The Nationals Interest

Here's an idea...

2007-06-06T14:29:00.000-05:00

If the Nationals had any marketing prowess, they would buy Walter Johnson's former house in Bethesda at the corner of Old Georgetown and Cedar Lane and turn it into a museum. We've said this before, but it's a shame that the Nationals don't do more to embrace the history of the Washington Senators. Johnson was the team's best player, and the Nats should wrap the franchise in his memory. We blamed their failure to do this on major league baseball, but MLB no longer owns the franchise.

If there aren't any historical structure restrictions, the Lerners could move it to the the parking lot of the new stadium. If that's not possible, make the house a museum in Bethesda.

The organization is running out of excuses for its lame marketing. How about some creative thinking, people?!

Blockbuster Wizards Trade?

2007-06-06T06:46:00.000-05:00

Ethan's post about a Wizards/Lakers trade got me to thinking about some moves the Wizards might want to make. How about this: Arenas, their first round pick, and maybe a guy like Haywood for the Blazers' first pick and some stiffs?

Arenas is undoubtedly the Wizards best player, but the Wizards as currently configured are unlikely to get to a championship level. It's very hard to improve in the NBA, and without top draft picks or cap room a team like the Wizards has very limited tools to use in improving. So, maybe they have to break out of this box and do something dramatic.

Getting the next dominant center is pretty dramatic. I don't know whether Portland would part with Oden, but the Wizards have been without a productive big man (at either the center or power forward positions) for what seems like forever. Arenas, Butler, and Jamison are nice, but without a good player at the 4 or 5 spots, good luck and good night.

Leiv

Nat's lose to Pirates 7-6

2007-06-06T05:23:00.000-05:00

The nationals lost last night to the pirates 7-6. The nationals had help from Ryan Church who had 3 hits and 2 runs. Felipe Lopez drove in 2 runs and Mike Bacsik gave up 6 hits/6 runs in 6 innings. It's funny because Mike Bacsik woke up with a stomach ailment. This brings me back to think when they were doing well in their first half of their first season. Everyone was excited, and I loved watching their games, now I don't that often. I am hoping that before I go to college they will ever be exceptionaly good. They lose .600 of their games. It's just terrible. I want your thoughts.

Erik

Nat's new stadium

2007-06-05T18:23:00.000-05:00

I was biking with my family once and we found out like the Anacostia River, I think. So, we got there and we couldn't find how to get to the bike path. (The bike path was on the other side of the river) So we were just biking around town when my dad and I found out that we were near the National's new stadium. We got there and there was a lot of traffic and noise. I just thought it was so cool because the Nat's don't get a lot of excitement after the 1st season and they will get some excitement from the cool stadium. You might want to check it out with your family one day. It's pretty cool.

Erik

But What Does He Know About Basketball?

2007-06-04T17:05:00.000-05:00

Erik's recent musings have inspired me to play GM: would the fans of the Wizards be willing to trade Gilbert Arenas for Andrew Bynum?

The salaries don't fit is an unacceptable response.

I digress. Erik's appreciation for all things Lebron is echoed here on the Left Coast. However, these NBA Finals, like so many recent NBA Finals, will be boring. And that boredom evolves from neither the talents nor the passions of the Spurs or Cavaliers. It is a by-product of the lengthy NBA season.

Which brings me to the point of today's Post. If David Stern intends to cement his legacy as a Great Commissioner, accompanied in the pantheon by only Pete Rozelle and Bowie Kuhn, he needs to do something about the NBA regular season.

Some demand to shorten the season. However, in the immortal words of Celtic Legend, "Cornbread" Maxwell (I paraphrase), "...and earn less money?" The Players' Union will cease to exist before the season is shortened.
Some, like Mark Heisler of the LA Times, call for the Conference Finals to be re-seeded in a 1-4 bracket. That is still boring.

The NBA - if it intends to be Great - needs to take a page from club soccer and make the sport a year-round event. Tournaments and Invitationals should break-up the "regular season." NBA teams should play European teams in 8-team invitationals. The FIBA World Cup and the Olympics should get more play. Heck, wouldn't it be great to see the bottom four of the NBA take on the NCAA Final Four? Now, that's must see-TV!

Ethan

A digression from baseball...

2007-06-03T07:08:00.000-05:00

The Cleveland Cavaliers beat the Detroit Pistons 98-82 last night. Daniel Gibson had a great game, especially 19 points in the 4th quarter, 31 points on the night.

I'm not really a fan of the Cavaliers; I like the Wizards and Lakers. I am rooting for the the Cavs after the Wizards got out because of Lebron James. He runs the team and is so fun to watch. Lebron doesn't get recognized enough for making his teammates better. He usually gets recognized for his points.

I don't think that points make people great. I think their all around skills do. For example, Gilbert Arenas is popular all around DC for scoring 30 PPG, but does he make his teammates better? Antawn Jamison had his best games when Arenas was out, although Caron Butler pretty clearly was a better player when Arenas was in the lineup. The Wizards could be a much better team if they get a plan for going forward that makes sense. Any plan like that has to involve getting a productive big man. The Wizards have been without one for years, and they'll never take the next step without one. They don't need Tim Duncan, but they do need someone who can rebound, play good defense, and score when needed.

Right now their plan is to get the ball to the big 3, Gil, Caron, and Antawn. That's not bad, but it won't get them to the championship series. Last season, Caron and Gil were injured for like 1/3 or 1/4 of the season, maybe even more. We can't blame them for being bad late in the season, but we can ask what is the plan for the future? I don't see one. It's ridiculous; I just don't get it. I want your thoughts.

Erik

Further Adventures with Trivia

2007-06-02T13:32:00.000-05:00

Last week's visit by the Dodgers has conspired with the previous post to create treacly feelings within regarding the career of Don Sutton. For those of you too young to remember Sutton was Tom Delay to Steve Garvey's Mitt Romney.
Sutton's career was not without significance. However, with regards towards Righties who started for the Dodgers, he only straddles the great divide that separates the likes of Drysdale and Hershiser from Ramon Martinez.
What is astonishing is how Sutton fit in within the parameters of success within his era. The Trivia Answer reveals that Sutton was remarkable for his durability - indeed, nos. 2 through 8 on the list are all occupied by pitchers from the late '60s through the 1970s.
What was it about the strengh of these pitcher's bodies that enabled such longetivity? Or, does responsibility for this statistical revelation lie within the minds of the managerial class?

Ethan

Trivia Answer

2007-05-31T21:48:00.000-05:00

Most Career Games Started by a Pitcher (at the end of last season):

815 Cy Young
773 Nolan Ryan
756 Don Sutton
716 Phil Niekro
709 Steve Carlton
700 Tommy John
690 Gaylord Perry
685 Bert Blyleven
681 Jim Galvin
673 Greg Maddux
666 Walter Johnson
665 Warren Spahn
647 Tom Seaver
635 Tom Glavine

Leiv

Trivia

2007-05-30T21:53:00.000-05:00

Most trivia regarding career numbers for a right-handed pitcher is dominated by Cy Young, so most everything is a race for second place. And most of these stats are dominated by pitchers who threw in the dead ball era.

Most career games started by a pitcher is a surprising exception. Check out the top 25 in this category. Answers tomorrow.

Good night and good luck.

Leiv

What Do Brad Penny and Andrew Bynum Have in Common?

2007-05-30T09:12:00.000-05:00

Brad Penny shut down the Nats last night. No great revelation there. However, Penny's success this season mirrors that of another outstanding power pitcher in the NL West, Jake Peavy.
Devoted readers of this blog will no doubt recall that Penny was acquired by the Dodgers to fulfill their aspirations of having a No. 1 starter in their rotation. Since that trade, Penny has taken his fair share of abuse for failing to live up to that reputation. Nonetheless, he is an excellent starting pitcher and he provides the Dodgers with a critical counter-weight in any late season matchups against Peavy and the Padres. While Peavy may be the more accomplished of the two starters, it must be reassuring to Dodger management (if not their fans) that they have someone who can at least provide a challenge to Peavy and the Padres and make them earn any late-season victories.
Of course, all of this is prelude to the real purpose of this post. The Lakers. We'll hold off on the Kobe Bryant melodrama for another day (or at least until Dr. Buss posts bail). However, the significance of a Peavy-Penny September matchup brings up the fact as to how the recent NBA Draft Lottery has tied the Lakers hands. Barring injury, Greg Oden should dominate the Western Conference playoffs for the next 10-15 years. For any team in the West to seriously challenge the Trailblazers they will need a center who can compete with Oden. Such persons are hard to find. Fortunately, the Lakers have one in Andrew Bynum.
However, Bynum is the likeliest candidate for trade to appease the "win with Kobe now" crowd.
Of such conundrums are headaches made. No wonder Dr. Buss was arrested for DUI.

Ethan

Whither Ryan Zimmerman?

2007-05-24T07:34:00.000-05:00

Yes, we know, that it's only May, but it's time to start thinking about a sophomore slump for Ryan Zimmerman. His line has dropped 50 points. Last year, his line was .287/.351/.471. This year it has dropped to .250/.305/.417. Especially troubling is the 50 point drop in OBP; it suggests that rather than learning to be more patient, Zimmerman is taking the bait of pitchers who don't see much reason to throw to a dangerous hitter in the midst of a substandard lineup.

Yes, it's only May, but Zimmerman has almost 200 at bats. That's more than enough to make this year so far a statistically significant sample.

Is this all $28 million buys you?

2007-05-24T07:33:00.001-05:00

The $28 million man isn't going to earn his keep at this pace.

In appreciation of Ken Griffey Jr.

2007-05-23T06:39:00.000-05:00

Here's what Manny Acta says in today's Post about Ken Griffey Jr.:

"He's just amazing. He's a guy that, no contest, if he wouldn't have gotten hurt and lost all those games, he probably would be chasing 800 home runs now."

Acta seems to be saying that had injuries not slowed him, Griffey would be neck-and-neck with Bonds in the home run race. Griffey was once thought of as the next Willie Mays, but his stock has taken a tumble as he has fallen prey to debilitating injuries over the past five years. It's commonly thought that the injuries kept him from becoming a latter-day Willie Mays, but is that really true?

I must admit that I was skeptical when I read Acta's comments, but I've got to say now that it's undoubtedly correct that Griffey would have compared favorably to Willie Mays had he played without injury, although he probably would not have approached a Bondsian level of performance.

Here are some of his career numbers from baseball-reference.com. OPS+ is an adjusted OPS calculation normalized for the park effects and the league; it essentially expresses as a percentage the rate a player performs above or below league average, with 100 being average. The last column is my calculation of the number of the average number of at bats it took Griffey to hit a home run.

Year	G	AB	HR	OPS+	AB/HR
1989	127	455	16	108	28.44
1990	155	597	22	135	27.14
1991	154	548	22	155	24.91
1992	142	565	27	148	20.93
1993	156	582	45	172	12.93
1994	111	433	40	170	10.83
1995	72	260	17	120	15.29
1996	140	545	49	153	11.12
1997	157	608	56	164	10.86
1998	161	633	48	149	13.19
1999	160	606	40	138	15.15
2000	145	520	22	128	23.64
2001	111	364	8	130	45.50
2002	70	197	13	100	15.15
2003	53	166	20	140	8.30
2004	83	300	35	128	8.57
2005	128	491	27	138	18.19
2006	109	428	10	96	42.80

A few conclusions emerge from the data. First, Griffey is undeniably a great hitter, one of the game's best.

Second, his power gradually increased during the first few years of his career, and then dramatically improved beginning in 1993 and stayed generally consistent through 1998. Those were Griffey's best years and among the best years most hitters could ever hope to have.

Third, Griffey's power reached its peak in 1997 and began a slow decline in 1998 that reached its nadir in 2001. Interestingly, though, Griffey's OPS+ was fairly consistent throughout the rise and fall of his home run rate. It was below the level of the 1993-1997 years, but it was still well above the league average.

Fourth, Griffey appears now to be in the twilight years of his career. He's had a steep drop-off in both his home run and OPS+ rate, and he appears unlikely ever again to approach his power levels of even a few years ago.

Finally, had Griffey performed between 2000 and 2003 as he did in 1999 and 2004, he would have hit another 89 home runs, meaning that instead of 573 career home runs today, he would have 662. That's definitely at the level of Willie Mays, who hit 660 career home runs, but it's about 85 behind Barry Bonds. Given Griffey's greatness with the glove in center field, he probably would have been every bit the equal of Willie Mays had he not been injured.

But Barry Bonds? Sorry, Manny, but we don't think so.

Expect an expectations problem...

2007-05-22T06:18:00.000-05:00

The Nationals lost 8-7 to the Reds last night, blowing leads of 6-0, 6-2, and 7-5. There is a lot of criticism to be levied for that, and much of it has rightly been aimed at Jon Rauch. Rauch gave up the ghost in the eighth when Javier Valentin, a .239 hitter with 40 career home runs, hit a three-run home run. Today's Post article notes that many, including Rauch himself, are taking Rauch to task for his poor performance.

We're certaintly not going to defend Rauch's gopheritis last night, but we do think that expectations may be a bit out of kilter. He had arguably his best year last year, posting an ERA of 3.35 in 91 innings and 85 appearances. His appearances last year should raise a red flag, though. Prior to last year, the most innings he had pitched in a single year was 30, and that was in 2005. That means that over the last two years he pitched in 100 games and logged 121 innings. That compares very unfavorably to his workload over the three years before that: in those three years, Rauch appeared in only 19 games and threw only 61 2/3 innings.

Will Rauch duplicate his 2006 success in 2007? Maybe, but he's on pace to appear in 85 games again this year. That's a lot of work for a reliever over the last few years, and it's possible that Rauch is running out of gas.

But more to the point, a lot is being expected of Rauch. He's throwing so many innings because the Nationals are depending on him to an extraordinary extent. He has become their primary set-up man.

Is our faith in him deserved? Rauch is a useful pitcher and should definitely be on the roster, but he's not a primary set-up guy for a contending team. His career ERA is almost 4.00, and heisn't the kind of dominating pitcher you'd like to see in the primary set-up role. He averaged almost 9 strikeouts per nine innings last year, which is a phenomenal rate, but his career rate is closer to 6, which is where he is so far this season.

Don't get us wrong--we like Rauch. But if the Nationals were a well-run baseball organization, they'd have a guy like Jonathan Broxton, primary set-up man for the Dodgers. Broxton's numbers are out of this world. He has an ERA of 1.13, has allowed about one baserunner per inning, and is averaging about one strikeout per inning. And, get this, he's earning only $390,000 this year.

There a lot of good pitchers out there, and hopefully the Nationals are cultivating talent that one day will populate their bullpen. Until then, we'll continue to ask too much of guys like Jon Rauch.

Jekyll and Bowden

2007-05-21T11:26:00.001-05:00

We just got finished saying that Jim Bowden made a great trade in getting Austin Kearns, Felipe LOpez, and Ryan Wagner from the Reds for Gary Majewski. Now that we've let that linger for a few hours, it's time to bring our views of Bowden back down to earth.

On Saturday Darrell Rasner was the Yankees' starting pitcher. He threw all of nine pitches before Endy Chavey hit a shot back at the box that broke Rasner's finger. You can see the play here. Rasner is now out for 3 months.

You may remember the name "Darrell Rasner" because he pitched for the Nationals in 2005. Bowden put Rasner on waivers for reasons that are known only to him. Rasner pitched well for the Yankees last year after a September call up and put himself in position to crack the starting rotation this year, which he did after the team's rotation imploded.

Rasner isn't the next Roger Clemens, but he's got some promise. Why would a team like the Nationals who need live arms let one go? We need to be stockpiling good arms, not squandering them on the waiver wire.

You think?

