So I spent some time thinking about the Lannan stuff going on and I keep coming back to one basic question : Does Rizzo even talk to his managers? This is the type of question that I must rely on our intrepid reporters to answer because I just don't know. But it sure seems like he doesn't. Why else would Davey come out with the "he's my guy" comment like he did unless he had no idea Lannan would be sent down?
(Well I do have one last theory - Rizzo told/wanted Davey to play up Lannan as
the 5th starter even though he knew he was going with Detwiler in order
to raise up Lannan's trade value. If so, well then the actions become more understandable, still real jerky, but more understandable)
I know some think this was Davey's call but seriously - do you really think anything on this team isn't Rizzo's call. Davey practically begged for Bryce Harper to break with the team and Rizzo decided it wasn't best for the organization (he's right) and sent him down. Davey talked openly about wanting a big bat on the bench and what do we see? A bench with less pop than a Wisconsin Mormon's 7th birthday party. This is Rizzo's team, no way this wasn't a Rizzo led decision.
Some may not believe that Rizzo could be such a jerk as to not let Davey in on what may or may not happen until the last minute, but isn't that why the whole Riggleman fiasco blew up last year? Because Rizzo's idea of talking to his manager was pulling him aside and saying "I'm not going to talk about this. Just shut it and do your job"?
The problem that we're at now has never been the decision. Baseball wise it's a bump in the road. It was with how the decision was presumably handled.
PREDICTIONS
I think I've made it clear how I feel about Ramos and Morse this week. What about everyone else and the team as a whole?
LaRoche : Really don't know. I'll say he takes a slight step back because of the injury to .250 with 20 home runs but I don't feel strongly
Espinosa : There's hope he can get better and reasons to why he'll regress but I think he's found a nice happy medium. I expect a year a lot like last one, maybe with a few more walks. .230-.240 with 20 homers, .330-.340 OBP
Desmond : Improves just enough to hold onto the job for one last year. .255 / .310 / .380 12 homers
Zimmerman : I really like Zimmerman to have a year like 2009/2010.
Werth : He'll bounce back to something like .265 / .360 / .460
Bernadina / Ankiel : Nothing new.
Bryce Harper : struggles enough in AAA to delay his call-up to September. Deserves it a few months earlier than that, but didn't force Rizzo's hand enough to help 2012 so he keeps him down.
Pitching wise I don't see any surprises. I like Gonzalez to do a bit better than most think - hanging on to that low 3.00 ERA. I like Jackson to do worse than most think - ERA popping up to mid 4.00s. Detwiler won't do well enough to keep Wang out, Wang won't do well enough for the Nats to think he's going to be any sort of answer. Strasburg and ZNN will be great and very good, respectively. Bullpen wise - someone will flame out, most likely to injury (I'm thinking Clippard) but all in all they won't miss a step with only long relief being an issue which really isn't much of an issue at all.
Final standings - I think the offseason moves for Gio, Jackson and Lidge, took this team to the brink of the playoffs... and then nothing else was done outside a quixotic attempt to lure Prince Fielder here with the new cache of playing for the up and coming Nationals. It's not enough. The Nats need one of those 90% of things go right to be in the thick of things come September. The pitching was pretty good last year so the improvement there can't push the Nats to the next level. The hitting was pretty bad last year and the improvements made there were too minimal.
I say 84 wins. Two or three games out of the playoffs and with everyone jumping on the bandwagon for 2013.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Lannan down to AAA
Compared to the verbal stylings of Mr. Stan Kasten, Mike Rizzo is a pretty straight shooter. This makes me a little disappointed with what he's said regarding the John Lannan demotion because frankly they only make sense if he's doing the Kasten shuffle, providing us with half-truths and sorta honest comments, in order to smooth over a difficult situation.
The current Nats aren't necessarily improved by making Detwiler the 5th starter rather than John Lannan. Veterans are overpaid because they have less variation in results. John Lannan will give you 180IP+ with an ERA of around 4.00. That's what history tells us. Detwiler may have the same base expectation level but while you can expect Lannan to fit between 3.90 and 4.30 or so, Detwiler has more variation in his outcomes ranging all the way from "surprisingly good" to "can't cut it and returns to long relief in less than a month". If you want the highest chances of that 5th starter putting out a decent season Lannan is the obvious way to go.
Disagree? Think Rizzo is simply committed to bringing the best 25 to DC? Then I have a few names for you. First one is Bryce Harper. Next few are Xavier Nady, Rick Ankiel, Roger Bernadina, and Brett Carroll. The best 25 is garbage talk.
Then why chose Detwiler over Lannan? Well the simplest reason is because they can. John Lannan has options left, Ross Detwiler does not. We've seen this thinking drive many a "but wait, doesn't that actually make the major league team a little worse?" decisions in the past and we'll see it again in the future. GMs value control almost as much as they value winning.
It certainly could be because it helps the future Nats. Barring some sort of injury apocolypse, John Lannan just isn't part of the future in Washington. ZNN, Strasburg and Gio are all good through at least 2015. The Nats have a handful of other arms they like in the minors (Purke, Meyer, Solis, Ray) that they'd expect another starter to shake out from by the end of 2013. That's four slots taken. It's hard to beleive that the Nats would spend the moderate cash money to sign a back of the rotation guy like Lannan as he heads into FA in 2013 rather than spend big money to bring in another big name pitcher or spend no money and try to make do with minor league fill-ins. You know I'm a huge Lannan fan - signing him after 2013 is the least sensible thing to do. So given that, why not see if Detwiler (FA in 2016) can fill that "cheap minor league fill-in" role or do even better?
There is a second reason to start Detwiler though and it has to do with Rizzo's obsession with Wang (of the Chien-Ming variety, get your minds out of the gutter!) And here it could be said, if you work through the double talk, that keeping Detwiler up is the prudent move for this year. When Wang is healthy Rizzo will want him to pitch. That seems obvious. It will be a lot easier to move Ross to long relief for Wang if he is doing fair or worse, than it would be to shift John Lannan down to the minors under the same circumstances. This for me, is really why Rizzo made this move. It's not that he values Detwiler more than Lannan. It's that he values Wang more than either of those two and considers keeping Detwiler up "keeping the seat warm" for Chien-Ming.
But whatever the reason for a few games the Nats will be ever so slightly hurting their chances of winning games, same with leading off Desmond, or not fixing CF, of having to play any of that bench Rizzo constructed while drunk on Mai Tais at the Winter Meetings. If the Nats end up a game or two out you can look back to these in totality as much as any surprise underperformances.
But I look at it this way: Detwiler earned the job. He deserved the job. It was a prudent baseball move, for the current Nationals and for the future Nationals.Let's ignore the fact that saying "He earned a spot in Spring Training" fits right between "We got him for his veteran presence" and "We've just signed Jayson Werth for 7 years, 126 million" as things you hope to never hear you GM say. It's the second sentence where the half-truths come in.
The current Nats aren't necessarily improved by making Detwiler the 5th starter rather than John Lannan. Veterans are overpaid because they have less variation in results. John Lannan will give you 180IP+ with an ERA of around 4.00. That's what history tells us. Detwiler may have the same base expectation level but while you can expect Lannan to fit between 3.90 and 4.30 or so, Detwiler has more variation in his outcomes ranging all the way from "surprisingly good" to "can't cut it and returns to long relief in less than a month". If you want the highest chances of that 5th starter putting out a decent season Lannan is the obvious way to go.
Disagree? Think Rizzo is simply committed to bringing the best 25 to DC? Then I have a few names for you. First one is Bryce Harper. Next few are Xavier Nady, Rick Ankiel, Roger Bernadina, and Brett Carroll. The best 25 is garbage talk.
Then why chose Detwiler over Lannan? Well the simplest reason is because they can. John Lannan has options left, Ross Detwiler does not. We've seen this thinking drive many a "but wait, doesn't that actually make the major league team a little worse?" decisions in the past and we'll see it again in the future. GMs value control almost as much as they value winning.
It certainly could be because it helps the future Nats. Barring some sort of injury apocolypse, John Lannan just isn't part of the future in Washington. ZNN, Strasburg and Gio are all good through at least 2015. The Nats have a handful of other arms they like in the minors (Purke, Meyer, Solis, Ray) that they'd expect another starter to shake out from by the end of 2013. That's four slots taken. It's hard to beleive that the Nats would spend the moderate cash money to sign a back of the rotation guy like Lannan as he heads into FA in 2013 rather than spend big money to bring in another big name pitcher or spend no money and try to make do with minor league fill-ins. You know I'm a huge Lannan fan - signing him after 2013 is the least sensible thing to do. So given that, why not see if Detwiler (FA in 2016) can fill that "cheap minor league fill-in" role or do even better?
There is a second reason to start Detwiler though and it has to do with Rizzo's obsession with Wang (of the Chien-Ming variety, get your minds out of the gutter!) And here it could be said, if you work through the double talk, that keeping Detwiler up is the prudent move for this year. When Wang is healthy Rizzo will want him to pitch. That seems obvious. It will be a lot easier to move Ross to long relief for Wang if he is doing fair or worse, than it would be to shift John Lannan down to the minors under the same circumstances. This for me, is really why Rizzo made this move. It's not that he values Detwiler more than Lannan. It's that he values Wang more than either of those two and considers keeping Detwiler up "keeping the seat warm" for Chien-Ming.
But whatever the reason for a few games the Nats will be ever so slightly hurting their chances of winning games, same with leading off Desmond, or not fixing CF, of having to play any of that bench Rizzo constructed while drunk on Mai Tais at the Winter Meetings. If the Nats end up a game or two out you can look back to these in totality as much as any surprise underperformances.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Offensive Keyhole - Mike Morse
This was not an easy decision this year. In large part the problem comes from how I choose to define the term "offensive keyhole". For those unfamiliar with the process (what - you haven't been reading this blog for years and memorizing everything I say?) I'm looking for someone that:
I did consider others, mainly Werth, Zimmerman, and Espinosa. Werth though really did have some bad luck last year and while he'll never be 2010 Werth again, the smart money is on a bounce back year (around .265 / .360 / .470) within range of what I feel most people are expecting. Zimmerman's stats have been consistent enough, even through injury, that I can't predict a major drop-off from him. Worst plausible case scenario is that his power doesn't come back, but a .285 20 HR season would only be wildly off for those fans looking for an MVP season. Espinosa has looked terrible recently and his huge K-rate is concerning. That .236 average may in fact be a high point, but I don't think anyone out there is expecting him to hit .280. .215 with 21 HRs might be disappointing but I think he falls short in comparison to how Morse may disappoint.
OK so Mike Morse is the keyhole. But why? Let's start off first with expectations. Last season Morse hit .303 / .360 / .550 with 31 homers in a few dozen fewer at bats than we'd expect him to get as a starter. Most Nats fans I think do see this as a "peak" year but at the same time they see the .289 / .352 / .519 line the year before and believe this level of production he's put up the past 2 years isn't far off of what they should expect. I'm thinking the average Nats fans is looking for a .295 season with 33 home runs (given he plays roughly 155-160 games).
Why don't I think he'll hit .295 with 33 home runs? Let's start with the power first.
Mike Morse hit 31 homers in a 2011 with a HR/FB rate of around 21.2%. This is kind of a high number. It's higher than he put up in the previous year, higher than he put up looking over his past few minor league seasons and it's a number high enough that it's not easily repeatable, even for the best power hitters. For example, in 2010 12 qualified batters had a HR/FB % over 19%, only 5 repeated that level of home run hitting in 2011. I'm not saying that Morse is all of a sudden in going to become a slap-hitter. I'm just saying that I think percentage of time his FBs end up going out as HRs is going to drop slightly. Let's say 17%, that's still Top 25 range.
Mike Morse hit .303 last year with but with a healthy .344 BABIP. That's not a crazy number given the BABIPs he has put up in the minors, but like the HR/FB rate is high. It's getting toward a level where only speedy line-drive hitters are able replicate it year after year. For instance, in 2010 15 batters in the majors had a BABIP over .340. Only 3 were able to repeat that in 2011, two speedy guys (Starlin Castro and Austin Jackson - who actually tumbled from .396 to .340) and one guy who may very well be the best hitter in the league (Joey Votto). Again it's not that the numbers suggest Mike Morse has to plummet here, but given his speed and recent minor league numbers I'd expect a drop to a more reasonable level of .325 or so.
So what do an 17% HR/RB rate and a .325 BABIP do to Mike Morse's projection? I can show my work if you like but based on 650 plate appearances, I have him now at a .288 average and 29 homers. (If you think he'll have less plate appearances knock off a homer for every 20 or so). Not too bad right? .285+ and high 20s in homers? Looking at projections this probably is a bit less power than they would have for Morse in the same number of PAs, but the average seems about the same. I'd say it hardly even qualifies as a mild disappointment.
Ok but now comes the troubling stuff.
Mike Morse has a skill set that shows no recognition of the strike zone. Looking at the entire baseball history tells us that combination of K-rate, BB-rate, and production is unsustainable. In the 100+ years of baseball only 9 times has a player walked less than 40 times, struck out more than 125 times and hit over .300. Baseball has been around a long time folks. Even if I relax the standards to walk under 50 times and K 110 times or more, we only see 20 seasons of guys doing it. If you look at the guys on top of these lists you mostly find careers with much lower batting averages and with these high average years found during their peak age seasons. Baseball players just don't hit like this consistently, even in this new era. If you don't walk, pitchers will eventually stop throwing you strikes. If you strike out a lot (read: make poor contact) those bad pitches will become poorly hit (or missed) balls. It's what history tells us. Perhaps Mike Morse is different. Andres Galarraga was able to put up a couple years past 30 of this type of approach and a high average. God knows I believe in the outlier (see: Lannan, John) but I'm not ready to buy into Mike Morse just yet. This means I'm far more inclined to believe that Morse will hit .275 than .285 (and even that is generous based on history). That drop in batting average also knocks off a couple of home runs as well.
Now we come to the injury. Morse's injury is similar to the injury Zimm suffered last year. While all of Zimm's stats were fairly constant there was one thing that stood out for Ryan. He didn't generate the same power as before. I don't think Morse will suffer the same dramatic drop, since his injury is not as severe, but a slight one would almost have to be expected. Knock off another couple of homers.
Ok so now where is Morse? Around .275 and 25 homers (and I feel I was being generous with the whole "strikes out way too much to hit .288" thing.) You may still be ok with that but temember Mike doesn't contribute in any other way. He does not field well. He does not run the bases well. He does not walk. If he's not hitting for average and power he's not helping the team. .275 and 25 is getting to the minimum level of where a guy like Morse can be a positive.
If you're not disappointed yet consider I haven't factored in his age (30 - about where pure sluggers can start to fall off the cliff), the fact that he didn't hit nearly as well as a left-fielder which is where he'll be playing this year (be that a fluke or a legit psychological/physical reason), or his "only power" last month of the season. While I'll go ahead and stop the descent at .275 and 25, there is the potential for something worse.
Is there a bright side to this? Sure - I could be wrong. I wasn't with Nyjer, and I wasn't with Ian, but I don't think this year it's as cut and dried. Remember I did say I almost put no one in this spot. And at this point I'll remind everyone that projections exist for a reason and while .295 and 33 is probably a pipe dream, you'd be better off betting on the .285 and 29 it seems like the crowd believes in, than on my .275 and 25 (or less - really tha BA may come down in a scary way). These aren't people caught up in Beast Mode, they are guys trying to be objective and they all like Morse more than I do.
- will start the season or play a lot of games at a position
- has presented a projection that we believe in but could be wildly off for non-injury reasons.
- who's performance could significantly effect the performance of the team.
I did consider others, mainly Werth, Zimmerman, and Espinosa. Werth though really did have some bad luck last year and while he'll never be 2010 Werth again, the smart money is on a bounce back year (around .265 / .360 / .470) within range of what I feel most people are expecting. Zimmerman's stats have been consistent enough, even through injury, that I can't predict a major drop-off from him. Worst plausible case scenario is that his power doesn't come back, but a .285 20 HR season would only be wildly off for those fans looking for an MVP season. Espinosa has looked terrible recently and his huge K-rate is concerning. That .236 average may in fact be a high point, but I don't think anyone out there is expecting him to hit .280. .215 with 21 HRs might be disappointing but I think he falls short in comparison to how Morse may disappoint.
