The Nats season should be pretty predictable. They should win about 95 games and probably win the division, depending on if the Braves or Phillies have a remarkable season themselves. They should definitely make the playoffs. The months of next season are basically a long injury watch.
But we must allow for anything to happen in any season, so I'm going to present two drastic scenarios and what it will take to get there. Today we'll look at the dream scenario, a Nats team that wins 110+ games. It challenges for the best record of all-time and runs basically wire to wire in first place*. This is going to be similar to Dave Schoenfield's work at ESPN that shows if EVERYTHING goes right for the Nats they are actually better than that Seattle team that won 116 games. Of course EVERYTHING isn't going to go right so we're going to try to pick out the path of least resistance to this kind of remarkable season.
*If you win 110 games, this kind of has to happen. If you start slow (13-13 say) then you can only lose about 8 games a month the rest of the year. So you have to catch up to any leader very early in the season.
Last year the Nats won 98 games, but the pythag has them as a 96 win team so let's start there. We'll also make the BIG assumption that no one will get injured. I know it's not likely but to make a run at 110 you kind of need that kind of season.We're also assuming that no one decreases production in any noticeable way, so career years from LaRoche, Span and Desmond will have to be repeated. A stretch for sure, but better than saying they need to do something they never did before.
OK based on the no-injury assumption we are going to get a big bump from Werth. Let's assume he bounces all the way back to his banner times in Philly and puts up a 3.5-4.0 WAR. That's about 3 more wins for the Nats. (a little more but you have to consider they'd lose some of that fine bench replacement time they got this year from the likes of Bernie and Moore. Trust me I'm being more than fair here). 99 wins.
Strasburg too would have an opportunity for a full season, and his potential is up there with the best in the league. Let's say he meets it. That would be about a ~5.0 WAR or so or two more wins. 101 wins.
What about Storen? The pen was very very good last year. So time gained for Storen is likely time lost from a pitcher who did ok, same with Soriano. Plus, it's the pen, it doesn't generate a lot of wins because in total it pitches maybe 40% of all innings. No one guy can make that big a difference. Just can't happen. I'll be generous though and say the Nats gain half a game in the pen. so 101.5 wins.
Haren? He bounces back but he can't quite make it back to his old levels just because he's going to lose 15% of his innings to the Nats being safe. (A lot of his value is that he pitched SO many innings, look! You see the Nats doing that?) Remember too that it's not from Haren's last year, it's Edwin's production he's replacing and Edwin was ok. Let's be generous again 1.5 more wins and the Nats are up to 103 wins.
Ok, we've kind of run out of non-developmental improvement. Where can the Nats get that? Bryce Harper of course. Let's say he has that Mike Trout like 2nd year. That's a big jump from Morse (we're taking Span to match 2012 Bryce based on last years production) but all that extra production from Bernie, Moore, has to go somewhere. I cut out a little from Werth but most falls here. STILL Bryce nets the team an extra 3.5 wins with a season for the ages. 106.5 wins.
Now let's start stretching. Catcher was a bit of a problem, but not as much as you'd think. Suzuki was good at the end. Ramos was good at the start. Over all maybe a half a win more if they both can keep it up over the whole season? 107 wins.
We're still not there and there's not much room for more improvement. What we need now is a break out year and the one place that we can get that is from Danny Espinosa. I can't make him into a superstar, we are trying to be vaguely reasonable here, but he can improve a lot. Let's say 1.5 more wins than last year (he really was still good last year. Fielding! Power!) that puts the Nats at 108.5 wins.
At this point I'll stop because there's one way to 110 wins from here that I think is more likely than 200 IP of Detwiler getting even better or Zimm returning to his best form. What is that way? Same way the 96 win-talented Nats won 98 wins last year. Luck. 1-2 wins is easily in the realm of error for this type of estimation.
There you have it. If the Nats don't get injured, don't see any drops from the career years their roster had last year, and have these 8 things happen in their favor they could get to 110 wins... if they get a little lucky. Take home lesson : getting to 110 wins is hard. That's why only 6 teams have ever done it.
But you see a couple of these 8 things should happen, so even if/when they do get injuries or regression on some of those best years, they should still be about a 95 win team. It all should even out.
Tomorrow : The nightmare scenario - missing the playoffs.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Mailbag Tuesday
Would a succesful Redskins effect Nats revenue? (Thomas Richman)
This is a tough question to effectively answer. Thinking about it simply it should effect it as there is a finite amount of disposable revenue to go around, but I have a hard time believing it would do so to the level that it matters. In the end the Nats winning or losing is driving their revenue.
Looking at some numbers, ratings for Nats games overall increased over the season (53% up in June, 74% by season's end). Do I think Sunday ratings probably dipped? Yes. But one day a week for a couple months isn't going to drive any contract deals.
The attendance figures are too few to draw any conclusions, but hey why not try anyway? They only had two home games up against the Skins. On Sept 9th they played Miami and drew 24,396 against the Skins season opener. That was their worst attendance on a Sunday all year. This suggests an effect. On Sept 23rd they played the Brewers and drew 33,111 against the Skins home opener vs the Bengals. Maybe that was a littlel low? It's hard to tell, the Nats were in control and playing a team that's not a draw. I'm not seeing much of an effect here.
If I had to guess I'd say BIG games for the Skins will demonstrably effect the Nats attendance, like the opener seemingly did. But how many BIG games will take place on a Sunday day when the Nats are at home? If the Skins are good more of those big games will be on Sunday and Monday nights, if not Thursdays. So it may matter once or twice a year.
As for jersey sales and other merchandise, I don't know how to judge where the Nats should be, so I can't really say if they are falling short. The biggest effect will probably be on sports talk radio coverage, but does it really bother you what those clowns are talking about?
Again - does it have some effect? Sure. Is it something to worry about? I don't think so. Certainly not as long as the Nats keep winning.
Thoughts on the bullpen LH situation? (Keith Watts)
The Nats have one lefty (Zack Duke) in the pen now, with Gonzo, Gorzo, and Burnett all going elsewhere. Should they be worried? For now, no. I think over the long haul of the season, a true LOOGY (ie a guy that can get lefties out and not much else) is a hinderance, not a help. You need flexibility in the pen and that's better served by a guy who can do well in all situations than a guy who's maybe a one or two batter pitcher a game.
Do the Nats have guys that do well in all situations? Yep. Career vs lefties:
Clippard .186 / .268 / .325
Stammen .266 / .310 / .407
Mattheus .214 / .294 / .343
Storen .229 / .287 / .297
Soriano .233 / .309 / .395
Except for Mattheus, who got hit, let's say "mildly hard" last year, all these guys were just as good or better in 2012 vs lefties. In other words - they can get everyone out.
Now what happens in the play-offs? Flexibility is less important there as you may ride the same 3-4 arms in important situations. In the playoffs a LOOGY could be more useful, but there aren't going to be many guys, even guys who are supposedly LOOGYs that can put up better numbers that what Clippard or Storen have done.So you either pay through the nose for an O'Flaherty type or you go with your pretty damn good second options. I think for now, it's better to see if plan A- works then to put out that money or talent.
Do you think Randy Knorr is going to be the next manager and do you think that it matters ? (Keith Watts)
Yes, I do think Knorr is lined up to be the manager. Does it matter? There isn't really any strong evidence that it does. I'd say I believe with a common medium thought. The difference between a great manager and a good one or even an ok one is going to be hardly noticeable. However a bad manager can cost you a few games through particularly bad decision making. Of course I have no proof of this.
There is some thought that a manager matters more in the playoffs but I tend to believe that the results make the manager more than vice versa. If Edwin Jackson gets through that 2nd inning somehow, the numbers of people saying Davey was dumb drops dramatically. "HE KNEW SOMETHING WE DIDN'T!!!!"
In the end it's going to be a Rizzo led team and I assume Knorr is lined up because he will follow Rizzo's lead. If it's not him it'll be someone else who Rizzo thinks will go along with his vision.
How do you see the Long-term money management working out for all those young players : Stras, ZNN, Bryce, Ian... (Jonathan Doerr)
I think they will do the following in this order -
Why not ZNN? Because by that time the Nats will be paying Werth, Gio, and Zimm 45 mill combined for 2016. Desmond will likely cost over 10. Strasburg should be making a bunch several years into arbitration and Bryce should be up for a big raise in his first arbitration year. Espy and Ramos will be well into arbitration figures as well... (that's assuming they haven't signed any of these guys long term which would be even more $$$ already designated) If they've signed anyone else of value you could be looking at something like 100+ million set for 9-10 players or so. Unless they take want to scrape the luxury tax or have a ton of cheap guys doing well they need to make a cut somewhere. Zimmermann, turning 30, would be an easy place to start.
Why let Strasburg walk? If things go as we think they could he'll be looking for a deal that's the richest pitching contract in the majors. 25 mill a year for 7 years? It could be that high EASY. They could do that but if they do that AND sign Bryce they'd be looking at maybe 50+ million for these two combined for the back end of the 2010s. You're still paying Zimm at this point. Did Desmond re-sign? Espy? Ramos? It's going to be near impossible to keep all these guys if they are good. You make your choices. Say Ramos and Desmond and free agent X instead of Strasburg. I think that instead of Strasburg they bet hard on the bat that's younger (Bryce will hit FA at 26), probably trying to sign him to a LONG deal (like 10 yr or so) a couple of years prior to hitting FA.
Best walk-up songs (Froggy)
I must admit I don't follow walk up songs. I couldn't name more than 5 probably and no other Nats. Chipper has 'Crazy Train'. Paul O'Neill used 'Baba O'Reilly'*. Does Mariano's 'Enter Sandman' count? So as Froggy suggested I'll leave it up to the commenters to give their opinions.
I can tell you that if I were a baseball player I would like to take a live mic and sing a song as I walked to the box. Assuming they wouldn't allow that (Oh the sportswriter angst that would cause!) I would use dogs barking 'Jingle Bells'. As you see, I don't really take the whole mental buildup thing seriously.
*I rarely wax poetic but Baba O'Reilly on a crisp fall night will always feel like playoff baseball to me, and I don't even like the Who.
About Strasburg, Rizzo said "I think the other four or five starters will piggyback off of his success." Any chance this means a 6-man rotation? (Mick Sutter)
I don't think he meant anything by it. The Nats will have more than four starters, but that's because of injury or the fluke double header, or maybe a rest day in a long stretch. I don't think he's going full 6-man (and I think it would dumb of the team to do so)
A 6-man rotation is something that teams have flirted with once or twice but in reality it makes little sense. Your rotation should be determined in a way to maximize the number of times your best pitchers pitch while limiting injury. I think in the near future, next 10 years or so, you may actually see a return to a 4-man rotation with limited pitch counts. There is some evidence (though not striking in my estimation) that pitch counts, not innings pitched necessarily are what drives injury. With an older rotation I would totally do this.
Of course the problem is injuries are going to happen regardless and if you do this plan and someone gets injured you WILL get blamed. So it'll take GM who is willing to risk his job.
What's it like to root for a team expected to win (cass)
A normal Yankee fan would have trouble answering this question, given that they've usually seen mutliple World Series titles before they hit puberty, but I am a member of a select Yankee fan group, those precious few born at a time where they were able to spend their whole adolescence rooting for a team that was alternately good, mediocre, and bad and most importantly never made the playoffs. So I remember the transition from rooting for a non-playoff team to a playoff team, which I think is applicable here. (Both off a crushing DS loss in their first playoffs)
This year a sense of urgency will be all over the place. On one hand, since the playoffs is not old hat, you'll still be worried about making it. Start 10-15 and you won't be thinking "oh maybe we can turn it around, I guess" but instead "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG!?!?" Of course this is also a positive, no longer do you have to be resigned to a slow dirge of a season if they start slow. Instead you know the talent is there to still make it in. Now if the Nats are as good as everyone thinks they are this won't be an issue for long, but it could be something that hangs over your head. Who knows if maybe the Phillies have that combeack year? Likewise, the Wild Card position too will be a thorn in your side as well, thanks to the new playoff rules, and that's not likely to go away, though it's not the door slamming shut like missing the playoffs entirely.
On the other hand, once you are in the playoffs you will also NEED to win. Last year was terrible and all but heading into this year the feeling around the Nationals seems to be "OK, Now let's do this". Lose in the first round again and that "OK" disappears and is replaced with the aformentioned "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG?!?" Even a NLDS victory is probably not be enough to satisfy most.
Ok so let's say the Nats do win the World Series, the urgency goes away right? Nope, at least for me it didn't until the 2nd World Series was won. The first is more a relief. You saw your team win it all. You can check that off your life goals. But the same feeling of dread, like your window has closed, will follow the next playoff loss. That was it! Hope you enjoyed it! So the second one is almost as needed and almost as special. After two I'll say this some situations (like facing the Mets in 2000) bring back that level of urgency that might be missing if they were in another situation, and for some fans situation won't matter, they'll want to win no matter what.
After that it becomes hard for me to say because the Yankee scenario diverges into the bizarre. What's it like after winning FOUR World Series in five years? You do become a little non-chalant about a title... for a little while (It was 2007 before I was back up to the "NEED TO WIN" level - and honestly a lot of that was because the Red Sox has won two more recently than the Yanks and the Sports Talk radio people would not let up about the Yanks not being able to win with A-Rod. If I was going to keep reading about baseball and listening to baseball I needed the Red Sox off the "best team" lists and the A-Rod talk over). What's it like to make the playoffs nearly every year? You don't become blase about it, but missing it is no big deal and slow starts no longer provoke "WHAT THE HELL"s, instead you feel like they'll certainly get there somehow because they always have. It's a nice place to be though, and I hope you guys manage to get there.
This is a tough question to effectively answer. Thinking about it simply it should effect it as there is a finite amount of disposable revenue to go around, but I have a hard time believing it would do so to the level that it matters. In the end the Nats winning or losing is driving their revenue.
Looking at some numbers, ratings for Nats games overall increased over the season (53% up in June, 74% by season's end). Do I think Sunday ratings probably dipped? Yes. But one day a week for a couple months isn't going to drive any contract deals.
The attendance figures are too few to draw any conclusions, but hey why not try anyway? They only had two home games up against the Skins. On Sept 9th they played Miami and drew 24,396 against the Skins season opener. That was their worst attendance on a Sunday all year. This suggests an effect. On Sept 23rd they played the Brewers and drew 33,111 against the Skins home opener vs the Bengals. Maybe that was a littlel low? It's hard to tell, the Nats were in control and playing a team that's not a draw. I'm not seeing much of an effect here.
If I had to guess I'd say BIG games for the Skins will demonstrably effect the Nats attendance, like the opener seemingly did. But how many BIG games will take place on a Sunday day when the Nats are at home? If the Skins are good more of those big games will be on Sunday and Monday nights, if not Thursdays. So it may matter once or twice a year.
As for jersey sales and other merchandise, I don't know how to judge where the Nats should be, so I can't really say if they are falling short. The biggest effect will probably be on sports talk radio coverage, but does it really bother you what those clowns are talking about?
Again - does it have some effect? Sure. Is it something to worry about? I don't think so. Certainly not as long as the Nats keep winning.
Thoughts on the bullpen LH situation? (Keith Watts)
The Nats have one lefty (Zack Duke) in the pen now, with Gonzo, Gorzo, and Burnett all going elsewhere. Should they be worried? For now, no. I think over the long haul of the season, a true LOOGY (ie a guy that can get lefties out and not much else) is a hinderance, not a help. You need flexibility in the pen and that's better served by a guy who can do well in all situations than a guy who's maybe a one or two batter pitcher a game.
Do the Nats have guys that do well in all situations? Yep. Career vs lefties:
Clippard .186 / .268 / .325
Stammen .266 / .310 / .407
Mattheus .214 / .294 / .343
Storen .229 / .287 / .297
Soriano .233 / .309 / .395
Except for Mattheus, who got hit, let's say "mildly hard" last year, all these guys were just as good or better in 2012 vs lefties. In other words - they can get everyone out.
Now what happens in the play-offs? Flexibility is less important there as you may ride the same 3-4 arms in important situations. In the playoffs a LOOGY could be more useful, but there aren't going to be many guys, even guys who are supposedly LOOGYs that can put up better numbers that what Clippard or Storen have done.So you either pay through the nose for an O'Flaherty type or you go with your pretty damn good second options. I think for now, it's better to see if plan A- works then to put out that money or talent.
Do you think Randy Knorr is going to be the next manager and do you think that it matters ? (Keith Watts)
Yes, I do think Knorr is lined up to be the manager. Does it matter? There isn't really any strong evidence that it does. I'd say I believe with a common medium thought. The difference between a great manager and a good one or even an ok one is going to be hardly noticeable. However a bad manager can cost you a few games through particularly bad decision making. Of course I have no proof of this.
