It was a beautiful day for baseball – certainly better conditions than most of the other post-season games I’ve seen this year. It was great to see the stadium packed and the rally towels whirling. Too bad we didn’t have the chance to see them very often during the game.
It was a pleasure to have Bob Costas and Jim Kaat doing the broadcast on MLB – certainly an improvement on TBS.
All season, Edwin Jackson has struggled the first time through the lineup, with opponents hitting .263/.322/.462 the first time through, versus .230/.284/.396 after the first time. His struggles usually came in the first inning, but this time it was more in the second. He was simply missing his spots and getting his fastball over the heart of the plate. The Cards don’t miss those.
While it’s true that Jim Joyce missed the call at first on Danny Espinosa‘s bunt attempt in the second, it’s the second game in a row where I’ve wondered why Espy is bunting with the Nationals significantly behind. It suggests that he may not be feeling comfortable swinging away, especially from the left side.
Although the game looked like a blowout from the score, I think the actual play was much more competitive. The Nats left 11 runners on base – they didn’t have a problem getting runners on base. Their problem was stringing together the hits to score them. It certainly felt competitive as late as the bottom of the fifth, when Michael Morse batted as the potential tying run with the bases loaded and two outs, flying out to end the inning. Hats off to Carpenter on a well pitched game.
For the third game in a row, Craig Stammen has struggled in relief. I think I would have yanked him after his second batter, though he did manage to get out of the inning giving up one run. Christian Garcia and Ryan Mattheus also struggled, though Drew Storen did pitch well.
While the Cards have to be considered the favorites in game four, I don’t think it’s as lopsided as most commentators have suggested. The Nats have faced Lohse twice in the last six weeks, and both times have hit well against him. (Of course, Ross Detwiler was also lit up by the Cardinals in his last appearance, but at least he’s only faced 16 batters. His main problem was giving up five walks – wildness is a potentially solvable problem.
This was one of those games we’d all like to forget about and move on. The Cardinals have the type of offense where this type of game is always a risk – in seven regular season games, the Nats gave up 10 or more runs in three of them.
None of the Nats pitchers looked sharp. They were leaving stuff over the plate. Jordan Zimmermann tends to keep the ball in the strike zone, which is generally an advantage (since he gives up few walks), but the Cardinals were able to take advantage and hammer his pitches. He seemed to be keeping stuff up in the zone, and when he missed his spots, they were ready to hit it. I was surprised to see Davey Johnson call on Craig Stammen again – he didn’t look sharp yesterday and was no better today. At least Christian Garcia had good stuff, but he was unusually wild too, walking two batters.
While most commentary has seen the extra game played by the wild card teams as a disadvantage, I can see that there’s also a sense in which the extra days off is a disadvantage for the division winners, as pitchers (especially) struggle to find the zone after the extra days off. The extra adrenaline from playing in the post season is probably also a factor.
The bottom line from today’s game is that the Nats were simply outplayed. The pitchers didn’t have good command; they made errors in the field and—in the case of Bryce Harper—on the base paths; and the batters struggled a bit.
The first game win is especially important now, as the series returns to Washington with the Nats still in a good position to win. But to do so, they can’t afford another game played like today’s.
In this review, I’m treating the regular season games on October 1–3 as part of the statistical month so I can wrap up the regular season in this post.
In September, the Nats’ young pitchers were showing some signs of fatigue, with exceptionally poor starts from Jordan Zimmermann on the 1st, from Stephen Strasburg on the 7th, from Edwin Jackson on the 9th (and again on the 28th), from John Lannan on the 19th, and from Ross Detwiler on the 30th. The bullpen also struggled, with notable meltdowns by Sean Burnett and Tyler Clippard. Overall, the Nats’ pitchers had an ERA– for the month of 95, 14th in the majors—their worst month of the season.
