30 Teams, 30 Days: Day 3 - Washington Nationals
Posted by: Nick the Greek in 2008 MLB, 30 Teams in 30 Days, Nationals
We are at the 10% mark for our 30 in 30 feature. We are now at Day 3, and that brings us to, in my humble opinion, the worst team in the majors, the Washington Nationals (Tampa Bay Rays fans everywhere, all three of them, are breathing a sigh of relief). The team hit a measlely 123 Home Runs last year, but more telling is their fundamental lack of pitching. No starter had more than 7 wins last year (Matt Chico), and the leader in games won was reliever Jon Rauch (Kenny Williams’ favorite player) with a seismic 8 wins.
This is a team that is still starting Christian Guzman at short. Let’s face it the best thing the Nationals have going for them is the new ballpark. Anything has to be better than RFK, but I am excited to see what the new park looks like. My guess is it will be a hitters park (most new parks are), and that should add to this team’s struggles.
Win Total Over/Under is 71.5. I’ll go with the under. I know there is that old axiom in baseball that no matter the talent level, a team will win 60 games and lose 60 games, it is what they do with the remaining 42 that determines their fate. I think the Nats will go 5-37 in those games.
Player most likely to have a Home Run Break Out Season: Elijah Dukes. Similar argument to my Delmon Young pick yesterday. Dukes is a significant talent that has struggled with maturity. He has decent power hitting 45 Home Runs in just under 1500 minor league at bats, while slugging .454 and had an OPS of .818. Last year in Tampa, he hit 10 Home Runs in 184 at bats, but struck out an astounding 44 times.
I believe that Young is the better bet among the two, but Dukes will be given a chance to show what he has on this team. This of course, leads me right to my next prediction.
Player most likely to have a disappointing Home Run Season: Austin Kearns. It’s not that I am down on Kearns’ talent, he is a decent to good player. His problem will be getting at bats this season. Well at least as long as he is on the team. I think he is a logical choice trade given the Nationals would be stupid to play him over either Dukes or Lastings Milledge. I guess Wily Mo Pena is more likely to go to the bench. Regardless, Kearns will probably have to platoon at best, taking away about 200 at bats this year.
Bold Statement: The Nationals will go 0-fer against the NY Mets this year (0-18).
Best Case Scenario for the Team: The win the inagural game at the new stadium on March 30th against the Braves.
Best Chance for Hardware (League Awards): Let me reuse my joke from the Royals post. The only way this team gets any hardware is if the team bus stops at Home Depot (different store, same lame joke!).
There will be no roundtable for this team as Sky and I could not find an interested blogger for the Nationals. Just another reason this team will struggle this year. Next Victim: The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim of Orange County of the State of California of the United States of America of the North American Continent of the Pacific Continental Tectonic Plate (Anaheim is west of the San Andreas fault) of the Planet Earth.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:55 am
[…] Welcome to day three of thirty and say hello to the Washington Nationals. Manny Acta’s team actually tied with the Angels with 123 homeruns in 2007, but we thought it would be fun to run the two Los Angeles previews back to back. I know, we’re crazy. Don’t forget to check out Nick the Greek’s preview over at Home Run Derby. […]
March 5th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The worst team in the league? I know they’re not going to be great, but what? The Marlins, Pirates, Royals, and “Rays” are better teams? Add to that the Reds, Giants, Orioles and White Sox, and those are all the teams the Nats finished better than last year despite all the pre-season stories about the Nats making a run for the Tigers’ record for futility. They had 73 wins last year and come into this year with a list of maybe 7 or 8 pitchers who could make their rotation when that list was somewhere in the 30s last year; they get Nick Johnson back, add Elijah Dukes and Lastings Milledge. And they’re supposed to be worse than last year, *and* the list of terrible teams above improved enough that the Nats will suddenly finish worse than all of them?
And your comment about not finding any Nats bloggers to write a roundtable was a joke, right? How about, for starters, http://natsoftheroundtable.blogspot.com/ , a roundtable discussion by a list of about 10-15 Nats bloggers. In summary, you guys are dumb and my team will totally destroy you or something.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
As I mentioned to Sky RE: the roundtable: There are maybe 500 Nationals bloggers out there, I’m sure you could’ve found *someone*. Like the newest Nats blogger, Kick me in the Nats!
http://kickmeinthenats.blogspot.com/
March 6th, 2008 at 11:19 am
mr logical. The nats performed better than expected last year. But let’s be frank, the had a -110 run differential last year, so they outperformed by about 3 or 4 wins just on that stat. And are you really going to bank on Lastings Milledge and Elijah Dukes taking this team to the next level. And contrary to all your statements about starting pitching…this team has none. Most of these guys would barely make a #5 on most teams.