2007-05-21T06:14:00.000-05:00

The Post reports today that the Nationals fleeced the Reds in the Kearns/Majewski trade. That is the understatement of the century. Gary Majewski is mired in the minors and shoulder tendinitis may keep him and his now underperforming fastball there for a long time.

So, in exchange for a guy the Reds haven't been able to use, the Nationals got Austin Kearns, who has proven what we thought we already knew--he is a good, professional hitter. Analyzing that part of the trade is obvious--in a Majewski for Kearns swap, the Nationals clearly got the better of the deal.

But we probably disagree with a lot of people regarding the other players the Nationals got in the trade. We don't think much of Felipe Lopez. His career line is not great(.260/.330/.404), although it's pretty good for a shortstop. The problem is that no one wanted to use him as a shortstop because his defense is substandard. As a second basemen, he's not such a defensive liability, but his offensive output relative to other second basemen makes him more of an offensive liability. And his defense isn't so great to compensate for those offensive problems. That's especially true in RFK, where Lopez is bound to underperform his career numbers. He sure is so far this year (.239/.292/.339).

On the other hand, we think getting Ryan Wagner was a good move, even if Wagner hasn't done much yet. Wagner is one of those guys who looks like a closer, but never quite is able to play the part. Chances are that he won't fit the bill, but then how many young closers in waiting turn out to be full timers? Not many, but why not take the chance? It wasn't like the Nationals were giving up a lot, and they're a team that needs to take chances on younger talent.

Of course, all of this could change if the Reds win their grievance against the Nationals, which asserts that Jim Bowden knew that Majewski was injured before he traded him, but failed to disclose that to the Reds. We assume that the Nats will win the grievance because we can't believe Bowden would be so stupid to do what the Reds accuse him of doing. This is the same guy, after all, who wouldn't trade Alfonso Soriano because he thought the price he was offered was too low and making the trade for that price would harm his credibility with other clubs. Maybe so (although we think he should have made a trade), but if you're so worried about your credibility that you won't make a trade that gives you something when you otherwise will be left with nothing, why would you be deliberately dishonest?

Well, anything is possible, I guess. This is Jim Bowden, after all.

We know, we know--we're bad!

2007-05-17T15:51:00.000-05:00

Two depressing facts from the Elias Sports Bureau:

• Ryan Church's three-run double was the key hit in Washington's 6-4 victory over Atlanta. Entering the game, the Nationals were batting .135 with the bases loaded this season, the second-lowest average in the major leagues, ahead of only San Diego (.094).

• Washington used seven pitchers in the game, the fourth time in the major leagues this season that a team used as many as seven pitchers in a nine-inning victory. The Nationals have accounted for two of those four instances; Manny Acta used seven pitchers on April 4 against Florida, resulting in the first major-league victory of his managerial career.

John Smoltz: Baseball Elder

2007-05-17T07:48:00.000-05:00

You have to check out this interview with John Smoltz. The interview begins at the 9:28 mark. His comments about the Nationals, the Braves' transformation from a bad to a great team, and Ryan Zimmerman's development are remarkably interesting and insightful. Smoltz will make a great GM one day.

When the Audacity of Hope Fades

2007-05-16T23:41:00.000-05:00

2007 will go down as the year that the Lerner/Kasten Regime began its top-to-bottom review of what the organization has today and what it needs to be successful next year and beyond.

With 40 games under its belt, we now know the Washington Nationals to be a .350 team, despite their admirable .500 performance in the last 10 games. We know that with a quarter of the season passed, the Nats are baseball's worst-hitting team. We also know that, unlike last year, the Nats have no individual stars on offense. How bad is it without Soriano? Consider this: no Nat even appears in the National League's top 20 in the major offensive categories of R, HR, RBI, AVG, OBP, SLG and OPS. Incredibly, only one Nat -- Ryan Church -- appears in the NL's top 40 in these categories (clocking in at 21st for OBP and 39th for OPS).

With performance like this, it takes a certain audacity to believe in the Nats this year and to hope that the current starting eight will develop into major offensive contributors next year and beyond. With the exception of the promise of Ryan Zimmerman, it is hard to believe that any Nat has a realistic chance of being an above-league-average offensive player and that anyone except Church and Austin Kearns will be league-average producers. (Yes, we know that Nick Johnson lurks in the background, but we'll deal with him soon enough!)

While the Nats' pitchers have been marginally more effective, there is no one on the current roster who projects as anything better than a third or fourth starter on a competitive team, and no Philip Hughes-equivalent waiting in the Nats' minor-league teams.

Is it time to re-start a sustained drumbeat to drive Bowden out of his job? It's tough to see why not. Bowden in 2007 is a known quantity, and he no longer deserves the ability to use otherwise legitimate excuses about the team's poor performance -- ownership uncertainty, long-term franchise neglect -- to justify a future in Washington.

Bowden's tenure in Washington -- granted, under unique and difficult circumstances in 2005-06 -- is poor. The Nats were worse in 2006 than 2005. And 2007 is quickly shaping up to be worse than 2006. More troubling, though, is that Bowden's Nats today have fewer league-average-or-better players and fewer promising such prospects than at any time since the team arrived in DC. We know the plan has been to develop young talent internally and through strategic trades, but today there are no indications that Bowden is successfully implementing that plan. And, off the field, Bowden embarrassed the organization with his DUI arrest last year.

Bowden's tenure in Cincinnati also was, ultimately, a failure. While he ran the Reds for 10.5 years, he only had one playoff birth to show for his efforts -- in 1995, when the Reds had the NL's second-highest payroll and won the NL Central but lost in the NLCS. By 2003, the Reds fired Bowden, tiring of the Reds' poor performance under his stewardship and of his antics. Bowden appeared to sew his fate in Cincinnati when, less than a year after 9/11, and with MLB and the Players' Association in the middle of negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement, Bowden unforgivably suggested that if the players "do walk out, make sure it's Sept. 11. Be symbolic. Let Donald Fehr drive the plane right into the building, if that's what they want to do." Bowden followed up that chestnut with a lame and insincere apology.

We're not trying to suggest that Bowden is the worst GM ever, but there's no longer any compelling reason to keep him as the Nats' GM, if there ever was one. Bowden's got a proven track record of mediocrity, and his personal antics at times have made him a distraction and an embarrassment to his employers. Why, under those circumstances, should he continue to receive the benefit of the doubt, especially when there are so many other promising GM candidates who would love to work for the Nats -- a team with low short-term expectations, solid upper management, a new stadium coming online and a fan base that is too young to be jaded?

The Nats and Bowden have been selling their fans on the audacity of hope since 2005. Yet what we lack are any tangible signs to be hopeful. We can't do anything to significantly upgrade the player talent base in the short term. Yet ditching Bowden and hiring a Paul DePodesta (an Alexandria, VA native) or another promising GM would be the easiest and most effective move the Nats could make to restore a little hope.

What does Jimbo have up his sleeve?

2007-05-16T20:37:00.000-05:00

From Bill Ladson's chat:

Do the Nats regret not re-signing Alfonso Soriano? Soriano is a five-tool player.
-- David M., Washington, D.C.

I don't think they regret it at all. There was no way they were going to sign Soriano to an eight-year, $136 million deal. I agree with "The Plan." They have to address their Minor League system. That does not mean, however, they are not trying to improve their Major League team. When the club was in San Diego, general manager Jim Bowden said he was looking to trade for a slugger, which they desperately need.

We agree with almost everything Ladson says. Of course, passing on a $136 million deal for Soriano was a no-brainer, but failing to deal him last season wasn't.

But here is our main point: a "slugger"? The Nationals definitely need one, actually a few, but who are they going to trade to get one? Assuming Bowden means a legitimate slugger and not a retread like Preston Wilson (remember that allegedly great trade?), there isn't a whole lot the Nationals have to give. We'll stay tuned, but we're skeptical.

Just how bad is the Nationals' offense?

2007-05-16T05:58:00.000-05:00

Pretty bad.

We've talked a lot about how this season has produced a few pleasant surprises on the Nationals' pitching staff. We haven't talked much about any pleasant surprises among Nationals hitters. There is a good reason for that--there aren't any.

Think about it this way: only four Nationals hitters with more than 50 plate appearances have a VORP (value over replacement player) higher than Shawn Hill. That's Shawn Hill the hitter, not the pitcher. HIll's VORP as a hitter is 1.1; only Ryan Church (10.5), Austin Kearns (5.7), Dimitri Young (1.7), and Brian Schneider (1.3) have higher VORP scores than Hill.

You think that's bad? It gets worse. Only two Nationals hitters have positive PMLV scores. PMLV stands for Positional Marginal Lineup Value; it measures the runs a hitter contributes beyond what an average player at the same position would produce in a team of otherwise league-average hitters. In other words, it measures whether a positional player is adding anything offensively beyond what you could get at the same position off the proverbial baseball street. PMLV is more useful than VORP because there are some positions--first base, for example--from which we expect significant offensive production. It doesn't do much good to have a hitter playing first base who produces only a marginally positive VORP when good first basemen are producing VORP scores well over zero. As we'll soon see, this is a particular problem for the Nationals at first base.

Only two Nationals hitters with more than 50 plate appearances have positive PMLV scores--Ryan Church (5.4) and Austin Kearns (2.0). The rest have scores that are abysmal:

Player	PMLV
Brian Schneider	-1.1
Dimitri Young	-2.6
Ronnie Belliard	-3.3
Ryan Zimmerman	-5.3
Felipe Lopez	-6.6

Although Brian Schneider and Dimitri Young have positive VORP scores, their offensive production is materially worse than an average player at their positions.

These statistics are truly depressing. The Nationals are fielding positive offensive contributors at only two positions--center and right field--and even there the positive contributions aren't great. At every other position the team is fielding a player whose production is worse than what the team could get from just an average player. It doesn't take a baseball genius to realize that you aren't going to win many games with that kind of paltry production.

We said before that there haven't been any pleasant surprises among Nationals hitters. That was a bit of an exaggeration; sometimes as we try to write with a flourish our words get out in front of our meaning. Anyway, watch Jesus Flores. He's had only 33 plate appearances, but his VORP is 3.0, and we think he could be a material upgrade from Brian Schneider. If the Nationals were smart, they would find a way to trade Schneider for a minor leaguer and give Flores a chance to prove himself.

It's possible to argue that Ryan Church has been a pleasant surprise, but what we've seen in the past is pretty much what we're going to get from him. We don't mean to suggest that Church isn't a useful player. He is, but he's probably more of a fourth outfielder than a starter on a contending team.

And, please, spare us any talk of Cristian Guzman's performance this far. Yes, his PMLV score is 1.1, but he's had only 37 plate appearances, and we're confident that his production by the end of the season will be solidly negative.

A star emerges? How about a good pitcher?

2007-05-15T07:56:00.000-05:00

We said yesterday that we would learn a lot about Jason Bergmann in games like last night's game against the Braves. Bergmann has pitched well this season, but he needs to be consistently good against good teams before he can assume the mantle of a #4 or #3 starter.

Well, we learned a lot about Bergmann after last night's stellar performance. Bergmann was flawless for seven innings, taking a no-hitter into the eighth. Brian McCann had the temerity to break up the no-hitter with a solo homerun, but Bergmann finished the eighth with the Nats up 2-1. Amazingly, this was Bergmann's first win despite the fact that he has been the Nationals' best pitcher.

We realize that being "the Nationals' best pitcher" isn't exactly a crowning achievement, but for a guy who in spring training was a baseball unknown to anyone outside his immediate family, that's quite a success story.

Bergmann's stats are lights out. His ERA is 2.76, he's allowing only one base runner per inning, and hitters are whiffing against him (.162/.253/.306). If anything, Bergmann has been too good, meaning that he can't continue at this pace indefinitely. His BABIP (batting average on balls in play) is .183, which is shockingly low and unsustainable. Still, we're not talking about someone whose performance suggests his ERA will balloon to 5. Bergmann has pitched well enough to be considered a real prospect for a rotation spot well into the future of this team. Let's hope he keeps it up.

Speaking of another success story, Cristian Guzman was 2-4 with another triple. He now has two triples in two games, which is one-third the total he had in all of 2005. Shockingly, Guzman's line is pretty good: .323/.364/.452. Don't get used to this, though, because Guzman has had only 31 at bats. We're confident we'll soon see the Cristian we all know and loathe.

Jesus Colome got the save in place of Chad Cordero. [Full disclosure--I just picked up Colome in my fantasy league and now want him to get gobs of saves.] Colome has pitched well this season, but he's got a long way to go before we can say he's a good pitcher. His walks per nine innings are way too high, and he walks as many batters as he strikes out per nine innings (5.47). That's not a recipe for long-term success.

A Fate Worse Than Death?

2007-05-14T12:51:00.000-05:00

In a development overshadowed by last night's stunning episode of the Sopranos, we learn here that the sore elbow of the Nationals' leading All-Star candidate, Shawn Hill, will likely send him to the DL. Hill described his elbow as "tender" but "not too bad," which sounds slightly less painful than Christopher Moltisanti's bloody demise. Sore pitcher elbows have a way of requiring surgery to make them right, which we can only hope is not required. As we've stated before, the Nats must focus this season on finding back-of-the-rotation starters to help them next year and beyond. That's hard to do when the most promising candidates are injured and cannot develop themselves. It also hurts when no pitcher -- starting or relief -- even has 25 career wins' worth of experience. While Hill's 5 career wins and first 50 innings this year are a great beginning, it would be tough to slot him as a reliable starter next year if his sore elbow turns into season-ending surgery.

In a parallel development that warms our hearts and mitigates the pain in Hill's elbow, Christian Guzman delivered an epic 2-RBI performance on Sunday (the words Guzman and RBI have not appeared in the same sentence in nearly 2 years). Guzman's efforts helped the Nats to a rare sweep. For those of you keeping score at home, that's $8M and 2 RBIs in the last 2 years.

You can't stop us, you can only hope to contain us...

2007-05-14T06:57:00.000-05:00

The Nationals did something they haven't done all season and may not do again: they swept a series, this time against the Florida Marlins.

As amazing as it is to say, the Nationals' starting pitching is the best thing about this team right now, even though John Patterson and Chad Cordero have pitched like Manny Acta. Who would have thought before the season began we would say that at any time this season? But it's true: Jason Bergmann and Shawn Hill have pitched very effectively, and, with Jason Simontacchi's victory yesterday....

Wait a minute! Let's not get carried away here. Simontacchi gave up 10 baserunners and 3 earned runs in only 5 1/3 innings. It's not like we're talking Sandy Koufax here. And the Nats are 12-25, only one-half game ahead of the worst record in baseball.

Still, if you're a discerning Nationals fan, you can see at least some small glimmer of hope. The Nationals' pitching staff shows that it's possible for this team to develop some pretty good starting pitchers--back of the rotation guys--and most of a bullpen this year without having to make any trade or sign any free agents. Bergmann, Hill, and Jon Rauch can all be productive pitchers. Matt Chico and Ryan Wagner are projects, but there is enough talent there to warrant a team like the Nationals taking a risk on them. If Patterson and Cordero ever get their act together, we can have something to trade. That's looking less and less likely this year though, so our best hope probably is that Patterson and Cordero anchor the rotation and the bullpen next year, respectively.

That's not the beginnings of a World Series team, but our point is that we have to be realistic about what is possible in the short term, meaning not a whole lot. Stan Kasten and the Lerners have embarked on what is at best a three-year plan to build a competitive team. Let's have some patience and good sense in evaluating that plan.

Speaking of amazing, how about Cristian Guzman's two-run triple? You can see it here. Notice how far over toward center Borchard was playing in right field. That tells you a lot about the Marlins' view of whether Guzman can get around on a fastball.

