Barry, please count me as one bored with the baseball coverage topic.

Sounds like once again the organization may be toying with the notion of dealing Ryan Church. Meanwhile, any number of clubs would welcome a guy who can give them three hundred or so decent at-bats and who seems to thrive on part-time work.

Ironically, and sadly, it may take the departure of Church to turn the Nats into one of those clubs.

1) yea, I'm kinda sick and tired of the subject. But if you want to set one aside that's loud and clear, POST'S NATS COVERAGE HERE, then it give you a chance to be fair and balanced and gives us a chance to avoid it.
2)Great story on Church. I've always liked the guy. Question is, is mgt okay with maximizing his talents by resting him every now and then.

John in Mpls: Thanks for the mlb tips. My dad, who lives in Korea, lets me share his subscription so I usually DO listen to audio with Gameday up. But last night i tried fooling myself into thinking I could get some important work done without the distraction of audio. Who was I kidding? I finally caved, just logged in and followed the audio the rest of the way.

I'm NOT addicted to baseball. I can quit anytime. I just don't want to.

I am beyond bored with the subject.

I'd love to see a story on baseball coverage in the Post as opposed to other big time ML cities. My own opinion is that the quality here is excellent but quantity is sorely lacking. A columnist devoted full time to the ball club would be just the thing!

Please no more coverage about the coverage. Now, if we can talk about the overload of Redskins coverage...then we're on to something!

Church still struggles against lefties, so I imagine that his numbers wouldn't look much better if he was in there full-time. Also, Kearns and Zimmerman are having (by the organization's standards) very down years. Now, I've never seen Austin Kearns as a .280/30/110 kind of player and Zimmerman, though he has promise, hasn't really looked like a .310/30/120 kind of player yet, but the Nationals clearly see both as the offensive anchors for now.

Kearns, Wily Mo, Logan, Church...looks like a team full of 4th outfielders to me. If D'Meat can lose some weight and actually play a respectable left field, we might be on to something, but we've got to get more production from right. I'd float them all out there with Cordero as trade fodder and see what we can get.

A better question might be what is going on with Lopez? He looks rejuvenated. Has he realized that his job may be in jeopardy? In soccer, they always talk about players lifting their games when they have to fight for their spot, but I've never sensed baseball to work the same way.

Post about the coverage: Yes, but not now.

Save it for one of those crappy, drizzly days between the end of the World Series and the start of the winter meetings, when we've little else to talk about.

When the team improves, I assume the coverage will too. I would love to see more coverage of the Nats' minor league teams, however - I think the Times beats the Post there.

Church is a productive outfielder, good defensively, hits lefties decently. There are worse players to have on your roster. I really don't understand why the Nats' front office is rumored not to like him. He reminds me of Jay Johnstone - can play any outfield position, hits for average, occasionally for power, great attitude, tough in the clutch. What's not to like?

If there is a baseball coverage discussion I will participate to defend the Post Coverage which I believe is excellent, but let's not waste that time.

Let's go to Church: He is an excellent fourth outfielder and as best as I can figure out an excellent guy to have on the team. I theorize that the main reason he lost playing time late in the year was because they knew what they had with him, but were not as sure about Pena and Logan. I do agree that Church is better when he plays 5 games a week than when he plays 7. I think Pena and Logan may fit into this category too, so you may not need to make major changes in the outfield. More experience may prove to be the solution.

Church is a valuable asset in another way though. If packaged correctly with a relief pitcher and/or shortstop he could bring a decent 30+ game starting pitcher. Which is more valuable to the organization? It depends on how many starting outfielders you think you have. If you think you need to make room for Maxwell or that you will end up with a free agent, then you have to consider trading Church.

BTW, I don't think Kastenn actually said they would not pursue free agents. I thought he said it was perilous or problematic. Which I think was a simple statement of the obvious. Should he pay more for Andrew Jones than he could have for Soriano (umm, NO)? But I believe that they will be value shoppers again.

One more thing: That non-trade for Soriano looks pretty good to me. Burgess and Smoker right? A long term pay off but probably more than what teams were offering them. Media quoted other GM's as saying that Bowden was asking for too much, but I believe that can be decoded to mean that he was asking more than they were willing to pay. I think he got the best possible return and we got to watch Alfonso all year. I'm looking forward to watching him in the playoffs!

Church is what he is. Scouts probably don't see much upside to him and I imagine Bowden/Kasten love potential. He's stuck in the role of 4th/platoon OF and it's easy to say he's an area of possible improvement.

Yes, I'd like to see a thread devoted to Post coverage. It would show that the Post is can be "fair and balanced," as NatsNut says, and those who are bored with the subject could avoid it (perhaps there could be an alternative strictly baseball post as well?). Also, since it was first indicated that there would be such a post, I've had the impression that at least some of those who have issues with coverage have been holding back on the subject in anticipation of such a thread. As Hendo said, maybe the posting could be in the offseason after there's no more baseball.

"Anyone going to Philly?"

Hmm... weather forecast mid-70s and sunny both Saturday and Sunday... both teams playing for something... already paid my Kaiser bill this month...

Sure, why not?

Hard to argue with the numbers, but what are Church's splits? Sometimes he looks awful against a lefty with a curveball.

Barry, please do put up a post about it. And if you'd be so kind, I'd like to see a comparison to Orioles' coverage in the Sun, Phillies' coverage in the Inquirer, Braves' coverage in the AJC, etc.

1) I would like to see a post about coverage, but not if it's just you defending yourself, Barry (not that you don't have every right to do that). I am genuinely curious about the behind-the-scenes decision making that goes on at the Post re: sports coverage. As you mentioned in the chat yesterday, it seems to be a chicken or egg question. I don't need to have you deflect criticism from yourself, Boz, or Sheinin, but I'd really like to know how space issues, etc are worked out.