The Nats’ hitters, however, took up the slack. Bryce Harper (.330/.400/.643), Adam LaRoche (.324/.390/.667), Ian Desmond (.315/.377/.550), Ryan Zimmerman, Michael Morse, and Kurt Suzuki were all hot. As a team, the Nats led the majors for the month with a .351 wOBA and a 120 wRC+.
The Nats started September with a 6-1/2 game lead, but the Braves were hot and not ready to concede anything. Facing the Cardinals at home, the Nats started the month by splitting the last two games of the series, giving them a 3–1 series win. Next they hosted the Cubs for four games and swept the series, outscoring the hapless Chi-towners 31–9. The homestand concluded against the Marlins, who were able to beat up Strasburg and Jackson to take two of three.
Moving to New York, the Nats were able to sweep the Mets. Their next stop was Atlanta, where they started the series against the Braves with an 8–1/2 game lead and the opportunity to essentially wrap up the division with a win of the three-game series. The Nats’ hitters, however, weren’t able to master the Braves pitchers and were swept, only managing to score six runs.
Returning home, they took two of three against the Dodgers, then split four games against the Brewers. Back on the road, they took two of three against the Phillies, then lost two of three against the Cardinals. Coming home for their final three-game series against the Phillies, the Nats held a three-game lead over the Braves, giving them a magic number of one. The Nats lost the first game, but the Braves did also, allowing the Nats to celebrate their first divisional championship. For the last two games, the Nats were mostly playing their backups, but were still able to win both games. They finished the season with a 98–64 record, the best in the majors, and with a four-game margin over the Braves.
Record:
18–13 (.581)
Pythagorean Record:
18–13 (4.97 R/G – 4.19 RA/G)
MVP for September:
Bryce Harper (.330/.400/.643, 31 G, 126 PA, 7 HR, 27 R, 14 RBI, 2.0 fWAR, 0.96 WPA, 13.02 RE24). Taking account of Harper’s good fielding and base running, he was able to edge out LaRoche’s 10 home runs and Zimmerman’s 26 RBI.
Most valuable starting pitcher:
Gio Gonzalez (4–1, 2.32 R/9, 5 G, 31 IP, 9.0 K/9, 3.8 BB/9, 4.67 RE24, 1.1 rWAR)
Most valuable reliever:
Drew Storen (2–1, 1.17 R/9, 17 G, 15-1/3 IP, 8.2 K/9, 0.0 BB/9, 6.5 H/9, 5.62 RE24, 0.24 WPA, 0 of 4 inherited runners scored, 6 shutdowns, 2 meltdowns)
Best start this month:
Gio Gonzalez (September 5, 9–1 win over the Cubs at home, 7 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 9 K, game score of 80).
Worst start:
Edwin Jackson (September 28, 12–2 loss to the Cardinals in St. Louis, 1-1/3 IP, 6 H, 1 HR, 9 R, 4 BB, 0 K, game score of 4)
Best shutdown:
Christian Garcia (September 11, 5–3 win over the Mets in New York). Garcia entered in the top of the seventh with responsibility for protecting a 3–2 lead. He retired Valdespin, Tejada, and Murphy, all on strikeouts, then returned to face Wright leading off the eighth, whom he retired on a fly out (Win probability added .162).
Worst meltdown:
Tyler Clippard (September 21, 4–2 loss to the Brewers at home) was called in for the ninth to protect a 2–1 lead. He gave up a leadoff single to Aoki, who advanced to second on a passed ball and to third on a fly out. Braun singled, tying the game, then promptly stole second. Ramirez doubled, giving the Brewers the lead, and advanced to third on a wild pitch. After another fly out for the second out, Ishikawa singled, scoring the runner and giving the visitors a two-run lead. That knocked Clippard out of the game (WPA –.774), and Davey Johnson brought Craig Stammen in to get the final out. In the bottom of the ninth, Harper, LaRoche, and Morse were set down (with a walk to Zimmerman), giving the Brewers the win. Coming after several rough outings, this was the game that knocked Clippard out of the closer role.