I think things even out this year, and the Nats perform 3 or 4 wins worse than their run differential would suggest. That would mean about 65 wins, and I don’t see any other team, even the marlins doing that.
Thanks for reading.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Oh, and the onus was on Sky and me to find some nats bloggers, we reached out to a couple and got no response. But in fairness to all of you wonderful nats bloggers out there, we only had about 36 hours to get it together. So your critique is a fair one.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:34 am
I think your assessment is a little hasty.
Yes, the Nats had an extremely hard time scoring runs. That makes perfect sense, they played in RFK and there were at least three or four black holes in the line-up in many games, not even counting the pitcher.
Guys like Nook Logan, Cory Kasto, D’Angelo Jimenez, Brian Schneider, Felipe Lopez, Robert Fick, Tony Batista, and Ryan Langerhans don’t exactly send me, or anyone, into a swoon. Put Kearns’ relative under-performance at the plate, the iffy Ronnie Belliard, and Ryan Church’s streaky, but league average doubles hitting into the conversation and you have two guys consistently producing at the plate: Ryan Zimmerman and Dmitri Young. DY is not as amazing as people would love to believe, but he’s good for warm fuzzies (and a warm bench this season.)
Most of those bench players were released or demoted, Schneider and Church are now Mets. With any luck the Nats’ retooled bench and outfield, along with the chance for a Kearns resurgence and a Felipe Lopez who has dealt with his mysterious “off the field issues”, will create a modest up-tick in runs per game.
I’m not going to “bank” on Dukes and Milledge to take us to the next level, but with consistent playing time Milledge and Pena could be successfully batting two and four in the order. Dukes is a strong pinch-hitting and pinch-running candidate, Nick Johnson may even return to his 2005 form, rounding out a not-terrible line-up that will probably look like this on Opening Day.
1 Felipe Lopez
2 Lastings Milledge
3 Nick Johnson
4 Ryan Zimmerman
5 Austin Kearns
6 Wily Mo Pena
7 Cristian Guzman
8 Catcher (who knows, but if it’s Chad Moeller, be afraid)
9 SP
This line-up, compared to last year’s, has a much higher talent level in the front half. The last three spots… well, yeah, suck factory unless Guzman’s flukey few weeks last year are repeatable and Paul Lo Duca gets back on the juice.
The pitching is not great, not even good. It’s below-average, but the bullpen is excellent. The Nats also play the Mets pretty tough.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Random. The assessment may be wrong, but it certainly not hasty. The idea of a pre-season preview is to do it in the, well….preseason
As far as your assessment of the lineup and bench. I have to disagree. There is no upside to Pena or Kearns. They are what they are. I really believe that Kearns is in a different uniform by the deadline. There is no reason to play him over Dukes and Milledge. The nats are going to bad this year (see the pitching) and it is waste to play pena and kearns over those guys. The Nats have to exit this season knowing if Dukes and Milledge can approach above average Major Leaguers.
And please, by what measure do make the call of an excellent bullpen. And even if I were to concede that point, when your down 8-4 in 7th that bullpen is useless.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
You truly are a moron. How could they be in 4th place last season in the NL East and now be the worst team in baseball? They did nothing but add better players and were hit with terrible injuries.
A few notes…
a) try to learn how to spell…
b) take a trip outside of your mom’s basement to go talk to scouts and learn what youre talking about
March 8th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
OH Matt, I haven’t lived with my Mom in 20 years. and I certainly don’t need to talk to scouts to know the following:
1) they players added this year are of no consequence. They aren’t that much better than what they already had.
2) the one place the Nats needed to focus was pitching. You can call me a moron if you like, but there isn’t a worse starting pitching staff in all of baseball. The Nats have a #4 as their ace, a #5 as their #2, and a bunch of AAA pitchers to fill out the rotation. That, in my book, makes them the worst team in baseball. PERIOD - did I spell that right for you.