2) I must admit, I'm really conflicted about Ryan Church. He frustrates me more often than he excites me, but how great has he looked this month? Do the Nats have room on the roster for an outfielder that can only play one position, is not "great", but PERHAPS above-average defensively, and can only reach his offensive potential if he sits out twice a week? Hmmmm.... Which leads to the next question: Is this who Ryan Church is? Has he reached his potential? I think I read somewhere that a sign a guy is about to break out with a huge HR season is if he hits an inordinate amount of doubles. Something like going back in history, guys who had breakout seasons w/ HR's always had huge doubles numbers the year before. Does the front office hope that's the case and hold onto him for another year? Are they hoping to trade for Adam Dunn? Well, great then we'd have 3 slightly-below to slightly-above average defensive outfielders capable of playing only one position. Pena, Dunn, and Church... interesting...

Oh, and yeah we're going up to Philly on Saturday to tour around town, and going to the game on Sunday. I've never been, but I have a feeling I can't forget to bring a set of brass knuckles... confirmation on Cit Bank Park atmosphere for a Nats fan, anyone?

Count me one of the bored. I'd like to see more WP coverage, but a whole post on it? Nah.

Church, Zim, Da Meat, Kearns and this whole scrappy team have been a delight this year, at least since May 11. What a game last night! These guys just don't give up. Perfect team? No, far from it. But really fun in a season for which they were pronounced DOA before the first pitch was thrown. I feel like a kid who unexpectedly discovered and brought home a beautiful (at least to me) stray. (Look what Jimmy found, Mr Lerner, can we keep them? Please?) I know trades will be made and some good guys will be in different unis next year and that will probably work out for the best in the long run. But thanks for this season, fellas!

Ryan Church is awesome. All haters are heretics in the Church of Church. Nevertheless, the Church is built on love, forgiveness, and doubles, and if you repent your Church-hating ways, Church will welcome you to his flock. He may even hit a double for you.

Seriously, Ryan Church, on the basis of his last name, is the most fun to root for of all the Nats! He needs to play every day, and they need to run advertisements of him hanging around Church Street in the District. "Ryan Church: When All Other Saviors Have Failed You!" I see no possible complications that could be associated with this.

Church has given 43 readings from the Book of Doubles, but methinks there are additional readings to come from that sacred tome.

(Seriously, this stuff writes itself.)

Matt:

I went to the Monday Night Football game in Skins gear and did not have a problem. Other than the usual yelling and chants of something that rhymes with glasspoles. But then again, I took my younger brothers brass knuckles that are "disguised" as a belt buckle. So you are on your own. Depending on where you sit, and the level of alcohol, and the outcome of the game.

You've seen Philly fans here. Imagine how they are in the comfort of their own home when they have 30K people backing them up. Lay on some moleskin, take the verbal abuse, and smile when the Nats take it to them.

BTW... quote from Jon Heyman (CNNSI) from his interview on XM MLB Home Plate this AM "I don't want to see the Mets in the playoffs. I want to see Washington in the playoffs but unfortunately that's not going to happen..." Said in the context of who are the teams playing the best baseball in the NL right now - a discussion primarily about the Rockies.

I'd rather talk baseball than coverage.

I will back off my "bored" stance a tad and agree with the others who've said I'd be interested in a post of this nature during the off season. Right now it just seems like the wrong topic to be focusing on.

Matt, Philly sports fans are a little tough. Picture twenty thousand Jenni Carlsons. And that's just the women...

OK, they're not quite that bad. Except when they've had a few. (Then again, if I had to drink the beer they sell in CBP all the time, I'd be cranky too. Seriously, where are the good drafts?)

You'll have a good time as long as you don't mind a bit of serious In-Your-Face Attitude. Be ready with the witty repartee, e.g.:

Philly Phan to Nats fan: "Goodness gracious, it is annoying that your team is making it so difficult for ours." [Loose translation.]
Nats fan: "Yeah, well, we're playing for something too, my friend."
Phan: "And that would be what? The chance not to finish last?" [Still a bit loose.]
Fan: "Damn straight."

Etc. You'll do fine.

Does anyone think his 43 Doubles will turn into a couple more home runs in the new park? Why not put him in center and maybe platoon with Logan against lefties? That seems to make some sense. I know he isn't the best CF defensively range wise but some of that can be attributed to RFK. I think a Church/Logan Platoon could be very productive.

As far as Wily Mo he seems like the typical power hitter. Lots of Ks but he'll run into a few. I don't think 40 HR is out of the question for him next year.

Kearns has been on the upswing since Harris became hitting coach. I think you can also attribute part of it to becoming more comfortable in his surroundings and his future. He seems to be settling in finally, and I know they messed with him a lot in Cincy, much the same way the Nats have with Church.

So that's where this idoit stands on the OF, am I crazy or not?

I would like to hear more about how the decisions are made, what the editors allow as far as accomodating Nats coverage, etc. I think a lot of people who complain about Post coverage may tone it down if they simply understood how things work.

For example, it is seemingly really foolish that some of the things on the Nats page have not changes since last season. But, perhaps if people understood why things linger for a year or more, they may not complain.

Lindemann, great non-secular stuff!

MKevin, thanks for sharing the Heyman quote.

Re. this weekend's games, when I checked the Phillies site the other day, Sunday was sold out but tix for Friday and Saturday were available. Perhaps other venues might have tix. I was hoping to go as an early b-day present but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

I don't care so much about a post on coverage. Although, I would like to get an update on relocation, whether the process is running smoothly, whether people are getting one of their three preferences, and what happens if someone is unable to get one of their preferences.

Multiple calls and emails to the organization about this very issues have resulted in no response at all for me--and at least one other very angry STH on one of the message boards.

Barry,

All I need to know is how did it happen that we had a game story last Sat night that was completely focused on Philly. Not a single quote, fact, comment, reflection, nothing at all about the Nats.....How does that happen in the Washington Post? Who makes that call and what environment exists at the Post that allows someone to say yes, that is what we should print, forget about the Nats perspective completely in the game story.

Matt:

also, I went to a lot of games at the Vet and one of my close friends is from Philly. There are always fights in the cheap seats. Always. So I think its a matter of where you sit, and how involved you are in discussion. Just follow TR's motto, and you will be fine.

Stick to the on the field stuff!!!