There is some thought that a manager matters more in the playoffs but I tend to believe that the results make the manager more than vice versa. If Edwin Jackson gets through that 2nd inning somehow, the numbers of people saying Davey was dumb drops dramatically. "HE KNEW SOMETHING WE DIDN'T!!!!"
In the end it's going to be a Rizzo led team and I assume Knorr is lined up because he will follow Rizzo's lead. If it's not him it'll be someone else who Rizzo thinks will go along with his vision.
How do you see the Long-term money management working out for all those young players : Stras, ZNN, Bryce, Ian... (Jonathan Doerr)
I think they will do the following in this order -
- Try to get ZNN on a long-term deal that clearly favors the Nats
- Sign Desmond to a fair long-term deal
- Let Stras walk with only a token try at keeping him
- Try to sign Bryce as hard as possible
Why not ZNN? Because by that time the Nats will be paying Werth, Gio, and Zimm 45 mill combined for 2016. Desmond will likely cost over 10. Strasburg should be making a bunch several years into arbitration and Bryce should be up for a big raise in his first arbitration year. Espy and Ramos will be well into arbitration figures as well... (that's assuming they haven't signed any of these guys long term which would be even more $$$ already designated) If they've signed anyone else of value you could be looking at something like 100+ million set for 9-10 players or so. Unless they take want to scrape the luxury tax or have a ton of cheap guys doing well they need to make a cut somewhere. Zimmermann, turning 30, would be an easy place to start.
Why let Strasburg walk? If things go as we think they could he'll be looking for a deal that's the richest pitching contract in the majors. 25 mill a year for 7 years? It could be that high EASY. They could do that but if they do that AND sign Bryce they'd be looking at maybe 50+ million for these two combined for the back end of the 2010s. You're still paying Zimm at this point. Did Desmond re-sign? Espy? Ramos? It's going to be near impossible to keep all these guys if they are good. You make your choices. Say Ramos and Desmond and free agent X instead of Strasburg. I think that instead of Strasburg they bet hard on the bat that's younger (Bryce will hit FA at 26), probably trying to sign him to a LONG deal (like 10 yr or so) a couple of years prior to hitting FA.
Best walk-up songs (Froggy)
I must admit I don't follow walk up songs. I couldn't name more than 5 probably and no other Nats. Chipper has 'Crazy Train'. Paul O'Neill used 'Baba O'Reilly'*. Does Mariano's 'Enter Sandman' count? So as Froggy suggested I'll leave it up to the commenters to give their opinions.
I can tell you that if I were a baseball player I would like to take a live mic and sing a song as I walked to the box. Assuming they wouldn't allow that (Oh the sportswriter angst that would cause!) I would use dogs barking 'Jingle Bells'. As you see, I don't really take the whole mental buildup thing seriously.
*I rarely wax poetic but Baba O'Reilly on a crisp fall night will always feel like playoff baseball to me, and I don't even like the Who.
About Strasburg, Rizzo said "I think the other four or five starters will piggyback off of his success." Any chance this means a 6-man rotation? (Mick Sutter)
I don't think he meant anything by it. The Nats will have more than four starters, but that's because of injury or the fluke double header, or maybe a rest day in a long stretch. I don't think he's going full 6-man (and I think it would dumb of the team to do so)
A 6-man rotation is something that teams have flirted with once or twice but in reality it makes little sense. Your rotation should be determined in a way to maximize the number of times your best pitchers pitch while limiting injury. I think in the near future, next 10 years or so, you may actually see a return to a 4-man rotation with limited pitch counts. There is some evidence (though not striking in my estimation) that pitch counts, not innings pitched necessarily are what drives injury. With an older rotation I would totally do this.
Of course the problem is injuries are going to happen regardless and if you do this plan and someone gets injured you WILL get blamed. So it'll take GM who is willing to risk his job.
What's it like to root for a team expected to win (cass)
A normal Yankee fan would have trouble answering this question, given that they've usually seen mutliple World Series titles before they hit puberty, but I am a member of a select Yankee fan group, those precious few born at a time where they were able to spend their whole adolescence rooting for a team that was alternately good, mediocre, and bad and most importantly never made the playoffs. So I remember the transition from rooting for a non-playoff team to a playoff team, which I think is applicable here. (Both off a crushing DS loss in their first playoffs)
This year a sense of urgency will be all over the place. On one hand, since the playoffs is not old hat, you'll still be worried about making it. Start 10-15 and you won't be thinking "oh maybe we can turn it around, I guess" but instead "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG!?!?" Of course this is also a positive, no longer do you have to be resigned to a slow dirge of a season if they start slow. Instead you know the talent is there to still make it in. Now if the Nats are as good as everyone thinks they are this won't be an issue for long, but it could be something that hangs over your head. Who knows if maybe the Phillies have that combeack year? Likewise, the Wild Card position too will be a thorn in your side as well, thanks to the new playoff rules, and that's not likely to go away, though it's not the door slamming shut like missing the playoffs entirely.
On the other hand, once you are in the playoffs you will also NEED to win. Last year was terrible and all but heading into this year the feeling around the Nationals seems to be "OK, Now let's do this". Lose in the first round again and that "OK" disappears and is replaced with the aformentioned "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG?!?" Even a NLDS victory is probably not be enough to satisfy most.
Ok so let's say the Nats do win the World Series, the urgency goes away right? Nope, at least for me it didn't until the 2nd World Series was won. The first is more a relief. You saw your team win it all. You can check that off your life goals. But the same feeling of dread, like your window has closed, will follow the next playoff loss. That was it! Hope you enjoyed it! So the second one is almost as needed and almost as special. After two I'll say this some situations (like facing the Mets in 2000) bring back that level of urgency that might be missing if they were in another situation, and for some fans situation won't matter, they'll want to win no matter what.
After that it becomes hard for me to say because the Yankee scenario diverges into the bizarre. What's it like after winning FOUR World Series in five years? You do become a little non-chalant about a title... for a little while (It was 2007 before I was back up to the "NEED TO WIN" level - and honestly a lot of that was because the Red Sox has won two more recently than the Yanks and the Sports Talk radio people would not let up about the Yanks not being able to win with A-Rod. If I was going to keep reading about baseball and listening to baseball I needed the Red Sox off the "best team" lists and the A-Rod talk over). What's it like to make the playoffs nearly every year? You don't become blase about it, but missing it is no big deal and slow starts no longer provoke "WHAT THE HELL"s, instead you feel like they'll certainly get there somehow because they always have. It's a nice place to be though, and I hope you guys manage to get there.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Closer by committee of one
If you've paid even a small bit of attention to the talk around the signing of Soriano you might have heard people mention Davey's "A" and "B" bullpen plan. There seems to be some confusion about what that means, with a lot of people thinking that Storen may still get a decent amount of chances to close as the "B" closer.
According to Baseball Prospectus though, Davey had never meant that the closer was part of the A and B designations, rather everyone else that pitched before the closer would tend to fit in one group or the other so he could easily keep track of guys getting enough off days for rest. While I can't tell you if that in itself is true(sounds like a fun correlation exercise though!), a simple look at last season will tell you Davey doesn't usually rotate closers. When H-Rod lost the job to Clippard, Clippard took all the save opportunities. When Storen came back from injury he was first not the closer, and then he won the job back. At no point was there a committee where Clippard got a chance, then Storen, and repeat. So why do some people think of it as something else? Two reasons.
At the beginning of last year remember, the Nats had NO closer. Davey was determined to keep Clippard pitching the 8th (for some reason), so both Lidge and H-Rod were put in as closers. In this scenario, Davey did indeed rotate save chances... for about a month until Lidge proved completely unworthy. So it certainly seemed that this new coach that talked about A and B pens meant it as rotating closers if he felt he had the talent. Adding to the confusion was Rizzo sort of saying as much, when talking about the Nats situation.
The second reason is that he DID do this. Back in the mid 80s with the Mets, Davey did use two closers fairly regularly. Take a look at the 1st and 2nd guys in save opportunities over his first five years managing :
1984 : 39, 18
1985 : 25, 23
1986 : 29, 28
1987 : 32, 22
1988 : 29, 20
(Another thing - most of this was a lefty/righty thing which doesn't apply to the 2013 Nats)
But by early in 1989 McDowell and Orosco, who were big parts of these scenarios would be gone and for the rest of his managerial career Davey clearly favored one guy and only in 1994 would he come close to trying to mix it up again
1989 : 29, 11
1990 : 39, 5
1993 : 28, 12*
1994 : 21, 11, 8
1995 : 32, 9
1996 : 38, 8
1997 : 46, 10
1999 : 39, 5
2000 : 34, 7
2011 : 48, 11
*If this looks a little fishy to you Dibble got injured in 1993 and missed time and that's when Jeff Reardon got 8 of his 12 save opportunities. Otherwise Dibble was it
This is all just a roundabout way of saying that you shouldn't expect Storen to get more than a handful of opportunities to close if Soriano is healthy and effective. I would probably bet on something in the single digits.
According to Baseball Prospectus though, Davey had never meant that the closer was part of the A and B designations, rather everyone else that pitched before the closer would tend to fit in one group or the other so he could easily keep track of guys getting enough off days for rest. While I can't tell you if that in itself is true(sounds like a fun correlation exercise though!), a simple look at last season will tell you Davey doesn't usually rotate closers. When H-Rod lost the job to Clippard, Clippard took all the save opportunities. When Storen came back from injury he was first not the closer, and then he won the job back. At no point was there a committee where Clippard got a chance, then Storen, and repeat. So why do some people think of it as something else? Two reasons.
At the beginning of last year remember, the Nats had NO closer. Davey was determined to keep Clippard pitching the 8th (for some reason), so both Lidge and H-Rod were put in as closers. In this scenario, Davey did indeed rotate save chances... for about a month until Lidge proved completely unworthy. So it certainly seemed that this new coach that talked about A and B pens meant it as rotating closers if he felt he had the talent. Adding to the confusion was Rizzo sort of saying as much, when talking about the Nats situation.
Just as a for instance, Davey has what we call an A/B bullpen. Instead of being locked into one guy as your closer, or your seventh- or eighth-inning guy, he makes sure he has a B guy who can step into that role in case the A guy can't go.Now really you shouldn't interpret that as being a committee but rather a secondary guy who gets closing scraps if the closer has worked too many games. But if you were already inclined to think of the A/B plan as a "one then the other" situation, you could read this in a way to back you up.
The second reason is that he DID do this. Back in the mid 80s with the Mets, Davey did use two closers fairly regularly. Take a look at the 1st and 2nd guys in save opportunities over his first five years managing :
1984 : 39, 18
1985 : 25, 23
1986 : 29, 28
1987 : 32, 22
1988 : 29, 20
(Another thing - most of this was a lefty/righty thing which doesn't apply to the 2013 Nats)
But by early in 1989 McDowell and Orosco, who were big parts of these scenarios would be gone and for the rest of his managerial career Davey clearly favored one guy and only in 1994 would he come close to trying to mix it up again
1989 : 29, 11
1990 : 39, 5
1993 : 28, 12*
1994 : 21, 11, 8
1995 : 32, 9
1996 : 38, 8
1997 : 46, 10
1999 : 39, 5
2000 : 34, 7
2011 : 48, 11
*If this looks a little fishy to you Dibble got injured in 1993 and missed time and that's when Jeff Reardon got 8 of his 12 save opportunities. Otherwise Dibble was it
This is all just a roundabout way of saying that you shouldn't expect Storen to get more than a handful of opportunities to close if Soriano is healthy and effective. I would probably bet on something in the single digits.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Win now! Wait... not NOW now.
Mike Morse is gone. He was traded overnight to the Mariners in a 3-team deal that has so far brought back the Nats AJ Cole and Blake Treinen. It will also include a player to be named later.
It's a fair deal, in my opinion. We've discussed why Mike Morse, a guy who could hit .300 with 30 HR is not a big trade target. They weren't going to get back any really good major league talent or even a good prospect close to being in the major leagues, outside of maybe relief arms. Instead they've gotten two guys who are at least a couple of years away who add some organizational pitching depth to a team who's current minor league pitching can be described as 40 guys with arms held together with fishing wire now that Meyer has been dealt and they let Rosenbaum walk.
AJ Cole, who you may remember as being a Nats not so long ago, is still a legit prospect. While he didn't do well in Advanced A ball (ok he outright stunk it up), he will still be only 21 this year. I can't even call that a step back at that age. More like, he didn't step forward. He's still got all his talent and he'll have another two years to figure out A+ ball before anyone starts pondering other plans for Mr. Cole.
Blake Treinen is kind of a throw-in. He's got a ton of talent too, but was pretty hittable in A+ ball last year. Still it's a hitting friendly league so he was about average, but at 24 in that league you are kind of done with starters if what you see is just average. The most likely turn of events for Blake is a move to the pen but I'd expect the Nats to mess around with him starting for one more year at least. The Nats literally had no starter last year have a good year at a young age for his league. High-A and AA, where most of the studs usually sit, was a wasteland. Maybe the PTBNL will help, maybe not.
The more important side of this is it makes the Nats worse in 2013, right after they made kind of a silly move that seemed only concerned with making them better in 2013. Morse was going to get some at bats, and he was fine insurance for an OF / 1B situation that includes one guy with concussion issues and two old guys one year removed from season-killing injuries. Now the responsibility for covering for these guys falls onto Bernadina and Moore.
Bernie had a great year off the bench last year, but also sported a BABIP much higher than he ever had before. On the plus side he IS hitting the ball better (LD% is up) so I don't think he'll hit in the .240s this year, but the .290s is also unlikely. High .260s and no power seems fair. Really though Bernie isn't on the bench for long term solutions. He's there to be a fair defensive replacement and pinch runner.
Moore on the other hand is ALL about hitting and when most people think of his 2012 they think of happiness. I agree, as in it was a season that was just an illusion, full of sadness and confusion. If you look at Moore's monthly splits you see this:
TERRIBLE!
OMG GREATEST PLAYER EVER!
VERY BAD!
BELOW AVERAGE!
VERY BAD BUT WITH AN EXTRA HOMER!
That one month - where everything went right for Moore really skewed the season. He had a .481 BABIP. That's crazy. He walked 8 times. He walked 6 times the rest of the year combined. And it's not in like those other months things broke wrong for him. That "very bad" and "below average" months were very fair for him luck-wise.
What does this mean? Well it mainly means you shouldn't consider Moore a viable long-term replacement at any position. He's a one trick pony - a masher of LHP you bring up to put one over the fence when you need it. He's no Morse, who at least had two tricks.
In the end, if there are no big injuries, this isn't going to be a big deal. It may not even cost the Nats a win overall. Morse wasn't going to get a ton of at bats and 6.75 mill is a lot of cash for insurance. Now, if there is a big injury then you're could feel the effects of Morse being gone. It's still not going to be enough to knock the Nats into any trouble, but it does make them a tiny bit worse.
On Tuesday it looked like the Nats were going all in. On Wednesday they showed that they actually palmed a few chips because, you know, let's not be crazy about this.
It's a fair deal, in my opinion. We've discussed why Mike Morse, a guy who could hit .300 with 30 HR is not a big trade target. They weren't going to get back any really good major league talent or even a good prospect close to being in the major leagues, outside of maybe relief arms. Instead they've gotten two guys who are at least a couple of years away who add some organizational pitching depth to a team who's current minor league pitching can be described as 40 guys with arms held together with fishing wire now that Meyer has been dealt and they let Rosenbaum walk.
AJ Cole, who you may remember as being a Nats not so long ago, is still a legit prospect. While he didn't do well in Advanced A ball (ok he outright stunk it up), he will still be only 21 this year. I can't even call that a step back at that age. More like, he didn't step forward. He's still got all his talent and he'll have another two years to figure out A+ ball before anyone starts pondering other plans for Mr. Cole.
Blake Treinen is kind of a throw-in. He's got a ton of talent too, but was pretty hittable in A+ ball last year. Still it's a hitting friendly league so he was about average, but at 24 in that league you are kind of done with starters if what you see is just average. The most likely turn of events for Blake is a move to the pen but I'd expect the Nats to mess around with him starting for one more year at least. The Nats literally had no starter last year have a good year at a young age for his league. High-A and AA, where most of the studs usually sit, was a wasteland. Maybe the PTBNL will help, maybe not.
The more important side of this is it makes the Nats worse in 2013, right after they made kind of a silly move that seemed only concerned with making them better in 2013. Morse was going to get some at bats, and he was fine insurance for an OF / 1B situation that includes one guy with concussion issues and two old guys one year removed from season-killing injuries. Now the responsibility for covering for these guys falls onto Bernadina and Moore.
