "Science" Number is down to 2.

Pitching Staff 2013

Nats "Magic" Number : 3  (any combo of 3 Nats wins or Marlins losses will ensure a season finish of 4th or better.  Small victories)

Ross Detwiler pitched pretty well last night didn't he?  Brad Peacock has pitched well too.  So has Wang recently.   Milone hasn't been bad either.

It's a problem every team would like to have.  Too much pitching.   Along with Lannan, Strasburg, and ZNN the Nats have 7 viable pitchers for 5 spots. And this offseason could potentially bring in another top-end rotation guy if the Nats feel that is needed. (it kinda is)    Let's assume they don't trade or sign someone for now.  What's the team to do?


1) Keep 'em all, let them pitch in ST, choose the best 5.

Positives: Seven pitchers for 5 spots isn't crazy.  I pretty much expect to lose one starter to injury or performance over the course of the year, and at some point it's very likely two will be down at the same time.  You need extra arms to keep seasons going. Strasburg isn't going to pitch a full year you know.

Negatives: Probably not the best use of resources given that there's a gaping hole in CF and MI might use a talent boost. If there isn't enough turn-around, some guys could get stuck at minor leagues below their level because there isn't a place to put them in the upper one.  Hard to see what anyone but Peacock could learn in AAA (and he could easily show good enough control in just a few games) Tempting for a GM to constantly fiddle around with the back of the rotation rather than give young guys a good long chance to get it together.

2) Trade Lannan, Keep Wang, work with 6

Positives: You are probably working with the most talented bunch (I'd argue Milone isn't noticeably more talented than Lannan but he does have the age edge)

Negatives: Lannan is the only one with a recent history of lasting full major league seasons. He's also probably ready to move into the "absorb innings" role that Livan will abandon if he doesn't come back as a starter (and considering he's ok with coming back as a long reliever I think that writing is on the wall). Rotation likely heavily righty.  

3) Let Wang walk, Keep Lannan, work with 6

Positives : No negotiations to likely overpay someone you already gave millions to for a handful of starts. Wang's age and recent history probably make him the biggest injury risk. Two lefties at least in the rotation.

Negatives : Feels like those millions were just thrown away to help wherever he goes next, doesn't it? Wang has the cache of being on a winner and is a high-profile foreign player - two things that can help sell tickets, even if it's just a few more.  Team defense built for a guy like Wang.

4) Trade a youngster, Keep Wang and Lannan, work with 6

Positives : It's going to be a Peacock or Detwiler package that's gonna bring back something worthwhile. Keeps a couple of guys in the rotation you might feel ok with pulling if any of the young studs burn through the minors.

Negatives : You hate to give up young pitching. No telling which of the 3 will break out, make the deal for the wrong guy and you could have years of looking bad.

5) Trade Lannan, Let Wang walk - go full youth

Positives : Exciting isn't it?   Will show really soon who is good and who is not.   Every young guy gets a good long chance in the majors

Negatives :  Insanity.  Leaves the innings pitched burden all on ZNN, not a full 2 years after undergoing major surgery.  Any injuries or talent shortfalls would leave the Nats in the familiar position of bringing up AAAA talent guys to throw junk innings.

Out of these.. you know, I probably like #1.  Maybe #4, next.  Pitching is so prone to changes that I think keeping everyone around is the best option.  Worry about having too many guys when that issue comes up.  This could all blow up if Meyer, Purke, Cole, and/or Solis have great next seasons, but that's the type of blow-up you want.  There is no song "Mo' pitchers, Mo' problems".  If they have to deal someone - deal a youngster and get someone good back.  No middling deals just to free up a spot.  Damn the chances that the one traded becomes great.  Sure it could happen, more likely though is that he gets injured, or is mediocre, or has a few good years and nothing more.  

If they do get someone in the offseason, then I see no reason to keep Wang around, unless someone else is dealt.  But you know me, I'm a complete Lannan apologist and will always side with keeping him around over talent that's not proven to be better in practice.

Jayson and the disappearing swing

Losing a ground ball in the lights?  Nice. Maybe it is time to retire. Then the all but crowned ROY "focusing in" and letting a guy who hits about 6 homers a year jack a 380 foot shot.  He wouldn't have hit that off Danny Espinosa (mostly because Danny would pitch too slow or walk him or give up an easy line drive hit - but you can't say I'm wrong!)

In other news, I want to like Jayson Werth.  I really haven't hammered him because he's been mostly hmm...  let's say "productive" at the plate (it was a hideous June that made everything look so bad), he's been decent in the field, and he's been good on the basepaths.  All the while he's mostly held his head up during this whole thing.  No, he hasn't been perfect with the media but he easily could have turned on everyone and been a surly jerk and that doesn't seem to have happened. Plus, everyone is entitled to a bad year right? It's not his fault that the Nationals stupidly offered him all that cash.

But then I read articles like this and I can't.  No he isn't surly but he sure does sound like he's making excuses. He lost his swing and he had no one that could help him because his swing is sooo unique and only a couple of Phillies could possibly understand it. It is the specialist of special flowers. And he didn't have his videos!  I know I can't hit a wiffle ball without my VHS copy of Days of Thunder. What's next, locusts?

This whole "I lost it but now I've found it and am doing good" really doesn't jive with what we saw this year. Well, I'll take that back. It jives with the first two months. April was bad, but only BA wise.  He was seeing and slugging the ball fine.  Fancy stats suggest that he was hitting the ball on the ground WAY too much and not connecting squarely at all.  Perhaps that slow start was an swing issue. Then he fixed it. May was his best month.  Everything was fine. It was classic Werth more or less. It was June where it went to hell. He stopped hitting the ball at all.  It wasn't a huge change in how he was hitting it, he just wasn't hitting it with any authority.  He caught some bad breaks too making the month horrible, but the same issues carried on into July where he didn't catch the same bad breaks but was still a hole at the plate.  He seemed to set things right in August but only at the expense of his patience.  Now in September things have gotten bad again - he's hitting nothing square.   So "I lost it, then I found it, then I lost it again, then I found it again, then I lost it?" Or maybe, just maybe, it's not that simple.

Werth doesn't deserve the grief he's taking for living up to a contract he wasn't worth. But at the same time by taking that contract you have to expect that grief, deserved or not.  You took the money, you didn't deliver, you "did wrong".  When you do wrong the best way to move forward is not to make lame excuses that don't explain everything. Just keep your head down, chin up, and tell everyone what they want to hear, then make what you say a reality.  For Jayson Werth that's saying it's on off-year, you're working on it and expect to be much better in 2012. That's all they want to hear right now.  Then make it a reality.

Monday

Somehow the Nats turned a 4 game Mets sweep into a must win game against the Marlins on Sunday but hey, they wouldn't be the Nats if they didn't, right? The Nats offense has been pretty miserable but a combination of good pitching and bad opponents has kept them out of last. Could they still fall past the Marlins?  Sure.  But with a 5 game lead in the loss column it would take something crazy.  For example if the Nats go a mediocre 3-7 in their last 10, the Marlins would have to go 7-2 to pass the Nats.  Seriously, not this year.

Over / Under challenge Update:


Mike Morse :  .300 average  - OVER (.302)

Danny Espinosa :  20 homers - UNDER (19)

Pudge Rodrgiuez : 1 hit. - UNDER (still no at bats)

Ian Desmond : 4.0 K / BB ratio - UNDER (3.94)

Jayson Werth : 100 OPS+  - UNDER (97)

Nats Offense : .700 OPS.  - UNDER (.691)

Strasburg : 18 innings pitched.  - UNDER (14) but set up to pass

John Lannan :  9 wins.  (over or match bet) - MATCH (still at 9)

Milone + Peacock + Detwiler : 5 wins - UNDER (4)

Tyler Clippard - 2.00 ERA - UNDER (1.84)

Drew Storen - 39 saves.  - UNDER (38)


A good half of these are counting stats so don't be discouraged by the domination of the UNDERs.  

Last place? Not this year

No Comeuppance!

Nats Over / Under Challenge

We're nearing years end so how about an over/under challenge to make the last weeks a little more interesting?


Mike Morse : Over/Under  .300 average 
Morse is struggling down the stretch (.208 ave in Sept) but it would still take a 3-4 game hitless streak for him to fall under .300.

Danny Espinosa :  20 homers
Danny is sitting on 19 so it'll just take one to ruin the under bet, but he has no homers in Sept and only 2 since July 18th (Really? ...   Yep, really)

Pudge Rodrgiuez : 1 hit.
Pudge is in a reserve role now and has only had one at bat this month.  Given he's a bit banged up chances are he won't get more than a handful of at bats, if that.