You guys have had great, and fairly in-depth coverage all summer long. Now its September, and in a city where the football gamer is run on the front page, OF THE ENTIRE PAPER, I understand that there will be a drop in baseball coverage for a sub-.500 team. Thank you for all you guys do, a columnist would be nice, and I think the the O's coverage is fair and balanced compared to the Nats. NOW LETS MOVE ON

Relocation Update-

LOL--it is funny you mention the one angry fan on a message board. I am not too familiar with what boards are out there, but I assume you don't mean the nationals.com forum. There is quite a raging debate on that one that recently popped up regarding relocation and alleged underhanded tactics in the process.

Who knows though. I personally don't expect the organization to be candid or honest in a city of VIPs with money. But, it also doesn't affect me b/c I can only attend 10 games a season so I buy from the ticket office each game.

I completely agree. That was a major major lapse in judgment from the top-down. I would expect a mistake like that from a newspaper in Idaho, but the Post? Come on. There needs to be some sort of explanation.

Don't go Belichick on us by ignoring the f*** up and assuming that means it went away.

So Chad found a new way to "blow" a save.

I think the Nats have to platoon Church and Logan in center next year and hope J-Max is ready in 2009.

Look at the splits:

Church:

vs. LHP: .226/.316/.330 1HR-17-RBI-9 2Bs
vs. RHP: .286/.361/.500 13HR-49 RBIs-33 2Bs

Logan:

vs. LHP: .302/.350/.426
vs. RHP: .237/.271/.289

Church plays against righthanders, Logan against southpaws.

Coverage: I'd be interested in a post. For those bored by the topic, this is a chance to get the info out and put it to rest. I'm certainly OK with pushing it to a slow newsday, but I think there are quite a few people wondering why, with the surprising Nats in the middle of a pennant race, all of the columnists write stories centered on other teams, and the Post puts rugby on the cover (for example). From Barry's comments in the chat yesterday, it sounds like the answer might be something like "hey, we've crunched the numbers and there just aren't that many people that want news about a fourth place team, so you die-hards on Nats Journal will have to get your fix someplace else." Personally, I'd be interested in a few sausage-making facts, and would be happy to put the issue to bed after that.

The Nats punted the season (don't give me the fact that they've exceeded the outlandishly stupid spring training talk as a rebuttal), and the Post has more or less followed suit.

There's no reason in the world why the Post doesn't have "a second columnist comfortable with writing about baseball," or however Barry put it, other than that the Nats haven't yet really given a reason to hire one.

Yep. It was only a matter of time for the painful puns to start...
___
. . . Gives new meaning to the term "Hurler."
Posted by: Wigi | September 27, 2007 01:06 AM
___

So Chad found a new way to "blow" a save.
Posted by: Bob L. Head | September 27, 2007 09:24 AM

So Chad found a new way to "blow" a save.

Journal discussion of coverage best held off-season. However, I second Game Story's question. That story on Sat. night's games was bizzare (I have alreay said too many times). Please an answer.

Church seems to have been slowly getting back to his '05 pre hitting wall form. He should be retained for another season (subject to trade considerations of course).

As usual, I'll leave it to others to armchair GM (AGM) on Church.

NatsNut, yup, it was bound to happen. I just hope that Chief has a backup glove...

---

Yep. It was only a matter of time for the painful puns to start...

Thanks for the splits Bob, I think that really shows what an asset Church would be in a platoon situation. Having him available to PH vs righty relievers on days the opposition sends up a lefty starter (about 40% of the time?). As soon as Maxwell is ready you bring him up to platoon with Church in '08 and then take over the full time role in '09 or later, depending on the speed of his development.

There are plenty of other things to get worked up about instead of the coverage, like the Navy Yard Metro being behind schedule and staring lawsuits in the face to put it further behind. We know there will be no parking, but no Metro?

As far as coverage goes, I'd prefer to be kept up to date on the various winter league exploits of our guys. Hill is obviously not going to play now, how about Patterson? Is he still on track to play in the Dominican?

As natsfan1a notes, there are still tix available on the Phillies site for Saturday, but not for Sunday. I got my Sunday ticket on StubHub.

And happy birthday, natsfan1a -- hope you can make it!

"That non-trade for Soriano looks pretty good to me. Burgess and Smoker right?"

It was actually Smoker and Jordan Zimmermann for Soriano. Burgess was the pick for Jose Guillen.

Please spare us! Enough whining about the Post's coverage of the Nats. Please spend the last days of baseball talking about baseball -- including Ryan Church. I sure hope we keep him. And that we hold on to Jon Rauch; what a clutch guy these last weeks.

".... like the Navy Yard Metro being behind schedule and staring lawsuits in the face to put it further behind. We know there will be no parking, but no Metro?"

Eeesh! Any info on this would be important. This is a potential disaster in the making.

where do you guys see max power hitting on this team? definitely not a leadoff man, which means we are still relying on 2b/ss for that. could he ultimately be a 2 or 5 spot?

not sure how we can trade church or logan this offseason. i think logan is easiest to trade mid-season next year. platoon center with church and logan as a straight up lefty/righty combo. wily mo gets all the time he needs. kearns gets all the time he needs. jmax gets all the time he needs in minors (hopefully not much!).

Here's the Post story on the Navy Yard delays.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/09/26/ST2007092602407.html?hpid=artslot

I'd love to see info on Post coverage, especially the lack of coverage when the Nats doing something really positive. But definitely after the season is over when there is less to chat about.

I think the post on Church's splits was great. Also, I don't think the front office disputes Church's talent or ability, I think what really irks them is his attitude and body language. I remember the first time he was demoted to AAA, it was mentioned that he suffered from having an attitude of already "belonging" in the big leagues before he had earned it. Subsequently, it seems that someone is having to regularly put his job in jeapordy for him to really get on fire. From a management standpoint, I can see that getting old too. I can't imagine he won't be traded this off-season in some sort of package deal.

I REALLY hope we crush the Phillies this weekend!!!

Longterm, I think J-Max projects as a #2 hitter because of his tremendous speed and pop. He's really not a big HR hitter, though he has ample power as we've seen.

As he matures as a hitter I see him more of a doubles machine with the speed to turn some of those into triples, plus the ability to score from first.