Oh, and Matt, I don’t take myself too seriously. I am trying to have a little fun (just take a look at the site - none of us claim to be anything other than fans).
March 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Do you think starting pitching is the only key ingredient in baseball? Their bullpen is the envy of the NL East (without question) and the Triple-A claim (notice it is Triple-A, not AAA) is accurate, but anyone worth their weight realizes that the Colorado Rockies rode a “Triple-A” staff to the World Series last season. If you are talking about “teams” you have to realize that it is much more than what is on the Opening Day 25-man roster. The Nats jumped 20 TEAMS in the rankings of their minor league system and had the best draft in baseball according to every publication.
Then, in terms of adding players of significance since Opening Day 2007: Pena, Milledge, Nick Johnson, Lo Duca, Estrada and A. Boone…Not saying that’s murderers row, but it is foolhardy to look at a couple of boxscores and records and make a claim like this is the “worst team in baseball.” After May 11, the Nats played .500 baseball…
Seriously…it’s really easy to just write –it’s another thing to do some research and learn your craft.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Matt. Such anger. First of all, stop with the petty “Corrections”, like the Triple-A vs AAA. And while your at it, go to Baseball-Reference.com and see how they mark the minor league affiliates by class. I’ll save you a trip, they use AAA.
Last year’s draft will do this team no good this year, so really the 25 man roster does matter. They are players on the field this year that will determine the fortune of this team in 2008. So, as I rate this team, they are the ones I will look at.
And no, I don’t think starting pitching is everything, but it is really hard to win baseball games when you are losing by six runs by the time you can use that “envy of the NL East” bullpen. I have been watching baseball for almost 30 years, and I see a tremendous correlation between the strength of starting pitching and success in the game. Does this make me an expert, not in the least. I am not a SABR-head or a minor league scout. I am just a guy who loves watching the game.
Again, what is your basis for making the bullpen into a juggernaut? Was it Chad Cordero’s 9 Blown saves last year and 80.4% save percentage? Or is it the trio of Jon Rauch, Saul Rivera and Jesus Colome and their collective 3.70 ERA and 6.5 K/9 Rate….oh, scary!
As far as the bats, Wily Mo is on his third team in four years. Nick Johnson may play 60 games with his injury history…and LoDuca, Estrada and Boone??? They aren’t even half the players they used to be. This is going to be another year where this team has a run differential of at least -120.
Oh, and I love those cherry picked record stats like the Nats played .500 ball after May 11th. Really, did you know that they were 7 games under .500 after Aug 9th, as well. The truth is the team over achieved last year to get 73 wins. Run Differential suggests a 70 win team. That won’t happen again.
To finish this off Matt, I have three final thoughts.
1) This is NOT my craft, it is a hobby and a passion. My craft is what I do to earn a living (I work in the field of finance).
2) Writing is not easy. At least not for me. I try to be clever and say some things that spur a discussion, but really do I think my writing matters in the world of baseball? Not one bit. I don’t take myself that seriously.
3) If you are going to make statements like you do in your comments and accuse me of not doing my research, you better have some stats to back up your assertions. Look, if you think my prediction of this team being the worst team in baseball is wrong…then say it. No need for the personal attacks. I don’t know you and you don’t know me.
Now of course, I think I will have to do a regular, in season installment on the Nationals and how they perform against my preview. I sincerely hope you will stop by and engage. Just leave the nastiness out of it.
C’mon Matt, Opening Day is just a few weeks away, and every team starts in 1st place.
March 9th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Fair enough…If you want to know why I arbitrarily picked May 11th it was 6-hour, rain-delayed game that ended with a Zimmerman’s walk-off grand slam–kind of a big deal. (It also coincided with Mitchell Page being dismissed as the hitting coach). Anyways…I see you have at least given thought to your off-base suggestion that they are the worst team in ball–so i’ll applaud that…just remember what you wrote: Worst team in baseball. Time will tell.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Call me blatantly optimistic, and I’ll agree with you.
It’s hard to say that Kearns will be traded by the deadline. He is entering the second year of his three year deal, and from what I can tell both Manny Acta and GM Jim Bowden have faith in the guy’s upside. I’ve been following the team since they moved to D.C. and I can’t say that I see the 20 HR 85 RBI they want out of him. It never made sense to me either.
Point being: Do I think they will trade Kearns? No.