Clutch hit:
Kurt Suzuki (September 29, 6–4 win over the Cardinals in Stl Louis). In the top of the tenth, the game tied 4–4, two outs, and runners on second and third, Suzuki socked a double into center field to give the Nats a two-run lead (WPA .415), and allowing the Nats to hold onto a four-game lead over the Braves with four left to play. Although the official clinch had to wait two days, this was the game that made it virtually inevitable.
Choke:
Danny Espinosa (September 8, 7–6 win over the Marlins at home) came up in the bottom of the eighth with the Nats trailing 6–5, one out, and runners on second and third, and struck out (WPA –.217). Fortunately, Jayson Werth led off the ninth with a game-tying home run (WPA .443; I gave the award to Suzuki even though Werth’s homer had a higher WPA because of its significance to the Nats clinching the division). Singles by LaRoche, Desmond, and Corey Brown in the bottom of the tenth gave the Nats the walk off win.
Gio Gonzalez was wild, but at least he wasn’t missing over the heart of the plate. I’m not too concerned about him pitching game five if it goes that far.
I know it’s something that can’t be changed, but I’ve long hated how the playing conditions of post-season baseball are so different, and usually worse, than in the regular season play. For the Nats-Cardinals series, it’s putting up with the late afternoon shadows so the Yankees can be allowed to play in the evening. Cold weather also doesn’t make for good baseball. Today’s 54 degree weather is cool, but as the post-season keeps getting pushed later and later, some games in late October/early November can involve wintry conditions that can be almost painful to watch.
I didn’t really understand why Davey Johnson sent Craig Stammen out in the seventh to pitch a second inning. I mean, during the regular season Johsnon often uses Stammen for multiple innings to save the rest of the bullpen. But right now, if anything the other pitchers in the bullpen could use the work to stay sharp. Fortunately, Ryan Mattheus was able to quickly get out of the jam that Stammen left him.
I’ve seen several comments on the call on Tyler Clippard’s third strike to Matt Carpenter to get out of the inning. But the strike zone was all over the place throughout the game, and I’ll bet that Wainwright got more breaks on the strike zone than all the Nats pitchers combined. Since TBS is showing their “pitch track” box for almost every pitch, maybe next game I’ll start keeping count of the obvious misses. While I know that the boxes aren’t perfect, I’m sure they don’t make as many mistakes as most umpires, and the technology now can provide results very promptly. While I often read people write that they hope they don’t ever take the ball-strike call away from the umpires, I actually disagree. If the technology can be demonstrated to make accurate ball-strike calls in real time without delaying the game, I’m all in favor of using it.
It was great to see Tyler Moore come through with the clutch hit. While every post-season game matters a great deal, it’s especially true in the best-three-of-five division series. It was a really nice game with which to start the post season.
As the Strasburg shutdown debate raged over the last month, something was bugging me – why is it that Mike Rizzo and Stephen Strasburg seem to be communicating to each other through the press? Now I see an article by Dave Fleming that says it well:
I’ve followed this story entirely through various sports news channels, and while I can’t claim that I’ve heard every sound bite that comes from the front office, it has seemed to me that the great majority of conversation that should have occurred between the General Manager and the Ace Pitcher has occurred first through the intermediary of those various sports channels. We have Mike Rizzo coming on the radio saying that Strasburg has an innings pitched limit. Then we get Strasburg talking to a reporter and saying that he hasn’t heard anything about a pitch count. Then we get Rizzo saying to someone that Strasburg doesn’t get to make decisions about the team.