Bernie had a great year off the bench last year, but also sported a BABIP much higher than he ever had before. On the plus side he IS hitting the ball better (LD% is up) so I don't think he'll hit in the .240s this year, but the .290s is also unlikely. High .260s and no power seems fair. Really though Bernie isn't on the bench for long term solutions. He's there to be a fair defensive replacement and pinch runner.
Moore on the other hand is ALL about hitting and when most people think of his 2012 they think of happiness. I agree, as in it was a season that was just an illusion, full of sadness and confusion. If you look at Moore's monthly splits you see this:
TERRIBLE!
OMG GREATEST PLAYER EVER!
VERY BAD!
BELOW AVERAGE!
VERY BAD BUT WITH AN EXTRA HOMER!
That one month - where everything went right for Moore really skewed the season. He had a .481 BABIP. That's crazy. He walked 8 times. He walked 6 times the rest of the year combined. And it's not in like those other months things broke wrong for him. That "very bad" and "below average" months were very fair for him luck-wise.
What does this mean? Well it mainly means you shouldn't consider Moore a viable long-term replacement at any position. He's a one trick pony - a masher of LHP you bring up to put one over the fence when you need it. He's no Morse, who at least had two tricks.
In the end, if there are no big injuries, this isn't going to be a big deal. It may not even cost the Nats a win overall. Morse wasn't going to get a ton of at bats and 6.75 mill is a lot of cash for insurance. Now, if there is a big injury then you're could feel the effects of Morse being gone. It's still not going to be enough to knock the Nats into any trouble, but it does make them a tiny bit worse.
On Tuesday it looked like the Nats were going all in. On Wednesday they showed that they actually palmed a few chips because, you know, let's not be crazy about this.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Terrible execution but they stuck the landing
I'm the parent of a toddler. As any parent can tell you feeding time can be difficult. You only want them to eat right for their own good but all the pleading and prodding in the world can go nowhere if the child's mood isn't right. Other times though, you have almost the opposite problem. You'll tell them over and over to eat their broccoli and suddenly they'll shove three pieces in their mouth. You want to stop them and tell them we don't eat that way, that they could choke. Then again they are eating broccoli. Three pieces! So maybe you just shut up.
This is kind of how I feel about the Nats deal. I've been saying for a while that the Nats are going to have to spend more money. At the level of winning the Nats are at you start spending more for each subsequent win. A lot of times it's not even for better results necessarily but a smaller chance at bad results. Since the Nats needed bullpen help I noted that they would have to spend the money necessary for a Burnett. If they were a "real contender" they'd have to pony up a few million for a veteran middle reliever who's only real advantage over the cheap young arm is the higher certainty he won't blow up. You watch Burnett leave, Howell sign, and you keep saying, you are going to have to do something like that. It's just what healthy competitive teams do. Then the Nats go ahead and shove three pieces of broccoli in their mouths by signing Soriano.
It's not a bad deal. A bad deal makes a team worse now or effects their chances at being good later. This deal doesn't make the team worse now, it makes them better. At only 2 years it shouldn't effect any long term planning either. So I have a hard time calling it a bad deal.
It's not a smart deal, though. They are way overpaying for what Soriano brings to the table. After seeing the Nats make deal after deal that were at fair market value or actually underpaid for talent, its a bit of a shock. But it's what we were saying they'd have to do anyway, overpay for veteran talent to make the Nats better. It's just bigger and splashier than we would have expected.
Is this unfair to Storen (assuming Soriano will close)? I think so. Sure he blew that last game but it was one game. If you are using that as proof the Nats need a "veteran" closer you've spent the last 40 years asleep in a cave likeRumplestilksin Rip Van Winkle. But whatever. So it's unfair. Sometimes things happen that aren't fair. Buck up, Drew. It's a job.
In the end how does one react to the right thing being done in a stupid silly way? The Nats way overpaid for a reliever who didn't exactly fit their needs. They brought in a guy who's not a great clubhouse guy. They lost a draft pick in the deal. But they made the team better and addressed the hole in the bullpen. So what do you do?
You shut up and hope they don't choke on it.
It's not a smart deal, though. They are way overpaying for what Soriano brings to the table. After seeing the Nats make deal after deal that were at fair market value or actually underpaid for talent, its a bit of a shock. But it's what we were saying they'd have to do anyway, overpay for veteran talent to make the Nats better. It's just bigger and splashier than we would have expected.
Is this unfair to Storen (assuming Soriano will close)? I think so. Sure he blew that last game but it was one game. If you are using that as proof the Nats need a "veteran" closer you've spent the last 40 years asleep in a cave like
In the end how does one react to the right thing being done in a stupid silly way? The Nats way overpaid for a reliever who didn't exactly fit their needs. They brought in a guy who's not a great clubhouse guy. They lost a draft pick in the deal. But they made the team better and addressed the hole in the bullpen. So what do you do?
You shut up and hope they don't choke on it.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Soriano???!?!?!!
ELVENTY!?
Is a secondary deal is coming and that most likely involves Storen? Storen and Morse and Goodwin for Price? Or is this just making the bullpen a big strength?
Quick Update
As a Yankee fan I'll tell you that Soriano spent 2011 in the 8th inning role, pitched poorly and constantly blamed it on the fact that he wasn't closing. So let's think of some facts here
If it is a Rizzo move then it's about dealing Storen. HAS to be. Storen is bringing back more in a trade than Clippard, occupies the role Soriano wants. If someone told Rizzo, "If you want X, we want Storen" he might have seen there was a very good closer available still and thought he could maintain the pen after trading Drew if he signed Rafeal. That makes more sense to me.
Ponder, Muse, Question....
Is a secondary deal is coming and that most likely involves Storen? Storen and Morse and Goodwin for Price? Or is this just making the bullpen a big strength?
Quick Update
As a Yankee fan I'll tell you that Soriano spent 2011 in the 8th inning role, pitched poorly and constantly blamed it on the fact that he wasn't closing. So let's think of some facts here
- Rizzo doesn't like overpaying
- Rizzo doesn't like overpaying even a little bit for relief pitchers
- Rizzo likes having those draft picks
- Rizzo wants only great clubhouse guys
If it is a Rizzo move then it's about dealing Storen. HAS to be. Storen is bringing back more in a trade than Clippard, occupies the role Soriano wants. If someone told Rizzo, "If you want X, we want Storen" he might have seen there was a very good closer available still and thought he could maintain the pen after trading Drew if he signed Rafeal. That makes more sense to me.
Ponder, Muse, Question....
Monday, January 14, 2013
Mike Morse still a Nat
Mike Morses unite in support!
Comedian!
Party Tent Sales Manager!
Professor of Photojournalism!
Red Wolf Biologist! (that does sound pretty cool)
DJ!
Michigan Car Accident Attorney!
Here's a question to you. It's my belief that Mike Morse won't fetch all that much in return. While it's completely true that a healthy Mike Morse will probably hit really well there are just too many questions / problems with him.
He does not field well. Yes, he was drafted as a short stop but that was a body type ago, and frankly it doesn't look like he was a good SS anyway. He's among the lowest players in value on the basepaths. Although the past couple years have quieted the fears, his strikeout to walk ratio still is going to give pause to teams. He's only signed for one more year so you are looking at a guy that could be a single season rental. And most of all - he's injury prone. He's played more than 122 games in a season (minors + majors) twice in his career, 2009 and 2011. Even ignoring the early minor league years with fewer games played that is still the sign of a guy that gets a lot of nicks and bumps.
Are you willing to trade for a guy who may give you 110 games of decent at bats and nothing else then walk at the end of the season?
That's why I think the best the Nats could do is someone like Clay Rapada. Decent lefty arm, good LOOGY, not a free agent until 2017, but with his own performance issues and not young. Assuming Rapada reamains decent he could hold down the lefty in the pen role for the duration of the Nats initial playoff run. Unless Mike Morse has a full healthy season its likely you get more total value from Rapada at a fraction of the cost. However, for 2013, it would take a downer of a Morse year at the plate (like last year) for Rapada to match up to Morse (and if an injury happens to LaRoche or Werth...)
Would you make that deal?
The Nats probably want a decent young starter who could give them rotation depth and might develop into something more. Like a Ross Detwiler prior to 2012. Don't count on it. You might be able to get Jeff Neimann without having to pass a physical. He's got some years left before FA. He's also spent most of 2012 on the DL and at 29 isn't going to surprise anyone.
If you don't like that you might be looking at a pure pitching prospect. Anything from a "maybe this year" relief prospect who did OK in AA last year, to a long shot talent who may still be starting in A-ball. Forget Jake McGee, would a Nick Sawyer plus some other throw-ins do it for you?
If not, what type of player are you expecting?
Comedian!
Party Tent Sales Manager!
Professor of Photojournalism!
Red Wolf Biologist! (that does sound pretty cool)
DJ!
Michigan Car Accident Attorney!
Here's a question to you. It's my belief that Mike Morse won't fetch all that much in return. While it's completely true that a healthy Mike Morse will probably hit really well there are just too many questions / problems with him.
He does not field well. Yes, he was drafted as a short stop but that was a body type ago, and frankly it doesn't look like he was a good SS anyway. He's among the lowest players in value on the basepaths. Although the past couple years have quieted the fears, his strikeout to walk ratio still is going to give pause to teams. He's only signed for one more year so you are looking at a guy that could be a single season rental. And most of all - he's injury prone. He's played more than 122 games in a season (minors + majors) twice in his career, 2009 and 2011. Even ignoring the early minor league years with fewer games played that is still the sign of a guy that gets a lot of nicks and bumps.
Are you willing to trade for a guy who may give you 110 games of decent at bats and nothing else then walk at the end of the season?
That's why I think the best the Nats could do is someone like Clay Rapada. Decent lefty arm, good LOOGY, not a free agent until 2017, but with his own performance issues and not young. Assuming Rapada reamains decent he could hold down the lefty in the pen role for the duration of the Nats initial playoff run. Unless Mike Morse has a full healthy season its likely you get more total value from Rapada at a fraction of the cost. However, for 2013, it would take a downer of a Morse year at the plate (like last year) for Rapada to match up to Morse (and if an injury happens to LaRoche or Werth...)
Would you make that deal?
The Nats probably want a decent young starter who could give them rotation depth and might develop into something more. Like a Ross Detwiler prior to 2012. Don't count on it. You might be able to get Jeff Neimann without having to pass a physical. He's got some years left before FA. He's also spent most of 2012 on the DL and at 29 isn't going to surprise anyone.
If you don't like that you might be looking at a pure pitching prospect. Anything from a "maybe this year" relief prospect who did OK in AA last year, to a long shot talent who may still be starting in A-ball. Forget Jake McGee, would a Nick Sawyer plus some other throw-ins do it for you?
If not, what type of player are you expecting?
Friday, January 11, 2013
You can't just say things - FOOTBALL TALK
Sorry I couldn't ignore what has to be one of the most blatant - I'm just saying something without even concerning myself it it's true or not - things I've read in a long while.
This jabroni over at SI penned a little thing saying that the Patriots might be better suited to win a championship this year because they have a good running back. He notes that the Patriots have only been Top 5 in rushing attempts once since 2005 while passing a ton more (even though they've been sitting on some big leads). The problem is NOTHING HERE PASSES EVEN A MONKEY'S REVIEW OF THE STATS. (Ignoring the idiotic notion that two Super Bowl losses and a AFC Championship loss in seven years is somehow seen as having a fatal flaw)
Let's think about what he's implying : The Patriots won before because they ran more and they aren't winning now because they run less. Running = Winning*. Is any of that true?
*well actually he's saying "Balance = Winning" but you need to run in the Top 5 to have balance according to the premise of the article
The Patriots won before because they ran more
The Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2001, 2003, and 2004. They ranked 8th, 12th and 5th in rushing attempts. So only one year did they meet the criteria set up by this guy.
"But Harper" you say "8th and 12th are still pretty good". Ok I agree but is it true that the Pats
aren't winning now because they run less
so they must have run a lot less in the last few years, right? Let's look in where they rank in rushing attempts since 2005.
18th, 7th, 9th, 4th, 10th, 10th, 17th
Hmmm 2006-2010 look as good as their Super Bowl years don't they? And they made the Super Bowl last year when they actually didn't run that much.
"Harper" you plead "you're missing the big picture. Winners RUN. Maybe the Pats ran ok but they still weren't Top 5. That's where the Champions are!" Well let's see, is it true? Does
Running = Winning.
Let's look at how the SB Champs rank in rushing attempts since 2005
1st,
"SEE TOLD YOU!"
18th, 8th, 9th, 7th, 20th, 22nd
"Oh, I'll be quiet now"
In fact in four out of the last seven years the Patriots RAN MORE THAN THE EVENTUAL CHAMPION. (and in the year of the first loss to the Giants they were 9th and the Giants were 8th - hardly compelling evidence.
The end result is that NOTHING HE SAID HOLDS ANY TRUTH. He thought of an idea "Steven Ridley makes the Pats a better title contender" but then didn't bother to figure out how exactly to prove that. Thing is there might be something there. He gives a sentence noting Ridley gained the most yards since Dillon 2004. Right behind Ridley is 2001's Antowain Smith. All Super Bowl years. He says balance but he doesn't look at rushing attempts to passing attempts or rush yards to pass yards. Maybe that would show something. Instead he just lead with some nonsense about rushing attempt rankings, which doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of a guy at lunch spending 15 minutes looking at pro-football-reference.com.
This jabroni over at SI penned a little thing saying that the Patriots might be better suited to win a championship this year because they have a good running back. He notes that the Patriots have only been Top 5 in rushing attempts once since 2005 while passing a ton more (even though they've been sitting on some big leads). The problem is NOTHING HERE PASSES EVEN A MONKEY'S REVIEW OF THE STATS. (Ignoring the idiotic notion that two Super Bowl losses and a AFC Championship loss in seven years is somehow seen as having a fatal flaw)
Let's think about what he's implying : The Patriots won before because they ran more and they aren't winning now because they run less. Running = Winning*. Is any of that true?
*well actually he's saying "Balance = Winning" but you need to run in the Top 5 to have balance according to the premise of the article
The Patriots won before because they ran more
The Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2001, 2003, and 2004. They ranked 8th, 12th and 5th in rushing attempts. So only one year did they meet the criteria set up by this guy.
"But Harper" you say "8th and 12th are still pretty good". Ok I agree but is it true that the Pats
aren't winning now because they run less
so they must have run a lot less in the last few years, right? Let's look in where they rank in rushing attempts since 2005.
18th, 7th, 9th, 4th, 10th, 10th, 17th
Hmmm 2006-2010 look as good as their Super Bowl years don't they? And they made the Super Bowl last year when they actually didn't run that much.
"Harper" you plead "you're missing the big picture. Winners RUN. Maybe the Pats ran ok but they still weren't Top 5. That's where the Champions are!" Well let's see, is it true? Does
Running = Winning.
Let's look at how the SB Champs rank in rushing attempts since 2005
1st,
"SEE TOLD YOU!"
18th, 8th, 9th, 7th, 20th, 22nd
"Oh, I'll be quiet now"
In fact in four out of the last seven years the Patriots RAN MORE THAN THE EVENTUAL CHAMPION. (and in the year of the first loss to the Giants they were 9th and the Giants were 8th - hardly compelling evidence.
The end result is that NOTHING HE SAID HOLDS ANY TRUTH. He thought of an idea "Steven Ridley makes the Pats a better title contender" but then didn't bother to figure out how exactly to prove that. Thing is there might be something there. He gives a sentence noting Ridley gained the most yards since Dillon 2004. Right behind Ridley is 2001's Antowain Smith. All Super Bowl years. He says balance but he doesn't look at rushing attempts to passing attempts or rush yards to pass yards. Maybe that would show something. Instead he just lead with some nonsense about rushing attempt rankings, which doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of a guy at lunch spending 15 minutes looking at pro-football-reference.com.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Now you're just projecting
Zuckerman recently had a couple columns where he looked at player projections and the comments showed that people still don't quite understand how these things work.
The whole point of these fancy (and less fancy in the case of Marcel) projections is that they do a better job OVERALL than just some schlub guessing at the MLB next year. That's pretty much a given at this point. But we're talking projecting out hundreds of players and looking how far off you were on all combined. It does not mean they get every single person right or even close. It can never be that.
In some very specific areas it'll fall short. It can't predict break out seasons or surprise failures. It's not all that great projecting rookies. And coming back from injury is also a difficult and obviously an injury mid-season can't be predicted.
