3rd Level Nats Take - Rotation

So last post I came away pretty unconvinced that the Nats would suddenly find themselves with a much improved defense. I do think it's possible that Soto just had an off year / single years aren't reliable and Robles is better than MAT and it works out, but I think it's more possible that the combination of starters and defense we see doesn't move the needle more than a smidge.  But what about the other cursory glance analysis  - that Corbin and Anibal Sanchez make the starting staff that much better?

Well first let's talk about who is returning. Max does everything well and while he is aging, he's also proved to be a singular talent. You can't really say he's going to be worse in 2019 with any confidence.  Strasburg has pretty consistently been a low 3.00 ERA type who misses a month for one reason or another. You hate that injury risk but you can't predict more time missed than usual. He's not quite at an age where you feel good about knocking him down a peg, and there's no real statistical sign to do it either.  Hellickson is back for another round. His pitching was as he usually does but the results were better than would be expected from that, giving us a little out of whack picture of what he's likely to do.  While a full season from him is doubtful, more innings is very likely, but it's likely more innings of mediocre results not good ones. However, we are comparing it to last year and last year the rest of the 5 slot innings were filled by pretty bad results. In the end the mix of Hellickson pitching more innings but getting more in line (re: blah) results should be pretty close to what happened in 2018 at that rotation spot.

As a whole that probably leaves the Nats rotation at a little bit worse than last year taking just these three slots. Now we come to the changes. And while maybe one can make a argument for the Nats being better off with Roark and Gio vs Corbin and Sanchez this year* we aren't comparing theoretical Roark and Gio in 2019 here. We are looking at real 2018 Roark and Gio.  Doing that it should be pretty obvious that the Nats will be better off. These guys weren't good and Corbin was the best pitcher in the FA class. But are the Nats a lot better off or a little? Is it enough to counter the little downgrading I feel will happen at the #5 slot?

Both these guys kind of pitched the same overall for all of 2018, 180 IP of 4.25 ERA stuff. But while that covers Roark's time with the Nats in total, Gio pitched worse with the Nats, more like a 4.50 guy and with the Nats is what we care about.

Corbin is most likely to be a Strasburg type in terms of production on the mound, not a dominant Max but very good. But he also will be expected, unlike Strasburg, to pitch a full season. That means he lines up with same innings Roark threw last year.  That's great because it makes the comparison easy. That's going to be like 2 wins better or something. That would easily eclipse the small drop I think is coming from the 5 slot (I wouldn't even say half a game worse if you are wondering). So at this point for the Nats to get no improvement Anibal vs Gio would have to somehow be like 1.5 games worse. Looking at it, Gio's 150 IP of 4.50 ball is pretty much in line with what people project from Anibal this year.  That's a little disappointing. I'm inclined to like Sanchez just a touch better than that, but I also think Anibal won't quite get to the IP others think so for me it's a push on worth. With 150 innings though you have to consider who fills in those other 8+ starts.  The fill-in starters - worse than last year? I can't say that. Better? Can't say that either. So this comparison becomes a push.

All in all that means the rotation should make the Nats better. Not quite a lot better but more than a little I think, a couple games or so. It's hard to get a lot better because the value of the IP from Roark and Gio is real, even with middling performance. The Nats may have gotten a stud with Corbin but they had two reliable full season arms and that matters.  I will also say here that while I have the replacements, guys like Ross and Fedde, being the same this year, I think it's far more likely that they are better than last year than worse. So I see 1.5 to 2 wins better to kind of be a floor with a decent chance at 3+ - and don't look down your nose at that. It's a pretty big change from one area.

So this time the cursory analysis comes mostly through. The Nats rotation should be noticeably better than last year. There's no good reason to expect a dramatic dip from what's remaining. They have basically replaced 2018 Gio, et al. with Anibal Sanchez, et al. and they have improved over 2018 Roark with Patrick Corbin. Last season the Nats had a disappointing, middle of the road, rotation. This year I'd expect one that's Top 5 in the NL. 

*I'm not saying I'd make it. I wouldn't. But I think there's a way it could be made.

3rd level Nats Take - Fielding

Every fanbase suffers through cursory glances from talking heads and fans of other teams that don't know what's going on. The Nationals primary cursory glance is the expected "Bryce Harper is gone! Oh no! Panic!" But the Nationals also have a secondary cursory glance, probably in part because the first one is so prevalent, that goes "They've improved their defense and rotation so much!"  This is because they lost Bryce and Murphy and added Corbin.

But are these things true? Today we'll talk about defense.  Defense stats are funny things. No matter how often we are told that it takes at least a couple years of defensive data to really fairly portray the skill, we are still given annual data. Because of that we can't help but try to interpret data in that manner and if something happens that is out of sorts with the general knowledge we try to fill that in.  Sometimes it makes sense - an injury or a rapidly aging player showing much worse defense. But sometimes there isn't rhyme or reason as we try to fill in the gaps.  In the Nats case you had Bryce become one of the worst outfielders in baseball while Trea Turner became an elite defender. While I didn't see any obvious signs of such drastic change, I have heard from other fans "oh yes, Bryce was terrible. Trea really worked on things".  Maybe that's the case but from here on out in this analysis we're working with both the 3 year averages and last year's numbers to present what is probably a fairer picture of what's going on.

The Nats did do poorly on defense but not terribly. They were a below average team, heading up the bottom third of defense. Fangraphs' D stat, UZR, Total Zone all think this.  Their defensive efficiency was pretty good though an artifact of having the fewest errors in the National League. In short - they fielded well when they got to the ball, but they didn't get to the ball often enough.

The infield should be pretty similar to last year.  Rendon, at third, is a perennial gold glove candidate, (elite 3yr ave, top 5 last year). Turner, at short (blah 3yr, Top 10 last year) still is a question. Is he average or good for the position? Regardless he's not a defensive liability. Zimmerman, at first (terrible, terrible), with his injury limited mobility and dead arm is possibly the worst regular first baseman in the game. What's changing is 2nd base. Murphy (terrible, terrible) is admittedly a terrible defender but most of the innings last year were actually played by Difo (Top 10, Top 10) who is a very good defender. All in all 2nd wasn't a hole for most of the season and would grade out pretty average. Dozier (below average, terrible), was a pretty solid defender in his youth but has taken a sharp downturn as he has aged. Kendrick is a hard read. He's been good in the past but has spent most of the last 3 years in the OF. Last year he did play a little more 2B early on and the stats aren't good but now we're talking a piece of a piece. It's likely he's still ok, but after three years of aging and lack of regular practice at the position, I have a hard time believing he's a plus.  The end results in the IF is likely no improvement taking the season as a whole.

The outfield is a little more complicated because it was a mix that is now going to have a new mix with some of the same pieces.

Bryce (below average, terrible) after showing the bare minimum at corner OF, played a third of last season in CF and proved what we all thought - he can't play CF.  Most of the year at center was taken up by MAT (Top 5, Top 10) who is an elite fielder though not in the conversation for best in the game in a competitive position. Juan Soto (?, terrible) in the corner was legit awful but one season of stats and his young age leaves us with a big question mark for actual skill. Adam Eaton (above average, bad) started his career as a mediocre CF but when he started to falter he got pushed to the corner and shone for a year. However the last couple of years have not been kind and show Eaton as not a good fielder.  This year the Nats will lose Bryce (good!) and MAT (bad!) to get more Eaton (probably bad!) and more Soto (also probably bad!). They also lost more of those other guys, who except for Stevenson weren't any good.

There's one name I haven't mentioned yet and he's frankly the key here because everything I said above? It's not good!  The question is what is Robles as a fielder.  If he is elite, the OF defense likely improves. If he is MAT level Top 5/10 ish, the defense likely stays around the same. If he is not that good, the OF defense actually likely gets worse.  The good news is the preliminary stats agree with the scouting reports that suggest Robles is the MAT or better fielder we've been thinking he is. Still it's questionable data so hold off getting excited but it's better than the alternative.

We haven't talked catcher yet. The Nats split time between Wieters (Top 10, top half), Pedro Severino (?, Top 10) and Kieboom (?, Top 10), accepting those Severino and Kieboom numbers are very tentative (though Severino seems to consistently grade well in limited exposure). Next year it'll be between Yan Gomes (Top 10, Top 10) and Kurt Suzuki (average, top half). We also have to at least look at framing. Wieters is a pretty lousy framer, Severino a pretty good one, Kieboom we lack enough data for to say.  Gomes has been pretty average but had a good season last year. Suzuki has been pretty bad and was one of the worst last year. If the catcher situation ends up being Gomes, with Suzuki as a back-up I'd say you can expect slighty better catcher defense. If we see more of a 50/50 split the Nats are probably actually taking a little step back.

So while the gut says - "No lackadaisical, out of position Bryce, No flat footed, injured Murphy - Nats defense must get better!" the analysis doesn't agree.  Second base had a lot of Difo last year who was really good, and neither Dozier or Kendrick will be any better than average. Corner OF will still likely be an issue. Catcher, despite the memories of NLDS Wieters, wasn't actually bad and won't likely improve.

I suppose you can figure out a way this cursory thought ends up being true. Turner is that good again. Soto gets better. Robles is one of the best CF of recent times. That would do it. But are we really going to say that's the likely scenario? 

This doesn't mean the Nats aren't better but are the Nats better because their defense is much improved? No.

Monday Quickie - Last words on Bryce

Now this won't be the last time we ever talk about Bryce. Going to the Phillies makes sure of that. However, there really isn't a reason to talk about him more than any other NL East opponent going forward. So I'll wrap up some final thoughts today and we can move forward picking apart the Nats pen or celebrating the arrival of Craig Kimbrel.  There is no inbetween.

There are some pundits who I think are engaging in some wishful thinking when it comes to Bryce and Philadelphia. We like, for whatever reason, to exaggerate the toughness of sports towns, but in general they follow the same rules as any other place.  If you meet expectations - you are treated well. If you meet expectations and win, and by that I mean championship appearances and victories - you are treated very well. If you do not meet expectations - you are treated poorly. 

The latter might differ by town, sure. But pretty much any sports crazy, media heavy town will be "tough". Boston, NY, Philly, Chicago. It also depends on the sport too. There are a lot of tough media markets for football because people care about that. Where I am now is a killer market for college basketball if you fail. So if Bryce really wanted a market that cared dearly about baseball he was going to find himself in this sort of potential situation.