Should they? Yes.
Trading Kearns makes room for Dukes to start, which I’m all for. It also allows Minor Leaguers like Justin Maxwell et al to get big league at bats instead of letting stooges like Langerhans take their hacks.
I also have to contend that Pena does have some upside, albeit slight. He got 289 at bats last year and ended with 13 HR 39 RBI and .253/.316/.439. Unfortunately, these are uncomfortably close to his career avg, obp, and slg. And even though he’s 26, I think his pitch recognition can improve with daily at bats to the point where he improves his average and obp (via walks) and by making fewer outs, he could improve in all offensive categories (excepting triples!).
The bullpen, I will concede, was not “excellent”. As Matt pointed out, it is better than most of the NL East teams. The other teams have bright spots, but the Nats’ pen is solid and reliable, which beats the pants off of straight-up shaky. Starting pitching still sucks.
You are right and this is the pre-season, so count on me to catch your follow up.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Wow, it’s nice to see some passion from Nats fans. Some thoughts:
I don’t think the Nats will be the worst team in the NL. I’m going with the Giants, with the Pirates and Marlins having a shot, too. I’d like to see Nick Johnson start, but they just signed Dmitri Young to a multi-year contract and he’s bound to regress a bunch from last season. If anyone thinks the Rays will finish with more losses than wins this year, I will take a friendly wager.
I contacted a whole bunch of Nats bloggers and got ZERO responses. If any bloggers would like a re-do, please email me at skyking162@gmail.com and I’d be happy to put one together.
The Rockies had a very good pitching staff last year, even if you hadn’t heard the names before. Starters had a 4.58 ERA, which was better than league average (although the excellent fielding probably brought it down a third of a run.) Their team ERA+ (which accounts for park effects, but also includes fielding) was 111, third in the NL behind Arizona and Chicago (but ahead of San Diego which gets a HUGE bump from playing in PETCO.)
The Nationals have an awful pitching staff, which I highlighted in my own team preview: http://skyking162.com/2008/03/30-in-30-washington-nationals/ Now, some of the young guys have more potential than they showed last year, but wow it’s bad. Like worst in the NL bad.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Clearly these are some more “sane” responses than my initial diatribe, but I can’t get over the idea that this team is considered THAT bad. Vegas has the Nats as having the fourth fewest wins in the National League! Not including the AL…
Skyking…on your preview I see you have some decent statistical breakdowns, but those are based on ‘07 numbers in the 2nd half of a season. Hanrahan and Lannan were both shut down late in the season for “arm fatigue” because they had pitched their way up from the low minors and were getting tired. Again, not saying this is Cain and Lincecum or Prior and Wood (circa 2001)–but we’re talking about good young pitchers now getting their fair shot at a season-opening rotation.
And one other issue: Manny is a better manager, by far, than anyone realizes–he was in the Manager of the Year voting last year and will be again…
Cheers
March 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I love Manny Acta.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I love Acta too.
Gotta say, yeah, these bold predictions sure are bold. I don’t think the Nationals will have any Gold Glove winners this year. That’s not to say I don’t think Zimm will be deserving, but more a statement that established offensive players on winning teams who ALSO have great gloves usually win. I know that argument has a few holes, and there are exceptions to that rule, but who played better shortstop last year Rollins or Troy Tulowitzki. Tulo did, and got bilked because of Rollins’ big(ger) market team and his MVP-caliber play.
Kearns is good, but is more obscure than Zimmerman. More and more people hear about the second coming of David Wright every year, especially since he’s a top five or ten 3B now. Kearns, unless he can really, really make some highlight reel plays has no shot.
NJ, very tough call for alot of reasons. Gotta wonder about his lateral/backward movement and whether that leg will hold up all season. Impossible to tell.
I like the prediction, I’d be excited for sure.
And 0-18 vs. the Mets is still pretty ridiculous. I’d say 6-12 at the worst, 10-8 at the best.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Actually, examining some what Baseball Prospectus and Bill James see, the team has some potential with their lineup. And speaking of Nats bloggers not contacted (i know there are hundreds so no worries) I am one and I just wrote an article about this.
http://nationalsreview.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/lineup-shuffle-2008/
I think their pitching is no doubt a problem, but if Hill and Patterson can stay healthy, they are both better than 4/5 pitchers. Health has been their problems, not ability. Also with health, while Nick Johnson isn’t a huge power threat, he was #4 in OBP and #10 in OPS 2 years ago, so he can certainly hit if he can make it out to the batters box. I assume his power, as well as Kearns and everyone else, will see a bump in the new stadium. The size at RFK was a hindrance, but the winds were worse, for the home team and the visitors.