The latter two have a ton of variability. The first one literally comes out of nowhere. How can you project something that has no backing? "Oh I felt it coming" maybe, but like astrologers, you tend to remember the one feeling you got right and dismiss the 10 you didn't. Thing is, ask any of the people who do these projections and they'll admit this. They know the areas where they can't do a good job. All they are saying is that they do a better job projecting across the league than a person's guess.
For fun I took a look at the projections from 2012 to see how they compared to the results and see if anything can be learned.
SS Ian Desmond .292 / .335 / .511 .362 OBA
James - .268/.317/.394
ZiPS - .256 / .304 / .378
Marcel - .303 OBA
Comments - Break-out season. NO ONE saw it coming. If you say you did you are either probably lying or you've been saying "Ian will break out this year" every year for the last three and finally got it right.
2B Danny Espinosa .247 / .315 / .402 .313
James - .248/.329/.445
ZiPS - .229 / .309 / .400
Marcel - .329
Comments - A mixed bag, Zips underestimated the average, James overestimated the power, but combine them all and they pretty much have it right.
3B Ryan Zimmerman .282 / .346 / .478 .352
James - .291/.363/.486
ZiPS - .283 / .354 / .476
Marcel -.357
Comments - Zimmerman is who he is and everyone knows it. Interesting to note his OBP was lower in real life than across the board.
LF Michael Morse .291 / .321 / .470 .340
James -.291/.347/.505
ZiPS - .273 / .331 / .475
Marcel - .363
Comments - The only one who really underperformed compared to projections. His power was well down but as we know it was injury based.
1B Adam LaRoche .271 / .343 / .510 .361
James -.255/.333/.445
ZiPS - .238 / .317 / .405
Marcel - .317
Comments - WAY overperformed but how can you be surprised. When LaRoche last played he was injured and TERRIBLE. No one thought he'd come back with close to his best year ever. I mean he hadn't hit with this power since 2006. That doesn't usually happen.
RF Jayson Werth .300 / .387 / .440 .362
James -.259/.360/.451
ZiPS - .245 / .342 / .418
Marcel - .341
Comments - again an injury situation and again you can't blame the predictions. a 33 year old coming off an injury riddled year where he hit terribly wouldn't normally bounce all the way back. Werth did. But in an interesting way. It was ALL average-based. Usually its power that stays as you age and that's what the projections reflect.
C Wilson Ramos .265 / .354 / .398 .326
James -.267/.317/.431
ZiPS - .266 / .338 / .453
Marcel - .333
Comments - given injury and limited at bats it's hard to say these were off in any significant way. Looks like Ramos was getting on base more but hitting for less power than projected.
CF Roger Bernadina .291 / .372 / .405 .341
James -.261/.327/.399
ZiPS - .240 / .302 / .374
Marcel - .303 OBA
Comments - another breakout-esque year.
Stephen Strasburg 159 IP, 3.16 ERA
James -76, 2.78
ZiPS - 76, 2.85
Marcel -79, 3.02
Comments - big flaw in projections is IP in Tommy John comebacks. There aren't many and the IP varies wildly so you kind of have to ignore that. Otherwise not terribly off in my opinion.
Gio Gonzalez 199, 2.89
James -209, 3.89
ZiPS - 195, 3.55
Marcel -180, 3.60
Comments - break out year. If you weren't KC in my comments you didn't see accross the board improvement coming.
Jordan Zimmermann 195, 2.94
James -175, 3.46
ZiPS - 121, 3.65
Marcel -144, 3.56
Comments - here the one I think you want to fault projections the most. They default to regression (you'll do the same as you did before) over progression (you are learning and improving) The numbers ZNN put up in 2009 and 2010 were pretty bad. High 4.00s ERA. Now if it was just an average it would have been probably closer to 4.00 ERA in projections, but they do weight the most recent year heavier and factor in that at his age he could be peaking. Even then though you see it couldn't reach 2011. I think most Nats fans, while maybe not putting ZNN under 3.00, would have pegged him for a repeat performance (around 3.20 -a and yes I know the faults with ERA just bear with it for this exercise).
Edwin Jackson 189, 4.03
James -206, 3.98
ZiPS - 200, 3.79
Marcel - 180, 3.95
Comments - pretty close I think. Zips maybe liked him too much.
So what did we learn? The things where projections were way off were where we know they can fail, either surprise break-outs (Desmond, Bernie, Gonzo), injury comebacks (Werth, Laroche), or young players (ZNN). I think we have to ignore the first two and hope the Nats get what they want, a breakout from Danny and Ramos all the way back from injury. (Of course they are projecting Ramos all the way back so the surprise there is likely an underperformance) Are there any young players where the projections by design, might be selling short?
Yes. Desmond and Bryce. I'm kind of inclined to agree with the Desmond projections of a slight regression. Unlike ZNN he didn't have a couple partial seasons behind him. Ian's played a lot. But if you want to give him numbers close to last year, I think you can justify it. As for Bryce I'm pretty sure if you ask any of the projection people they would say Bryce will out do what they put out there (Then why put it out there? It's about sticking with a system. The minute you put feeling in there, no matter how strong, you start to add a lot of bias to the system. So you take your lumps on guys like Bryce that you are 95% sure are going to do better than what your system says). Everyone else stick with what they project.
Pitching wise Detwiler is the place to go for another ZNN performance. But understand that's a lot less likely for Ross than it was for ZNN. Det's 2012 was not as good as ZNNs 2011, and his starter ERA was actually close to 3.60. If he's truly learning he may only repeat that or beat it by a little. Going under 3.40 just doesn't seem likely to me. Ignore the IP with Strasburg and ZNN and put in what you think. With ZNN, given a full 2 seasons now in the books, his projections should be more spot on (if they look high it's because he got lucky a bit last year - we can get into that if you want). Haren is a total wild card.
I'm not sure were the projections will be wildly underestimating the Nats this year other than Bryce. They don't have guys coming back from terrible injury plagued seasons, there's only a handful of players that are young enough or haven't played enough to break out (Danny... Span, maybe) and you can't just say that'll happen. I guess they could be selling both Detwiler and Desmond a little short like they did ZNN in 2012, but there was better reasons for ZNN to repeat his performance than Detwiler or Desmond. Mostly I think these projections are going to work out to be pretty accurate.
But that's ok. You still have a pitching staff where your Top 3 guys are at least in the Top 15 in the NL. You still have an offense with no holes 1-7. It's still a division winning team they are projecting.
The whole point of these fancy (and less fancy in the case of Marcel) projections is that they do a better job OVERALL than just some schlub guessing at the MLB next year. That's pretty much a given at this point. But we're talking projecting out hundreds of players and looking how far off you were on all combined. It does not mean they get every single person right or even close. It can never be that.
In some very specific areas it'll fall short. It can't predict break out seasons or surprise failures. It's not all that great projecting rookies. And coming back from injury is also a difficult and obviously an injury mid-season can't be predicted.
The latter two have a ton of variability. The first one literally comes out of nowhere. How can you project something that has no backing? "Oh I felt it coming" maybe, but like astrologers, you tend to remember the one feeling you got right and dismiss the 10 you didn't. Thing is, ask any of the people who do these projections and they'll admit this. They know the areas where they can't do a good job. All they are saying is that they do a better job projecting across the league than a person's guess.
For fun I took a look at the projections from 2012 to see how they compared to the results and see if anything can be learned.
SS Ian Desmond .292 / .335 / .511 .362 OBA
James - .268/.317/.394
ZiPS - .256 / .304 / .378
Marcel - .303 OBA
Comments - Break-out season. NO ONE saw it coming. If you say you did you are either probably lying or you've been saying "Ian will break out this year" every year for the last three and finally got it right.
2B Danny Espinosa .247 / .315 / .402 .313
James - .248/.329/.445
ZiPS - .229 / .309 / .400
Marcel - .329
Comments - A mixed bag, Zips underestimated the average, James overestimated the power, but combine them all and they pretty much have it right.
3B Ryan Zimmerman .282 / .346 / .478 .352
James - .291/.363/.486
ZiPS - .283 / .354 / .476
Marcel -.357
Comments - Zimmerman is who he is and everyone knows it. Interesting to note his OBP was lower in real life than across the board.
LF Michael Morse .291 / .321 / .470 .340
James -.291/.347/.505
ZiPS - .273 / .331 / .475
Marcel - .363
Comments - The only one who really underperformed compared to projections. His power was well down but as we know it was injury based.
1B Adam LaRoche .271 / .343 / .510 .361
James -.255/.333/.445
ZiPS - .238 / .317 / .405
Marcel - .317
Comments - WAY overperformed but how can you be surprised. When LaRoche last played he was injured and TERRIBLE. No one thought he'd come back with close to his best year ever. I mean he hadn't hit with this power since 2006. That doesn't usually happen.
RF Jayson Werth .300 / .387 / .440 .362
James -.259/.360/.451
ZiPS - .245 / .342 / .418
Marcel - .341
Comments - again an injury situation and again you can't blame the predictions. a 33 year old coming off an injury riddled year where he hit terribly wouldn't normally bounce all the way back. Werth did. But in an interesting way. It was ALL average-based. Usually its power that stays as you age and that's what the projections reflect.
C Wilson Ramos .265 / .354 / .398 .326
James -.267/.317/.431
ZiPS - .266 / .338 / .453
Marcel - .333
Comments - given injury and limited at bats it's hard to say these were off in any significant way. Looks like Ramos was getting on base more but hitting for less power than projected.
CF Roger Bernadina .291 / .372 / .405 .341
James -.261/.327/.399
ZiPS - .240 / .302 / .374
Marcel - .303 OBA
Comments - another breakout-esque year.
Stephen Strasburg 159 IP, 3.16 ERA
James -76, 2.78
ZiPS - 76, 2.85
Marcel -79, 3.02
Comments - big flaw in projections is IP in Tommy John comebacks. There aren't many and the IP varies wildly so you kind of have to ignore that. Otherwise not terribly off in my opinion.
Gio Gonzalez 199, 2.89
James -209, 3.89
ZiPS - 195, 3.55
Marcel -180, 3.60
Comments - break out year. If you weren't KC in my comments you didn't see accross the board improvement coming.
Jordan Zimmermann 195, 2.94
James -175, 3.46
ZiPS - 121, 3.65
Marcel -144, 3.56
Comments - here the one I think you want to fault projections the most. They default to regression (you'll do the same as you did before) over progression (you are learning and improving) The numbers ZNN put up in 2009 and 2010 were pretty bad. High 4.00s ERA. Now if it was just an average it would have been probably closer to 4.00 ERA in projections, but they do weight the most recent year heavier and factor in that at his age he could be peaking. Even then though you see it couldn't reach 2011. I think most Nats fans, while maybe not putting ZNN under 3.00, would have pegged him for a repeat performance (around 3.20 -a and yes I know the faults with ERA just bear with it for this exercise).
Edwin Jackson 189, 4.03
James -206, 3.98
ZiPS - 200, 3.79
Marcel - 180, 3.95
Comments - pretty close I think. Zips maybe liked him too much.
So what did we learn? The things where projections were way off were where we know they can fail, either surprise break-outs (Desmond, Bernie, Gonzo), injury comebacks (Werth, Laroche), or young players (ZNN). I think we have to ignore the first two and hope the Nats get what they want, a breakout from Danny and Ramos all the way back from injury. (Of course they are projecting Ramos all the way back so the surprise there is likely an underperformance) Are there any young players where the projections by design, might be selling short?
Yes. Desmond and Bryce. I'm kind of inclined to agree with the Desmond projections of a slight regression. Unlike ZNN he didn't have a couple partial seasons behind him. Ian's played a lot. But if you want to give him numbers close to last year, I think you can justify it. As for Bryce I'm pretty sure if you ask any of the projection people they would say Bryce will out do what they put out there (Then why put it out there? It's about sticking with a system. The minute you put feeling in there, no matter how strong, you start to add a lot of bias to the system. So you take your lumps on guys like Bryce that you are 95% sure are going to do better than what your system says). Everyone else stick with what they project.
Pitching wise Detwiler is the place to go for another ZNN performance. But understand that's a lot less likely for Ross than it was for ZNN. Det's 2012 was not as good as ZNNs 2011, and his starter ERA was actually close to 3.60. If he's truly learning he may only repeat that or beat it by a little. Going under 3.40 just doesn't seem likely to me. Ignore the IP with Strasburg and ZNN and put in what you think. With ZNN, given a full 2 seasons now in the books, his projections should be more spot on (if they look high it's because he got lucky a bit last year - we can get into that if you want). Haren is a total wild card.
I'm not sure were the projections will be wildly underestimating the Nats this year other than Bryce. They don't have guys coming back from terrible injury plagued seasons, there's only a handful of players that are young enough or haven't played enough to break out (Danny... Span, maybe) and you can't just say that'll happen. I guess they could be selling both Detwiler and Desmond a little short like they did ZNN in 2012, but there was better reasons for ZNN to repeat his performance than Detwiler or Desmond. Mostly I think these projections are going to work out to be pretty accurate.
But that's ok. You still have a pitching staff where your Top 3 guys are at least in the Top 15 in the NL. You still have an offense with no holes 1-7. It's still a division winning team they are projecting.
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
LaRoche Signs; Trade Morse?
LaRoche will presumably sign the deal the Nats wanted all along. It's not what he wanted but interest in him was tepid for several reasons.
* Fun fact - expand out Moreland to a full season, factor in fielding and Texas conditions, etc etc and the difference between Moreland and LaRoche is 1-2 wins or EXACTLY WHAT THE RANGERS NEEDED TO MISS THE WILD CARD GAME LAST YEAR. When/if the Rangers fail to make the playoffs or win the West by a game or two I will laugh and laugh and laugh
So what about Morse? Presumably he'll be traded for a LH reliever or starting depth. Does he need to be?
The Nats can afford to keep him. Five million isn't onerous, and a good back-up is always nice to have. But that's probably not enough. Morse can only play corner OF and 1B, you really don't want to rotate out any of those three (LaRoche, Werth, Bryce) for many games so you are looking at a pretty limited set of at bats for Morse. Even if there was a minor injury the Nats are ok with the much cheaper options of Bernadina (for ok fielding and speed and slap hits) or Moore (for lefty power) for a few games at least. As a bench player he'd be a nice guy to have in case you need a hit, but his power was falling last year (possibly injury related so it might bounce back) and he Ks alot so he's a very specific type of bench hitter. He doesn't field well or run well so that value is nill.
Simply in terms of production, would he be worth more to the Nats in 2013 than a 6th starter or a 7th inning LOOGY? Almost certainly. But that's not the question. The question is given their relative contracts, would he be worth more? The answer to that, assuming the guys that the Nats get back are cheap and are signed through more than next year, would be no.
Morse will likely be gone next year with no room for him at the DC Inn. The Nats can save some money and probably get a little more value over the course of the respective players "Nat time" by trading him now. Rizzo tends to be an absolute value guy so I expect him to be dealt, screw the win in 2013 it may cost.
- His 2010 was mediocre and his injury plagued 2011 was terrible
- Repeat "Injury plagued 2011"
- He's 33, not a young chicken
- He was tied to draft pick compensation
* Fun fact - expand out Moreland to a full season, factor in fielding and Texas conditions, etc etc and the difference between Moreland and LaRoche is 1-2 wins or EXACTLY WHAT THE RANGERS NEEDED TO MISS THE WILD CARD GAME LAST YEAR. When/if the Rangers fail to make the playoffs or win the West by a game or two I will laugh and laugh and laugh
So what about Morse? Presumably he'll be traded for a LH reliever or starting depth. Does he need to be?
The Nats can afford to keep him. Five million isn't onerous, and a good back-up is always nice to have. But that's probably not enough. Morse can only play corner OF and 1B, you really don't want to rotate out any of those three (LaRoche, Werth, Bryce) for many games so you are looking at a pretty limited set of at bats for Morse. Even if there was a minor injury the Nats are ok with the much cheaper options of Bernadina (for ok fielding and speed and slap hits) or Moore (for lefty power) for a few games at least. As a bench player he'd be a nice guy to have in case you need a hit, but his power was falling last year (possibly injury related so it might bounce back) and he Ks alot so he's a very specific type of bench hitter. He doesn't field well or run well so that value is nill.
Simply in terms of production, would he be worth more to the Nats in 2013 than a 6th starter or a 7th inning LOOGY? Almost certainly. But that's not the question. The question is given their relative contracts, would he be worth more? The answer to that, assuming the guys that the Nats get back are cheap and are signed through more than next year, would be no.
Morse will likely be gone next year with no room for him at the DC Inn. The Nats can save some money and probably get a little more value over the course of the respective players "Nat time" by trading him now. Rizzo tends to be an absolute value guy so I expect him to be dealt, screw the win in 2013 it may cost.