I think it'll matter also what happens this year, first impressions are hard to shake. David Price, just helped the Red Sox win a World Series. They love him. There is also a lingering resentment toward him though - his attitude and performance those first two years.  A-Rod eventually helped the Yankees get a title, but it was almost a "thank god we don't have to talk about this loser anymore" situation with the fanbase because it was 7 seasons after arrival. Meanwhile guys like JD Martinez, one assumes, and Sabathia, I can vouch for, have basically passes for coming in and delivering.

Yes, yes attitude matters, but production matters more.  No one is talking about Bryce's hair tosses if he delivered 4 straight seasons like 2015. In the end that's what's going to make him loved or hated. He can't "effort" his way to their hearts. That's for guys with low expectations. Guys like Bryce need to perform. If he does it'll be great. If not it will be rough

Once Smitten, Bryce Bye

Trying too hard? Probably trying too hard.

I'm not going to be able to relate to you on a base level here. I thought Bryce was fun. I still think Bryce is fun*. That he's not on the Nats kind of sucks, but I harbor no ill will to the Phillies so this doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you. So in lieu of that I'm not going to try to tell you how to react or how to feel.  Anything right now is fine. You're venting. Anything in April that falls short of "I hope he gets injured" is fine. Fans aren't supposed to be rational.

But me, my automaton circuits are functioning just fine. Time for some analysis, first starting with what this isn't.

This isn't Bryce vs every other FA the Nats have signed.

Some people (like Mike O'Connor?) are trying to break down the analysis as if it's Bryce vs every free agent the Nats brought in.  This is silly presupposing the Nats would have signed no one if Bryce stayed. I mean Hellickson and Adams were literally here with Bryce last year. And Bryce isn't the only guy who isn't on the team from last year and thus is part of the "gone" side of the equation. The measurement should be

Corbin, Suzuki, Rosenthal, Barraclough, Gomes, Dozier, Sanchez
vs
Bryce, Murphy, Gio, Roark, Kintzler, Madson, Wieters, Kelley (some can be addition by subtraction)

This is not about money balance (below would have cost more to keep than above cost to procure), it'a about team evaluation. The team is better off with what group? Personally, I think the latter is better, no doubt. 

Of course this is a vacuum question. Along with the money, we also need to see how these guys fit into the team. Bryce is far better than "no Bryce" but Bryce is also presumably needed less because the Nats have OFs. Anyway - just don't do what O'Connor did as an evaluation is all I'm saying. 

This isn't We don't need Bryce we have Juan Soto. 

Soto may very well be a generational hitter, replacing Bryce, who when healthy was a generational hitter. He certainly put up numbers his rookie year that suggest that. The thing is 2019 isn't about Soto replacing Bryce in the lineup. Why? Because Soto was already in the lineup. For like 120 games. With Bryce.

The Nats are going to get more Soto next year but it's not that he steps in to replace Bryce. It'd be more accurate to say Eaton does (he only played 95 games) or Robles does (21). But regardless of how you put this together - where some combination of Eaton, Soto, Robles, replace some combination of MAT & Bryce & etc. from last year - the point I want to make is the Nats had Bryce and Soto together for 3/4 of last year. It wasn't enough. Soto can't just replicate last year in this equation and the Nats be fine. He needs to be better and/or Eaton needs to at least as good as he was for a full season and/or Robles needs to be better than MAT.

None of this is in itself outside the bounds of possibilities, but note you are asking for several things to fall into place and even if they are likely things, stack enough together and the odds of them all happening are slim. (this was my "watch out for the OF" point from last off-season which came true although Soto saved it from being THE massive problem that killed the team. Instead it was just a problem mainly early in the year)


Ok - but we know what the Nats are without Bryce as we have wrapped our heads around it for a while. Well at least in part. We know offensively they are a team with few holes, who might not be better without Bryce but have put together a 1-8 offense that makes you doubt they'll be much worse, if at all this year. So Top 5ish. We THINK they'll be better defensively because there has been a lot of talk about how bad the fancy stats had Bryce last year but guess what? Soto was almost as bad, as a rookie, playing exclusively corner OF. And while Robles is supposed to be great. MAT IS great. so let's hold off on the better D talk until we see if Robles can match MAT and if Soto can improve.

The question is more what are the Phillies with Bryce? Well here's the offensive changes from last year and their 2018 OPS+ (as best we can - guys like Hoskins and Kingery will move around but no need to have them in both replace and replaced positions)

Realmuto (131) for Alfaro (95)
McCutchen (118) for Santana (105)
Bryce (133) for Nick Williams (99)
Segura (112) for Hernandez (94) / Kingery (61)**

One can quibble that maybe Realmuto had a career year or Bryce could do much better, but on face value you are taking 4 very average bats and replacing them with two above average bats and two very good bats. If you assume Hoskins (125), Franco (106), and Odubel (94) remain the same that's a lineup that's just as deep as the Nats, meaning a Top 5ish squad with potential for more.

But is that enough? The Phillies had a pitching staff that was just as unimpressive as the batting order last year and their work so far is - sign David Roberston. Roberston is good, and I'd listen to anyone who wants to say the Phillies pen grades out better than the Nats*** but that still leaves the starting staff. That still leaves

Nola, old Arrieta, Pivetta, Velasquez, Eflin
vs
Max, Stras, Corbin, Sanchez Vasquez, part-time Hellickson

Nola is great. Max is better. Maybe age makes you consider that a push. Fine. Stras is better than Arrieta. Corbin is leaps and bounds better than Pivetta. VasquezSanchez is better than whatever guy you line up at 4. Hellickson part time is no worse than whoever you line up at 5.

There's no comparison here. Nats starting staff is better and gives the Nats the edge still, even with Bryce switching sides.

There are certainly paths to the Phillies beating the Nats this season. There's not more than a few games difference now between the two and injuries and surprise performances can easily make those things up (and probably should be expected to) but today looking at the teams - Bryce makes Philly a division threat and a likely playoff team in my mind, but he doesn't make them an NL East favorite.


*Some people have tried to play Bryce up as one of those types that you love on your team but hate everywhere else. I think that's mostly projecting. Bryce is a showboat yes, but he's never been a jerk. To put it in NY Giants terms - he's Odell Beckham, not Jeremy Shockey. You can certainly hate him, but it's not because he's THAT guy.

** Hernandez is pencilled in as the starter at 2nd but is both hurt and you KNOW they want Kingery to win that position. Of course if he wins it he's likely to be much better than a 61 OPS+

***First one to average wins! 

Bryce to Phillies

Demands a new locations. Have at it for now

Update :

Now free to talk about details, Barry notes the Nats deal may have up to 100 MILLION in deferred money.  

Happy Zimm Day - we think

ED NOTE - NO ZIMM TODAY. LIES. ALL LIES

According to reports we should see Zimm today.  This is good, not because Zimm really needs to play in a lot of Spring Training games but because of last year's nonsense. If you are 1 year old and reading this blog, first off - EVERYBODY BE SCARED OF SUPER SMART BABY, second - a recap.

Last year Zimm skipped out on Spring Training. He and the team told everyone it was a new take on Spring, a veteran trying to rest up and a team willing to let him. Meanwhile, everyone with a brain said "Hmmm, that doesn't seem right considering no one has chosen to do that in the history of the game.  Perhaps he is injured?" For questioning the team, Chelsea Janes got real snarky with fans about it basically saying "I know and you don't", while Boz wrote "Sounds like an interesting plan" columns.  Turns out the fans weren't stupid. He was injured.

Today should be a nice little come-uppance day but Chelsea (who half apologized with a "that's what they told me!") has since moved on to a political beat, and Boz (who ignored it) continues to ignore it, framing last years No Zimm in Spring still as a choice they made, as opposed to the reality of being an injury avoidance/recovery measure. Oh well. I guess we'll just have to be happy about being correct.

One thing Boz noted in his Q&A yesterday, or maybe it was the column last year was that Zimm was tired of hitting so well in the Spring and feeling like that was being wasted. Of course that's a stupid thing to think but did he even hit well in the Spring? Turns out - he totally did! I didn't do any math but it's like he's a lifetime .320 hitter with 40 homers in 180 Spring games.  I only saw like one Spring where you'd say he didn't hit well. Guy loves to hit off mediocre pitchers trying out things.

 The other talk of yesterday was Rendon's contract desires and how that will be adjusted compared to Arenado's extension. Rendon is a weird cat, who actively talks about not really liking baseball and not making this his whole life, so there's no real telling what will happen.  The numbers would put his contract between Altuve's effective 7/168 and Arenado's 8/260.  8/210? 7/200?  But for all we know he could take a 5/100 deal to go back to Houston. Or quit the game. Or demand top dollar and a NY team.  Seriously I can't read this guy.

Monday Quickie - Let us be free

Is today the day (like I was saying last week, as it is probably the best day marketing wise) or perhaps tomorrow (as I'm hearing more buzz around)? Regardless, please let it happen. Let us be free of the Bryce Harper story, and let the other chips fall where they may so we can really start figuring out the lay of the land going into the season.

The Nats continue to sell Bryce as the reason they didn't win anything, which I guess is as good as anything they are going to come up with that's not "It's Davey's fault and we're sorry we didn't keep Dusty around basically wasting a year to take this shot"

The big news from the weekend, in case you were off doing other things, is that Koda Glover couldn't make it through his first appearance, leaving with elbow tightness. Koda was always supposed to be the next big thing in the Nats bullpen, which especially matters for a team like the Rizzo-led Nats, who tend to put all their pitching hopes into one young basket. But performance has lagged and injuries have dogged and we stand today no real idea of if Koda will ever be an effective pitcher.

The Nats bullpen is the one glaring question mark for a team otherwise deep (line-up contstruction) or top heavy and no worse than any other team at the bottom (rotation). 

Assuming the Nats start with 8 men in the pen (reasonable - especially at year's start). Here are the men you can expect will be there and their stats from last year

The Given
Doolittle  1.60 ERA, 0.600 WHIP, 1.89 FIP,  45IP
Rosenthal DNP
Barraclough 4.20 ERA, 1.329 WHIP, 4.98 FIP, 55.2 IP

The Likely
Miller  3.61 ERA, 1.127 WHIP, 4.44 FIP,  52 IP
Grace 2.87 ERA, 1.140 WHIP, 3.40 FIP, 59.2 ERA

The Probable
Glover  3.31 ERA, 1.408 WHIP, 4.69 FIP, 16.1 IP
Suero 3.59 ERA, 1.217 WHIP, 3.48 FIP, 47.2 IP

That's... ok? Doolittle can be a dominant closer but his health is in constant question. 2017, when he threw 51.1 IP was the closest he's been to a full season since 2014.  Rosenthal has to be considered an unknown. The rest is a mish-mash. There's potential to be decent but also potential to be lousy and you split the difference and you get the uninspiring likely situation.