We haven't seen too much of his base stealing ability, but with Acta as manager I don't see him getting more than 2 dozen changes to steal anyway, especially with the likes of Zimmerman, Pena, Johnson & Kearns batting behind him.

BTW with J-Max looking ready for the bigs sooner rather than later and Church re-emerging as a legit CFer (the numbers that looked so-so for a corner guy look great for in CF). I'm hoping that we won't try to sign a Rowand, Jones or Hunter this off-season and will instead pursue Alexei Ramirez or trade for a youngish IFer who can play both positions, making Lopez an/or Guzman expendable. With Guzman in a "money year" I expect great numbers from him and if we can't sign him to a Belliard-esque extension we should trade him if we can get a decent return.

here i am shooting from the hip and i just now read mr boblhead has already split the actual stats way ahead of me.

is just me or does everyone in NL East have a Hall of Fame in waiting shortstop except for "the lowly nats"?

reyes/ramirez/rollins...oh my.

and those infield combos of:

reyes/wright and rollins/utley and cabrera/ramirez and chipper/tex are really impressive. we have to answer that somehow. draft a ready made shortsop please. marrero at 1b is a ways out...

i agree. i think jmax has great tools for a 2-hole hitter.

Bob L - this time I agree with you. The CF platoon is not a bad plan, and you still need to give WMP a full season in left to confirm that he is what he's looked like since August. While Barry's identified CF as the big need, I'd much rather see money spent / trades made to either get an innings eater veteran or a shortstop prospect either with pop (Brandon Wood?) or with OBP leadoff potential (Jed Lowrie?). Guzman I don't think is the guy, and his contract runs out next year. If a CF (Fukudome, Cameron) fell into our lap, fine. then Church is pure backup and Nook can move on.

Someone mentioned Wily Mo as a classic power guy, but has anyone noticed the insane number of opposite field singles he's been hitting lately?

Player = Justin Maxwell
Pitcher = John Lannan

per press release

506, you read my mind again. WMP is going opposite field AND has a slew of singles and doubles. He's doing a lot more than just the home runs and strikeouts he was known for coming in.

Re: Church

One of Manny's strong points is that he focuses on what players can do, not what they can't do (take that, Frank). Church can't play 162 games a year & sometimes looks bad on breaking pitches. So what? We know what he can do. Play him 130 games a year and the other games he's a force off the bench if the opposition tosses in a righthander. Bet he hits .290 with some power. All bets are off though, if the Nats sign a grade A CF, but that doesn't look likely. In the meantime, give Kearns a day off every two weeks.

Re: Coverage--Most serious newspapers in baseball towns have a beat writer who covers the games and someone else who does features. Does the Post want to be a serious baseball paper? I'm skeptical. Not to blow off the Olympics, but I'll bet the NY Times or Boston Globe or Chicago Tribune won't trim baseball coverage next summer.

So a sweep by the Nats has the NY writers sounding like we want our Post columnists to sound (maybe Mets fans are complaining about coverage on their blogs today).

This from Newsday:

"The Nationals! The $37 million Washington Nationals, whose ace starting pitcher is Matt Chico, put a six-game hurting on the $115 million Mets over the last nine days, scoring a total of 57 runs to win five of six, including a sweep at Shea. Last night, they shrugged off a five-run deficit as if they were an SUV driving over a pebble, waiting for Humber to predictably expire and then feasting on the Mets' dilapidated bullpen.

And Manny Acta, the Washington manager who continues to draw the public affection of Mets vice president Tony Bernazard - they spoke at length during Nats batting practice, as they do every time the two clubs meet - worked his unimpressive roster masterfully once again, lifting starter Mike Bacsik in the third inning and using a total of seven pitchers to seal the victory."

"By rushing Humber to pitch with a month between starts, the Mets should have sent him to the mound with a blindfold and a cigarette."

Count me among those who are really tired of people whining, and you having to respond, to the Post's coverage of the Nats.

You have great coverage of the big club, and please keep us up to date in the off-season. What I would like to see is level by level coverage of the minor leagues. Who the minor league FAs are, what Jim Bowden plans to do about the lack of talent at the higher levels of the minor leagues. Additions, subtractions, guys we got in trades, etc. For now, I'm still buying into Stan and Jim's plan of building from within. So I want to see for myself how they're doing.

Thanks for a great year!

Wow--that is quality writing for our team. Why can't our papers put that type of angle on it? WTF?

Great Point Natsnut, if he can keep working like this he's going to get a lot more HR pitches. Once they see they can't throw him junk down and away and get him to swing at it. If he could take some more walks that would make a huge difference too.

I think at Boston he was trying to get himself back into the lineup by hitting home runs every At Bat. I think when they brought him in here they sat him down, told him to relax that we was going to be THE MAN in left field through next year, but that he needed to work on his plate discipline if he was going to resurrect his career.

MKevin sez "".... like the Navy Yard Metro being behind schedule and staring lawsuits in the face to put it further behind. We know there will be no parking, but no Metro?"

Eeesh! Any info on this would be important. This is a potential disaster in the making."

Keep in mind that the Navy Yard Metro station is already there at the moment. It is being expanded to handle the ballpark crowds, not being built from scratch. People are entering and leaving that station as we speak, and trains are running through there. Delays in the expansion of an existing station, while serious in nature are not "a potential disaster in the making". However, this could be spun into a potential disaster for the Nationals, depending on how the Post slants its coverage. What will happen if the expansion at the Navy Yard station is delayed so that it's not done by the start of the season? Fans will have to line up and wait outside the station to catch their train home. (Gee, I do believe I had to do that every time I went to a game at RFK in 2005 and 2006. Was that "a disaster"?) Or, if they don't want to wait in line outside the Navy Yard station after the game, they can take a 10-minute walk to one of several other nearby stations, such as Capitol South, L'Enfant Plaza, etc. If they do so, even though the neighborhoods may be dark and appear scary, they will be far from alone in their stroll, and thus shouldn't be concerned. There is safety in numbers, after all. A fan would be far more likely to get hurt by a foul ball than by walking to a Metro station near the stadium next year.