I don’t know why this has been the case. I don’t know why it’s seemed that for the majority of this season, Stephen Strasburg has sounded like the guy who knows the least about what’s going on with Strasburg.There’s been a strong tone of parentalism coming from the front office; a sense that Mike Rizzo is trying to communicate that he’s the boss. There’s little in the way of flexibility: the purpose of Rizzo’s comments have been to a) communicate that the decision on Strasburg is his decision, exclusively, and b) that he’s made his decision, and will not reconsider it.To my mind, this attitude is needlessly defensive. And it’s needlessly confrontational. Rizzo has escalated an issue that should’ve been resolved in June into something that will dominate all future discussions about this baseball team, for the rest of this year.I don’t understand why Rizzo didn’t go to Strasburg first, rather than addressing the situation to the media. I don’t know why it has seemed, repeatedly, that Stephen Strasburg is the last guywho hears about any of this stuff. I don’t know why the team’s decision has been so staggeringly uncompromising about their decision. I don’t understand why no one had the foresight to realize that a young pitcher in his first big-league pennant race might be reluctant to sit on the bench and rah-rah his teammates in the playoffs.And: I don’t know why this has been allowed to turn into such a needless line-in-the-sand drama, when there were so many avenues available that would’ve allowed for a reasonable compromise.Because Mike Rizzo and the Nationals are probably not wrong about the central decision. It is very wise to limit Strasburg’s innings. It’s a good plan. They’re absolutely right to be careful with Strasburg.But Rizzo and the Nationals have made a holy mess of how they’ve tried to implement their plan. They’ve left Strasburg, a central player for this young franchise, deeply upset. At the very least, they’ve jeopardized the chance that Strasburg would sign a long-term deal with the team to buy out some of his free agent years. They’ve reduced the chances that the Nats will advance far in the 2012 playoffs. And if the team doesn’t win the World Series this year, their players and fans will endure an off-season debating the ‘what-if’ of a needless, unnecessary, stupid controversy that the team and the General Manager have fostered all summer long.
In August, the Nats faced a grinding schedule, with 29 games in 31 days. For most of the month, the Atlanta Braves were hot on their heels. But the Nats, with most of their lineup finally intact, held up to the pressure and finished the month with a 19–10 record, the best record in the National League for the month and the Nats’ best monthly record of the season.
The month began at home with the Nats splitting the last two games of a series with the Phillies. (They had lost the first game of the series on July 31.) Next, Miami came to DC for a four game series, which the Nats won three games to one. That was followed by a road trip to Houston, Arizona, and San Francisco. The Nats swept four games from the Astros, three of the wins coming by a single run. Next they won two of three against the Diamondbacks, followed by two of three against the Giants, ending the road trip with an 8–2 record.
Returning home, they faced the Mets, whom they beat two games to one. Then came their most critical series of the season so far, a three-game set against the Braves whom they led by five games. They won the first two games, then lost the finale, ending the series and home stand with a six game lead.
The Nats moved on to Philadelphia, but their bats ran out of gas, as they scored only five runs in three games and were swept. Going to Miami, the team was hoping that Stephen Strasburg would stop the losing streak, but he was shelled in a 9–0 loss, resulting in a five-game losing streak. Finally the Nats’ bats came alive in the second game against the Marlins, an 8–4 win. Returning home, the Nats ended the month with the first two games of a four game set against the Cardinals, winning 8–1 and 10–0 behind an offensive explosion and excellent pitching performances by Edwin Jackson and Gio Gonzalez.
The Nats finished August in first place in the NL East, 6-1/2 games ahead of the Braves. According to coolstandings.com, the Nats’ odds of winning the division were 93.8% and their odds of making the playoffs were 99.9%.
The month of August also featured a national debate about the impending shutdown of Strasburg. To Nationals fans, the debate seemed a bit odd, because it had been announced months before and most fans had made their peace with it. But the national media finally realized and expressed shock that a) the Nationals are probably really going to be playing in the post-season, and b) Mike Rizzo really is serious about shutting down Strasburg.
Record:
19–10 (.655)
Pythagorean Record:
19–10 (4.72 R/G – 3.38 RA/G)
MVP for August:
Jayson Werth (.358/.435/.505, 26 G, 108 PA, 1 HR, 19 R, 12 RBI, 1.0 fWAR, 0.57 WPA, 9.20 RE24). He edged out Ryan Zimmerman on the last day of the month, when Werth went 3 for 3 with 2 walks against the Cardinals.