OK so Mike Morse is the keyhole. But why? Let's start off first with expectations. Last season Morse hit .303 / .360 / .550 with 31 homers in a few dozen fewer at bats than we'd expect him to get as a starter. Most Nats fans I think do see this as a "peak" year but at the same time they see the .289 / .352 / .519 line the year before and believe this level of production he's put up the past 2 years isn't far off of what they should expect. I'm thinking the average Nats fans is looking for a .295 season with 33 home runs (given he plays roughly 155-160 games).
Why don't I think he'll hit .295 with 33 home runs? Let's start with the power first.
Mike Morse hit 31 homers in a 2011 with a HR/FB rate of around 21.2%. This is kind of a high number. It's higher than he put up in the previous year, higher than he put up looking over his past few minor league seasons and it's a number high enough that it's not easily repeatable, even for the best power hitters. For example, in 2010 12 qualified batters had a HR/FB % over 19%, only 5 repeated that level of home run hitting in 2011. I'm not saying that Morse is all of a sudden in going to become a slap-hitter. I'm just saying that I think percentage of time his FBs end up going out as HRs is going to drop slightly. Let's say 17%, that's still Top 25 range.
Mike Morse hit .303 last year with but with a healthy .344 BABIP. That's not a crazy number given the BABIPs he has put up in the minors, but like the HR/FB rate is high. It's getting toward a level where only speedy line-drive hitters are able replicate it year after year. For instance, in 2010 15 batters in the majors had a BABIP over .340. Only 3 were able to repeat that in 2011, two speedy guys (Starlin Castro and Austin Jackson - who actually tumbled from .396 to .340) and one guy who may very well be the best hitter in the league (Joey Votto). Again it's not that the numbers suggest Mike Morse has to plummet here, but given his speed and recent minor league numbers I'd expect a drop to a more reasonable level of .325 or so.
So what do an 17% HR/RB rate and a .325 BABIP do to Mike Morse's projection? I can show my work if you like but based on 650 plate appearances, I have him now at a .288 average and 29 homers. (If you think he'll have less plate appearances knock off a homer for every 20 or so). Not too bad right? .285+ and high 20s in homers? Looking at projections this probably is a bit less power than they would have for Morse in the same number of PAs, but the average seems about the same. I'd say it hardly even qualifies as a mild disappointment.
Ok but now comes the troubling stuff.
Mike Morse has a skill set that shows no recognition of the strike zone. Looking at the entire baseball history tells us that combination of K-rate, BB-rate, and production is unsustainable. In the 100+ years of baseball only 9 times has a player walked less than 40 times, struck out more than 125 times and hit over .300. Baseball has been around a long time folks. Even if I relax the standards to walk under 50 times and K 110 times or more, we only see 20 seasons of guys doing it. If you look at the guys on top of these lists you mostly find careers with much lower batting averages and with these high average years found during their peak age seasons. Baseball players just don't hit like this consistently, even in this new era. If you don't walk, pitchers will eventually stop throwing you strikes. If you strike out a lot (read: make poor contact) those bad pitches will become poorly hit (or missed) balls. It's what history tells us. Perhaps Mike Morse is different. Andres Galarraga was able to put up a couple years past 30 of this type of approach and a high average. God knows I believe in the outlier (see: Lannan, John) but I'm not ready to buy into Mike Morse just yet. This means I'm far more inclined to believe that Morse will hit .275 than .285 (and even that is generous based on history). That drop in batting average also knocks off a couple of home runs as well.
Now we come to the injury. Morse's injury is similar to the injury Zimm suffered last year. While all of Zimm's stats were fairly constant there was one thing that stood out for Ryan. He didn't generate the same power as before. I don't think Morse will suffer the same dramatic drop, since his injury is not as severe, but a slight one would almost have to be expected. Knock off another couple of homers.
Ok so now where is Morse? Around .275 and 25 homers (and I feel I was being generous with the whole "strikes out way too much to hit .288" thing.) You may still be ok with that but temember Mike doesn't contribute in any other way. He does not field well. He does not run the bases well. He does not walk. If he's not hitting for average and power he's not helping the team. .275 and 25 is getting to the minimum level of where a guy like Morse can be a positive.
If you're not disappointed yet consider I haven't factored in his age (30 - about where pure sluggers can start to fall off the cliff), the fact that he didn't hit nearly as well as a left-fielder which is where he'll be playing this year (be that a fluke or a legit psychological/physical reason), or his "only power" last month of the season. While I'll go ahead and stop the descent at .275 and 25, there is the potential for something worse.
Is there a bright side to this? Sure - I could be wrong. I wasn't with Nyjer, and I wasn't with Ian, but I don't think this year it's as cut and dried. Remember I did say I almost put no one in this spot. And at this point I'll remind everyone that projections exist for a reason and while .295 and 33 is probably a pipe dream, you'd be better off betting on the .285 and 29 it seems like the crowd believes in, than on my .275 and 25 (or less - really tha BA may come down in a scary way). These aren't people caught up in Beast Mode, they are guys trying to be objective and they all like Morse more than I do.
Monday, April 02, 2012
Wilson Ramos - breakout star
The general consensus on Wilson Ramos is positive. He'll hit around .270, smack 13-15 homeruns, and take a walk every so often. Given that he's cheap, plays good defense, and most importantly is doing this all at the catcher position, most people agree he's a nice piece for the Nationals to have.
I don't buy it.
Wilson Ramos isn't a "nice piece" he's a star in the making.
1) His BABIP can get better, not worse. Minor League BABIPs are generally higher than major league ones, thanks to worse fields and worse fielding. Generally you expect BABIPs to go down in the majors, and that's what most people project for Wilson. He had a .297 BABIP last year, most are thinking a little less than that for this year. I disagree. Often minor league BABIPs are inflated by one or two out of touch seasons where it goes up to like .400+. Wilson never had that crazy odd year and has pretty consistently been around .340. This gives us a good starting point.
There's also a feeling that a high K rate can be a precursor of a good sized drop off in the majors. If you can't make a lot of good contact there - how will you in the majors? Wilson does K a fair amount, but he's improved since his early minor league days going from a 20% guy to a 15% guy (unlike say - Roger Bernadina who never changed from a 20% guy). While it went back up a bit last year, usually guys that are good tend to drop a few percentage points from their earliest major league years. I see him as maintaining that 15% level.
I like Wilson to be a .320 level BABIP guy for his career. If he had done that last year you are looking at a .285 batting average rather than a .267.
2) His walk and power rates were better than expected last season. Two questions that are always asked about young free-swinging players is can they develop more power as their body matures and can they learn to take a walk now and then. Wilson never had much power and had some truly hideous isoOBP years in the minors, but in his first year with the Nats he put up his best isoSLG numbers ever, and a more acceptable (though still not great) BB-rate.
Flukes? Perhaps, but perhaps not. This isn't like Ian Desmond who put up a completely unrepeatable power line over a mere 20 games in his first call-up. This is 113 games and a power improvement that seems explainable. Of course there is that 13.4% HR/FB rate sitting out there. That's high looking at Wilson's minor league numbers. Even if he's developing a 10% rate may be more reasonable. All in all I'll be optimistic and assume slightly higher than 10% but not so high that he couldn't pleasantly surprise.
As for the walk-rate, I'm not sure what to say. Sometimes guys get it, sometimes they don't. Will Davey help or hurt? Pudge didn't seem to hurt him and he's a big time hacker, even as his body began to fail him. I choose to believe he's moved to become a low-walk guy from no-walk guy.We'll just have to see.
3) He's still young. That's really what makes all of the above possible. He won't be 25 until late in the season. There is a reasonable expectation he can continue to improve for 2-3 more years. He has shown an ability to acclimated to each minor league level. He has shown immediate improvements upon playing in the majors full time. I see no reason not to believe he can't improve some more.
If I'm right then (given 450 at bats or so) Wilson should put up a line of like... let's say .285 / .350 / .450 with 17 homers. That may not seem like much but given the age and luck of some of the NL catchers a season like this might propel him to being a top 3 NL catcher offensively behind McCann and Posey (if they are both healthy). Given his defensive prowess he may just be the best NL catcher overall* in 2012.
And this is saying nothing about 2013 and beyond. If he does follow the track I'm thinking without help from any crazy luck, then you'd go ahead and expect a little better year in 2013. .295 with 20 homers? Maybe he still improves from there or maybe that's his level for the next few seasons. Either way that's a start to a career few catchers have had. Looking since 1996 only McCann and Pudge have hit .280 with 100+ homers by the time they were 28. Hell, if Wilson does what everyone ELSE thinks he will do (.270 and 13 homers or so a year), he's still in rarified air. Only 6 catchers hit .270 and 80+ homers by the time they were 28 since 1996.
I'm not prone to optimism, but I really am about Wilson Ramos. I think the numbers I'm seeing for him from everyone else are underselling what he will do. If that's true the Nats have more than a nice piece. They have a cornerstone to build around.
*This is up for a lot of debate since catcher D is still ill-defined. Brian McCann (28) is a subpar defender but can put up awesome offensive years. Yadier Molina (29) is a great defender but he may have peaked offensively last year. Buster Posey (25) is a great hitter but may or may not be a great defender, so far he's looked ok but the sample size is limited, and he's returning from that nasty injury. Underrated Miguel Montero (28) is also an ok hitter and fielder that should be included in the discussion. And you can see by age, Wilson Ramos (24) has a big edge on all of these guys except Posey. They may start to decline while he's getting better.
I don't buy it.
Wilson Ramos isn't a "nice piece" he's a star in the making.
1) His BABIP can get better, not worse. Minor League BABIPs are generally higher than major league ones, thanks to worse fields and worse fielding. Generally you expect BABIPs to go down in the majors, and that's what most people project for Wilson. He had a .297 BABIP last year, most are thinking a little less than that for this year. I disagree. Often minor league BABIPs are inflated by one or two out of touch seasons where it goes up to like .400+. Wilson never had that crazy odd year and has pretty consistently been around .340. This gives us a good starting point.
There's also a feeling that a high K rate can be a precursor of a good sized drop off in the majors. If you can't make a lot of good contact there - how will you in the majors? Wilson does K a fair amount, but he's improved since his early minor league days going from a 20% guy to a 15% guy (unlike say - Roger Bernadina who never changed from a 20% guy). While it went back up a bit last year, usually guys that are good tend to drop a few percentage points from their earliest major league years. I see him as maintaining that 15% level.
I like Wilson to be a .320 level BABIP guy for his career. If he had done that last year you are looking at a .285 batting average rather than a .267.
2) His walk and power rates were better than expected last season. Two questions that are always asked about young free-swinging players is can they develop more power as their body matures and can they learn to take a walk now and then. Wilson never had much power and had some truly hideous isoOBP years in the minors, but in his first year with the Nats he put up his best isoSLG numbers ever, and a more acceptable (though still not great) BB-rate.
Flukes? Perhaps, but perhaps not. This isn't like Ian Desmond who put up a completely unrepeatable power line over a mere 20 games in his first call-up. This is 113 games and a power improvement that seems explainable. Of course there is that 13.4% HR/FB rate sitting out there. That's high looking at Wilson's minor league numbers. Even if he's developing a 10% rate may be more reasonable. All in all I'll be optimistic and assume slightly higher than 10% but not so high that he couldn't pleasantly surprise.
As for the walk-rate, I'm not sure what to say. Sometimes guys get it, sometimes they don't. Will Davey help or hurt? Pudge didn't seem to hurt him and he's a big time hacker, even as his body began to fail him. I choose to believe he's moved to become a low-walk guy from no-walk guy.We'll just have to see.
3) He's still young. That's really what makes all of the above possible. He won't be 25 until late in the season. There is a reasonable expectation he can continue to improve for 2-3 more years. He has shown an ability to acclimated to each minor league level. He has shown immediate improvements upon playing in the majors full time. I see no reason not to believe he can't improve some more.
If I'm right then (given 450 at bats or so) Wilson should put up a line of like... let's say .285 / .350 / .450 with 17 homers. That may not seem like much but given the age and luck of some of the NL catchers a season like this might propel him to being a top 3 NL catcher offensively behind McCann and Posey (if they are both healthy). Given his defensive prowess he may just be the best NL catcher overall* in 2012.
And this is saying nothing about 2013 and beyond. If he does follow the track I'm thinking without help from any crazy luck, then you'd go ahead and expect a little better year in 2013. .295 with 20 homers? Maybe he still improves from there or maybe that's his level for the next few seasons. Either way that's a start to a career few catchers have had. Looking since 1996 only McCann and Pudge have hit .280 with 100+ homers by the time they were 28. Hell, if Wilson does what everyone ELSE thinks he will do (.270 and 13 homers or so a year), he's still in rarified air. Only 6 catchers hit .270 and 80+ homers by the time they were 28 since 1996.
I'm not prone to optimism, but I really am about Wilson Ramos. I think the numbers I'm seeing for him from everyone else are underselling what he will do. If that's true the Nats have more than a nice piece. They have a cornerstone to build around.
*This is up for a lot of debate since catcher D is still ill-defined. Brian McCann (28) is a subpar defender but can put up awesome offensive years. Yadier Molina (29) is a great defender but he may have peaked offensively last year. Buster Posey (25) is a great hitter but may or may not be a great defender, so far he's looked ok but the sample size is limited, and he's returning from that nasty injury. Underrated Miguel Montero (28) is also an ok hitter and fielder that should be included in the discussion. And you can see by age, Wilson Ramos (24) has a big edge on all of these guys except Posey. They may start to decline while he's getting better.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Fantasy draft Nats
I know listening to other people talk about their fantasy teams is the worstestest but it does hold some interest in seeing how the Nats are being valued. Personally i ended up with 4 Nationals. Wilson Ramos (kept - its a keeper auction league) who's a steal, totally overpaid for Zimmerman ( again) and took dollar level fliers on Lidge and Lombardozzi The top 4 in the Nats rotation were kept along with Mike Morse, Drew Storen, Danny Espinosa, and Ian Desmond. Someone loved Bernadina and got him early and Werth was bid over with some interest. Clippard was bid on (thinking hed replace Storen - the fool!) H-Rod was gotten too for the same reason I pulled Lidge Only LaRoche had lukewarm interest.
Meaningless really but I did sense a lot more respect for the Nats this go around especially for the pitchers who were kept at not exactly bargain prices
Meaningless really but I did sense a lot more respect for the Nats this go around especially for the pitchers who were kept at not exactly bargain prices
Monday, March 26, 2012
Plus or Minus time wasted
I can't leave this well enough alone.
Could Werth have hit the ball 500 ft? Assuming all Boz's walking was correct it IS possible. Boz assumes a 3-4-5 triangle to calculate the distance the ball would have went if it didn't hit the tree. Why does he go with 3-4-5? Probably because he remembers it from school, but as you can imagine there really isn't any good reason for that choice. A line drive hitting the tree 12 feet up would go further than 12 feet out, a can of corn
hitting at the same place would probably be lucky to go 4 feet more.
Without knowing the angle of the ball when it hit the tree, we're pretty much at a loss for being exact. (there are other ways of getting at it but they involve even more stuff we don't know). But at 12 feet up on a long home run there isn't that much difference between a good average guess, which is kind of what Boz put out, and the most accurate calculation. He said 9-12 feet. The old baseball Tale of the Tape, which is slightly better (but honestly not much), would put it at 7.5 (high fly) -14.5 (line drive) extra feet. If we take the longest possible answer from that (and why wouldn't we for a Spring Training home run) we get 501 feet.
So let's say that then. 501 feet for Werth. Why not, right?
Could Werth have hit the ball 500 ft? Assuming all Boz's walking was correct it IS possible. Boz assumes a 3-4-5 triangle to calculate the distance the ball would have went if it didn't hit the tree. Why does he go with 3-4-5? Probably because he remembers it from school, but as you can imagine there really isn't any good reason for that choice. A line drive hitting the tree 12 feet up would go further than 12 feet out, a can of corn
hitting at the same place would probably be lucky to go 4 feet more.