The 8th space is a wild card. Joe Ross (5.06, 1.313, 5.85, 16) as a long reliever makes the most sense. Especially given a repeat of the "Hellickson for 5" plan from last season. Solis (6.41, 1.551, 4.92, 39.1) would give them another lefty and also is up for his last chance. Cordero (5.68), Williams (5.59), Voth (6.57), and McGowin (5.87) are all also still on the 40 man.  You do see something in common though with these guys. They all kind of stink. It's a lot of small sample sizes, but still, no one is really fighting that impression. 


With Koda getting hurt you are already looking to dip two deep into these guys and frankly that's probably two deep too many. 

We'll see how this shakes out. I'm sure someone is going to look good in Spring, get fans excited, and win a job by that alone. And if Doolittle and Rosenthal look healthy and right - that's a strong back end. Still, if you are looking for an Achilles heel for the 2019 Nats, that isn't "injuries", this is it. It's a place where the Nats are walking into the season where an average performance would be welcome, and a poor performance unsurprising. 

Let's talk about... *gasp*... baseball!

Could it be? Baseball is really back! I mean meaningless Spring Training games but still, real baseball players, doing real baseball things. More importantly - not contract talk!

Ok, yes, we are just biding time between now and my annual "pay no attention to Spring Training stats" post and then between that and the first game, but still, baseball!

So what baseball things do we have to talk about? For one, we can talk about what we need to be watching for from the Nats this spring. The Nats are mostly set - you can probably guess all the starters and 24 of the 25 man roster right now. However that doesn't mean spring will be entirely without interest.

How does the bullpen shake out?

We know how it's supposed to shake out. Doolittle closes. Rosenthal sets up. Then someone steps up to be that "7th inning guy" - or if you hate that term "next in line, who comes in during important times". Then the rest fills in.  BUT...

• Doolittle spent most of the 2nd half of 2018 injured, putting in normal use during a scant two week period from Sept 8th through Sept 20th.  He did look fine and the low use finish to the season was the usual "why push our guys" tapering that'll happen with a non-playoff team, but still that's only 6 real inning of pitching after around July 4th. 
• Rosenthal spent ALL of ALL of 2018 injured, having last pitched in a major league game in August of 2017.  I hope I don't need to tell you why this might be concerning. 
• The rest of the Nats pen didn't step up last year.  Solis had a moment, then flopped. Miller had a moment, then cooled. Glover is still waiting for his moment. Suero is just fine and unlikely to have a moment. Grace... I can't be snarky, he was good. Out of the Nats "other" relievers last year the most effective by FIP were Greg Holland (gone) and Brandon Kintzler (gone).  It's not that there isn't a decent pen here, it's just that it's the usual mess that once every three years gives the Nats a 2016 bullpen, and the other two years gives them something less than that. 

So there is something to watch here - are Doolittle and more so Rosenthal ok? Is anyone stepping up in Spring, if only to get the first shot at that 3rd best man role in April?

What's on second?

Howie Kendrick was another Nats injury from 2018, rupturing his Achilles in mid May and missing the rest of the year. Supposedly he's fine, but the Nats weren't so sure themselves bringing in Brian Dozier to help man second. Dozier has a stronger history at the base, but has seen his production taper in recent years and at the end of 2018 looked unplayable in the field.

If Howie is ok, and all early indications is he is, who starts? Dozier is a righty so there is no natural platoon and Howie can play anywhere, so the strong likelihood is that Kendrick starts off on the bench as a super-utility player. But how long can you not start a guy who when healthy has hit to a tune of .311 with solid pop? What if I tell you Dozier - who hit .215 last year - struggles all through spring?

Is 5th starter up for grabs?

The 5th starter position seems like it is a secret battle. Sure they did sign Hellickson to fill that role, but at 32 and spending half of 2018 out, everyone recognizes he is merely a stop gap until they find something better. They have two pitchers who might be that. Joe Ross, the other guy in the Trea Turner trade that was supposed to make that a "best trades of all-time" dealie, and a guy with 3 more seasons of control, finally is healthy and looks ready to see if he can get back to 2016 form. Erick Fedde, the guy they gambled on being the best of their AAA bunch when they traded away their starting pitching depth, is still here and is almost certainly their preferred winner of this battle.

Most likely it will be Hellickson. Fedde has looked bad in the majors and it is easy enough to send him back down to AAA under the guise of getting more work.  Ross, while harder to justify sending down to AAA (what are you going to say you are doing - stretching him out? He started 3 games at the end of last year.) can be shifted to the pen to be the 2-3 inning long man the Nats are currently without. However, I don't take this to be given since I think the Nats prefer Fedde, Ross, then Hellickson in a perfect world.

Is it really Victor or bust? 

Robles is penciled in as the Nats starter in CF. He can play the position well and hit well in his major league time at the end of last year.  But if he struggles in the Spring and MAT, who plays the position great, is on fire - do the Nats stick to their guns?  You have to hope they do, MAT has had his chances and Robles has little more to prove he deserves a shot at starting, but spring stats make teams do funny things sometimes.


There you go - real baseball talk! I had an idea to jibber-jabber about Bryce at the end, but let's leave this nice and pure for the weekend.

Manny dollars for Bryce?

Manny is a Padre!

Well he isn't really. Not yet. But it's in the "if this falls apart something has gone horribly wrong" stage. It's 10/300 which is right on target for what people were saying he would get, in October. We went on a wild ride to get there, but we got there. Is the same thing going to happen for Bryce?

On one hand the deal with the Padres forces the two known suitors for both (re: White Sox, Phillies) into a bad position. Bryce signs with the other guy and you'er left with an off-season that's probably unsatisfactory to your fanbase. On the other hand, another suitor is removed from Bryce's list meaning if the remaining three (throw in the Giants) aren't as serious about the money they want to give him, then his bargaining power drops.  How much do these guys want Bryce?

Are the Nats still in it? Maybe. It seems like the potential contract won't blow the Nats supposed 10/300 out of the water, and if it's 10/315 or the like would the Nationals let Bryce walk for that difference? But all indications from the Nationals, and Bryce, since the beginning of the off-season has been the same. Bryce is gone. Nothing about that has changed and in fact that take has only grown louder (see Boz's column and recent Rizzo interviews).

When it boils down to it, we want to know two things. Is Bryce coming back? If not, is Bryce ending up in the NL East? That's what matters. The first answer has been a no for a while, despite the attempts to talk it into yes. The second question has been "if the Phillies pay him" for the same amount of time. We continue to sit and wait that out because while contract talk is all well and good, what matters is how the 2019 season plays out.

Why'd the Padres do it? Plenty of reasons. Machado might be worth it on the field. It gives them a star to market around. They are trying to catch the moment the organizational depth develops, rather than be reactive to it. They still aren't good. Maybe they are .500. But the NL West looks pretty favorable for them in the near future. The Giants are presumably about to begin a rebuild. The Diamondbacks are in the midst of one already (for some reason). The Rockies are a good team, but also were lucky last year could lose Arenado which would put them on par with the Padres. If the guys they think will develop develop and maybe they sign one more big pitcher and you've got a high 80s win Padres team.  Now I haven't mentioned the Dodgers, who should remain very good in upcoming years, but it's a should. Things happen and if the Dodgers fall the Padres could find themselves with a nice little run. At the very least they should be a consistent 2nd place team in the 2020-2022 range assuming they keep doing what they are doing and grab a WC or two. 

The Bryce and Manny saga has blinded us to the other decent players still out there who could effect the NL East.  Where is Keuchel going, Marwin, Kimbrel. It's been so very quiet out there on those guys and they could be difference makers in what looks to be a tight race. We should be starting to set-up our predictions for the year, but with these guys still out there, you gotta hold off for now.

Monday Quickie - Maybe they listened?

Bryce talk got super-heated yesterday but at the same time until the pen hits the paper and the contracts are signed that's all it is. I've been kind of working with idea that the 300 million contract the Nats offered Bryce was more a "300 million" contract "offered" Bryce.  As in -  maybe the contract was deferred to the end of time, maybe the contract was filled with team options, maybe it was never really offered at all.  At the time it seemed like it served both the Nationals and Boras/Bryce to put it out there that the Nats would pay 300 million but Bryce wouldn't take it.  If that's the case - that this may not be real - who's to say any other contract we hear about is?

Meanwhile Boz wrote a mouthpiece column, speaking for whichever sources wanted to get the idea out that Bryce was a fundamentally bad player that was making the Nationals worse. Is it true? Well, no. That's not how it works. Bryce was too good at the plate (yes - dammit this is true, stop convincing yourself it is not) to hurt the team overall. However, he could still have been fundamentally flawed which hurt his value.

The rest of the column is classic Nats excuse making and sanctioned sniping. An unnamed player hilariously told Boz "Write it!" regarding an insult about Bryce but couldn't be bothered to attach his name. In the column it's noted that they have tried to be good fundamentally and last year it failed. Of course it's pretty easy to note that Bryce wasn't just on the team last year, although a certain skipper was. There are digs at Daniel Murphy's fielding, which is fair, but none for Ryan Zimmerman who couldn't field and faked being ok to start the year. There's digs on Bryce's fielding, playing a good deal of time out of position, but not a word of wunderkind Juan Soto who with the athleticism of a 19 year old couldn't put up even a blah season in the field. There's digs on Bryce as a leader, but then praise for Jayson Werth who, as I remind you constantly, also "led" the team to two missed playoffs season, no playoff series wins, back bit every manager he had, and couldn't be bothered to stay out of jail. There's talk of Howie Kendrick being a team leader (one playoff series wins since 2009) and Brian Dozier being a clubhouse leader (no playoff series wins until the Dodgers drug his body to the world series last year) and Yan Gomes being a clubhouse leader (remember the 2016 Indians playoff run? Yeah Gomes got hurt and barely played) and Suzuki being a clubhouse leader (nope).  Apparently finding a clubhouse leader who plays well in the playoffs leading to a team winning a series is impossible.

