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.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Don't worry about getting to the game early...
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)."
"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...
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times
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."
"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
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?
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
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.
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.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Just how bad is Jerome Williams?
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.
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...
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
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
Sunday, April 22, 2007
You won't believe this...
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!
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!
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Why can't the Post spell?
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?
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
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.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Who are you and what have you done with John Patterson?
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Some minor news
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:
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.
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!
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!
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!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Department of Wishful Thinking
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?
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Matt Chico: Softie
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."
"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?
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.
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.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Nice trend
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...
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