Without knowing the angle of the ball when it hit the tree, we're pretty much at a loss for being exact. (there are other ways of getting at it but they involve even more stuff we don't know). But at 12 feet up on a long home run there isn't that much difference between a good average guess, which is kind of what Boz put out, and the most accurate calculation. He said 9-12 feet. The old baseball Tale of the Tape, which is slightly better (but honestly not much), would put it at 7.5 (high fly) -14.5 (line drive) extra feet. If we take the longest possible answer from that (and why wouldn't we for a Spring Training home run) we get 501 feet.
So let's say that then. 501 feet for Werth. Why not, right?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Mike Morse Contest!
Allright boys and girls, Mike Morse's lat is not healing up according to the best case scenario the Nats training staff laid out for us, much like they lay out for every injury. This leaves him unlikely to be ready for Opening Day. The easy breezy weekend question for you is - when will Mike Morse take his first cuts this season? I'll go ahead and guess May 1st the day the Nats start their 2nd homestand. Do I honestly think it will take that long? No - but with the Nats injury history I'd feel silly not guessing a few weeks longer than I would for another team.
What do the Nats do in the meantime? Not much. In house the easy answer is using some combination of DeRosa, Ankiel, and Bernadina. None of them can make up for Morse with the bat, though so the Nats are looking at other options.
Brett Carroll - you've heard his name alot this spring and you've probably thought "Why am I hearing his name a lot this spring?" The reason is because he fields pretty well. Is he a CF? No, but if say... Werth got injured and the Nats wanted a guy on the bench that can be a late inning defensive replacement, he could fill that role. Problem is - he can't hit. At his peak he put up some good AAA numbers, but those never translated to anything in the majors and by now you'd be silly to expect anything decent.
Jason Michaels - At one point in the mid 2000s you might have thought Michaels was a bit of an underrated player. He seemingly could hit for average and field pretty well, which normally would make a guy a very useful 3rd OF for a bad team, or 4th OF for a good one. Problem is Michaels can't hit righties. His success in the past has been dependent on smart platooning. At age 36 Michaels could be terrible at any moment but if you can find a decent lefty to platoon with him, he wouldn't be the worst choice to fill in for a month or so.
Xavier Nady - Nady was a nice prospect back in the day but only developed into an average-hitting poor-fielding outfielder. He had one good half-season with the Pirates and turned that into a trade to the only Yankees team to not make the playoffs since Bryce Harper was two. Prospect + good half-season + recognizable name has given him more opportunities than he's deserved, including this one.
So - a strict Michaels, Bernadina platoon might be the best bet for now. Roger doesn't show big splits but you want Michaels up versus lefties. You might be thinking about Laynce Nix right now and he would be perfect... in a platoon just like Michaels. Nix could hit better but Jason probably brings better fielding and Bernadina is better on the base paths. None of this is perfect but you can cobble a temporary solution together from what the Nats have on hand.
What do the Nats do in the meantime? Not much. In house the easy answer is using some combination of DeRosa, Ankiel, and Bernadina. None of them can make up for Morse with the bat, though so the Nats are looking at other options.
Brett Carroll - you've heard his name alot this spring and you've probably thought "Why am I hearing his name a lot this spring?" The reason is because he fields pretty well. Is he a CF? No, but if say... Werth got injured and the Nats wanted a guy on the bench that can be a late inning defensive replacement, he could fill that role. Problem is - he can't hit. At his peak he put up some good AAA numbers, but those never translated to anything in the majors and by now you'd be silly to expect anything decent.
Jason Michaels - At one point in the mid 2000s you might have thought Michaels was a bit of an underrated player. He seemingly could hit for average and field pretty well, which normally would make a guy a very useful 3rd OF for a bad team, or 4th OF for a good one. Problem is Michaels can't hit righties. His success in the past has been dependent on smart platooning. At age 36 Michaels could be terrible at any moment but if you can find a decent lefty to platoon with him, he wouldn't be the worst choice to fill in for a month or so.
Xavier Nady - Nady was a nice prospect back in the day but only developed into an average-hitting poor-fielding outfielder. He had one good half-season with the Pirates and turned that into a trade to the only Yankees team to not make the playoffs since Bryce Harper was two. Prospect + good half-season + recognizable name has given him more opportunities than he's deserved, including this one.
So - a strict Michaels, Bernadina platoon might be the best bet for now. Roger doesn't show big splits but you want Michaels up versus lefties. You might be thinking about Laynce Nix right now and he would be perfect... in a platoon just like Michaels. Nix could hit better but Jason probably brings better fielding and Bernadina is better on the base paths. None of this is perfect but you can cobble a temporary solution together from what the Nats have on hand.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Needing Morse and LaRoche
The Nationals would like to win 87/88 games this year. This would give them an excellent chance at getting into the playoffs. Obviously to do this they need to get better.
To break it down to it's most simplistic level, baseball is about scoring and preventing runs. To improve your record you can score more runs, prevent more runs, or preferably do both. Last year the Nats scored 624 runs and gave up 643. 624 runs was 44 runs below the National League average, good for 12th place in the league. In other words, it was at best a mediocre offense. 643 runs was 30 runs better than the NL average, good for 7th in the league. It was a good pitching staff. Logic would say the Nats it would probably be easiest for the Nats to improve by improving the offense. However they chose to improve the pitching. Can they improve it enough?
Let's say for the moment that the Nats offense remains the same. 624 runs, and below average. How many runs would the Nats have to give up to win 87/88 games? The method used by most interested in the fancy stats is the Pythagorean equation. It's not perfect, but it gives you a good general idea of where you need to be in terms of runs scored/allowed in order to get the wins you want. Using this the Nats would need to allow about 570 runs to expect 87/88 wins. Last year only the Phillies accomplished that. In 2010, no one did.
What does that tell us? Well it tells us that even with one of the best pitching staff in the majors the Nats may not prevent enough runs to carry that mediocre offense to the playoffs. Can it happen? Sure. But should you expect it? It's hard to say that. Plus, the dirty little secret about last year was how well that starting pitching staff actually performed. Take a look at these stats :
Jason Marquis - 20 starts - 120.2 IP - 3.95 ERA
Brad Peacock - 2 starts - 10.2 IP - 0.00 ERA
Tom Milone - 5 starts - 26 IP - 3.81 ERA
Ross Detwiler - 10 starts - 56 IP - 3.21 ERA
Put them together and you have a guy that pitched 213 innings and put up a 3.54 ERA. In other words - that's pretty much what they are hoping for from Edwin Jackson. You'll get more from ZNN, but only 5 starts more. You have Strasburg back, but the Nats aren't going from 0 Strasburg to 30+ starts of Strasburg. He was back last year, and he won't pitch all of this one. So you can only add about 20 new Strasburg starts in there. Is Gio much better than Livan? Certainly. Will Wang or whoever, be better than the mix of remaining Nats starts from 2010 (Wang, Gorzelanny, Maya)? Probably. But be realistic here. For the Nats to improve by 70 runs their starting pitching would have to see their ERA drop from a perfectly respectable 3.80 to a wow-inducing 3.12.
But that's ok right? Because the Nats are going to get better offensively too, right? Yes, I believe that is the case. I believe a full year of Zimmerman, a better year from Werth, a healthy year of LaRoche, minor improvements from Ramos and/or Espinosa, the eventual rise of Bryce, should all make the Nats offense better enough to score more runs even considering the potential negatives in the offense (poor hitting from Desmond and the Ankiel/Bernie platoon, possible minor regressions from Ramos and/or Espinosa, Morse's minor regression). If they can score just a handful more runs say 25, then the Nats can give up closer to 600 runs. That's needing a top 3-5 pitching staff rather than one of the best pitching staffs in recent memory. That seems much more reasonable.
And this is where we go back to yesterday's post - you NEED a healthy Morse and LaRoche to do this. The bench depth (right now) is simply not there to compensate from and major issues with these guys. Remember, even if you believe it was a little bit of a fluke, Morse hit .303 / .360 / .550 last year. In terms of pure offense that was one of the Top 10 seasons in the NL. You can't just shrug losing something like that.
The Nats improved in the offseason, but injuries to Morse and LaRoche can potentially wipe out those improvements. If you care most about the macro picture - about the Nats as a contender in 2013 and beyond, this is a bump in the road. LaRoche was never a factor for those years and Morse was not necessarily seen as a long term piece either. The Nats still look like they are going to be able to make that jump (assuming the last few right moves are made). But if you care most about the micro picture - about the Nats as a contender in 2012, these injuries could be a very big deal.
To break it down to it's most simplistic level, baseball is about scoring and preventing runs. To improve your record you can score more runs, prevent more runs, or preferably do both. Last year the Nats scored 624 runs and gave up 643. 624 runs was 44 runs below the National League average, good for 12th place in the league. In other words, it was at best a mediocre offense. 643 runs was 30 runs better than the NL average, good for 7th in the league. It was a good pitching staff. Logic would say the Nats it would probably be easiest for the Nats to improve by improving the offense. However they chose to improve the pitching. Can they improve it enough?
Let's say for the moment that the Nats offense remains the same. 624 runs, and below average. How many runs would the Nats have to give up to win 87/88 games? The method used by most interested in the fancy stats is the Pythagorean equation. It's not perfect, but it gives you a good general idea of where you need to be in terms of runs scored/allowed in order to get the wins you want. Using this the Nats would need to allow about 570 runs to expect 87/88 wins. Last year only the Phillies accomplished that. In 2010, no one did.
What does that tell us? Well it tells us that even with one of the best pitching staff in the majors the Nats may not prevent enough runs to carry that mediocre offense to the playoffs. Can it happen? Sure. But should you expect it? It's hard to say that. Plus, the dirty little secret about last year was how well that starting pitching staff actually performed. Take a look at these stats :
Jason Marquis - 20 starts - 120.2 IP - 3.95 ERA
Brad Peacock - 2 starts - 10.2 IP - 0.00 ERA
Tom Milone - 5 starts - 26 IP - 3.81 ERA
Ross Detwiler - 10 starts - 56 IP - 3.21 ERA
Put them together and you have a guy that pitched 213 innings and put up a 3.54 ERA. In other words - that's pretty much what they are hoping for from Edwin Jackson. You'll get more from ZNN, but only 5 starts more. You have Strasburg back, but the Nats aren't going from 0 Strasburg to 30+ starts of Strasburg. He was back last year, and he won't pitch all of this one. So you can only add about 20 new Strasburg starts in there. Is Gio much better than Livan? Certainly. Will Wang or whoever, be better than the mix of remaining Nats starts from 2010 (Wang, Gorzelanny, Maya)? Probably. But be realistic here. For the Nats to improve by 70 runs their starting pitching would have to see their ERA drop from a perfectly respectable 3.80 to a wow-inducing 3.12.
But that's ok right? Because the Nats are going to get better offensively too, right? Yes, I believe that is the case. I believe a full year of Zimmerman, a better year from Werth, a healthy year of LaRoche, minor improvements from Ramos and/or Espinosa, the eventual rise of Bryce, should all make the Nats offense better enough to score more runs even considering the potential negatives in the offense (poor hitting from Desmond and the Ankiel/Bernie platoon, possible minor regressions from Ramos and/or Espinosa, Morse's minor regression). If they can score just a handful more runs say 25, then the Nats can give up closer to 600 runs. That's needing a top 3-5 pitching staff rather than one of the best pitching staffs in recent memory. That seems much more reasonable.
And this is where we go back to yesterday's post - you NEED a healthy Morse and LaRoche to do this. The bench depth (right now) is simply not there to compensate from and major issues with these guys. Remember, even if you believe it was a little bit of a fluke, Morse hit .303 / .360 / .550 last year. In terms of pure offense that was one of the Top 10 seasons in the NL. You can't just shrug losing something like that.
The Nats improved in the offseason, but injuries to Morse and LaRoche can potentially wipe out those improvements. If you care most about the macro picture - about the Nats as a contender in 2013 and beyond, this is a bump in the road. LaRoche was never a factor for those years and Morse was not necessarily seen as a long term piece either. The Nats still look like they are going to be able to make that jump (assuming the last few right moves are made). But if you care most about the micro picture - about the Nats as a contender in 2012, these injuries could be a very big deal.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
So if the season started today...
Would 5-9 be Ankiel, Desmond, DeRosa, Bernadina? What's that sound? It couldn't be... but it sure does sound like... you know, I may be crazy but I swear I can hear the sound of Roy Halladay laughing.
I know you can't plan for every contingency, but Rizzo;
I know you can't plan for every contingency, but Rizzo;
- wanted Bryce down in the minors,
- knew LaRoche was coming back from a major injury,
- knew Werth was coming back from his worst year ever,
- knew Zimmerman was coming back from his own injury plagued year in a career full of nicks and bumps,
- knew Morse greatly outperformed expectations last year,
- knew Ian Desmond was on his last chance,
- knew Ramos and Espinosa have potential to regress,
- knew Ankiel and Bernadina were no better than space filler
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Bryce to the minors? I'm shocked. Shocked!
Bryce Harper will start the season in the minors. This made the most sense as explained by everyone everywhere. For a few weeks, the Nats will gain an extra year of control. For a few months, an extra year of savings. I expect the former and not the latter but that will depend on Bryce.
Once again Mike Rizzo asserted his control of this team. Davey wanted Bryce up. Of course he did. Davey is going to coach a couple of years. Bryce up now gives him the best chance of winning during that time. Why should he care what happens 6 years down the road? He'll be kicking up his feet in some advisory role by that time. But Rizzo cares.
I'm not a stickler on this. In fact usually I say bring the guy up now. Six years is a long time. Who's to know what will happen between now and then, and whether you'll even care about his FA status by the time it rolls around. But we're not talking about the usual player. We're talking about someone universally hailed as a can't miss prospect who has only suffered some minor road bumps on his way to AAA, and he's not yet 20. This is special. Special players have different rules.
Once again Mike Rizzo asserted his control of this team. Davey wanted Bryce up. Of course he did. Davey is going to coach a couple of years. Bryce up now gives him the best chance of winning during that time. Why should he care what happens 6 years down the road? He'll be kicking up his feet in some advisory role by that time. But Rizzo cares.
I'm not a stickler on this. In fact usually I say bring the guy up now. Six years is a long time. Who's to know what will happen between now and then, and whether you'll even care about his FA status by the time it rolls around. But we're not talking about the usual player. We're talking about someone universally hailed as a can't miss prospect who has only suffered some minor road bumps on his way to AAA, and he's not yet 20. This is special. Special players have different rules.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Don't not trade Lannan to the Red Sox!
First Commandment - Do not trade John Lannan
Second Commandment - If you must trade John Lannan, do not trade him to the Red Sox
(I have a weak understanding of the word "commandment")
I don't want to hate John Lannan and root for his utter and complete failure. Don't make me. Tigers? If you must. I would at least then see how Roar of the Tigers renders his eyebrows in illustration. But to Boston? America's ear infection? No I say, no.
Second Commandment - If you must trade John Lannan, do not trade him to the Red Sox
(I have a weak understanding of the word "commandment")
I don't want to hate John Lannan and root for his utter and complete failure. Don't make me. Tigers? If you must. I would at least then see how Roar of the Tigers renders his eyebrows in illustration. But to Boston? America's ear infection? No I say, no.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
17 vs 1821
Not to harp on the subject but after the last rounds of cuts (which included Rendon! Shocking as it may be that the guy with the most perfect swing in the world, who makes baseballs rocket off his bat in defiance of all laws of physics, is not ready for the major leagues.) The Nats in general, and Johnson specifically, were effusive in their praise for Corey Brown.
You might remember Corey as the other guy in the deal for Josh Willingham. The guy fans were less enthused about. He had hit .320 / .415 / .502 in AA in 2010 but it was only 90 games, he was admittedly old (24) for the league, and in AAA (though only 40 games) he immediately struggled with a .193 / .253 / .378 line. Last year was supposed to tell us what kind of player he really was and he put up a .235 / .326 / .402 line. So there you go. But wait! That's only because he sprained his ankle! and then put to much pressure on himself! And then had a staph infection a mere (1,2,3,4) 5 months later! And the locusts! Don't forget about the locusts!