Hall of Fame vote
I still stand by what I wrote 3 years ago.
I hope the deserving players, in my opinion, get in and undeserving ones stay out but in the end it doesn't matter who makes this arbitrary list of the best players of all time, even if it's decided by a bunch of baseball writers and it has its own fancy building.
I hope the deserving players, in my opinion, get in and undeserving ones stay out but in the end it doesn't matter who makes this arbitrary list of the best players of all time, even if it's decided by a bunch of baseball writers and it has its own fancy building.
Friday, January 04, 2013
Friday Free For All (well free depending on how you view the cost of internet)
Wrapping up the week (Happy New Year!) with some random points
- Nats are kicking the tires on Javy Vazquez. I'll never put down a cheap deal, especially a cheap minor-league deal that doesn't necessarily eat up a roster spot for any time. Pitching depth can never hurt.
- Don't misread yesterday's column. I'm not doubting Rendon will be a decent major leaguer, just that he'll be an impact bat for a fullish season in the next 2 years. And if he can't be an impact bat in 2014 that poses a bit of a problem for the Nats. Do you re-configure your whole team to get him in there and let him hit maybe average for a year? Do you sign someone in a pretty damn weak, not likely to do any better, 1B class? You are trying to win it all remember. Do you re-sign Morse to a nice deal since he'd probably do ok on the FA market if he has a good year this year? I don't think the Nats want to do that. LaRoche at 2 makes all these questions moot, which is why the Nats are trying to get that.
- Also I'd say it's likely Rendon has at least a few good years if not a good career. Take a look at the College Freshmen of the Year. A few of them crapped out a bit in college, but for the 11 (not counting Ackley) that were drafted high, all of them managed to put up at least a couple decent full years. Most became good to very good players, and there are a few stars in there. Still if you are looking for an impact year from Rendon in 2013 or 2014 only four of these guys managed to get to the majors and be good that quickly, and all of them had much better stats (albiet in more games) in their first stint in the upper minors. Given that he only played 43 games last year it's better to treat 2013 as Rendon's year 1.
- And its good to remember that all this is hardly anything to be worried about. The Nats are 90+ win team next year (and for the forseeable future assuming there aren't any terrible injuries or surprise busts). That's playoff good in this 2-WC world. It's hard to predict the future but at least 3 playoff appearance in the next 4 seasons would be my guess.
- Hey, I finished my NCBBBQ blog! If you ever wondered to yourself "How did Harper waste away the summer of '09" you finally can find out in full.
- Reminder I'm taking questions again at natsoftheroundtable. It's a gmail address.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Rendon is not Bryce
As part of this whole LaRoche saga, one of the underlying themes I'm picking up from some fans is "It doesn't matter if they sign LaRoche. Morse is fine for next year and they need the infield space for Anthony Rendon when he comes up later this year". The ascension of Rendon is taken as fait accompli. He will come up, possibly early this year, likely later this year, maaaybe next year at the latest. He will be good. Bryce Harper was the Nats last hitting star and he's made the transition. So will Anthony Rendon.
Thing is Anthony Rendon is not Bryce Harper.
Bryce was not just a #1 draft pick, but a consensus, "Bowden would have picked him" obvious choice. In the majors at 19. On the cover of Sports Illustrated in high school. A player with all the tools who's compared to Hall of Famers. A player that, even though he didn't hit great last year, was a big plus for the Nats because what he did on defense at a tough position (based pretty much on pure athleticism) and what he did on the basepaths. Bryce Harper is a generational talent, meaning we see his like once every 20 years or so.
Anthony Rendon also arguably could have been a #1 draft pick, even though he went later because of injury concern. Possibly the best college hitter as a true freshman at 19. A fine fielder to go along with his great hitting, but not a threat on the basepaths. If Rendon doesn't hit well, his value is going to take a hit, especially if he's playing a corner IF position. Anthony Rendon is a talent you don't see every year but you do see.
When I look at Anthony Rendon I don't see Bryce Harper. I see Pat Burrell with a glove. (which isn't bad - Pat Burrell had a fine career and would get a lot more praise if he wasn't a DH disguised as an OF most of his career)
Yes yes Rendon rocked the Arizona Fall League in 2012. But that doesn't mean he'll be rocking the majors in 2013 or even 2014. Take a look at the AFL leaders in 2010. Which of those guys have had an impressive season in the majors so far heading into 2013? Answer : Maybe Brandon Belt last year. Ackley had a good half-season in 2011 but struggled mightily last year. Norris never turned the corner at the plate last year. Kipnis looks on the verge with a nice finish to 2011 but was still only ok last year. Only Belt has had a full season of above average hitting and it wasn't GREAT.
Now if you want to argue the Nats need to clear space for Rendon OR Moore OR Skole... well anytime you add more names to the argument it gets stronger. But like Rendon isn't Bryce, those guys aren't Rendon. Chances are smaller that they are impact players at the majors.
And let's not forget that Rendon was thought of as an injury risk when he was drafted then he proceeded to get injured nearly immediately to start the season.
I'm not saying that Rendon couldn't be great as soon as the end of this year, but that thinking, or even thinking he'll be starting for the Nats next year, shouldn't be part of any serious plan. The chances are better that he won't be a serious hitter in the majors until a couple years from now, even if he stays healthy which is a big if, and for a team that wants to WIN NOW, you can't give guys 2-3 years to find themselves in the majors and you can't have a hole at first base. It's very likely that they will need to sign a first baseman for 2014. Be it LaRoche on a deal starting this year, or Morse coming back on a new one, or someone else.
Thing is Anthony Rendon is not Bryce Harper.
Bryce was not just a #1 draft pick, but a consensus, "Bowden would have picked him" obvious choice. In the majors at 19. On the cover of Sports Illustrated in high school. A player with all the tools who's compared to Hall of Famers. A player that, even though he didn't hit great last year, was a big plus for the Nats because what he did on defense at a tough position (based pretty much on pure athleticism) and what he did on the basepaths. Bryce Harper is a generational talent, meaning we see his like once every 20 years or so.
Anthony Rendon also arguably could have been a #1 draft pick, even though he went later because of injury concern. Possibly the best college hitter as a true freshman at 19. A fine fielder to go along with his great hitting, but not a threat on the basepaths. If Rendon doesn't hit well, his value is going to take a hit, especially if he's playing a corner IF position. Anthony Rendon is a talent you don't see every year but you do see.
When I look at Anthony Rendon I don't see Bryce Harper. I see Pat Burrell with a glove. (which isn't bad - Pat Burrell had a fine career and would get a lot more praise if he wasn't a DH disguised as an OF most of his career)
Yes yes Rendon rocked the Arizona Fall League in 2012. But that doesn't mean he'll be rocking the majors in 2013 or even 2014. Take a look at the AFL leaders in 2010. Which of those guys have had an impressive season in the majors so far heading into 2013? Answer : Maybe Brandon Belt last year. Ackley had a good half-season in 2011 but struggled mightily last year. Norris never turned the corner at the plate last year. Kipnis looks on the verge with a nice finish to 2011 but was still only ok last year. Only Belt has had a full season of above average hitting and it wasn't GREAT.
Now if you want to argue the Nats need to clear space for Rendon OR Moore OR Skole... well anytime you add more names to the argument it gets stronger. But like Rendon isn't Bryce, those guys aren't Rendon. Chances are smaller that they are impact players at the majors.
And let's not forget that Rendon was thought of as an injury risk when he was drafted then he proceeded to get injured nearly immediately to start the season.
I'm not saying that Rendon couldn't be great as soon as the end of this year, but that thinking, or even thinking he'll be starting for the Nats next year, shouldn't be part of any serious plan. The chances are better that he won't be a serious hitter in the majors until a couple years from now, even if he stays healthy which is a big if, and for a team that wants to WIN NOW, you can't give guys 2-3 years to find themselves in the majors and you can't have a hole at first base. It's very likely that they will need to sign a first baseman for 2014. Be it LaRoche on a deal starting this year, or Morse coming back on a new one, or someone else.
Monday, December 31, 2012
LaRoche revisited
I looked at the potential LaRoche deal from the soulless automaton side and have pretty much endorsed the Nats line of thinking. It's not fiscally prudent to sign LaRoche to that 3rd year if you feel that you can replace his production this year (they feel they can) and he is not need long-term (they feel he isn't). Sure you will lose that fielding but saving that is probably not worth the cost hitching your wagon to Adam given the above.
Are they crazy to think the above? The production part is fairly straight forward. If Morse is healthy his most likely line is going to be something like .290 / .330 / .500. For all intents and purposes that is as good as LaRoche did last year, maybe a bit better. Sure Morse could collapse or face injury risk, but as a one-year gamble it's not a bad one. The long term is a bit hazier. The Nats don't have anyone who has produced in AA yet and while they like Rendon (and to a lesser extent Skole) this gamble is a bit bigger one to play. Even if one of these guys comes through to be the player LaRoche is, circumstance could force them into another position, or another team, or it could be 3 years until they are really ready.
This is all why the LaRoche signing doesn't seem clear. It isn't. But overall it makes sense to worry about 2013 and maaaybe 2014, but not much further because too much could change to worry about 2015 and beyond. Losing LaRoche shouldn't hurt 2013 too much. So stick to your guns.
That's the non fan view of things. When I try to look at it through the glasses of a hard core fan, I get kind of pissed.
Real teams spend money
No, you don't HAVE to spend money to win and if you can get away with not doing it than more power to you, but understand that you'd be getting away with it. In general when you get to the level of winning 90+ games, there is precious little you can do to secure your team more wins. Instead what you are doing is signing players that reduce your production variability. Instead of being a 93 win team that could conceivably win 88-96 games, you spend an extra 15-20 million and become a 94 win team that could conceivably win 91-97 games.
Does that matter? Yes, yes it does. First and foremost it shows your #1 concern is winning with no caveats. Not "winning, while spending smartly" or "winning, with an eye toward our future plans". No just "winning". How can get to the point that if something goes wrong we STILL win.
Signing LaRoche is a way to probably reduce that variability. Morse may have a good shot at hitting as good or a little better than LaRoche, but he's also more of an injury risk, has that questionable approach, and is a defensive liability. There's a lot here that can go wrong. For Adam it's likely either "he hits well" or "he hits ok". Sure, ride it out and see if you can't get Adam back at the deal that you want, but when push comes to shove, when either another team bites and offers the 3rd year or if the Nats are staring down the start of Spring Training, you make that deal.
This isn't a 6 year deal. This isn't 20 million per season. It doesn't even cross into the "have to spend $$$ to sign our young guys" time frame (Both Ian and ZNN would hit that point after the 2015 season). This deal, if made, should not effect the team negatively in any appreciable way.
It's one thing for me to dismiss the above for the loving embrace of cold hard facts (the team is good enough that even without signing LaRoche, in this new 2-Wild Card format, they should be a near-lock for the playoffs and even with the Wild Card 1-game showdown that's still enough), but I'm a bit surprised more fans aren't saying the above. Full faith in Rizzo? Blind optimism in this being a 100+ win team regardless?
Are they crazy to think the above? The production part is fairly straight forward. If Morse is healthy his most likely line is going to be something like .290 / .330 / .500. For all intents and purposes that is as good as LaRoche did last year, maybe a bit better. Sure Morse could collapse or face injury risk, but as a one-year gamble it's not a bad one. The long term is a bit hazier. The Nats don't have anyone who has produced in AA yet and while they like Rendon (and to a lesser extent Skole) this gamble is a bit bigger one to play. Even if one of these guys comes through to be the player LaRoche is, circumstance could force them into another position, or another team, or it could be 3 years until they are really ready.
This is all why the LaRoche signing doesn't seem clear. It isn't. But overall it makes sense to worry about 2013 and maaaybe 2014, but not much further because too much could change to worry about 2015 and beyond. Losing LaRoche shouldn't hurt 2013 too much. So stick to your guns.
That's the non fan view of things. When I try to look at it through the glasses of a hard core fan, I get kind of pissed.
Real teams spend money
No, you don't HAVE to spend money to win and if you can get away with not doing it than more power to you, but understand that you'd be getting away with it. In general when you get to the level of winning 90+ games, there is precious little you can do to secure your team more wins. Instead what you are doing is signing players that reduce your production variability. Instead of being a 93 win team that could conceivably win 88-96 games, you spend an extra 15-20 million and become a 94 win team that could conceivably win 91-97 games.
Does that matter? Yes, yes it does. First and foremost it shows your #1 concern is winning with no caveats. Not "winning, while spending smartly" or "winning, with an eye toward our future plans". No just "winning". How can get to the point that if something goes wrong we STILL win.
Signing LaRoche is a way to probably reduce that variability. Morse may have a good shot at hitting as good or a little better than LaRoche, but he's also more of an injury risk, has that questionable approach, and is a defensive liability. There's a lot here that can go wrong. For Adam it's likely either "he hits well" or "he hits ok". Sure, ride it out and see if you can't get Adam back at the deal that you want, but when push comes to shove, when either another team bites and offers the 3rd year or if the Nats are staring down the start of Spring Training, you make that deal.
This isn't a 6 year deal. This isn't 20 million per season. It doesn't even cross into the "have to spend $$$ to sign our young guys" time frame (Both Ian and ZNN would hit that point after the 2015 season). This deal, if made, should not effect the team negatively in any appreciable way.
It's one thing for me to dismiss the above for the loving embrace of cold hard facts (the team is good enough that even without signing LaRoche, in this new 2-Wild Card format, they should be a near-lock for the playoffs and even with the Wild Card 1-game showdown that's still enough), but I'm a bit surprised more fans aren't saying the above. Full faith in Rizzo? Blind optimism in this being a 100+ win team regardless?
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Mailbag Monday Eve
A gift from me to you on Christmas Eve. Merry Christmas! (question wording was mine so don't blame the commenters)
What is the future of Tyler Moore? (Watts, Schiff)
I've said before that I don't think much of Tyler Moore's future. You just don't strike out that much and walk that little and find success in the majors very often. You might bring up that Mike Morse is our poster child for this line of thinking and he's had success but here's the thing
Moore: (age 21-25) 3.5 Ks per B
Morse: 2.7 Ks per BB
Morse in the majors - 3.9 Ks per BB
That doesn't bode well for Tyler. (not to mention the .225 / 283 / .494 line in the 2nd half) Now maybe he won't see his strikeout ratio increase, it didn't during his first time out. And maybe even at his normal high level of Ks to walks he can buck history and put up productive seasons, Morse has up until now. But even if you don't believe in history (even though it's proven right more often that not), even if you don't believe in fancy stats (ditto), even if you take the strict view that what you hit in the minors has no bearing on how you do in the majors (even though it's pretty standard thinking by nearly everyone involved in the game that it does). Even if you believe all that just look at how the Nats are treating Moore. He is not part of the first base plans right now. He's not considered the next big thing. If you don't believe everything above AND you don't believe the people that are seeing him and evaluating him everyday... well I don't know what to tell you.
What does that mean for Moore? Well he'll be exactly what he should be, a decent lefty off the bench that can play corner OF or first base and more importantly can hit a homer in a pinch hit situation. His power is real and because of that he's exactly the type of guy you want on the bench. And because he's cheap he should be able to fill that role for the next few years so the Nats don't have to go out and get that guy.
Is he tradeable... right now not really. Pretty much all the majors see him as a bench guy so he's not getting much back. Now if he hits .270-.280 next year... that changes things.
What sort of progression do you see for BamBam with the bat and in the field? (watts)
I'm on the conservative side with Bryce. A slash line like .285 / .370 / .500? Around 30 homers? I think I've said it before. The closer we get to the start of the season the more serious other looks at him will be and the easier it will be to see if I'm way off, but that is my conservative estimate. The guy could hit .300+ and 40 homers, easy. I think he will... just not next year. Remember if he only hits like he did last year that's a Top 30 offensive season.
In the field, the question is different now. He won't be playing CF. Personally I didn't see much progression happening, but I'll admit I'm not an expert here. Now that he's not in center though it won't matter. Personally I would LOVE to see him in RF. Werth has a nice arm but can you imagine the effect Bryce's gun would have on those first to third attempts?
Is Gio postseason worrying? If not for the regular season than the postseason? (watts)
I can understand the concern. Gio had terrible control last postseason, walking 11 in 10 innings and his control was one of the things people worried about coming into the season. But personally I wouldn't worry about it for the regular season. Even if he reverts to full A's mode wjen it comes to control he still would be a very good pitcher. He gave up fewer hits, struck out more, and more importantly gave up A LOT less homers. A fwe more baserunners won't overcome all that. So if you want to watch something - watch that. Everyone expected that HR/FB% number to go up, instead it went down. Can he keep THAT up?
