I thought I held weird hours, but posting a blog at 3AM?

Thanks as usual for the blog and please keep up the god work.

Even after all the times I have said to get rid of Nook, I am still only willing to eat part of the crow after yesterday's performance (drumstick, please!). I still think he's an awful fielder, and his hits have mostly been singles. Let's put him through waivers, and see if any team wants to try to catch Endy Chavez-like fire for the playoffs.

I would rather Ryan Church keep getting at bats, but if Nook is going to hit for average, he needs to play some or be flipped to another team.

You're right Kevin. If Nook is going to hit .300 he needs to play. You look at this teams RS/RA and you realize this team would be vying for the playoffs if they scored more runs. The runs against is right up there with some of the best teams.

Nook may hit mostly singles, but this teams needs more base runners, especially runners as fast as Nook.

"keep up the god work"

Indeed.

How many of Logan's hits lately have been on balls hit right at infielders who just couldn't handle them? Seems like quite a few to me, although I do have to admit that I only hear most of the games on radio except for the 20 a year that I sit in my eponymous section. But I think that last night alone there were two that Charlie or Dave called as "just off the glove of XXX". So while I do have to give Nook credit for getting the hits, I think there's been a good bit of luck involved, and that won't hold up over time. Baseball's a game of inches, and it's just a few of them between BH and GIDP. I'd hate to think that Nook's fluky streak of late might cause the Nationals to start thinking that they've finally solved the problem in centerfield, because they haven't. Nook Logan = fifth, maybe fourth outfielder. Late inning defensive replacement. Don't forget it, Jimbo. Sign a real centerfielder this offseason.

Kevin, I know Nook has made a few mistakes in CF, but on balance he's a very good fielder. He covers a lot of ground and has made some plays that border on the superhuman. I'd rather have him in CF than anyone else on the team.

As for his lack of power, his speed more than makes up for it. He is a constant distraction to pitchers, and could steal more if he tried (not sure if the problem is Manny being too conservative when it comes to taking advantage of speed).

Nook has always been a much better hitter from the right side -- the problem is that he killed his average, and his reputation, by trying to bat lefty.

Given that Lopez is doing terribly at the plate, perhaps it's time to give the leadoff spot to Nook. In any case, it's long past time for all those Nook-bashers out there to stop feeding off of each other and recognize that he's actually a very good, exciting player who deserves a lot more support from fans than he's received.

419 -- I went to the last four Nats game at home and I think you have it exactly backwards. Many of Nook's outs came from line drives hit right at someone. But for bad luck, his average would be even higher.

It's true right that, over time, many of his hits come from slow infield grounders, but that's not an accident, or luck. It's because he's not just fast, he's amazingly fast.

I always knew Logan had it in hi.... oh, who am I kidding.

I am willing to give Nook more time. His numbers have been great since he abandoned hitting from the left side.

That said, his looping throw to home last night allowed the runner to advance to second who eventually scored on a single. That could have been the difference in the game. Of course it didn't matter because WE SCORED ELEVEN RUNS.

Nook also gets points for his name. This team, minor leaguers included, has some of the best names in baseball.

I don't know. Every time I hear the name Nook Logan, two words pop into my head: June 23rd. It will take a lot more than Nook has shown so far for me to forget what happened that night.

"Nook also gets points for his name. This team, minor leaguers included, has some of the best names in baseball."

Ryan?

Re: Nook

Positive:

1. He's never not hit when he's played regularly. He hit better than .300 every year but one in the minors & he hit .300 in his cup of coffee last September. He's been hitting .300 here since he stopped platooning. He didn't hit in Detroit, but he didn't play regularly.

2. He struck out an awful lot in the minors, considering he's not a power hitter. Since he's been playing everyday, he seems to have cut back on this, so maybe he's learned something, or maybe cutting out the switchhitting worked.

3. His range is better than the board seems to think. Going into 2007, Logan has had 458 PO in 1454 CF innings, for a range factor of 2.84/9 innings. By comparison, Torii Hunter's number is 2.76 and Aaron Rowand's is 2.62. On the other hand, both Comerica & RFK have larger than average CF areas, so this might not prove anything (Ryan Church's CF number is 3.17, although only over 511 innings).