A guy who is still slow on the uptick is Ryan Zimmerman. He's been making more contact in the last ten games--he's hitting .308 over that span--but without much power. Of course, his one home run over his last ten games was a walk-off grand slam this weekend. (Zimm hit that off Jorge Julio, who was supposed to be one of the closers on my fantasy team. Doh!) We've said this before, but it bears repeating: this is going to be a tough year for Zimmerman. He's got virtually no help in the lineup, and he's unlikely to see a lot of good pitches. So, like everything else with the Nationals this year, we need to have a lot of patience with him.

All in all, a great weekend for the Nationals. Coming up tonight are the Braves, with Bergmann starting against John Smoltz. We'll learn a lot about Jason in games like this.

When billionaires go bad...

2007-05-11T05:49:00.000-05:00

There probably isn't enough attention paid to the quality of an ownership group and its effect on a franchise. As we consider the quality of the Lerner group, we were struck yesterday by a public spat that hinted at what a disaster we would have if the ownership hunt had gone bad.

For reasons we don't understand, Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, and Donald Trump, owner of some of the cheesiest casinos in Atlantic City, a business built almost solely on his celebrity, and a nasty haircut, hate each other. What we do understand, is that they are in a very public fight. Yesterday on Stephen A. Smith's radio show on ESPN 1050 in New York, Trump went after Cuban in very personal terms and said the Mavericks would never win a championship so long as Cuban owned the team. You can listen to the interview here.

Why Trump thinks he's qualified to criticize another business owner is beyond us, but that's how one becomes a celebrity these days, I guess. Anyway, Trump apparently thinks he's qualified to offer detailed criticism of a basketball team's on-court decisions, and listening to him explain his basketball strategy is hilarious. Unfortunately, too many owners insinuate themselves too closely in the on-the-field or on-the-court decisions of their teams.

Thinking of any one in particular?

That's right, the Danny. He's the one who refuses to install a GM at the Redskins, preferring instead to make the football decisions himself. That's gone really well for the Skins, wouldn't you say?

Which brings us to the Lerners. There has been a lot of critical press recently about the billionaire Lerners and the Nationals' management. Ken Rosenthal wrote a four-part series laying out all of criticism that's been circling within baseball about the Lerners' management of the team so far. While the Post today writes a generally favorable article, it too recounts some of this criticism.

There is a lot to criticize, I guess, but most of the criticism seems to us to relate to new management cleaning house and establishing itself and its new rules over an unruly organization. It's not surprising that people who are being moved out or told to do things differently are disgruntled. We have a lot of confidence in Stan Kasten and his ability to transform a franchise, so we're willing to give management the benefit of the doubt on most of these issues.

Save one.

Jim Bowden. God only knows why Kasten decided to keep Jimbo. As Ken Rosenthal says, rumor has it that "Kasten might have little choice in the matter: Bowden, according to major-league sources, endeared himself to principal owner Mark Lerner, son of managing principal owner Ted Lerner, before Kasten entered the equation." We hope that's not true, because Kasten has to be making the GM decision in this organization if it is to thrive. It would be a real shame if Mark Lerner became the team's Donald Trump or Dan Snyder and took on an operational role in the team's baseball decisions.

Kasten needs his own man in the position, and we're convinced that Bowden isn't that guy. If you doubt us, this story certainly suggests that Bowden is at least partially responsible for a lot of the instability within the organization. But our criticism of Bowden is more fundamantel than that: he just isn't the guy to take a team through the turn-around situation in which the Nationals find themselves. Is there anything in Bowden's history that suggests he can do it? If there is, we don't know about it.

Turning this franchise around is going to be very hard, it's going to take a very long time, and it's going to be one of baseball's biggest challenges. The Nationals are going to have to invest their money wisely because they have so many needs. We assume the team will have at least $30 million to begin spending this offseason, but they can't spend that on a few players--they need A LOT of players. This isn't a situation in whichthe Nats can sign A-Rod to a big contract and be assured of success. They need players at catcher, maybe first, second, and an entire outfield. They need pitchers in the first three rotation spots, at least, and almost an entire bullpen. Meanwhile, they have to rebuild the farm system.

Can you get all of that for $30 million? Not if you want good players. So the Nats will have to be patient and try to identify good value opportunities and nurture those players over a period of years.

Do you think the guy who signed Cristian Guzman and traded for Preston Wilson is the guy to do that job?

By the way, just so you know, we cringe every time we have to mention Guzman's and Wilson's name on this blog. We were contemplating using a Harry Potter phrase like, "They who may not be named," but we're afraid that the number of names in that category will grow too large for it to have any meaning.

Yankees, Clemens, $28 million? Genius!

2007-05-10T08:30:00.000-05:00

An alert reader pointed me to this article from Fortune, which argues that the Clemens signing may put the Yankees into the playoffs.

A diamond deep in the rough

2007-05-10T07:11:00.000-05:00

As the Nationals were being swept by the Milwaukee Brewers, the frustration and promise of this lost season were there for everyone to see. Not surprisingly, the players are frustrated as the losses mount; Austin Kearns said, "I don't think you can do this for six months."

But the bright spot was Jason Bergmann, an unknown before this season lost in the Nationals' farm system. The exodus from the major league roster of nearly every pitcher with a combination of talent and experience created an opportunity for Bergmann, and he has made the most of it. He gave up only one run and two hits over six innings and lowered his ERA to 3.07. Unfortunately, he has nothing to show for it; he's 0-3, primarily because he gets no run support from the Nationals' anemic lineup.

But like everything with the Nationals now, Bergmann will realize his promise only if he improves significantly over the course of this season. He walked two and struck out only two yesterday; that's OK when you allow only two hits, but there won't be many games when Bergmann is able to do that. As we've said before, Bergmann is relying right now on a very high percentage of the balls put into play being hit for outs. That can't continue, and as that percentage falls the number of batters he puts on base will rise and his ERA will likely rise with it.

Nothing is inevitable, though. Bergmann is a work in progress in a year in which the Nationals are seeking works in progress. Pitching coach Randy St. Clair needs to earn his keep by helping Bergmann become a better pitcher so that Bergmann can be a consistent producer on next year's roster. If players like Bergmann don't improve, this will truly be a lost year.

Here is a very good example of how bad the Nationals' offense is. Bergmann was due up last night with two outs in the top of the seventh and the score tied 1-1. Manny Acta decided to send up a pinch hitter. Bergmann had thrown only 79 pitches, so he could have gone at least another inning. But the object is to win games so pinch hitter for a young pitcher you'd like to keep around for a long time made sense. Ideally, Acta would have sent up someone with either a high OBP percentage so the Nats could start a two-out rally or someone with a high SLG so they could put the Nationals ahead with one swing.

The problem, of course, is that the nationals don't have anyone fitting either description on their bench. So, Acta sent up Nook Logan to pinch hit for Bergmann. Logan's OPS is .286. You read that right--his OPS is .286, not his on base percentage or his batting average. His OBP, SLG, and his AVG are all .143.

Guess what Bergmann's stats are? You got it, .143 each for his OBP, SLG, and his AVG. In other words, the Nationals didn't materially improve their offensive situation by pinch hitting for Bergmann.

Yes, yes, I know, Logan only has seven at bats. And, yes, Logan's numbers will rise, but to what? His career OBP is .317, and his career SLG is .344. Pretty anemic on an already anemic team.

So, what did Logan do last night?

He struck out.

How is Ryan Langerhans doing? You remember him--the Nats got him from the A's for Chris Snelling, a pretty good hitter who was looking forward to the opportunity to prove himself as a regular player. In 57 at bats this season, Langerhans' line is .088/.197/.123. Jim Bowden says that he traded for Langerhans because the team needed a good defensive outfielder. He'd better be Willie Mays out there because he's worse than Mark Belanger at the plate right now.

Meanwhile, Snelling is getting on base in Oakland with freakish consistency: .389/.522/.389. He's only had 18 at bats, but given that his career OBP is 25 points higher than Langerhans', we expect that we'll see Snelling on the basepaths a lot more often than Langerhans.

Of course, that is, if Snelling stays healthy because he's an injury risk. But isn't that the point? Shouldn't the Nationals be taking on more risk this year? Why get a guy like Langerhans who you know will be mediocre when you can take a change on Snelling?

Roger Clemens' trivia from Jayson Stark: "Clemens doesn't just wear No. 22. He wears it to dinner, eats it for breakfast and writes it into his contracts.

So what number will you see in Clemens' contract, once it finally gets written?

$28,000,022.

Of course."

The inevitable Schilling apology...

2007-05-09T21:16:00.000-05:00

After making an absolute ass of himself by alleging that Barry Bonds cheated on his wife and his taxes, Curt Schilling has issued the inevitable apology. Here is the key sentence in the apology:

"Regardless of my opinions, thoughts and beliefs on anything Barry Bonds it was absolutely irresponsible and wrong to say what I did."

There is obviously nothing wrong with a person criticizing Barry Bonds for using steroids, and there certainly is more than enough evidence on which to base an allegation that Bonds used steroids, but why go after the guy's family life? What possible relationship does that have to the steroids issue or to Bonds' status as a baseball player?

The only explanation is that Schilling hates Bonds with the same fury that characterizes one of his fastballs.

But why does he hate Bonds so much? They've never been teammates. They were on division rivals when Schilling played in Arizona, but I don't remember any confrontation between them.

The answer, I think, is that Schilling views himself as a guardian of the game and is offended that Bonds would disrespect the game and its history by taking performance enhancing drugs that help him assault some of the game's most hallowed records. There's nothing wrong with that, and, indeed, the game needs its guardians. The problem is that Schilling has no filter, so he pretty much says anything that comes to his mind, and some pretty dumb things enter his cranium.

So, Curt, we have a proposal for you: continue to try to protect the game, but do it only through written statements. That way you avoid having to wave the white flag every time you say something stupid, which is far too often.

Oh, and he's also the Antichrist...

2007-05-09T06:52:00.000-05:00

Curt Schilling needs to know when to fold 'em. He apparently is offended by Barry Bonds' assault on Hank Aaron's home run record; Bonds is only 10 dingers short of Aaron's record. Here is what Schilling said on a radio show yesterday:

"I mean, he admitted that he used steroids. I mean, there's no gray area. He admitted to cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, and cheating on the game, so I think the reaction around the league, the game, being what it is, in the case of what people think. Hank Aaron not being there. The commissioner [Bud Selig] trying to figure out where to be. It's sad."

Um, Curt, Bonds didn't admit to any of that. He certainly hasn't admitted to cheating on his wife or on his taxes, and he didn't even admit to using steroids, at least knowingly. It's one thing to take on a player about using performance enhancing drugs, but why would Schilling go after Bonds in such personal terms? What's behind this verbal sucker punch? Did Bonds steal Schilling's lunch money when they were kids?

Who knows, but Schiling has a history of saying things he later backs away from. After blasting baseball's failure to deal with steroid use among major league baseball players, Schilling belted out another tune during his Congressional testimony. As ESPN.com reported at the time: "In his opening statement, Curt Schilling blasts Canseco for writing his book and says he hopes this doesn't serve as a way to sell more books. He also defends baseball, citing that the league has made strides in recent years to curtail use of performance-enhancing drugs. " Schilling flatly denied saying that some players used steroids to enhance their performance.

As Bonds nears the most hallowed record in sports, we need to hear a whole lot less from Curt Schilling.

One mistake? Please...

2007-05-09T06:33:00.000-05:00

The Post and other are reporting that Jason Simontacchi made just one mistake last night: "His one mistake turned into a three-run homer by Prince Fielder in the sixth, his last inning."

That is a very charitable view of Simontacchi's performance. He pitched much better than we had expected, but in Fielder's prior two at bats he absolutely scorched the ball, both for outs. And in the sixth, Simontacchi was punched around like an aging boxer. He's very lucky that he only gave up three runs; he got his first out in the same at bat in which Ricky Weeks hit a foul ball about as far as a person of his size can hit it.

All in all, a pretty good outing for Simontacchi, but not as good as some have suggested.

A sign the apocolypse is upon us...

2007-05-08T06:51:00.000-05:00

Today comes word of something I thought I would never hear anyone say: Cristian Guzman and Nook Logan "are being hailed not so much as saviors, but perhaps, if the Washington Nationals are lucky, as stabilizers."

Guzman may be the worst regular starting shortstop who received a major contract I have ever seen. In fact, he may be the worst starting shortstop I've ever seen, period. Does anyone remember 2005, Guzman's last season? Here are his 2005 numbers: .219/.260/.314. Guzman's OPS (.574) was less than 50 points higher than Barry Bonds' ON BASE PERCENTAGE this year (.528).

Logan's career OBP is only .319, which is awul for an alleged lead-off hitter.

This is the cavalry? For what, F-Troop?

The idiocy of Guzman and Logan coming to the rescue and yet another Nationals' loss obscured a pretty good pitching performance from Matt Chico. Chico gave up three runs, eight hits, and one walk in seven innings. He struck out five. Chico's fellow pitchers apparently told him that he was giving hitters too much credit and needed to go after them. That was good advice. We've said previously that Chico has to cut down on his walks if he wants to be successful, and that's just what he did.

Chico is someone the Nats should really try to develop. He has a pretty good fastball and a decent curve. He's only 24, so he should be capable of improving dramatically. He's not much yet, but he's the kind of player with just the right amount of talent that the Nats should be spending this lost year developing. I hope that Randy St. Clair knows what he's doing.

Speaking of developing pitchers, Jason Simontacchi will start for the Nats today. He hasn't started a major league game since 2003. Simontacchi has been injured ever since, but he wasn't very good before the injury, so don't expect much.

The Roger Clemens deal is apparently ruffling some MLB feathers. David Wells, Clemens' former teammate, says that Clemens is disrespecting the Yankee players by not traveling with them. Clemens' contract essentially provides that he can show up for work only on the days when he is designated to start. He had this same deal in Houston, and it didn't seem to create much of a stir there. But Clemens is in New York now, and everything he does will be amplified by an order of magnitude over what he did in Houston.

By the way, that same ESPN story makes the point that you could field a pretty good team of nine players with the $28 million the Yankees are spending on Clemens. This reminds me of a point my dad used to make: it isn't hard to live on a budget when you've got a lot of money; the real skill is living on a budget when you don't have a lot of money. The Yankees can afford to make a lot of dumb mistakes because they have gobs of cash. And the Yankees have made A LOT of mistakes--Randy Johnson, Jared Wright, Javier Vazquez, Jeff Weaver, Kevin Brown, Carl Pavano, etc., etc., etc.

It may be hard working with George Steinbrenner, but it's a lot easier for Brian Cashman to look smart than it is for GM's Billy Beane and Kevin Towers who are on very tight budgets and can't afford the big blunders that are routine in the House that Ruth Built. So, Yankee fans, please spare me the sonnets to Cashman's baseball genius.

Pitching implosion

2007-05-07T07:11:00.000-05:00

Going into this year we all would have said that John Patterson and Chad Cordero would be the Nats' two best pitchers. Instead, they've been our worst. Cordero blew another save yesterday, and has now blown half of his save opportunities. (Skip down to the next paragraph if you've got a quesy stomach.) His ERA is not almost 5, which is horrific for a closer. The Chief has given up almost twice as many hits as strikeouts (22-13) and almost three times as many baserunners as strikeouts (32-13). He hasn't even been as good as a replacement pitcher; his VORP is -0.4. He has been, in a word, awful.

Meanwhile, Patterson went on the DL yesterday with something called "right elbow biceps soreness." When exactly did the elbow become connected to the biceps? Anyway, Manny Acta is saying that Patterson will be out at least a month, and you have to wonder whether the best thing now is to sit him down for the rest of the season.

So, the two pitchers who could have commanded the most in trades are worthless on the market right now. But, the news is not all bad. Shawn Hill had another good game, giving up two runs in six innings. Hill has been the team's best pitcher this year, posting a VORP of 8.4. He's not great, but it would be good to come out of this season knowing that we have two reliable back-of-the-rotation pitchers in Hill and Jason Bergmann. It's not as much as we hoped for, but its something.