Now will it matter next postseason? Wellllll maybe. His walks have seemed to go up a bit at the end of the season the last few years. Is it indicative of a tired arm that'll be even more tired in the majors? Or is it just a fluke of the numbers? Personally I wouldn't worry about until it's time to worry about it. 207 innings as opposed to 200 innings shouldn't make a difference. Now 220? Ok maybe but ""Will Gio still be effective in the World Series" is a worry I'm willing to have.
Who are the best trade chips for the Nats, you know, if they want to make a major deal. Desmond and Espinosa seem like good candiates. Is anyone overvalued? Leave Strasburg and ZNN out of it (wally)
I'd say the Nats best trade chips for a major deal would be as follows Desmond, Rendon, Espinosa, Zimmermann, Storen.
Desmond and Storen are the ones likely to be overrated. Storen for the whole "closers aren't actually all that important, but people think they are" reason. Desmond because he was a kind of error-prone guy that didn't hit until last year. You'd be selling high if you sell on Desmond. Plus you'd be selling high on a position you think you could fill (with Espy and maybe Rendon at 2nd) Then again, he's a short stop that hit .290 with 20+ homers last year. You better be pretty sure you are selling high if you are selling that.
Rendon's AFL showing plus his age and contract situation makes him very desirable.
Despite Espinosa's weak season, the fact he's a position player, who fields a hard position to fill with skill, and he has an extra year of team control put his over Zimm. Given that is was a weak season though it's doubtful he'd be overvalued. You'd be selling low on Danny.
Zimm being a starter puts him over Storen.
This all being said I don't see any (more?) major deals happening this off-season. And anything after next year, even a year is too far in advance to guess.
Given his contract and skill level, could they trade ZNN for a #1 type pitcher. They haven't signed him to an extension yet so he's still super cheap. (wiekcing)
Zimmermann is an interesting case because he'll be a free agent before Stras and Gio and given his skill level he'll be earning a lot more than Detwiler. Assuming Gio and Stras are still moving along, you are looking at putting out a lot of money for a guy that's probably your third best pitcher
Thing is if they don't trade him this offseason I'm not sure when they would. After this season you'd be trading one season of a great pitcher for two years of ZNN? Even with another prospect that doesn't seem like a great deal. And I'm not sure who would be traded for (David Price is great and potentially on the block. He's also a FA in 2016 so relatively cheap before then... relatively)
Personally, I'd expect an extension to be worked out here and them to let Strasburg walk when push comes to shove (to concentrate on re-signing Bryce)
Line-up order. please (jacquez)
My expectations would be
Span
Werth
Zimmerman
Harper
LaRoche/Morse
Desmond
Espinosa
Catcher
P
I think Davey would like to move Werth down but would hesitate to move Desmond out of the 6th hole. That hamstrings Davey a bit Given that and the fact I think he'd more like to see what Bryce can do in a run-producing slot,Werth is kind of stuck. Though I won't rule nother possibilty with more left right balance :
Span
Harper
Zimmerman
LaRoche
Werth
Desmond
Espy
C
P
But it only works with LaRoche back and really if Bryce breaks out next year that's pretty much the end of this
OK that should be all the questions except for one from Hayes that really is less pertinent right now I think. so hit me up with more
Gmail: Natsoftheroundtable
What is the future of Tyler Moore? (Watts, Schiff)
I've said before that I don't think much of Tyler Moore's future. You just don't strike out that much and walk that little and find success in the majors very often. You might bring up that Mike Morse is our poster child for this line of thinking and he's had success but here's the thing
Moore: (age 21-25) 3.5 Ks per B
Morse: 2.7 Ks per BB
Morse in the majors - 3.9 Ks per BB
That doesn't bode well for Tyler. (not to mention the .225 / 283 / .494 line in the 2nd half) Now maybe he won't see his strikeout ratio increase, it didn't during his first time out. And maybe even at his normal high level of Ks to walks he can buck history and put up productive seasons, Morse has up until now. But even if you don't believe in history (even though it's proven right more often that not), even if you don't believe in fancy stats (ditto), even if you take the strict view that what you hit in the minors has no bearing on how you do in the majors (even though it's pretty standard thinking by nearly everyone involved in the game that it does). Even if you believe all that just look at how the Nats are treating Moore. He is not part of the first base plans right now. He's not considered the next big thing. If you don't believe everything above AND you don't believe the people that are seeing him and evaluating him everyday... well I don't know what to tell you.
What does that mean for Moore? Well he'll be exactly what he should be, a decent lefty off the bench that can play corner OF or first base and more importantly can hit a homer in a pinch hit situation. His power is real and because of that he's exactly the type of guy you want on the bench. And because he's cheap he should be able to fill that role for the next few years so the Nats don't have to go out and get that guy.
Is he tradeable... right now not really. Pretty much all the majors see him as a bench guy so he's not getting much back. Now if he hits .270-.280 next year... that changes things.
What sort of progression do you see for BamBam with the bat and in the field? (watts)
I'm on the conservative side with Bryce. A slash line like .285 / .370 / .500? Around 30 homers? I think I've said it before. The closer we get to the start of the season the more serious other looks at him will be and the easier it will be to see if I'm way off, but that is my conservative estimate. The guy could hit .300+ and 40 homers, easy. I think he will... just not next year. Remember if he only hits like he did last year that's a Top 30 offensive season.
In the field, the question is different now. He won't be playing CF. Personally I didn't see much progression happening, but I'll admit I'm not an expert here. Now that he's not in center though it won't matter. Personally I would LOVE to see him in RF. Werth has a nice arm but can you imagine the effect Bryce's gun would have on those first to third attempts?
Is Gio postseason worrying? If not for the regular season than the postseason? (watts)
I can understand the concern. Gio had terrible control last postseason, walking 11 in 10 innings and his control was one of the things people worried about coming into the season. But personally I wouldn't worry about it for the regular season. Even if he reverts to full A's mode wjen it comes to control he still would be a very good pitcher. He gave up fewer hits, struck out more, and more importantly gave up A LOT less homers. A fwe more baserunners won't overcome all that. So if you want to watch something - watch that. Everyone expected that HR/FB% number to go up, instead it went down. Can he keep THAT up?
Now will it matter next postseason? Wellllll maybe. His walks have seemed to go up a bit at the end of the season the last few years. Is it indicative of a tired arm that'll be even more tired in the majors? Or is it just a fluke of the numbers? Personally I wouldn't worry about until it's time to worry about it. 207 innings as opposed to 200 innings shouldn't make a difference. Now 220? Ok maybe but ""Will Gio still be effective in the World Series" is a worry I'm willing to have.
Who are the best trade chips for the Nats, you know, if they want to make a major deal. Desmond and Espinosa seem like good candiates. Is anyone overvalued? Leave Strasburg and ZNN out of it (wally)
I'd say the Nats best trade chips for a major deal would be as follows Desmond, Rendon, Espinosa, Zimmermann, Storen.
Desmond and Storen are the ones likely to be overrated. Storen for the whole "closers aren't actually all that important, but people think they are" reason. Desmond because he was a kind of error-prone guy that didn't hit until last year. You'd be selling high if you sell on Desmond. Plus you'd be selling high on a position you think you could fill (with Espy and maybe Rendon at 2nd) Then again, he's a short stop that hit .290 with 20+ homers last year. You better be pretty sure you are selling high if you are selling that.
Rendon's AFL showing plus his age and contract situation makes him very desirable.
Despite Espinosa's weak season, the fact he's a position player, who fields a hard position to fill with skill, and he has an extra year of team control put his over Zimm. Given that is was a weak season though it's doubtful he'd be overvalued. You'd be selling low on Danny.
Zimm being a starter puts him over Storen.
This all being said I don't see any (more?) major deals happening this off-season. And anything after next year, even a year is too far in advance to guess.
Given his contract and skill level, could they trade ZNN for a #1 type pitcher. They haven't signed him to an extension yet so he's still super cheap. (wiekcing)
Zimmermann is an interesting case because he'll be a free agent before Stras and Gio and given his skill level he'll be earning a lot more than Detwiler. Assuming Gio and Stras are still moving along, you are looking at putting out a lot of money for a guy that's probably your third best pitcher
Thing is if they don't trade him this offseason I'm not sure when they would. After this season you'd be trading one season of a great pitcher for two years of ZNN? Even with another prospect that doesn't seem like a great deal. And I'm not sure who would be traded for (David Price is great and potentially on the block. He's also a FA in 2016 so relatively cheap before then... relatively)
Personally, I'd expect an extension to be worked out here and them to let Strasburg walk when push comes to shove (to concentrate on re-signing Bryce)
Line-up order. please (jacquez)
My expectations would be
Span
Werth
Zimmerman
Harper
LaRoche/Morse
Desmond
Espinosa
Catcher
P
I think Davey would like to move Werth down but would hesitate to move Desmond out of the 6th hole. That hamstrings Davey a bit Given that and the fact I think he'd more like to see what Bryce can do in a run-producing slot,Werth is kind of stuck. Though I won't rule nother possibilty with more left right balance :
Span
Harper
Zimmerman
LaRoche
Werth
Desmond
Espy
C
P
But it only works with LaRoche back and really if Bryce breaks out next year that's pretty much the end of this
OK that should be all the questions except for one from Hayes that really is less pertinent right now I think. so hit me up with more
Gmail: Natsoftheroundtable
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Such pretty birds in that bush
Three years for Adam LaRoche is not a lot. It's only a year more than you'd probably want for the guy, but in the past that wouldn't have stopped anyone from signing him. Even in the fancy stat era someone, oh I don't know, let's say Texas, would have said "Every success window is limited and ours may be passing by. We lost our best hitter and a very good hitting catcher, which is harder to replace. We're going to be in a dogfight with the Angels and A's. We can't afford to lose out on the playoffs by a game or two again and the blah fielding, mediocre hitting Mitch Moreland is about a game or two worse than Adam LaRoche. Let's bite the bullet and sign him"
But they aren't saying that and a lot of people are saying it's because of the draft pick lost. The Nats offered Adam arbitration. Adam is a top notch Type A player. If he signs elsewhere the Nats will get a first (or 2nd depending) round draft pick. And currently teams are terribly terribly overvaluing draft picks.
Seriously go look at some of the draft classes. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. Look at the last 10 picks of the first round and the supplementals. What do you see? A hell of a lot more names you never heard of and never-wases than actual quality major leaguers. Yet teams are now delusional, desperately holding onto long-odd chances of striking it rich instead of signing players that might help them, like a person holding 10 lottery tickets refusing to take $50 for them.
That's not to say this strategy is complete nonsense. Take a look at the Nats. They among the most degenerate of these gamblers. Last year's draft was basically a high-schooler with a ruined elbow and minor league seat fillers. But the Nats can afford to do this right now. They have a team set up for success for the forseeable future. Like a venture capitalist flush with money, they can throw 10 million at something hoping it becomes the next big thing. If it fails, so what they still have a ton of money. They can't do this forever though, so it'll be interesting to see if in 2015/6, if the Nats haven't won anything yet, if the team is still in this mode. Then there is the flipside, 10 or so teams nowhere near competing that need a huge break to get competitive again. The right draft success can help immensely in that. Would you still be thinking the Nats are prohibitive World Series favorites if instead of Strasburg and Bryce they had Dustin Ackley and Drew Pomeranz? Not bad players but not game changers. So while it's nice to have a guy like LaRoche on the team, he's not going to make a big enough difference to justify taking away that lottery ticket when that's kind of your only chance of success.
But the 10-15 middle ground teams, all fighting for playoff spots in this new 2nd WC major leagues, what's their excuse? There really isn't any. For them it can't be about the prospect of future success lost so it comes down to a far simpler reason, one we all recognize well. The prospect of future money spent. Draft picks are cheaper. Much much cheaper. So you don't sign good players and you hope to draft well. You squander legit chances at playoffs for future dynasties that may never come but dammit will be a lot cheaper if they do!
This is probably just a phase. Things are cyclic and what's overvalued today might be undervalued tomorrow. But even if it is, it's killing LaRoche's chances of signing that 3 year deal he wants.
But they aren't saying that and a lot of people are saying it's because of the draft pick lost. The Nats offered Adam arbitration. Adam is a top notch Type A player. If he signs elsewhere the Nats will get a first (or 2nd depending) round draft pick. And currently teams are terribly terribly overvaluing draft picks.
Seriously go look at some of the draft classes. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. Look at the last 10 picks of the first round and the supplementals. What do you see? A hell of a lot more names you never heard of and never-wases than actual quality major leaguers. Yet teams are now delusional, desperately holding onto long-odd chances of striking it rich instead of signing players that might help them, like a person holding 10 lottery tickets refusing to take $50 for them.
That's not to say this strategy is complete nonsense. Take a look at the Nats. They among the most degenerate of these gamblers. Last year's draft was basically a high-schooler with a ruined elbow and minor league seat fillers. But the Nats can afford to do this right now. They have a team set up for success for the forseeable future. Like a venture capitalist flush with money, they can throw 10 million at something hoping it becomes the next big thing. If it fails, so what they still have a ton of money. They can't do this forever though, so it'll be interesting to see if in 2015/6, if the Nats haven't won anything yet, if the team is still in this mode. Then there is the flipside, 10 or so teams nowhere near competing that need a huge break to get competitive again. The right draft success can help immensely in that. Would you still be thinking the Nats are prohibitive World Series favorites if instead of Strasburg and Bryce they had Dustin Ackley and Drew Pomeranz? Not bad players but not game changers. So while it's nice to have a guy like LaRoche on the team, he's not going to make a big enough difference to justify taking away that lottery ticket when that's kind of your only chance of success.
But the 10-15 middle ground teams, all fighting for playoff spots in this new 2nd WC major leagues, what's their excuse? There really isn't any. For them it can't be about the prospect of future success lost so it comes down to a far simpler reason, one we all recognize well. The prospect of future money spent. Draft picks are cheaper. Much much cheaper. So you don't sign good players and you hope to draft well. You squander legit chances at playoffs for future dynasties that may never come but dammit will be a lot cheaper if they do!
This is probably just a phase. Things are cyclic and what's overvalued today might be undervalued tomorrow. But even if it is, it's killing LaRoche's chances of signing that 3 year deal he wants.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Dr. Denard at home, Mr. Span away
Browsing through Denard Span's stats I found something that was... well not troubling but certainly of interest.
2010
Home : .273 / .348 / .375
Away : .252 / .309 / .314
2011
Home : .286 / .344 / .384
Away : .250 / .317 / .343
2012
Home : .332 / .404 / .477
Away : .235 / .278 / .315
Last year was pretty crazy. At home he was Tony Gwynn. Away he was Tony Gwynn Jr. The other years aren't as dramatic, but as you can see he's been consistently much better at home.
Was this something to worry about? Would moving away from the friendly confines of Target Field (I just made that up!) kill Span's offense?
No
Or at least, I can't find any good reason to think that. There's nothing about Target Field that would explain that difference. There's no sign that it inflates offense. It doesn't favor lefty hitters (it actually seems to favor righties but then again Span is kind of a slap-hitting lefty). It doesn't have crazy dimensions or a strange surface that maybe he's taking advantage of.* I can't find anything about Minnesota that explains this. Sometimes you dig and find nothing and it's kind of important to accept that.
* Though I'll note here the Metrodome DID have that fast artificial turf. Combine that and young legs and that's really why Span was a .300 hitter early on. So if you think a return to a .290+ hitter is in the cards...I wouldn't bet on it.
What's the reasoning? Simple. It happens. In general players hit better at home than on the road. They are comfortable there. They're not living out of a hotel. They both see the backdrop more regularly and have more than a couple games to get used to it since they are in one place during a homestand. For some guys this helps a little, for others it helps a lot and Span is one of those guys it seems to help alot. He hit better at the Metrodome as well.
Like look at a Cody Ross. In 2010 he hit alot better at Marlins Park than away. In 2011 he hit a little bit better overall at AT&T than away (and that's a tough place to hit). In 2012, he hit tons better in Fenway than away (an easy place for a righty to hit). He's just one of these guys.
So what? So expect this next year. I wouldn't expect the dramatic shift we saw last year from Span. For some reason Target Field was great for hitting last year. Nationals Park is routinely very average. But I wouldn't be surprised by a difference in stats (though not same stats) a lot like 2010. Noticeably better across the board at home than away. It's not going to make him any more or less useful for the season than the Nats expect him to be, it'll just bunch up his usefulness a bit.