Negatives: He's 27, the year in which players tend to have their best (and some cases fluky) seasons; no power; no arm (6 assists in 1454 innings vs 68 in 8615 for Hunter and 28 in 4504 innings for Rowand).

Quite a bit of fact-finding on the 5 hits Barry. Good work!

I'm curious how many of the 5 hit games you've mentioned were extra-inning (including marathon) games vs 9-inning affairs. I'm impressed that Nook got his in a standard 9.

One of my big problems with Moneyball theories is how they say speed is overrated. While I tend to agree more for AL-style teams (stand on a base and wait for the dinger), NL teams still tend to need to manufacture runs. I mentioned yesterday the underrated 1st-to-3rd play and someone cited how hustle baserunning plays by WMP and FLop saved a few innings that led to more runs. MANY more runs (with 2 outs!).

419 - I hear you and since you've been following on radio, I can tell you that Nook isn't getting the benefit of fielding mistakes. He's hit some peas right at fielders. Yes a couple balls last night were off infielders' gloves, but they certainly weren't errors. Since he doesn't hit the ball like Sheffield or WMP, he doesn't get a lot of deflected balls in his favor.

Section 418 sez: "Negatives: He's 27, the year in which players tend to have their best (and some cases fluky) seasons; no power; no arm (6 assists in 1454 innings vs 68 in 8615 for Hunter and 28 in 4504 innings for Rowand)."

You forgot this one: His head is NEVER in the game. That's a BIG negative. Never more so than on the infamous June 23rd.

While June 23rd was a big mistake, 419, I think that we need to tabulate up all his other mistakes. Unfortunately there's no stat for "what was he thinking" verses "amazing!", but you know as well as anyone that in baseball to make a decision based on one play and not the trend is a mistake. Guzman showed that to make it based even on two whole seasons can be wrong sometimes. Or at least we think he did based on a limited number of appearances.

So how can we be sure? We can't, but Nook's stats are trending very positive, as shown earlier. I am wondering, if maybe we shouldn't spend our FA money on starting pitching. Who's out there?

I don't deny that Nook has some flaws. However, he has been putting up some great numbers and seems to have altered his swing and his approach at the plate. He looks like an asset to the team and I have to embrace that.

Do I think he is "the" solution in ceterfield? No. Do I want him in the lineup? Without a doubt.

It seems like many of you would prefer that he didn't get five hits in a game or drastically improve his average. It would be easier to dislike the guy.

I think from all the chatter coming from the front office and some of the player, it is clear they are going to make a run either in FA or via trade for another power hitting outfielder.

Who that will be we can leave for the off-season, I'm more concerned with the actual baseball being played THIS year.

A couple things to keep in mind as we evauluate our current personnel - and WMP isn't the only one who's "tryout" over the next 6 weeks will determine their future.

First, if Fick isn't back (and I really hope he won't be) they may need to carry a 3rd catcher so that Schneider+Flores can platoon and pinch hit next year. Unless someone else can be an emergency catcher?

If those things are true we'll probably carry 3 catchers and 6 IF we can only carry 4 outfielders, assuming WMP gets brought back and Kearns is a lock, with another FA we can only keep Church or Logan.

The argument for keeping Church is that he has more power and adds a lefty off the bench

The argument for keeping Logan is that he hit for a better average and has more speed as a pinch runner (and we have precious little team speed right now).

The unknown is what other teams would give us in exchange for either of them (or both - hello Brandon Watson, destiny may be knocking...for the last time).

Other mistakes by Nook? Okay, how about all the outfield pas de deux (pardon my French, and I have no clue how to make that plural either although it should be) that have resulted in a catchable fly ball dropping for a hit. Nook seems to have been involved in most if not all of those, and as the centerfielder he should be the man in charge there. Nook is not a starting centerfielder for a team that expects to find its way out of last place more often than once or twice a season.

Starting pitching? We seem to have a good bit of that, although perhaps no true ace. But we've NEVER had a real centerfielder, and we still don't, no matter what Nook does the rest of this season.