Just in case you're keeping score, the Nats now have the worst record in baseball--9-22. But don't focus on the negative--focus of the positive. The Nationals' expected record is 8-23, meaning that the team is performing one game better than its runs scored-runs allowed ratio would suggest. So, we're not bad, we're overachievers!

You probably know by now that Roger Clemens signed on to play for the Yankees this season for $18.5 million. From a baseball perspective, it's not clear what the Yankees will get for their money. Clemens has been superb recently; the last time he posted an ERA above 3 was in 2003. He is a first-ballot Hall of Famer and arguable the best pitcher the game has ever seen. But the only reason the Yankees are making this move is to improve their playoff position, and his ERA in his last two post-seasons was more than twice his regular season ERA. Of course, the Yankees might not make the playoffs without the Rocket, so they may be willing to live with decreased performance in October so long as they're still playing.

Financially, though, this deal is yet more evidence that there is something seriously wrong with Major League Baseball. On a prorated basis, Clemens is now the highest paid player in baseball and will earn $4.5 million per month and $8,888 per pitch. A guy with a better financial mind than me has concluded that there is no way the Yankees can make money on this deal. You have to wonder about the sanity and competitive health of a sport in which owners are not engaging in profit-maximizing behavior. Baseball is definitely better off than it was ten years ago, but it still has a long, long way to go to be a properly functioning league.

Yeah, about that improving arm strength...

2007-05-06T05:50:00.000-05:00

We've been hearing for weeks that John Patterson's only problem was a lack of arm strength following surgery on his right arm last year. We heard that his arm strength was improving, even while he pitched more like Marc Brunell than the John Patterson we had come to know and love.

That whole story came crashing down yesterday with news that Patterson has a "bicep problem." The actual problem sounds worse than that, though, because Patterson says he has pain in his elbow, as well. That's a bit scary.

Patterson has been pitching so badly that it's easy to conclude that he has a serious injury. How else to explain an ERA that is over 7 after 7 starts--7.47 to be exact. (By the way, what is this proclivity of Nats' pitchers for ERAs equal to model numbers of Boeing airplanes?)

Although we'd love for Patterson to get back to form quickly so that he could be traded for younger players, it's pretty clear that that's not going to happen. Given that the Nats are going nowhere fast this year, the best thing is probably to shut him down until the team is sure he has no significant medical issue. An MRI is in his immediate future, so we should know more soon.

You should know that Patterson is on my team in a NL-only fantasy league, as is Chris Carpenter, Jason Jennings, Jorge Julio, Micah Owings, and Juan Cruz, all of whom have had significant arm injuries this year. Yes, that's right, I think I caused Patterson's injury by drafting him. Sorry about that.

And, while you're at it, be great, too...

2007-05-05T08:43:00.000-05:00

I feel for Manny Acta. Everything he's ever done in baseball has taught him to try to win every game. If his team doesn't win, he assumes there is something he, as manager, can do to better his team. So, we get quotes like this after a 6-4 loss to the Cubs:

"We have to teach these guys about not letting up," Acta said. "How do you explain about going with that approach with Zambrano in the first inning -- working the count and scoring four runs -- and then allowing him to have some easy innings? After that, the guys completely forgot what they did in the first inning."

And this:

"We just haven't learned how to win without having an outstanding performance by the pitcher," Acta said. "And in this game, you're going to have to learn how to win even when you're struggling at the plate or when you're struggling on the mound. There are games that teams win without having a two-hit shutout, and we just haven't learned how to do that."

It's good that Manny thinks this way, and it's good that his standard of excellence is rubbing off on the players:

"We know we have to put teams away. Guys who have played know that," Kearns said. "It's just doing it. They can show us the way, but we are the ones that are swinging the bat and throwing the ball, but we have to be the ones that do it. [Acta and the coaches] are working. We are all working. The results are not there."

But despite all of Acta's efforts, there is a reason the results are not there, as Kearns says. The reason?

The Nationals stink. They just don't have the talent to win on a consistent basis. That's not a criticism of current management, because these are the cards they've been dealt by Major League Baseball. No, it's a statement of fact, and the really hard thing for Acta is that the Nats aren't going to get better for a long time. The process by which they get better is going to be both long and hard, and I have doubts about whether Acta, or any other manager committed to winning, will survive the process. There's only so much losing a guy like Acta can take.

So, we feel for you, Manny.

Understatement of the century...

2007-05-04T22:35:00.000-05:00

The headline from tomorrow's story in the Post about today's 6-4 loss to the Cubs:

"Winning Formula Eludes Nationals".

I would say say so--the Nationals' record is 9-20.

Where have you gone, D'Angelo Jimenez?

2007-05-03T19:22:00.000-05:00

Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Too many syllables, I guess.

Although DJ is in the minors now and the lights are about to go dark on his career, it wasn't always so. As a prospect in the Yankees organization, he was highly coveted in the same way we all covet an upcoming season of American Idol. After climbing up the organizational ladder, Jimenez was rated higher than Alfonso Soriano by some analysts and was regarded as the future Yankee second baseman.

Then something awful happened. In January 2000, Jimenez was in an automobile accident and literally broke his neck. Although he was back on the field in July, he was never the same player. He was on six teams in the next six years, and he now may never again be on a major league roster.

Nick Neugebauer thought he had it made in 1998--he had just been drafted in the first round by the Milwaukee Brewers and could throw a baseball 100 mph. When he arrived at the big club in August 2001, his future seemed certain, as did the multi-million dollar contract. Then he felt something in his shoulder, and his career was effectively over. Two major shoulder surgeries followed, and he appeared in only 12 more games before the Brewers released him in 2004.

Jimenez and Neugebauer are cautionary tales for all those youngsters with a one-in-a-million talent and for Jim Bowden and the Washington Nationals, who are trying (correctly) to build a future on young prospects. You never know what you have until a player is established. For every Ryan Zimmerman, there are dozens of talented players who never make it. And for every Chipper Jones, there are dozens of guys who look like they were established, but flame out. Who knows, Ryan Zimmerman may prove to be one of those flame outs.

I don't think he will, but the point is you never know. This is a very tough business, and while success depends on a lot of skill, it also depends on a lot of luck.

Somebody stop me!!

2007-05-03T06:24:00.000-05:00

That's what "The Mask" says right before doing something he shouldn't. And that's what Jim Bowden should have said right before trading Chris Snelling for Ryan Langerhans.

Bowden made a great deal in ridding the Nats of Jose Vidro and his huge contract. In the process, he acquired a young hitter with some promise. Not a great hitter and a guy who was injured a lot, but a guy who if given the chance might blossom into a productive hitter. That's the kind of hitter the Nats need more of, because they have gobs of time this year to let players develop.

But Bowden cut short the Snelling experiment to acquire a guy who is now with his third team this year. The Braves cancelled their Langerhans project and so did the A's. But we have Jim Bowden as the master of our domain, right?

Is there any chance Bowden is able to see something John Schuerholz doesn't?

No.

Is there any chance Bowden is able to see something Billy Beane doesn't?

No.

Those are two of the best GMs in baseball, and they both decided to dump Langerhans in the space of a few months. And we gave Beane something valuable in return.

That's called a dumb trade. Yes, we know, this is a minor trade and not likely to affect the team's fortunes in a significant way. And, yes, we know, there is probably a lot that Jim Bowden is thinking about that isn't being published in the papers.

But why do this deal? Bowden says that he wanted a good defensive outfielder. Maybe he did, but is there anyone out there who thinks that if Ryan Langerhans is patrolling the friendly confines of the Nats' new stadium next year that the team will have come close to executing on its long term strategy? No. Every day that Langerhans is in the outfield is a reminder that the Nats still have a lot of work to do.

Let's stay upbeat, people!

2007-05-02T06:12:00.000-05:00

The Nationals are going to lose a lot of game--A LOT of games. They now are 9-17. Only Kansas City has a worse record (8-19), and the Nats are only a game and a half behind the Royals in the race for the worst record in baseball. If we assume the Nationals will have the same winning percentage at the end of the season that they have now--.346--they will end the season with a 56-106 record. If, however, we assume that their expected record (7-19) more closely approximates their final winning percentage, the Nationals' record will be 44-118, meaning that they would finish two losses short of the post-1900 record of 120 losses set by the 1962 New York Mets.

We need to have some perspective here, though. The salient point is not how many games the Nats lose, but that they're going to lose a lot of them. I say this because it would be a huge mistake to look at games like last night's 3-0 loss to the San Diego Padres as a failure. The Nationals' management has to approach every game as an opportunity to evaluate players they may want to keep next year and to showcase other players who may command good, young talent in trades. The players and Manny Acta, obviously, are going to want to win, but Jim Bowden, Stan Kasten, and the Lerners have to be realistic; they have to focus on the future because that's the only way this team will improve.

So, was there anything from last night's game that should give Jim Bowden some comfort? Yes.

Shawn Hill pitched a pretty good game, giving up three runs, four hits, and three walks while striking out five over 6 1/3 innings. That's encouraging, because Hill has pitched well over 39 innings now:

ERA	WHIP	K/9	BB/9	K/BB	H/9
3.00	1.08	5.77	2.54	2.27	7.15

We'd like to see his strikeout ratio climb above 6.00 and his walk ratio fall below 2, but these are good numbers. Hill also is befuddling hitters: .217/.287/.329.

Will Hill be great? No, but he could be consistently pretty good, and that could help a team like the Nationals because he's a low-priced player. That's a silver lining from last night's loss, which will be meaningless a few years from now. Shawn Hill, however, could be a lot more meaningful to the Nationals.

The Hall of Shame

2007-05-01T14:20:00.000-05:00

From the Elias Sports Bureau:

"Washington's Felipe Lopez went 0-for-4 with four strikeouts against San Diego. It's already the third time this season that a leadoff batter went 0-for-4 with four Ks in one game (Kelly Johnson and Willy Taveras also did it). In the entire 2006 season it happened only twice (Ryan Freel and Gary Matthews, Jr.)."

Order is restored, at least for now...

2007-05-01T06:37:00.000-05:00

Going into last night's game, journeyman Jerome Williams had a lower ERA than staff ace John Patterson. That produced a wrinkle in the space-time continuum, which caused the Bay Bridge to collapse and LeBron James to go 8 for 22 against the Wizards last night.

Order had to be restored if our planet was to survive, and, thankfully, Patterson took a big step in that direction last night as the Nats beat the San Diego Padres 3-2. Patterson served up his best outing this season, giving up one run and four hits over six innings. Patterson walked two and struck out three. You can see highlights of his performance here. Patterson needed every bit of that perfomance because he was pitching against one of the best pitchers in the game--Jake Peavy. Peavy came into the game with an ERA under 2.00 and has been dominating hitters; his K/BB ratio is over 3.5 (Patterson's is .74).

Patterson wasn't back to his 2005 form, but he was light years beyond his 2007 performance. If we can believe Patterson's self-diagnosis, he's getting stronger:

"It was better today," Patterson said. "I've been working tremendously hard on my mechanics. I'm just trying to generate some power with my legs, let my arm work, and just take some of the stress off of it. Early in the game, I definitely saw a difference in the life on my fastball and the velocity was a little bit better, which carried over into my breaking balls."

Also better was Chad Cordero, who didn't blow a save. Instead, Cordero put down the Padres 1-2-3 in the ninth for his fourth save in seven tries.

So, this was another good game for a Nats' starting pitcher. Let's hope it is what it looks like--a real step forward for Patterson on his road to recovery. Let's remember, though, that Patterson's ERA is still above Williams', so watch for falling objects.

Ray King was back for the first time since April 10, a spot having been cleared for him by Williams' trip to the DL. How did he do? Not great--one inning, one home run, one earned run. As a bullpen lefty for a last place team, King has no real value for the Nats other than as trade bait. Before you vomit in your mouth, realize that teams in pennant races often need a lefty late in the season to prepare to face hitters like David Ortiz in the playoffs. King could command some value in a late-season trade, so the goal now is to fatten up his numbers--wait, sorry, wrong methaphor. King is 6'1" and 242 pounds.

Let me try again. The goal now is for King to post good numbers, thereby making him appear attractive to potential suitors. That's how the Nationals have to be thinking about virtually everyone on the roster.

Let's go back to Jake Peavy for a second. He's a young, dominant pitcher on a team with a long-term plan. Peavy's salary is $4.75 million. To put that in context, Cristian Guzman will make $4.2 million this year. It's hard to build a good team on a budget when you make salary mistakes like that.

In any event, Peavy is exactly the kind of young pitcher the Nats want, but they're very hard to find. Detroit and Oakland have done phenomenal jobs in stocking their roster with good, young pitchers, but they had to make controversial trades to do it. Does anyone remember the reaction of the pundits to Oakland's decision to trade Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder for prospects? ESPN commentators used it as an opportunity to heap scorn on Billy Beane's "Moneyball" strategy. The cries were long and loud that Beane had been fleeced by better GMs at Atlanta and St. Louis. Now, those trades look like a stroke of genius. Hudson and Mulder have underperformed, and the A's have something every other team in baseball wants--talented young pitchers.

The Nationals don't have a Hudson or Mulder to trade, but they do have Patterson, Cordero, and some other lesser lights. Their lack of marquee names means that the Nats will probably have to take chances on even younger (and, therefore, more speculative) arms, but that's a chance they're going to have to take. There is no way this team can get to where it wants to go without young pitching. The notion that the Nats can buy a great pitching staff is lunacy, and it's sure to bankrupt the team.

Who keeps track of this stuff?

2007-04-30T16:21:00.000-05:00

From the Elias Sports Bureau:

"Carlos Beltran's sixth-inning solo home run accounted for all of the scoring in the Mets' triumph at Washington. Beltran became the sixth player to homer in a 1-0 game at RFK Stadium and the first to do it since the Expos relocated to the nation's capital. The others to do it were Manny Jimenez (1962 Kansas City Athletics), Don Lock (1963 Senators), Tommie Agee (1967 White Sox), Frank Howard (1969 Senators) and Curt Blefary (1971 Yankees)."

You're kidding, right?

2007-04-30T08:27:00.000-05:00

Mlb.com reports that Dmitri Young is looking forward to playing the outfield when Nick Johnson returns.

This would be a very good move, if the Nationals could play four outfielders. Otherwise, they would instantly have one of the worst defensive outfields in baseball.

We're heartened, though, that the goal seems to be to increase Young's value and then trade him for prospects. More of that thinking, please.

An outbreak of pitching

2007-04-30T06:11:00.000-05:00

The Nationals got something on Saturday and Sunday that they're not exactly used to--great starting pitching performances. The first--and most improbable--was the six shutout innings Jerome Williams posted on Saturday. Williams gave up only one hit, but was still in trouble from time to time because he walked five while striking out only one. We've said before that Williams gives up far too many baserunners to be successful consistently, but if he's going to give up only one hit every six innings he live with a proclivity to walk a hitter every inning. Of course, I may also have won the lottery on Saturday night. I'll find out later today and let you know how that turned out.

Williams followed his good performance by going on the DL. Talk about a let down. We have to teach him not to step on his applause lines.

Saturday's problem was the inability of the Nats' bullpen to hold a lead and then keep the game close. There was also the problem of a lack of hitting, but that's so chronic with this team that it's no longer a problem--it's a state of being. Jesus Colome gave up a run in the sixth, and Chad Cordero blew his third save by giving up a run in the ninth.

A quick word about Colome. Most people think he's pitched well, but to us he's a ticking time bomb. He's allowing over 1.5 runners per inning, meaning that it's just a matter of time before he gives up a slew of runs.

