Not only have the Nats exceeded expectations in terms of wins, they've been competitve in a great percentage of their games despite being hit hard with injuries. Manny Acta, his coaches and the players deserve a great amount of credit for their efforts this year.

Has a team ever won 70+ games without a starting pitcher having more than 7 wins? Right now, the Nationals won't with Chico, Bergmann, and Simontacchi leading the starters with 6 wins and Rauch leading the club with 8!

I had them at 63-99. Given all the pre-season predictions, how can Acta NOT be one of the contenders for manager of the year in the NL, yet the national press ignores him!

I am so sick of the misconception that the Nationals are "the worst team in baseball." Sure, they're not great, but they're definitely not the worst team and actually did much better than most people thought they would. At some of the last home games I attended, I'd hear idiot Mets and Braves fans say things like, "why are people cheering for a last-place team?" "how can our team get beat by the worst team in baseball?" Are these morons just misinformed, or just blindly stupid? (I suppose it could be both.)

Thanks, Barry, it takes a real "so-called expert" to own up to that (BTW, I liked Schneider's take on the "so-called experts" on Monday's radio pregame show). Will look forward to reading more re. predictions.

Dsmac, I believe Manny has gotten some MOY buzz in the national press, though not a lot of it.

I'm raising my half-full glass of Koolaid for a toast to the FO, Manny, the coaches, and the players! Ahhhhhhhh, that's refreshing!!

Admittedly I had the line at Nats losses at 106.5. I took the under (my guess was 106) but part of that was wishful thinking. I thought there was no chance this team could improve upon last year -so why not get a #1 overall pick? -but that wasn't going to stop me from hoping they could pull it off. I watched/listened/attended almost every game this season and was rooting for them to pull off something great and I think this goes a long way. The only thing that dissapoints me is that these "so called experts" do not give any credit to a team who is over performing more then almost any team in the bigs (Colorado, Arizona, Milwaukee probably have us beat) but the only time we get coverage is when we play the Mets.

That being said... I did call a non-starter leading the Nats in wins this season (Rauch 8) which looks like it should hold up. Figured I would brag a little there although it wasn't a tough call really.

After the 9-25 start, I only hoped thatthe Nats would win at least 63 games to avoid the ignomy of 100 losses. Manny and the Saint have done fantastic jobs to have this team in position to exceed the win total of last season. This never-say-die squad, its manager and the coaching staff merit well-deserved kudos. Anyone else notice that we have a chance to have a better record than the Orioles for the third year in a row?

Just shows that predictions are meaningless and while a sportswriter may know more technical stuff about a team, their prediction is no more valid than the guy in the stands. The same goes for political pundits, by the way.

Isn't that why they play the games? Isn't that why they actually hold elections? Isn't that why the New Orleans Saints are 0-3 and not Super Bowl bound as so many "predicted."

In April I thought (hoped) they could avoid 100 losses, mostly on the grounds that the players themselves seemed to think that there was no way the team was that bad. They were right. There is something to be said for effort, and a positive attitude in the clubhouse.

Hey! The Post has a pro-Nats story on the front page! Well done Barry. And there is also a featured column by Dave Sheinin about a surprising young team that has exceeded expectations and defied the numbers, in part due to a strong bullpen.

Oh wait, the feature story is about the Arizona Diamondbacks ...

I don't know about you peeps, but I find Sheinin's chat comments to be pretty out of touch. I absolutely question his analytical ability.

He'd rather have 110 loses with more young emerging players than 90 loses and only a few. That's not nearly as insightful as he thinks it is. The Nats were able to shake out which young guys were going to contend for next years rotation, as well as show Flores ability. Kearns is turning around, we have bullpen parts. We have more than just one or two emerging players. Not to mention our farm system! For him to say that the Nats are further away from contention is pretty dumb, I think.

Then after saying that he believes in "The Plan" he goes on to agree that bringing Barry Bonds to DC would be a good idea?! Are you freakin kidding me?! Barry?!

Yeah Sheinin, we should totally invest 12 mil per year on a poor fielding left fielder in his 40's. THAT would put us in contention, right? Please...

Back in the spring I was in Las Vegas and noticed that a casino sports book was offering futures bets on the number of wins each MLB team would have at the end of the season. The over/under for the Nats was 65, so I wagered $20 that they'd win more games than that.

This weekend I'm headed back to Vegas and while I'm there I'll collect my winnings. Any suggestions on what to do with it? Some Nationals garb? Hot dogs and beers at the new ballpark?

(To be honest, the main reason I visited the sports book was not to place a bet on the Nats, but just to kill some time without losing too much money while I was attending a convention.

If you've never been to one, let me explain the appeal of the typical casino sports book to the typical male.

You can sit there for hours watching multiple sporting events on a dozen or more big screens while scantily-clad servers bring you free drinks.

As the philosopher Elvis Presley once observed, "Viva, Viva, Las Vegas!")

"...he goes on to agree that bringing Barry Bonds to DC would be a good idea?! Are you freakin kidding me?! Barry?!"

That's completely absurd. Any "expert" who believes that Barry* belongs on ANY team in the NL where he'd have to play a position everyday needs to think long and hard about reevaluating their chosen career path. IF he plays another year, he's AL bound in So-Cal or NY. I put him in one of 3 uniforms next season - NYY, LAA, OAK.

G-town. I think Sheinin said he thought Barry in DC would make for a great story (read here: I'm a sportswriter and this guy is a walking timebomb of controversial 1-liners). He didn't mean that it would be good for the team or The Plan. Next time please follow along when you read a chat.

I may be wrong on this, but back in Spring Training (ah, good ol' Viera, only a few months!) when Barry asked us for our guesses I picked 74-88. I've always been an optimist, and I thought we could pull another two wins down.

Without bragging, I think I'm looking pretty good, but I'm hoping they exceed my expectations as well!

PS Is there a way to dig that old journal entry up? I would love for us all to see how we did. Plus, selfishly, I can double check that I did put the above numbers.

I think you may have missed how Dave Sheinin had his tongue slightly stuck in his cheek when he agreed that putting Balco Bonds in left field would be a good idea.