I don't think that's it. He made a really shockingly bad baseball decision at third base that night, and his speed covers up others (like getting picked off last night, and just plain beating the throw to 2nd).

People talk about "baseball instincts" -- reflexive reactions during play -- how great Zimmerman's are. Maybe Nook is paying too much attention, and thinking instead of reacting. I don't know if you can learn to "see the ball, catch the ball," i.e., trust your instincts, at 27. Hope so for his sake.
But that's Nook's problem. The FO's is how to sign and pay for Torii Hunter.

____
You forgot this one: His head is NEVER in the game. That's a BIG negative. Never more so than on the infamous June 23rd.
Posted by: Section 419 | August 22, 2007 09:58 AM

"He's never not hit when he's played regularly. He hit better than .300 every year but one in the minors"

He's only hit .300 at one stop in the minors, in his 11 games at A Ball (The Tigers version of Vermont).

He's a career .261 hitter in the minors.
http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/players/playerpage/293088

I'm trying to forget June 23. Last night's performance helped a ton.

Burgess was just killing the GCL. Super excited about him.

estuartj,
From what you're writing, Watson doesn't have a place on this team if Nook sticks around. They're the same type of player - singles hitters with speed on the bases and in the field. No arm, no power.

I am totally with you about needing someone on the bench who can PR in key situations. I would've thought D'Angelo would be fast enough, but he hasn't been used in this role at all. Personally, on a team that has so many 1-run ball games, we could benefit some from having a speedy PR guy, and I'm surpised Nook wasn't used as a PR much in his platoon off days.

Other than Fick coming in to run for Da Meat (understandable for defense late - should be later in my opinion - but not much improvement on bases), does Manny PR for anyone? Schneider later in the game in a blowout loss would come to mind.

I think Nook's baserunning is showing he COULD BE a good 4th outfielder and PR guy. Not the 'solution' by any means, but give the guy lots of credit since going RH full time (which explains his poor minor league numbers).

Do others think a speedy PR on the bench is overrated?

I threw out the stats to try to separate the subjective judgments ("his head is never in the game") from the objective ones (there's no evidence that his range as a CF isn't as good as the best defensive CFs in the majors, and some evidence that it is). Not that the subjective judgment might not be right (I sat in my seat completely stupified on 6/23). The question is how much these unmeasureable intangibles affect the Nats winning and losing. Let's assume that Nook's head IS never in the game--would you rather have Nook with his range of positives and negatives or someone else? I don't know the answer to that--I guess it depends on who.

Empirically, his decision to stop switch-hitting and an apparent decline in Ks shows some capacity to learn from mistakes, or at least is evidence that such ability exists.

Chris --you're right. I mistook his OBP for BA.

cevansjr,

For those of you who say Nook's head isn't in the game, his post-game "interview" last night provided a telling glimpse to his recent success.

"I'm not thinking now, I'm just playing" - which could be taken a lot of ways.

We've heard it often in relation to WMP and his lack of consistent playing time, but Nook had that PLUS trying to switch hit, people telling him to bunt more, and all. He said he was thinking too much before and now can just play. The results are looking good.

I agree that he doesn't seem to have the best baseball instincts, but I think he's showing with consistent playing time that some of that is improving.

... is Nook the everyday CF of the Nats future? Not in my book. But hey, I'm thrilled that he had a great night at the plate - what a confidence booster that will be. So here's what I think: in the off-season, Jim must obtain a credible everyday CF, with defensive range, and a good combo of speed and power. But until that day comes, the Nats should play Nook everyday as though he were the regular CF which he can be ... for a while at least. The outfield for the next couple of weeks should be WMP in right, Nook in center, and Church in left with Kearns filling in defensively around the seventh or eighth inning.

... for the bulk of the game, we need the bats of Church (who's been hitting relatively well of late), Nook (who's over his head but we should take advantage of that) and Wily Mo (whose full power we may not have seen yet). Then when the game is on the line, we need Kearns glove for defence.

... two weeks should be enough to see how Nook relates to everyday action, how Kearns reacts to a bit of a sit-down, how high WMP can go, and how Church responds to this kind of platoon. Who knows: it just might produce some positive results.