A longer word about Cordero. Something is wrong. Cordero has already blown three saves and isn't fooling much of anyone. He doesn't have the heat to dominate hitters, so he needs control of a few pitches to get hitters out. How is that going so far? Not well. His ERA is over 5, and he's allowing more than two runners per inning. Opposing hitters have Hall-of-Fame numbers against him so far this year: .352/.429/.611. This isn't so much about this year, because a great closer is important only if you enter a lot of ninth innings with a lead, and no one expects the Nats to do that. The salient point is that the Nationals need Cordero to improve so that they have something to trade for young prospects to a team in a pennant race. Get well soon, Chad.

Sunday's game involved another good pitching performance, this time by Jason Bergmann. Bergmann gave up one run, two hits, three walks, and struck out six over seven innings. It was a very good outing for a pitcher who has some promise. His only blemish was a home run by Carlos Beltran, but there's no shame in getting beat once a game by one of the game's best hitters. Bergmann is 0-2, but he has been lights out so far. His ERA is 2.79 and he's allowing just over one runner per inning. He's dominating hitters so far--.158/.274/.277--and his eight strikeouts per nine innings suggest that the domination isn't likely to end soon. The only note of caution is that he walks too many hitters--almost five per nine innings. Like most Nats pitchers, he needs to establish better control, but he's only 25, so there's every reason to believe he can do that.

Sunday's blight was the lack of hitting for the Nats. Are you catching the pattern here? They managed only three hits off starter John Maine--who has been awesome this year--and while they mustered a rally in the eighth, Ryan Church grounded out to end it. That was the game because the Nats--like all other teams--are overmatched against Billy Wagner and his high-nineties heat.

So, 0-2 for the weekend, but there was something on which to base some hope for the future. We'll see whether Williams can duplicate his success and start to realize some of his promise--we aren't holding our breath--and whether Bergmann can continue his march of progress toward being a quality major league starting pitcher--we're much more optimistic about that.

Austin fever, catch it! And we don't mean Texas, baby...

2007-04-28T08:37:00.000-05:00

A guy we haven't talked much about is Austin Kearns. His 3-run home run last night propelled the Nats to a 4-3 victory over the Mets. You can see the home run here. As you'll hear in the video, this was the first time this season the Nats scored in the first inning. That's a pretty depressing stat.

Anyway, back to the subject of this post. Kearns is a good, professional hitter. He was better in Cincy (.274/.351/.492) than in DC (.250/.381/.429) last year, but we'll look past his post-trade slump. His numbers this year (.287/.367/.471) are better than both his Cincy numbers last year and his career numbers (.266/.361/.464). He's 27, so it's not surprising that he's improving, and we reasonably can expect him to maintain something near his numbers this year for the next few years.

Comparing Kearns to other players shows something interesting. The players with whom Kearns' stats are most similar are:

Bubba Trammell (966)
Jim Greengrass (964)
Kevin Mench (960)
Craig Monroe (959)
Johnny Rizzo (957)
Craig Wilson (954)
Dick Kokos (947)
Greg Norton (946)
Ben Broussard (944)
Butch Huskey (944)

Not exactly a list of all stars. But if we look at the players with whom Kearns is most similar when they were his age we find something quite different:

Frank Thomas (975)
Larry Walker (970)
Mike Marshall (963)
Torii Hunter (958)
Wally Post (955)
Kevin McReynolds (954)
Gil Hodges (952)
Mel Hall (950)
Preston Wilson (949)
Sam Chapman (948)

Now, that's much better, although it pains us to see Preston Wilson's name on this web site again. No one thinks Kearns is or will be a hitter like Frank Thomas (at least we don't), but it would be nice if he could continue his current trajectory.

The Kearns for Majewski deal was a steal for the Nats and the kind of deal Jim Bowden needs to make often for the Nats to turn this ship around over the next few years. Well done, Jimbo.

Who's your daddy now?

2007-04-27T06:34:00.000-05:00

It's not John Patterson, the putative number 1 starter who is struggling to keep his ERA below 7. It's probably Shawn Hill. Hill pitched another strong game last night: 8 IP, 2 ER, 4 H, 2 BB, 3 K. Hill's ERA is now 2.76, and is the Nationals' most reliable pitcher.

The chances of Hill continuing to pitch at this level are about the same as Dan Snyder becoming humble. Hill has a good sinker, but not a lot of heat. His success therefore depends on hitters hitting a lot of ground balls for outs. He's helped by the relatively spacious dimensions of RFK, but there will be a number of games in which Hill's finesse game gets shelled like Omaha Beach on D-Day. Still, Hill is a pretty good pitcher who could probably be a number 4 starter. On this team now, though, being as good as a number 4 starter catapults you to the number 1 spot.

The number 2 starter should be Jason Bergmann. He has a positive VORP (value over replacement player) of 3.9 and an ERA of 3.27. Bergmann also has some power behind his pitch--his K/9 ratio is 8.18. His problem is that he walks hitters as often as my wife wants me to walk our dog, which is a lot. His BB/9 ratio is 5.32, which is terrible. His saving grace is that he's given up only 14 hits in 22 innings. His walk rate is too high for him to be consistently good, but if he can reduce it he could be a pretty good pitcher, perhaps a number 4 or number 5 pitcher on a team with a pretty good staff. He's only 25, so there should be some further development for him.

I'm getting ahead of myself, but the feeling of dread is too much, so I need to get this out of the way now: Jerome Williams is awful in the same way Crash was awful--one of the worst movies ever to win the Best Picture Oscar. Having an ERA that equals a model number of a Boeing airplane says it all. You can read more here, but it's not for the faint of heart. Suffice it to say that Jerome isn't a number 5 starter now; in fact, he's not a starter at all. He should be fitted with a restraint anklet that keeps him on clubhouse arrest and off the field.

That leaves John Patterson and Matt Chico. Here is our view of Patterson. There's not a whole lot the team can do now besides wait for Patterson to develop arm strength, assuming that's his problem.

As for Chico, he has some talent and, given the team's depleted talent, is a guy who should be given a chance to excel this year. Will he do it? He might. He's only 24 with a low-90s fastball and a decent curve. Sound like somebody you know? Think of the surprise starter that emerged for the Nats in 2005. If he's going to be successful, he has to reduce his walks and increase his strikeouts. With some quality coaching, Chico could become a useful starter, maybe a number 4 or 5 starter.

If you're still reading, you've noticed that the Nationals have three starters who should be number 4 or 5 starters. That doesn't bode well for the team's future staff, meaning that the Nats have to develop front-of-the-rotation starters from their farm system or acquire them through free agency. The Nats have a lot of money to spend, but quality starters have become shockingly expensive recently, so the farm system route is preferred. Do the Nats have the arms in their system they need?

More on that next week.

My momma told me not to come...

2007-04-26T06:27:00.000-05:00

This is such a difficult season. Watching the Nats is sort of like being strapped to a chair and forced to watch the same car crash over and over again. Or, something like that.

Anyway, this season is particularly difficult because it's very hard to do the one thing the Nationals need to do most--identify and nuture talent to either trade or build around. Last night's game is Exhibit A.

The Post's story captures perfectly the problem. John Patterson isn't the same pitcher he was in 2005. His fastball is at least 5 mph slower than it was in 2005, and he can't throw the sharp curveball that used to be a perfect complement to his heater. As the Post reports, Patterson's arsenal is so depleted that he is improvising new techniques during games. That's a terrible position for a pitcher to be in, but, in a perfect baseball world, Patterson would work through his problem, get back to form, and give the Nationals something significant to trade for young talent.

The problem is that the Nationals don't field a team that is conducive to that process. Their defense is absolutely atrocious. Good fielding stats are hard to come by, but every one of the Nats' starting infielders has at least three errors. Ryan Zimmerman has five and Dimitri Young and Ronnie Belliard each have four. The range of the right side of the infield is, shall we say, limited, and it appears at times like Young just avoided a mafia hit and someow got to the ballpark with his feet encased in cement.

The bullpen is almost as bad. Jesus Colome is the only relief pitcher with a VORP (value over replacement player) significantly over 0, and Levale Speigner is the only other reliever with a positive VORP. It's pretty bad when your bullpen is relying disproportionately on players who aren't even listed in Baseball Prospectus, which analyzes over 1,600 players. The rest of the bullpen has been simply awful.

Both of these inconvenient truths made Patterson look worse than he was last night. Patterson wasn't great, but bad fielding and bad relief pitching turned what could have been a manageable game into a disaster. It could have been a bumpy ride with a few people getting sea sick; instead it turned into the voyage of the Titanic. All aboard!

In the bottom of the third, Robert Fick turned a catchable fly ball into an amusement park adventure. Instead of the inning ending, Ryan Howard came up next and pounded a homerun to give the Phillies a 2-0 lead. In the bottom of the sixth, Patterson left with one out and men on first and second. Micah Bowie then walked Jimmy Rollins to load the bases, and Ronnie Belliard dropped a pop fly. One man scored, and the bases remained loaded with only one out. Chase Utley's single then scored two, including the last runner for which Patterson was responsible.

This doesn't even capture all of the bad fielding that doesn't show up in the box score.

Oh well, another day, another missed opportunity. Get used to it folks, because there are going to be a lot of them this year.

Don't worry about getting to the game early...

2007-04-25T11:48:00.000-05:00

From the Elias Sport Bureau:

"The Nationals set a National League record when they failed to score in the first inning Tuesday at Philadelphia. Washington hasn't scored a first-inning run in 20 games this season."

Not good. Interestingly, though, the Nats have some pretty good company:

"The only other NL team to advance 19 games into a season without scoring in the first inning -- and this was quite a surprise -- was the 1975 Reds, a.k.a. the 'Big Red Machine.' Three American League teams went 20 games into a season without scoring in the first inning, the 1948 White Sox (28 games), 1952 White Sox (22) and 1993 Rangers (21)."

A statistic we should ignore...

2007-04-25T06:59:00.000-05:00

The Nationals wasted a pretty good performance from starter Jason Bergmann last night when the bullpen blew a 3-2 lead and gave up four runs in three innings. Here is the story from the Post.

The Post's story right after the game made an interesting point in casting doubt on whether Manny Acta should have removed Bergmann after the sixth inning. The story asserted that Bergmann is very good at keeping opposing hitters' batting average down when they put the ball in play. In other words, hitters who hit the ball fair tend to make more outs against Bergmann than some other pitchers. This season's stats tend to suggest the Post is correct: the batting average of hitters when they put the ball in play (otherwise known as "BABIP") against Bergman is .224. To put this in context, Chad Cordero's BABIP is .414 and John Patterson's is .305.

So, does Bergmann's relatively low BABIP mean anything?

No.

In what was truly groundbreaking research, Voros McCracken showed that BABIP was a very poor indicator of pitching performance because pitchers have almost no control over the outcome of balls put into play. Defense, park dimensions, weather, and the apparent randomness of what can happen when a round ball meets a round bat all have dramatic effects on the outcome of a ball put in play. A pitcher cannot control any of those elements.

McCracken's research was very controversial at the time. Here's what he said in an article he published on the Baseball Prospectus site in 2001: "'You're insane.' That's generally the response I get when I present the information you're about to read." People eventually accepted McCracken's counterintuitive research, including Bill James, who said in his "New Historical Baseball Abstract" published in 2001 that he felt stupid for not having realized it 30 years ago.

Don't believe it? Well, consider this. Of all National League pitchers with 100 or more innings last year, Ian Snell had a BABIP of .327, which put him 58th out of 68 players. Not very good, right? But Snell is one of the best young pitchers in the National League. Livan Hernandez, a pitcher who had lost almost all of his power and was on the tail end of a career, had a BABIP of .322, good for 55th place. Two pitchers with similar BABIPs, but with dramatically different talent and productivity.

Still not convinced? Roy Oswalt, one of the best young pitchers in the game, had a BABIP last year of .310, good for 46th place. Oswalt's equivalent ERA (adjusted and converted to a neutral-park major league equivalent peformance) was 3.06. Finishing ahead of Oswalt were such luminaries as Woody Williams (.275, 11th place), Eric Milton (.275, 12th place), and Jason Marquis (.294, 26th place). The equivalent ERAs for these pitchers were 4.38, 4.61, and 5.90. No one in their right mind would conclude that Williams, Milton, and Marquis were better than Oswalt.

So, Bergmann may have a good BABIP now, but that statistic does not correlate to his success over time, and his BABIP will almost certainly increase over that same time.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

2007-04-24T12:30:00.000-05:00

From the Elias Sports Bureau:

"Good news for Yankee fans: Rodriguez is on pace for 126 home runs and 306 runs batted in. Now the bad news: The Yankees are on pace for 90 losses."

Be afraid, be very afraid

2007-04-24T07:30:00.000-05:00

The Post reports that Cristian Guzman and Nick Logan are on the mend and may be back with the big club soon.

This reminds me of the time I saw Alien for the first time. I spent the entire movie slumped in my seat, holding a crumbled box of Dots in front of my eyes, trying to hide the horror of what I thought I was about to see.

That's how I felt when I read the Post article. Why?

Well, this is Cristian Guzman's line from 2005: .219/.260/.314. His VORP was -14.9, meaning that Frank Robinson would have been a more productive player--the manager, not the player in his prime. Think 2005 was an aberration? Not bloody likely! He had 492 plate appearances, so this wasn't a slump. And his line in 2004 with the Twins wasn't much better: .274/.309/.384. There is a word for production like this, and the word is "pathetic."

Nick Logan isn't much better. Here is his line from 2005, which was the last year in which he had substantial major league playing time: .258/.305/.335. In 99 plate appearances in 2006 his line was .300/.337/.389.

Here's an idea. Instead of bringing Guzman and Logan back, why don't the Nationals hold open public tryouts? There has got to be two better players roaming the streets of Washington, and the publicity would boost the franchise. Anyone want us to put in a good word for you with Jim Bowden?

The Franchise

2007-04-24T06:51:00.000-05:00

The Post has a good article today on Ryan Zimmerman. The story basically points out that Zimmerman is taking his slow start in stride and should post good numbers sometime soon.

There aren't many good stories about this year's team, but Zimmerman is one of them. Zimmerman's potential is so far superior to any other on the team that it seems appropriate to describe him using George Will's phrase--he is like an Everest in Kansas.

The Zimmerman saga this year therefore will have a number of interesting twists that could have a disproprotionate effect on the franchise's future.

First, as we said last week, the lack of other credible offensive threats means that Zimmerman will get fewer pitches to drive than he did last season. In many situations pitchers will have no reason to give Zim a good pitch to hit when the next few hitters aren't nearly as likely to pound the ball. That means that Zimmerman will either have to chase balls (and thereby become a less productive hitter) or become a more patient hitter (and thereby have fewer opportunities to do some damage). We hope he chooses the second course because it will help him develop into a potentially great hitter.

Second, because Zimmerman is their best hitter, the Nationals need to give him every opportunity to hit with runners in scoring position. The Post notes:

"Through 19 games, Zimmerman has just 19 at-bats with runners in scoring position, trailing three players -- Ryan Church, Ronnie Belliard and Brian Schneider -- on his own team. Last season, he had 34 such at-bats -- nearly two each day -- through the same number of games."

There will be fewer opportunities year because the Nats are just so bad, but when the opportunities come the Nats need to capitalize on them. Enough then, of the cute hit and run with a runner on first, no outs, and Zimmerman on deck. That blunder put Zimmerman up with two outs and nobody on, and wasted an opportunity to give him a chance to create a big inning. As USC coaches used to say when asked why they gave the ball to their great running backs so often, when you have a cannon, use it.