Sheinin was saying that, while it might not help the Nationals, it would give him and every other sportswriter in town lots of good copy -- and from that selfish perspective as a writer, a Nationals signing of Bonds would be good.

--- --- --- ---

Then after saying that he believes in "The Plan" he goes on to agree that bringing Barry Bonds to DC would be a good idea?! Are you freakin kidding me?! Barry?!

Yeah Sheinin, we should totally invest 12 mil per year on a poor fielding left fielder in his 40's. THAT would put us in contention, right? Please...

Posted by: G-town | September 26, 2007 09:06 AM

natty, would this be the thread in question (thank you, Google)?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2007/04/life_begins_on_opening_day.html

There's also this, from later in the season:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2007/08/with_52_left_have_your_expecta.html

I had the Nats at 73 wins.

Let me say to you Barry, respectfully, and the national media, less respectfully, that you are either guilty of laziness or group-think, or succumbed to peer pressure. This was never a 100 loss team. That folderol was foisted on the nation by the twin Angelos-apologists, Ken Rosenthal (and Barry, you should know better than mentioning Rosenthal to Nationals' fans) and Buster Olney, who were supposedly quoting scouts that this was the worst team ever. Nobody else took the time to analyze what was there. And, you Barry, you saw them in spring training, but fell right into the trap. . . .

Here is how I got to 73 wins:

1. What pitching were they losing: Armas, Astacio, O'Connor and Ortiz (puh-leeze)? It was obvious in spring training that the young arms, Hanrahan, Redding (not so young), Hill, Bergman, and Chico, not to mention others, were just as good (or certainly, no worse) than what we had last year. I watched them in the spring (when they were on TV and listened to them on the radio when they were not, and never saw a 100 loss pitching staff).

2. They could offset, in part, the loss of Soriano and Johnson (for what we thought was a half season) (and their run production) with better defense.

3. In other words, a quarter of a run lower ERA, allowing fewer unearned runs, and the runs allowed/runs scored differential looked to me to be essentially where we were last year.

4. But here are the wildcards: we lost the entitlement players from last year, Vidro, Guillen, and Hernandez. Thus, things were set up for a better clubhouse. Yes, even though Dmitri had been a bad actor, he was chastened, and you could see it in spring training.

5. Manny Acta. Just losing Frank Robinson and his poor managing was worth a few wins, but Manny was young and hungry. That was obvious too in spring training.

That's how I got to 73. They might make it yet. But the predictions by the pundits are what deserve scrutiny here. This team was never that bad.

My thoughts.

I guess I don't really follow along with the Bonds comments by Sheinin. Sometimes difficult to discern tone by reading comments. Either way, my complete dislike of Bonds results in my extreme view that no upside is possible by bringing Bonds to DC.

Still wholeheartedly disagree with his analysis of the current state of the Nationals.

great writing today in the gamer, barry. lots of fun to read -- thanks.

I had them at least 70 - and you owe me a dollar (which you are free to give to Stan if it will get him off your back).

Care to go double or nothing on 81 wins next year?

former 502:

what were the odds?

if your heading back out, i wouldnt mind sending you out with a bet of mine for next year....

Yeah Sheinin, we should totally invest 12 mil per year on a poor fielding left fielder in his 40's. THAT would put us in contention, right? Please...

Yeah, how would this AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS line help the Nats?

.279/.483/.570/1.053

While all the rest of the team is scrapping and gritting their way to productive outs, god damn Barry Bonds would just be doing things like getting on base and scoring runs. Who needs that?

7th in the NL in Runs Created Against Average at 47. In 125 games. Give him the half a game for his poor fielding and he's still 4 wins better than the replacement level LF the Nats have run out there.

How 'bout that Buster Olney? He wasn't too far off...

Contrarian, seriously dude...

You think putting a guy in his 40's on a team looking to build for the future is a good idea? C'mon...

I'm not worried though, Kasten/Bowden will sooner jump off the side of the new stadium before they bring Barry here, so its a moot point either way.

I'll confess, I had 71 wins in the BPG boards! Figured that a cast of no-names was better than the horror of Ramon Diogenes Ortiz and Livan "3 HRS a game" Hernandez. O'Connor had the only starter ERA under 5 last year! How could we do worse than that???

Also, a Dodger scout was overheard saying that if no one (Chico) loses 10 games, the Nats may be the 1st team in history not to have a guy with 10 losses. Can't verify, we certainly have little chance (Rauch) for somebody with 10 wins.

Root for Chico to win again!!!

I had us at 82, maybe next year...

D'oh!! The 10 loss thing is not true, Seattle in 2k1 had no one with 10 losses. Halama had 7 for the tops.

Thanks a lot, Barry. Now I've got the Hot Chocolate song running through my mind, accompanied by visuals from The Full Monty production number...

---

(What did Al Michaels say? Do you believe in miracles?)

Sheinin was kidding about Bonds (or, as 502 notes, simply stating that from a writer's standpoint, he'd be a goldmine).

Having said that, if the Nats actually did pick up Bonds, I wouldn't attend a single game (or watch one on television or even bother to read the results in the paper the next day) until he was gone.

I wouldn't care even if he were still in his prime. The guy has been a cancer on the game his entire career.

Not that I'm bitter about the fact that the last time my Pirates fielded a competitive team, he CHOKED LIKE A MANGY DOG in the playoffs every freakin' year. No, not at all. Just don't like the guy.

And, with all his gaudy stats, I believe he has a total of 0 ("zero") championship rings.

I am happy to say I predicted the team to have the same number of wins as last year.
Primary reason is they play in the National League where every team has issues. Maybe if they played in the American League East the story would have been different and the pundits would have been right. The pundits just ignored the weaknesses of the other NL teams when they made their preseason predictions. Remember when you have a really bad team in a league you usually have a really good team in the league. The NL just doesn't have this disparity. It's called parity.

The real surprise to me this season was the problems Florida had based on their hitting and pitching in 2006. Their hitting stayed strong, but their pitching completely fell apart.