Most valuable starting pitcher:
Gio Gonzalez (4–2, 2.64 R/9, 6 G, 44-1/3 IP, 7.9 K/9, 2.2 BB/9, 6.10 RE24, 0.9 rWAR). Until the final week, Strasburg was leading Gonzalez in the race for this award, but Stephen suffered a big loss and Gio pitched a shutout in their final starts of the month.
Most valuable reliever:
Ryan Mattheus (1–0, 0.59 R/9, 14 G, 15-1/3 IP, 5.3 K/9, 2.9 BB/9, 2.3 H/9, 6.35 RE24, 0.74 WPA, 2 of 6 inherited runner scored, 4 shutdowns, no meltdowns).
Best start this month:
Gio Gonzalez (August 31, 10–0 win over the Cardinals at home). Gonzalez pitched a complete game shutout, giving up 5 H, 3 BB, getting 8 K and a game score of 82.
Worst start:
Stephen Strasburg (August 28, 9–0 loss to the Marlins in Miami, 5 IP, 9 H, 1 HR, 7 R, 1 BB, 3 K, game score of 27).
Best shutdown:
Drew Storen (August 29, 8–4 win over the Marlins in Miami). Storen received the call from the bullpen in the bottom of the eighth with the Nats leading 6–4, runners on second and third, and no outs. He got Carlos Lee, Giancarlo Stanton, and Justin Ruggiano out without allowing a run (Win probability added .379).
Worst meltdown:
Sean Burnett (August 29, 8–4 win over the Marlins) set up the scenario for Storen to get the shutdown described in the previous paragraph when he allowed a single and a double to start the bottom of the eighth, threatening the Nats’ 6–4 lead (Win probability added –.301). Davey Johnson brought Storen in to get the Nats out of the jam.
Clutch hit:
Danny Espinosa (August 4, 10–7 win over the Marlins at home). In the bottom of the eighth, the game tied 6–6, two outs, and runners on first and third, Danny blasted a three-run homer into the left field seats behind the visitors bullpen (WPA .371).
Choke:
Ian Desmond (August 22, 5–1 loss to the Braves at home) came up in the bottom of the eighth with the Nats trailing 2–1, one out, and runners on first and second and grounded into a double play (WPA –.234).
The Nats are getting ready to start a three-game series against the Eastern Division’s second-place Atlanta Braves. Suppose you’re trying to explain to a skeptical friend why this series matters so much.
You: This series matters because the two competitors are playing face-to-face. Every Nats victory is a Braves loss, and every win by the Braves is a Nats loss.
Skeptical friend (SF): Ok, I get it that there aren’t any games where the teams stay the same. But if the Nats win a game from the Braves, that’s not any different than Sunday’s games when the Nats won and the Braves lost.
You: But the Nats have a chance to sweep the series and move 8 games ahead. That would pretty much knock the Braves out of the running.
SF: Or, of course, the Braves could sweep, cutting the gap to 2 games and making the division a real race. But the same things could happen no matter who the Nats and Braves were playing. In next weekend’s series, the Nats could sweep the Phillies and the Braves could be swept by the Giants, or vice versa. Why is it so critical that the Nats and Braves are actually playing each other?
You: Ok, let me try to explain this mathematically. The Nats and Braves are pretty evenly matched teams. So let’s say the odds of winning any single game is 50-50.
SF: The odds probably aren’t exactly 50-50, depending on who’s pitching, but I agree they’re pretty evenly matched, so 50-50 odds is ok as a rough approximation.
You: Now what are the odds that the Nats sweep? If the games are independent trials, the odds of the Nats sweeping are (1/2)×(1/2)×(1/2)=(1/8). The odds of the Braves sweeping are also (1/8), so the odds that either the Nats or Braves sweep are (1/8)+(1/8)=(1/4). There’s a one-in-four chance that either the Nats sweep the Braves, knocking them out of contention, or the Braves sweep the Nats, making it a very tight race.