Third, there aren't many players who are so clearly identified at such a young age as their franchise's future. There simply is no one else on the current roster around whom the Nationals can build their team. So, we have the perfect storm thrusting this 22 year old to the forefront: a talent-starved franchise needing a marketing tool combined with a player who could be the best third baseman of his generation (we count A-Rod as a shortstop, which he would be if the Yankees were playing it smart). Baseball Prospectus put it well in this year's edition:

"Zimmerman's range, touch, soft hands, and on-field anticipation rate with the best of the league. Add in that he was the Nats' best hitter when it came to plating runners..., and you've got the face of the franchise, for at least as long as the Lerners decide to afford him."

That's high praise for a 22 year old, but it's all deserved.

Just how bad is Jerome Williams?

2007-04-23T08:15:00.000-05:00

Pretty bad.

It's not a good sign when your ERA equals the model number of a Boeing airplane. And not just any airplane, but one of Boeing's newest--the 7.77. Opposing hitters have absolutely astonishing numbers against Williams: .289/.369/533. To put this in some context, hitters this year are posting numbers against him that are equivalent to the stats of many Hall of Famers.

In only 22 innings, Williams has given up 26 hits and 12 walks, which is almost 2 runners per inning and 15 1/2 baserunners per nine innings. He allows baserunners at such an alarming rate that it's virtually impossible for him to succeed, and at about 18 pitchers per inning he can't go more than 5 innings in a game even if Manny Acta wanted to stay with him just to brutalize the hometown fans.

Williams is pitching so badly that the Nationals would be better off cutting him forthwith and picking up a pitcher off of a minor league team, ANY minor league team. His VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) is -9, meaning that Williams is awful even when compared to a replacement-level player.

Is there a silver lining in all of this?

No.

Much ado about, well, not exactly nothing, but...

2007-04-23T05:27:00.000-05:00

The big story from yesterday's game was not the pasting put on the Nats and Jerome Williams by the Marlins, but Manny Acta's decision to pull Ryan Church in the second inning when Church didn't run hard enough to first base on a routine ground out. There is no argument that Church could have beat out the throw; rather, Acta's complaint, which everyone, including us, seems to regard as legitimate, was that Church was loafing it.

From the Post, here's what happened next:

"So it was Acta's turn to deliver a message. By the time Church got back to the dugout, Acta was telling outfielder Chris Snelling -- who had been given the day off -- to get ready. In the bottom of the second, Snelling took over in left, Robert Fick moved from left to right, Austin Kearns moved from right to center, and Church remained on the bench."

Message sent, message received: Church says that Acta was right, and he was wrong. I promise, Church says, it won't happen again.

Now that we know that Acta is running a tight ship and is willing to disclipline a player who arguably has been the team's best hitter so far this season, we can all be happy knowing that the ship has been righted and the team is headed upward to even more success. Right?

Wait a minute... No, no, that's not right! The Nats were losing 12-2 going into the ninth, and, even though they made up four runs in the ninth on Ryan Zimmerman's grand slam (and first homer of the year), which you can see here, the box score and the standings tell an ugly tale.

In all this feel good support for a disciplinarian, we were thinking Acta's outburst might actually change something! You know, manager delivers a great speech, rallies the team, and the team turns it around like the New York Knights.

Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens only in the movies. We know that Acta is going to demand a lot of his players, which is important. But Acta can yell and scream as much as he wants and that isn't going to change one simple, depressing fact: this team is bad, and it's going to be bad for some time.

On the other hand, Acta's takedown of Church and his waltzing to first base proves one thing: we know now that Acta can deliver the lollygagging speech from Bull Durham:

Coach: You guys... you lollygag the ball around the infield. You lollygag your way down to first. You lollygag in and out of the dugout. Do you know what that makes you? Larry?
Larry: Lollgaggers!
Coach: Lollygaggers

You won't believe this...

2007-04-22T07:24:00.000-05:00

Last night Matt Chico threw what may have been the worst pitch in the history of baseball. The left-hander threw a "pitch" that ended up in behind the first base dugout. How it got there is anyone's guess, but it's one of the funniest things I've ever seen. You can check out the video at the Nats' web site. The Post rightly calls this a Nuke LaLoosh moment.

It was just one of dozens of bad pitches Chico threw. The box score tells an ugly tale: six hits and seven walks in 4 2/3 innings. Even the best pitcher can't succeed when putting that many hitters on base, and Chico is far from the best pitcher. Five earned runs raised his ERA to 6.38. Chico is not a productive major league pitcher; had the Nationals even a mediocre staff he'd be on his way back to AAA today. Instead, he'll probably be in the rotation for a while.

Well, let's look on the bright side. At least that may give us a few more highlights like last night's bizarre video!

Why can't the Post spell?

2007-04-21T08:50:00.000-05:00

This is from the
game story in today's Post: "Yet he got out of the eighth with a strikeout of Alfredo Amezaga."

That sentence contains a spelling error, and the Post knows it. Alfredo Amézaga was born in Mexico. They speak Spanish in Mexico and use pronunciation rules that differ from those used when speaking English. For example, sometimes a syllable in a person's name will carry an emphasis that is not suggested by the unaccented spelling of the name. Thus, Alfredo Amezaga is pronounced differently than Alfredo Amézaga.

Many English speakers regard this as a non-issue. Spanish speakers, however, know that omitting an accent mark results in the misspelling of a person's name. Recognizing this, ESPN started relatively recently to spell correctly Latino names using an accent mark. Interestingly, I think ESPN does this only on its television station; it appears to continue to misspell Latino names on the ESPN website.

Is this the biggest issue of the day? No, but why wouldn't the Post try to curry favor with a growing Latino audience by taking the relatively ministerial step of spelling Latino names correctly?

The Slowsky

2007-04-21T08:23:00.000-05:00

Everyone seems to agree that John Patterson has lost significant velocity on his fastball. According to the Post, Patterson and pitching coach Randy St. Claire agree that Patterson isn't injured, but just needs to build arm strength following last year's injuries. Given that Shawn Hill may miss his next start, thus making a sub-standard starting rotation even weaker, the Nats desperately need their number one starter to return to form--the form that he showed in 2005, that is.

Who are you and what have you done with John Patterson?

2007-04-20T05:00:00.000-05:00

In 2005, John Patterson was a revelation. He was dominant, especially at home, and was one of the primary reasons the Nationals overachieved so tremendously in the first half of the season. His equivalent ERA (ERA adjusted and converted to a neutral-park major league equivalent performance) was a brilliant 3.68, and his ratio stats suggested similar brilliance: 8.4 K per 9 innings; 2.85 Ks per every BB. Opponent batters' lines against him were anemic: .233/.298/.358.

The pitcher who claims to be John Patterson this year is not the same person we saw on the mound in 2005. Here is a comparison of his stats in 2005 and 2007:

Year	IP	ERA	K/9	K/BB	Opp. Avg.	Opp. OBP	Opp. SLG
2005	198.1	3.13	8.4	2.85	.233	.298	.358
2007	18	7.00	4.0	0.57	.426	.548	.617

The 2007 stats are downright frightening. If this is what we expected for the rest of the year, Patterson would be sent down to AAA on a bullet train.

Don't worry, we don't expect this to continue, but something is clearly wrong with Patterson. Particularly disturbing is his falling strikeout rates, which suggest that he doesn't have the same speed on his fastball and can't fool anyone with his curve. Are the elbow and forearm problems that shut him down in 2006 plaguing him now? Who knows, but it's not hard to conclude that they are. The Post notes that Patterson's fastball topped out at 89 mph, 5 mph slower than his fastball before his injury. Patterson himself acknowledges that his problem is physical, but says he's just building arm strength.

We hope that's true, because if it's not it's very bad news for the Nationals. Not only was Patterson set to be their best pitcher, but he also was set to be one of their most valuable trade commodities. Let's hope that arm strength comes sometime very soon.

Some minor news

2007-04-19T12:10:00.000-05:00

Remember Larry Broadway and Brandon Watson, two minor leaguers for the Nats who may or may not have a future gig with the big club? Well, how are they doing?

Not well.

Here are their stats so far:

Player	AB	Avg.	OBP	SLG
Larry Broadway	36	.167	.286	.417
Brandon Watson	22	.182	.217	.273

It's very early in the season, but these are atrocious numbers. We shouldn't expect any big league production from these guys any time soon.

We'll take it anyway we can get it!

2007-04-19T06:04:00.000-05:00

What a game. 5-4 win in 13 innings for the Nats' fourth win in the last six games. That's a good streak for any team, but it's a great one for this team. The Nats are now out of last place, and if this continues...

Wait! Let's not get crazy here. The Nats are 5-10 and have been outscored 77-45 in their 15 games, meaning that their expected record is 4-11. They're overachieving at 5-10!

But enough negativity, let's focus on the good stuff. Brian Schneider hit his first home run and raised his numbers to .204/.293/.286; Austin Kearns was 3-6 and now stands at .259/.317/.362; Felipe Lopez was 2-5 and raised his numbers to .297/.343/.344; and... Well, that's about it on the hitting side, and those numbers are pretty awful. We should mention a truly statistic: as the Post notes, the Nats were 1-15 with runners in scoring position and 0 for their last 14. Jeez.

As for the pitching, Bergmann was pretty good, giving up 3 runs in 6 innings while striking out 6 and walking only 1. The bullpen was great, despite Chad Cordero's blown save, giving up only 1 run in 6 2/3 innings.

Now, for the really ugly stuff. The Phillies were 1-11 with runners in scoring position. As the Elias Sports Bureau notes, "[t]he Phillies have left 131 runners on base in 13 games this season, the highest total for any big-league team over its first 13 games since the Tigers stranded 132 runners in their first 13 games back in 1970. (But while those Tigers went 10-3 despite stranding all of those runners, the Phillies stand at 3-10.)" Ouch.

But that's no knock on the Nats. You have to win most of your games against teams that are slumping, and the Nats did that. Thank the maker for the Phils!

Department of Wishful Thinking

2007-04-18T07:26:00.000-05:00

This article from the Post, which noted the improvement of the Nats' pitching in the season's second week, is the kind of thing we'll see periodically this year as writers try to find some silver lining in the team's poor performance.

What happened to Jerome Williams?

2007-04-18T06:23:00.000-05:00

Jerome Williams was once a prospect. In 2001 and 2002, he was the Giants' top prospect. Does that mean much? Well, in the years before Williams earned the top spot Baseball America named Joe Fontenot (1997), Jason Grilli (1998 and 1999), and Kurt Ainsworth (2000) the Giants' top prospects. Know any of those guys?

It's a very slippery slope from top prospect to has-been, especially for a pitcher. Williams seems to have slid down that slope very quickly. At only 25, he's not much of a pitcher. Via Baseball Prospectus, here are his ERA stats adjusted and converted to a neutral-park major league equivalent performance:

Year	Team	IP	ERA
2004	Giants	129	4.59
2005	Giants	16	6.35
2005	Cubs	106	4.18
2006	Cubs	12	7.62

I've included only Williams' major league stats, but he spent a good part of 2005 and 2006 in the minors. His equivalent ERA in the minors ranged from 4.31 to 9.95.

Is Williams a prospect now? Only in the most generous sense. It made sense for the Nationals to take a chance on him because there probably weren't any better options to fill out their starting rotation, but the chances of Williams improving significantly are low. Instead, we can expect to see a lot more of what we saw last night: 5 innings, 92 pitches, 7 hits, 2 walks, 4 strikeouts, 4 earned runs, and a loss.

Matt Chico: Softie

2007-04-17T08:41:00.000-05:00

More evidence that Matt Chico isn't going to go far if he walks five and strikes out no one. This is from the Elias Sports Bureau via espn.com:

"Washington's Matt Chico started and earned his first career victory in the Nationals' 5-1 triumph over Atlanta. Chico threw five innings, with no strikeouts and five walks. In the last 70 years, only two other starting pitchers picked up their first major league win, despite walking at least five and striking out nobody: Gil Rondon for the 1976 Astros and Jim Converse with the 1993 Mariners."

What would you do?

2007-04-17T06:52:00.000-05:00

Last night in the bottom of the first inning, the Nationals had Felipe Lopez on first and Ron Belliard at the plate with no outs and with the score tied 0-0. Ryan Zimmerman, the Nats' best hitter, was on deck.

What would you do in this situation?

There was obviously the potential for a big inning, and the Nats don't get enough of those opportunities. Zimmerman was in a slump, but this early in the season you have to hope that your best hitter starts to produce at some point soon. After Zimmerman was Dimitri Young, Austin Kearns, Ryan Church, and Brian Schneider. That isn't Murderers' Row, but it's the heart of the team's order. One would normally let them hit and see whether they could produce a big inning.

The Nationals didn't do that. Instead, Manny Acta put on a hit and run. Belliard promptly struck out and Lopez was caught stealing. Now Zimmerman was up with two outs and nobody on. Goodbye big inning.

We're not the kind of fans who blame the manager for everything. In fact, we think managers actually have a very limited effect on a team's won-loss record. Having said that, this is the kind of managerial mistake that we can't stand.

The Nationals have to assume that a single run in the first inning is not critical. That's because their pitching staff is so bad that there won't be many games where the opponent scores one run or less. More often, the Nationals are going to have to score at least a few runs to win.

Assuming that's true, a hit and run in this situation makes no sense. The most you can hope for is to put Lopez on second and avoid a double play. But since one run wasn't critical in that situation, Lopez on second wouldn't have added much and wasn't worth the risk of ending the play with one out and maybe two.

Last year Lopez stole 21 bases and was caught 6 times, meaning that he successfully stole a base 78% of the time, so sending Lopez wasn't, by itself crazy. But Belliard last year had an adjusted OBP of .347, meaning that he'll get on base 35% of the time, which isn't bad. If he gets on base and moves Lopez to second, the Nationals then have the chance for a really big inning.

And it wasn't like Belliard was facing Roger Clemens. Pitching for the Braves was Chuck James, who is pretty good, but inexperienced and definitely not great. With the heart of the order coming up, the Nationals had the opportunity to score some runs.

Had this been the ninth inning with the score tied, sending Lopez would have made sense. But it was the first inning and Acta had to assume that the Nationals needed a bunch of runs. A hit and run wasn't the way to reach that goal, and let's hope we don't see a lot more of these tricks early in games.

Nice trend

2007-04-16T21:03:00.000-05:00

Tonight's game was the second straight good performance by a Nationals' starting pitcher. This time it was Matt Chico--five innings, 4 hits, 1 earned run, and 97 pitches. The Nats' offensive outburst--five runs--cemented the win for Chico. Before we get too excited, though, look at the part of the pitching line we left out--five walks and no strikeouts. That's a distinct lack of dominance, and it portends future trouble for Mr. Chico.

This isn't good...

2007-04-16T07:36:00.001-05:00

This is from Jayson's Stark recent column on espn.com:

Nationals' crisis

Problems 1 through 25: Talent
And by that we mean: There sure isn't enough of it. This entire starting rotation won two games last year. Yeah, two. The lineup features nobody who hit 25 homers last season. And once you get past Ryan Zimmerman, Austin Kearns and Brian Schneider, the rest of the roster is "just a bunch of extra players," said one scout.
"I've been watching that team, just to see if we might want to [trade] for someone when they start selling," said one front-office man. "I still haven't come up with that someone."

We're not sure how many games this team is going to lose. 100? 110? 118? But wherever they end up, the Nationals already have done something that's just about impossible:

Over their first nine games, 714 hitters marched up to home plate. Not one of them stepped into the box while the Nationals held a lead. (The only time they led in the one game they won, remember, was the moment the winning run crossed the plate in the ninth inning.) That's gotta be a record that will never be broken.

We feel for you, Ryan

2007-04-16T06:54:00.000-05:00

In their depleted state, the Nationals have only one player they legitimately can build around--Ryan Zimmerman. He is the future of the organization and the one player we all can be sure will be here for a while. His performance last year created reasonable expectations of a great year at the plate in 2007. Unfortunately, Zimmerman is off to a very poor start. His line to date is .180/.226/.260. Those are Cristian Guzman numbers.