The Nats are good at looking at themselves and identifying flaws, but they aren't good at then accepting that the current team are the ones with them. It's always the guys who are gone. Be it the managers who get blamed and tossed at an alarming rate. Or the relievers traded away after they get mad at questionable usage patterns. Or, as we see now with Murphy and Bryce leaving, the star bats with bad fielding. The fix has always already happened it seems.


I don't know. It feels like we've heard this story all before. We have enough talent to win the East. Win the East and no one can control what happens in the playoffs. Rinse. Repeat.  I don't know what I'm after right now, but I know it's something different.

SOMETHING HAPPEN

We're moving into trying to will something into existence territory now.

SOMEONE END THIS MADNESS. SIGN BRYCE. SIGN MACHADO. SIGN KEUCHEL. SIGN KIMBREL. SIGN MARWIN.

Nothing in a vacuum

The Nats should pounce.

I mean some team should and the Nats are as good as any.

The ownerships are playing a long con on the fanbase. The way the payment in the game for a while now was kind of unfair, but tacitly agreed upon. Players would give up value at the beginning of their career, providing potential production for minimal cost, for the chance at a bigger pay day down the line. It was clear that FA contracts were often not going to pay for themselves, but that was part of the point. The "survivors" - those that proved they could produce with some consistency and remained healthy - would reap the benefits from age 26-35 of the value everyone lost from 18-26. In place of production we talked about leadership and presence and nonsense. It was a little bit delusional but everyone bought in.

But now the ownerships are pointing to the back end with analytic numbers and saying "See you aren't worth it. We want to pay you what you are worth!" and trying to sell that to the public. The obvious problem is they aren't pointing at the front end as well and saying the same thing. They are looking to continue to underpay to start, but no longer make up for that later. They are trying to squeeze more cash from the players, plain and simple.

And people are buying it.

Not everyone. Maybe not even most. But a good percentage of fans fall back on the "greedy players" who can't be happy even making millions. I've talked about this before but I think a big big big part of this is how athletes are perceived in general. "Baseball player" isn't seen as a real job.  "Owner of business" is.  Owner makes billions - that's just the way the world works. Baseball player makes millions - I can't believe it! For a kids game! I'd do it for free!.  But I digress, the point isn't the why, just the fact that it is working for some, and if it works for enough they can keep pushing it.

We already give the owners a lot of leeway. Another thing we've talked about is how I don't see this as a business but a hobby. You don't make money on hobbies - you spend money on them. Owners should. And if it IS a business - it's a lucrative one that makes money not so much on the day to day, but in the eventual sale. The team end up being worth far more than what you paid for it. Do owners lose money each year knowing you'll make it up in the end? Rarely ever. See we give the owners leeway on these things. We pretend it's a regular business that has to match annual revenue to expenditures and assume that's what teams are doing. We accept small-market designations (even for teams that are clearly not small-market) and allow for rebuilding periods where we accept low spending. All in all we give ownership more than enough chances to make money. We don't have to provide them with another.

Bringing this back around, ultimately you can only effect your team. For me it's the Yankees, and honestly I'm pissed they aren't just giving Machado 250 million for 8 years or whatever. Being a fan is a hard thing to walk away from but at the very least my feet are on a path of "what's the point of rooting if you aren't really trying" For you it's the Nats. And while the Nats have made a good faith effort in the old ways, or at least their "minimum of what the best teams" effort that they have settled on over the last few years, I see no harm in taking them up to spend more. Sign Bryce, extend Rendon and build a core that's Bryce, Rendon, Corbin, Soto, Robles - that's a core that's still under the cap with room to fix SP as Max and Stras do what they do. (because that money frees up). Or look at this market and think - "the overpays we have to make for a Kuechel or a Kimbrel are less than normal. Let's get in there" so the Nats aren't essentially running with the same back end of the rotation and question mark pen that failed last year.

I don't know. To me this has always been pretty clear. Yeah, it's spending other people's money but it's telling them to spend your money if you want me to spend mine.

Monday Quickie : JT Real-ly Still Not Enough

At the end of last week, while we were mourning Frank, the Phillies pulled off a big trade. They got JT Realmuto, arguably the best catcher in baseball right now to augment their offense.

First off, was it a good deal?
Is JT Realmuto that good? Yes! If we just look at last year offensively here is Realmuto's line
.277 / .340 / .484
And here are the next best offensive lines for "full-time" catcher
.259 / .378 / .431
.241 / .349 / .466

A step behind at least. Only a few catchers - Grandal, Gary Sanchez, Mike Zunino, Sal Perez, maybe Austin Hedges and Robnison Chirinos - showed the power Realmuto showed. Only a few catchers - Ramos, Elias Diaz, Posey, Oscar Narvaez, Suzuki - hit for average like Realmuto. Only a few catchers - Contreras, Lucroy, Grandal, Molina, Barnhart. James McCann, Martin Maldanado, Gomes, Zunino - caught as many innings as Realmuto.

Notice there aren't a lot of overlap here. You see Grandal - another top target this offseason. Zunino - who was targeted in a trade. But only Realmuto is tops in all three categories. This doesn't consider that Realmuto is considered a good defender (he is), that he's relatively young (will turn 28 just before the season starts), has a favorable contract (cheap for another 2 years) or mentioning his level of play has been high for three years now. He's produced 25% more fWAR than the 3rd best catcher, 20% more bWAR - although he's 2nd to Posey here. Don't get caught up in the mumbo jumbo here. Just know the fancy stats agree with what you would get from eyeballing catcher stats over the past few years. JT Realmuto is probably the best catcher in baseball, significantly better than even some guys that might sneak into a Top 5 list, and he's a huge value.

But you don't get that for nothing. The Phillies gave up...
Jorge Alfaro, who is a good athlete (pretty fast for a catcher) who has consistently improved defensively while offensively he is a huge free swinger (very few walks, lots of Ks) with good power. The combination of all that gets you a catcher who is fringy Top 10ish. That's both good (Top 10!) and bad (Top 10 catchers are very average players) but he's perfect for the Marlins giving them a dirt cheap answer at catcher for another two years and a cheap one until 2023. If he improves his approach even a little bit the Marlins will be very happy. If he doesn't, well at least C isn't a worry spot.

Sixto Sanchez, who is a pitching prospect who is battling his first set of questions as he goes into the real deal AA minors in 2019. The first part is being harsh, but such is the life of a prospect. At 18 in low A he had perfect control and was almost unhittable. In High A last year he still had good control, but it wasn't perfect, and still kept the hits down, but wasn't unhittable. High A batters got around on his stuff more often and as he's not a huge strikeout pitcher, there is concern that at the next step he'll begin to see some real obstacles to overcome. This isn't a huge deal, and he'd probably not even be dinged for these normal development questions except for the fact he got hurt last year, only started 8 games, and didn't pitch in the Fall League as expected.  If he's right, he should quickly get into the majors... probably 2020 being cautious. If he's not...

The last piece, Will Stewart, showed some solid promise in A ball last year but is not young (will be 22 in high A this year which is about on target) and is primarily a guy that depends on getting grounders. That can be tough to translate if he can't keep those Ks up above a certain level.

It's a big package but the Phillies  didn't derail their chances over the next two years by doing this trade. Alfaro is ok, but Realmuto is very good and playing the same position as Alfaro is a strict upgrade.  Sixto was supposed to be the next ace for the Phillies, but given his injuries it was probably 2021* at best. Will Stewart wasn't coming along any quicker. Does this effect the long term plan for the Phillies? Yes. But you know what started that effect? The fact that nothing they hoped for last year came to pass. No starting pitcher break out. No OF break out. Kingery was terrible. Crawford remained terrible. Alfaro regressed. Santana aged. They have some pieces in place for the now, but nothing outside of Nola and Hoskins that would reliably bridge the gap between now and when maybe a new batch of young players comes to help.  Maybe.

The team was built to compete in 2019 and beyond and not buying into today means very possibly resetting for another rebuild. This trade helps buy into today.


But is it enough? Is it enough to generate a playoff caliber offense when combined with Segura AND McCutchen? Is it enough without bumping up the starting pitching?  Probably not.  The Phillies hitting was bad.  Not terrible mind you, but the worst of the rest. McCutchen and Segura help. Realmuto helps more. But the end result is still a line-up that you don't see being anything more than maybe above averge. This means the pitching needs to match that above average level to get the Phillies in playoff position** and they were below average in that last year as well.  While the improvements in the pen help, it probably only gets them to around average. This is a team a little over .500 (81-83 wins) as it stands, and probably on the lower end given the level of competition in the NL East.

At this point, signing Keuchel, and getting to two not quite Top 5 groups and around 85/86 projected wins, might work in a normal division but in the East? I don't see it. No they still need what we've talked about before Bryce or Machado AND Dallas.  Do they do it? I don't know. But I do know they still CAN do it after this move, since Realmuto is not expensive. And I also know right now they are a healthy Mets rotation from still being projected 4th in the division despite all their moves.

*Phillies might have pushed it if he looked healthy this year and dominated AA because they really need that last starter. 

**Generally playoff teams excel at both areas (Top 5ish hitting and pitching), sometimes they are the best at one area and get carried by that, and every once in a while sneak in while being just above average in both.

RIP Frank

Rememberances should be separate not tacked onto my column about Rendon. 

Here's Barry's piece.  (FIXED)

Better than anything I'll write. 

The question beyond the question

The Rockies are looking to wrap up Nolan Arenando long-term. The Rockies have the money to do that and something like 5/150 isn't out of the question. (Long terms are all now relative - don't be expecting 7+ year contracts for anyone that isn't 22). Arenando has been a great player - a plus bat with very good defense at a position that's traditionally harder to fill than you'd think. While he suffers from the same home/road question that all Rockies players do, most thought falls into the "that's what happens when you play in Colorado" rather than "Home = Fake. Away = Real".  Arenando is a very good to great player going into his age 28 season and should be locked up.

Anthony Rendon has arguably been better than Nolan Arenando. Not quite the pure power hitter than Nolan is, Rendon makes up for it in other ways. Factoring in the parks, over the past two seasons, he's a better hitter for average and shown more patience, while providing superior defense. I'm not going to fight anyone that argues Arenando is better, but it is an argument. And Rendon is also up for free agency after this year. This begs the question - where is Rendon's 5/150 deal?