Now, suppose the Nats and Braves are each playing series against another team, also with a 50-50 chance of winning.
SF: 50-50 odds seems like an ok assumption for a series between the Braves and the Giants, but the Nats should have better odds than that against the Phillies, even at Citizens Bank Park. But, go ahead, let’s hear what happens with 50-50 odds.
You: The odds of the Nats sweeping a series against another team is 1/8. The odds of the Braves being swept is also 1/8. (I’m assuming both teams are playing 3-game series—yeah, I know the Braves are scheduled to play four against the Giants, but bear with me. I’m just giving a math example, not talking about the actual schedule.) In contrast to the scenario when the Nats and Braves play each other, when they each play other teams they are independent events, so the odds that both the Nats sweep the series and the Braves are swept is only (1/8)×(1/8)=(1/64). Similarly the odds that the Nats are swept and the Braves sweep is also 1/64. So the odds of a pennant-race changing scenario where the gap widens or narrows by three games is only 1/32, rather than 1/4.
SF: Oh, I get it. If either the Nats or Braves win 2 to 1, it’s not much different than if they were playing against any other team. But there’s a much better chance that one of the teams will sweep the other and really make a change in the standings. And if that happens, the series will have been really important—maybe even a turning point in the pennant race.
You: Yep, you got it.
SF: So I guess these games are probably worth watching.
You: You know I’m going to be watching them. Let’s go Nats!
I know—we’re all sick of reading about it. Everyone who follows the Nats knows that the decision about Stephen Strasburg‘s innings limit was made months ago and won’t be changed, but the rest of the baseball world just discovered it and thinks it’s still open to debate, so the debate has gone on.
I just want to make two points. First, the decision was really made at least 18 months ago when Mike Rizzo announced that Jordan Zimmermann would be shut down after reaching an innings limit. After shutting Zimmermann down, there’s no way he can reach a different decision for Strasburg without coming across as insensitive to Strasburg’s health or appearing as a hypocrite. There was no possibility that new information could come to light demonstrating that it would be safe to pitch longer. Indeed, the only potential new information that might have changed the decision would have been an injury to Zimmermann (or to another pitcher with TJ surgery) that might have led to an even tighter innings limit.
Second, when I read articles like this one that argue that the Nationals have to go for it this year because they don’t know when they’ll next have a chance, I’m just really glad that I root for a team that is planning for a run of multiple post-season appearances. How depressing would it be to root for a team that had a strategy of only making a run for it once every few years? Thinking about the team, almost the entire core of the team is under team control through at least 2016, so even for Strasburg’s teammates, there shouldn’t be the urgency that they have to win it this season.
Who’s here just this season? Well, there’s Edwin Jackson (but he’s already got a ring), maybe Adam LaRoche (if his option isn’t exercised), and a handful of bench players, but really most of the players on this team should be together for several more years, and Jayson Werth is the only member of that core who is significantly past his peak. There’s always a risk that injuries could upset Rizzo’s plans, but I like having a GM who’s put together a group of young players who have the potential to form a mini-dynasty.
Now, I’m still going to point out that if they’d planned for it, Strasburg could have been put on a once-a-week schedule that would have allowed for him to pitch into the post-season. But that decision should have been made at the beginning of the season. At this point, I agree with Rizzo that it would be a mistake to skip starts in order to save his innings for the post-season.
July was the month when the Nats’ bats came alive—they ranked second in the NL in runs scored. The pitching, on the other hand, was more of a mixed bag as the starters continued to be solid, but the relievers ranked only 12th in the league in RE24 (a measure of runs attributable to a pitcher that is more accurate than earned runs).
The month began with an 8–4 victory in Atlanta. Returning to Washington, the Nats swept the NL West-leading Giants over the Independence Day holiday, but then lost two of three against the Rockies before the All-Star break. The team was represented at the midsummer classic by Stephen Strasburg, Gio Gonzalez, and Bryce Harper, with Ian Desmond skipping the game to rest his oblique strain.