Corey's time in camp impressed the staff but all it was was a good week and a half of baseball. Only 17 at bats to look at. Of course if he keeps hitting .400 the Nats won't have to look for a CF, but history tells us he won't. Corey Brown has had a handful of seasons in the minors. 1821 at bats to be precise. He has proven himself to be a middling average, good but not great power hitter, with ok patience. He fields well but strikes out too much. That latter is a problem because guys that strike out too much in the minors tend to strike out WAY too much in the majors. If he can control his strikeouts he might be a decent bench player or 4th OF for a couple years. But he needs to make the improvements now because over the next couple of years the adjustments will become harder and harder to make as his body starts to feel the effects of age.
There's a reason Justin Maxwell isn't anchoring the Nats outfield. It's the same reason you may not see Corey Brown back in a Nats uniform this year. They just aren't good enough.
You might remember Corey as the other guy in the deal for Josh Willingham. The guy fans were less enthused about. He had hit .320 / .415 / .502 in AA in 2010 but it was only 90 games, he was admittedly old (24) for the league, and in AAA (though only 40 games) he immediately struggled with a .193 / .253 / .378 line. Last year was supposed to tell us what kind of player he really was and he put up a .235 / .326 / .402 line. So there you go. But wait! That's only because he sprained his ankle! and then put to much pressure on himself! And then had a staph infection a mere (1,2,3,4) 5 months later! And the locusts! Don't forget about the locusts!
Corey's time in camp impressed the staff but all it was was a good week and a half of baseball. Only 17 at bats to look at. Of course if he keeps hitting .400 the Nats won't have to look for a CF, but history tells us he won't. Corey Brown has had a handful of seasons in the minors. 1821 at bats to be precise. He has proven himself to be a middling average, good but not great power hitter, with ok patience. He fields well but strikes out too much. That latter is a problem because guys that strike out too much in the minors tend to strike out WAY too much in the majors. If he can control his strikeouts he might be a decent bench player or 4th OF for a couple years. But he needs to make the improvements now because over the next couple of years the adjustments will become harder and harder to make as his body starts to feel the effects of age.
There's a reason Justin Maxwell isn't anchoring the Nats outfield. It's the same reason you may not see Corey Brown back in a Nats uniform this year. They just aren't good enough.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Will you ever learn?
I'm talking to you. You know who you are. Why must we go through this every spring? The beat guys have to write these stories because you can only pen so many Bryce Harper attitude pieces in one week. But you the reader, you need to know these reports come with mall-purchased soft pretzel sized grains of salt.
Gio Gonzalez doing real well in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Eury Perez doing real well in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Jayson Werth struggling in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Ian Desmond struggling in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Chien-Ming Wang struggling in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Mark Teahan struggling in Spring? Telling. (Sorry, Mark. You're done)
Also if you could stop with the "why not have this guy play center" questions, that would be nice too. It's bad enough Werth may be playing there and he's spent the majority of his career as an above average corner outfielder in the majors. You can't just stick someone in the outfield and expect them to play ok, this isn't Little League. As fake Ron Washington would tell Andy from Parks and Rec; "It's incredibly hard."
Gio Gonzalez doing real well in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Eury Perez doing real well in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Jayson Werth struggling in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Ian Desmond struggling in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Chien-Ming Wang struggling in Spring? Doesn't matter.
Mark Teahan struggling in Spring? Telling. (Sorry, Mark. You're done)
Also if you could stop with the "why not have this guy play center" questions, that would be nice too. It's bad enough Werth may be playing there and he's spent the majority of his career as an above average corner outfielder in the majors. You can't just stick someone in the outfield and expect them to play ok, this isn't Little League. As fake Ron Washington would tell Andy from Parks and Rec; "It's incredibly hard."
Friday, March 09, 2012
Still no worries about Davey
Davey Johnson is a proven manager but he has been away from the game for a long time. There doesn't seem to be any negative effects of a long layoff on managing ability (of course assuming you think much of managing ability being impactful at all) but still it's good to kick the tires on the ol' jalopy here and there to make sure he's still running well.
This weeks minor check - Davey went out and noted that he wants Werth to be aggressive. Kilgore had a very nice blog entry noting how this could be problematic since a lot of Werth's value is being selective at the plate. But the comment got me thinking - is Davey himself too aggressive? It has been a decade since he last managed and that decade has dramatically shifted the ideas on patience, right?
Well sort of. The real peak of walking came during the height of what most people would call the steroid era; 1998, 1999, 2000. In other words right when Davey last managed. Then there was another peak at the end of the 2000s (Moneyball reaction?) but last year's NL walk total was the lowest since 1997. No "strange new landscape" here.
Also Davey's teams never seemed to suffer from over-aggressiveness. Here's the team's rank in walks for his tenures and two years before/after.
Mets : 9, 12 | 7, 5, 1, 3, 3, 9 | 6, 3
Reds : 9, 3 | 10, 4, 3 | 2, 10
Orioles : 4, 3 | 5, 6 | 5, 4
Dodgers : 11, 14 | 9, 5 | 9, 16
There's ALOT of noise here. For starters I should be looking at walk-rate (Good teams score more runs, get more plate appearances, get more opportunities for walks) and doing it by player not whole team (you could bring in a great walking player and have him walk less but still make the team walk more. That'd be a GM improvement not a Davey one), but I don't see any reason to spend time doing that. The league is not real different from the times when Davey last coached, and there's no cursory evidence he makes his players too aggressive. Nothing to see here, move along.
This weeks minor check - Davey went out and noted that he wants Werth to be aggressive. Kilgore had a very nice blog entry noting how this could be problematic since a lot of Werth's value is being selective at the plate. But the comment got me thinking - is Davey himself too aggressive? It has been a decade since he last managed and that decade has dramatically shifted the ideas on patience, right?
Well sort of. The real peak of walking came during the height of what most people would call the steroid era; 1998, 1999, 2000. In other words right when Davey last managed. Then there was another peak at the end of the 2000s (Moneyball reaction?) but last year's NL walk total was the lowest since 1997. No "strange new landscape" here.
Also Davey's teams never seemed to suffer from over-aggressiveness. Here's the team's rank in walks for his tenures and two years before/after.
Mets : 9, 12 | 7, 5, 1, 3, 3, 9 | 6, 3
Reds : 9, 3 | 10, 4, 3 | 2, 10
Orioles : 4, 3 | 5, 6 | 5, 4
Dodgers : 11, 14 | 9, 5 | 9, 16
There's ALOT of noise here. For starters I should be looking at walk-rate (Good teams score more runs, get more plate appearances, get more opportunities for walks) and doing it by player not whole team (you could bring in a great walking player and have him walk less but still make the team walk more. That'd be a GM improvement not a Davey one), but I don't see any reason to spend time doing that. The league is not real different from the times when Davey last coached, and there's no cursory evidence he makes his players too aggressive. Nothing to see here, move along.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Adam LaRoche: A Second Look
Last season most Nats fans weren't... enthused when the team signed Adam LaRoche. Part of that had to do with the failed pursuits of Carlos Pena and Derrek Lee, players that were just a couple years removed from seasons that surpass LaRoche's best ever. In comparison, LaRoche was a mild letdown. Part of it, though had to do with LaRoche's numbers. 2010 was not as good as 2008 or 2009, and given his age, most saw this as a sign of his decline.
I took a walk through the stats last year and came to the same conclusion. For those that don't want to read all that the basic thought process was that in 2010 his K-rate went way up and his BB-rate went down. While this could have been because of the "D-back Way" the numbers seemed to to be backed up by other fancy stats, most notably a increase in his swings at pitches out of the strike zone, a decrease in contact at pitches in the strike zone and an drop in his line drive rate.
Look at what happened last year to those stats:
In other words, everything I was looking at got better. In fact they basically returned to what he was doing the few years prior to 2010. The exception was the LD% which didn't quite get there - but his... let's say "post-contact" stats were all messed up - he was basically grounding everything weakly - we assume that's the injury...right? So back to the question at hand - maybe it was the the D-backs? To check that I looked at the players who joined Arizona in 2010 from other teams to see how they fared compared to the 2-3 years prior
Kelly Johnson
Tony Abreu (I could only find minor league stats for K-rate and BB-rate. His major league AB are really limited)
Mostly got worse. What about those that left the D-backs in 2011 in comparison to 2010?
Mark Reynolds
Chris Snyder
Mostly got better. Toss in LaRoche's numbers here and you do see a small (and to be honest, totally unconclusive, it's five players we're talking about here) pattern. The 2010 Diamondbacks, who not only led the league in K's but set an all-time record in the stat, may have adversely affected their hitters with the approach the team took to at bats. I'm not saying they struck out too much (I don't really believe that matters), but there is a difference between "Find a good pitch, swing from the heels, we don't care if you whiff" and "Swing from the heels, we don't care if you whiff". The D-backs may have strayed too much toward the latter and suffered because of it.
What does this mean for LaRoche? Well maybe I was too harsh in the initial judgement. If it was the "D-back Way" that caused a drop in stats in 2010, not the inevitable decline that comes with age, than perhaps there's a good chance a healthly LaRoche can put up that .275 60 BB 25 HR season the Nats were hoping for when he signed. That may not seem like much but it would be an improvement over what LF was producing last year and this offense needs to find improvements.
I took a walk through the stats last year and came to the same conclusion. For those that don't want to read all that the basic thought process was that in 2010 his K-rate went way up and his BB-rate went down. While this could have been because of the "D-back Way" the numbers seemed to to be backed up by other fancy stats, most notably a increase in his swings at pitches out of the strike zone, a decrease in contact at pitches in the strike zone and an drop in his line drive rate.
Look at what happened last year to those stats:
- K-rate back down from 28.0% to 20.9%
- BB-rate back up from 7.8% to 14.1%
- Swinging out of the strike zone down from 28.1% to 21.8%
- Contact in the strike zone up from 85.1% to 87.4%
- LD% up from 18.2% to 19.1%
In other words, everything I was looking at got better. In fact they basically returned to what he was doing the few years prior to 2010. The exception was the LD% which didn't quite get there - but his... let's say "post-contact" stats were all messed up - he was basically grounding everything weakly - we assume that's the injury...right? So back to the question at hand - maybe it was the the D-backs? To check that I looked at the players who joined Arizona in 2010 from other teams to see how they fared compared to the 2-3 years prior
Kelly Johnson
K-rate - Up
BB-rate - Up
Swing Out - Up (but not by much)
Contact In - Down
LD% - Up
Tony Abreu (I could only find minor league stats for K-rate and BB-rate. His major league AB are really limited)
K-rate - Up
BB-rate - Down
Mostly got worse. What about those that left the D-backs in 2011 in comparison to 2010?
Mark Reynolds
K-rate -Down
BB-rate -Down
Swing Out - Up
Contact In -Up
LD% -No ChangeChris Snyder
K-rate -Down
BB-rate -Up
Swing Out - Down
Contact In -Up
LD% - Up
Mostly got better. Toss in LaRoche's numbers here and you do see a small (and to be honest, totally unconclusive, it's five players we're talking about here) pattern. The 2010 Diamondbacks, who not only led the league in K's but set an all-time record in the stat, may have adversely affected their hitters with the approach the team took to at bats. I'm not saying they struck out too much (I don't really believe that matters), but there is a difference between "Find a good pitch, swing from the heels, we don't care if you whiff" and "Swing from the heels, we don't care if you whiff". The D-backs may have strayed too much toward the latter and suffered because of it.
What does this mean for LaRoche? Well maybe I was too harsh in the initial judgement. If it was the "D-back Way" that caused a drop in stats in 2010, not the inevitable decline that comes with age, than perhaps there's a good chance a healthly LaRoche can put up that .275 60 BB 25 HR season the Nats were hoping for when he signed. That may not seem like much but it would be an improvement over what LF was producing last year and this offense needs to find improvements.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Around the NL East
The Nats don't play in a vacuum, or at least they don't until Oreck buys the right to name Nationals Park, to win a spot in the playoffs they are going to have to fight it out in what may be the toughest division in baseball next year. What's going on over there?
Braves - Injuries have become a big concern for the Braves. Tim Hudson, who had back surgery in November, is not going to recover in time for Spring Training as originally hoped and is looking more and more like a May return. Tommy Hanson meanwhile, is trying to recover from a Grade 1 (re: mild) concussion he suffered in a car wreck. Hanson should be fine, and they have depth to cover Hudson, but this is not how they hoped to enter the season. Offensively, Freddy Freeman partially dislocated a kneecap. Right now all seems ok, but it's the 2nd time he's had this injury. He'll be in a brace for the immediate future, if not his career.
Marlins - It's all about Josh Johnson. Ok it's about Reyes and Josh Johnson and maybe Giancarlo but there was no question on whether Jose and "Don't call me Mike" would play. Josh Johnson, if healthy, is a premier pitcher and all early indications are he's on track to be ready for Opening Day. First start of Spring went real smooth. In less promising news Anibal Sanchez has some back soreness but no one is worried, and frankly you'd trade a healthy JJ for an injured Anibal every day of the week.
Mets - What a mess. Thanks to Madoff, the Wilpon's have to pay back 80 mill and have to go to court with a chance to pay up 300 million. Most think they'll win that case, but still it's a distraction. Meanwhile, David Wright is sitting out with a stiff rib cage and Ike Davis is being treated for Valley fever. (insert "Gag me with a spoon full of medicine" joke here). Both are still slated to start the season with the team, and Davis is only missing a day or two of work here and there, but it's not an auspicious start for an offense that was average last year and lost their two most productive players. On the good side for the Mets, Johan looks to start next. His quick return to form is crucial. Without him the team's rotation looks alot like the Nats from 2006-2010.
Phillies - As would be expected from a veteran team, a lot of nagging injuries. All eyes are on Ryan Howard, who tore his achilles making the last out of the NLDS. Things looked optimistic enough a few weeks ago to dream of a pre All-Star break return, but a recent infection makes that more and more unlikely. Utley (knee) and Polanco (hernia) are being brought along slowly but both are expected to play on Opening Day. Of course, the Phillies are a pitching team first these days and Joe Blanton (the 5th starter) was the only concern coming back from an elbow injury. He looks fine.
So no early return for Ryan Howard, and with nagging injuries the Phillies could be the SF Giants of the NL East. The Braves also look a little vulnerable now that Tim Hudson is going to be out longer than expected. The Mets were set to finish 5th and don't appear to have a string of good fortune setting them up for anything else. This is all good news for the Nats.
On the flip side the Marlins appear to be healthy and their one big question mark Josh Johnson looks like he'll be ready Day 1. That's trouble. And let's not forget about the Nats own issues with LaRoche still yet to play and Werth not 100%. The offense can ill afford any bad luck this year given how it struggled last year and no external improvements were made in the offseason.
All in all a good early spring for Nats fans, but not perfect.
Braves - Injuries have become a big concern for the Braves. Tim Hudson, who had back surgery in November, is not going to recover in time for Spring Training as originally hoped and is looking more and more like a May return. Tommy Hanson meanwhile, is trying to recover from a Grade 1 (re: mild) concussion he suffered in a car wreck. Hanson should be fine, and they have depth to cover Hudson, but this is not how they hoped to enter the season. Offensively, Freddy Freeman partially dislocated a kneecap. Right now all seems ok, but it's the 2nd time he's had this injury. He'll be in a brace for the immediate future, if not his career.
Marlins - It's all about Josh Johnson. Ok it's about Reyes and Josh Johnson and maybe Giancarlo but there was no question on whether Jose and "Don't call me Mike" would play. Josh Johnson, if healthy, is a premier pitcher and all early indications are he's on track to be ready for Opening Day. First start of Spring went real smooth. In less promising news Anibal Sanchez has some back soreness but no one is worried, and frankly you'd trade a healthy JJ for an injured Anibal every day of the week.