Shawnatsfan,
I was thinking that perhaps if we traded BOTH Nook and Chuch that Brandon Watson could step up to the 4th OF/PR role. I wonder if someone like Bernie Castro might get a chance as a bench IF and PR for next season. I expect we'll see him again this september.

All that depends a lot on Manny, he does seem to subscribe to the theory that SB aren't worth the risk of wasting a precious out (the only finite part of baseball).

estuartj: Sorry. I like Brandon Watson too, but he's certainly not worth BOTH Nook and Church.

Also, why do we need a third catcher? Isn't Flores enough? Most of our positions don't even have one backup.

I was talking about a Church/Kearns platoon when WMP came over. Both have significant advantages righty vs. lefty, right? Natscan, I think that's a better barometer for a 2 week WMP and Nook tryout than using Kearns as a late sub.

(Of course, it helps to get your 2 weeks against Houston/Colorado/LAD instead of NYM/Philly...)

My point earlier is that speed isn't just about SBs. Scoring from 2nd, 1st to 3rds, hit-and-runs, and causing distraction/ movement for the infield are underappreciated in my book. Reyes is the best case in point, as the whole infield is jumpy when he's on base. Castillo a similar way.

For a team that has struggled with scoring runs, a little pressure on the bases equals more scoring opps, and doesn't have to mean SBs.

I'm with the general sentiment that there's no way Church and Nook stay for next year. Q remains: what would another team offer for either?

An Expos reference! Hurrah!!

Seriously, Barry, that is some astounding stat crunching there. Dizzying at times.

I am in favor, 506 (AM), of developing a "What was he thinking?" vs. "Amazing!" statistic. Call it WWHTvA. All you have to do is slog through the entire season's backlog of gameday audio and give us some numbers.

Here's a goo theory regarding Logan and Church for the rest of the year.

Figure out which of the two you want to keep...and then BENCH HIM!

Why? First you want to see how he will respond to coming off the bench, and second, you want to show off the guy you're looking to move.

If Nook gets his avg up around .300 or if Ryan can get his 50 2baggers they would be more marketable at the winter meetings.

I think the idea here is that Manny is (as Frank was) reluctant to use a backup catcher as a pinch hitter if no other backup catcher is available. If the catcher is hurt in this situation, he'd have no one to put behind the plate.

If the Nats went into '08 with just Flores and Schneider, you wouldn't see Flores get many PH opportunities. It'd be hard to justify keeping him up in the bigs if he wasn't getting regular looks.

-----

Also, why do we need a third catcher? Isn't Flores enough? Most of our positions don't even have one backup.

Excellent, John!

And welcome back, Mr. 300*

---

I am in favor, 506 (AM), of developing a "What was he thinking?" vs. "Amazing!" statistic. Call it WWHTvA. All you have to do is slog through the entire season's backlog of gameday audio and give us some numbers.

Oh, also Sect. 506, who came up with the original concept.

Natsnut, I wasn't propsing logan/church for watson, but instead church + logan go in trades and Watson moves up to be the 4th OF and Pinch runner.

Can we trade Church and Logan to Tampa Bay for Carl Crawford?

I'm sensing that Sect. 506 may need to cut down on his other responsibilities in order to became our chief Nats Journal statistician...

I think it would be a waste to use a bench spot for a pure speed guy in just a PR role with Manny managing. Others have mentioned his (sometimes frustrating) reluctance to steal. Also, with some of the guys we've got baserunning isn't really a weakness. Lopez, Wily Mo, Kearns, Zim, Logan and Church all have good speed and are capable of going 1st to 3rd at times and scoring from 2nd most of the time. I'll agree that I'd much rather see a PR for Dmitri in the 8th than Fick batting for him in the 7th.

ShawNatsFan responds with: "I was talking about a Church/Kearns platoon when WMP came over."

... while I think your platoon idea works fine, my only concern is can the loss of defence when Church plays, and the loss of a bat when Kearns plays equal out over time? Probably, but I was thinking more small - the same effect but during each game.

... in the end, there's no difference I suppose.