 Now there are some key differences between the two. Rendon is about a year older. More importantly Arenando has been a relatively healthy player (156 GP or more in each of the last four seasons) while Rendon has not.  Rendon however has been a lot healthier in recent years then to start his career where he lost huge chunks of 2012 and 2015 to injury. His 136 GP last year is not ideal, but you can work around a few missed weeks.

There's just enough that even though you may argue he's better, Rendon might actually walk away with a little less than Nolan.  5/130?  It's been quiet on this front though with the Bryce stuff making for a nice distraction. There are suggestions that the Nats have made efforts on this front, but given how little has been written about it, these are doubtful to be more than probes and bargain deals the Nats have floated to get some idea of where Rendon stands.

I think the talks will heat up once Bryce gets settled, but make no mistake, this is not an either or situation. The Nats could likely sign both, and can almost certainly fit both under the cap with Zimmerman either leaving, or returning on a deal closer to 5 million than the 18 his option stands at in 2020. It shouldn't be dependent on Bryce.

Is Rendon worth it? There are no real trends to suggest not. He's morphed into a little more of a flyball hitter which is probably better. He still hits the ball hard and to all fields. He was more aggressive last year but still made good contact swinging more, so there's more a sense that this is a conscious adjustment rather than an attempt to cover for something beginning to go wrong. He's probably peaked as a defender but he's coming off a high of "maybe best in baseball" so as long as the fall is moderate he'll be worth playing at 3B for a while and still good for nearly all of a long term contract. He's not a particularly good runner, but not a bad one either and still seems about roughly in the same shape as he was when he came in.

What it comes down to is it's a complete health gamble. When healthy you can pencil in Rendon for .300 and the high 20s in homers with excellent D. That's worth it. But unlike Bryce, who can mostly bash his way to all-star level seasons at the plate when he's not 100%, Rendon seems to suffer more, becoming more of an average bat. His defense is still strong though and an average bat who can play excellent third is not without value. It's just not 25 million dollars worth of value.

The Zimm contract may be a deterrent. He's held up decently at the plate but wev'e watched as injuries have forced him to become unable to hold down a job at 3B, and become a half-time bad fielding first baseman. His contract was actually signed off and injury filled year, but like Rendon he had been mostly healthy before that playing 142 and 157 games. It was a different time though - before the team was good, when the Nats still felt the need to keep certain players around or bring certain players in to feel like a winner to fans. There's not that impetus now, after the team has established it can keep a winner on the field.

What am I thinking? Well of course, I'm spending the money that's not mine. In the end you make this deal today. Rendon seems to have turned around early career health issues enough that while maybe he's not an iron man, he can be relied on to be out there for almost what would be considered a normal season. Given that assumption, he should hit about .300 with about mid 20s in homers and with very good defense at third he's a keeper. There is nothing other than the spectre of injury that would make you fell otherwise.

Monday Quickie - Is this the week?

Pitchers and Catchers will report beginning sometime next week, depending on your team. There are still a good number of FAs that remain unsigned. You can take a look over here. They rank by WAR but consider that a rough ranking.

We're mostly waiting to see what happens with Bryce (and Manny.. (and Kuechel)) as where they go can change the balance of a division. But given the availability of decent talent is there anywhere the Nats can go to finish up their roster? Or do you consider it complete right now?

Here's the depth chart.  This hasn't been entirely updated. (Matt Adams where are you?) but it's pretty close. And what you see is that the Nats are pretty well set, but they aren't without areas that could be improved. That's in theory doesn't mean you can improve them with what's left, though.

4th OF - MAT.  I like MAT as a 4th OF and advocated him sticking around. He's a top notch fielder to be a late-inning defensive replacement (Hey Soto!) and fast enough to be a pinch runner when needed (hey Zimm!). He's has enough offensive ability that he can give any of the guys out there a rest for a day and if you need him to start for a week or two, he has enough experience to do that as well.  However, he's not perfect as he's a big whiffer and probably peaked at the plate. Is there a better option out there? 

Guys with more reliable bats (Granderson, Span!, Deitrich) are questionable fielders and not as fast so I'm not sure they fit the bill for the Nats (more on that in a second) Craig Gentry I suppose has made himself into a reasonable 4th OF and maybe you prefer a higher average and more contact to MAT's approach but as he's a good deal older than MAT I wouldn't make a change here just to do it. Adam Jones looks tempting but has two years of data now saying he's not a plus OF anymore. So he fits in the Granderson/Span area - just a bit younger for those that are choosing between these guys.

So it's hard for me to pick someone over MAT.  That becomes more apparent when you work out the roster.

If Adams is on, and he should be, as the primary LHB PH / Zimm's rest guy, and Kendrick is on as the primary 2B/3B utility guy that leaves possibly no room for Difo.  It depends on how the Nats roll with the pen, but last year they did start with 8 men. If there is no Difo (or more accurately if they use Difo's one remaining option to stash him in AAA in case a SS is needed) then there is no late inning pinch runner on the team except for MAT. As for MATs offensive hang-ups, well it's likely that Kendrick would take over any long-term OF replacement position (If it's CF then Eaton would probably shift - not ideal but they'd make a go at it).

All in all I have a hard time pulling out MAT for any FA given his fit


UTIL - Difo.  Now we just talked about how Difo could very well be a Fresno Grizzly to start the year. But if the Nats choose to go with a 7 man pen then Difo, or a util player, is in.  Difo's strengths are similar to MATs - good defense, good speed - but he lacks any sort of bat to make him playable as more than a spot start and even that's probably not ideal.  Beyond Turner and Rendon the rest of the bunch (Dozier, Kendrick, Adams, Zimm) aren't top notch fielders so a D replacement is nice, but it's not as explicitly necessary as it might be in the OF.  Is there a speedy, good field option out there who isn't a hole at the plate?

Jose Iglesias is an interesting option. Oh he's definitely a hole at the plate, however while Difo is a good defender Iglesias is a superior one. He wouldn't be quite the pinch runner Difo would be but as a defensive replacement it's hard to get better. Adeiny Hechevarria is probably a little better version than Difo but it's hard to see the point on getting 20% better on a spot you don't plan to use very often. Andrew Romine? No. Sean Rodriguez? No.

All in all I see one option for the Nats here, and that's Iglesias if they are so inclined. I'd like him slightly better in the "last man - super D sub" role than Difo. But this is only if the Nats are inclined to fill that role and not, like I think they may, use the spot for an extra pen arm


Pen - Here is the current state of the Nats pen

Closer - Doolittle - He's really good. He's also a constant injury risk hitting even the low bar of 50IP once in the past 4 years.
Set-up - Rosenthal - Huge question mark given he didn't even pitch last year. He's been bouncing around between lights out and very good for his career outside of one off year but again, he didn't pitch last year.
Next guy up - Barraclough - We talked about him when the Nats made the trade. This role is probably one pitcher too close to the end for Kyle. Maybe someone else in the pen steps up. Then again maybe Doolittle or Rosenthal get hurt and Kyle is needed more.

Rest - Probably Glover, Miller, Grace, Suero and Solis? Glover was hurt and didn't look great. Miller was a revelation until he wasn't. Grace was... actually pretty good! I mean he's not dominant or anything but he filled that middle relief role admirably. Suero was fine. Solis was bad.

Other options - Cordero, Williams, Voth, McGowin. The Nats try to talk up guys like Cordero, who have stuff. They are never good. Voth has converted from starter to reliever and could be a long relief type, except he's not good. McGowin is just an arm.  That leaves Williams who they had high hopes for but didn't come through at all.  There may also be options in the minors, notably Austin Adams,  but consider them Cordero/Williams types. Old, might click, probably won't.

All in all there is definitely a spot here. Now if you ask me it's a top spot.  Getting a Kimbrel would set everything up in a way I see it for a championship team. But I doubt they are going to do that. So that means a checking of what else is still there. There's Tony Sipp who was quite good for the Astros last year. He was also quite lucky (no homers) and has a track record that bounces around a lot. Nick Vincent has been quality bullpen filler for a while now. Romo is intriguing as a guy who may be able to be stretched out a little. Diekman on the other hand is one of those pure talent guys who if he put it all together could be dominant but never has. Still he's enough together that unlike a Cordero or Williams he's useful. You know I love Clippard but he is just another arm, better than most, but that's a low bar. Xavier Cedeno, another former Nat, is an interesting arm. He found himself after leaving the Nats and then became an effective cutter thrower. His speed has dropped after injury but the effectiveness has remained. I feel like there is potential here.  Aaron Loup is also out there as another decent arm.

Any of these guys would improve the Nats pen allowing the Nats to stop "trying out" guys who need to show dominance in AAA first. A Tony Sipp trial or a bet on Xavier Cedeno (who could become a LOOGY type if the bet fails) would be the way I go. Whatever they choose though I see a move here being both possible and necessary.  Ideally it's Kimbrel after watching Bryce walk away, but if not, something else from here would be nice.


OH - they could definitely improve at SP. But I don't think they have any intention of even looking at that so it will be what it is. Three top guys, hope Sanchez works out at 4, see what happens at 5. There are definitely worse rotations than that - like 20+ of them. 

Former Nat Round-Up

Slow news Friday means aggregation. But not links to stories type. The stuff you could look up yourself but haven't.

2018 Nats
Matt Wieters - still a FA, enough interest around him that he's pretty sure to sign somewhere, probably soon.
Mark Reynolds - minor league COL contract
Daniel Murphy - major league COL contract (basically the only person they've signed)
Gio Gonzalez - still a FA, interest has been decidedly minimal with Mets & Padres current newest suitors.  Expect him to end up somewhere on a 2 year deal for less than you think
Ryan Madson - still a FA,  as relievers are being picked up in droves he should get a deal somewhere. Twins are newest suitor.
Shawn Kelley - signed with TEX.
Greg Holland - signed with AZ.
Kelvin Herrera - signed with CHW
AJ Cole - claimed by CLE
Jeremy Hellickson - nowhere - assume anyone else not mentioned is either on the same team as last year bc that's the deal they signed (like Kintzler/Albers) or I don't care enough to mention them

2017 and before Nats
Jose Lobaton - minor league deal with SEA
Enny Romero - playing baseball in Japan.
Oliver Perez - signed with CLE
Wilson Ramos - Sadly reminding you he's on the Mets
Marc Rzepczynski - had a showcase recently, but no signings
Asdrubal Cabrera - signed with TEX
Zack Duke - still a FA, really close to signing with Reds
Ian Krol - signed minor league deal with CIN

Two things you note when you look back. One, this game, like all sports, chews them up and spits them out. A lot of "what about this guy... still a free agent. No prospects either".  Two, if you are going to be anything in this world - be a reliever. Relief corps have expanded which means about 30+ new jobs that have to be filled by someone. On that account I'd expect Tyler Clippard signed and a few guys looking around Storen, and maybe a minor league deal for him.

