FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. “But hey, at least they didn’t ruin Stephen Strasburg’s career by letting him pitch last fall.”

    Great closing line.

    Comment by The Flaming FIPs — May 21, 2013 @ 2:55 pm

  2. Eh, I don’t know, I thought it was a cheap shot that missed the mark.

    The Nats are in the last 2 or 3 positions in almost all NL offensive rankings and yet still above .500 and in second place in the East. I’m guessing they are happy about having pitching right now.

    Comment by Televators — May 21, 2013 @ 3:01 pm

  3. I think you and the author may be looking at different marks. The point here appears to be that trips to the postseason shouldn’t be expected to happen every year, so you’ve got to take your shots when you have them.

    Speaking of having things, I think the point was to point out that the Nationals DON’T have pitching (although your other points on their offense and position in the standings are certainly valid).

    Comment by Rob — May 21, 2013 @ 3:15 pm

  4. Strasburg wouldn’t have helped one bit in the playoffs. His replacement, Ross Detwiler, pitched very well. If they had saved some of Strasburg’s innings for the playoffs, they might not have even made the playoffs, or at least might have been forced into the WC game.

    Comment by cass — May 21, 2013 @ 3:17 pm

  5. Silly point, but in the Standings with Projected Full Season (and rest of season), the wins column and losses column don’t add up to equal the same thing. 2429 to 2431. Either humanity as a whole takes two losses to our new alien overlords or Miami gets two loss penalty for mismanagement or, least likely, is just rounding decisions. But just in case it is the former, let me know so I can prepare the supplications.

    Comment by All Balls No Brains — May 21, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

  6. Actually, the Fangraphs standings page has the Nationals projected to have the 5th best starting pitching this year.

    Comment by cass — May 21, 2013 @ 3:21 pm

  7. I don’t know about looking at different marks. Paul is writing about projections. He’s emphasizing the Nats’ outlook not being as good as many suspected. Then he throws in a line criticizing past decisions that have quite possibly positively affected the Nats’ current outlook.

    I understand the logic around all the different opinions on Strasburg’s shutdown and the playoffs. My point is: get over it, especially when it’s out of place in an article about the future that’s supposed to be objective.

    Comment by Televators — May 21, 2013 @ 3:24 pm

  8. Love the depth charts. I’m curious, though: what’s the process for determining what prospects get place on the depth chart?

    Comment by Televators — May 21, 2013 @ 3:30 pm

  9. Dodgers projected full season: 81-81. .501 Win%.

    I would like to see the calculations for win%.

    Comment by Anon — May 21, 2013 @ 3:48 pm

  10. They might be projected for something like 811 runs scored and 810 runs allowed, which would slightly skewer the expected win-loss record above .500.

    Comment by Krog — May 21, 2013 @ 3:54 pm

  11. Perfect example of deductive reasoning.

    Comment by Chief Keef — May 21, 2013 @ 4:04 pm

  12. You are misunderstanding what the author meant. Rob hit the nail on the head – he was referring to the fact that their decision could be interpreted partly that they planned on being in the postseason quite often and would have other opportunities. And quite honestly, decisions like that are going to be second guessed forever. There is no getting over it.

    Comment by Brandon — May 21, 2013 @ 4:43 pm

  13. The Nats are above .500, yes. But the margin between the Nats and Braves is probably going to get bigger. The Braves have finished the toughest part of their schedule, and like the Nats, still have key hitters that are struggling. Badly. If they continue to play the same baseball they have over the first quarter, the schedule alone should yield significantly more wins. The Nats were not expected to hit well, and they’re not hitting well. That their pitching has unexpectedly suffered, means they aren’t the team they hoped they would be.

    Comment by Dan Ugglas Forearm — May 21, 2013 @ 5:03 pm

  14. “Eyebones”?
    What are these eyebone thingies?

    Comment by Colm — May 21, 2013 @ 5:53 pm

  15. I guess you’ve never heard of rounding.

    Comment by Baltar — May 21, 2013 @ 6:30 pm

  16. I guess you’ve never heard of rounding.

    Comment by Baltar — May 21, 2013 @ 6:32 pm

  17. “His replacement, Ross Detwiler, pitched very well.” Process, not results. The decision should be judged at the time it was made – before you know the outcome – on its potential to succeed.

    Comment by Bryan — May 21, 2013 @ 6:39 pm

  18. The Nationals ALSO just finished by far the hardest part of their schedule.

    Comment by Well-Beered Englishman — May 21, 2013 @ 8:52 pm

  19. hindsight is always 20/20

    Comment by Clifford — May 22, 2013 @ 9:09 am

  20. with Span, LaRoche, Espinosa, Desmond, Zimmerman, Harper, Werth, etc., im fairly certain that the Nats were, in fact, expected to hit fairly well. they essentially improved their team, which happened to finish 5th in the NL in runs scored last year, and 4th in OPS.

    Comment by Clifford — May 22, 2013 @ 9:32 am

  21. Except the last line of the article, which inspired this response does the same but of process, not results thinking.

    You can’t say shutting down Strasburg was bad because the Nats are off to a bad start this year. It’s the same results based analysis that you’re against.

    Comment by KDL — May 22, 2013 @ 11:00 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *

Close this window.

0.149 Powered by WordPress