Ian Desmond : 4.0 K / BB ratio
Ian sits at exactly 4 strikeouts for every walk.  It seems like he should be an easy bet to drop that down given his decent offensive Sept but the truth is he's having his worst month in this respect 1 walk in September to 12 Ks so far.  (for those thinking - "See! This is what Desmond needs to do!" Just swing the bat!" - know that his second highest K/BB ratio went with his worst .217 / .255 / .228 month)

Jayson Werth : 100 OPS+ 
This season is a lost one for Jayson no matter how you cut it.  However, if he can keep his OPS+ over 100 (it's at 101 now) he can at least say he provided more offense than your average National Leaguer.  He's on a roll now. While no one has been watching he's put up a September you probably would have accepted for a yearly total. .277 / .393 / .489

Nats Offense : .700 OPS. 
Even though they have their holes, the Nats aren't the worst hitting team by far.  In most part thanks to their slugging, if you can believe it.  They have an OPS of .695 so far.   All it takes is a couple of big games...


Strasburg : 18 innings pitched. 
The Nats have him scheduled for 2 more games for sure with a maybe 3rd lying out there.  His pitch count limits make it nearly impossible for a long game but 5/6 innings should be the average.  He's at 8 IP now.  This depends a lot on whether you think he gets that 3rd game in.

John Lannan :  9 wins.  (over or match bet)
Did you know John has never won 10 games? Jesus, if he was on a good team he'd probably be approaching 60 wins in total by now. 9 wins now - 2 or 3 shots depending on how the Nats work their rotation.

Milone + Peacock + Detwiler : 5 wins
Sitting at 3 now.  Hard to see them only getting to 4 but hard to see them getting to 6 either.  That's how the gamblers make their money, kids. 

Tyler Clippard - 2.00 ERA
He's got a 1.89 ERA now.  That gives him about a 1 run in 1 inning cushion before hitting that 2.00 ERA threshold.  It's tempting to bet against him but then again he did keep his ERA under 2 for 5 1/2 months.  What's 3 more weeks?

Drew Storen - 39 saves. 
At 37 now.   Can he get to 40?  (in case you are wondering Nats record is 47 by Cordero in 2005)

Make your guesses.  No choosing the middle, except for the Lannan bet.  This is over/under.  Not make your own rules game. Winner gets the pride of knowing he's a winner at something in his or her life.

I don't get the Clemente Award

Bored last night I checked out the list of Roberto Clemente Award winners and saw that there were no stiffs among these guys.  This surprised me, because surely the act of being charitable and deeply involved in service does not go hand in hand with talent level.  Then I read the definition of the award.

... recognizes the player who best exemplifies the game of baseball, sportsmanship, community involvement and the individual's contribution to his team.

Oh.  So in essence it's kind of like the MVP award.  That goes to the best player with the qualification that that player is on a team vying for a playoff spot.   The Clemente award goes to the player with the best character, the qualification being that player is also a pretty good major leaguer, too.  (OK maybe not Harold Reynolds - but it did come after a couple of years where he was fantastic in the field)

Not to be a jerk - I'm sure these guys all deserve praise - but should that really be what this award is about?  On the page talking about this year's award they start by listing the important traits of who should be up for this award. Character. Responsibility. Generosity. Dedication. Humanitarian. Hero.  Nowhere do they say "All-Star Caliber Talent". It shouldn't matter.

Trying to wrap my head around why it would matter all I can think of is they don't want to "sully" the award named after a great player like Clemente by giving it to the Jamey Carrolls or Joe Horgans of the world. That the award is trying to find other Clementes, other caring superstars.  That's fine and all I guess, but then the award isn't about service as much as it is about praising which superstar can deign to take the time out of their busy schedules to help others.  It doesn't feel right for this type of award. It's like if they were giving out an award to the most charitable woman in Hollywood and included a provision that read "No oldies or fatties". 

I would like to tell you to then go vote for the worst player available but that misses the point too.  These are the people up for the award so if you are into voting for things like this read through and vote for who you think deserves it the most.  (Ian Desmond is the Nats' nominee this year.  Yes he might also be the worst player up for it but don't let that influence you.)

Catch Those Mets

September is time for modified goals.  No longer are you seeing what players can do in the long term.  Now you are just trying out guys to see who you might invite to Spring Training next year. And no longer are you shooting for a playoff spot.  Instead you are aiming lower : .500 record, more wins than last year or in the Nats case - finishing third would be nice.

To finish third the Nats need to catch the Mets.  The Mets have a 2 game lead which normally is nothing. But this late in the year that's nothing to scoff at.  The Mets have 15 games left.   If they go a completely reasonable 7-8 to finish up the Nats would have to go 10-6 to finish ahead of them (by percentage points 78-83 to 78-84 - the Nats won't make up that game v the Dodgers)  10-6 is a good finish. The Nats aren't a good team.

The Nats do have two things going for them.  First they have a head to head series with the Mets right now.  Each win = Mets Loss = gained ground.  They won the first game last night.  Take two of the next three and suddenly they are only a game behind.  Of course it works both ways.  Lose two of the next three and it's a 3 game Mets cushion with 12 or so games and the Nats are looking at having to go 10-2 or hope for the annual Mets collapse.

The second thing is schedule.  Both teams take on PHI and ATL one more time.  For the other two series the Nats have the Marlins.  The Mets have the Cardinals and the Reds. The Nats should win more of these games than the Mets (though they never seem to do that do they?)

The Nats had some lofty goals as late as mid August, but those have passed.  Now it's time to go after something more reasonable but symbolically important.  Pass the Mets.  Everyone thinks the Nats are a rising team.  If they pass the Mets and finish 3rd then the talk next year will be about making the next step to take on  the big boys.  That's the talk the Nats want to hear.

Monday Quickie

Like I said on Friday that homestand pretty much ruins any magical run to .500.   Now it would take a 14-4 finish for the Nats to hit .500 and the Nats aren't going 14-4.   They still are going to beat last year's win total (a 3-15 finish will do that).  Most likely... 8-10? 7-11?   So yeah - 75 wins.

Some notes

• Give Lombardozzi time.  He's a 22 year old in his first week in the majors.  He may end up not being very good but it's been a handful of games.  It's not like he's a 25 year old with 1200 major league plate appearances or something. 
• Ian Desmond just might be saving his starting role, or at least his "I'm the one to beat" seat with a average August and September. He's been actually decent since hitting leadoff.  The main problem with that is his OBP (.333) is still not what you want from a guy leading off.  This has all the makings of an issue to be in 2012. 
• It's gonna be hard for Strasburg to get to 70 pitches if you don't let him get to 60.  Ok Davey, listen. The average inning in the NL is 16 pitches or so.  The average Strasburg inning is 14 pitchers or so.  Granted he looked worse against Houston but by pulling him 13 pitches away from his limit you are basically saying you have no faith you can get even a decent inning out of him. (Against the corpse of Carlos Lee, maybe ok Brian Bogusevic and career non-starter Matt Downs, no less)  At this rate Strasburg won't start any inning if he's within 20 pitches of 70. 
• While everyone is waiting for Danny to break-out of his slump, WIlson Ramos quietly has picked himself back up.  .385 / .500 / .577 in September.  That is very important because Derek Norris really floundered in AA this year.  It's hard to see how he'd be up in the majors soon. 

So ummm...

sweep the 'Stros?

Barring that cirucumstance we can pretty much wrap up the "Nats get to .500 talk"   Yeah, I know that talk mainly went away after that 6 game slide to end August, but when I looked at what it would take to get there a few posts ago it wasn't THAT crazy.  Certainly it was more likely that not beating last year's win total.  But now going 2-4 at home so far, yeah that''s just not going to cut it.  So resign yourself to mid-70s, and watch those kids.

How are the kids? Way too early to tell.  Get back to me at the end of the year.  Only Marrero has really piled up the playing time.  And why is that exactly?  I'm thinking it's as much for Morse as for Chris.  The more time Morse plays in left the better because it's unlikely he'll be at first next year.  Slick-fielding, still under contract LaRoche or a big bat seems more likely.

Lombardozzi got his first start... at 2nd base.  I suppose you could say it's because Danny Espinosa was tired, and Davey cites the 7 Ks in the last two games.  But in the two games before that the kid was 4-5 with 2 walks and a HBP.  Not to mention that Lombardozzi Espinosa was primarily a SS in the minors (I have no idea what I was thinking.  Where's my blog editor?   I don't have one? Well then where is all that money going?) .  No, once again they are bending over backward for Ian Desmond. You better get better Ian, because this team acts like the prospect pecking order is Strasburg/Bryce, then Ian Desmond, then everyone else.