The only guy at the plate I expect to see somewhere next year not on this list is Denard Span who is still hitting slightly above average though age and injury have sapped his D. If he's ok with it though - hard not to see someone picking him up as a 4th OF.

Still nothing?

Jesus. It's not even worth checking in with the teams in the NL East as so little has happened with any of them. But what else are we going to do here?

Braves : They brought back Nick "The Stick" Markakis who continues his "Wait, Him?" March to 3000 hits. The key for Nick is being one of the healthiest players in history.  He's only missed more than 8 games twice in his career, his rookie year, where he "only" played in 147 games, and in 2012 where he had wrist surgery and then fractured his thumb on a HBP.  The end result is playing 2000 games before the age of 34. That's pretty uncommon to begin with (only 50 players in the history of the game have done that) and it's really uncommon for a guy who started in the majors at age 22. There's only one other guy to do that - Pete Rose. Rose, would go on to do it for the next 5 years as well and 7 of the next 8, which is why he was able to get that hits record. Will Markakis get that chance? Well... I mean if he can play full seasons and hit .275+ and be a positive offensive player and be not an embarrasment in the field.. sure! But I don't think he'll be able to put that all together for 6+ years which is what it would take to get into the momentum of chasing history to then take over.

Good signing but Braves still need that 1-2 pitcher or else they need a guy who isn't an ace now to become one and unless I'm missing something a reliever would be a good idea.

They are presumably on the outskirts of Realmuto discussions but a longshot. 

Phillies : Nothing. And again this is confusing as the Phillies 1) Need better players to be compete and 2) have a lot of money to spend. There is some talk of "Oh we'll just save our money and dig into NEXT year's FA class" - which has it's high points.  I always hate moves like that because you don't know for sure what will be available, how your team will change from then to now, and how your division will change from them to now. They've seen a potentially fading Nats team keep chugging along by signing the best pitcher available and a potentially rebuilding Mets team sagely realize they aren't going to find themselves with this type of cheap great starting pitching but once in a couple generations, and buy back in. With luck by next year either of these teams, or a rebuilt Braves hoping a bunch of young starting pitching comes together to finish the deal, will look like a dominant team for 2020-2021. You know you have a chance now and Bryce and Manny out there in FA. But enough about that

In short, they still need at least one big bat and a starter wouldn't hurt.

Mets : Did we ever talk about Jed Lowrie?  I think maybe we did in the comments. The Mets signed Jed Lowrie.  He's a better bet than the Nats' Dozier .He's old but he now has two years in a row with strong production and he's average in the field - maybe better now that he'll be over at third. He should decline but next year is a good year to bet on and he'll probably nicely fit into the place that Asdrubal left. Of course, Asdrubal did surprisingly well last year so it's not much of an upgrade, but with Cano and Ramos also along there's a net plus to be seen at the plate. Along with that they've signed Justin Wilson. He's been competent over the past few years, and very good against lefties last year (though traditionally better against RHB).  He should throw another quality arm in a bullpen for the Mets that might actually be a strength now. The Mets would be a sneaky bet to make it because if the starting pitching is healthy they have set up the rest to be good enough to have a very good year. But those words, "if the starting pitching is healthy", are the most fragile ones.

With Cespedes out, one more big bat would make them a true contender rather than an outskirt one depending on near complete SP health.

Unanimous

Color me surprised. (Is surprise a color? I see it as a bright yellow) I didn't think Mariano would get 100% but apparently the combination of

1) being the clear best at his position, like by leaps and bounds
and
2) having a heap of post-season success to point to

is enough to overcome the "closers aren't real players", "no one should be unanimous if Babe Ruth wasn't", "steroid protest vote" dumb voters. Good for Mariano

Of course this doesn't really matter in two ways. Getting voted in to the Hall of Fame doesn't mean you are better than some one else. It doesn't change - you know - the actual things that happened. Harold Baines isn't suddenly better than Fred McGriff. It's a popularity contest (as it should be - we're talking about opinions and feelings about players).  And how many votes you got to get in doesn't matter. Bert Blyleven is no less in than Mariano Rivera.  And if that bothers you I don't know what to say - the cut off has to be somewhere.

As for the players who got in

I always had a soft spot for Mussina. The consistently very good over a long period of time players tend to be underrated. Aging well is a skill too! I think Hallday and Mussina were obvious choices.

I've never been a fan of pure DHs getting in, and thrown in a limited time frame of success that was great but wasn't mindblowing, I never saw Edgar as a HOFers. But like I said before - whatever!  It's not important! I mean it's important to them so great! But there's no reason to get angry about it.

Even Baines, he's clearly not a HOF, but he's in. I'll joke about it. I'll talk about it. But get angry about it? Nah.

Who didn't get in? Bonds and Clemens - for reasons. As other people note there's more to this than steroids, or at least there should be. We are talking about a likely wife beater and a likely statutory rapist, respectively. But if you do the "don't care about character, we can't throw out Ty Cobb" thing they should both be in. Schilling as well. He's not a slam dunk case, because the way his career unfolded, but he's good enough. But then again - keep them out if you want! It's your vote! We're getting your opinions on who should be in and out! If not, a computer would just pick it.

Otherwise - In my mind - Walker is good enough. McGriff, Manny, and Scott Rolen who excelled at a position that apparently it's very hard to.  I'd listen to arguments about Kent or Sheffield . I think Berkman should have gotten a little more love but probably isn't a HOF.

Feel free to state your cases in the comments - this is the fun part. discussing without making it personal.  Unless one of you are one of these guys, in that case feel free to make your own very personal case.  

What if the Phillies got what they wanted?

Yesterday a rumor surfaced (from the less than reliable Bob Nightengale) that the Phillies had a plan to put that stupid money to work. Sign Bryce, then sign Kuechel and Kimbrel. Would that make them a super team? Would it even put them over the Nats... or Braves... or Me - ok yes easily over Mets.

As we discussed the Phillies were a sneakily mediocre team last year. Thanks to a strong start and some luck the Phillies maintained the sense of a team ready to make the next step. As late as the end of August they were relevant,sitting at 72-62 (though probably more of a 69-65 squad in talent - they had some luck) But in reality the offense was middling and the pitching staff slowly eroded as the season went on.  when the wheels came off in September and they plummeted to their below .500 finish. They made some minimal changes, trading for As Cab and Ramos but it wasn't enough to make a difference.

Could even a drastic overhaul be enough to turn the tide in 2019?

They've already traded for Jean Segura , signed McCutchen, and inked David Robertson. These are all improvements but mild ones. Segura is the biggest plus, as his above average bat and solid D replaces a position of true weakness for the Phillies with a plus. That could be a 2 game swing. McCutchen is far more average in what he brings but what he importantly does is allow the Phillies to move Hoskins to 1B, set a guy who isn't terrible in the corner, and cycle through fewer of their AAAA talent OFs. Those guys, Williams, Altherr, Herrera, all these guys right now look like decent 3/4s bats with a little issue in the field. That's fine to have as one guy. It's a mess to have as all your guys, which it pretty much was last year (with "I'm a better bat than that but really a first baseman" Hoskins pitching in). It will help but in a "we brought in this middling innings eater 3rd starter" sort of way.  Robertson helps strengthen the pen, giving it a depth that it never had last year as it basically seemed to always be relying on 1-2 guys, whoever that may have been. Robertson also helps out Kapler who didn't seem to handle the pen great last year and probably needs that "traditional closer" to anchor his decisions.

I see improvement. I see 4 maybe 5 games here. But that takes a Phillies squad out of the playoffs and makes them less out of the playoffs. What would these three do?

Bryce - Bryce would immediately replace a "hopefully average" bat with a "at worst above average" one. Defensively he was bad last year, but he probably pushes out the almost as bad Nick Williams. And if you take the 3 year look at it - as you probably should - it's likely he'd be an improvement over Williams.  Nothing mindblowing mind you but Bryce is probably meh in the corner and Nick is probably worse than that. So right off the bat you have a 2-3 win boost. Then there's the side benefit of now only having the best Phillies OF prospect playing. Is it a reborn Herrera - who's probably the best fielder, manning CF? An Altherr proving 2017 was the real him - maybe in a corner with Cutch over to CF? Either way the Phillies don't have to stick with someone not giving them nothing like they do now.  It's a 3-4 plus move easy. And note we're basically taking Bryce as a 130 OPS+ bat here. Consider a better bat and well sky's the limit.

Keuchel is a solid pitcher. He's not entirely reliable (145 & 168 IP in 2017 and 2016) but he's decent and the season he put up last year is about right. He's better than that middling 3rd. He's a solid #2 for nearly any team.  Pitching signings are particularly effective because you aren't knocking out one guy, but the worst of 5. In comes Keuchel out goes one of not Arrieta or Nola. It's a win and a half at least. Plus it gives the Phillies a lefty arm they don't have now.  It's a little harder finding that right pitcher to knock out but Eflin will likely get a chance to stick and there's a good chance legit prospect Sixto Sanchez could see the rotation for good toward the end of the year, so Pivetta/Velasquez will be pushed to prove they should stay.

Kimbrel will make Kapler's job even easier. The Phillies will have that set-up closer (and likely 7-8-9 assuming Seranthony's 2018 wasn't a fluke) and give Kapler the freedom to mess up in less crucial moments. Some managers thrive when trying to optimize pitching. I don't think Kapler is one of those guys. Give another win here.

So I have the Phillies 4.5-5.5 wins better at a minimum if these guys come in and are healthy. Now the 85 win-ish Phillies are 90-91 win team. That's right up there with the Braves and Nats. And again - if Bryce breaks out... forget it. So there's potential for this team to cruise to an East title.


I think looking at the above - if the Phillies are serious about competing this year they need Bryce (or Machado) and Keuchel (or a similar starter) The team was starting at a floor lower than you'd think and are facing two real threat to win 90+ games in the Nats and Braves. That's the minimum.   Add more, like a Kimbrel and they may nudge into favorite status. But do less than that and the Phillies remain on the outside, hoping for busts and breakouts to go their way.