If things do go bad transportation-wise early next season, and they very well might, it will be akin to the concession snafus that marred the start of the 2007 season. How did the Post spin that? The Nationals blamed Aramark, who indeed was the culprit, but since the Nationals hired Aramark (although not under the Lerners' ownership) in the eyes of the Post (and thereby the fans) the Nationals were 100% at fault for not delivering on their promises. Despite what Barry says, this has to have had a negative effect on attendance this year.

Now, when transportation problems occur next spring, will it be the fault of the team? Of course not. The Nationals did not hire Metro, they do not control the properties near the stadium that can be used for parking, and they don't build the roads that feed the stadium. So they have absolutely no control over whether or not the transportation infrastructure will be ready next April. If it's not, of course the fans will be pissed. But who will they be pissed at? That depends on how the media spins its coverage - and the one media outlet that will surely devote the most coverage to this issue is the Washington Post. Will they be fair and balanced, or will they explicitly or implicitly paint the Nationals as the villain in the eyes of the fans? Based on the tenor of the Post's attempts to cover this issue so far (e.g. Tom Boswell hectoring the Lerners and Kasten about their planniing or lack of planning for parking while never mentioning Metro, etc) I can easily see a scenario where the Post lays this all at the feet of the Nats, torpedoing attendance for the whole season in the process - even if the problems all get worked out in the first few months. If Barry et al think Stan Kasten hates them now, just wait 'til next April. They ain't seen nothin' yet.

I don't think a separate blog entry about Post coverage of the Nats will do any good. The people who feel a need to carp on this topic ad nauseam will still have a fit when there's not a 36 point front page headline the next day screaming "NATS WIN, PULL WITHIN 15 GAMES OF .500".

Rather than giving them a blog entry in NJ, how about a completely separate blog called "Post B----ing".

Or give them a way to directly communicate with the Post without the rest of us having to weed through it. I would call this feature: "Letters to the Editor".

If Philly fans give you a rough time, ask them when the Eagles last won the Super Bowl. That should stifle them, I would think.

So here's an interesting little tidbit. According to the MLB site, the current total for DPs turned by the Nats is 152 with 3 games to play, compared to 123 for all of last year. Discuss, stats experts?

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable_team_stats.jsp?statType=3&timeFrame=1&Submit=Submit&c_id=mlb&groupByTeam=true&sitSplit=&baseballScope=mlb&timeSubFrame=2007&sortByStat=DP

Thomas suggests: "If Philly fans give you a rough time, ask them when the Eagles last won the Super Bowl. That should stifle them, I would think."

Oh, it'll do something, all right.

It sounds like Thomas likes to live on the edge.

Count me as one that wants to discuss the Post's coverage, and in fact the coverage of all Washington media of the Nats.

In the chat, the discussion was (again) glibly dismissed. No one is suggesting that one beat reporter referring to the team the "31st best team" in a 30 team league is, by itself, going to hurt ticket sales. But when the whole experience is dismissed by the media as uncool, the management characterized as carnival husksters trying to sell snake oil and the team a pack of losers, it is going to hurt attendence. Which, in my opinion, it has. Its not any one comment, its the whole attitude, and that doesn't just come from Barry or the Post, but they have contributed to it.

Was there any discussion on the Redskin blogs about coming to that game late so you could see the Nats?

Its a real shame, because I ended up going to 72 games this year and had a ball. They're great to watch, very likeable and extremely entertaining. They win some, they lose some, but I've rarely left the stadium feeling bored.

"So here's an interesting little tidbit. According to the MLB site, the current total for DPs turned by the Nats is 152 with 3 games to play, compared to 123 for all of last year. Discuss, stats experts?"

Nats allow more men on first base.

"A much better game face, to start. No "delicate flower" he..."

419, I doubt seriously that Patterson looked like a "delicate flower" to the Dodgers and Marlins when he struck out 13 on 8/4/05 and 4/15/06. So I still don't understand what you are saying.

Maybe it would be a good idea to do a post just about WaPo coverage. Then the rest of us can hijack the post to talk about actual baseball just like others have hijacked every other post to complain about the newspaper THAT IS HOSTING THIS BLOG covers the team.

The dog is dead, but the tail still wags...

Sadly, we are going to need that thread. For instance, so I could reply to Ray's

"But when the whole experience is dismissed by the media as uncool, the management characterized as carnival husksters trying to sell snake oil and the team a pack of losers, it is going to hurt attendence."

with who the [RF] put the Post in charge of attendance at Nationals games?

Personally, I think Church proved this year that he's not an everyday player. He had his shot, started great, but really fell off during the summer. Unless you sign a big bopper outfielder, I think you get Church his 300 ABs against righties by playing him in center and left and spelling both Logan and WMP. That's probably a league-average outfield and good enough for 2008.

506 wrote:

"Nats allow more men on first base."

Probably not more than last year, though I don't know that...

More likely, last year's double plays almost always involved Jose Vidro... and a lot of the FCs probably did, too.

Barry,

I think that a post about the paper's coverage should be forthcoming, especially since you indicated you would do one. I'm disappointed to hear that you are "bored" by the subject. I, and others, think it's important and should be addressed by you, especially since no one else at the paper appears to care about it as much as you do and is inclined to address it, or even discuss it. You have previously recognized that depth of the Post's coverage of the Nats is not on par with other papers' coverage of their home baseball teams. The thing that I, and others, want to know, is why? No one at the paper--including you--has ever really addressed that question.

And for those who say that they want to talk about baseball, and not about coverage, I agree, but I think you are putting the cart before the horse in dissing the coverage discussion. I'd like more coverage in the paper, so we don't need to talk about it. Instead we could talk, for example, about that great hypothetical profile article about Wily Mo Pena that ran in last night's paper and the thoughts it provoked. Maybe some day, the paper will run such articles, I sure hope so.

I agree 100% Sec 128. Well said.

League average is perfectly acceptable for 2008.

I think that Ryan Church and Wily Mo Pena are a reasonable platoon with Wily Mo getting most of the action and Church spelling the CF and Kearns as well. It would give Church enough ABs to stay active and prevent the fatigue (mostly mental, I believe) that he usually gets. We still need a Torii Hunter type person in CF. JMax looks very promising, but he sppent the year in A league ball and has a history of injuries.