ESJ: your "goo" theory (?) works fine for me, although it does sound a bit radical. But then again, I'm a leftist and radical is right up my alley.

To Sect 506 (after moving):
I 'm sorry, I was not aware that I had to report on my whereabouts when I took a few days off. It had nothing to do with baseball. I have a trailer at a campground in Front Royal and spent 3 days there with my dog and a friend. Very relaxing. I would have stayed longer but that is the maximum amount of time I can leave my 3 cats without hiring a pet-sitter. (If they would only walk on a leash I would take them with me.)

I think a third catcher is a luxury rather than a necessity. Looking around the NL, there are only a couple of other teams (Pirates, Astros) that have a third catcher listed on their depth chart.

The Nats like Fick because he provides backup at so many positions, but with Guz and Nick coming back (and DaMeat and Belliard moved to the bench), I don't see how you can keep a .200 hitter like RF (no obscenity intended) around.

estuartj: thanks for clarifying my logan + church = watson misunderstanding.
If we could *sell* those two in a yard sale and put that money toward Torii, I would think about it.
Nook and Church: I wouldn't want to choose one over the other. Shoot, I'd hate to see either of them go. But they do seem to balance each other out in their strengths and weaknesses, so I guess that makes your point--that both of them could equal one really good OF. Damn.

Remember that rainbow throw Nook did last night that allowed the hitter to advance to 2nd base? That's one thing I like about Kearns -- if he throws to home, his ball will get there on time. Which is why I'd be nervous about only having Kearns in the outfield for only part of the game.

"Guz and Nick coming back (and DaMeat and Belliard moved to the bench)"
Posted by: joebleux | August 22, 2007 11:45 AM
____
joebleux, those words make me giddy with excitement!

natscan, I think any suggestion of a platoon involving Kearns is a non-starter. There seem to be two guys on this team who are immune from any thoughts of platoon, no matter how much they continue to underperform. I'm speaking of course of Kearns and Lopez. I'd daresay we're more likely to see Zimmerman platooned than either of them, although I can't for the life of me fathom why this is so...

I was thinking the same exact same thing. There is a lot of - how do I put this? - ego tied up in these two players, if you know what I mean.

-----

There seem to be two guys on this team who are immune from any thoughts of platoon, no matter how much they continue to underperform.

Barry's chat is in an hour. I have a meeting, so I won't be able to make it (and no, I won't be at Burger King). But I do have an idea for chat questions.

Since Barry has tended to dodge the question about him leaving us next season, I say we bombard him with the question today during the chat. In addition to your normally-scheduled question, throw in a "Say it ain't so, Barry" or two until he addresses the issue.

Remember, we're harrassing him out of love.

josfanandproudofit, that sounds great, I like Front Royal. I spent many happy weekends moving up and down the Valley and Skyline Drive, of course, with my father and sister. After my parents divorced, when we got to see him on the weekend he always took us there either to camp or on long drives and visits to little towns. Front Royal was inevitably the last stop on the way home for dinner or ice cream, though we only went there in the day time for Front Royal Day (we were regular attenders).

-----

To Sect 506 (after moving):
I 'm sorry, I was not aware that I had to report on my whereabouts when I took a few days off. It had nothing to do with baseball. I have a trailer at a campground in Front Royal and spent 3 days there with my dog and a friend. Very relaxing. I would have stayed longer but that is the maximum amount of time I can leave my 3 cats without hiring a pet-sitter. (If they would only walk on a leash I would take them with me.)

Kearns will not sit, at least not until a 3rd better OF comes up from within the system (Marrero or someone older?)

When we win a WS I would n't be surprised to see a lot of the untouchable players moved into backup rolls as better personnel come up. Specifically the names Kearns, schneider, lopez come to mind.

Right now I think the organization is looking to improve the roster, not the starting line-up per se, and see how it all shakes out. Upgrading from Langerhans to WMP is a great start, now we need to replace Fick (Broadway in Sept, Johnson in '08?) and Jiminez (Bernie Castro in Sept. and Guzman for '08?)

It's kind of cool that we get to be discussing depth at this point in the season, isn't it? Let's just be sure not to get too hung up on our conventional wisdom from May in an effort to prove ourselves right and be ready to change our predictions.