An embarrassment of $20 bills

Last night Strasburg started. Peacock and Lombardozzi were also called up. Milone has been here for a few days, as has Marrero. Never have the Nationals had so much talent and promise show up at the end of the year. The thing is... it really isn't that much talent and promise.

Ok ok Strasburg is Strasburg, but the other guys are nothing special in terms of "prospecti-ness". Yes, everyone loves Brad Peacock now but Peacock was a fringe Top 10 prospect for the Nationals to start the year, meaning he was on noone's radar. His stock has risen a lot this year but that'll happen with minor leaguers all the time. There isn't much information on them and they switch level of competition constantly. One very good year can turn a team's #10 into a team's #3.

Milone, Lombardozzi, and Marrero were at the same general level of Peacock. The guys that judge talent for a living question Milone's stuff, Lombardozzi's bat, and Marrero pop and glove. None of these guys are slam dunk stars or even slam-dunk starters. Rendon is a better prospect. Purke and Meyer and Cole and Solis are better prospects. And of course there's Bryce.

It's not that Nats fans shouldn't be excited. They should be. Minor league promise can be fool's gold but the team really looks to be on the cusp of being truly competetive, with a wave of decent young guys up now and likely a better wave to follow over the next two years. It's just that... hmm... I don't know how to exactly phrase this. You see, Nats fans are the starving man gushing over the taste of a Wendy's hamburger. You want to say "Slow down there hoss. It's just a fair fast food burger you got there. We're going to hit up that fancy burger truck this weekend." but at the same time the man is starving. Let him enjoy his burger, right?

Hmmm. Ok. Enjoy your burger, Nats fans.

Other Thoughts:

• Can we all thank the Nats for not pulling Strasburg last night because the mound was wet? That would have been terribly silly. Either he's ready to pitch or he's not, and if he's ready to pitch he should, you know, pitch. You don't want him to get injured in a meaningless game? Are you going to keep pulling him until you're sure the games are meaningful? Will he not pitch in bad conditions until June of 2013?
• Mock was Dfa'd. I don't see any reason why he won't get back down to the minors untouched. For whatever that's worth.
• I get why Corey Brown was called up, even though he's not ready. I get why Stammen is here, even though he's no good. But don't expect me to be happy Matt Antonelli didn't get the call too. Surely Alex Cora's feeling aren't that important.
  

But not THAT big an "Uh Oh"

First things first : Strasburg!

So over the weekend commenter Tombo wrote in and in short, said the Nats better get good quick or they might not be in Washington for long. Anyone who follows the Nats knows that this is pretty much nonsense, but occasionally it's good to go over why - especially if there are people reading the blog that don't follow the Nats.

To start Tombo's most general point is fair. The 2011 Nats scenario, spend a ton of money on questionable contracts, win nothing, draw nobody - IS unsustainable. However, that doesn't mean relocation is on the horizon. Let's review why.

• First off losing money isn't a big deal if the owner is ok with losing money. The Lerners are worth billions of dollars. If the Nats were losing 20 million a year (a staggering sum) they'd have to lose it for 50 years in a row for the Lerner's to lose 1/3 of their estimated wealth. Because the Nats ownership main business is not the Nats there isn't the same impetus to sell if things go badly for a while.
• And things haven't been going badly for a while (not money wise anyway) The 2011 model is just that, the 2011 model. Prior to last August the Nats had really made one big financial move, paying for Strasburg. They signed no big contracts and actually walked away from paying large bonuses to draft picks. From 2007 through 2009, they had one of the lowest payrolls in baseball. Upping spending a bunch the Nats are still only 22nd in payroll. So even if they are losing a bunch of money now, it's a now thing, not an ongoing thing.
• And they probably aren't even losing money now. Teams rarely just earn money from tickets sales. The smarter owners get sweetheart stadium deals from the gullible public and rake in the cash through concession deals, parking, local real estate, TV and radio deals, etc. etc. Add to that the fact that the Lerners are infamous for not letting Bob Cracthit put some extra coals on the fire and you end up with a team that is actually likely generating cash, not losing it. Forbes estimates the Nats are 2nd in operating income among all teams. Money is not an issue.
• And even if it was an issue there are lots of other things to consider for a team to leave. Stadium leases need to be broken. TV deals reworked (the Nats are intertwined with the Orioles on MASN, and no way Angelos is going to give away a cash cow without a protracted legal battle) division alignment maintained, where would the team move (the ownerhsip is locally based). Not to mention that having baseball in the nation's capital was a long term goal of Bud Selig and baseball in general. There is far more impetus for the team to stay and if the owners were losing money and wanted to get out (they're not and they don't), first thing would be a sell off of the team - not a move.
• Because of the stories of the "Greatest Generation" of baseball, we think relocation is more of a threat than it really is. From 1953 to 1972, a couple decades, 10 teams relocated, but that's the exception. Between 1903 and 1953 - two teams relocated. From 1972 to now - 1 team has, and that took a concerted effort from MLB to destroy baseball in a city (but we won't go into that again).

Relocation is not a threat. It just isn't. Could it ever be? Maybe, but we're a couple decades away from that. Hopefully the Plan expects success in that range of time.

Other Notes:

Say hello to the Chris Marrero you have, not the Chris Marrero you want. Can he hit for average? Maybe. Can he hit for power? Doubtful. Even though he's young the trending in the minors is all in the wrong direction. There are a bunch of great first-baseman out there. The market for the mediocre-fielding singly-joe first baseman died with Frank Chance. (where are the Frank Chance defenders!)

Strasburg!

Uh oh

Anyone else out there worried about a total and complete collapse down the stretch? I mean, still go ahead and bring up those youngsters, and give them time (mainly because I don't think they are much worse, if at all, than who they'd be replacing), but doesn't it kind of feel like the Nats are reverting back to the "Nats Classic"?

I didn't have huge goals for the Nats this year. Despite my prediction of 79 wins, the 75 they are on pace for now would be fine. A six game improvement based on no luck? That's good. But a win total in the low 70s would feel kind of bad. Mainly because of the amount of improvement that would be needed to compete for real next year. From 75 wins you still need to get at least 10 wins better. That's a lot of wins. To ask for a 13 or 14 win improvement? Just to be on the outskirts of competition? I don't think anyone wants to wait one MORE year.

The good news it theyy won't be as bad as last year. The numbers just don't add up. A quick review. The Nats sit at 63-72. Last year they won 69 games. To finish 69-93 the Nats would need to go 6-21. It's not impossible, but that's about as bad a month as you can have. Of course the same logic makes having a strong enough finish to turn this into a "good" year hard to believe in as well. To finish 81-81 the Nats would need to go 18-9. Again not impossible, but it would be the best month the Nats have had since their 20-6 June in 2005.

The Nats are pretty much set at finishing with 7x wins, but will it be a disheartening 72 or so? or an affirming 78? A crushingly weak schedule and a lot of home games suggest the latter (a season long problem beating the teams they should beat and a lack of off-days would lean toward the former). Let's start it off right. 10 game homestand against the Mets (66-69), Dodgers(66-70) and Astros (47-90)? Gotta expect to win every series. That's a 7-3 at minimum. Hit that and then maybe we talk about something more.

At least the Marlins are doing their part keeping the Nats out of last.


In other news : Don't expect Archie Gilbert to get that call-up.

Fun with arbitrary cut-offs

Since 2008 there are 11 pitchers currently season-age 27 or younger that have pitched at least 690 innings with an ERA <4.00.

They are :
Tim Lincecum
Felix Hernandez
Jon Lester
Matt Cain
Cole Hamels
Zack Greinke
Ubaldo Jimenez
John Danks
Matt Garza
Chad Billingsly

AND

John Lannan.

Yay John!

(I'm not saying John is as good as these guys. All have pitched at least 50 more innings and 8 out of the "other" 10 have significantly better career ERAs. However I do think that John's accomplishment of pitching so many quality innings, even if the fact that those innings ended up as quality is inexplicable to some, at such a young age is kind of big deal. Can it happen with average pitchers? Sure. Going back to 1994 you find Bobby Jones did it. Joey Hamilton. But the vast majority of guys that are able to do this are very good to great pitchers. In other words - it's not easy to do at all.)

Who gets called up?

Marrero is here and it's already down that Tom "MayDay" Milone will get some starts. Who else will get the call?