I also believe Kearns will stay, he is not only one of the top hitting RFers in the NL (hard to believe, but look it up), there really aren’t many that can field better than him. I sometimes concentrate only on hitting stats, but the teams certainly don’t.
My hope as a fan is that Johnson will get a chance to play almost every day (which seems to be the case), Milledge will as well, and Lopez will play over Guzman. If Lopez can get on base like he used to (forget his artificial power in Cinci, he was a .350+ OBP guy who could steal bases), Acta has hinted that he will lead off. And he’s said Belliard is his 2B, so you can figure out who misses out there.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
and I forgot to add… Do you really think the Orioles are going to have more wins than the Nats this year? I guess you do, because that’s why you wrote that Washington would be the worst team. But I don’t, which is why I wrote this.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Charlie,
On your Orioles question. If you check out my Orioles Preview, you will find the following quote:
I think you are being kind with Hill and Patterson. They will struggle, especially if the new park is a hitters park.
as far as a blogger roundtable…it looks like we have one in the comments section here.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Charlie…thanks for jumping into this debate…(see posts 8-12).
Nick–the Pirates? really? really? They are freaking terrible. How could that lineup calculate to more wins than the Nats?
Good luck with them winning anywhere near 70 games
March 11th, 2008 at 8:35 am
There is nothing saying that Nationals Park will be a hitters park (in fact, it is said that the winds should be coming in from right field towards home, which may spell trouble for someone like Wily Mo). It will be worse for pitchers than RFK, and may very well end up being one, but nobody yet knows. Yes, RFK was a pitcher’s park, but when he was healthy in 2005, John Patterson’s 185 Ks were the reason for his success, not the length of the warning track. His home ERA was 3.08 vs 3.22 away, so he wasn’t so aided at home. Again, the question with him isn’t ability, it’s health. If he can throw the way he did in 2005 and early 2006, he is better than a #4 pitcher.
Shawn Hill is more likely to suffer from a new stadium, but last years K/9 of 6 and GB/FB ratio of 2 suggests he won’t be too bad. Maybe he isn’t a #1, but he shouldn’t be a bottom of the rotation guy either. And remember, despite the new stadium, the Nats still play 27 games in Atlanta, Shea, and Florida, which are all pitchers parks. Speaking of Florida, I think the Nats not only aren’t the worst team in MLB, they aren’t even the worst team in the NL East.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Not to mention a new stadium provides any team with a boost in the winnings in the first year at the park. That should add 4 or 5 wins alone. And just wait to see what Dukes does. If the Nats can turn Dimitri Young into an all-star, and yes he was an all-star last season, I can’t wait to see what happens with Dukes and Lastings.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
OK…First rule about fight club is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB! Of course, my favorite rule is #8, If this is your first night….you have to fight.
Seriously Tyler, do you have any evidence other than anecdotal that a new stadium provides 4 to 5 wins? The Cardinals had 100 wins in last year of Busch Stadium, and 83 wins the next year in the new Busch (but they did win the world series). The Indians had 76 wins in their last year at Cleveland Stadium and 66 their opening year at the Jake. The White Sox went for 94 wins in Old Comiskey and 87 wins the next year in new Comiskey. The pattern I see here is a decrease in wins. These are 3 I picked of the top of my head, if you want to research the rest and dispute it, please do. However, your premise on the new stadium just doesn’t hold.
Oh, and you do realize that the Nationals are guaranteed 1 All star each year. Last year it was Dmitri Young’s “honor” to win that tallest midget award.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
When the Senators moved out of Griffith Stadium in 1961, they finished with 61 wins. The next year at RFK they had 60 wins.
The 1999 Astros moved out of the Astrodome and finished up there with 97 wins. The next year at Minute Maid they had 72 wins.
The 2000 Milwaukee Brewers won 72 games in County Stadium. They won 68 at Miller Park the following year.