Now, no one thinks Zimmerman is going to underperform like this for the rest of the season, and given that he's only had 50 at bats so far, we can't look at his stats and reach any definitive conclusions. This, after all, is only a slump, and we fully expect Zim to be hammering the ball pretty soon.

We do need to realize, however, that the anemic Nationals lineup gives opposing pitchers little reason to give Zimmerman anything to hit. There just is not enough punch in the Nationals' lineup to make pitchers give Zimmerman the pitches that other Nats hitters are likely to see.

So, this year may be a difficult one for Zimmerman, one that tests his patience. We hope that the Nationals' management is preparing Zimmerman for this and counseling him on the need for plate discipline. His OBP was .348 last year, and we think there is a real chance for Zim to push that closer to .400 this year. That would be a huge step forward for him, and it would serve as a foundation for future dominance if he became that selective.

The alternative is for Zimmerman to chase pitches merely because he isn't seeing many balls he can drive. That would be a terrible development and would set him back significantly.

Let's hope patience becomes a virtue for Ryan this year.

Steals don't mean anything, right?

2007-04-15T20:10:00.000-05:00

Steals are not as prized today as they once were. Billy Beane and the sabermetricians have shown that steals are not worth the risk unless the thief has a success rate of 75% or better. There is still some debate about the value of steals, but the Nationals won't be engaging in that debate this season. This is from the Elias Sports Bureau, via espn.com:

"The Nationals hit three home runs in their 6-2 win over the Mets [on Saturday], but what really raised eyebrows was Felipe Lopez's steal of second base in the third inning. It was Washington's first stolen base of the season, coming in its 12th game. That's the farthest into a season any National League team has gone without a stolen base since the Pirates failed to steal one in their first 23 games of the 1973 season. (Many AL teams have done it in the interim.)"

Shawn Hill, productive starter?

2007-04-15T07:37:00.000-05:00

Shawn Hill pitched a nice game yesterday. Here is his pitching line:

Inn	H	R	ER	BB	SO	HR	PC-ST
8	2	2	1	5	0	97-60

That's a good game, but what's the likelihood that Hill will continue to pitch like that?

Not great. Hill relies on a sinker and doesn't throw much in the way of heat. He can be effective occasionally, but asking someone with his repetoire to be consistently effective over a large number of innings is like asking Shaq to hit 90% of his free throws--it ain't going to happen.

Hill isn't worthless, though. He had a postive VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) last year, and his equivalent ERA (ERA converted to a neutral park and controlled for the quality of the pitcher's team's defense) last year was 4.26. Given that the major league ideal EqERA was 4.50, that's better than average.

The key to using Hill is not to ask too much of him. He can be effective, but asking him to be a front-of-the-rotation starter is unreasonable. Unfortunately, the Nats just don't have the number of quality starting pitchers they need to plant Hill in the back of the rotation. Until they do, the demands on Hill may be just enough to turn what could be a useful player into a below-average pitcher.

Piling On

2007-04-14T07:22:00.000-05:00

Here's a depressing statistic. Baseball Prospectus' adjusted standings show that, as of Friday's game, the Nationals are overachieving so far this season. While their actual record was 2-8, their adjusted record was 1.4 - 8.6. That's what happens, I guess, when your team is outscored 61-23.

I guess then we're just really bad?

2007-04-14T00:37:00.000-05:00

Mitchell Page, the Nationals' hitting coach, has some good news: the Nats' hitters aren't in a slump. Given that "slump" is defined as decreasing or falling suddenly and markedly, I guess the Nats' pathetic offensive output is just consistently bad? We hope not, because the Nats' team batting line--.231/.311/.332--doesn't even rise to the level of anemic. We fear that Mr. Page is correct and this is as good as it gets. But, look on the bright side--at least the season ticket holders sitting behind the Nats' dugout don't have to fear screaming line drives from the Nats' bats!

Um, maybe the hook was too quick?!

2007-04-14T00:23:00.000-05:00

Can someone please explain why Manny Acta was so quick on hook in tonight's game? We're all for avoiding undue strain on John Patterson's arm, but pulling him with one out in the fifth when he'd only thrown 76 pitches and the Nats were leading 2-1? It's not like the Nats have a bullet-proof bullpen. Yanking your ace so that the worst mop-up crew in the majors can take over isn't a good strategy. Not surprisingly, Micah Bowie couldn't hold the lead and Patterson walked away without a decision.

Of course, this might be the perfect strategy, if the Nats plan on trading Patterson. Keep him well rested and keep his numbers down and maybe by the All Star Break you've positioned him well for a trade. Is that what's on Acta's mind? Of course not, but let's at least try to find some rationality in Nats' management.

Is there an owner in our immediate future?

2006-04-13T07:39:00.000-05:00

It seems so, at least according to Boswell. Fred Malek's group apparently is the front runner, with Stan Kasten likely to join the group and run the team. That's a pretty good outcome--Kasten, after all, played no small role in building the Braves into one of baseball's best franchises. Now, let's hope the new owner sets about to rebuilding this team and moving it in the right direction, pronto.

The story that wasn't a story

2006-04-13T07:25:00.000-05:00

The buzz before last night's game was over what the Nationals would do to Pedro Martinez. Having plunked his share of Nationals hitters, would the Nationals retaliate against Martinez, with the bats or otherwise? As it turns out, the buzz should have been what Martinez was going to do to the Nationals.

Martinez shut down the Nats in a masterful performance. Pedro's line reflected his dominance: 7 innings, 3 hits, 3 strikeouts, one walk, one earned run.

We shouldn't really be surprised by the lack of fireworks. First, Major League Baseball has come down hard on the two teams, and we doubt that any player wants to risk a long suspension on doing something stupid. Second, the Nats are overmatched against pitchers like Pedro. There's no shame in that, because Pedro makes a lot of hitters look foolish, but a team that makes Brian Bannister look unhittable doesn't stand much of a chance against Martinez.

There will be a lot of games like this as the season progresses. If there is a silver lining, it's that Tony Armas looked pretty good: 6 innings, 8 hits, 4 strikeouts, one walk, two earned runs. He wasn't dominant, but he was productive, which is a lot more than we expected. Let's hope that we see many more such starts from Mr. Armas.

Brian loves us!

2006-04-12T07:03:00.000-05:00

This is from the Elias Sports Bureau:

Have the Mets found a keeper in Brian Bannister, who earned his first major-league win in a 7-1 victory over the Nationals? Could be. Bannister has held the opposition scoreless through five innings in each of his first two major-league starts. But curb your enthusiasm -- at least for the moment. The last five pitchers to do that were Robinson Tejeda, Kyle Davies, Jimmy Gobble, Wil Ledezma, and Mike Maroth.

Let's also not forget that Bannister's only two games have been against the Nationals, and that his ratios aren't very good: K/BB=1.25; K/9=3.46. So, let's hold off on the euphoric rhetoric for a bit.

Was I that listless?

2006-04-12T06:35:00.000-05:00

Barry Svrluga writes that the fans at yesterday's game were "listless." I guess they (we) were, but how exactly are the fans supposed to get excited when the team is getting pounded by the opponent? The Nats were down 2-0 after four innings and had only one hit to show for their efforts. In fact, Brian Bannister had faced only one more hitter than the minimum through four and only two more than the minimum through five. By that time the score was 4-0, and, with the Nats making Brian Bannister look like Walter Johnson, the odds were heavily stacked against the team the fans wanted to cheer for.

The fans weren't so quiet at the beginning of the game. They rained loud cheers on the home team during the introductions and gave a huge ovation to Frank Robinson. They then unleashed their furor on Dick Cheney as he walked off the field. In other words, the fans were quite vocal until the play on the field depressed them to the point of silence.

It is just not credible to suggest, as Svrluga does, that the players were listless in response to the fans' failure to be vocal. The Nationals are not a good team. In the home opener the starting pitcher was someone who should not be starting for any major league team and arguably shouldn't even be in The Show. And the starting second baseman, shortstop, and centerfielder wouldn't be starting for any other major league team. Let's stop acting like the sitation is anything other than what it is: the Nationals are a poor team this year, and they have no choice but to use this year as a rebuilding exercise.

It is just wrong to blame the fans for not responding to this team like it's a World Series contender. The team has the obligation to put onto the field a productive unit that lures fans into the seats, and it (and its putative owner--Major League Baseball) has failed miserably to do that. And even the rebuilding can't get started until Major League Baseball finally gets around to choosing an owner.

The fans have been remarkably supportive throughout this difficult period, and it's the team's responsibility to give them something to cheer for. Until they do, it is entirely appropriate for the fans to show their displeasure or just remain silent if they choose to do so.

RFK lays an egg

2006-04-11T16:40:00.000-05:00

It took us 45 minutes to exit the parking lot after the game, and there were ten minute stretches where we weren't moving at all and finally turned off the car. The problem seemed to be that there were too few exits and too many cars being funneled from too many directions into those few exits. So, we had to wait unreasonably long times for the cars nearer the exits to make their way into the line. I've never seen a parking lot more mismanaged than RFK today, including numerous games last year that were sold out. Let's hope the parking lot managers learn their lesson and clean up this problem because there will be a lot of people who just stay away from the park rather than brave those parking lot traffic jams.

Actual conversation

2006-04-11T14:17:00.000-05:00

After Soriano homered in the bottom of the 7th, the crowd noise woke up the sleeping Mets fan behind me. Apparently the alcohol had taken its toll.

Mets Fan #1: What? What? What happened?

Mets Fan #2: Soriano homered.

Mets Fan #1: SO WHAT!! GO METS, BRO! WHAT'S THE SCORE, 5-2?

Mets Fan #2: 5-1.

Mets Fan #1: SEE WHAT I TOLD YOU, BRO! GO METS!

His ability to go from unconsciousness to maximum decibel level was stunning..

Ramon Ortiz

2006-04-11T13:46:00.000-05:00

Ortiz' line: 4 runs, 8 hits, 6 innings. He is not an effective pitcher.

Why is this happening to me?

2006-04-11T13:03:00.000-05:00

I guess there are worse things than spending an afternoon sitting in front
of six drunken Mets fans. Duck hunting with Dick Cheney and dining with
Judge Judy come to mind, but there aren't many.

You've got to be kidding!

2006-04-11T12:55:00.000-05:00

The Presidential race has returned as a between-innings media feature at RFK this season. But unlike last year, when the presidents were racing in cars, it's a foot race this year. Lincoln just won the race going away. He was losing until he threw a pylon at Washington, knocking him temporarily unconscious. Nice.

What?!

2006-04-11T11:45:00.000-05:00

The Nationals have a massage therapist on their staff?! Perhaps not surprisingly, he got a big ovation from the fans.

Remember that Seinfeld episode?

2006-04-11T11:34:00.000-05:00

Something is seriously wrong with RFK's sound system. It's impossible to hear anything that's being said over the PA system. The announcer might as well be speaking in Chinese. It's like that Seinfeld episode where the New York subway announcer is totally incomprehensible.

Concession Madness

2006-04-11T11:10:00.000-05:00

Why can't the stadium concessions get the basics right? We had to search for working ketchup and mustard dispensers, and the sausage line was 10 minutes long while virtually every other stand had no customers. You'd think the stadium would have the rudimentary supply and demand calculations down after a year, but it seems not to be so.

Opening Day

2006-04-11T11:02:00.000-05:00

Last year opening day was a night game, and, although the weather wasn't great, the atmosphere was electric. Baseball had returned to Washington after a 30 year absence, and the sell-out crowd was euphoric. The fans were so excited that they gave even the equipment manager a standing ovation.

Now, one year later, opening day is a day game and the weather is beautiful.
It's a great day for a game, even though the atmosphere will be less combustible than last year. As of an hour ago, 9,000 tickets remained to be sold. In other words, a bit of the bloom is off this rose.

But just a bit. The Nationals were a huge hit last year, and it seems safe to conclude that baseball is here to stay. Were they to have a real owner, the team could exploit this environment and become one of the league's most valuable franchises.

There is still a lot of promise here, even more than is normal for a team on it's opening day.

In praise of Chad Cordero

2006-04-11T06:37:00.000-05:00

Our first thought after last night's game was to write a blistering post ripping Chad Cordero for blowing another save. But we thought about it and decided instead to write a post praising Cordero and the job he's done for the Nationals. Then we decided that Cordero should be traded.

Yes, Cordero blew the save last night, and, yes, Cordero blew key saves down the stretch last year, including one horrific home game against the Braves. But Cordero has been one of the best closers over the last two years. According to Baseball Prospectus, he finished 14th and 9th in Wins Expected Above Replacement Level in the last two seasons. There's no reason why Cordero can't continue to a productive closer, especially since he pitches in spacious RFK.

But, let's be realistic. The Nationals have A LOT of needs--starting pitching, shortstop, second base (assuming Soriano leaves), and the outfield. Acquiring productive talent in all of those positions is going to require three things: smart management, money, and talent to be used as trade bait. In the third category, Cordero is one of the Nationals' most valuable commodities. He is young, cheap, and occupies a coveted position. A team in the pennant stretch drive would give up something significant for a closer like that, and the Nationals need to be pursuing a lot of trades in which they acquire the young talent they need to fill their gaping holes in the lineup.

It's not like we'll never be able to find another closer. Eric Gagne, Chris Reitsma, and a whole lot of other closers didn't start out in that role. The inconvenient truth is that productive closers are pretty easy to find. Yes, dominating closers like Mariano Rivera aren't, but Cordero isn't Rivera. Let's also not forget that closers tend to have arm problems, and what's more likely to happen: Cordero reigns as an elite closer for ten years or some problem interrupts his march to the Hall of Fame? There aren't many closers who last that long, and we're willing to take the risk that Cordero will by trading him now. The Nationals need to start building for their future, and Cordero can help them take a big step in that direction.

How do you solve a problem like Ramon?

2006-04-07T01:45:00.000-05:00

Ramon Ortiz is the Nationals' #3 starter. Here is what Stats Inc. says about him:

Although Ortiz has good stuff, he continues to struggle to consistently get major league hitters out. Some scouts feel it's because he throws a relatively straight fastball, which generally is in the low to mid-90s. He is only 6-feet tall, so he has trouble getting downward tilt on his pitches. His slider can be very good, but it can also be mediocre.

Here is a portion of what Baseball Prospectus said about him last year:

His actual first name is "Diogenes," which was the club at which Sherlock Holmes brother Mycroft hung out, and also the name of a Greek philosopher from the 4th century BCE known as "The Cynic." Diogenes' writings do not survive, and so hardly does Ortiz.

Interesting. Anyway, Ortiz is hardly a pitcher in whom you'd like to entrust the #3 spot in your rotation. You'd do that only if you had no other choice, both because your minor league system hadn't yet produced a major-league-ready starter and you didn't have enough money or smarts to get a good starter via trade or free agency. That, dear readers, is where the Nationals are at this point in their history. That's OK, because there isn't much the team can do about it now and instead should be focusing on rebuilding for the future, but it's going to be hard to watch Ortiz go out to the mound every fifth day this season. In fact, we hope that Ortiz won't be in the starting rotation by the All Star Break.

To bring this all back to last night, the Mets hammered Ortiz in a 10-5 win. Ortiz gave up six runs in five innings and squandered a nice offensive output by the Nationals' hitters. Ortiz did what he does best: he got crushed by left-handers. Carlos Delgado hit an Ortiz meatball so hard the camera couldn't follow it as it left the yard. (Xavier Nady was 2-3; bad for the Nationals, good for my fantasy team.)