Based on where the team is now and the talk from amangement I expect the Nats to be the same next year as it was this year and last year 70-75 wins. This fits into Kasten's Plan because next year will be all about the new ballpark not the team on the field. 2009 is the year Kasten is targeting for the team to show real improvement on the field.

So fans can you handle another 4th or 5th place finish? Or is your expectation now 3d place or above?

In mid-March I sat me down with "Baseball Prospectus 2007" and crunched some of its PECOTA numbers, arriving at the following projections for end-of-season standings.

AL EAST: Boston 98-64, New York 95-67, Tampa Bay 81-81, Toronto 76-86, Baltimore 75-87

AL CENTRAL: Cleveland 96-66, Minnesota 94-68, Detroit 88-74, Chicago 81-81, Kansas City 58-104

AL WEST: Anaheim 96-66, Texas 80-82, Oakland 79-83, Seattle 78-84

NL EAST: New York 89-73, Philadelphia 84-78, Florida 79-83, Atlanta 74-88, Nats 63-99

NL CENTRAL: Chicago 84-78, Houston 81-81, Milwaukee 80-82, St. Louis 77-85, Pittsburgh 74-88, Cincinnati 67-95

NL WEST: Arizona 92-70, Colorado 84-78, San Diego 80-82, Los Angeles 79-83, San Francisco 69-93

In mid-April I was feeling a little uneasy about that Nats prediction. I'm not quite sure how I feel now, except pleased and hopeful that we can go at least 1-4 to close out the season.

How much of a factor did Manny have on pushing this team through and keeping spirits high? Would the team have lost 100 if Frank was at the helm? (No Disrespect to the amazing HOF Frank, but not the best when facing lots of losses).

When do we get to start making predictions for next year? I want 85 wins. A Pipe dream, maybe.

"How 'bout that Buster Olney? He wasn't too far off..."

I have three words for Buster Olney. They are not "Happy Birthday, Buster."

NICE RESEARCH B-SVLIZZLE! Consider the 'tism-haters squelched. The DC OPTIMIST team of prognostigators guaranteed less than 100 losses in April. WE WERE RIGHT!

Schneider's take per the gamer on the Nats site (yeah, Brian!!):

"It was ridiculous. There was one guy who said it, and that was [baseball writer] Buster Olney. It shows you how much he knows," said Brian Schneider. "Honestly, that was a ridiculous comment by him. In a way, it's asinine. That's five wins a month. These days, you see teams with small payrolls doing [positive things]. If you look at [our team], you knew we were going to win more than 30 games. We took it with a grain of salt. We laugh at it now. It was nothing to think about."

http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20070925&content_id=2229264&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=wa

I think my problem was that, as a reaction to all the negativity, coupled with my conviction that the Nationals couldn't really suck that much, my pre-season prediction was 81. Soon, though. Very soon.

ESPN, WAPO, CNNSI etc.etc.etc your all cut from the same cloth.

Baseball is a funny game, no team in the majors will lose 100 games the year, not even the 6 basement bottom feeders (which currently the Nats are not a part of). However, with the new emphasis on keeping young players and fore-going the full blast FA route, parity might be setting up shop and it will probably be better for the game.

Unfortunatley the dirty rotten stink of Ken "I never thought baseball in DC was a good idea" Rosenthal's May FSN article, and Buster "I have it from good sources" Onley's historically worst team diatribe, permeated all over the country. Of course will never see/hear an apology. Of course it didn't help when the local hometown media (both print and sport talkies) dismissed the fact that the team was even playing in 2007.

BTW folks, BaseballWriters Association are responsible for voting for the league MVP's, Rookie of the Year's, etc., but in most cities the local chapter usually puts together awards for their local team. Sort of like, hey we followed you guys all year and here is who we think deserves the extra kudos. Little factoid; in DC (even after 3 years) our local chapter for some reason has never gotten around to doing that, maybe next year!

Sorry Barry but that speaks volumns and I don't think you need to check with Mr. Ruiz to get that little ditty put together.

there is a lot of anger in the room today. it's okay. how can we expect everyone else to look at our team the way we do? i almost hope they never do.

Washington DC as a whole is very misunderstood by most of the country anyway. and certainly nobody is rooting for us to dominate. this is the good part...

C'mon now. We are all die-hard fans and at season's start, we had a very healthy dose of hope koolaid. Before we get too cocky with the writers, it most certainly was laughable that we had 37 pitchers in ST, and exactly 1 guy in the rotation.

Then we had two position-player injuries on THE FIRST DAY, plus more pitcher injuries to follow, AND a 1-9 record to start, "improving" to 9-25. The predictions were not that far off at the time.

Sure, Manny and the boys pulled it together and really did amazing things this year considering. But with the information the "so-called experts" had at the time, I'm sorry but it was reasonable to think 100 losses was possible.

Obviously, I'm glad the team didn't listen.

And one more thing, last night should have taught us to tone down the cockiness a little. I hope we can continue to be humble and under-the-radar.

I thought they would get 65 wins.....but I thought it would be because Kearns and Lopez would hit more then they have, rather than the pitching being suprisingly good. As an american league fan, I knew Guzman would get better than he was in '05, so that helped them toward the middle of the season as well.

Manny's said more than once that his goal was for a .500 season. Even if (God Forbid) the Nats lose their last 5 games, that was still a good goal to strive for, and look how (fairly) close they've come to getting it (given the pre-season predictions of the "so-called experts")!

Of course, just because they didn't reach his goal doesn't mean Manny shouldn't recalibrate for next year and go for, say, five games above .500. You never know, they might even exceed that... :-)

I think jpsfanandproudofit had the Nats winning 72 games, but she also had John Patterson winning 30 of them.

Buster Olney is an idiot and Rosenthal is essentially Angelos's b*tch. What kind of name is "Buster", anyway? What, is he five years old? On the topic of being just a wee bit too intimate with Angelos... Barry, how much is he paying WaPo to cover his BALTIMORE franchise as a home town team? Are you guys getting a cut of his MASN heist? He must at least pay most of Boswell's salary....