For me, I think that's Nook Logan. I've been so eager to see him out of here and replaced with Brandon Watson that I'm being very cautious now. Maybe the things I thought about his May performance aren't necessarily true anymore?

On the topic of depth: Here's what the depth of our team looks like right now for infielders, along with Johnson and Guzman returning, by player and then by position. Ronnie seems to earn a spot as does Fick. Find me another person that can sub adequately like Fick and I'll concede he needs to go.

Schneider - C
Belliard - 1B, 2B, SS, 3B
Lopez - 2B, SS
Young - 1B
Zimmerman - 3B

Batista - 1B, 3B
Flores - C
Fick - C, 1B, LF, RF
Jiminez - 2B, SS

Johnson - 1B
Guzman - SS, 2B(?)

Or by position:

Catcher:
Schneider
Flores
Fick

First:
Young
Belliard
Batista
Fick
Johnson

Second:
Belliard
Lopez
Jiminez

Short:
Lopez
Belliard
Jiminez
Guzman

Third:
Zimmerman
Batista
Belliard

estuartj, I've often noticed your fairly strong support for Larry Broadway, but I can't say that I understand it. I know that very few of us are satisfied with Fick as a long term solution for any part of our club, given his proven offensive liabilities. However, as a fairly versatile (although quite limited in defensive capability at any position) substitute, whether it be at 1B, 3B, any OF spot, it is very unlikely that he'd lose his spot to someone like Larry Broadway.

On top of Broadway's apparent defensive limitation to 1B (he's only ever played one game in OF his entire minor league career, which is a pretty strong suggestion of his limits), he seems to be over his head offensively in his minor league career in general. His last 4 minor league stops, including this season, his averages have been .269 (AA-Harrisburg), .193 (AAA-New Orleans '05), .288 (AAA-New Orleans '06), and .251 (AAA-Columbus '07). Aside from being a streaky hitter (of which we already have plenty; see Logan, Nook; Kearns, Austin; and Lopez, Felipe), it doesn't seem that Broadway has any redeeming value which would suggest he'll be a substantial addition to our major league roster in any respect.

In light of the fact that we are more than covered at 1B with a starter and presumed backup/erstwhile OF player for the foreseeable future at 1B with Dmitri and Nick Johnson (assuming that reports of his future health after this last surgery are not overzealous), it doesn't make any sense to bring up a mediocre player who can only play the position where we have a relative logjam. Assuming health for Dmitri and Nick, at 1B in 2008, we have 2 proven players, that when healthy, would make any other major league roster without too much of a dispute. In that scenario, Broadway is entirely superfluous, and likely doesn't merit any type of call-up or major league audition, even when rosters expand in September.

ShawNatsFan puzzles: "One of my big problems with Moneyball theories is how they say speed is overrated. While I tend to agree more for AL-style teams (stand on a base and wait for the dinger), NL teams still tend to need to manufacture runs."

There are two conflicting metrics at work here:

1. Over all game situations -- from first inning to last -- a runner needs to succeed in at least 65% to 70% of his stolen base attempts to make basestealing a net winning tactic. Few runners are that successful, which quantifies and vindicates the "Moneyball" theory -- viz., teams might as well forego the stolen base -- in the main. However...

2. In close games, particularly in the late innings, a stolen base attempt by a good runner can be an exceptionally profitable tactic, because of the impact it can have on a close score as against the risk of getting caught.

Dave Roberts, then of Boston, demonstrated this in Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS against the Yankees. With the Red Sox down a run in the bottom of the ninth, pinch-runner Roberts stole second. That put him into position to score on a single, tying the game, after which Boston won in extra innings and ultimately advanced to the World Series.

Notice that the latter was an AL example. A situation more distinctly germane to the NL arises when the pitcher is at bat, especially with men on base.

A poor-hitting pitcher who can lay down a successful sacrifice bunt can keep innings and games alive. Watch Tom Glavine at bat and see what I mean. (As a bonus, Glavine's propensity to bunt successfully -- 244 in his career over 1292 at-bats, not all of which were sacrifice situations -- may have improved his overall BA, which is .227 for the 2007 season and .181 for his career.)