Ok - now to check and make sure no one has signed... Nope ok post!

Monday Quickie - Close

It feels like we are close on a Bryce decision, and a Manny decision for that matter. How these play out could be huge season turners. If somehow Bryce and Manny end up both on the Phillies - the Nats, despite the good offseason so far, have a 4 team fight on their hands for the NL East where they might not be the favorite*. If Bryce ends up back in DC and Manny somewhere not the NL East then the Nats are WS favorites and likely only have to hold off what was a slightly overachieving Braves squad who maaaaaybe are better due to off-season moves?, to get to the playoffs.

The mystery team speculation is fun, but primarily it comes down to 4 teams (not counting the Nats). The Phillies, who have talked about spending stupid money and getting one of these guys for a couple of offseasons. The White Sox, who seem prepared to follow the new trend of trying to capture success as soon as it gets here by spending now** And two of the three forever teams in the mix, the Yankees and the Dodgers. Both these teams were playoff squads last year. Both should be around as good based on their off-seasons so far. But both remain "I'll believe it when I see it" situations, in regards to laying off these potential future HOFers. The Yankees are pushed by the success of the Red Sox and the Dodgers by 30 years of failure. Neither fanbase would be happy with the status quo.

The best scenario for the Nationals, outside of Bryce back, would be both guys ending up in the AL. The worst is both in the NL East. I still like Bryce to the Phillies, but I'll shift Manny to the White Sox. I think he wants to be a Yankee, and the Yankees want him, but they seem to be pennywise, pound foolish here, hoping that Manny's heart outweighs his brain.  I'l say the brain, and more dump trucks full of money, win out.

Personally I think the "Werth hates the Phillies" to be way overrated and I think the main thing Werth will tell Bryce is the same thing that drove him to DC in the first place.  Follow the money.

*probably would still be but it's early. Will need to think about it more. Think there is a reflexive turn to the Nats that might pull away again by season's start.

**in general keeping costs down though for the window.

Why isn't it Dozy-er?

Just wondering. "Dozsher" is no fun.  Brian "Dozy-er" - now that's a name I can get behind.

There are times when being a fan is better than being a souless automaton and the Nats recent signings is one of those times. I can look at Anibal Sanchez and Brian Dozier and see two players with pretty decent sized flaws, who are bigger risks than the Nats should be taking, who nonetheless should be projected to be pretty average in 2019.  The number are the numbers. A fan can sit there and say with a straight face "You are judging Anibal Sanchez too much on past years. You gotta look what he did last year!" and "You are judging Brian Dozier too much on last year. You gotta look what he did in past years!", not see what you are doing, and come up with a super Nats team. (also a pessimist is fun for opposite reasons)

And it goes beyond these two. Yan Gomes could bust. Trevor Rosenthal could bust.  And this is not in the "well anyone can bust" way but the "we just saw them bust over the past couple of years" way. I prefer a Gio - committing to the Nats motto of "be good enough to make the playoffs - then crapshoot" than this. It's kind of like trying to sneak into, rather than pay into, a super team. Give me more Suzukis and Barracloughs and a team that is expected to win 89-93 wins then these guys and a team that's expected to win 81-101 games. (Actually check that. Give me more Corbins)

Anyway Dozier. .235 25 HR decent defense. That was my take and that's what the projections say .  Why am I so worried about a bust? Usually, for offensive players, that worry follows an increased K rate, decreased BB rate. He might not be able to hit certain pitches in the zone. He may be chasing off-speed pitches because he can't get around on the fastball.  The eyesight and recognition might be gone just enough that he can't ID what's coming fast enough. The end result is the guy just isn't able to hit the ball anymore and there's no coming back from that. Dozier's numbers don't suggest this though. BB-rate and K-rate are stable.

What we do see is a drop in BABIP which usually indicates some bad luck. However it's coupled with a decrease in HR/FB rate which suggests a chunk of this is FBs staying in the park adding to the BABIP denominator not just hitting them where they are. That can also be fluky but it comes down a lot to what you believe. Dozier 2012-15 had BABIPs of .267 .278 .269 and .261.  His .240 is low but not too much off that. It only looks bad in comparison to the 2016-17 combo of .280 ad .300.  Dozier's HR/FB rate increased steadily 6.3% 9.9% 11.3% 13.1% 18.4%. In 2017 it took a little dip to 16.8% and last year down to 11.2%.  Look at all this and you can see a player with a bad year if you like. But you can also see a player who got kind of lucky the past two years and is really a low average, mild homer guy. Peak Danny Espinosa with worse fielding, more power.

So right away I don't like the trends. I also don't like what I see from his pull numbers (2015 - 60.2% then 56.4% 50.4% 49.9%)  His hard percentage has gone up... in fangraphs stats. But it's down on statcast and his exit velocity is down as well. It's just a MPH - which matters but isn't big. But as fangraphs notes - it's down much more on his FBs. This strikes me the way as a player who simply can't get around on the FB like he used to. The numbers from last year back that up.  He used to crush FBs to the point you'd wonder why'd he get any. Last year he was only noticeably positive on changes. This is screaming that he can't generate that down the line power and thus can't do what made him the very productive MVP vote getting player - bash homers and pair them with kind of good defense.

That's another thing - what had been a good, not great, defender last year showed real decrease. He'll be an upgrade, simply because post-injury Murphy should not have been at second. But it may be that he won't offer a good fielding alternative, he'll just be better than the worst. His speed went down and he tied his career low in SB. Not a big deal, but it takes away from something else you say he can offer. There's injuries here, yes, and the 'back spin" on injuries is now he's an injury risk and as he went into the off-season suffering from them who knows how long it will take him to recover?

What's the positive spin? Well, if you want to blame it all on injury then I guess you can say he'll get better (this is the "forward spin" from injury) then repeat 2016 and 2017. That can certainly explain the fielding issues, and can be thrown into the power argument in a way all injuries can be. He'll be 32 which is on the cusp of "probably not coming back from that" but I'd say not there yet. Some guys can't do it, some guys can keep coming back until they get into their later 30s. If he is facing a true decline, which is what I think, he does have a keen eye that hasn't left him and he could make himself into more of a patient hitter. In 2014 he was very valuable at the plate because he walked 90 times even though he hit only .242 with a moderate number (23) of  homers. That could be a plan 2019 Dozier. And of course there's Kendrick backing him up who should be fine. And he's better than Difo which was the alternative.

In the end you have to stick with the numbers and like I said .235 25 average-ish D is probably your best bet and that's fine. But ask me where I'd put my money between .215 18 poor D and .270 35 good D and I'm mortgaging the house to put it on the former.

The Nats are a good team. A very good team. They have been for years. In my mind you either do what they have been doing at different levels since 2014 - secure winning records by shoring up the bench and pen with decent players; or you go all in and try to secure, as much as one can, an even better expected record.  This type of variability to try to get those extra wins, to me, just adds uneeded possibility of another missed playoff run season. All those guys could completely fail, Gomes, Rosenthal, Dozier, Sanchez, and it wouldn't be that surprising and the Nats could go down with them. Why go at it that way?

The off-season isn't over though. Another good starter, another good pen arm, a Bryce, and then the Nats have made themselves better enough with more of an all-in strategy and this all becomes window dressing. So I'll hold off judging the off-season, as we should, until the off-season is actually over.  I don't like the current trend in signings but all it takes is one to break it.

Dozier

There's a couple ways of looking at it. My take boils down to this :

I think there's a fair chance at a complete bust with Dozier. Therefore I think there's more risk here than a contending team needs to take on for that money. Also I think the cost is a little high. Therefore, I think there is more value for that money that the Nats could have come away with. At the same time if I project what I think Dozier will do in 2019 I'd say around .235 and 25 homers and slightly below average defense which would be perfectly acceptable.

This all needs the context of time. If the Nats close up shop today, I'll see it worse than if the Nats keep spending money or make smart trades. Get a reliever and a starter then who cares if I think Dozier was a risk worth 4-5 million. They got the pieces they needed anyway. Get Bryce and I'll see a commitment to going for it that includes overpaying to get best team, and Dozier fits into that in some way. If the 2nd base market remains high and LeMahieu and Lowrie and Asdrubal all go for noteicably more, and even the middling guys like Harrison and Walker get 3-4-5 million. I'll admit I misread the market and Dozier's contract was perfectly fine.

So it's a deal in limbo. It's not bad in itself. But in context it might be.

(and of course YOU CAN MAKE A BAD DEAL THAT MAKES YOUR TEAM BETTER. Those are two separate evaluations) 

I'll have more tomorrow on why I feel the way I do about the risk.

Monday Quickie - impermanence

Apparently according to the comments, I both wildly overestimated and mildly underestimated how good the Nats are. I'd say that means I'm probably right becuase both side are unhappy, but it actually doesn't work that way. I think pythag is a good quick reference to a teams talent level for projecting forward. Anything other than W-L though, looking at the past year in review, is pointless. They may have had the talent of a 90 win team but they won 82 and in the end that's all that matters.

It'll be curious how this Nats team goes down in history.  Generally you are made by playoffs and championships and nothing else. Think of all those great teams that might have been, crushed by the  Yankees.  From 1936-1964 (29 seasons) the Yankees won 16 World Series and lost 6 more.  Great AL teams were obliterated. Great NL dynasties never came to pass

The mid 60s early 70s Orioles were a powerhouse - the team that started the idea of "the Oriole Way". They won 97 or more games 6 times in 11 years. They won one AL title pre '69 expansion, 5 AL East titles in 6 years, and made four WS. But as someone outside the region I only have a vague idea of how good they are, because they only won two WSs, three years apart. Who do we remember? The Chuck Finley A's.  A great team, no doubt - 5 straight AL West titles. But not better than that Oriole run... except they won three WSs in a row.

The Big Red Machine almost got lost. They won the West in 72 (lost to A's in WS), in 73 (lost to Mets in playoffs), nosed out in 74 after winning 98 games, and nearly lost the epic 1975 WS to the Red Sox, before dominating that second title run.  If they don't win back to back series do we care as much about them?  Well, what's your feelings about the 70s Dodgers? They'd have a decade without a losing season from '69-'78. They'd tack on five more good seasons in the next 7. But we think as much about Gibson's HR, a blip season surrounded by mediocrity, as we do the Garvey-Lopes-Russell-Cey teams.