Peacock is one we all want to see and after a rough patch, he's seemingly earned it. He has a 3.19 ERA in 48 AAA innings and in his last 4 games he's given up 3 runs in 22 2/3 while striking out 25 guys. Walks are still an issue (9 over the same time frame) but given how his stuff has been talked up it would be disappointing to fans if he didn't get a chance at a start or two. Lombardozzi is also a favorite (.320 / .364 / 426 in 64 games at AAA) but he's been slumping a bit and the current MI combo is a bit sensitive about the possibility of giving up time. I would say that actually makes me want to see him up even more. Ian and Danny don't run the team and should be able to take things like this as they come.

Other possibilities? Hitting wise there really isn't much. It be a shame if "good story" Matt Antonelli didn't get a few games in (.299 / .393 / .463 in 84 games) as at the worst he could showcase himself into an interesting trade piece. Other than that you're probably reaching. They'd love to bring up an OF I bet but the best in AAA is Bernadina and in AA it's 28 year old Archie Gilbert. I would like to see Archie get a couple at bats as a reward for not only his nice season, but being a career minor leaguer who stuck it out. Still that's not anything to get excited about. Anyone else? Michael Aubrey? Not firing up the juices.

On the pitching side, any reliever could come depending on what they are looking for. Zech Zinicola (1.88 ERA in 24 innings in AAA) might have the best chance but who knows? It's more likely they'd bring up a guy that has stuff they like than worry about who had the best performance over a 30+ innings. Starters - I just don't see it. No room.

Any ideas who you want to see?


Side Notes

The Nats can't hit well. The Giants are even worse. Jair Jurrjens ERAs against these teams are respectively 9.90 and 7.50. Ok it's only 3 games but his worst ERA against any other team is 3.38.

Thanks to generous draft contracts the Nats have 3 guys on their 40 man (Bryce, Purke, Rendon) who they have no intention of playing until they're ready. I don't think it will matter next year. It's not like 37 guys for a month isn't enough if they happen not to be ready. But I guess a rash of injuries coupled with a playoff push could make things interesting.

By the way Bryce's current AA stats? .256 / .329 / .395. For comparison A-Rod went .288 / .391 / .441 in very limited action before moving to AAA. Griffey went .279 / .353 / .492. Please note that Bryce still is only 18 and I'm comparing him to two Hall of Famers. He'll still be here sooner rather than later and he'll still be good, but hopefully this helps you realize that it may not be next year and he may not be the greatest player ever. Would 2013 and a multi-year All-Star be that bad?

Shockingly - I'm not always right.

The Dog Days are almost over and thankfully that'll mean some new topics to talk about. I can rehash stuff about Desmond until the cows come home (where did they go?) but it's getting tiring, right? You know what's better than that? Strasburg.

Strasburg. Strasburg. Strasburg.

Before we get the influx of new Strasburgian topics, let's take a second to look back at a couple of things I had wrong.

On ZNN

Back in Mid May commenter Wally noted that Zimmermann was on his way to a 3.5 WAR season if he pitched 160 innings. I of course, expected less. What did he end up with? 161.33 IP, and a WAR of 3.5. That's very very good as Jamie Mottram notes.

It may look like ZNN never faltered, but he did have an iffy July. A fantastic June and very good August helped balance that out, though. Looking at it - you can really see the impact of luck on a given game/time period. His June featured a mediocre strikeout rate of 5.7. His July had a much better K-rate (8.1) and an incredible 2 walks in 30 innings. Yet his June was epic and his July was below average. Why? HR-rate and BABIP. In June he gave up 1 homer in 42 innings and opponents had a BABIP of .256, in July he gave up 3 in 30 and the BABIP was .356. Part of that was pitching (more LDs in July) but part of that was luck, too.

But I feel like I'm getting away from the point. What you have with Zimmermann is a pitcher who pitched well all-season. He caught some breaks here, he didn't there, but that'll happen over the course of a year. In the end the HR-rate evened out, the BABIP evened out and he was STILL very good. Like Wally said he would be, and better than I thought.


On Clippard

In March I said that there was no way Clippard would be as good this year as last. Short and sweet - he HAS pitched better. It still isn't sub-2.00 ERA better (he has had a lot of things go his way this season) but better is better.

Really the lesson I'm learning here is never to say a reliever is going to do anything. It's like saying a pinch-hitter is going to hit .100 or .300. The sample size is going to be so small that anything is possible. Clippard could have pitched the same way he did this year, had a few GBs go in the wrong spots and ended up with a worse ERA than last year, which would have been totally unrepresentative of how well he's done. Hell, that happens to starters throwing close to 200 innings.

Anyway - there's a sandwich eating to come.

monday quickie

As usual.

I hate to be a Kill(gore)joy but even though Desmond has reacted well to moving the the leadoff spot, it's only been two weeks. I can pull out a 11 game segment from early June where he hit .319. Granted that wasn't as good (he barely walked and had 0 XBH) but still you have to see the point. YOU HAVE TO SEE IT.

More importantly though - it is true that since the All-Star break he's been hitting better. Has he been hitting well? That's debatable. Has he been hitting well enough for a SS? Yes definitely.

Of course here's the thing.

Pre All-Star game : 85 games
Post All-Star game : 40 games

Don't let recency fool you. Those 85 games count.

Also - both by the eyeball test and the fancy stat test, Ian's fielding has gone downhill as the season's gone on.

You still bring up Lombardozzi. You still spot start him. You still see if Desmond can keep this up through the last 30 games of the season. If he can... well you've got a debate on your hands on what to do in 2012. If he can't then... well you don't.

Disregarding Livan?

In all our talk about next year's rotation, Nats fans have pretty much dismissed the prospect of bringing back Livan Hernandez. On the surface it makes sense. He's old. He's not a top of the rotation guy. If the Nats are going to go "young" and have two open rotation spots (behind Strasburg, ZNN, and Lannan) there is no need to bring him back. If the Nats are going to go "good" and try to get a top of the rotation starter then there is no need to bring him back (they need at least one rotation spot open for trials). Right?

Well there's two arguments that I think can be made here. (1) What if the Nats simply try to go "stable" and sign a FA innings eater. Would they be any worse with Livan than someone else? (2) Why does Livan automatically fall behind Lannan?

Let's attack #2 first. No one is a bigger supporter of Lannan than I. (Usually I hate when people say that but come on, it's true. The Nats screwed him again last night. Screwed!) But there is a kernel of truth here. Livan's last 4 xFIPs are 4.84, 4.72, 4.57 and 4.17. Lannan's are 4.24, 4.64, 4.36, and 4.25. There really isn't any big difference here. Livan will give more innings (though Lannan is no slouch there). Livan will likely strike out more and walk less. Livan is a much better hitter. Livan is cheaper.

Man, that's a lot in favor of Livan. What does Lannan have? Age and the arm he throws with.

Lannan will be 27 next year. He could still improve and it's doubtful that he will suddenly collapse due to an age-related issue. Livan will be 37 next year which means that he almost certainly won't get better and he could very well collapse. I'm not saying it's a good bet to say that Livan will collapse, but it IS a good bet to say if one of these guys is to collapse it would be Livan. This isn't Livan's fault. It's just the way it is. There's a reason there are only 3 regular starters age 37 or older in the majors this year. (Wakefield, Lowe, Colon) The body just breaks down.

Lannan also pitches left-handed and has in the last 2 years become good at getting lefties out. Strasburg and ZNN are both righties. Teams want changes of pace. Could Detwiler or Milone or Free Agent X be that lefty? Maybe. But when you have one on hand that's relatively cheap why go with something unknown?

Because of the last two points, despite having a lower salary it's Livan that needs to be significantly better than Lannan to grab that 3rd spot. He isn't.

Ok so what about #1? The boring old "FA Innings eater" situation. In that I have a hard time reasoning why it shouldn't be Livan. We're not talking Buerhle or Oswalt here. We're talking Marquis or Harang. Is someone like that going to be that much better than Livan to justify the extra money? What about the likely 2nd year they'd want? Livan could almost certainly be signed for one-year and depending on how all those young guys are doing, could be dismissed after 2012 just as easily as now.

It's not cut-and-dried. The age thing is going to hover over Livan until he IS out of baseball. For a team that wants to be better next year again, the slight increase in security that a Jon Garland type will give you a #4 starter year in 2012 might actually be worth those extra dollars. But I'm not that sure. At the very least it's worth looking at more closely if the Nats go down this path.


Extra - Livanonymous brought up that he thought Livan was mostly doing his job (keeping the team in games) and really his stats were being brought down by a couple lousy games. Is this true?

Well one quick and dirty way to look at it is to look at Game Scores. If this is true than by removing Livan's # worst starts we should see more improvement in his average GS than the average pitcher. I looked at him in comparison to Lannan, ZNN, and Marquis removing their 5 worst starts each and what I found was inconclusive. He did see more improvement than Lannan or ZNN but it was Marquis that seemed to be the one that was really having his stats being negatively effected by a few rotten games.