The 1994 Rockies won 54 games (out of the 117 played that year) and finished out Mile Stadium with a .453 winning pct. The next year at Coors they won 77 out of 144, good for a .535 winning pct. This is such a screwy pair of seasons, I almost discount this example. And this is also pre-humidor.
The 2000 Pirates won 69 games at Three Rivers Stadium, and won 62 the following year at PNC.
The 2002 Reds won 78 games at Cinergy Field and won 69 in their first season in Great American Ballpark.
The ‘81 Twins won 44 (of 109) for a .376 wpct at Metropolitan Stadium, then won 60 of 162 in the Metrodome, for a .370 wpct.
I’m tired of lookin’ em up, but on the whole this corroborates Nick’s hunch. I would average the win-percentages together, since some of the short seasons don’t lend themselves to X amount fewer wins, but that ain’t happenin. Also, I wonder if there is an upswing for the year after the first year.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
In POST 15, I wrote: “Hanrahan and Lannan were both shut down late in the season for “arm fatigue” because they had pitched their way up from the low minors and were getting tired. Again, not saying this is Cain and Lincecum or Prior and Wood (circa 2001)–but we’re talking about good young pitchers.”
As for HANRAHAN (from today’s Washington Post):
Let me start by saying that Joel Hanrahan just threw three innings against the Braves. He allowed a single to Mark Kotsay. But he struck out eight of the 10 hitters he faced, including the last seven.
Let that sink in.
That performance included striking out Chipper Jones, Mark Teixeira and Jeff Francoeur in order in the sixth. Not too shabby. Hanrahan’s numbers in five relief appearances this spring, you ask? That would be 7-2/3 innings pitched with two hits allowed, one walk and 12 strikeouts.”
March 12th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Didn’t Lannan get lit up though?
March 12th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I’d just like to throw out there my prediction for worst record this year… the San Francisco Giants.
The chances of them going 0-fer against the entire NL West are better than the Nats chances of doing the same against the Mets.
And when Lastings hits a HR at Shea, I hope he goes and high fives all the fans down the third base line. Milledge his .275 last season at the age of 22, I am more excited to see him play full time than anyone else on the team. A true 5 tool player who’s going to be a plus fielder in center, he should be real fun to see.
Until Dukes, who has a permanent “Nationals employee” (former cop) working with him full time, proves he can stay out of trouble, I’m not expecting him to have a true breakout season.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Hey HR Derby. This was a great article, and an even more fantastic chat log.
They kept throwing you fastballs, and you kept knocking them out of the park.
Not only with knowledge, but with politeness. good call guys.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Gonzo, thanks for the kind words. We try to have a tough skin here at HRD because baseball fans can have their passion quickly turn into overzealousness.
I really like seeing the Nats fans engaged…It’s good for baseball.
Keep on coming back!
March 13th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Gotta disagree with this assessment. The Nats are a team moving forward.
1. Pitching, pitching, pitching. Last year they invited 40 nobodies to the camp. This year they had a set of — mediocre, yes — but legit contenders for positions. If you compare Nat pitching of last year to today’s, its all improvement.
2. The better-than-mediocre pen does matter. The reason that Rauch had the most wins of any Nat in 07 is that there were quite a few occasions when, after the starters crapped out, the pen held the line and the bats scored late. Check the Nats score by innings last year (they didn’t score in inning one in the first 20 games).
3. Batting. Point 6, about replacement of all of the dead weight non-hitters, with up & coming hitters is critical. A line-up with Dukes, Pena, Zimmerman, Johnson and Milledge (not to mention Dmitri the midget), brings a lot more pop than 2007. 50-100 more runs me thinks.
4. Manny Acta. How many games does a good manager add? How much “luck” does he add? How much was he responsible for helping them play “above their level”?
I look forward to reminding you of this poor prediction after a few months.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Worst team? C’mon.
Their line-up actually looks pretty good.
Guzman isn’t that bad. Prior to getting injured last year he was hitting over 300 and was class on OBP was around 400. their bullpen is above average and their starting pitchhing isn’t too good but you never know…if Hill & Patterson stay healthy they could be “average”
Reference the blogs, I read a story in ESPN a year or two ago that the Nationals are the most blogged team in baseball! There’s at least 30 and the majority are pretty good. Anyway, I think you’ll be wrong
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Well, let’s hope that you’re right. I hate the Gnats….they should never have left Montreal.