I'd welcome a thread on WaPost coverage. Mostly, so it can be contained and more importatnly, that it can be the end of the discussion. I think after the season is a great time for it and that I hope is gets to the Sports Editor for attention. I don't want it too late, because I suspect that many people will not be looking at NJ long after the regular season. After it is over, leave that thread as the ONLY place to discuss it so others can be about BB itself.

Barry, on the Nats website, it says about Hill: "...originally selected by San Diego in the 33rd round of the 1999 First-Year Player Draft, but did not sign due to an arm injury..."
This put his arm injury history back further than Patterson's and Hill is 3 years younger. Yikes! Do you have any info on this?

Patterson, for those of you who don't know, was selected in the 1st round - 5th overall - in 1996 and had no arm problems until 2000 when his elbow blew out.

I'd like a wide-ranging discussion of Nats' coverage as well. On the one hand, the Post and TEM say that there is little interest in the coverage, on the other hand, anyone who calls them to task for not providing enough coverage is dismissed as an oddity. Case in point, Czaban and Polin calling fans who complain "Nat-zis..."

Also, Barry's answer in the chat yesterday about the web traffic made no sense at all. Of course traffic is going to be off if you can't find the site. Does the Journal have the exact same web presence as the Wiz, the Caps, and DC United? I find it very hard to believe that Nationals Journal is behind the comparable United and Caps pages.

Something doesn't make sense here.

Coverage is lacking, the only reason you don't see how boring it is, is because you are too busy hammering us with it at every chance you get. The fact that you think addressing the secondary aspect of baseball coverage is the horse and the primary aspect of baseball playing is the cart.

There's no coverage at all with no baseball! How on earth can you think the coverage is more important than the baseball?! We need a thread to duke this out.

I'll take Church as a fourth outfielder any day.

I'm totally fine with the Nats coverage. For those of you who keep harping on not being able to find it online, click on this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/nationals/natsindex.html

Once you're there, look at the very top of your screen. There'll be a pulldown menu called either "BOOKMARKS" or "FAVORITES." Click on it, then select "ADD TO BOOKMARKS/FAVORITES."

From then on, you should simply be able to just pull down that same BOOKMARKS/FAVORITES item and be able to find the link to the WaPo Nats coverage, regardless of where you are on this really cool thing called the Internet.

As for Nats Journal, follow the above steps after clicking on this link:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/

Roman, under no circumstances should WMP platoon with anyone. He needs to play every day to be successful and to finish developing as a balanced hitter.

I'm not totally opposed to replacing him late in games when we lead and want better defense to back up the bullpen, but he has to start every game possible.

The problem on this team is that he is defensively inferior to Austin Kearns and offensively inferior to WMP (8 HR; 22 RBI; .303 in 1/4 the at-bats of Church (15 HR; 70 RBI, .275)... If the Nats sign a defensively superior CFer with comparable offensive stats to Church's... 4th outfielder is the best he will ever do here... so why not get value for him this winter?

506, I'd dare say that the quality (and quantity) of coverage is a big part of the overall experience of having a team. On the field is critical, but it's not everything.

The sports media of record in this town (the Post and TEM) are more or less dismissive of the Nats and it's perfectly valid ask for an explaination as to why this is the case.

Wouldn't you say that the depth of the coverage the NY tabloids and WFAN contribute significantly add to the experience of being a Yankee or Met fan?

Is it too much to ask for to have "Washington" be in bold in the standings?
Please.

506, do you realize how few messages about the paper's coverage I have actually posted? Hardly "every chance I get," I have no desire to do that. If my posts resonate and others follow up, that's a different story.

Wigi and Sect. 506, I'm no stats guru, as we all know, but I'm taking the plunge here:

Per ESPN stats, Nats pitchers allowed 1535 total hits in 2006 compared with 1480 to date for 2007 (I couldn't find breakdown for singles).

Also per ESPN stats, Nats pitchers allowed 584 walks in 2006 compared with 571 to date for this year (assuming that includes HBP?). Couldn't find stats on FC, either, or baserunners allowed generally.

To meet or exceed those totals, our pitchers would need to give up 55 more hits and 13 more walks in the remaining three games. Did I just jinx them?! I didn't mean to, Almighty Washington Baseball Gods. I swear on Walter Johnson's fastball and Hondo's bat!!

---

Probably not more than last year, though I don't know that...

More likely, last year's double plays almost always involved Jose Vidro... and a lot of the FCs probably did, too.

Your Post's have resonated, alright. The majority of postings here say they want to discuss it, just not all the time and not when there's baseball to be had. A few even called it boring. You were dismissive of that. I'll have it out with everyone who seems to think the Post is part of the Nationals P.R. machine (leaving aside whether or not the Post coverage helps or hurts the Nats), but I want to talk about baseball here and what to do with Ryan Church.

Make a different post all about coverage and let's have this out.

mpfnat, IF the nats are going to go out and spend big money on a defensive CF with Chruch-esqe numbers then he'd be great as the 4th OFer (especially if the guy they get is a righty), but do they want to do that if they don't have to? A Church-Logan platoon or Church-Maxwell (later in '08 or '09) makes more sense to me.

If and when Maxwell takes over in CF full time Church would move to the 4th slot behind him and be defensive replacement for WMP, lefty pinch hitter and sometimes starter. All of which seams to fit him well...

Speaking of hurling into my glove ... if you must have a thread on Post coverage, pleasepleasepleeeeeeeeeeeease do it after the WS. That's a Hot Stove topic if there ever was one. And do give it an identified, separate thread, so I can skip it.
Better yet, have a discussion here about the Times's coverage, and have the Post discussion on Zuckerman's blog.

The good thing about all this is realizing that all the complaining will go away once the team is winning.
Look at how relaxed and forgiving Mets fans are, for example.

506 asks "who the [RF] put the Post in charge of attendance at Nationals games?"