2010
Home : .273 / .348 / .375
Away : .252 / .309 / .314
2011
Home : .286 / .344 / .384
Away : .250 / .317 / .343
2012
Home : .332 / .404 / .477
Away : .235 / .278 / .315
Last year was pretty crazy. At home he was Tony Gwynn. Away he was Tony Gwynn Jr. The other years aren't as dramatic, but as you can see he's been consistently much better at home.
Was this something to worry about? Would moving away from the friendly confines of Target Field (I just made that up!) kill Span's offense?
No
Or at least, I can't find any good reason to think that. There's nothing about Target Field that would explain that difference. There's no sign that it inflates offense. It doesn't favor lefty hitters (it actually seems to favor righties but then again Span is kind of a slap-hitting lefty). It doesn't have crazy dimensions or a strange surface that maybe he's taking advantage of.* I can't find anything about Minnesota that explains this. Sometimes you dig and find nothing and it's kind of important to accept that.
* Though I'll note here the Metrodome DID have that fast artificial turf. Combine that and young legs and that's really why Span was a .300 hitter early on. So if you think a return to a .290+ hitter is in the cards...I wouldn't bet on it.
What's the reasoning? Simple. It happens. In general players hit better at home than on the road. They are comfortable there. They're not living out of a hotel. They both see the backdrop more regularly and have more than a couple games to get used to it since they are in one place during a homestand. For some guys this helps a little, for others it helps a lot and Span is one of those guys it seems to help alot. He hit better at the Metrodome as well.
Like look at a Cody Ross. In 2010 he hit alot better at Marlins Park than away. In 2011 he hit a little bit better overall at AT&T than away (and that's a tough place to hit). In 2012, he hit tons better in Fenway than away (an easy place for a righty to hit). He's just one of these guys.
So what? So expect this next year. I wouldn't expect the dramatic shift we saw last year from Span. For some reason Target Field was great for hitting last year. Nationals Park is routinely very average. But I wouldn't be surprised by a difference in stats (though not same stats) a lot like 2010. Noticeably better across the board at home than away. It's not going to make him any more or less useful for the season than the Nats expect him to be, it'll just bunch up his usefulness a bit.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Things to "worry" about
A couple days ago it was talked about in the comments how the Nats really don't have much to worry about. Even all the fretting about LaRoche vs Morse is worrying about what probably amounts to a single win for a team looking to have about 95 of them (yes they won 98 last year but the pythag had them at 95 and I think they were a little more on the lucky side than unlucky so figure they were more of a 93 win type team, but they have improved with Span and Harden so up the count goes again...ANYWAY) They'll be fine if LaRoche signs or if he doesn't.
So what do the Nats have to worry about? Every position except catcher is now manned by someone who probably ranks as above average overall at the spot, and even catcher isn't an obvious failure given how dismal catcher stats tend to be. The rotation is stacked. The bullpen has at least 4 dependable arms, including the unecessary but completely expected 8th inning and closer roles. The bench has some youngish guys that can produce at the major league level at least for short periods of time. So what is there? You don't like Zack Duke as the mop-up long-relief guy? Worried Rizzo will bring in another terrible DeRosa-esque veteran for the last spot on the bench? "Sure I'm rich, healthy, and have everything I need, but my fourth car could really use a tune-up"
There is nothing on the field that is concerning right now. But fans aren't fans unless they can fret over something, so I give you these off the field topics to satisfy your inner worry-wart. Some are real concerns, others are... let's say a bit more frivolous.
MASN - Nats Enquirer nicely sums up where we stand currently. MLB made a terrible deal with Angelos to get baseball to DC. Now it doesn't want to deal with the consequences. But even sports backed by millions of dollars can't buy themselves way out of every terrible deal (Hello, St. Louis Spirits!) and Angelos is a good enough lawyer to not have left MLB any loop hole to take advantage of.
What does this mean for the Nats? While I don't think Angelos will get away with completely shortchanging the Nats, I do think it means a revenue stream from TV that isn't what it could be. That's money that can't be spent on draft picks, organizational improvement, players, stadium improvements, etc. etc. In the worst case scenario, the whole "we need money to sign all our young guys" scenario may be based on the idea that the Nats were going to get a bigger windfall from TV than they will. That means this really is the Nats window to win and 2015-2017 will be marked by a great exodus. That's probably overselling the situation but this isn't something that can just be ignored.
Strasburg, media punching bag - It always surprises me but there is a fair amount of Strasburg dislike out there. "He's doesn't seem to enjoy the game!" "He's too fragile!" "He didn't fight enough to pitch!" Slowly over the course of 2 1/2 years he's gone from the center of Nats world to recalcitrant diva without ever changing who he was. Now, with the media-loving and media-savvy Bryce Harper around, there is a glaring example of the type of presense that the media and fans love right in his own backyard. It hasn't been an issue yet and it won't as long as the Nats are winning and he's doing well. But if Strasburg has a couple of bad starts, the Braves are in first, and he tosses out some boiler-plate unemotional interviews? It doesn't take much for something like this to spiral into something that takes over Strasburg's season.
Attendance / attendance talk - The Nats did not draw great last year BUT they drew a hell of a lot better and, as everyone should know, these things take time. It's rare that attendance goes from the bottom to the top in one season. So right now it's a non-issue. However, it should improve again this year and if the Nats are winning big, it really should be among the tops in the National league, if not baseball. If it's not, the Lerners, investment guys at heart, could start to wonder what they have to do to get DC into baseball. If people aren't showing up to see a winning team backed by a decent payroll and big minorleague investments, why keep that up?
Even if you don't worry about that, (it's a pretty speculative worry and frankly I think the Lerners view of this is more than a single year) you do have to worry about guys like me, who are completely fascinated by attendance and what drives it, talking about it occasionally.
The attention over the President's Race - The whole stupid "Teddy doesn't win" thing got so much play that his first win actually overshadowed the Nats team for a day or two. Playoff baseball back for the first time in decades, a team fighting for home field and possibly 100 wins and everyone is talking about a guy in a suit winning a meaningless race. That's pretty terrible. Maybe it settles back into it's nice little pattern with Teddy losing all the time until the playoffs are set. That'd be fine. But something tells me that all that attention made the Nats marketing guys want to kick it up a notch. There's a chance that could work out in a fun and interesting way but I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt (see: Screech, Clint, etc.)
The next slogan - "Ignite your Natitude" Seriously? I know that it got accepted but let's admit it, that's only because the Nats were winning. If the Nats went 80-82 whoever came up with that is now making up slogans for the Fargo-Moorehead RedHawks. Are they going to roll it out again? Can they come up with something even sillier sounding? Will I go crazy seeing it hashtagged over and over again?
SI curse - I hate this thing, but I'm pretty sure the Nats will be on that baseball preview cover and someone will say something about it. This is what I worry about.
So what do the Nats have to worry about? Every position except catcher is now manned by someone who probably ranks as above average overall at the spot, and even catcher isn't an obvious failure given how dismal catcher stats tend to be. The rotation is stacked. The bullpen has at least 4 dependable arms, including the unecessary but completely expected 8th inning and closer roles. The bench has some youngish guys that can produce at the major league level at least for short periods of time. So what is there? You don't like Zack Duke as the mop-up long-relief guy? Worried Rizzo will bring in another terrible DeRosa-esque veteran for the last spot on the bench? "Sure I'm rich, healthy, and have everything I need, but my fourth car could really use a tune-up"
There is nothing on the field that is concerning right now. But fans aren't fans unless they can fret over something, so I give you these off the field topics to satisfy your inner worry-wart. Some are real concerns, others are... let's say a bit more frivolous.
MASN - Nats Enquirer nicely sums up where we stand currently. MLB made a terrible deal with Angelos to get baseball to DC. Now it doesn't want to deal with the consequences. But even sports backed by millions of dollars can't buy themselves way out of every terrible deal (Hello, St. Louis Spirits!) and Angelos is a good enough lawyer to not have left MLB any loop hole to take advantage of.
What does this mean for the Nats? While I don't think Angelos will get away with completely shortchanging the Nats, I do think it means a revenue stream from TV that isn't what it could be. That's money that can't be spent on draft picks, organizational improvement, players, stadium improvements, etc. etc. In the worst case scenario, the whole "we need money to sign all our young guys" scenario may be based on the idea that the Nats were going to get a bigger windfall from TV than they will. That means this really is the Nats window to win and 2015-2017 will be marked by a great exodus. That's probably overselling the situation but this isn't something that can just be ignored.
Strasburg, media punching bag - It always surprises me but there is a fair amount of Strasburg dislike out there. "He's doesn't seem to enjoy the game!" "He's too fragile!" "He didn't fight enough to pitch!" Slowly over the course of 2 1/2 years he's gone from the center of Nats world to recalcitrant diva without ever changing who he was. Now, with the media-loving and media-savvy Bryce Harper around, there is a glaring example of the type of presense that the media and fans love right in his own backyard. It hasn't been an issue yet and it won't as long as the Nats are winning and he's doing well. But if Strasburg has a couple of bad starts, the Braves are in first, and he tosses out some boiler-plate unemotional interviews? It doesn't take much for something like this to spiral into something that takes over Strasburg's season.
Attendance / attendance talk - The Nats did not draw great last year BUT they drew a hell of a lot better and, as everyone should know, these things take time. It's rare that attendance goes from the bottom to the top in one season. So right now it's a non-issue. However, it should improve again this year and if the Nats are winning big, it really should be among the tops in the National league, if not baseball. If it's not, the Lerners, investment guys at heart, could start to wonder what they have to do to get DC into baseball. If people aren't showing up to see a winning team backed by a decent payroll and big minorleague investments, why keep that up?
Even if you don't worry about that, (it's a pretty speculative worry and frankly I think the Lerners view of this is more than a single year) you do have to worry about guys like me, who are completely fascinated by attendance and what drives it, talking about it occasionally.
The attention over the President's Race - The whole stupid "Teddy doesn't win" thing got so much play that his first win actually overshadowed the Nats team for a day or two. Playoff baseball back for the first time in decades, a team fighting for home field and possibly 100 wins and everyone is talking about a guy in a suit winning a meaningless race. That's pretty terrible. Maybe it settles back into it's nice little pattern with Teddy losing all the time until the playoffs are set. That'd be fine. But something tells me that all that attention made the Nats marketing guys want to kick it up a notch. There's a chance that could work out in a fun and interesting way but I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt (see: Screech, Clint, etc.)
The next slogan - "Ignite your Natitude" Seriously? I know that it got accepted but let's admit it, that's only because the Nats were winning. If the Nats went 80-82 whoever came up with that is now making up slogans for the Fargo-Moorehead RedHawks. Are they going to roll it out again? Can they come up with something even sillier sounding? Will I go crazy seeing it hashtagged over and over again?
SI curse - I hate this thing, but I'm pretty sure the Nats will be on that baseball preview cover and someone will say something about it. This is what I worry about.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Dominoes
I've always thought that the Rangers losing out on Hamilton means they'd give LaRoche his 3 year deal (I've also thought the KS plains boy would prefer to be in Texas). Let's see if I'm right.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Dog Days of Winter
Pickings are slim this time of year. Do you really want to read another "Just waiting on LaRoche" article? Here is Boz's Q&A and some points I thought were interesting.
Overall getting Revere is the better play, but for the Nats specifically, a team wanting to win in 2013 and with a potential CF in the minors, Span makes more sense.
Plus it gives the Nats something interesting in the next offseason. Imagine, LaRoche resigns and one young pitcher develops enough to look deserving at a shot at the 5th spot in the rotation. A Gorzo type move would be the HIGHLIGHT of next offseason then. That's good for the team, bad for guys like me. Let LaRoche walk - then you have all sorts of interesting possibilities. Resign Morse? Let Rendon play 1st? Moore? FA? Trade Espy for a 1B, let Rendon play 2nd? That's a lot more fun.
Revere has been a terror in the minors, hitting .326 at all stops, but he has now had MORE than 1,000 plate appearances in the majors. That is a LOT. He's not raw. He has 0 homers (!) and an OPS 100 points lower than Span. No reason, at this point, that at 25, he's suddenly going to hit in MLB the way he did in the minorsIan Desmond had 1302 PAs before last year. Then last year, at 26, he hit in the MLB the way he did in the minors (some of the time). I'm not saying Boz is completely wrong here. The better bet is on it not happening. But you can't dismiss the possibility that someone gets it at a decently young age, after a couple of poor years in the majors, especially when he's moving to a more hitter friendly ballpark and especially especially WHEN YOU SAW IT HAPPEN IN FRONT OF YOU IN A SEASON THAT ENDED 2 MONTHS AGO.
Overall getting Revere is the better play, but for the Nats specifically, a team wanting to win in 2013 and with a potential CF in the minors, Span makes more sense.
Look at LaRoche's 10 "most comparable" players at age 33. Plenty were useful at 33. But, of the 10, only Joe Adcock was good enough at 33-34-35 to be worth the kind of 3-yr deal LaRoche would want in B'more.Fed Baseball looked at this a bit and found that Boz wasn't that far off. Most of those guys did peter out quickly. Here's the thing. I'd argue that 7 of those 10 guys had one of their least productive (if not flat out worst) seasons at age 32. Adam had one of his best. You can't look at the totality alone. Recency counts. Out of the remaining 3 you have to dismiss Wally Post, who was an injury issue since age 28 and retired with presumably another injury riddled season at age 33. The other two are Joe Adcock and JT Snow who both had good seasons at least through age 36. Rather than work against him, I'd say the comparables work for Adam.
(They did the decent thing letting Lannan free.)I've read this, or stuff like it, in other places and it's complete and utter nonsense.Rizzo isn't Gandhi for not keeping Lannan around, ok? Lannan had a contract they considered way too expensive and this year, as opposed to last year, they have more confidence in their rotation to give them the innings they need. Last year circumstances and a dull trade market made the decision for them. This isn't about honor. For god's sake you just said they cut Gorzo to save 3 million bucks even though he'd be useful. You think they want to spend 5+ million on Lannan but set him free so he could find success elsewhere? Honestly?
Morse is consistently underrated as a hitter. In 1246 at bats as a Nat his slash line is .294/.343/.514 or an .857 OPS. That can bat cleanup, or certainly fifth, in almost any lineup. The guy is a Beast. No, Nats offense wouldn't suffer much, or at all, with Morse, not LaRoche.I wouldn't call Morse a "Beast" and I wouldn't personally expect that slash line, but he's completely right that the Nats offense won't suffer much if LaRoche comes back. Right now, with LaRoche at first I think the Nats have improved a couple games with their moves. If it's Morse at first maybe one game. There's only so much you can do to improve when you've won 98 games. Not signing LaRoche, by sticking to a 2 year deal, will not be a tragedy.
Plus it gives the Nats something interesting in the next offseason. Imagine, LaRoche resigns and one young pitcher develops enough to look deserving at a shot at the 5th spot in the rotation. A Gorzo type move would be the HIGHLIGHT of next offseason then. That's good for the team, bad for guys like me. Let LaRoche walk - then you have all sorts of interesting possibilities. Resign Morse? Let Rendon play 1st? Moore? FA? Trade Espy for a 1B, let Rendon play 2nd? That's a lot more fun.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Haren thoughts of the less quick variety
Hey coming through with something I promised, good for me.
One of the things I said in my quick thoughts on Friday was that Haren "earned" his 2012. He pitched as poorly as he every had, getting worse on a bunch of little things and it was reflected in his ERA. A deeper look confirms this.
BB-rate went way up from 1.25 in 2011 to 1.94 in 2012
HR/9 went way up from 0.76 to 1.43
HR/FB % up from 7.5% to 12.8%
LD% up from 19.5% to 20.7%
Combine that with a little bad luck (BABIP up from .272 to .302) and you get your bad (for-him) season. The fancy way of saying that is with xFIP. Unlike 2010, where some crazy bad luck with the D-backs caused a spike in his ERA even th ugh he pitched well (xFIP 3.49), Haren had an xFIP of 4.00 last year to go along with his 4.33 ERA.
Optimists will point to 2011 and say that's as good as Haren can be. I would agree. That IS as good as Haren can be. In fact, that was probably his career year. Look at his career numbers. BB-rate: 1.89. HR/9: 1.05. HR/FB: 10.5%. LD% : 19.9% BABIP: .301 While his numbers were a bit up in 2012 here and there, some were pretty much on target. In 2011, they were ALL down. That's what makes a special year. Congratulations 2011 Angels on your luck. Haren will likely never be that good again.
Am I being too rash? Alone none of the "bad" numbers I've shown is all that concerning (in fact a 1.94 BB-rate is still good enough for Top 10 in the majors) . Together though... together you have to start to wonder about the trend. You start to look for explanations.