Capital idea, John. Let the shelling begin (heh-heh)...

---

Since Barry has tended to dodge the question about him leaving us next season, I say we bombard him with the question today during the chat. In addition to your normally-scheduled question, throw in a "Say it ain't so, Barry" or two until he addresses the issue.

Remember, we're harrassing him out of love.

I agree with everything 419 said about Nook. No baseball instincts -- he still creates confusion in the outfield on fly balls, speed or no speed. And that Cleveland game was not the only game he lost us on the basepaths. There was another game at RFK shortly before that where Nook failed to go from second to third on a ground ball to the right side with no outs. The next fly ball would have meant Nook scored the tying run -- if his head had been in the game.

With all the Wily Mo Mania on MASN (Bob Carpenter finally is bragging on a Nats player for once!), Manny is much more realistic. He's benching Church ONLY because he has seen Church all year long and wants the front office to see WMP before they go forward on FAs. Bottom line in all of this is that we only have one OF virtually guarantted to come back in '08. Kearns, who's D is unparalleled by anyone else in our OF.

BTW, what happens to Langerhans now? Has he been claimed? If not, does he go to Columbus or is he out of the organization entirely?

I don't think Broadway has a future with the organization beyond this year. Since he is so hot now I think he merits a look when the rosters expand, if he does well who knows, but we need a better alternative to Fick as back-up at 1b and I don't see how he could be more inept with the bat than Fick.

Next year if Nick is healthy I think broadway will be either traded (for a bucket of chicken) or outright released. He is taking up valuable space on the Columbus roster that woud be better served by promoting our hot 1b prospect at AA (who's name escapes me).

Ray, the Nats have 10 days to trade or waive Langerhans or send him to the minors. Since it only happened Saturday, not sure that there's been any real action on that front yet.

419, re pas de deux:

First, rest easy; the plural is the same as the singular.

Second, how many times has this happened to the Nats with Logan in center, vs. to the Nats or other teams with someone else in center? It's not a good thing when it happens, but I wonder if the overall effect isn't exaggerated. (I'm scouring databases to try to get some fielding numbers, but am so far coming up empty. They've gotta be out there; I've done this before.)

Re: trading Nook and Church
Well, depending on what's in exchange, both are on the trading block, in my opinion. But who would want either?

I like the goo theory! Bass-ackwards, but makes a ton of sense. Church would be much more marketable with 50 2Bs; Nook would have much more exposure and more proof as a RH-only hitter.

But, if the FO knows that Kearns will be back for sure next year (I'm expecting a much better year in new park), why not play both? And, WMP. (or, platoon Kearns w/Church as suggested before?)

I don't know exactly when Logan quit trying to switch-hit, only that it was in late June. But I did some back-of-the-envelope figures on his batting stats since June 20, when he was at .202/.239/.274.
In the games since then, if my numbers are correct, he has produced at a .341/.395/.401 clip. That means his OBP, which was an excruciating .513 on June 20, has been .796 since -- which would actually put him above the league average (.761).
I agree wholeheartedly with the post by ShawNatsfan that stated " ...speed isn't just about SBs. Scoring from 2nd, 1st to 3rds, hit-and-runs, and causing distraction/ movement for the infield are underappreciated in my book." When Logan steals second, it accomplishes two major goals -- putting him in position to score on most hits,and avoiding the double play. Since the Nats have surely scored the fewest runs via home run of any major league club this year, getting into scoring position is an important component of the team's offense. And with a no. 3 hitter who hits into a lot of double plays, having the leadoff or no. 2 guy on second when Zimmerman comes up is also a real plus.

Having said all this, I have long realized that stats don't tell the whole story, and often hide the drawbacks of a player with bad baseball instincts. (I first became aware of this back when Ralph Garr was killing rallies left and right with the Braves in the '70s.)

But I have to think Logan, if his long-term value is anywhere close to the level he's performing at now, would be a valuable addition to a major league club. A fourth outfielder who can pinch run and, in the right situation (down a run leading off the ninth, for instance), create some problems as a pinch hitter (can bunt for a base hit, can steal a base to get into scoring position, etc.)would be a welcome addition to almost any bench.