Mets - What a mess. Thanks to Madoff, the Wilpon's have to pay back 80 mill and have to go to court with a chance to pay up 300 million. Most think they'll win that case, but still it's a distraction. Meanwhile, David Wright is sitting out with a stiff rib cage and Ike Davis is being treated for Valley fever. (insert "Gag me with a spoon full of medicine" joke here). Both are still slated to start the season with the team, and Davis is only missing a day or two of work here and there, but it's not an auspicious start for an offense that was average last year and lost their two most productive players. On the good side for the Mets, Johan looks to start next. His quick return to form is crucial. Without him the team's rotation looks alot like the Nats from 2006-2010.
Phillies - As would be expected from a veteran team, a lot of nagging injuries. All eyes are on Ryan Howard, who tore his achilles making the last out of the NLDS. Things looked optimistic enough a few weeks ago to dream of a pre All-Star break return, but a recent infection makes that more and more unlikely. Utley (knee) and Polanco (hernia) are being brought along slowly but both are expected to play on Opening Day. Of course, the Phillies are a pitching team first these days and Joe Blanton (the 5th starter) was the only concern coming back from an elbow injury. He looks fine.
So no early return for Ryan Howard, and with nagging injuries the Phillies could be the SF Giants of the NL East. The Braves also look a little vulnerable now that Tim Hudson is going to be out longer than expected. The Mets were set to finish 5th and don't appear to have a string of good fortune setting them up for anything else. This is all good news for the Nats.
On the flip side the Marlins appear to be healthy and their one big question mark Josh Johnson looks like he'll be ready Day 1. That's trouble. And let's not forget about the Nats own issues with LaRoche still yet to play and Werth not 100%. The offense can ill afford any bad luck this year given how it struggled last year and no external improvements were made in the offseason.
All in all a good early spring for Nats fans, but not perfect.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Center Post
Kill-Gore at the Post takes on the Nats centerfield issues. Worth a read despite calling Ian Desmond a "stalwart". This paragraph is a fun one to think about:
Second, did Ankiel winning the job really convince the Nats to trade Morgan for a guy who has a last name that sounds familiar? (who incidentally karaoked with Jamie Lynn Sigler the other night and doesn't even get an off-hand mention from the Sports Bog. That's how meaningless this guy is right now to the Nats). Really? Or did Nyjer wear out his welcome and Rizzo kick him to the curb to satisfy his obsession with "clubhouse" guys? I know which way I'm betting.
Third. I'm gonna go ahead and HOPE that the scouts and stat analysts had him graded highly defensively. Not because that makes any sense, as the lifetime numbers peg him as average to slightly below average, but at least they could tease out a defense to... no no on second thought if you are gonna use the word "highly" you can't even defend that. You can defend "not embarrasing", "acceptable", "best available at the money the Nats are willing to dole out", maybe even "good enough that they thought he could squeeze out one decent year at this age" but not "highly". The scouts and stat guys might know what they are doing in other places, but if they really graded out Ankiel highly - they need new guys to do their CF scouting and analysis.
For this spring, that meant re-signing Ankiel with a minor league deal. (The Nationals, Rizzo said, were surprised Ankiel could be had for a non-guaranteed contract.) Ankiel won the center-field job last season, convincing the Nationals to trade Morgan to the Milwaukee Brewers. Despite two stints on the disabled list, Ankiel provided excellent defense; Nationals scouts and statistical analysts alike graded him highly.Ok, first off, why were the Nats surprised that Ankiel could be had for a non-guaranteed contract? He's a 33 year old who can neither get on base or slug anymore. He was the 24th best CF in the league (by Fangraphs WAR) last year and that had everything to do with an oddly productive defensive year. I looked through all the teams and found two that may have wanted him for a CF (given his bat wanting him for LF or RF seemed like a non-starter). The Marlins (currently projected to start Emilio Bonaficio) and the White Sox (someone named de Aja). Sooo pretty obvious here - Ankiel could be had on a non-guaranteed contract because 27 teams had obviously better options available, 2 of the other 3 had chosen another direction, and his bat and primary skill (rocket arm!) don't make him worth a guaranteed bench deal.
Second, did Ankiel winning the job really convince the Nats to trade Morgan for a guy who has a last name that sounds familiar? (who incidentally karaoked with Jamie Lynn Sigler the other night and doesn't even get an off-hand mention from the Sports Bog. That's how meaningless this guy is right now to the Nats). Really? Or did Nyjer wear out his welcome and Rizzo kick him to the curb to satisfy his obsession with "clubhouse" guys? I know which way I'm betting.
Third. I'm gonna go ahead and HOPE that the scouts and stat analysts had him graded highly defensively. Not because that makes any sense, as the lifetime numbers peg him as average to slightly below average, but at least they could tease out a defense to... no no on second thought if you are gonna use the word "highly" you can't even defend that. You can defend "not embarrasing", "acceptable", "best available at the money the Nats are willing to dole out", maybe even "good enough that they thought he could squeeze out one decent year at this age" but not "highly". The scouts and stat guys might know what they are doing in other places, but if they really graded out Ankiel highly - they need new guys to do their CF scouting and analysis.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
CRASH and SOAR '12
I'm sure everybody remembers when I did this last year, right? For those too busy to click and read, the thought process is this; every year most players are going to do about what you think they will, some players will do better/worse than you thought, and a certain small percentage will outpace your best/worst expectations. It's this last group that I'm interested in because the wrong player crashing or the right one soaring can make a game or two difference in where you expect to be in the standings.
What happened last year for the Nats? Of course Werth is the one that sticks out like a sore thumb. Most of us thought he'd underperform expectations, but not like that. After that you could argue LaRoche (who I had as my CRASH) but that depends on how much you think the injury was at fault. I don't like counting injuries against players in this, since that's something else entirely. Matt Stairs falling right out of the league is also a possibility but a 43 year bench player dropping off the face of the Earth isn't unheard of. On the SOAR side, I think Mike Morse fit the bill, and Tyler Clippard, but I can see the arguments saying they were within expectations. Jordan Zimmermann is one people might bring up but I'm not sure we had enough base information on him to feel secure he couldn't make this leap.
So what's up in 2012? While I could probably make up a hard and fast rule for this (based off like PECOTA confidence intervals or the like) I think it's just better to go at this informally. To reiterate, we're looking for players that will drastically under or over perform expectations. Personally I think rookies/2nd year type players are awfully hard to put into this group. Last year Danny Espinosa hit .236 with 21 homers. This season I think he could hit .260 with 28 homers or .215 with 16 homers this year and neither would really surprise me. We just don't have the data yet. For someone like Ryan Zimmerman though, equal bumps (say a .315 30 season, or a .265 16) would. Also thanks to small sample sizes, relievers can easily bounce around from year to year, so I'm hesitant to pick one of these guys. Storen could put up a 1.80 ERA or a 3.80 ERA and I wouldn't bat an eye, but that's me. Guys coming off surprising good/bad years or injury are also hard to judge because they could bounce back to just above normal numbers or continue to fall a bit and it wouldn't be shocking. So really the Nats don't have many easy candidates for surprises, at least not on the offensive side.
For SOAR, a good chunk of my head wants to go with Gio Gonzalez. The age is right, moving the NL could make a big difference. It's all there. That being said I'm going to go with Wilson Ramos for my soar. The minor league numbers suggest a batting average ceiling that he hasn't reached yet and he's showing more power in the majors than I thought he would. I'd probably put his reasonable high expectation now at around .285 22 hrs. Part of me believes that a .300+ 25+ season is there.
For CRASH, Mr. Beast Mode is an obvious choice given the huge flaw in his game and the way he bumped his expecations up after last year. Now a seasons like 2009 expanded out (.250 29 homers) seems almost impossible, but I think the potential is still there. But just because the potential is there doesn't mean I think it's remotely likely to happen. I'm going with Edwin Jackson. It's really nothing but pure opinion. I see a guy who didn't manage to step up his game, despite moving AL->NL, to a team in the playoff hunt, and to a staff known for making pitchers better, in his first year heading into free agency. I see a guy that was traded 5 times in 6 years. I know the Nats say they've found his flaw but come on guys, you don't seriously buy that do you? That 6 other teams, all looking to make their pitchers better to win games, all missed this flaw the Nats spotted? I think the floor on Edwin is probably an ERA season around 4.40. Let's see if I'm right and he crashes through that.
What happened last year for the Nats? Of course Werth is the one that sticks out like a sore thumb. Most of us thought he'd underperform expectations, but not like that. After that you could argue LaRoche (who I had as my CRASH) but that depends on how much you think the injury was at fault. I don't like counting injuries against players in this, since that's something else entirely. Matt Stairs falling right out of the league is also a possibility but a 43 year bench player dropping off the face of the Earth isn't unheard of. On the SOAR side, I think Mike Morse fit the bill, and Tyler Clippard, but I can see the arguments saying they were within expectations. Jordan Zimmermann is one people might bring up but I'm not sure we had enough base information on him to feel secure he couldn't make this leap.
So what's up in 2012? While I could probably make up a hard and fast rule for this (based off like PECOTA confidence intervals or the like) I think it's just better to go at this informally. To reiterate, we're looking for players that will drastically under or over perform expectations. Personally I think rookies/2nd year type players are awfully hard to put into this group. Last year Danny Espinosa hit .236 with 21 homers. This season I think he could hit .260 with 28 homers or .215 with 16 homers this year and neither would really surprise me. We just don't have the data yet. For someone like Ryan Zimmerman though, equal bumps (say a .315 30 season, or a .265 16) would. Also thanks to small sample sizes, relievers can easily bounce around from year to year, so I'm hesitant to pick one of these guys. Storen could put up a 1.80 ERA or a 3.80 ERA and I wouldn't bat an eye, but that's me. Guys coming off surprising good/bad years or injury are also hard to judge because they could bounce back to just above normal numbers or continue to fall a bit and it wouldn't be shocking. So really the Nats don't have many easy candidates for surprises, at least not on the offensive side.
For SOAR, a good chunk of my head wants to go with Gio Gonzalez. The age is right, moving the NL could make a big difference. It's all there. That being said I'm going to go with Wilson Ramos for my soar. The minor league numbers suggest a batting average ceiling that he hasn't reached yet and he's showing more power in the majors than I thought he would. I'd probably put his reasonable high expectation now at around .285 22 hrs. Part of me believes that a .300+ 25+ season is there.
For CRASH, Mr. Beast Mode is an obvious choice given the huge flaw in his game and the way he bumped his expecations up after last year. Now a seasons like 2009 expanded out (.250 29 homers) seems almost impossible, but I think the potential is still there. But just because the potential is there doesn't mean I think it's remotely likely to happen. I'm going with Edwin Jackson. It's really nothing but pure opinion. I see a guy who didn't manage to step up his game, despite moving AL->NL, to a team in the playoff hunt, and to a staff known for making pitchers better, in his first year heading into free agency. I see a guy that was traded 5 times in 6 years. I know the Nats say they've found his flaw but come on guys, you don't seriously buy that do you? That 6 other teams, all looking to make their pitchers better to win games, all missed this flaw the Nats spotted? I think the floor on Edwin is probably an ERA season around 4.40. Let's see if I'm right and he crashes through that.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
So... now what
Spring Training right now boils down to two topics. Let's discuss them now so we can concentrate on watching basketball for the next month.
1. Who will be the 5th starter? - Strasburg will start. Zimmermann will start. Gonzalez will start. Jackson will start. The first two are simply the best pitchers the Nats have. Gonzalez is a step behind them, but better than the rest. Jackson, in theory, should be in the "next best" group with Gio, but in practice he hasn't quite made that happen. Still you don't pay 10 million for a guy to middle relieve. So it comes down to Wang, Lannan, and Detwiler.
You all know how I feel. (Lannan, Lannan, Lannan). Now what do I think?
Well I don't think it should be Wang. As a Yankees fan, I can tell you that the love of Chien-Ming is built on a house of cards. He was never truly a special pitcher, more a guy that got the breaks for a couple years when he was surrounded by starters either underperforming, unlucky, or unloved. It was the comparison to those guys, added to the win total in that market, that makes people a bit too fond of this guy. But the like of Wang is reasonable. He was a good pitcher prior to injury. If healthy he should be on a major league rotation. His age though (32 next season), injury history, and type of pitcher he is makes him the least appealing to me.
Lannan is fine. He's objectively the least talented of the three but you can't argue with the results. Yes, eventually he won't be able to keep this up but that's true of all pitchers. With 3 1/2 seasons telling us one thing, it's far more likely to me that there is something about Lannan that we haven't been able to tease out in the stats. Not grit or heart or anything like that, something concrete, but still something that we don't know. In this new era of baseball when nearly everything is explainable, it can be hard to accept that there is something knowable out there that hasn't been quantified but to me it seems apparent there is. But here's the kicker, in my head I still don't pick Lannan for the rotation. For all that he is, Lannan is still at best a #3 rotation type guy and probably more a 4/5. We know the ceiling, and we know with the number of guys on the way with higher ones that Lannan is not long for the Nationals. With an option left he seems to be a fair starter but great insurance.
Detwiler is my "head" pick. He's the youngest and the potential maybe to be something special. Oh, it's unlikely, true, but Wang wasn't special when he was thought to be (5 years ago), and Lannan has a mound of data saying the same. Detwiler, under control through 2016, though may in fact be. So why not find out now? If he was substantially worse than Lannan or Wang, I'd feel differently, but he wasn't last year. The Nats haven't gone all in on 2012. It still seems to be a year of finding out where the last pieces for the run are going to need to go. Starting Wang or Lannan, doesn't answer a question. Starting Detwiler might.
If Lannan gets the nod, I'll be happy. If Detwiler gets the nod, I'll understand. If Wang gets the nod, well it's not the worst thing in the world and he may be the choice for those dying to make the playoffs in 2012.*
2. Will Bryce Harper start with the team? This is a little simpler. No. No is the answer. Not unless you are wanting desperately to win this year. The money cost by the clock starting likely isn't worth the extra win that may or may not make the difference. Nor is a good idea to jury-rig an OF together for one year to do it.
Yes he was very good in the AFL. He was also very mediocre in AA. He fits so much better into 2013 that I'd love to see him kept down for a whole year (though I doubt that'll happen). If he forces the issue, so be it, but we aren't going to be able to tell that from silly Spring Training stats.
Let's do the annual dance, shall we? Who led the Nats in hitting last ST? Jeff Fisher. What about among players, who, you know, play in the majors? Adam LaRoche. Ok but who was 2nd? Alberto Gonzalez. Well who led the team in ERA? A few with 0.00 but the one with the most IP was Sean Burnett. What about Clip and Storen? 7.73 and 11.12, respectively.
SPRING TRAINING STATS ARE MEANINGLESS. They should know right now what they are going to do with Bryce and they should announce it. It should be minor leagues, but if it's majors so be it. Just don't let it be because he has 4 homers in Viera.
*This may seem contrary to what I've said in earlier posts say... about being mad CF is still a mess, or Desmond might lead off, because it might cost the Nats a win. But I don't see those things as questions. You aren't potentially solving anything keeping CF a mess. Desmond has never shown himself to be decent as a lead-off hitter. This isn't taking a bad gamble, this is wasting time. That's never a good idea.
1. Who will be the 5th starter? - Strasburg will start. Zimmermann will start. Gonzalez will start. Jackson will start. The first two are simply the best pitchers the Nats have. Gonzalez is a step behind them, but better than the rest. Jackson, in theory, should be in the "next best" group with Gio, but in practice he hasn't quite made that happen. Still you don't pay 10 million for a guy to middle relieve. So it comes down to Wang, Lannan, and Detwiler.
You all know how I feel. (Lannan, Lannan, Lannan). Now what do I think?
Well I don't think it should be Wang. As a Yankees fan, I can tell you that the love of Chien-Ming is built on a house of cards. He was never truly a special pitcher, more a guy that got the breaks for a couple years when he was surrounded by starters either underperforming, unlucky, or unloved. It was the comparison to those guys, added to the win total in that market, that makes people a bit too fond of this guy. But the like of Wang is reasonable. He was a good pitcher prior to injury. If healthy he should be on a major league rotation. His age though (32 next season), injury history, and type of pitcher he is makes him the least appealing to me.