I also looked at just the middle starts which would try to control for the occasional good start as well and that didn't turn out in Livan's favor either. He was actually more consistent than any of the four.

Still I think more work is needed to say anything definitively.

UPDATE
Just saw "Air Screech" video. New plan. Livan retires. Takes golf club to all various Screeches like they were old men standing outside of a warehouse. Becomes new mascot. Eats Dippin Dots in a barcalounger on top of the dugout.

Rick Ankiel stinks

Anyone want to argue that? Anyone?

"Fun" fact : The guy with the second most walks on the Nats is Danny Espinosa. He's tied for 41st in the NL. The guy with the third most walks on the Nats is Wilson Ramos. He's tied for 81st.

I don't mind Rizzo's infatuation with the strikeout. A lot of people will tell you that strikeouts aren't even that bad. It's the same as any other out if there are two outs in an inning, and a good part of the "not moving anyone over, not forcing the other team to make a play" is muted by the fact you rarely get two outs on a strikeout.

Here's the thing though. You find guys that are good at hitting for power and good at getting on base and hope they don't strike out too much. You do NOT get guys that strike out too much and hope they are good at hitting for power and good at getting on base.

Just saying.

Every game is a hard one for Jordan Zimmermann

ZNN doesn't know how to win. That must be it, right? It's not that the team won't score runs for him. No. He just hasn't learned to pitch to the game. He's anti-clutch. Trade him for John Lackey! That guy is 12-9 despite an ERA close to 6! The new Jack Morris!

In all seriousness, part of Jordan must be happy he'll be hanging up the spikes in a start or two given the grief he gets put through every start. He has the 11th worst run support in the majors. Take away SF (3 in the Top 9) and Seattle (3 in the Top 12) and you could call him the 6th most unluckiest pitcher out of the teams you expect to score runs this year. He by far gets the worst support on the Nationals (Livan gets the 2nd least support and he's 41st in the league). But it's a funny type of lack of support.

In 15 of Zimmermann's 25 starts the Nats have scored 3 or fewer runs. That may seem like a lot (and it is) but it actually isn't too out of line with what we'd expect. The Nats have scored 3 or fewer runs 64 times this season in 127 games, or roughly half (side note: ugh). Given an equal distribution of bad luck we'd expect Jordan to have 12-13 games of this type. Fifteen is a tiny bit high but not a crazy number.

Where the problem lies is at the other end. The Nats have scored 7 or more runs 21 times this year. You'd expect that they'd have done it about 4 times for Jordan. How many times have they done it? Once. And it was the infamous 14 inning how-many-saves can we blow White Sox game. A game where they had 0 runs after 7 innings and 3 after 9. The Nats never make it easy on Jordan.

Take a look at the 9 games the Nats scored 4-6 runs when Jordan was pitching. You can argue that 4 runs should be enough to win a well-pitched game. In what inning did they end up scoring that 4th run?

1st: 0
2nd: 0
3rd: 0
4th: 1
5th: 2
6th: 2
7th: 1
8th: 3

Basically the Nats never staked Jordan to an early lead. Even when scoring a decent amount of runs. Every game is tight one for ZNN. I'm kind of glad the Nats are shutting him down. These have been 160 tough innings.

Wandy?

Off handedly heard that the Nationals claimed Wandy Rodriguez. No confirmation, no source. Just rampant speculation. The best kind!

It's the Rockies. Let the rampant non-speculation commence! Finish up those emails. Go get ready for supper. Pick the kids up. (rampant speculation is a lot more fun)

Who do you deal?

The Nats may very well have an abundance of pitchers next season. Shocking but if there are no health scares, that is what we are looking at. Strasburg, Zimmermann and Lannan appear to be locks for the rotation based on past performance. Detwiler is making a case for a spot. Peacock and Milone are both showing strongly enough in AAA that you expect them to be given shots to make the rotation next Spring. Let's not forget about Maya. That's 7. If they re-sign Wang (which really why put all that money into him if you aren't going to?) that's 8. (we'll leave out Livan for now, and consider Cole, Solis, Ray, Purke, Meyer 2013 questions at best).

Eight pitchers is obviously too many for a rotation. Normally I'd say just keep them all. Injuries and developmental issues turning this 8 into a 5 would not be a surprise. However this isn't a normal offseason. The Nats are looking to turn a corner into something resembling a playoff caliber team and it would really help them do that if they could get a dependable CF. Teams just don't deal CFs for nothing though and any deal made in the offseason will almost certainly involve a young starter. The question then becomes who do you deal?

Maya and Wang are off the table. No one would consider 30yr old Maya worth trading for and if they want Wang they can go after him in FA. Strasburg and Zimm are off the table too for obvious reasons. That leaves Peacock, Milone, Lannan, and Detwiler.

Lannan and Detwiler have clocks ticking on them, though the clock for Lannan is a lot louder. Lannan is arbitration eligbile and will be a free agent in for the 2014 season. Detwiler is just about to become arb eligible and will be a FA in 2016.

John's also the oldest, but the gap isn't as big as you might think. He'll be an old 27 next year, Detwiler a young 26, Milone 25, Peacock 24.

And to put John even further ahead - he has arguably the worst peripherals in the group. He walks too many and doesn't strike out enough. Detwiler is going to get you more Ks. Scouts argue on whether Milone's stuff can fool major leaguers, but there is no arguing with his pinpoint control. Peacock has the best "stuff", pure and simple. It's a matter of harnessing it.

So you trade the oldest, arguably least talented guy right? Especially since he's the closest to FA, right? Well, here's the thing. John has something the other 3 don't have. He has three things really. 2008, 2009, and 2011 (and parts of 2007 and 2010 if you like). He has repeated major league success. After a year, or maybe two, you could argue that it wouldn't be repeated. It's much harder to do now since he's repeated it again and again. Trading John is trading a known. It's a known #4 type starter, but it's a known. Peacock, Milone, and Detwiler are all various shades of unknown. Detwiler might break down again. Milone's stuff might not be good enough. The batting eye of the major league hitter might make Peacock throw 90 pitches in 3 innings. They aren't guarantees. Going into a time when you want to make strides, don't you need guarantees? Isn't that why you give a set-up man X million a year? Because you feel slightly better on his chances to provide you with the performance you want?

It's a silly exercise because really who knows if the Nats will trade and with whom? And what do they want? But silly doesn't mean it isn't fun. What do I do? I hope Detwiler kills it from here on out and then I deal him. 8 or so starts would be a nice run but it's not even a third of a season.

Danny isn't Ian. Ian isn't Danny

Danny Espinosa's recent slide (.203 / .264 / .301 post All-Star game) and Ian Desmond's recent return from purgatory (.250 / .315 / .393) has some fans lumping the two guys in the same "young, good field, still need to learn to hit" bucket. Even the team sometimes seems to treat these guys as a team within a team, the MI cornerstones to a playoff run. While I wish that were the case - the reality is still that Danny is likely to be a starter (with some level of success) in this league for years, while Ian is more likely to be a bench player. Let's go over why this year Danny doesn't equate to last year's Ian, despite the similar nice start and late slide.


Danny's a better hitter:

Through 125 games in their rookie season Danny was hitting .231 / .313 / .414. Ian was hitting .279 / .316 / .413. Seems pretty similar right? Except the average offensive player has dropped even further this year. What was a slightly below average year in 2010 is now an average year. To be perfectly clear you'd rather have Ian's 2010 in 2011 than Danny's year. It is more productive but Ian didn't have that line in 2011. He had it in 2010. That matters even though seemingly one year shouldn't make that big a difference.

Danny has the better peripherals with an isoOBP of .082 compared to Ian's .037 (Danny walks, Ian doesn't) and an isoSLG of .183 to Ian's .134 (Danny has more power). A lot of Ian's worth is tied up in singles.

You could argue that Ian was a bit lucky too. His BABIP was .317, which isn't crazy but it was .292 in 2009 and .292 so far this year so it's more likely his "natural" BABIP is going to be just under .300. However, we can't really say if Danny is lucky himself. It doesn't seem that way (BABIP of .274) but that could be exactly where he should be.

All in all Danny has shown himself to be a slightly better hitter so far with a month to pick things up while rookie Ian slides away.

Danny's a better fielder:

This isn't even a question. I can toss out the numbers if you like
2010 Ian : 34 errors, .947 F%, -10 Total Zone rating, -8.8 UZR
2011 Danny : 11, .982, -2, 3.2

but anyone watching this team knows this as fact. This year's Ian has made solid strides, but he's still not the fielder at short that Danny is at second.