Baseball Press had an article that noted that Haren's velocity has been continuously dropping. This is perfectly in line with a guy who is starting to enter the down side of his career. His fastball is becoming less and less effective as the years go on. In 2011 he was able to compensate for that with a phenomenal cutter and he threw it all the time. But for whatever reason (injury? overuse?) his cutter was far less effective in 2012. While Haren still had his control, without that cutter he didn't have a single pitch he could use as an "out" pitch. His fastball is now hittable, his curveball has never been great, and his decent split finger is less effective without the fastball to set it up.
Yes but what about the Nats defense! The Nats defense could possibly make him much better right? Well sure, the Nats had a great BABIP from their defense. .282 was one of the best in the league. The Angels had a team BABIP of .277. Meaning their defense was even better at turning hit balls into outs. Now there are vagaries and all to that - how many fly balls were hit, foul ground, etc. etc. but the point is the Nats defense isn't going to be much better than the Angels. And even if it were Haren is not a ground ball pitcher. Only 39.6% of his hits were ground balls (that's near the low end for qualifying starters) and his 43.2% lifetime percentage was lower than what every Nats starter did last year.
Also - I never like pitchers that are injury risks. After maybe missing a start or two over 7 seasons, Haren finally missed some significant time with an injury that's big enough to make some teams turn away, and make the Nats make sure he passed that physical (anyone here trust the Nats staff doing a physical? Me neither)
Hmmm, the above sounds a lot bleaker than it needs to be. Basically if you take everything above and boil it down I'm saying this : Dan Haren is a pitcher on the down side of his career.
But just because I don't think he's going to roll into DC and pitch like a #1 pitcher doesn't mean the outlook on him is bleak. Dan Haren was a pitcher who at his peak was one of the better pitchers in the league. I'd hesitate to call him elite, but certainly a deserving #1 for some team. Therefore a Dan Haren early into the down side of his career is still a good pitcher to have in your rotation. Haren still has fantastic control and enough savvy to make it work for him. I think something like last year's ERA is probably likely and have a hard time seeing a healthy Haren do much worse that that. There is nothing here saying "collapse". A 2012 Haren gives the Nats exactly the results EJax did. That was good enough for 95 wins with 80% of Strasburg and Wang pitching a month worth of games. And hell, you never know if there is one more lucky BABIP year out there for the guy.
All in all I still like the deal.
One of the things I said in my quick thoughts on Friday was that Haren "earned" his 2012. He pitched as poorly as he every had, getting worse on a bunch of little things and it was reflected in his ERA. A deeper look confirms this.
BB-rate went way up from 1.25 in 2011 to 1.94 in 2012
HR/9 went way up from 0.76 to 1.43
HR/FB % up from 7.5% to 12.8%
LD% up from 19.5% to 20.7%
Combine that with a little bad luck (BABIP up from .272 to .302) and you get your bad (for-him) season. The fancy way of saying that is with xFIP. Unlike 2010, where some crazy bad luck with the D-backs caused a spike in his ERA even th ugh he pitched well (xFIP 3.49), Haren had an xFIP of 4.00 last year to go along with his 4.33 ERA.
Optimists will point to 2011 and say that's as good as Haren can be. I would agree. That IS as good as Haren can be. In fact, that was probably his career year. Look at his career numbers. BB-rate: 1.89. HR/9: 1.05. HR/FB: 10.5%. LD% : 19.9% BABIP: .301 While his numbers were a bit up in 2012 here and there, some were pretty much on target. In 2011, they were ALL down. That's what makes a special year. Congratulations 2011 Angels on your luck. Haren will likely never be that good again.
Am I being too rash? Alone none of the "bad" numbers I've shown is all that concerning (in fact a 1.94 BB-rate is still good enough for Top 10 in the majors) . Together though... together you have to start to wonder about the trend. You start to look for explanations.
Baseball Press had an article that noted that Haren's velocity has been continuously dropping. This is perfectly in line with a guy who is starting to enter the down side of his career. His fastball is becoming less and less effective as the years go on. In 2011 he was able to compensate for that with a phenomenal cutter and he threw it all the time. But for whatever reason (injury? overuse?) his cutter was far less effective in 2012. While Haren still had his control, without that cutter he didn't have a single pitch he could use as an "out" pitch. His fastball is now hittable, his curveball has never been great, and his decent split finger is less effective without the fastball to set it up.
Yes but what about the Nats defense! The Nats defense could possibly make him much better right? Well sure, the Nats had a great BABIP from their defense. .282 was one of the best in the league. The Angels had a team BABIP of .277. Meaning their defense was even better at turning hit balls into outs. Now there are vagaries and all to that - how many fly balls were hit, foul ground, etc. etc. but the point is the Nats defense isn't going to be much better than the Angels. And even if it were Haren is not a ground ball pitcher. Only 39.6% of his hits were ground balls (that's near the low end for qualifying starters) and his 43.2% lifetime percentage was lower than what every Nats starter did last year.
Also - I never like pitchers that are injury risks. After maybe missing a start or two over 7 seasons, Haren finally missed some significant time with an injury that's big enough to make some teams turn away, and make the Nats make sure he passed that physical (anyone here trust the Nats staff doing a physical? Me neither)
Hmmm, the above sounds a lot bleaker than it needs to be. Basically if you take everything above and boil it down I'm saying this : Dan Haren is a pitcher on the down side of his career.
But just because I don't think he's going to roll into DC and pitch like a #1 pitcher doesn't mean the outlook on him is bleak. Dan Haren was a pitcher who at his peak was one of the better pitchers in the league. I'd hesitate to call him elite, but certainly a deserving #1 for some team. Therefore a Dan Haren early into the down side of his career is still a good pitcher to have in your rotation. Haren still has fantastic control and enough savvy to make it work for him. I think something like last year's ERA is probably likely and have a hard time seeing a healthy Haren do much worse that that. There is nothing here saying "collapse". A 2012 Haren gives the Nats exactly the results EJax did. That was good enough for 95 wins with 80% of Strasburg and Wang pitching a month worth of games. And hell, you never know if there is one more lucky BABIP year out there for the guy.
All in all I still like the deal.
Friday, December 07, 2012
Quick thoughts on the Haren deal
Sorry kids - I was out of town on business like a big person so I didn't have any time to put a longer post together. I'll try to have something up soon, but as anyone who's ever gone out of town on business knows today
will be filled with furiously answering the emails that have piled up. So Monday probably.
Some quick thoughts that I'm sure you've heard by now and maybe even put in the last set of comments.
Outside of dramatic overpays, any 1 yr deal (and really 2 year deals, I think) for a veteran player is good one. It doesn't lock you in to multiple years if things go wrong - injury, decline phase, personality clash. It doesn't hurt your future flexibility, if you're running up against whatever budget you may have set. If things go right, the Nats have other options when Dan likely explores a longer-term deal after the season.
AL->NL is always good. Dan's pitched in both so it's not like he'll be a surprise to the players in the senior circuit, but for any pitcher going back to a league where you can dial things down every 9th batter is a boon.
Last year wasn't one big thing for Dan, it was a bunch of little things. Walks picked up. Homers picked up. BABIP was up. Gave up more line drives. He did get a little unlucky but he also pitched as badly as he did in a long time. You can blame the injury if you like, right now. He did pitch to better results after his DL stint
It's a bigger gamble than Edwin, but the reward is potentially higher. Injuries for pitchers rightfully scare people. A tweak here or there can screw up the delivery honed over years and turn a great pitcher into a bad one pretty quickly. IF Haren is healthy and IF he's not entering a decline phase of his career, than he should be a better pitcher than Jackson would be, which sets the Nationals up to have a rotation with four pitchers who would be no worse than a #2 on pretty much every other MLB staff. It's a risk sure, but the Nats can risk those "IF"s this year, when they couldn't last year, when they had ZNN trying to pitch his first full year after TJ, Strasburg on an innings limit and they had no idea how the #5 slot was going to work out.
Is it Greinke? No. And I wonder about the wisdom of not making a long-term pitching deal when the Nats' minor leagues pitching situation can be best described as "pray for health". But Rizzo is not inclined to give long term deals to pitchers (Strasburg will be the best test case because he hits FA after his 27 yr old season), the current rotation is young and under contract long enough to find some other pitcher over the course of 3 seasons, and if not Greinke than something like this is the next best option.(and you could argue the best option period - I'm a Greink-ophile)
Some quick thoughts that I'm sure you've heard by now and maybe even put in the last set of comments.
Outside of dramatic overpays, any 1 yr deal (and really 2 year deals, I think) for a veteran player is good one. It doesn't lock you in to multiple years if things go wrong - injury, decline phase, personality clash. It doesn't hurt your future flexibility, if you're running up against whatever budget you may have set. If things go right, the Nats have other options when Dan likely explores a longer-term deal after the season.
AL->NL is always good. Dan's pitched in both so it's not like he'll be a surprise to the players in the senior circuit, but for any pitcher going back to a league where you can dial things down every 9th batter is a boon.
Last year wasn't one big thing for Dan, it was a bunch of little things. Walks picked up. Homers picked up. BABIP was up. Gave up more line drives. He did get a little unlucky but he also pitched as badly as he did in a long time. You can blame the injury if you like, right now. He did pitch to better results after his DL stint
It's a bigger gamble than Edwin, but the reward is potentially higher. Injuries for pitchers rightfully scare people. A tweak here or there can screw up the delivery honed over years and turn a great pitcher into a bad one pretty quickly. IF Haren is healthy and IF he's not entering a decline phase of his career, than he should be a better pitcher than Jackson would be, which sets the Nationals up to have a rotation with four pitchers who would be no worse than a #2 on pretty much every other MLB staff. It's a risk sure, but the Nats can risk those "IF"s this year, when they couldn't last year, when they had ZNN trying to pitch his first full year after TJ, Strasburg on an innings limit and they had no idea how the #5 slot was going to work out.
Is it Greinke? No. And I wonder about the wisdom of not making a long-term pitching deal when the Nats' minor leagues pitching situation can be best described as "pray for health". But Rizzo is not inclined to give long term deals to pitchers (Strasburg will be the best test case because he hits FA after his 27 yr old season), the current rotation is young and under contract long enough to find some other pitcher over the course of 3 seasons, and if not Greinke than something like this is the next best option.(and you could argue the best option period - I'm a Greink-ophile)
Monday, December 03, 2012
Mike Morse ^= big trading chip, Lombardozzi ^= Espinosa
As the Winter Meetings heat up there is talk of trading Mike Morse and Danny Espinosa to TB for James Shields. While reading through some posts and comments I see two running themes that are just not true.
#1 - Mike Morse is worth more than...
Of all the things that a team would want in a deal, Mike Morse is mainly one thing. Cheap. At 5 million dollars a year he's worth taking a flier one because if he's healthy the numbers he can put up at the plate will make him worth more than that. But here's the things you don't get :
In 2011 Mike Morse was a BEAST. He hit .300 with 36 doubles and 31 home runs, but his walk number (36) kept him from being an elite offensive player. In 2010 - if you expand it to 575 at bats he had in 2011 - he would have hit .291 with 29 homers but only 24 doubles (hence the large drop in SLG), with around 43 walks. Not quite as good as 2011 but pretty decent. Last year, though, expand it out and he hits .289 with 23 doubles and 24 homers, and a miserable 21 walks. That may not seem like a big deal but the drop in average and the lack of walks means Mike is making like 20 more outs. That matters a good deal. It turns him from an guy knocking on the door of the house with the elite offensive players in the majors, to a guy sitting down the road in the condo with the bats that are just ok.
With 2011 Morse you can swallow the fact he gives you nothing else but a line of T-shirts. With 2012 Morse you can't. Oh he still has value. It is .290 with 24 homers. But overall he's maybe just barely worth 5 million to your team. Now if you can stick him at DH everyday that helps a good deal, but that still limits his worth because it limits your flexibility.
In the end Morse is an ok trading chip, but he's the type that might get you a good bullpen arm not the type that is the anchor player in a deal for a good starter.
#2 - It's ok to trade Espinosa because Lombardozzi is ready to step in.
For reasons you can obviously figure out people see this
Danny : .247 189 Ks
Steve : .273 73 Ks (stats expanded based on equal at bats)
But they ignore this
Danny : .155 isoSLG (37 2B, 17 HR), 20 SB, 4.1 range, 7.1 UZR
Steve : .081 isoSLG (24 2B, 5 HR), 7 SB, 1.1 range, 1.6 UZR
What does this all mean? Well let's look at one number first
Danny : .315 OBP
Steve : .317 OBP
What this means is that Danny and Steve make about the same number of outs (assuming you like them to repeat last year's performances). So what do they do when they aren't making outs? Danny hits for power. Steve hits singles. Danny is a good baserunner. Steve is ok. Danny is a great fielder. Steve is ok.
A baseball player's job is not just to put bat on ball. It's to get XBH and drive in runs. It's to run the bases well and score runs. It's to field well. In every other aspect of baseball outside of simply making contact, Danny Espinosa is a superior player to Steve Lombardozzi. In overall value, Danny Espinosa is a much better player than Steve Lombardozzi. You will make your team noticeably worse by playing Steve Lombardozzi instead of Danny Espinosa.
You CAN trade Danny and rely on Steve, if you want. You have to look at all deals in the sense of what you are giving up and what you are getting back, and maybe you can get back something that makes up for losing Danny. But you WILL be losing something going from Espinosa to Lombardozzi. Lombo can hold 2nd down well enough that he won't hurt the team like just starting any old schlub at 2nd might, but that's about it.
#1 - Mike Morse is worth more than...
Of all the things that a team would want in a deal, Mike Morse is mainly one thing. Cheap. At 5 million dollars a year he's worth taking a flier one because if he's healthy the numbers he can put up at the plate will make him worth more than that. But here's the things you don't get :
- Health - Mike Morse has missed 60 games twice in the past 3 years.
- Value away from the plate - Morse was terrible in the outfield, and not good at first. He is also is not a good baserunner.
- Youth - Mike turns 31 before next season starts
- A long deal that's cheap - Mike will be a Free Agent after next season.
In 2011 Mike Morse was a BEAST. He hit .300 with 36 doubles and 31 home runs, but his walk number (36) kept him from being an elite offensive player. In 2010 - if you expand it to 575 at bats he had in 2011 - he would have hit .291 with 29 homers but only 24 doubles (hence the large drop in SLG), with around 43 walks. Not quite as good as 2011 but pretty decent. Last year, though, expand it out and he hits .289 with 23 doubles and 24 homers, and a miserable 21 walks. That may not seem like a big deal but the drop in average and the lack of walks means Mike is making like 20 more outs. That matters a good deal. It turns him from an guy knocking on the door of the house with the elite offensive players in the majors, to a guy sitting down the road in the condo with the bats that are just ok.
With 2011 Morse you can swallow the fact he gives you nothing else but a line of T-shirts. With 2012 Morse you can't. Oh he still has value. It is .290 with 24 homers. But overall he's maybe just barely worth 5 million to your team. Now if you can stick him at DH everyday that helps a good deal, but that still limits his worth because it limits your flexibility.
In the end Morse is an ok trading chip, but he's the type that might get you a good bullpen arm not the type that is the anchor player in a deal for a good starter.
#2 - It's ok to trade Espinosa because Lombardozzi is ready to step in.
For reasons you can obviously figure out people see this
Danny : .247 189 Ks
Steve : .273 73 Ks (stats expanded based on equal at bats)
But they ignore this
Danny : .155 isoSLG (37 2B, 17 HR), 20 SB, 4.1 range, 7.1 UZR
Steve : .081 isoSLG (24 2B, 5 HR), 7 SB, 1.1 range, 1.6 UZR
What does this all mean? Well let's look at one number first
Danny : .315 OBP
Steve : .317 OBP
What this means is that Danny and Steve make about the same number of outs (assuming you like them to repeat last year's performances). So what do they do when they aren't making outs? Danny hits for power. Steve hits singles. Danny is a good baserunner. Steve is ok. Danny is a great fielder. Steve is ok.
A baseball player's job is not just to put bat on ball. It's to get XBH and drive in runs. It's to run the bases well and score runs. It's to field well. In every other aspect of baseball outside of simply making contact, Danny Espinosa is a superior player to Steve Lombardozzi. In overall value, Danny Espinosa is a much better player than Steve Lombardozzi. You will make your team noticeably worse by playing Steve Lombardozzi instead of Danny Espinosa.
You CAN trade Danny and rely on Steve, if you want. You have to look at all deals in the sense of what you are giving up and what you are getting back, and maybe you can get back something that makes up for losing Danny. But you WILL be losing something going from Espinosa to Lombardozzi. Lombo can hold 2nd down well enough that he won't hurt the team like just starting any old schlub at 2nd might, but that's about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)