Lannan is fine. He's objectively the least talented of the three but you can't argue with the results. Yes, eventually he won't be able to keep this up but that's true of all pitchers. With 3 1/2 seasons telling us one thing, it's far more likely to me that there is something about Lannan that we haven't been able to tease out in the stats. Not grit or heart or anything like that, something concrete, but still something that we don't know. In this new era of baseball when nearly everything is explainable, it can be hard to accept that there is something knowable out there that hasn't been quantified but to me it seems apparent there is. But here's the kicker, in my head I still don't pick Lannan for the rotation. For all that he is, Lannan is still at best a #3 rotation type guy and probably more a 4/5. We know the ceiling, and we know with the number of guys on the way with higher ones that Lannan is not long for the Nationals. With an option left he seems to be a fair starter but great insurance.
Detwiler is my "head" pick. He's the youngest and the potential maybe to be something special. Oh, it's unlikely, true, but Wang wasn't special when he was thought to be (5 years ago), and Lannan has a mound of data saying the same. Detwiler, under control through 2016, though may in fact be. So why not find out now? If he was substantially worse than Lannan or Wang, I'd feel differently, but he wasn't last year. The Nats haven't gone all in on 2012. It still seems to be a year of finding out where the last pieces for the run are going to need to go. Starting Wang or Lannan, doesn't answer a question. Starting Detwiler might.
If Lannan gets the nod, I'll be happy. If Detwiler gets the nod, I'll understand. If Wang gets the nod, well it's not the worst thing in the world and he may be the choice for those dying to make the playoffs in 2012.*
2. Will Bryce Harper start with the team? This is a little simpler. No. No is the answer. Not unless you are wanting desperately to win this year. The money cost by the clock starting likely isn't worth the extra win that may or may not make the difference. Nor is a good idea to jury-rig an OF together for one year to do it.
Yes he was very good in the AFL. He was also very mediocre in AA. He fits so much better into 2013 that I'd love to see him kept down for a whole year (though I doubt that'll happen). If he forces the issue, so be it, but we aren't going to be able to tell that from silly Spring Training stats.
Let's do the annual dance, shall we? Who led the Nats in hitting last ST? Jeff Fisher. What about among players, who, you know, play in the majors? Adam LaRoche. Ok but who was 2nd? Alberto Gonzalez. Well who led the team in ERA? A few with 0.00 but the one with the most IP was Sean Burnett. What about Clip and Storen? 7.73 and 11.12, respectively.
SPRING TRAINING STATS ARE MEANINGLESS. They should know right now what they are going to do with Bryce and they should announce it. It should be minor leagues, but if it's majors so be it. Just don't let it be because he has 4 homers in Viera.
*This may seem contrary to what I've said in earlier posts say... about being mad CF is still a mess, or Desmond might lead off, because it might cost the Nats a win. But I don't see those things as questions. You aren't potentially solving anything keeping CF a mess. Desmond has never shown himself to be decent as a lead-off hitter. This isn't taking a bad gamble, this is wasting time. That's never a good idea.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Quick Branching Hits on Zimm's signing
I like the deal, alot.
You can make the argument that it is statistically an overpay dollar-wise BUT
This means the Nats though either
You can make the argument that it is statistically an overpay dollar-wise BUT
- Good players are typically overpaid when they reach free agency and in a disproportionate way. The cost difference between an B player and a B+, is smaller than the difference between a B+ player and an A- one, etc.etc. Ryan is an A player. Even if by strict theory it shouldn't be, in reality this is a deal based on the market for the type of player he is.
- of course that's if he's healthy.
- Who cares? This is not about getting the best value, it's about getting the most wins. If you can afford to overpay you do it because each win matters.
- Unless you are think baseball teams should be run as businesses and not expensive hobbies
- Of course the loss of the no-trade clause could effect the Nats in a negative way down the road actually costing them wins
- In scenario 1, Zimmerman falls apart. Rendon is great. The Nats are hobbled with a veteran they have to pay that they likely could have gotten someone to bite on in a deal and possibly nowhere (and no will) to play him
- A possible scenario but I wouldn't call it likely
- personally I think expectations for Rendon are way too high.
- In scenario 2, the team falls apart (Gio fails, Stras injured again, Werth 2011 not a fluke, Ramos/Espy get no better...). The Nats are winning 70-75 games a year and then plan needs to be reset. Moving Zimm would help do it.
- Unlikely - and I don't think winning teams should plan for what may or may not happen 3-4 years down the road. You should have 2 year tunnel vision. Too much can change beyond that.
- That doesn't excuse stupid overpays (Werth) though
This means the Nats though either
- Have to go all-in to winning by 2015/6 because they most likely won't have the cash to keep their best young players going into FA
- ZNN, Strasburg, Gio, Ramos, Espinosa will all hit big bucks from 2015-2017, some will be dealt before reaching FA.
- By that point Werth will be done, Zimm will be declining.
- I won't be bothered if the Nats don't spend the money at this point assuming they have done so 2011-2014 to win.
- Have to become the Yankees/Sox of the NL and pay everyone a ton of money to play
- Get real lucky with the late round picks their farm system will now have to use and the trades they choose to make as the core hits FA.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Z... 2... 1...
Z-Day. No dice... So far.
Supposedly hinging on the no-trade clause but outside of that room no one can be 100% sure. Seems reasonable though. If Zimmerman really wants to try to finish his career here the last thing he wants is to find out he's been shipped to Colorado in 3 years. On the Nats side they have a potential replacement drafted and Zimmerman is an injury risk. Two bad years in a row, with Rendon knocking at the door, and Rizzo could easily think the Nats are better off eating some of the contract to free up some more money.
Again, because of the strong feeling that both sides really want to come to terms, I don't see a deal happening right now. There just ins't that pressure that can force those last hurdles to be overcome.
Supposedly hinging on the no-trade clause but outside of that room no one can be 100% sure. Seems reasonable though. If Zimmerman really wants to try to finish his career here the last thing he wants is to find out he's been shipped to Colorado in 3 years. On the Nats side they have a potential replacement drafted and Zimmerman is an injury risk. Two bad years in a row, with Rendon knocking at the door, and Rizzo could easily think the Nats are better off eating some of the contract to free up some more money.
Again, because of the strong feeling that both sides really want to come to terms, I don't see a deal happening right now. There just ins't that pressure that can force those last hurdles to be overcome.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Z-minus 1 day
Zimmerman says no contract talks past Friday. We're all acting like this is a big deal, but it isn't. Zimmerman has 2 years left on his deal. He'd like an extension now, but by all accounts is not holding it against the Nats if they don't sign him. He's only said he'll test free agency if he doesn't have a deal in place by the start of NEXT year. So all this amounts to is a big gamble for both sides, not a do or die situation.
When Ryan is healthy his combination of defense & offense makes him one of the top players in the league. He was 7th in WAR in 2009, 6th in 2010. Over those two years you could argue that only Albert Pujols and Evan Longoria were more valuable players. Don't gloss over that. He was arguably the third best overall player in baseball over a two year stretch. 3rd best! Third!
Problem is Ryan isn't always healthy. Since 2007 he's only had one full season, missing minor time in 2010 and major time in 2008 and last year. He may still be a great player but if he can only play 60% of the season, he deserves 60% of the pay, right? Injuries tend to haunt players. Not only can that same area get injured, but once they get an injury sometimes a player tends to compensate in ways that make other injuries more likely. All the while they are aging and the body just can't heal like it used to.* The player might become a less productive hitter. It might all pile up so they just can't play full season anymore. At the same time the Nats are most likely looking at an extension that takes Ryan into his mid 30s. His body isn't that old. He could easily give the Nats 5 great full years before he hits 35. Is he Scott Rolen or is he Eric Chavez?
By not working out a deal with Ryan the Nats are taking a risk. If he puts up a season like 2009 or 2010 then the Nats will have to compensate him as one of the best players in the league, because for 3 out of the last 4 years he would have been just that. We're talking 6 years at 20 million per as the starting point. I'd be shocked if he didn't get more than 150 million. However if he gets injured again, or somehow doesn't play up to the same level he had in the past then the Nats can negotiate that down a lot. What was 7 years, 160 mill might now be 5 years, 70 mill.
What makes this gamble is what Ryan is asking for right now. My guess is that it's gotta be close to Tulo's 6/120. Assuming that, I'd say the gamble of not signing him is probably worth it. The only way you pay a lot more is if he is healthy and great. If he's healthy but more average he probably gets about the same. If he has minor injuries (say around 130 games played) but plays great he probably gets the same. Anything else (minor+average, major+great, etc. ) and he gets a a lot less. It's a bet that's in the Nats favor.
So I don't expect a signing before Friday. Since its not a bad gamble for the Nats to wait, they are probably trying to get a minor discount right now (think 6/108) and might actually stick to that. Ryan will then have a chance to literally make them pay. I think most players would be fine with that.
*I hate the "Nick Johnson" comparisons. Nick had a ball bounce up and hit him in the face. He broke his leg in a collision with another player. He may have been injury prone but really his career was derailed by bad luck, more than a frail body
When Ryan is healthy his combination of defense & offense makes him one of the top players in the league. He was 7th in WAR in 2009, 6th in 2010. Over those two years you could argue that only Albert Pujols and Evan Longoria were more valuable players. Don't gloss over that. He was arguably the third best overall player in baseball over a two year stretch. 3rd best! Third!
Problem is Ryan isn't always healthy. Since 2007 he's only had one full season, missing minor time in 2010 and major time in 2008 and last year. He may still be a great player but if he can only play 60% of the season, he deserves 60% of the pay, right? Injuries tend to haunt players. Not only can that same area get injured, but once they get an injury sometimes a player tends to compensate in ways that make other injuries more likely. All the while they are aging and the body just can't heal like it used to.* The player might become a less productive hitter. It might all pile up so they just can't play full season anymore. At the same time the Nats are most likely looking at an extension that takes Ryan into his mid 30s. His body isn't that old. He could easily give the Nats 5 great full years before he hits 35. Is he Scott Rolen or is he Eric Chavez?
By not working out a deal with Ryan the Nats are taking a risk. If he puts up a season like 2009 or 2010 then the Nats will have to compensate him as one of the best players in the league, because for 3 out of the last 4 years he would have been just that. We're talking 6 years at 20 million per as the starting point. I'd be shocked if he didn't get more than 150 million. However if he gets injured again, or somehow doesn't play up to the same level he had in the past then the Nats can negotiate that down a lot. What was 7 years, 160 mill might now be 5 years, 70 mill.
What makes this gamble is what Ryan is asking for right now. My guess is that it's gotta be close to Tulo's 6/120. Assuming that, I'd say the gamble of not signing him is probably worth it. The only way you pay a lot more is if he is healthy and great. If he's healthy but more average he probably gets about the same. If he has minor injuries (say around 130 games played) but plays great he probably gets the same. Anything else (minor+average, major+great, etc. ) and he gets a a lot less. It's a bet that's in the Nats favor.
So I don't expect a signing before Friday. Since its not a bad gamble for the Nats to wait, they are probably trying to get a minor discount right now (think 6/108) and might actually stick to that. Ryan will then have a chance to literally make them pay. I think most players would be fine with that.
*I hate the "Nick Johnson" comparisons. Nick had a ball bounce up and hit him in the face. He broke his leg in a collision with another player. He may have been injury prone but really his career was derailed by bad luck, more than a frail body
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
How are they back here again?
Honestly. Just go read the first paragraph from last year.
It's gotten to the point that this is so bad that Nats fans are seemingly happy that Mike Cameron is gone because for some reason that clears things up, I guess? Try Ian Desmond? Maybe they bring up Bryce early and Werth can play CF? I think the fans have been beaten down so much that they've come to accept this annual failure. "Thank you sir! Can we have another inning of Roger Bernadina?!"
(Yes, yes if Bryce Harper can play CF this is a moot point but think about it; as a team they believe in Bryce's ability to play center so much they are probably going to take a 33 year old who last split time at the position in 2005 and use him there instead. That should tell us something.)
It doesn't make sense that it has taken the Nats so long to address this successfully. It's even more confusing since Rizzo has built this team into a pitching and defense first squad. If you are trying to perfect your defense after finding the right SS (which they haven't really done either), comes finding the right CF. Part of me wants to believe it's just really hard to fill that position and in a certain way it is. Centerfielders are highly valued and young ones especially are being hoarded even if they can't hit (I'm looking at you Dexter Fowler). But what if they lower their standards just a little bit? Take a look at last year. Here are guys that manned CF and had more than 400 ABs. There are two former Nats there (Byrd, Morgan) and they both can field! There are two guys that were traded for (Bourn, Rasmus) years younger than Ankiel. There's a guy that was had for a song last season in FA (Melky). Hell, Emilio Bonaficio played some games at center (not great) last year. Why didn't the Nats think about that? There have been options that would have made the Nats a better team overall without impacting whatever long range plans they have. It's hard to use that "hard to fill" excuse knowing that.
If they are so worried about defense, then Ankiel is ok but he can't be the best choice. I have to believe there is some true no-hit great glove guy somewhere. (Endy was available) If they are worried about trying to help the team win in combination, well I just noted there were better choices than Ankiel last year, I'm sure there will be this year. Only if they are looking for "Mr. Right CF" does this constant failure make any sense, and if that's the case the Nats are reaching a point where continuing the search rather than settling for "Mr. Good Enough CF" could be the difference between playoffs and not playoffs, between division crowns and wild cards.
Gah - I'm going back to my alternate universe, where the Nats are wondering if a never-traded, never-concussed Ryan Church's defense can hold out just a couple more years.
It's gotten to the point that this is so bad that Nats fans are seemingly happy that Mike Cameron is gone because for some reason that clears things up, I guess? Try Ian Desmond? Maybe they bring up Bryce early and Werth can play CF? I think the fans have been beaten down so much that they've come to accept this annual failure. "Thank you sir! Can we have another inning of Roger Bernadina?!"
(Yes, yes if Bryce Harper can play CF this is a moot point but think about it; as a team they believe in Bryce's ability to play center so much they are probably going to take a 33 year old who last split time at the position in 2005 and use him there instead. That should tell us something.)
It doesn't make sense that it has taken the Nats so long to address this successfully. It's even more confusing since Rizzo has built this team into a pitching and defense first squad. If you are trying to perfect your defense after finding the right SS (which they haven't really done either), comes finding the right CF. Part of me wants to believe it's just really hard to fill that position and in a certain way it is. Centerfielders are highly valued and young ones especially are being hoarded even if they can't hit (I'm looking at you Dexter Fowler). But what if they lower their standards just a little bit? Take a look at last year. Here are guys that manned CF and had more than 400 ABs. There are two former Nats there (Byrd, Morgan) and they both can field! There are two guys that were traded for (Bourn, Rasmus) years younger than Ankiel. There's a guy that was had for a song last season in FA (Melky). Hell, Emilio Bonaficio played some games at center (not great) last year. Why didn't the Nats think about that? There have been options that would have made the Nats a better team overall without impacting whatever long range plans they have. It's hard to use that "hard to fill" excuse knowing that.
If they are so worried about defense, then Ankiel is ok but he can't be the best choice. I have to believe there is some true no-hit great glove guy somewhere. (Endy was available) If they are worried about trying to help the team win in combination, well I just noted there were better choices than Ankiel last year, I'm sure there will be this year. Only if they are looking for "Mr. Right CF" does this constant failure make any sense, and if that's the case the Nats are reaching a point where continuing the search rather than settling for "Mr. Good Enough CF" could be the difference between playoffs and not playoffs, between division crowns and wild cards.
Gah - I'm going back to my alternate universe, where the Nats are wondering if a never-traded, never-concussed Ryan Church's defense can hold out just a couple more years.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Headline writing comes to the fore!