Danny had better minor league numbers:

Ian : .259 / .326 / .388 career
Danny : .270 / .365 / .455

I don't expect Danny to be a .270 type hitter in the majors. But with his patience and power, he only needs to hit .250 or so to be a very good offensive 2nd baseman. Ian doesn't have much power and hardly any patience. He NEEDS to hit .280 or so to be that useable at short. .260+ just to be average. Danny doesn't need to be as good as he was in the minors. Ian needs to be better. The latter is a TALL order for someone who should be peaking stat-wise right around now.

Danny is younger.

Half a year younger true but it's half a year.


Where does Ian have Danny beat? He's a better baserunner, though Danny is no slouch there.

The conclusion is obvious. Danny is better. The leash Danny gets needs to be longer because the base skills he has are better. It's fine for the Nats to move on from Ian in about... oh 240 hours or so because his upside isn't that "up" and the data saying he's not going to hit those modest goals is getting to be plentiful. Danny's struggles are his own and the Nats don't need to do anything with these two guys as if they were a pair.

In the Post, Ryan Core-B compares moving Desmond to maaaybe what it would have been like if the Tigers moved Trammel. His case is that the Nats need to give Desmond a whole nother year. He does add a caveat or two (Trammel more highly touted, didn't have as many of atbats if they dealt him after his first year - which is curious why he only goes one year into Trammell's career considering he didn't get good until full year 3, but whatever) but he leaves out two very important things.

(1) Trammell did not regress offensively his second year, like Ian has - he was stable.
(2) Ian Desmond is 25 to be 26 at the end of the season. Alan Trammell was 21. That's a HUGE difference. Trammel had years to get better. Desmond is entering his peak years.

Don't feel bad for Ian, he's had 300+ games in the major leagues as a "tryout". Most guys don't get anything close to that. You have other prospects breathing down your neck, conflicting goals and veteran-loving coaches forcing slightly better 30+ year olds into your position. Ian got a fair chance, which is more than a lot of guys get. It's time to give someone else the same break.

Silver Slugger talk. Why? Because.

Sorry - HVAC issues have kept me out the last few days.

For the past 3 years there really has been only one consistent bright spot for the Nationals, and that's Ryan Zimmerman. They've had a nice performance here and there and a couple guys that hold their own, but there is only one true star on the team and that's Zimm. His awesomeness has been acknowledged league wide by winning the Silver Slugger the last two years. Meaningless award? Perhaps, but when your team (and a shifting definition of "valuable") is keeping you from being a legit MVP candidate*, you take what you can get.

(4th in WAR in 2009 - 25th in MVP voting. 3rd in WAR in 2010 - 16th in MVP voting)

This year is going to be a tough one for Ryan though. A long time-off because of injury and a mini-slump upon return has him behind the 8-ball. It looks like there are only two candidates ahead of Ryan. Here are their slash lines:

Pablo Sandoval : .307 / .347 / .511
Ryan Zimmerman : .300 / .371 / .464
Aramis Ramirez : .297 / .340 / .513

Pretty close right? Looking at that and you probably have Ryan being the sabermetric favorite, with Sandoval edging Ramirez. But all are pretty worthy. Now lets look at HR and RBI.

Pablo Sandoval : 14-46
Ryan Zimmerman : 8-29
Aramis Ramirez : 23-76

Uh oh. Here is where the loss of games really kills it for Ryan (and Sandoval for that matter). Aramis Ramirez has played 116 games this year. Ryan 64. That matters in the voting and it should matter. That's half the season so far Ryan had no impact on. Barring a crazy last 50 games of the year there no way Ryan is going to overcome that. These number also highlight a lack of power for Ryan this season - scaled up he'd have 15 homers or so (scale Sandoval up to 120 games and he has 21 homers) but that issue seems to be behind him now with 3 homers and 7 XBH total in his last 11 games.

With Ryan out of the running are there any Nats up for any awards? Hitting wise it looks doubtful. Mike Morse is obviously a beast but Prince Fielder has been a tad better and has been that way all year long. If they don't want to give Fielder the MVP AND Silver Slugger; Votto, Pujols and Ryan "RBI" Howard are all going to muscle Morse out. The Nats young studs have slipped dramatically. Ramos has quietly gone from being one of the better hitting catchers to one of the worst hitting regulars. (take that Doug Glanville!) Danny hasn't seen quite that large a drop but he's now middle of the road. Wouldn't worry about either of them yet. It's the end of a long first full major league season and they have good minor league stats to back them up. But they aren't taking home the silver sluggers (or the ROY for that matter). No one else hits enough to warrant a mention.

Pitching wise - Storen could sneak in and get Rolaids Relief Man of the Year. If it were up to voters I would say no (Kimbrel has a solid save and ERA lead on Storen) but it's not. It's up to some silly statistical formula. Here is the leaderboard. (there's another relief award sponsered by DHL that IS voted on, which means there's no point in going over it.) Outside of that, ZNN has been good but Cy Young is not happening. There are no awards Clippard is going to get.

Fieldling is a moot. It's going to go to the best hitter who is also a decent fielder and at the position the Nats are best at (catcher, 2nd, SS, 3rd) there are clear favorites who fit that criteria (Molina, Phillips, Tulowitski, Sandoval...please not Rolen). Manager of the year is going to Kirk Gibson, even if the Nats squeak over .500 (which would just mean Davey got them back to where they were when he started). Comeback of the year is almost certainly Berkman's.

Hmm this got a lot more depressing than I thought it was going to, but think about it this way. If I wrote this column last year at this time would I even have had to bother with the previous 3 paragraphs? No Espy, Ramos, ZNN, Morse in place, Storen as closer. I can't imagine I would have.

Thank You Nationals for disproving the "money bucket" theory

One of my (three? four? ninety million?) biggest gripes with members of the baseball online media (generally these are members of the sabermetric community, but not always) is the idea that teams can either :

(1) spend money to be better now, OR
(2) spend money to be better later.

Those are the choices and bad teams, like the Nationals were, are stupid to do (1) because they are only going to be slightly better and what's the difference between say 66 and 69 wins? They should always do (2) and flood the minors with money because that's where you can get more value and potentially create the base of a contender down the line.

Of course this theory is terribly, utterly, horribly flawed. It supposes that there is a set amount of funds that are to be spent on the baseball organization and every dollar spent on the major leagues is a dollar stolen from the minor leagues. This is what I like to call - the "money bucket" theory. There's only so many dollars that can fit in the bucket! You are paying Jason Marquis money! How dumb! You emptied the bucket! Now there's no money for the minor leagues!

Again - stupid, asinine, maybe irresponsible? It is all those things because baseball teams are expensive toys for rich men and they can spend money on the minor leagues AND the major leagues at the same time. This is in fact what the best teams in the league do and what every fan should be asking of their ownership. If you can't do this, or at least do this in some sort of cyclical fashion, then you shouldn't be owning a major league team. By saying that the Nats and other losing teams shouldn't bother spending money to get marginally better at the major league level, these media are implicitly validating every cheap-ass owner out there. "I'm just going for value!" In the end it's not about value. That's just a means to an end. It's about wins and getting them any way you can.

The Nats are going after those wins and proving these nay-sayers wrong. The Nats spent way too much money on Werth this off-season. They spent a ton on their draft picks this year. It can be done. It should be done. (well not that terrible of a contract to Werth but you get the point).

16 million is what the Nats owe Werth in 2013

Just to put in perspective what the Nats might have paid to sign these draft picks.

If any one of the four make it and is a productive player for the Nationals they at least broke even. If two players make it than they got a bargain.

A little less likely that the Nats will get Span

Negotiations broke down at the trade deadline and I don't see anything changing all that much - Storen and Lombardozzi haven't exploded or crashed in the past couple of weeks - but if you harbored dreams of having Denard Span on the Nats, that just became 15% less likely.

It's not that they can't trade Span too but the first goal was always to trade Delmon Young as he is generally seen as a liability in the field, he makes... well something, and he's closer to being a FA. With that done and one OF gone I can't imagine they will be chomping at the bit to deal Span.

Signing Day!

Or supposedly it is. I'd say "stay tuned" here for updates but let's be honest you're going to get faster updates on twitter.

One thing - if the Nats want to be true top of the league contenders this is the type of draft they need to have. Grab guys that have better talent than their pick might suggest and get them signed. Only one needs to pay off to make a draft full of reaches worth it. The important thing to remember is that you are looking for value in talent not in dollars. You will still pay for these guys. If you aren't ready to do that go with the safe slot picks and leave the over-slot priced reaches for the big boys.

Gotta sign 'em all.