After the break, the Nats split a four-game series against the Marlins in Miami. Returning home, they won two of three against the Mets, then split a four-game series with the Braves. The first game of the Braves series was traumatic, when the Nats blew a nine-run lead as the bullpen imploded, but the Nats came back to win the last two games.
Going on the road, the Nats swept a three game series against the Mets, then won three of four against the Brewers. The month ended at home with an 8–0 loss to the Phillies, with Strasburg pitching the worst start of his young career. The Nats finished July in first place, 2-1/2 games ahead of the Braves (who were also red hot during July). According to coolstandings.com, the Nats’ playoff odds were 87.3%.
Record:
17–9 (.654)
Pythagorean Record:
16–10 (5.08 R/G – 3.92 RA/G)
MVP for July:
Ryan Zimmerman (.366/.434/.752, 25 G, 113 PA, 10 HR, 26 R, 24 RBI, 2.1 fWAR, 1.33 WPA, 16.13 RE24). He led the NL in slugging, runs, RBIs, and fWAR for the month.
Most valuable starting pitcher:
Jordan Zimmermann (4–0, 1.22 R/9, 6 G, 37 IP, 7.5 K/9, 1.0 BB/9, 11.25 RE24, 1.9 rWAR). Zimmermann led the majors in R/9 and RE24 for the month and was named the NL Pitcher of the Month.
Most valuable reliever:
The last two awards were easy, but this one is tough—I’m tempted to throw up my hands and say that none of the relievers deserve the award. But I’ll reluctantly give it to Tom Gorzelanny (1-1, 3.27 R/9, 7 G, 11 IP, 6.5 K/9, 1.6 BB/9, 7.4 H/9, 1.68 RE24, –0.05 WPA, 0 of 2 inherited runner scored, 3 shutdowns, 1 meltdown).
Best start this month:
Stephen Strasburg (July 25, 5–2 win over the Mets in New York). Strasburg went 7 innings and got the win, giving up 4 H, 1 R, 0 BB, getting 11 K and a game score of 76.
Worst start:
Gio Gonzalez (July 19, 9–5 loss to the Mets at home, 3-1/3 IP, 6 H, 2 HR, 6 R, 3 BB, 2 K, game score of 23). Strasburg is a close runner up with his July 31 6-run, 4 IP outing against the Phillies (game score of 24).
Best shutdown:
Mike Gonzalez (July 8, 4–3 loss to the Rockies at home). I guess this is symptomatic of the sorry state of the bullpen this month that the best shutdown wasn’t even that good. Gonzalez relieved Sean Burnett in the top of the eighth with no outs, runners on first and third and a 3–2 lead. He immediately threw a wild pitch and allowed the tying run to score. But he then got three struck out Carlos Gonzalez, Tyler Colvin, and Todd Helton to get out of the inning (Win probability added .145). The next inning, Tyler Clippard gave up the lead and the Nats lost.
Worst meltdown:
Tyler Clippard (July 17, 5–4 win over the Mets at home) entered in the top of the ninth with a 2–0 lead, then gave up singles to Josh Thole and David Wright, followed by a home run to Jordany Valdespin, before finally getting out of the inning with the Nats trailing 3–2 (Win probability added –.761). Nats tied it in the bottom of the ninth, and I’ll tell the rest of the story in the next entry.
Clutch hit:
Bryce Harper (July 17, 5–4 win over the Mets at home). In the top of the tenth, the Mets took a 4–3 lead. In the bottom of the inning, with Jhonatan Solano on second and one out, Harper tripled to tie the game (Win proability added .558). Then both Ryan Zimmerman and Ian Desmond were intentionally walked to load the bases, and Adam LaRoche reached on a fielder’s choice, with Harper out at home. Finally, Pedro Beato uncorked a walk-off wild pitch, with Zimmerman coming home to score the winning run.