As you know if you've read this blog for... well for a while, I guess, I have a thing for good and bad headline writing. So I couldn't let this Jeremy Lin thing pass without comment. Besides it's pitchers and catchers which is slightly more meaningless than regular Spring Training which itself is slightly more meaningless than this blog. (and you know what I think of this blog) Here's my annual quick take on the time in Florida: "Yay baseball is starting! Now call me back when a Bryce Harper decision has been definitively made and when the rotation has been decided on and please don't use ST stats to decide either one of these things."
Anyway there is absolutely NO chance that the headline written was just coincidence. There just isn't. You either go bland or you try for something clever. If you were going for a bland headline "chink in the armor" is an odd one to use for a basketball player.Any copy editor with a bit of experience would equate "armor" with defense or possibly reference to knights and that time period. You'd be far more likely to use the phrase when taking about a stout run stopping line getting a key injury, or describing a great goalie that seemed to feel the pressure in big games. And that's what you see if you browse the "3000" references made by ESPN, more football than anything else. It's also a phrase used far more to talk about a team, group, or idea than an individual, especially an individual in a team sport. Even if you get past this point and believe that he slapped down a weak headline in general, he's then supposed to look at it in context. That's his job. That's why a "Ruby Tuesday for Dmitri" or the "ooh-ooh that smell" Strawberry Shortcake headlines bother me so much. It takes no effort in this day and age to check that the reference you are making makes sense beyond "it sounds good". This Lin headline is at best a guy that can't do his job properly, and at worst (and far far far more likely) someone making a stupid joke in a position that allows for no tolerance of such things.
There you go, more baseball tomorrow.
Anyway there is absolutely NO chance that the headline written was just coincidence. There just isn't. You either go bland or you try for something clever. If you were going for a bland headline "chink in the armor" is an odd one to use for a basketball player.Any copy editor with a bit of experience would equate "armor" with defense or possibly reference to knights and that time period. You'd be far more likely to use the phrase when taking about a stout run stopping line getting a key injury, or describing a great goalie that seemed to feel the pressure in big games. And that's what you see if you browse the "3000" references made by ESPN, more football than anything else. It's also a phrase used far more to talk about a team, group, or idea than an individual, especially an individual in a team sport. Even if you get past this point and believe that he slapped down a weak headline in general, he's then supposed to look at it in context. That's his job. That's why a "Ruby Tuesday for Dmitri" or the "ooh-ooh that smell" Strawberry Shortcake headlines bother me so much. It takes no effort in this day and age to check that the reference you are making makes sense beyond "it sounds good". This Lin headline is at best a guy that can't do his job properly, and at worst (and far far far more likely) someone making a stupid joke in a position that allows for no tolerance of such things.
There you go, more baseball tomorrow.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Gary Carter
Let's be serious. Despite this being a blog about the franchise that Gary Carter was once a part of, I'm not going to have much to add to the conversation. As a Yankees fan growing up in NY in the 80s - Carter was a Met. As a guy that started casually following then blogging about the Expos in the early/mid 2000s, Carter was already long gone. As a guy that blogs about the Nationals after the team moved to DC, Carter is less of a hero to the people reading this than Frank Howard or Walter Johnson (really? Baseball was that bad in DC we have to go back to Walter Johnson for Hero #2?) You're going to get better reads about Carter from someone else. That being said here are your better reads:
From the Montreal Gazette
Column #1
Cowan
Johnson
McDonald
Lupica
Kurkijan (for ESPN where Carter's death is almost as important as the Bulls winning a regular season game over the now 15-14 Celtics)
Verducci
and last but not least Bill Ladson
From the Montreal Gazette
Column #1
Cowan
Johnson
McDonald
Lupica
Kurkijan (for ESPN where Carter's death is almost as important as the Bulls winning a regular season game over the now 15-14 Celtics)
Verducci
and last but not least Bill Ladson
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Ian Desmond - 20th century leadoff man
In his latest Q&A session, the hardest working man in Nat business, Bill Ladson, notes somewhat offhandedly:
Ian's career OBP is .304. His OBP last year was .298. This isn't a fluke. His career minor league OBP is .326 and that includes the 2009 year that seems more and more out of place the longer we see Desmond play.
Now it is true that Desmond did better in the leadoff spot, but he still wasn't good at getting on base. He had an OBP of .318 while batting first. You could parse it further and say he did even better than that the second time around as a leadoff hitter - He did have an OBP of .342 after being set in that role in mid-August - but it was a batting average driven .342 (not to mention only 40 games). He only had 8 walks during those 41 games. If he hits say... .280, a completely respectable batting average that's about 20 points over his career average, that OBP is more like .317. That's terrible, somewhere around 75th if we look at the 100 NL batters with the most at bats. Unless you believe he will be a .300 hitter, Ian isn't the type of guy you want leading off.
Wait a second, you might say, I remember you saying that batting order doesn't really matter. Well, you're right. I did say that, and I believe it. Putting the wrong guy in the wrong spot isn't going to dramatically change the prospects of a team. But it might change it by one win and the Nats are in a position where that one win could really matter. If they were worse or better, maybe you can start Desmond as the leadoff hitter and hope he grows into that role. But lose one more game than they need to in 2012 and that may be the difference between being the 2nd WC and packing it up at season's end. This is a year where the Nats have to look toward optimizing everything to squeeze out as many wins as they can from day one.
Here's the dilemma though. Who does leadoff then? The Nats don't get on base. You aren't going to put Zimmerman or Morse as leadoff hitters. Putting Werth at leadoff was possibly Riggleman's most inspired move, but Jayson's terrible season derailed that move before it could get started, and I don't see Davey making the same sort of move, unfortunately. Ramos will get enough hits to get on base more, but he's a catcher and convention demands a base stealer at the top of the lineup. Espinosa will walk enough to get on base more and can steal a base, but has a natural power that people don't want "wasted" at the top of the lineup. LaRoche and Ankiel would be terrible choices for a couple reasons. That's it - that's everyone. Desmond gets to leadoff and not get on base... by default? Because everyone is too good to get more at bats? Because the improvement is minimal, even over the course of an entire season, so it's easier to go with the standard line-up than deal with the distraction of one that's probably better?
I'm not sure what the Nats are gonna do. They need every win they can get, but since they don't have a prototypical lead-off hitter any alternate player put in that spot will have to succeed immediately or else the 150 years of convention weighing down on the team will force a change. I'd honestly love to see Werth in that position again because he only needs to hit like .250 to lead this bunch in getting on base, but I don't see that happening, so I'm hoping for a Ramos/Espinosa at the top of the lineup in either order. It's not typical, but it's not crazy either, and it has the built-in "trying to get my best young hitters as many at bats as possible" argument that can stand against most fans of convention. I think that's the best I can hope for.
Update - Nats Blog had a take on this too. Just yesterday. Quick summary : "Yep, there are no good choices". But worth a read just to see how badly in numbers the Nats failed at finding a leadoff hitter last year (and in general)
The Nationals still believe in Desmond, who is projected to become the leadoff hitter...Hmm maybe that didn't need a block quote... anyway, I hadn't really thought about it much but that seems about right. Desmond was the leadoff hitter for the last month and a half of the year. He seemed to be doing pretty well in that spot, and it sort of feels like he fits that spot. Here's the thing, though - Ian Desmond doesn't get on base very well.
Ian's career OBP is .304. His OBP last year was .298. This isn't a fluke. His career minor league OBP is .326 and that includes the 2009 year that seems more and more out of place the longer we see Desmond play.
Now it is true that Desmond did better in the leadoff spot, but he still wasn't good at getting on base. He had an OBP of .318 while batting first. You could parse it further and say he did even better than that the second time around as a leadoff hitter - He did have an OBP of .342 after being set in that role in mid-August - but it was a batting average driven .342 (not to mention only 40 games). He only had 8 walks during those 41 games. If he hits say... .280, a completely respectable batting average that's about 20 points over his career average, that OBP is more like .317. That's terrible, somewhere around 75th if we look at the 100 NL batters with the most at bats. Unless you believe he will be a .300 hitter, Ian isn't the type of guy you want leading off.
Wait a second, you might say, I remember you saying that batting order doesn't really matter. Well, you're right. I did say that, and I believe it. Putting the wrong guy in the wrong spot isn't going to dramatically change the prospects of a team. But it might change it by one win and the Nats are in a position where that one win could really matter. If they were worse or better, maybe you can start Desmond as the leadoff hitter and hope he grows into that role. But lose one more game than they need to in 2012 and that may be the difference between being the 2nd WC and packing it up at season's end. This is a year where the Nats have to look toward optimizing everything to squeeze out as many wins as they can from day one.
Here's the dilemma though. Who does leadoff then? The Nats don't get on base. You aren't going to put Zimmerman or Morse as leadoff hitters. Putting Werth at leadoff was possibly Riggleman's most inspired move, but Jayson's terrible season derailed that move before it could get started, and I don't see Davey making the same sort of move, unfortunately. Ramos will get enough hits to get on base more, but he's a catcher and convention demands a base stealer at the top of the lineup. Espinosa will walk enough to get on base more and can steal a base, but has a natural power that people don't want "wasted" at the top of the lineup. LaRoche and Ankiel would be terrible choices for a couple reasons. That's it - that's everyone. Desmond gets to leadoff and not get on base... by default? Because everyone is too good to get more at bats? Because the improvement is minimal, even over the course of an entire season, so it's easier to go with the standard line-up than deal with the distraction of one that's probably better?
I'm not sure what the Nats are gonna do. They need every win they can get, but since they don't have a prototypical lead-off hitter any alternate player put in that spot will have to succeed immediately or else the 150 years of convention weighing down on the team will force a change. I'd honestly love to see Werth in that position again because he only needs to hit like .250 to lead this bunch in getting on base, but I don't see that happening, so I'm hoping for a Ramos/Espinosa at the top of the lineup in either order. It's not typical, but it's not crazy either, and it has the built-in "trying to get my best young hitters as many at bats as possible" argument that can stand against most fans of convention. I think that's the best I can hope for.
Update - Nats Blog had a take on this too. Just yesterday. Quick summary : "Yep, there are no good choices". But worth a read just to see how badly in numbers the Nats failed at finding a leadoff hitter last year (and in general)
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Thank you Mark DeRosa
For being the age you are (in other words - older than me).
This team is so young! They are all babies! Literally the team can't play noon games on a weekend because it's nap time. Lombardozzi hits a home run and Davey Johnson has to carry him in a Baby Bjorn around the bases. Chris Marrero is out indefinitely with a bad case of diaper rash. (but seriously when/if Bryce makes the team - he IS so young. He has no memory of the baseball strike. There has always been a wild card. He has no memory of the hideous awful time when the Yankees weren't good (I still love you Roberto Kelly!). Kristi Yamaguchi is like Peggy Fleming to him. It's crazy!)
This team is so young! They are all babies! Literally the team can't play noon games on a weekend because it's nap time. Lombardozzi hits a home run and Davey Johnson has to carry him in a Baby Bjorn around the bases. Chris Marrero is out indefinitely with a bad case of diaper rash. (but seriously when/if Bryce makes the team - he IS so young. He has no memory of the baseball strike. There has always been a wild card. He has no memory of the hideous awful time when the Yankees weren't good (I still love you Roberto Kelly!). Kristi Yamaguchi is like Peggy Fleming to him. It's crazy!)
Monday, February 13, 2012
Cespedes an A?
That renders one point moot. What's next the Nats do sign Oswalt for the ultimate Spring Training split squad team?
I didn't expect that and a couple notes
So if you didn't read through the comments of Friday's post virtually everyone said start Bryce in the minors. Is this just a savvy internet readership? An acceptance that 2012 might still be the year before the year that matters? A reaction to an attitude that fits a 19 yr old, but is not necessarily how most expect a major leaguer to act? I don't know. From the comments I would summarize the opinion as "He hasn't forced the issue yet, so why not keep him down in the minors and let him learn a bit more, all the while taking advantage of the extra year of arbitration and free agency you might get if he stays down there long enough." Seems sound to me, but I'll say I expected a lot more "bring him up"s.
The most interesting thing from the weekend in regards to the Nats actually had to do with the Marlins. By all accounts they were in the driver's seat for landing Cespedes, and now they it looks like they are closing in on a signing. It will be very interesting if they land him because we'll have the whole "the Nats should have signed him / lucky they didn't sign him" drama play out with a rival team right in front of us. If Cespedes makes an immediate impact, plays good CF, AND puts the Marlins ahead of the Nats in the standings, will the Nats brass feel the need to react? Should the Nats brass feel the need to react?
Explain to me again why the Nats would be better off with one year of Edwin Jackson as opposed to one-year Roy Oswalt? Not that he would have signed with the Nats, but Rizzo seemed to target Edwin Jackson rather than Oswalt. It must be about the innings because if we're talking value here, a year of Oswalt at 10 million is almost certain to be a better value than a year of Edwin Jackson.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Do you want Bryce to start the season with the team?
He wants to. Davey wants him to (mainly I assume because the team's lefty power is up to Ankiel, Espinosa's bad side, and LaRoche who slugged about .023 last year), Rizzo might not but seems to be warming to the idea. But a year of Bryce now is likely a year less of Bryce down the road.
I'm sure you'd do it if you could have Jason Heyward's first year for Bryce, but I'm also sure you wouldn't do it if you'd follow up with Heyward's second. Jason had more impressive AA numbers than Bryce. Could another year of seasoning prevented the fall back and what was essentially a wasted year at best?
I don't think we can answer these questions, or at least we can't do it better than the guys watching him play everyday. His minor league stats suggest he can hang in the majors, but do you want him just to hang or do you want him to thrive? Rizzo seems to lean toward thrive. He's the type that wants his young players to force the issue in each league before moving up. Bryce hasn't done that just yet.
Looking from the other side, the Nats could certainly use Bryce and are on the cusp of being in the WC race wihtout needing luck. A ROY type year from Bryce would surely put them square in WC contention, rather than the... not "outskirts"... maybe "suburbs", where they are now. It could also help him get acclimated for next season when we all expect one more big move to go from WC to division crown challengers.
And we still haven't talked about the elephant in the room, that just a couple months of minor league time now would ensure a whole season more before arbitration and save the Nationals millions of dollars.
Based on the situation and your gut, what say you? If Bryce looks good, but not great, in Spring Training, do you want the Nats to bring him up to start the year?
I'm sure you'd do it if you could have Jason Heyward's first year for Bryce, but I'm also sure you wouldn't do it if you'd follow up with Heyward's second. Jason had more impressive AA numbers than Bryce. Could another year of seasoning prevented the fall back and what was essentially a wasted year at best?
I don't think we can answer these questions, or at least we can't do it better than the guys watching him play everyday. His minor league stats suggest he can hang in the majors, but do you want him just to hang or do you want him to thrive? Rizzo seems to lean toward thrive. He's the type that wants his young players to force the issue in each league before moving up. Bryce hasn't done that just yet.
Looking from the other side, the Nats could certainly use Bryce and are on the cusp of being in the WC race wihtout needing luck. A ROY type year from Bryce would surely put them square in WC contention, rather than the... not "outskirts"... maybe "suburbs", where they are now. It could also help him get acclimated for next season when we all expect one more big move to go from WC to division crown challengers.
And we still haven't talked about the elephant in the room, that just a couple months of minor league time now would ensure a whole season more before arbitration and save the Nationals millions of dollars.
Based on the situation and your gut, what say you? If Bryce looks good, but not great, in Spring Training, do you want the Nats to bring him up to start the year?
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
The Bench
A good bench not only fills a teams simple positional needs but it covers the weaknesses in their starting lineup. Last year the Nats had a mediocre (at best) bench filled with guys that maybe could steal a base (Bernadina), or play decent D (Pudge, Cora, Ankiel in a pinch); but no one that could get a hit and especially no one that could hit a home run. Expectedly, things got even worse after injuries. Is it going to be any different this year?
Well let's first see what arguably the Nats biggest starting lineup weaknesses are, from biggest to smallest.