The Nats seem to be in a peculiar position with thier top FIVE draft picks remaining unsigned going into the final weekend (deadline is Monday at midnight). It is unusual to see that happen, but scrolling through the other teams I saw several that were one signed pick away from having their Top 4 unsigned right now so I can imagine it has happened before. But still it seems unusual on the surface.

Dig a little deeper though and it starts to make some sense. Most negotiations for picks in the first round and supplemental go down to the wire. Only 24 of 60 have signed as of now. What does that fact have to do with the Nats? Their first 5 picks are loaded. They have two first rounders (Rendon and Meyer), a supplemental(Goodwin), and a 3rd rounder most see as first round talent (Purke). Looking at it that way maybe you'd expect one to be signed by now but really it's no big surprise that they remain unsigned. I'm only wondering what's going on with Kylin Turnbull. Is he waiting to see what Purke gets to use that as a starting point? Forget about it Kylin! You're not these other guys.

The Nats should come to an agreement with all these guys. Jim Bowden in long gone. I'm sure that the first 3 are just haggling out what size is the dump truck the Nats will drive to their house. Purke is the question mark. He wants first round money. If the Nats drafted him in the 3rd round to get a bargain, well that's not going to fly and they should have known that going in. They will have wasted a draft pick. Not the worst thing in the world, but never a good idea. If the Nats drafted him to get another 1st round talent, well then they should suck it up and pay him like everyone else.

It'll be a long weekend for the Nats front office trying to hammer out 5 deals. Someone send out for takeout.

T-minus 4 (3?) and couting

Jordan Zimmermann starts tonight in what is not more than his 4th to last start of the year. We've heard that he is going to be capped in his innings somewhere in the 150 to 160 range and right now he sits at 138.33 (can I take a moment here to tell you how much I hate the shorthand 138.1 and 138.2 type of numbers for pitchers? I hope so, because I just did) If he starts 4 more times and averages 6 innings a start (a bit low for Jordan but I imagine they'll be looking for quicker hooks) that'll put him at ~162 innings. It'll also take him right up into September call-up time, which is a convenient time to replace him in the rotation with someone brought up in the expanded roster.

(For the sake of info - the 17th vs Reds, 22nd vs D-backs, 27th @ Reds)

The end could come a start earlier though. Jordan had two of his worst starts of the season in the past month, and while he's bounced back from those another one might signal to the team that his arm is getting a bit tired. The last 3 starts are during one long stretch of games, meaning no chance to give Jordan an extra day of rest. Plus that last game is on the road, if they shut down Jordan early then he doesn't necessarily have to come along with the team, maybe stay behind and work on his season cool-down, I guess. I don't know.

How as Jordan been? Fantastic.

He's 16th in the majors in pitcher WAR. 6th in the league in K/BB ratio. 4th in walks given up. While some things have gone his way a little bit, other things haven't and the fancy stats like FIP, XFIP, tERA all agree that his ERA (23rd in the majors) is no fluke. He's legitimitely been a solid #2 guy this season at 25. He's got time to get better and while he could be injured again it's likely not to happen in the next couple of critical seasons.

Zimmermann has come back from injury and basically given the Nats the type of season they hoped for from him when healthy. If Strasburg can duplicate ZNN's return - that means the Nats will have a 1-2 that can rival nearly any teams next year (at least starting in mid to late May. Why starting in mid to late May? Because if they think they have a shot at the playoffs they are going to make sure that Strasburg's innings count doesn't force him to be pulled from the rotation during the stretch run. Of course a win in April is the same as a win in September, but try telling that to a fan who's watching Maya give up 6 runs in Strasburgs spot the last week of the season with the Nats 2 games out of the Wild Card.)

Taking another look at my 2012 rotation post - you could even say Lannan is covering that 3rd spot in the rotation. Believe in him or not - he's gone under 3.90 in 3 out of 4 seasons and the 4th one he was injured. I will note that the ERA for a Top 5 NL rotation has dropped a bit to 3.70 but given the little bit better ZNN will likely be than the 3.30 I wanted from the #2, it's quite feasible the Nats could get this Top 5 rotation with a couple of mediocre performances from the #4 and #5 guys. Maybe you can get that from what they have right now or a low-priced FA signing. Which is good because the 2012 class is weak in pitching. The 2013 looks to be stronger and it's a big signing then, with full season Strasburg and maybe another pitcher developed, that could push the Nats to legit NL East contenders.

Wang is totally in my face

You know what they say - when you're right 52% of the time, you're wrong 48%. Groundballs are good. No strikeouts are bad. No line drives and no homeruns are good. More good than bad. Next up are the Phillies so I'll hold off backtracking until then.

Quietly the Nats have crawled back into 4th place in the NL East (or more accurately the Nats have stood still while the Marlins fell right past them). If you are looking for something to care about, here it is. Mock if you'd like but this team has only been "not-last" once since coming here and it wasn't even in 2005 (2007 - 73 wins, Marlins has 71) For the Nats to finish out of the basement and show serious improvement in the wins column (on a 78-79 win pace currently) is meaningful. That would be their second highest win total as well. It may not drive fans to the park, but it's something.

"Wither" Laynce Nix

I appears that Mike Rizzo is running a gambit on Jonny Gomes and Laynce Nix hoping that one (or both) might be able to bring him back some draft picks at the end of the year. While I don't love the plan, you can see some logic in it. Gomes is pretty much a shoe-in to be a Type B free agent. Nix is close, and with Gomes eating up at bats vs lefties, perhaps Laynce can sneak his way in as well. Unfortunately Nix is crashing as the year ends. Here are his splits :

APR: .314 / .333 /.600
MAY: .301 / .333 / .566
JUN: .254 /.289 /.465
JUL: .207 /.281 / .362
AUG: .125 / .176 /.125

That's a precipitous fall and as worrisome as the average is the power drop is even more concerning. IsoSLG goes from .286 -> .265 -> .211 -> .155 -> .000. The zero, of course, is a fluke of limited at bats but the drop isn't. He's really hitting the ball worse and worse as the year goes on. I'm not sure he's going to make it to B status. If that's the case then the Nats may have very well given up two fair minor leaguers for nothing.

Of course Nix isn't a key to next year and beyond, and neither were the two guys given up, so it's not like this is the worst thing in the world. Zimmerman is a key (.429 / .500 / .607 in August). They'd like Morse (.452 / .469 / .677) to be. That's better good news than this whole Type B thing is bad news.

On a side note - I strolled over to Adam Dunn's page and looked at his splits.

APR: .160 / .300 / .267
MAY: .204 / .356 / .387
JUN: .136 / .240 /.258
JUL: .145 / .270 /.276
AUG: .167 / .259 / .292

Outside of May, where he both walked a bunch and hit for respectable (but not Dunn-ian) pop he's been remarkably consistent in his suck. That's weird, right? Guys fluctuate all the time. You have good months and bad months, months you hit a bunch of homers and month you walk a ton. Dunn has had very little variation. Super low average, some walks, not enough power. Every month.

I paid 3 million dollars for this?

Yay Lann... dammit Clippard. Oh well. He did drop his career ERA under 4.00. ERA is stupid? You're stupid!

Incidentally I was looking up the pitchers of about Lannan's age that had as many innings pitched as he does (not many) and noticed Scott Kasmir's name on that list. Doesn't it feel like he has had the career of a 35 year old already?

Tonight Chien Ming Wang goes for his third (and last?) start. He's hasn't been terrible, but he hasn't been good either. Really, he's let innings get out of hand but that shouldn't be surprising when he's making John Lannan look like Randy Johnson (2 Ks so far - one a pitcher). It's a disturbing number. When you let guys hit the ball against you, eventually they will string together enough hits to score runs. Do your best to limit walks, line drives, and home runs and you can survive (see John Lannan again). Wang has limited walks, but he's getting hit harder than you'd like (increased LD%) and he gave up that huge Uggla homer at exactly the wrong time.

Can Wang succeed? Depends what your definition of succeed is. If you are asking if he can pitch the rest of the year and maybe keep the Nats in some games, then sure. The line drives still aren't "doubles in the gap" versions of line drives yet and 1 homer in two games is more than reasonable. I think he can luck into a couple good games where all the ground balls are hit at people. That could mean a 1 run game or a 4 run game but a few decent games nonetheless.

If you are looking for a 35 games a year rotation filler guy then I don't see it. He's not making anyone miss. Only 2.7% of his pitches so far have been swinging strikes. I know that's his game but when he was successful he was doing it at a 6-7% range. For those unfamiliar with the swinging strike stat, the best guys in the league do it over 10% of the time, the worst between 4-5%. 6-7% is low, but workable. It doesn't necessarily track exactly with success but it's obvious that no one is being fooled by Wang. If they aren't being fooled then that means those ground balls are more likely to be hard ones. Hard ground balls are more likely to be hits. This idea would also gel with the increased LD% we are seeting. He should give up a ton of hits. Mostly singles but a ton of them.