Dbacks fans couldn't have said it better, except they're laughing their -- wait, snakes don't have Colome-extremities. Nevermind.
------------
there is a lot of anger in the room today. it's okay. how can we expect everyone else to look at our team the way we do? i almost hope they never do.
Washington DC as a whole is very misunderstood by most of the country anyway. and certainly nobody is rooting for us to dominate. this is the good part...
Posted by: longterm | September 26, 2007 10:56 AM

And for the record, I had 80-81, which they might yet get within 5 of.

Point of Info. WaPo sportswriters do not vote for awards, as a matter of WaPo policy (avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest).

---------------
BaseballWriters Association are responsible for voting for the league MVP's, Rookie of the Year's, etc., but in most cities the local chapter usually puts together awards for their local team.
....
Posted by: Tippy Canoe | September 26, 2007 10:44 AM

Here's hoping Chief isn't too mentally screwed up after last night. Footage showed his glove taking the brunt of his anger after he got into the dugout.

The Chief has short-term memory problems. He can't remember anything past April 2005. How else do you think he has the nerve to show up grinning in the clubhouse every day?

I guess I could chime in with some false claim of having boldly predicted a season like the one they've had. It would of course be impossible for anyone to refute it since I was a late comer to the NJ. But I won't. I admit to being snowed by the dire predictions of gloom and doom. I never thought they were going to be "historically bad", but I did think a season with less than 100 losses should have been their team goal.

My personal prediction was 63 - 99. I'm very proud to have been so wrong.

"Point of Info. WaPo sportswriters do not vote for awards, as a matter of WaPo policy (avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest)."

WaPo policy with regard to this seems to be about as consistent as the direction they give their reporters. ("You, Saslow. Go cover that game tonight while Svrluga is placating the missus. Oh, and make sure you get some quotes from the locker room of that team we supposedly cover. Which one was it? Oh, hell, I can't remember. I think they wear red. But I gotta go - 'nother call comin' in I got to take. Doesn't that Joe Gibbs ever take a f***in' day off?!?!) Anyway, if there's a Post policy against its reporters voting for awards, Wilbon has been violating it for years. He's columnized and chatted multiple times about how he is (or was) one of the voters for the NFL Hall of Fame, and how he unsuccessfully championed Art Monk for the Hall.

1. National sportswriters can't possibly have enough information on ~30 teams in 5+ different sports, plus colleges, plus the Olympics, etc., to be able to make informed guesses on who finishes where; they're mostly just one more blowhard with a bully pulpit. So they copy, and clone, and herd up. Accountability tracks with that, not surprisingly. They aren't accountable, because they don't count.
Anyone with any sense knows this, but that still leaves a lot of sports fans.

2. That said, they get paid to get noticed, and it's much safer to criticize than praise (JP'sMom can I get an AMEN?). If you said the Nats will lose 110 games, you have a feel-good story -- they've "exceeded expectations." There's little risk in being wrong, because the people you've p'd off are still feeling good about the wins.
If you said they'll contend most of the year and finish around .500 or better, you've "put pressure" on the rookie players and manager and owners, and when they never contend, and finish, say 73-89, in fourth, you'll hear it's partly your fault they choked, or you were always dreaming, and the team got lucky to win as much as they did. Either way, no respect for you -- unless they DO win, like Phoenix has (so far).

3. It's easier to get quick laughs being snarky than long-term respect being insightful.

C'mon, this post is about how awesome our Nationals are, not how much we can moan about why we need more attention. Seriously, I'm tired of the "we should be on the front page every day" thing. It's so spoiled.

Seriously, we're not the Yanks or the Red Sox.

Not yet.

Columnists aren't reporters.
Barry, what's the rule there?
-----------
Anyway, if there's a Post policy against its reporters voting for awards, Wilbon has been violating it for years. He's columnized and chatted multiple times about how he is (or was) one of the voters for the NFL Hall of Fame, and how he unsuccessfully championed Art Monk for the Hall.

Posted by: Section 419 | September 26, 2007 11:28 AM

"That said, they get paid to get noticed, and it's much safer to criticize than praise"

AMEN

Pride in a team with a losing record is a tough thing to explain and can not be universally applied to all teams with losing records. I personally haven't had the luxury of rooting for a winning team in a long time. I'm a homer. I love the Nats, Skins and Caps. I hate basketball so I couldn't care less about the Wiz. I am a rabid fan of the teams I follow. I have a week's worth of Nats tees that I change into everyday after work and sport all weekend long. I have several Nats caps that I wear until I can't stand the smell of them. Washing a cap ruins it so I usually just buy a new one instead. I'm currently wearing the 2007 BP cap after retiring the 2006 BP. I'm equally as fervent of a Skins fan, yet my apparel volume is dramatically smaller. I have an old tee that I rarely wear, and a hat that I'll break out on occasion during the season.

So why am I such a proud Nats fan and not such a proud Skins fan? I guess it's because to date, the Nats haven't attempted to buy themselves a championship only to fall woefully short of local and national expectations. Because this team honestly seems to care about the wins and losses. Because they've said all year long that they were going to prove the experts wrong. Because they have never shown a lack of heart,desire and class that so often accompanies athletes in the midst of a losing season. Because for the most part, they're not a collection of overpaid, under achieving players. Because they have never made me feel embarrassed to be a fan.

I'm just glad this team is getting a home next year that they can be as proud of as I am of them.

====================

I am so sick of the misconception that the Nationals are "the worst team in baseball." Sure, they're not great, but they're definitely not the worst team and actually did much better than most people thought they would. At some of the last home games I attended, I'd hear idiot Mets and Braves fans say things like, "why are people cheering for a last-place team?" "how can our team get beat by the worst team in baseball?" Are these morons just misinformed, or just blindly stupid? (I suppose it could be both.)

Posted by: surlychick | September 26, 2007 07:58 AM

The Rockies - who, like the Nats, have also used 13 different starters this year - currently have no 10-game loser. Jeff Francis is sitting on 8, and Josh Fogg, like Chico, has 10 losses.