How effective is Nook Logan in center field? (By the way, the source for fielding statistics turns out to be The Hardball Times. I was flailing in Baseball Prospectus earlier, but their database doesn't seem to provide much in the way of sortable individual fielding stats.)

Here are two metrics that we can use to measure a player's fielding effectiveness:

1. Zone Rating: The percentage of chances in his zone that the player successfully converted into outs. (Not all unsuccessful conversions are scored as errors. Sometimes players are mispositioned, or just slow.)

2. OOZ: The number of chances outside his zone that the player successfully converted into outs. (Doesn't account for collisions or near misses.)

Here are the 2007 numbers for the ten MLB center fielders who have (a) played as many or more innings as Logan and (b) had as good or better a Zone Rating.

Player, Team, Inn, ZR, OOZ
Jones, Atlanta, 1068, .936, 67
Amezaga, Florida, 586, .930, 33
Granderson, Detroit, 1004, .926, 71
Beltran, NY Mets, 917, .924, 54
DeJesus, Kansas City, 1072, .911, 37
Crisp, Boston, 978, .910, 49
Patterson, Baltimore, 937, .907, 32
Pierre, LA Dodgers, 1093, .900, 49
Cabrera, NY Yankees, 769, .900, 26
Logan, Washington, 536, .899, 25

There are 14 other players this season -- including Rowand, Hunter, and Edmonds -- with at least 536 innings in center but whose Zone Ratings are inferior to Logan's. None of the 24 overall candidates has successfully made putouts on fewer balls outside his zone, a bit puzzling considering Nook's speed.

Finally, for the record, here are Wily Mo Pena's CF numbers for the 2004-07 seasons. (Bear in mind that Pena played the greatest number of his 2005-07 innings in RF.)

2004 - 378 innings, .799 ZR, 26 OOZ
2005 - 192 innings, .746 ZR, 10 OOZ
2006 - 194 innings, .859 ZR, 4 OOZ
2007 - 86 innings, .833 ZR, 3 OOZ

Barry dodged the questions! Now I'm actually concerned!

Hendo:

If I am understanding this stat correctly, isn't it possible that the reason the OOZ stat is low for Logan is that the rest of the outfield is positioned correctly, and is converting their own outs?

What are Church's numbers (bet they're low)?

I think Hendo's stats actually support that while Nook may make the spectacular diving play on occassion they are often caused by the fact that he poorly judges the ball, the low OOZ in particular. Its my understanding that the out of zone plays are mostly taking away hits not catches from other OF's, so the positioning of the other OF's should not be a factor in that low number.

two thing I forgot to point out in my previous post concerning Logan:
1) His stolen base rate this year is well above the mythical 75% where it supposedly turns into a plus. And on this team, where standing around waiting for someone to hit a home run is a losing proposition, each of those stolen bases represents a major ratcheting up of the chance to score a run.

This is reflected in his runs per plate appearances ratio for the year, which is 8.8 -- a little worse than the league average, and much better than could be expected for someone with his .710 OPS.

BTW, I typed in "OBP" when I meant "OPS" in my previous post. Sorry about that.

New post from Barry

I don't blame him. Why on earth would anyone answer "Are you going to be in the same job in six months?"
_______
Barry dodged the questions! Now I'm actually concerned!
Posted by: Section 506 (After moving) | August 22, 2007 02:13 PM

It's not true then because Barry didn't say so. So there. Hands over ears, singing loudly LALALALA. Say what now? Barry might be doing what? Sorry, can't hear you. LALALALA...

:()

Nook is hitting well, but he is apprently totally incapable of HITTING THE CUTOFF MAN. He missed another one in the first inning on Wednesday, not to mention his looper home last night that allowed Biggio to advance adn score. Where are the fundamentals? They teach you to hit the cutoff man in little leage.

I love it. the jokes just write "themsleeves" here.
-----------------------------

"...Biggio to advance adn score. Where are the fundamentals? They teach you to hit the cutoff man in little leage."