I don't know, but the Post does seem to have a fixation with it, don't they? And hypothesizing here, whenever they mention it to anyone involved with the team the question seems to be of the form "So, Stan, I see you guys put nearly two million fannies in the seats this year. Now, on a more positive note, [insert question here, followed by questioner getting a new one reamed out]."

The fact is that just as a review by Roger Ebert will affect the box office for a film (and indeed in some cases may be the make-or-break factor for it), reviews of the Nationals' on- and off-field product in the major local newspaper - which come in the form of coverage of and commentary on the team's actions on and off the field - are going to have an affect on whether or not readers of those reviews decide to avail themselves of that product, i.e. by attending games. If the slant in the Post is positive, then more folks are likely to decide to go to a game. If it's negative, then fewer folks will. It's as simple as that. If Barry Svrluga and the rest of the Post people can claim on the one hand to be one of the top newspapers in the world and on the other hand say that what they write has no effect on attendance, then they are bigger liars than they accuse Stan Kasten of being. The real question is does the Post's slant on the on- and off-field actions of the Nationals match reality, or does it skew in either an overly positive or overly negative direction? I think that I and other detractors of the Post's coverage here would say that it skews negative. I know which way Stan Kasten would say it skews. But I think we'd all agree that it shouldn't skew either negative or positive, it should reflect reality. But, alas, it doesn't, so boring as it may be there will always be those of us who will continue to call the Post to task for that.

new post

Section 419, are you saying that less than 2 million fans ISN'T a problem? As long as I can remember we've been told that D.C. couldn't have a team because they wouldn't be able to fill the stands. It was Angelos's main argument.

Here we are, August 2005, and the stands aren't full. Is that a newsworthy question? Here we are, August 2006, and the stands are even less full. Is that a newsworthy question? THEN comes the terrible predictions (should have had Petraeus give the analysis of the future). Here we are, August 2007, and the stands are even LESS full. Is that a newsworthy question?

It's newsworthy if the question is asked (and answered) fairly.

It's things like the "announced attendance" business, the Philly-centric gamer last week, and getting bumped off the front page for rugby that causes one to wonder if the Post has an agenda in steering the coverage of the issue in a certain direction.

While some are weary of the subject of Post coverage, plenty are weighing in on the topic and have opinions one way or the other. Enough interest to carry a discussion in the near future. Myself, I don't get bored by the range of opinions submitted on all of these Nats- and baseball-related topics.

Of course, football, professional and college, is king in the U.S. That point was driven home to me a few weeks ago by the New York Times' Sunday Sports section. Called SportSunday, it's a huge Sunday section on sports. Throughout the summer, I could look forward to 5-7 pages of baseball coverage, all baseball, not just Yankees and Mets. As soon as the football season began in earnest, the baseball coverage in SportSunday diminished to a measly 2-3 pages, if that. Maybe coverage will be upped by another page or so when baseball postseason play begins.

I don't know that the Post's coverage this morning of the parking/Metro issues at the new Nationals' ballpark was slanted. Of course, it did make the front page of Metro, "above the fold" as they say. Some besides Kasten et al might take umbrage at this "negative" coverage. Could be that the Metro writers saw a salient story about a major city investment and wrote about issues which have been bubbling near the surface for a while now. Regardless of whom is to blame for these different problems, the Nationals and the city need for transportation and access to the new stadium to work, plain and simple.

On a different topic, I've never been one to cast stones at the House of Church. He's always had a very good attitude, and he's a good player. His hitting of breaking balls seems to have improved over the past 2 3/4 seasons, and I never understood why many in the Nationals organization seemed to be permanently lackluster in their opinion of him. And, now, he's showing he's clutch, a nice quality to have in any kind of player, whether part or fulltime.

If there are really fans who are such dopes that they need the newspaper to tell them whether or not to go see the local major league baseball team, then I hope the Post IS keeping them away.

Who needs idiots like that at the park when we already have Philly fans?

I'm convinced you have to keep Church - and Nook. Both are guys on the verge of breaking out. Nook's speed is disruptive and since he's taken to bunting more often - he looks like a potential .300 hitter. If CF is a position of need - what about a platoon of Church and Nook next season. Between the two you'd have .275 to .300 hitter, 15 homers (16 if Nook hits one), 90 RBI, 50 some doubles, 5 or 6 triples, 30 stolen bases. What did the two of them combine for this year?

so it's settled. maxwell will definitely put up Ryan Braun numbers next year.

i'm happy with the future of the outfield. flores too. manny looks like he can manage a bullpen. zimmerman, the next cal. all good stuff here. love the minor league pitching plan. i can even see, and this is gonna kill some of you, resigning felipe lopez for another 4 years. so, at what point are we locking up longterm at 1b and shorstop? most important offensive position and most important defensive position are the main weakness going forward in my eyes. we have to add a cornerstone player at one of those positions.

all in all keep the pitching healthy and to me we are looking good and on schedule.

Did you hear Church's comments after the games. He genuinly acts excited about the Nats playing in these games with NY and Philly. He is an original NAT's player. He seems to want to stay here. I believe he was one of the players who went to hit at the new stadium. He appears to be an emotional guy about the game. (just like us).
On another note when he stands at the plate he reminds me of Micky Mantle when he batted left handed. I still think he has a high upside and when he learns how to hit that inside curve ball he will take off. He has extra base power and is an adequate OF. I still think he is gun shy after running into the wall in Pittsburg a couple of years ago. He made the catch that saved a game but bashed his shoulder. I think the management at the time did'nt think he was tough enough. Keep him and platoon him with the others or we will be kicking ourselves in the butt for letting him go as he finds himself on another team. (by the way I am not implying he was as good as Mantle)

As far as coverage goes, I feel that the quality has been consistently high throughout the season. Sure I'd like more, but I think that will change as the demand changes (read: as the team improves). At this point, I'm happy with quality over quantity. Lord knows there are more venues for baseball coverage than just the WaPo.

On the up side of all that, I think that it has been particularly enjoyable watching Svrluga's journal develop and grow. Thinking back on the original posts from Spring Training last year (Panera updates anyone?) and comparing them to, say, the ongoing breakdown of the team position by position, you can really see that Barry has embraced the potential of the platform. I really and truly hope that the improvement continues.