The big drama last night was Pedro Martinez hitting Jose Guillen twice, which caused Guillen to approach Martinez with a bat. Thankfully, Jose didn't use the bat on Martinez' person, but we can't blame Guillen for being angry. Martinez pitches Guillen so tight that the ball is never far from his neck. Unlike last year, when Esteban Loiaza didn't retaliate, Felix Rodriguez did and was promptly tossed. Why the umpires didn't toss Martinez after he plunked Guillen a second time is beyond us.

In any event, the Nationals lost 10-5, and they need a better rotation. That's a theme we'll keep coming back to this season, unfortunately.

Payroll Madness

2006-04-06T10:55:00.000-05:00

The Nationals have a $63 million payroll this year, up from $48 million last year. This might give you the impression that the Nats' days of a depressed payroll are over; after all, the team leapt three places from 23rd to 20th in the rankings and signed Alfonso Soriano in the offseason.

It might give you that impression, I guess, but it shouldn't. The Nationals continue to have a vastly depressed payroll, and a review of two statistics gives us a good (but not perfect) guide to how depressed the payroll is.

The team is in the 8th largest media market and last year was 11th in home attendance. Both figures are rough approximations of what should be the ranking of the team's payroll. If the Nationals had the 8th largest payroll, they would be tied with Houston at $92 million. If the team had the 11th largest payroll, it would be tied with St. Louis at $88 million. There is no obvious reason why the Nationals should have a payroll lower than either Houston or St. Louis; to the contrary, every indication is that the Nationals have the potential to be one of the league's most profitable teams, IF, that is, the team gets an owner and a reasonable television contract.

In other words, it's plausible that the Nationals will have at least $25 million to spend once they get an owner, and that's assuming that the team continues to carry Cristian Guzman and Jose Vidro and their overpriced contracts. If the Nationals can bring some fiscal sanity to the GM's office, they could have over $30 million to spend in the offseason. So, bring on an owner and bring on some real spending!

Yeah, about that no-hitter...

2006-04-06T03:53:00.000-05:00

From the Elias Sports Bureau:

Washington erased a 4-0 deficit in its 9-5, 10-inning victory at New York, spoiling the major league debut of Brian Bannister. Last season, the Mets were 25-0 in home games in which they led by at least four runs.

Bannister held Washington hitless until Jose Vidro doubled with one out in the sixth. The last starting pitcher to take a no-hitter into the sixth inning of his major league debut was Cincinnati's Brian Reith (5 2/3 innings vs. Arizona. May 16, 2001).

Ryan Zimmerman's game-tying homer off Billy Wagner in the ninth inning spoiled Bannister's bid for a victory. Over the last 20 years, the only starter to win his major league debut this early in a season (his team's first or second game) was Rolando Arroyo (1998 Devil Rays, game #2).

The Nationals had a habit last season of turning journeyman pitchers into latter-day Walter Johnsons, so no one should jump onto the Brian Bannister Bandwagon just yet. If you know any Mets fans, though, you'll have to endure today insipid comparisons of Bannister to Dwight Gooden. We'll see if Bannister is capable of anything close to yesterday's performance as he makes his way through the National League. I'm not holding my breath.

Speaking of Gooden, he was sentenced yesterday to a year and a day in prison for violating his probation by using cocaine. As we said last year, Gooden's descent from baseball great to petty convict is one of the game's great tragedies.

Oh, that's what the first half was like...

2006-04-06T03:01:00.000-05:00

The Nationals hit 173 home runs last year. They hit three last night in a great, come-from-behind victory over the hateful Mets (that's for a fantasy league competitor). Despite a bad performance from John Patterson--four earned runs, two home runs, and ninety pitches in only four innings--the Nationals scored three in the sixth, one in the ninth, and five in the tenth. This is the kind of comeback that was commonplace during the first half last year, but was virtually gone by mid-August. In other words, last night's drama reminded us all of what it like to be a Nats fan over the first 81 games last year.

It was Ryan Zimmerman's homer off Billy Wagner in the ninth that was the night's most dramatic event. Wagner is one of those pitchers who throws so hard you wonder how the catcher's hand survives the confrontation with the ball. Anyway, Wagner uncorked a 93 mph fastball, and Zimmerman absolutely crushed it. This guy is for real, folks. Frank Robinson is right to urge caution so Zim can grow into the job, but it's hard not to get excited about this guy.

Of course, the ongoing drama that is Alfonso Soriano was also compelling. Instead of running out a pop-up that started foul but ended fair, Soriano watched as he stood in the batter's box. As Jose Guillen said, everyone knows Frank Robinson, and everyone knows how he reacts to loafing. Well, that is everyone but Soriano. But the Fonz knows now, because Robinson quickly benched him, and Soriano now had the opportunity to watch the rest of the game from the dugout.

Why anyone on this team would fail to hustle given Robinson's drill-sergeant reputation is beyond us. And Soriano is quickly developing a reputation as a guy who doesn't care much about anything but himself. He's a real asset at second (less so in left), so let's hope he sees the light pretty quickly.

The road from here...

2006-04-05T07:42:00.000-05:00

We were very critical of Jim Bowden last year, and justifiably so. His moves around the All Star Break were wrong-headed and merely moved the team laterally, at best. We're convinced that Bowden isn't the right guy for the job, but let's let bygones be bygones.

Let's focus on what the Nationals should be doing for the rest of this season. A playoff spot is out of the question, and acting as if the postseason is a realistic possibility will only push the team further down a rathole for the future.

What the Nats need to do this year is position the team for the future. They need to acquire young, cheap talent both in the major and minor leagues that will provide a foundation for winning for years to come.

What's gone unnoticed is that the team has actually made some quiet strides forward in this regard. The scouting department has been doing a pretty good job of finding talent, and the team has made some tentative steps toward building an effective Latin American scouting program. We anticipate that these efforts will continue, and we hope the new owner will invest even more aggressively in them.

Meanwhile, the team needs to forget about squeezing the last drip of talent out of players like Cristian Guzman and Jose Vidro. Alfonso Soriano won't be everything the team needs, but he's a lot more valuable at second than he is in left. Whatever his limitations, Ryan Church should be starting in left. With Guillen in right, the focus should be in acquiring a quality center fielder, something, we're sad to say, that the Nats lacked when Brad Wilkerson was prowling the confines of RFK. Wilkerson will no doubt put up much better numbers in hitter friendly Ameriquest Field, but, for whatever reason, he was unlikely to be productive in RFK.

With Ryan Zimmerman at third, Soriano at second, Nick Johnson at first, and Brian Schneider at catcher, the team has to focus its attention like a laser on getting a quality shortstop. Soriano may be traded this season, but if so the Nats should get something significant in return, hopefully good middle infielder. You'll notice that we're leaving Jose Vidro out of this conversation. That's because he's way past his prime, and the Nats would be wise to get whatever they can for him this season. Investing large sums of money in aging players past their prime (e.g., Vidro) or players who are just plain bad (e.g., Guzman) is a losing strategy for a team building for the future. The Pirates tried that strategy with disastrous effects, and the Nationals should do everything they can to avoid the same collision course with sanity.

Here's what smart investment can do for a team...

2006-04-04T07:05:00.000-05:00

From the Elias Sports Bureau:

The Mets started three infielders Monday who are not yet 24 years old: Anderson Hernandez (23, 2B), Jose Reyes (22, SS) and David Wright (23, 3B). The only other big-league team in the last 40 years to start a second baseman, shortstop and third baseman, all under 24, in a season opener was the 1981 Braves: Glenn Hubbard (23, 2B), Rafael Ramirez (23, SS) and Bob Horner (23, 3B).

Nationals Interest 2.0

2006-04-03T16:56:00.000-05:00

Thanks to all those readers who sent kind emails (and comments) asking us to blog again this year. I'll be honest: we actually were contemplating abandoning the blog. A serious blog requires more work than we imagined when we started this endeavor, and I'm a bit embarrassed to say that we found the whole enterprise pretty exhausting. We loved doing it, and we especially liked hearing from readers, but it was tiring, and we were often not able to devote the time we needed to make the blog as good as we wanted. That's a long way of apologizing both for the extended lay off and for the too frequent lackluster posts last season.

Nevertheless, we decided that we couldn't turn away from the computer screen this season, so here we are again. Given our absence, we have A LOT to say! We'll start tonight with a short statement on where the Nationals are now, and we'll continue the conversation over the next few days.

Unfortunately, the Nationals don't look much better now than they did at the end of last season. In fact, they look much worse. Vinny Castilla, Preston Wilson, and Brad Wilkerson are gone, but the execrable Cristian Guzman remains. He can't be any worse than he was last season and he will almost certaintly be materially better, but the improvement we need at shortstop is one of kind, not of degree. Jose Vidro is also still here, so we'll get to watch him travel down the water slide of his career one more year.

There are some good additions, like Alfonso Soriano and a full season of Ryan Zimmerman. We'll have more to say later about the former's temper tantrum regarding playing in the outfield, but the Nats need more Sorianos and fewer Vidros, so we'd just as soon like Franky to pencil the Fonz in as the everyday second baseman.

The real crime is not what the Nationals did in the off season, but what they didn't do. A number of our readers last year thought we were too pessimistic and too hard on Jim Bowden for not doing more to improve the team before the trade deadline. Well, we think events have proven us right. The Nationals played over their head in the first half of the season and could have used the delta between their potential and actual payroll to buy good players and lock in their upstart start. Instead, they fiddled at the margins by acquiring players like Preston Wilson. And without a real owner to approve new spending in the offseason, the Nationals failed to take advantage of their potential wealth and instead watched players like Esteban Loiaza walk away into the sunset. Not all of this is Bowden's fault, obviously. Much of the blame lies at the feet of the owners, who dickered with the City Council over every last penny rather than give the team a real shot at improving this season.

The result is that the Nationals have less promise this season than they did last year at this time, which means that a .500 season would be a monumental accomplishment.

It's time for an owner to step forward

2005-11-28T08:22:00.001-05:00

It would be easy to criticize the D.C. City Council for its attempt to get a better deal now that the Nationals have performed so well financially and the cost of the proposed stadium is rising. The Council has given us a lot of evidence that it can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and that it can act in a way contrary to the will of the clear majority of both greater metropolitan area residents and those who live in D.C.

But the council is only doing what Major League Baseball is doing. Bud Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf, and their minions want to squeeze as much cash out of the Nationals as possible. That's why they've held up the sale of the team, and that's why Reinsdorf is dickering over seemingly inconsequential details that, although worth millions, are rounding errors in terms of the entire deal.

After losing $80 million over their last three years in Montreal, the franchise made $10 million in after-tax profit last season. All Major League Baseball and the D.C. City Council are doing is maneuvering to reap the benefit of the Nationals' surprise financial performance and avoid paying a share of the rising stadium costs. There is nothing wrong with either of them doing so, but they've both shown the ability to create a train wreck where there was once agreement. That's the problem, of course: Reinsdorf, Cropp, Catania, et al., are so stubborn and tone deaf to the public will that they will risk cratering the deal to get what they want. You hope that they'll step back from the precipice, and they probably will, but it's more than a little discomforting as a fan to watch the sausage being made.

But amidst this cacophony of shrill voices is an opportunity for a prospective owner. Now is the time for the true ownership group of the franchise to step forward and show leadership, commitment, and ingenuity. Now is the time for an ownership group to offer to commit millions of its own dollars to the building of the stadium. Now is the time for an ownership group to put its own money on the line and commit its future to the team and the city. Abe Pollin did just that when Robert Johnson criticized him for feeding at the public trough by not putting up his own money to build the MCI Center, and Pollin gained enormous credibility and good will when he stepped forward to invest in the arena.

All of the ownership groups say they're committed to D.C., but none of them have been willing to back up that claim in the only way that really matters--money. If one of them were to do that, they'd immediately become the favorite of the City Council and the fans. They'd improve their position in the ownership derby, and they'd create good will among fans that will be both enormously valuable in the future and long-lasting. Given the team's economic performance to date and its significant profit potential, there is more than enough room for an ownership group to take this bold step.

It's time for an owner to step forward

2005-11-28T08:22:00.000-05:00

Amphetamines

2005-11-17T07:33:00.000-05:00

In a surprise move, the new drug policy cracks down on amphetamine use by players. Amphetamines have been a part of the game for a very long time, with some--like Jim Bouton--saying that they were doled out like candy during the season. Players have long believed that they needed amphetamines to maintain a sufficient energy level during the dog days of August and September, so it will be interesting to see whether any players test positive for them during the season.

I can't remember who said this, but someone on ESPN Radio said yesterday that some players believe so strongly that amphetamines are necessary that there would be calls to reduce the number of games during the season. That would be VERY interesting.

Maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel

2005-11-17T07:29:00.000-05:00

The Post reports that Major League Baseball hopes it can resolve any remaining issues about the stadium lease by next week. That, hopefully, will clear the way for the naming of an owner, which, hopefully, will clear the way for some strategic thinking about the Nationals, which, hopefully, will clear the way for the firing of Jim Bowden, which, hopefully, will clear the way for some rational spending that improves the team.

Although the Post describes the negotations as "tense", thankfully the City Council didn't take the opportunity of correcting technical problems with the lease agreement to make wholesale changes to the deal. On the other hand, this sounds ominous:

Even if the sports commission and baseball agree to a lease, the deal still might not be finished. D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) is lobbying for the council to get a chance to vote on the lease terms.

Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) has said she is awaiting a legal ruling by the city's attorney general and the council's lawyers before deciding whether to offer the lease for a vote.

I won't believe the new stadium will be built until the first shovel breaks ground at the site. Sadly, the City Council hasn't given us any reason to be confident on that score.

Just a thought

2005-11-16T14:10:00.000-05:00

I think it's about time we started using the Pirates as one of our minor league teams. We need to acquire Jason Bay as our left fielder pronto. Get on that, would you, Jim?

Theo! Come back, Theo!

2005-11-16T08:46:00.000-05:00

The Los Angeles Times reports that the Dodgers will announce today that Ned Colletti, Assistant General Manager of the San Francisco Giants, will become the Dodgers' new General Manager.

[We'll insert a commentary here as Dodgers fans before we get to the Nationals. I'm sure that Colletti is a good guy and hopefully he'll be a competent GM, but this is just another reminder that the McCourts are moving the Dodgers sideways--at best--rather than forward. The McCourts haven't done anything recently to convince me that they're the kind of stable ownership that characterized the Dodgers for most of the team's history. Anyway, back to the Nats.]

This means that Theo Epstein is still available to become the Nats' new GM. Of course, there's no chance that he'll be the new GM until the Nats have an owner, which, based on the current trend, should be some time in 2007.

Why not in October?

2005-11-16T05:57:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reports that the Joses--Vidro and Guillen--may have surgery to repair knee and shoulder problems, respectively. Vidro will have an MRI today, so we don't know the extent of the issue or how long the rehab will take. We do know, however, that he had knew surgery in September 2004 and missed about half a season due, in part, to knee problems last year.

As for Guillen, an MRI exam last week apparentlly revealed a "slap" tear to the labrum. Guillen may have surgery to repair the problem and--here is the really bad news--the rehab will probably take between four and six months. That would make it difficult for Guillen to be ready for opening day.

Given all their other problems this offseason, the Nationals need the Joses to be healthy come April. Which leads us to the following question: why weren't these health problems addressed right after the season ended in October?

Finally, some good news on steroids

2005-11-15T15:40:00.000-05:00

Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association announced today that they have reached agreement on a tougher steroid policy.

The new policy provides for a 50-game suspension for the first positive test, a 100-game suspension for the second, and a lifetime ban for the third. The old policy provided for 10, 30, and 60-day suspensions for the first, second, and third positive tests. A lifetime ban was possible only after the fifth positive test.

Although it took too long to get to this point, this is a very positive development that hopefully will help baseball get out of its current steroid quagmire. There will still be doubt about players taking steroids that currently are undetectable, but I'm not sure there is a whole lot baseball can do about that now.