AVG: Usually you ignore average, but when it comes to the bench it matters. Sometimes a walk isn't good enough. Sometimes you need that hit. The Nats regular lineup was pretty terrible at doing that simple task. Morse, even with a slight slip, Zimmerman, and maybe Ramos can get a hit. I wouldn't bet on anyone else
isoSLG: Other times you need more than just a hit, you need a home run. As a team the Nats were mediocre at hitting the long ball. Individually, Morse was the only one who was great at it but you have to worry about him keeping up a top 10 in the league level. The next best guy on the team just to get the big hit was Nix, who is gone now. Zimmerman being healthy could pick this up, and Espinosa and Ramos aren't bad, but really LaRoche is the key here. He was a decent power threat if he was anything but I'm not sure I want to bet on someone coming back from injury hitting for power especially one hitting so feebly before going out.
OF defense: It all depends on the lineup. If it were Bernadina-Ankiel-Werth , maybe you can live with that, but that seems an unlikely starting group. Something like Morse-Bernadina-Werth is far more likely, but it's also asking for trouble defensively. With Morse seemingly set in left and CF maybe manned by Werth (who is aging and had an offyear as a corner OF last year), or Bryce (who no one really likes as a CF, but he may be not terrible enough to start) having a great OF defensive player is that much more important.
OBP: Again pretty mediocre. Outside of Werth no one could take a walk, but Morse, Zimmerman and Ramos hit well enough that they are decent bets to get on. It's a little better bet that whoever is up for the Nats can get on base than can get a hit or slug a homer, in my mind.
Handedness : The Nats lineup is righty heavy. Espinosa switch-hits but is better from the right side and Ankiel lost the split advantage last year. LaRoche will help, but a lefty bat on the bench is still a need.
MI/3B defense: This is the inflection point. Everything above here is definitely a weakness (sorry - but the offense could be kinda bad this year), everything below this I'd consider a strength or at least something not to worry about. This one itself is a bit tricky. Zimmerman had an off year, and Desmond has his issues, but fielding stats can be fickle. I trust that these guys can hold it down. Then again that's two years now where Desmond hasn't become that great fielder the Nats think he should be. There probably is worth in carrying a slick-fielding SS.
Speed: Not too bad. Werth, Espinosa, and Desmond are good baserunners and no starter last year was a big liability. That won't be the case this year as LaRoche is a plodder, and post-injury Zimmerman will be a touch slower. Still, a pinch runner isn't so big a need that you can't let it get filled as a side product of filling something else above (like OF defense)
1B defense: LaRoche is pretty good. We'll see if that stays true but this is only an area of need if your first baseman is terrible defensively. LaRoche isn't.
C defense: Ramos is very good defensively. The back-up need not be.
OK now let's see what the current bench bring to the table. Let's assume Flores, Bernadina, DeRosa, Teahen, and Cameron for now, and look at Lombardozzi.
Ugh. Well as you can see the Nats bench does nothing to address the biggest weaknesses in the Nats lineup. There are no guys good at getting a hit, no one good at hitting the home run, and no one good at getting on base. Right now you'd have to hope Flores starts showing one of those skills, or maybe Lombardozzi starts rapping a few singles. Defensively though things look ok if Lombardozzi and Cameron are on the squad. Honestly though, beyond Flores, the only guy I feel the Nats need to keep on the bench is Bernadina. While you all know I don't like him as a starter at all, he makes a very nice bench guy for this team.
Is there anyone out there that can help the Nats? Probably no one that will take a bench role rather than retire. I think Derrek Lee could help with pop, and JD Drew has always had a good eye, but I imagine both will go home rather than ride the pine for the Nats. Ibanez could bring a lot, if you think 2011 was fluky, but most believe he's completely done. Vlad Guerrero or Magglio Ordonez could be decent "just a hit" guys but that's all they would bring and they are looking at AL teams for one last chance to DH. Aaron Miles is probably the most interesting guy the Nats could get. He can get a hit and bats lefty. Maybe Jason Varitek as a slug only guy? But neither of these to is anything to get excited about.
Truth is it's hard to get guys that are good, even at one thing, for your bench because if you are good enough at that one thing, some team will likely find a spot-starting role for you. You have to move fast, take a chance or two and get a bit lucky. The Nats moved slowly on putting together a bench looking at character as much as skill. Hopefully that won't cost them when they need a bit hit down the road.
Well let's first see what arguably the Nats biggest starting lineup weaknesses are, from biggest to smallest.
AVG: Usually you ignore average, but when it comes to the bench it matters. Sometimes a walk isn't good enough. Sometimes you need that hit. The Nats regular lineup was pretty terrible at doing that simple task. Morse, even with a slight slip, Zimmerman, and maybe Ramos can get a hit. I wouldn't bet on anyone else
isoSLG: Other times you need more than just a hit, you need a home run. As a team the Nats were mediocre at hitting the long ball. Individually, Morse was the only one who was great at it but you have to worry about him keeping up a top 10 in the league level. The next best guy on the team just to get the big hit was Nix, who is gone now. Zimmerman being healthy could pick this up, and Espinosa and Ramos aren't bad, but really LaRoche is the key here. He was a decent power threat if he was anything but I'm not sure I want to bet on someone coming back from injury hitting for power especially one hitting so feebly before going out.
OF defense: It all depends on the lineup. If it were Bernadina-Ankiel-Werth , maybe you can live with that, but that seems an unlikely starting group. Something like Morse-Bernadina-Werth is far more likely, but it's also asking for trouble defensively. With Morse seemingly set in left and CF maybe manned by Werth (who is aging and had an offyear as a corner OF last year), or Bryce (who no one really likes as a CF, but he may be not terrible enough to start) having a great OF defensive player is that much more important.
OBP: Again pretty mediocre. Outside of Werth no one could take a walk, but Morse, Zimmerman and Ramos hit well enough that they are decent bets to get on. It's a little better bet that whoever is up for the Nats can get on base than can get a hit or slug a homer, in my mind.
Handedness : The Nats lineup is righty heavy. Espinosa switch-hits but is better from the right side and Ankiel lost the split advantage last year. LaRoche will help, but a lefty bat on the bench is still a need.
MI/3B defense: This is the inflection point. Everything above here is definitely a weakness (sorry - but the offense could be kinda bad this year), everything below this I'd consider a strength or at least something not to worry about. This one itself is a bit tricky. Zimmerman had an off year, and Desmond has his issues, but fielding stats can be fickle. I trust that these guys can hold it down. Then again that's two years now where Desmond hasn't become that great fielder the Nats think he should be. There probably is worth in carrying a slick-fielding SS.
Speed: Not too bad. Werth, Espinosa, and Desmond are good baserunners and no starter last year was a big liability. That won't be the case this year as LaRoche is a plodder, and post-injury Zimmerman will be a touch slower. Still, a pinch runner isn't so big a need that you can't let it get filled as a side product of filling something else above (like OF defense)
1B defense: LaRoche is pretty good. We'll see if that stays true but this is only an area of need if your first baseman is terrible defensively. LaRoche isn't.
C defense: Ramos is very good defensively. The back-up need not be.
OK now let's see what the current bench bring to the table. Let's assume Flores, Bernadina, DeRosa, Teahen, and Cameron for now, and look at Lombardozzi.
- Flores has to be there. He might be a bat with decent pop. Hard to tell.
- Bernadina can give you speed, and play corner OF well. He also bats left.
- DeRosa is not really good at anything - maybe give you decent corner OF D? You can't say get on base given what he did in '09 and '10.
- Teahen is even worse - let's hope he doesn't break with the team. He does bat left. I can't deny that.
- Cameron probably can still play CF well. Offensively a black hole though.
- Lombardozzi by all accounts is a good 3B/MI fielder. I'll trust that, but the minor league stats say he's a singly Joe, and one that hasn't shown up in the majors yet. Switch hits and not a bad baserunner.
Ugh. Well as you can see the Nats bench does nothing to address the biggest weaknesses in the Nats lineup. There are no guys good at getting a hit, no one good at hitting the home run, and no one good at getting on base. Right now you'd have to hope Flores starts showing one of those skills, or maybe Lombardozzi starts rapping a few singles. Defensively though things look ok if Lombardozzi and Cameron are on the squad. Honestly though, beyond Flores, the only guy I feel the Nats need to keep on the bench is Bernadina. While you all know I don't like him as a starter at all, he makes a very nice bench guy for this team.
Is there anyone out there that can help the Nats? Probably no one that will take a bench role rather than retire. I think Derrek Lee could help with pop, and JD Drew has always had a good eye, but I imagine both will go home rather than ride the pine for the Nats. Ibanez could bring a lot, if you think 2011 was fluky, but most believe he's completely done. Vlad Guerrero or Magglio Ordonez could be decent "just a hit" guys but that's all they would bring and they are looking at AL teams for one last chance to DH. Aaron Miles is probably the most interesting guy the Nats could get. He can get a hit and bats lefty. Maybe Jason Varitek as a slug only guy? But neither of these to is anything to get excited about.
Truth is it's hard to get guys that are good, even at one thing, for your bench because if you are good enough at that one thing, some team will likely find a spot-starting role for you. You have to move fast, take a chance or two and get a bit lucky. The Nats moved slowly on putting together a bench looking at character as much as skill. Hopefully that won't cost them when they need a bit hit down the road.
Monday, February 06, 2012
Plan K : sign Ankiel to play center
Actually not a terrible signing, as long as the role he plays is appropriate. It's a minor league deal, like the one for Cameron so if the Nats decide to go in another, more productive, direction they can let these guys go, or keep one for the bench or whatever. But don't kid yourself about Ankiel, he's not the lefty bat off the bench Davey wants. He doesn't get on base, he doesn't hit for average, and he's living off reputation in terms of being a power hitter. He hasn't hit for good power in years.That had been, in no small part, to being absolutely useless versus lefty pitchers, but last year he didn't even slug righties well.
No, Ankiel would be a defensive replacement primarily, much like Cameron. Which is fine. You can have that as the last guy on the bench, just not as the last guy in the regular batting order.
No, Ankiel would be a defensive replacement primarily, much like Cameron. Which is fine. You can have that as the last guy on the bench, just not as the last guy in the regular batting order.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Don't trade Lannan!
Don't do it! Don't!
I'm not going to explain to you why Edwin Jackson, who the Nats are close to signing, is worse than John Lannan, because that would be hard to do objectively. Lannan's success is based mostly on an ability to stop right-handed bats from slugging against him, even though they hit him just fine. It is an ability that no one has quite been able to pin down on WHY he can do it, so therefore most just ignore it and assume that it won't be repeated. Even though it has. For every healthy season he's been in the majors. I think that's fine for one season but for season after season after season I prefer to give in and find fault in my own analysis for being unable to match the world, not in the world for being unable to match my analysis.
Edwin Jackson is a fine pitcher, and in pretty much every other way, better than John Lannan. He gets hit harder against lefties now that Lannan has figured out how to pitch to them, but that's to be expected, since he is right handed. He gets hit more often but not that much more often. He should be better than John and a more than fine #3 type pitcher. Why did the market seemingly dry up for him then? I'm not sure, but given the complete reluctance in giving him a multi-year deal, I would guess that the teams believe, despite 3 years to the contrary, that Jackson could suddenly lose control again and when he does, because he gives up so many hits, it will get ugly fast. Do I know more than 30 teams closely scrutinizing each player? I don't believe so, but then again I just said with Lannan we have to believe, first in foremost, in the results on the page, if they are repeated over and over again. Jackson's been fine for 3 years and is not really in a decline phase of his career so there's no reason to believe he won't be at least a equal substitute for John.
But I don't believe that. And I'm not sure why.
Inevitable scenario - Lannan and a couple prospects are traded to the Mets forAngel Pagan Andres Torres. On Sept 14th, with the Nats 2 games out of the WC and needing a win Lannan pitches a 6 hit, 5 walk, no K, 2 run game to beat the Nats and put them out of reach of some other surging team.
I'm not going to explain to you why Edwin Jackson, who the Nats are close to signing, is worse than John Lannan, because that would be hard to do objectively. Lannan's success is based mostly on an ability to stop right-handed bats from slugging against him, even though they hit him just fine. It is an ability that no one has quite been able to pin down on WHY he can do it, so therefore most just ignore it and assume that it won't be repeated. Even though it has. For every healthy season he's been in the majors. I think that's fine for one season but for season after season after season I prefer to give in and find fault in my own analysis for being unable to match the world, not in the world for being unable to match my analysis.
Edwin Jackson is a fine pitcher, and in pretty much every other way, better than John Lannan. He gets hit harder against lefties now that Lannan has figured out how to pitch to them, but that's to be expected, since he is right handed. He gets hit more often but not that much more often. He should be better than John and a more than fine #3 type pitcher. Why did the market seemingly dry up for him then? I'm not sure, but given the complete reluctance in giving him a multi-year deal, I would guess that the teams believe, despite 3 years to the contrary, that Jackson could suddenly lose control again and when he does, because he gives up so many hits, it will get ugly fast. Do I know more than 30 teams closely scrutinizing each player? I don't believe so, but then again I just said with Lannan we have to believe, first in foremost, in the results on the page, if they are repeated over and over again. Jackson's been fine for 3 years and is not really in a decline phase of his career so there's no reason to believe he won't be at least a equal substitute for John.
But I don't believe that. And I'm not sure why.
Inevitable scenario - Lannan and a couple prospects are traded to the Mets for
This ain't the movies, kid.
Awards in sports always have always been a funny thing to me. I get the idea of awards in other fields, the arts especially. Actors want Oscars because the difference between a great performance and a good one can vary by person. The Oscar serves as a necessary tangible validation of that great performance. Sports aren't subjective. There are already tangible results that can be objectively compared. You did well or you did not do well. There is little room for debate. Things like "All-Star", "MVP", "Hall of Famer" are nice to have but are
ultimately meaningless because they don't change the actual results on
the field. You were one of the best players that season or not. You were one of the best players ever or not. It all seems so insecure to be taken so seriously. You play to do your best so your team can win games and hopefully, ultimately win a championship. You don't play to win an ESPY, even one with more history and prestige, which is all something like "Hall of Famer" really is.
Which makes this whole fuss over the #1 ranking thing kind of funny. If the Nats were #2 or #3 they would still have a great farm system. Mike Rizzo and his staff would still have done a great job using the resources the Lerners gave them to repair a broken organization that was bereft of talent. But does Rizzo send the same email to his people if they aren't #1? If this collection of individuals decides that team X is slightly better, do the Nats receive as much attention? Probably not. As Kilgore says in his opening line, this is a "jolt of validation" but it's nothing more than that. Validation of good work in a field where there is an hard tangible goal out there (winning), shouldn't be a big deal. It shouldn't be taken with more than a "that's nice, we're glad we're appreciated, but that's not our ultimate goal" type of attitude. It feels that the team is taking this celebration way too seriously, like jumping up and down at mile 25 of a marathon when they found out they were voted "Most Improved Runner".
Bah bah bah. I'm a spoil sport, fine. There's nothing wrong with celebrating awards, fine. I just hope Rizzo is sending out congratulatory emails when the team breaks .500, makes the playoffs, wins a playoffs series, etc. because those are the huge days that should be made big deals out of.
Which makes this whole fuss over the #1 ranking thing kind of funny. If the Nats were #2 or #3 they would still have a great farm system. Mike Rizzo and his staff would still have done a great job using the resources the Lerners gave them to repair a broken organization that was bereft of talent. But does Rizzo send the same email to his people if they aren't #1? If this collection of individuals decides that team X is slightly better, do the Nats receive as much attention? Probably not. As Kilgore says in his opening line, this is a "jolt of validation" but it's nothing more than that. Validation of good work in a field where there is an hard tangible goal out there (winning), shouldn't be a big deal. It shouldn't be taken with more than a "that's nice, we're glad we're appreciated, but that's not our ultimate goal" type of attitude. It feels that the team is taking this celebration way too seriously, like jumping up and down at mile 25 of a marathon when they found out they were voted "Most Improved Runner".
Bah bah bah. I'm a spoil sport, fine. There's nothing wrong with celebrating awards, fine. I just hope Rizzo is sending out congratulatory emails when the team breaks .500, makes the playoffs, wins a playoffs series, etc. because those are the huge days that should be made big deals out of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)