The other two teams that have used 13 different starters both have 10-game losers. Jamie Moyer has lost 13 for the Phillies (Adam Eaton sits at 9), and Daniel Cabrera has lost 17 for the Orioles.

The Rangers are the only team to use more starters than the Nationals. Of their fifteen (!!) starters, four (!!!) have lost ten games or more: Kevin Millwood, Kameron Lowe, Vincente Padilla, and Brandon McCarthy.

So yes, the large number of starters does play a factor in this, but it still seems like quite a feat.

-----

Also, a Dodger scout was overheard saying that if no one (Chico) loses 10 games, the Nats may be the 1st team in history not to have a guy with 10 losses.

And the Jose Guillian Crazed "Your a Piece of Garbage" Award goes to - Coach Bob Gundy of Oklahoma State.

I picked 72 wins and repeated it througout the season. The Boz did a start of season column comparing last seasons team ERA with this teams probable staff's ERA. This was very similars to C'ville NAT's analysis. G-Twn spoiled my rant. However, Shenin was kidding about Bonds. Uh, Hendo (again great gathering) do not you mean 1-3? Poor Mets--10-9 hurts worse than 10-3, No?

From a quick google on the subject of Post writers voting for awards:

http://apse.dallasnews.com/2006/dec2006/120606roberson.html

Dated December 6, 2006

"Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, Washington Post

We do not allow our writers to vote for any awards. We finally killed the last dragon when we banned being in the Hall of Fame room this year. The paper-wide policy forbids all instances of a reporter influencing any aspect of news. We just can't have a hand in changing the outcome of something we then report on."

baseball america is lovin the nats nowadays...

5. Jordan Zimmermann, rhp, Vermont Lake Monsters (Nationals)

B-T: R-R Ht.: 6-2 Wt.: 200 Age: 21 Drafted: Nationals '07 (2)
Zimmermann burst onto the prospect landscape during the summer of 2006, when he led the wood-bat Northwoods League in ERA (1.01) and was named the top prospect in that strong summer collegiate circuit. He pitched through a broken jaw and pulled wisdom teeth this spring and continued to dominate Division III competition, but he truly peaked this summer against far better hitters in the NY-P.

Zimmermann's heavy, sinking fastball sits at 91-93 mph range and touches 94, and its life makes it a true plus pitch. He attacks the strike zone with his fastball, his hard slider with late bite and his decent changeup. He's also working on a 12-to-6 curveball because the Nationals don't like their young pitchers to throw sliders.

Zimmermann has strong legs and good mechanics, and he should only get better the more he pitches in warmer weather.

"I think he's a sure-fire big leaguer," Oneonta manager Andy Barkett said. "He comes right at you with a very lively fastball, good slider and good changeup. He has a great arm action, and he has a powerful presence on the mound."


G GS W L SV ERA IP H R ER HR BB SO AVG
13 11 5 2 0 2.38 53 45 14 14 2 18 71 .228

I don't think I made a prediction on the record, but I did argue with friends and work colleagues about the "historically bad" predictions being thrown around last spring. I kept asking, "HOW can you know?!" I just didn't believe that our guys would be so bad, particularly after shedding the truly disappointing starting pitchers we ended with last fall.

For the record, "gotta love the media" and others: the Post has drastically cut back its O's coverage. Just a few interior-page inches of an AP story for the last several weeks at least. I'll save more opinions on this coverage issue for the future blog post on this topic.

In the meantime, let's keep up the great play for our last four (FOUR?! SOB!!!) games. I'd hate to not play this well against the Phils and help send them to the division title. Heaven forbid. I'm hoping for lots of big leads to prevent any more Cordero "save" situations.

9. Glenn Gibson, lhp, Vermont Lake Monsters (Nationals)
B-T: L-L Ht.: 6-5 Wt.: 195 Age: 19 Drafted: Nationals '06 (4)
The son of former major league lefthander Paul Gibson, Glenn is far more advanced than the typical high school product from the Northeast. He might have been the best pitcher in the NY-P until his final two starts, when he tried to pitch while sick and saw his ERA rise from 1.74 to 3.10.

Gibson pores over hitting and pitching charts before every start so he can exploit hitters' weaknesses. He mixes speeds and locations very well. He's starting to fill out his lean frame and he ran his fastball up to 91 mph this summer, though he usually pitches in the high 80s with late movement.

He's not afraid to throw his exceptional changeup or solid 12-to-6 curveball in any count, and all of his offerings look the same out of his hand. Gibson doesn't have overpowering raw stuff, but his savvy and polish should allow him to move quickly.

G GS W L SV ERA IP H R ER HR BB SO AVG
12 12 4 3 0 3.10 58 47 23 20 3 15 58 .223

11. Colten Willems, rhp, Vermont Lake Monsters (Nationals)
B-T: R-R Ht.: 6-3 Wt.: 175 Age: 19 Drafted: Nationals '06 (1)
After drafting Willems in the first round last June, the Nationals shut him down after 16 innings when he came down with a sore elbow. He came out strong this summer, regularly running his fastball up to 94-95 mph and pitching in the low 90s. His downer curveball and changeup are both promising offerings, but he's still working on refining his command.

Willems grew about two inches this summer and is now 6-foot-6, and he pitches from an imposing downhill plane. He does a good job pounding his fastball down in the zone. He matured quite a bit with Vermont, and his demeanor on the mound never changes no matter the situation.

G GS W L SV ERA IP H R ER HR BB SO AVG
12 12 3 2 0 1.84 59 55 25 12 2 26 31 .251

I think Sheinin's "analysis" includes a few points we can all agree on, but in the end doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

His argument is essentially (i) that the guys on his list of "27 and under players that could form the core of a contending team" have not stepped forward and have actually regressed; and (ii) that the list has not been sufficiently augmented by emerging new players, such that it "not only hasn't grown ... it has actually gone down."

Let's see about that.

Zimmerman in 2006: .287/.351/.471, 20 dingers, 110 RBIs, 11 SBs.

Zimmerman in 2007 (to date): .268/.328/.462, 24 dingers, 89 RBIs, 4 SBs.