As for the rest of the team: Sheinin effing rules. Anyone who argues with the work he's done just doesn't appreciate good (and consistent!) writing. Boswell, on the other hand, has actually been a bit of a disappointment this season. With the exception of the excellent piece he did on the closing or RFK I can't think of any truly memorable piece he's done on the Nats this year. It seems like last season I was sending my pop every piece he wrote along with a message along the lines of "Boswell does it again!" This season, it's felt a bit shallow and disengaged. Lots of sizzle, not much steak. Hopefully it's just an off year for the old master.

With all that said, I'm always interested in the inner workings of the Post coverage. This has less to do with any disappointment with the coverage and more to do with the fact that I just think it's interesting. I'd enjoy a Journal entry on the subject, but would probably encourage saving it for the off season. After all, the team's involved in a pennant race right now! We've got more important things to think about!

So, anyone else of the opinion that Rauch is probably the most tradable arm in the Nats bullpen right now? Talk about a workhorse! Here we are at the end of September and not only is he looking good but his velocity is actually UP! I said way back at the trade deadline that I'd be sad to see the Chief of Cardiology get traded, but I'd be crushed to lose The Big Setup. I still stand by that. I don't care how many toolsy outfielders they offer you, Jim, don't trade the Wookie!

Here's yet another NO vote on the Post's coverage Journal topic. You guys do great, especially for those of us out of the DC area.

Go Ryan Church!

How about a poll Barry.

Is the Post's coverage of the Nats irresponsible?

OK, I'll follow through with a post on the Post. But I will delay it till after the World Series (or for a dead time during the playoffs), because there's still lots of baseball to be played.

Thanks for your input.

Church hits lefties about as well as Zimmerman hits righties.

Zim R .232 .289 .395
Zim L .396 .465 .698

Church R .289 .363 .510
Church L .231 .319 .342

I've wondered all year about Zimmerman against righties. His average last season was pretty even against righties and lefties. What changed?

Matt, my son and I have been to three games at CBP and have had good experiences each time. While Philly fans are by far the most obnoxious to visit RFK in my estimation, at the games in their home park they were well behaved, knowlegeable and allowed us to root for the Nats without any harassment. The ticket booth folks and ushers were very nice to us as well, even though we were wearing Nats gear. And it's a great park - be sure to check out the Phillies Wall of Fame and the food stands in Ashburn Alley in Center Field. Ashburn Alley opens an hour earlier than the seating area, and you can watch BP from there. If you are an autograph collector, player parking is in a deck behind the right field corner, and a lot of the players stop and sign on their way out. Plenty of fan parking near the stadium too.

BTW, Church and State = funny!

Count me, a usual lurker, as sick of talk of the Post's coverage.

First of all, I think the "news" coverage is fine - a game summary, the notebook and the occasional extra story is just right. And while I'd love it if Boswell wrote more columns on the Nats or they picked up another baseball-savvy columnist, I would *hate* it if the editors "assigned" one to the Nats - it sort of defeats the purpose of employing a columnist for their opinions. May as well just assign another beat writer.

As far as how the Post does (or doesn't) give adequate coverage to the scrappy, never-say-die Nationals is whether it considers itself a "local" paper or a "national (no pun intended)" newspaper.

I think the sports editors lean more towards the latter, except where Redskins coverage is concerned. Even the Wizards get better exposure than the Nats!

I get really frustrated having to go to page E6 to find gamers and notebooks in the Post. And not having an exclusive baseball columnist is a real detriment. To paraphrase Rick Pitino "Shirley Povich isn't going to walk through the door anytime soon."

I grew up reading guys like Povich, Bob Addie and Merrill Whittlesey who could spin gold from the follies of the hapless Senators. Obviously the Post's current sports regime doesn't believe this to be a necessity and nothing's going to change until they do.

That's why while I religiously read Barry, I also know there's another newspaper that provides more localized coverage of the Nationals because it tries to appeal to people who actually live here and watch and go to the games.

Why continue to rail against the machine if your cries fall upon deaf ears?

No agenda, eh?

Has anyone else seen this? I wish I knew where it originated so I could give proper attribution...

From the Blog-o-sphere;
Dateline 9/25/2007
Seething over the fact that Nationals President and part owner Stan Kasten has been evasive when questioned about the number of season tickets sold for the 2008 season at the new Nationals Ballpark, a group of angry editors at the Washington Post decided to take matters into their own hands. One unnamed editor was quoted as saying, "Kasten has been smug about that number all summer long, and it was about time we put some pressure on him to fess up". So out from behind the Metro Desk, the Post dispatched its veteran stadium war reporter to see what he could dig up in order to force Kasten to either come clean with the number or negatively spin the story hard enough to scare away potential season ticket customers. Sighting mass transportation woes and the lack of parking suitable parking for 41,000 fans the Post Editors have already planted the seeds of doubt in many a casual fan as well as potential season ticket fans who had planned on attending games at the new stadium. Which is planned to be built along the banks of the Anacostia River sometime next year. "Why any one would want to make a two hour trip on a crowded Metro Train, only to be dumped off over 1/2 a mile away from the stadium is beyond me", said Robby Pilar 33 of Arlington. "I mean they have got to be kidding right", said Toni Tisdale 27 of Gaithersburg as she was exiting the Crystal City Metro station this morning. Some local TV and radio outlets have already picked up the story, relating the traffic woes and the endless crowds that will rush the area from April to September with the $611 million dollar price tag that the city was forced to pay in order to get baseball back in DC. When asked if he was surprised by the local reaction, Jim Talley Metro Editor gave a sly grin and said no, we wanted to expose this all along.

Sorry, folks. The post above was tongue-in-cheek. My bad.

I found myself in Philadelphia tonight and dropped by the park for their game against the Braves. It was the most exciting ballgame I've been to since last seasons near-no hitter!

On topic, I take issue with those who say that it's the Post's job to boost the team. As far as I know, the Post owns no shares in the Nationals and should no more boost the team than it should boost Boeing, Raytheon, or any other corporation operating in or around DC.

Having said that, keep the great writing coming, Barry! You've turned me into a Nats fan!