We'll see - maybe Wang just needed time to get back in the groove. Maybe tonight he'll K 4 guys and keep the Cubs to 2 runs in 6+ innings. Maybe that sinker will still be effective enough to make those ground balls weak instead of strong. His slider has been terrible and his "fastball" (which includes sinker) has been his most effective pitch so any plan that replaces the former with more of the latter is a good one. Or maybe the sinker is just another mediocre hittable pitch that batters will be able to key in on to smash worm-burners through the infield and the effectiveness we see is only because he's mixing it in a lot less so batters aren't comfortable swinging against it yet. It's still been only 2 games so anything is possible.

Yards to glory most recent

At the end of 3rd grade my teacher polled us on what our favorite book that year was. When the results came back overwhelmingly in favor of one ("The Indian in the Cupboard" I believe) she said she was not surprised. She said that over the years it was invariably the last book of the year that won these polls. (well... maybe she didn't use "invariably" with 8 year olds) We are inclined to pick not what was actually objectively the best (though that was a pretty good book) but just what was freshest in our memories.

With that in mind I pulled the years from ESPN's "Yards to Glory" feature about the "immortal" touchdowns in college football from every distance. College football has been around for a very long time. If this were truly fair than the distribution would be equal across the decades. It's not.

pre1920	1
20s	5
30s	4
40s	0
50s	8
60s	7
70s	8
80s	22
90s	19
00s	25
10+	2
	101

How lucky we are that we just experienced arguably the most memorable decade of college football ever! the 2010s are going to find it hard to live up to that.

You can forgive a bit the pre-TV years, I imagine, but come on - there must have been some great football going on before 1980? The fact that there were fewer immortal touchdowns from 1950-1979 than there were from 2000-2009 is ridiculous. This is why I don't begrudge ESPN for doing alot of their stuff in the "ESPN era". It's the time frame from which the people making these picks are going to inherently favor.

In conclusion: My third grade teacher was right.

What's a Nats fan to do in August?

The hunt for a playoff spot is long dead. The hunt for .500 is getting sicker by the day (and really only holds interest if you are right around .500, at 4 games under it's more of a "call me when we're closer" situation). The trade deadline came and went and all the Nats have to show for it on their major league squad is a guy Nats management desperately wants to leave voluntarily in the offseason so they can get something like the 60th draft pick. Hard to get excited about cheering him on. September call ups are a month away.

So what's a Nats fan to do for the next 30 days (well 26 or so)?

You can pay close attention to the "other guys" in the rotation. Wang, Maya, Detwiler are three guys no one is really excited about but anyone of them could be in the rotation next year. At the very least paying attention to them can warm you up for September when hopefully you have Strasburg to watch. (Peacock is still getting adjusted to AAA, Milone has had a couple of dreadful starts recently - so maybe we see them, maybe we don't).

You can pay close attention to how Laynce Nix is doing. Every one talked about Jonny Gomes getting the Nats a draft pick when he signs with another team but he's a struggling bat that can only hit lefties and can't field. I really think the Nats could get screwed betting on that one. Laynce Nix on the other hand is right on the cusp of Type B status. A strong final couple months would probably ensure it. If he does make it than does the Gomes trade make sense? It would have let the team more easily sit Nix against lefties and keep his stats up... That Rizzo. Always thinking.

You can marvel at Zimmerman. What can I say? I'm dumb. After a two game slip-up against Houston I thought that maybe we should keep an eye on Zimm just to be sure that we could still set him and forget him in 2012. Well since then he's hit in 13 straight games. Hitting .450 during that time. Maybe you could have asked "where's the power" but last night he belted a couple doubles. So, yeah. Forget what I said. The Nats can count on Zimm.

You can keep on rooting for John Lannan to do well because John Lannan is awesome and you'll miss him when the Nats let him walk after 2013.

Morse: Great or Merely Very Good?

One of the big surprises of this year has been the sustained success of Mike Morse. Not that it was impossible that he could be useful, even good. But with a couple of uninspiring recent years out there and a terrible start, no one could have predicted that Morse would be doing this well right now. That's great for 2011 but we care about how's he going to be in 2012 and beyond. Can he keep up this years numbers, or will he give us something more like last year? Did the Nats luck into a perennial All-Star, or merely a very useful player.

I, being the major downer that I am, of course think the latter. Why?

Well, there is that BABIP. It stands at .372 right now. This isn't a crazy number to have for a season. That happens. But it is exceedingly rare that someone repeats a number this high. The only one to do it in recent memory is Joey Votto (.372 in 2009, .361 in 2010, .369 this year so far). Morse is good but he's no Votto. Votto crushes line drives and never hits pop-ups. Morse hits a decent amount of line drives and rarely hits pop-ups. He's a clear step down. Historically guys that hit like Morse don't maintain BABIPs at this level.

So if that's the case, if he is to decline, the question is what would he decline to. For those that are worried .350s are commonplace. Michael's numbers in the last couple years suggest .300-.330 is a fine range to guess as well. At this point it becomes less about statistics and more about your gut.

If you think Mike Morse has made a step up from the hitter he was last year and has made a repeatable adjustment you are probably looking at a BABIP close to .350. That would cost Mike 5 hits. Since about every 1 in 5 hits is a double, we'd be looking at some lost slugging as well so his line would read more like : .300 / .349 / .528

If you think Mike Morse is basically the same hitter he was last year and is just catching a lot more breaks or a lot more pitchers unaware, then lets go with a BABIP of around .330. That would give a line like : .286 / .335 / .508

As you can see both lines are pretty good. Given the number of at bats he's put in the last two years, you can't predict a fall. While I personally think the latter line is closer to what he'll produce next year, I do think that the former is actually more defensible. He has made a distinct improvement in hitting line drives and it hasn't been bouyed by a single month of craziness or anything like that. It's only been one year though, which is why I still say it goes on gut to some degree.

This is a very simple look at the guy, only focusing on one little (but important) stat. History tells us the Nats haven't found a Pujols in disguise, but the stats also tell us it's unlikely he's a fluke and next year will be struggling to be productive. Morse will be an important part of next year's team. The question is will he be a leader or a "mere" solid piece. Post-season I'll look into it more, for now feel free to dream of the former. There's no good reason why you shouldn't.

Lannan!

Sorry for the delay but... Lannan!

(but not "classic" Lannan - 8K and 1 walk? Who do you think you are, ZNN? At least he gave up 9 hits to get some baserunners on there...)

Mixed Notes

Nats beat the Braves. Take that Michael Bourn! Rick Ankiel 4-eva!

After bottoming out in the Astros series Jayson Werth has hit .333 / .447 / .615. Keep it up Jayson (for 6 more years if possible). In roughly the same time frame Zimm has hit .419 / .432 / .488 so my worrying about maybe needing to worry later? Yeah, NAILED IT!

It seems to me, and this is just a "seems" situation, that we've heard less about Bryce since he's struggling in AA (picking it up recently but still a little underwhelming for the next Barry Ruth). I guess that does make sense though. Bryce is 18. If he's hitting awesome in the minors, that's news. If he's scuffling a bit, well, he's 18. Call me when he's a scuffling 21 year old in AA.

Despite the better play and more interesting players, Nats attendance is down over the same time last year. (not by as much as they say - they have two 0 attendance games factored in there - take it out and the numbers go up but still not as high as last year) That's not much of a surprise because at this point last year fans were still screaming at the airport everytime Strasburg and his mop-top do rolled into town. I kind of expect to get closer to equal as the year goes on and Past Strasburg gets injured. Still attendance is mediocre with what I'd say is a substantially improved product on the field. Say what you will (and you will) but given the newness of the park, the newness of the team, and the market - the Nats have been woefully under-perfoming when it comes to bringing in fans for their entire existence. I will continue to be fascinated by why this is.


This is a question for DC residents for curious me. How is the area around the park developing? This whole Islanders thing got me re-thinking about it because I heard the same bad arguments about bringing work and jobs and development that have been summarily dismissed by most economists being tossed around like I remember back in 2005 or so. (It's not the support that I mind. It's the fake concern about economic improvement. Why these people can't simply say "I want hockey here. If the public is getting fleeced so a rich guy can get a break, I don't care. I want hockey.")

I know "the economy" makes a convenient (and reasonable) out, but taking that into account would you say that the progress in that area has been underwhelming, as could be expected, or better than you would think?