Did you know the Phillies had back to back 100 win seasons in 75 and 76 and won the East 6 times in 8 years from 76-83? Probably not. You may note the Royals WS win in 1985, but they had been a snake-bit winner since 76.  We don't really get how big 1980 really was when the Royals finally beat the Yankees to make a series and the Phillies finally be the NL West team (this time the Astros) to do the same. And even then the Royals didn't get the memory cement until 1985 when they won a series of their own.

This is all history to me. At this point I start remembering things because I lived it. I But that's not the point - I bet the younger fans in general don't have those impressions bourn from watching these seasons play out. Just like I don't have the impressions I probably should about some of the teams I noted above.

What do 30 year olds think of the always there early-mid 80s Cardinals, who got into the series three times but only managed to win back in 82? Or the dominant mid-late 80s Mets who had a run on 98-108-92-100 but only got to and won that one WS? What do they think of the Bash Brothers A's - another dominant Athletics team that got to three series in a row, but unlike the Finley A's only managed to win one? Or the great Bonds/Bonilla run for the Pirates?

A 20 year old might think decently of the 90s Braves because the run was just so impressive (and honestly didn't end until they were into the game) despite only winning 1. But do they know how good those mid-late  90s Indians teams were? Ever think about the offensive powerhouse Texas teams of the late 90s or high quality Twins teams of the 00s (both crushed by the Yankees in playoffs)? The Killer B's Astros? I doubt it.

My point is - teams are defined by winning, not just in the regular season, but in the playoffs. Sure, there are going to be guys like me (and probably you) who dig into the game and see how good these teams really are but the dominant "mind-share" that are associated with squads comes down to making, and preferably winning, championships. In the old days, with only one round of playoffs before the series, you could just keep winning and eventually break through. Nearly all those teams before 95 had their moments in the sun through persevering. But now it's different. Another round makes it that much harder. The Nats have been great the past 7+ seasons but these Nats will ultimately be forgotten by those outside DC as soon as they stop winning. They best they can hope for is to be looked at like those late 90s Pirates teams - maybe vague memories of a great team with some great players that didn't quite get over the hump. Worst case is they are the 00s Twins - a team that's barely thought of or talked about in terms of baseball history.

This doesn't probably matter to you, but maybe it will in 20 years when you are trying to explain to someone how good the Nats of this time really were.

Robertson to Phillies - still not better than Mets who aren't better than Braves who I'm not sure

Let's understand again how last year ended

Standings
ATL 90-72
WSH 82-80
PHI 80-82
NYM 77-85

(we will ignore MIA because they are ignorable)

This paints a picture that suggests the Braves are a good team and the rest of the NL East is middling .500 types. But not only doesn't that feel right based on what we saw, we know this is not the best way to capture team talent. We know now, for example, that one-run losses tend to be random and occasionally teams lose a handful more than they should affecting their record.* What if we look at Pythag standings? This goes by runs scored and runs allowed to try to get a better picture of team quality.

ATL 92-70
WSH 90-72
NYM 78-84
PHI 76-86

This feels a little more right up top to me. The Braves and Nats were both good - though the Braves were a half-step better. The other two were noticeably less talented. But the Mets above the Phillies might feel wrong to you.  If it does, I encourage you to look at the 2018 Phillies again.  Not a single star on offesne and player after player ranging from below average to bad. Kingery got nearly 500 PAs and he was TERRIBLE. No one beyond Nola was good of the starters and there were a ton of bad innings there. The bullpen falls apart after 3-4 guys. It was not a good team.

Baseball Prospectus does an "Adjusted Standings" that tries even harder to pull luck out (though I'm unaware if it correlates any better with the next year standings than the pythag numbers - my guess would be not just because the variability of year to year rosters and performance)

ATL 94-68
WSH 91-72
NYM 79-83
PHI 79-83

The Mets are actually a half-win better than the Phillies but they both round the same way.

ATL :
Lost : Suzuki, Markakis, Anibal Sanchez - some limited good production from Duda, Brach (RP)
Gained : Donaldson, McCann

They lost some noticeable production. Even if it was unlikely to be kept up it needs to be replaced. But Donaldson could alone cover for Markakis, Suzuki, and Duda. The Braves have plenty of young arms to replace Sanchez. Kind of a push

WSN :
Lost : Bryce, Hellickson, Reynolds, Roark, Gio, Murphy, Kintzler, Holland, Herrera (I'm just sort of listing productive players for teams)
Gained : Corbin, Sanchez, Suzuki, Gomes, Barraclough, Rosenthal

There's a lot of change isn't there? Corbin and Sanchez should make up for Gio and Roark and Hellickson (if not do more) the bullpen might be ok. They aren't likely gaining much but they aren't losing much either. But there's a offense gap with no Bryce and Murphy that hasn't been filled. Sure that's a bump from catcher and some injury helpbut you'd probably give them a game less at least?

NYM
Lost : Mesoraco, Blevins, Flores, Cabrera, CESPEDES**
Gained : Cano, Edwin Diaz, Ramos

The Mets don't have a lot of decent players and they lost 3 solid bats (though one they only had for a limited time), but they replaced them with two guys who should be as good, if not better - at least in 2019. The pen got a lot better. They are likely better with the same injury status and if they get healthier maybe much? Still they were a below .500 team so they need definitely much to get into the playoffs picture. ** Someone reminded me Cespedes is unlikely to play this year - that's would be huge but he only played a quarter of the season. Still it's the equivalent of a very good back-up being gone, so I knocked the Mets down a peg across the board below...


PHI
Lost : Cabrera, Ramos,Crawford, Santana, Luis Garcia
Gained : McCuthchen, Robertson, Segura, Nicasio, Jose Alvarez

The Phillies didn't have many FAs so the guys they lost were guys traded for or traded away. There are gains offensively, and noticeable gains in the pen but I can't say they maybe much better unless something happens that we can't predict - like a break out star performance.

Right now I'd have the records at something like
ATL 92-70
WSH 90-72
NYM 86-76 85-77 (healthy)
PHI 82-80

Maybe I'm putting the Mets a game or two high? Phillies a game or two low? Mets 85-77 84-78 Phillies 83-79?  The Nats have lost so much that even though they gained a lot they are treading water, so the also treading water Braves stay ahead. The Mets get alot better (again if healthy) but they still need something else to make the playoffs be a realistic goal and not a "if things go right" situation. The Phillies are looking like the odd man out.

What would a Bryce or Machado signing do? I'd move the Phillies to like 86-88. In the realm of the Mets "if things go right", fringy WC but also with less worry about health. Kuechel probably wouldn't be enough for me... maybe 85-86.  But both? Then they are a 90 win team and right there with Nats and Braves. That would be fun (for me, not as much for you probably)


*Could it be something psychological? Sure! But we also have seen teams that are basically the same - same rosters, same coach - wildly swing in this.  It's one of those things that certainly could exist, probably does for some teams over the years, but isn't reliably measurable and thus better put on a backburner for any projection analysis.

Wednesday Quickie - Transaction recap.

Hey everyone! Welcome back.  Let's get our footing back by going over anything you may have missed (or really what I may have missed) over the break

The Dodgers traded Puig, Kemp, Wood, and Farmer to Reds for Homer Bailey and a couple of prospects
This is seen by most as a way to free some cash and definitely OF space for Bryce Harper. The Dodgers deny this, but of course they would deny this. 

The Padres signed Ian Kinsler
The Rockies signed Daniel Murphy
The second base market is thinning out as teams see value here and are grabbing guys before they have to pay a lot for a player.  Murphy and Kinsler were two of the top options. Paying now is a gamble of sorts because there will be someone available for super cheap who will do perfectly fine because of the glut of "should be about average in 2019" guys out there. You could save money waiting. The Nats seem to be focused on Josh Harrison. The only question is if they wait to see if they can get that deal or feel forced to pull the trigger earlier. Still it won't cost them much.  Lowrie has been floated around but is still seen as unlikely as he's looking to get paid for a few years

The Cardinals signed Andrew Miller
The Brewers traded Domingo Santana for Ben Gamel
While we talked about the NL East setting themselves up for the next season with a lot of big moves, the NL Central hasn't been quiet.  The Cardinals grabbed Goldschmidt earlier and with Miller are potentially ready for a big step forward with one more big move. The Brewers, on the other hand, are trying to fix the edges of a successful 2018 squad, trading for a better fit 4th OF in the high-average potential of Gamel (Santana is a better hitter but a poor fielder and had no starting spot) and earlier a decent bet for a good bullpen arm in Alex Claudio.  The Cubs have been suspiciously quiet in the face of this and I wouldn't be surprised if they surprise. The Reds, long an afterthought in MLB off-seasons, seem to be looking to set up 2020 in 2019

There are a bunch of teams in these two divisions setting themselves up for 2019. The end result is two fold though. (1) Someone is going to be left out. This is what I keep talking about for the Phillies. No Machado, no Bryce and suddenly they are passing on 2019 and hoping things stay together and the FA market holds and they can lure guys NEXT year.  That's never a good plan. (2) The NL West is going to set up very nicely for the Dodgers and potentially an easy WC for the Rockies

Padres traded Clayton Richard to Blue Jays
A's signed Mike Fiers
Angels signed Trevor Cahill and Matt Harvey and LuCroy
Did the Nats need to sign Anibal Sanchez? For that much? Well here are some pitching deals that took place in the face of the Nats move. Perfectly cromulent rotation filler Richard was traded for nothing. Mike Fiers, with less history of being good than Anibal* but more health, signed a cheaper deal to stay in Oakland. Two gambles who were decent last year and signed for less were picked up by the Angels (good luck with all that)..  All this seems to say No and No were the answers but good luck to you Anibal. (Still - I can't say it's a bad deal. So don't try to read this as that)

Rangers traded Profar to the A's
This happened. Doesn't really impact the Nats but it is kind of a symbol of a "can't miss" rebuild that kind of missed. The Rangers rose to be a top level farm in 2010-2016 while being a playoff team that managed two WS appearances. The future looked very bright, but that pipeline of talent would translate into two LDS losses and four missed playoffs between 2013-2018.  There's a young crowd still left there but the smart money is probably on a sell-off of the offensive talent as there is no pitching at all to back it up.  Never buy into a great farm translating into a great team. There's too much variability in players. (This goes double for betting on not a farm but a handful of players - which is kind of what the Nats are doing currently)


*though Anibal's being good was like half a decade ago.