Sure, his batting average is down, which is a disappointment. But maybe, just maybe, the dropoff there, and in his RBIs, might have something to do with not having Soriano and Vidro batting ahead of him, and Nick Johnson behind? Clearly, Zimmerman's season has done nothing to change the perception that he is a player that could be part of "the core of a contending team."

Next on Dave's list is Brian Schneider who, of course, is not 27 (29 going on 30) and probably doesn't belong on the list in the first place. But let's take a look at his numbers anyway:

2006: .256/.320/.329; 4-55-2.
2007: .237/.327/.339; 6-54-0.

Again, his average is low, but the other numbers are basically identical. And has Schneider done anything this season that changes our view of him going in, which was that he was a valuable veteran defensive catcher that would be a solid presence on a losing team experimenting with a string of young and castoff pitchers? No. Can he play that same role on a contending team in 2009-2012, perhaps as a backup to Flores? Sure.

Next, Austin Kearns:

2006: .264/.363/.467; 24-86-9.
2007: .265/.352/.414; 16-72-2.

OK, the homers dropped off, which is a disappointment. But wait -- 16 of AK's 2006 homers came when he was with Cincinnati! So he's actually hit homers at exactly the same rate as he did with the Nats last year. Would we like to see more production? Sure. Maybe, kind of like, the production we have seen from Kearns in the second half of this year? Or the kind of production we've seen from him on the road all year, outside cavernous RFK? Kearns stays on the list.

Now Lopez. OK, Lopez has regressed:

2006: .274/.358/.381; 11-52-44
2007: .242/.307/.346; 9-49-24

The average and OBP numbers this year don't provide any indication that he could be a top-of-the-order hitter on a contender. But has he taken himself off the list? Or just had a bad year, perhaps in part due to switching positions, and then switching back? The Nats need more from him, no doubt. But I certainly don't think it's time to "sell low" on Lopez. He did hit .291/.352/.486; 23-85-15 with the Commies in 2005, and .281/.362/.365 with 21 SBs in 71 games with the Nats in 2006. There's nobody close in the minors, so we have to "keep hope alive" for Felipe (and we have Belliard as insurance for the next two years, a pleasant surprise). Overall, Sheinin has a point here, but Felipe stays on the list.

Next, Ryan Church. I'm not sure the Nats were expecting Ryan to be one of the core guys on a contender, he's been regarded as a fourth outfielder all along. But let's take a look anyway:

2006: .276/.366/.526; 10-35-6.
2007: .271/.349/.458; 14-66-3.

Has Ryan taken a step up? No. But regressed? No. He still looks like a spot starter/fourth outfielder/pinch hitter. Part of the core of a contender? Perhaps not as a starter. But he has a role on this team at the moment, right? We don't know what's happening with Logan or Pena yet; Ryan showed he could play a solid cf at the beginning of the year, and there's nothing wrong with all those doubles. So maybe he's a fourth outfielder on a contender, at least until some team makes an offer we can't refuse.

Chad Cordero:

2006: 73 IPs, 29 saves, 4 blown saves, 3.19 ERA.

2007: 74 IPs, 36 saves, 9 blown saves, 3.16 ERA.

We've all seen Cardiac Chad, as recently as last night, and 9 blown saves is a lot. Elite closers blow 3-5 saves a year, and other closers seem to blow around 7 (although Jason Isringhausen blew 10 saves for the world champion Cardinals last year). So some improvement is certainly warranted here. But Chad's games, innings and ERA are all about the same as last year, and I don't think we regarded him as an elite closer to start the year anyway. So did he take a step forward? No. Regress? Well, perhaps just enough to diminish his trade value to the point that he'll be with us for awhile. Might as well keep him on the list.

Rauch was a valuable setup guy in 2006, and a valuable setup guy in 2007. He can be a valuable setup guy on a contender here, or he can be traded for prospects on the grounds that once the Nats are contenders, they can trade prospects for a valuable setup guy.

Finally, Patterson. Hard to argue that the "staff ace" of spring training hasn't been taken off Sheinin's list by injuries.

So, Sheinin has a point on Lopez and Patterson, and maybe Cardiac Chad. But what else has gone on this year? How about the emergence of Shawn Hill as a potential top-of-the-rotation guy? Yes, he hurt his non-throwing shoulder on the basepaths, and he's having some additional surgery to address other issues (though issues he said he can pitch with). More surgery is certainly cause for concern, but I think Hill has clearly played himself onto the list.

So has Jason Bergmann, in my view. And Matt Chico. And Jesus Flores. And Wily Mo Pena. So, maybe 2-3 guys have regressed a bit, but they could easily bounce back, and there are 4-5 additions to the list in any case. Doesn't seem like the list is getting shorter.

And that's before you look at the organization as a whole. We knew that there weren't going to be players coming up from AA and AAA this year, so the assertion that five or six players should have emerged at the major league level this season is pretty hollow.

But what about the players that have emerged at lower levels that belong on a list of guys that might be part of a contending team in the future? Justin Maxwell. Eli Marrero. Michael Burgess. Smiley Gonzalez. John Lannan. Collin Balester. Colton Willems. Glenn Gibson. Ross Detwiler. Josh Smoker. Jack McGeary.

Farther away from being a contender than in Spring Training? I don't think so.

I had them at 73-89 but only because I could not bring myself to predict 90 losses for my favorite team. I was feeling bad about predicting worse than 82-80. I cannot say that I predicted any of the specifics about the 73 win record accurately except that Cordero and Zimmerman finished up pretty much where I thought they would (unexpected errors not withstanding). I recall having predicted very few starts for Patterson and a pretty good year for Rauch. I missed on when Nick would get back; Lopez' under production; Bergmann's performance (I really thought it was ludicrous to think that he could be a contributor - happy surprise); Belliard and Young's contributions; and the lack of a significant trade.

So I guess I was pretty close on total wins but completely off on how they would get there.

Faith is an important aspect of being a fan!

Barry - you are indeed awesome!!

As many have already offered, I would read anything posted here and my only likely disappointment will be that there is (understandably) only one or two posts per day at most. I'm stoked about the expanded Nats coverage in the paper-post, especially the minor league notebook...all of this information is just downright great.

As for W-L record...the nationals enquirer has it right, I think the departure of some of the gutless stiffs we had in the rotation last year will improve this team. But only slightly: 74-88.

Posted by: DE | April 2, 2007 10:13 AM

-------------------------

Hmmmm. If the Nats can go 3-1 over their final four games, I will have been spot on. Yeah, I guess that's gonna be tough considering the circumstances...but you can always hope!

BTW, It's kinda fun reading those old NJ entries...

A. Hardwick: Yes, I meant 1-3. I forgot about the off day tomorrow.

And thanks for joining our gathering.

"gutless stiffs"--LOL!

I just Googled my moniker and "Nationals" and got 86 hits for this blog. Good grief. Please don't tell my boss. :)

Thanks, Bob L. Head, for exposing the flaws in Sheinin's dismissal of the Nats' reconstruction.

Wonder if we can expect Dave to take up any of your points? Or is "the Nats are an aging, sucky team" the story he's going to stick with?

My pleasure Hendo. And I even left out Jordan Zimmermann (thanks, longterm).

Hey, I heard some guy on the Metro saying things less than effusive praise for the Washington Nationals... get the PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!!!

Seriously, gang, chill out. Yes a lot of people panned our team. They were wrong. They don't deserve to be crucified. They deserve to be reminded they're wrong anytime they pan the Nats again with a polite word and a lingering smile.

Hey JennX- you're right. The Post's coverage of the O's has dropped off lately, just like it did last year when they fell out of contention. Barry has more or less stated that the Post has an unofficial policy to step back from the O's if they are not in contention after the All Star Break, but only AFTER that point in the schedule. That policy apparently doesnt apply to Boswell, but whatever.

Anyway, their co-equal coverage of the Nats and O's will be back in full force next spring and I think that's what alot of us have an issue with. The O's are not a DC team and should not be treated as co-equal to the Nats in terms of coverage at ANY time of the year. Seriously, did we really need to be subjected to Jorge's WaPo O's chat rooms on a regular basis before he went to ESPN? Does anyone think that the Baltimore Sun actually employs a Nats beat writer? The Post does.

Since we sharing about past times (pastimes?), here's a snippet from my August 7 posting: "I don't get into seasonal win-loss prognostications, so I didn't have specific expectations on that front. I was hoping for not historically bad (check), not being the worst team in baseball (so far, so good), and for shutting up or getting apologies from the talking-head naysayers around the nation (crickets...). If they reached .500 overall as per Manny's goal, that would be the icing on the cake, but I'll be behind them no matter what, in good times and bad."

Back to the present day, like Jenn-X I've been disabusing colleagues, friends, and family of the notion of Nats futility and lowliness since the start of the season. I'll to continue to do that as needed.

"These last days of the Mets' schedule really are exciting. It is the kind of excitement you feel when you're driving home with a tank reading on "E" and you are not sure if you're going to make it or not. The Mets, especially their pitchers, look as if they are out of gas."

Mr. Head,

Great post!

Also appreciate all the info on Vermont pitchers, very cool.

AGKQHWET ASDG ARGH sfgoejhn!!!!

Stop whining about the coverage!! It's so

lame.

so, very, very,

lame.

The Bacsik/Bonds ball is about to be branded. It'd be interesting to see what Mike has to say about this, being such a historian of the game.

Speaking of history, Hall of Fame president Dale Petroskey called the ball "a historic piece of baseball history." I don't know why that tickles me so.

Yes! Thank you!

I was riding the bus to work today, and I noticed a guy reading the sports section of the New York Times, which was running a pretty big feature on the Phillies, and how this just might be their season.

Man in Minneapolis. Reading about the Philadelphia Phillies. In the New York Times.

The world is flat, my friends.

-----

Stop whining about the coverage!! It's so

lame.

so, very, very,

lame.

"Stop whining about the coverage!! It's so

lame.

so, very, very,

lame."

You are so, so right. The coverage is so lame. So very, very lame. Thanks for reminding us!

i know the record does not indicate it, but we are by no means not the worst team in baseball. if you look at strictly talent, we should have lost 100 games at least. while there have been flashes of brilliance, there have been flashes of god awfulness. the offense is weak and i dont really know how much a new park will help (yes our guys will get more HRs, but will our pitchers give up more as well??)

on the bright side, everyone is young. pitchers, hitters, leaders. sure zim has looked baffled for much of the year. but he turns 23 this week, so i think there is the smallest glimmer of hope he will figure it out.

are we headed for the playoffs in the next 5 years? i honestly think not, but i am going to enjoy the heck out of the ride

"Speaking of history, Hall of Fame president Dale Petroskey called the ball "a historic piece of baseball history." I don't know why that tickles me so."

Hmm. Do you think perhaps he works in the HoF's Department of Redundancy Department?

Thanks poster formerly known as 506! (sorry, it was just waiting to be used, and I had to). That was indeed the post, and I quote (from myself):

"I love anything extra you can cover on the Nats. Doesn't even matter what it is. Nationals = Life. In regards to season predictions, I'm going to go with a 75-87. Let's just hope that they don't follow the Viera slogan. Nationals Season good, in Viera, Better."

So there you have it! It's baaaaaaarely possible, but hey! It could happen! Here's to a great season of friendly (and sometimes angry) banter on the good ol' NJ!

"i know the record does not indicate it, but we are by no means not the worst team in baseball. if you look at strictly talent, we should have lost 100 games at least. while there have been flashes of brilliance, there have been flashes of god awfulness."

Anyone who has watched the past two series between the Mets and the Nationals could easily say the same thing...about the Mets. Yet more than likely the Mets are heading to the playoffs. Bottom line, in baseball there is only one thing that determines which teams are best and which are worst: the won-loss record. "Style points" are only awarded in fake sports like figure skating.

Gotta Love The Media: You will see from today's newspaper that the Post has, in fact, stopped assigning a regular beat writer to the Orioles. Smile, declare victory and move on to talking about, say, baseball.

The coverage of the Nats by the Washington Post is excellent!!!! I enjoy it EVERY day. Those who disagree are entitled to their opinion, but to me their logic falls flat.

In inches per page, quality of writing, overall investment, and investment in multi-media (podcast, blog, chat, TV, online, newsprint) the Post clearly is doing their part to cover the important and trivial happenings on the team. In sports and metro, news and analysis, fact and op-ed the Post is providing comprehensive coverage.

The fact that the Post also covers the Orioles and other teams such as the Mets, Giants, and Diamondbacks seems to me additive. Sheinin's Baseball page on Sundays is a delight. If Boswell wants to write about baseball I'm reading it whether its about the Nats, O's, OR the Kansas City Royals.

Stop the madness. Thank the Post.

i wish the post had a beat writer for every team. this is a step backward!

by the way, not much mention of the Nats here...

http://www.mlb4u.com/topfa07.php

I had them winning 75, but the bad start was a killer. Still, I'm not unhappy with getting past 70.

"You can't audition 12 pitchers to fill out your starting rotation and expect to have any sort of success."

This one cracks me up. They're saying we can't improve on Ramon Ortiz, Pedro Astacio and the like? These guys were demonstrably worse than a typical replacement player (VORP, remember?) and we went out and replaced them with exactly that sort of player (Redding, Hanrahan for two). The stats would say - this is an upgrade, and it was.

Furthermore, bringing a bunch of potential starters into camp and letting them fight it out increases the likelihood you get some decent players out of it. Given the dearth of free agent starters available, it was a sound strategy that worked. Look for enhancements next season too, as we prune weaker ones, and add a few more good ones to the starter tryout v. 2008.

and please stop thinking the Post is your own personal local high school's paper. it will serve you well for when you start seeing the Dallas Cowboy's articles.

I was going to wait for Barry's post dedicated to the subject of the paper's coverage of the team, but...

I am with John in Mpls and Sect. 506 on this one. I think it is somewhat misguided to think that the paper should just completely stop covering the Orioles, despite what the Baltimore Sun does, after they were the only team in town for over 30 years. I have many friends who are Orioles fans. They loved baseball, sought out the closest team, and continue to follow their team since the Nats came along. Seriously, why care about this? Esp given, as previously stated, the coverage of the O's in the 35 cent edition is pretty minimal these days. Not to mention that just looking at what is in the paper version is overlooking the extensive coverage we get here online with the blog, the chats, the podcasts, etc. I can't even keep up with all the content provided from the paper and online versions these days... what more could we be wanting? And, for those who say other town's papers cover the local team more extensively, wouldn't it make sense that the Post is just getting up to speed after having no DC team for all these years?

Final thought-- yes, I am bummed when I see Barry's well-written stories buried on E5 in favor of stories about football games that are several days away. But does the realistic side of me recognize that, for whatever unfathomable-to-me reason, most people in this town live and breathe Redskins? I do. Do I also see that this decision on where to place Nats coverage doesn't help increase the number of people who would want to see the Nats on the front page and serves as a self-fulfilling prophesy? Absolutely. But as a college Mass Comm major, I also learned a lot about the chicken and egg question in journalism: When people complain about terrible TV news or other journalism, the media answer back that they are simply putting up what gets ratings and therefore what people want. To which media critics complain that readers/viewers have been conditioned to want/expect sensationalist coverage due to years of news being dumbed down. To which media reply that they are a business, and just offering what people seem to want. To which critics reply that they are more than a business, that they shape world affairs and have an obligation... And on and on and on. It is an irresolvable issue, IMO.

In sum, I think that if you look at the online and print offerings of the Post regarding the Nats as a whole, it's pretty damn good.

"But what about the players that have emerged at lower levels that belong on a list of guys that might be part of a contending team in the future? Justin Maxwell. Eli Marrero. Michael Burgess. Smiley Gonzalez. John Lannan. Collin Balester. Colton Willems. Glenn Gibson. Ross Detwiler. Josh Smoker. Jack McGeary."

Surely, you meant 18-year-old Chris Marrero and not the 33-year-old journeyman who most recently swung the bat for the Memphis Redbirds of the PCL (Memphis, in the Pacific Coast League?!)! Though they are related...

RE: Sammy Sosa 07/08 Free Agent
Source: Link originally posted by longterm above - http://www.mlb4u.com/topfa07.php

"Prediction: Signs 1-year, $750K deal with the Nationals

Analysis: Sosa not only leads the Rangers in RBIs in 2007, but is among league leaders in OPS, especially against lefties. Sosa has a desire to play at least one more season, but teams apparently are still worried about his baggagge as seen by the lack of interest in him at the trading deadlines. He could platoon at DH and is best served remaining in the AL."

DE, of course I meant Chris Marerro, thanks for catching that.

506 reminds: "Seriously, gang, chill out. Yes a lot of people panned our team. They were wrong. They don't deserve to be crucified."

Certainly not. But some of them deserve to be flamed. Particularly if it's their job to prognosticate, and they do their job sloppily or thoughtlessly.

There's a difference between the guy on the Metro and Buster Olney, or Dave Sheinin, or Barry Svrluga. The latter three need to be held to a higher standard of accountability. Some accept it better than others.

So Hendo, what do you propose? Mandating that any sports writer who makes a wrong prediction say they're sorry? Dock their pay? Not let anyone make a prediction on the Washington Nationals without checking with the Washington fan base?

How do you hold these people accountable without simply throwing a tantrum because our favorite team was, in their best estimations, undervalued?

We interrupt this episode of point/counterpoint to bring you a new post.
:)

I swear and/or affirm I said 75 wins in April. Looked pretty good just before that last west Coast trip, too. You are buying at Tune Inn for all who were over 62, right? What night?

On first reading, I thought this referred to ages rather than to win predictions...

---

You are buying at Tune Inn for all who were over 62, right?

Local Newspaper, from Rochester, NY had the Nats losing 120+. That guys' lost all credibility with me.

Fun job, going back through the predictions of April 2. Also interesting to note the title of the post right before that one: "Get Used To Apologies"