Choke:
Tyler Moore (July 17, same game) came up in the bottom of the ninth with one out, the Nats down 3–2, and runners on first and third and struck out (WPA –.257). All was not lost, as the next batter, Danny Espinosa, singled to tie the game and send it to extra innings.
I watched more of this year’s All-Star Game than I have in years. First I had to watch until Gio Gonzalez and Stephen Strasburg had their chance to pitch. Then I had to see Bryce Harper get into the game. I had to walk the dog, so I missed seeing him lose the fly ball in the lights, but when I got back I wanted to see his next at bat. I wound up watching almost the entire game.
It was fun too—more fun than I remember past all-star games being. I’ve been a baseball fan for about 50 years now, and I’ve watched all-star games for about that long. As Joe Posnanski wrote, we used to watch the all-star game because it was the only real chance to see the stars. In the early sixties, my recollection is that our family’s black-and-white TV picked up four VHF channels—the three networks and one independent station—and other than the World Series and the all-star game, there were maybe 10 games broadcast each season. Because of blackout rules, home games were never broadcast, and we’d be able to see a road games maybe once every couple of weeks. Following baseball meant listening to the radio and reading the story in the next morning’s newspaper. The all-star game was literally the only chance we had to see the star players from the other league (and we didn’t see the stars from other teams in our own league that often either).
Now, of course, we can see the stars every day—ESPN, MLB tv, MASN, and games on the several hundred other stations we now have instant access to. So seeing the stars isn’t the draw that it once was.
What hasn’t changed in the 50 years I’ve been watching them, though, is that the games themselves usually aren’t very good. With their huge rosters, the efforts made to give everyone a chance to play, and the obvious fact that no one seems that interested in winning, the games just don’t carry the same interest as even a game between the Astros and the Cubs. Posnanski’s proposed solution is to “celebrate the fact that the game doesn’t mean anything” by trying out all sorts of gimmicks and new ideas. My solution goes the other direction. Let’s try making the games more like real baseball.
I see the need for three key changes for that to happen:
1. The rosters need to be much smaller (I’ll say just how small later) so that player substitutions seem more natural and less contrived.
2. Incentives need to be created for players (and fans) to care about winning the thing. For the World Series, for example, although incentives wouldn’t seem to be needed, the players have both financial incentives (a share of the purse) and nonfinancial (wearing the ring). The military is really good at nonfinancial incentives—maybe players could wear a star on their uniform for each all-star game they’ve won. It would give the announcers something to mention on their closeup shots and would generally get people talking about winning (not just playing in) the all-star games.
3. Perhaps my most radical idea is that the game should be expanded to a three-game series. This would have several advantages. The roster substitutions would no longer be forced by the need to get everyone into a single game. Baseball fans intuitively know that any single game is a crapshoot, and the three-game series is the main-stay of the baseball season. Unlike a post-season series, they’d need to play all three games, but incentives could still be maintained by giving extra financial and nonfinancial incentives for sweeping the series. I’d recommend holding the three games in three separate stadiums, but keep the travel times down by playing them in cities that are close to each other. For example, they could be played in Washington-Baltimore-Philadelphia one year, and in Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, and Fenway in another year. Each stadium would host an all-star game roughly every ten years, which would give a lot more fans a chance to attend the games.
Of course, a three-game series might require a longer all-star break, but not that much longer. Currently, the break lasts from Monday through Thursday. Suppose the three-game all-star series were played on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. For games in the same region, play could resume on Friday, the same as now. For teams playing on the other side of the country, they would need to play a Saturday-Sunday-Monday series to allow for travel time on Friday. I don’t see a major effect on the schedule.
How big would the roster be? I’d like to see a distinction between starting pitchers and relievers, but I recognize that teams wouldn’t want their starters to pitch a full outing for an all-star game. My preferred option would be to have two starters, each with a pitch count limit of 65 pitches. That would be three to four innings, and a pair of starters would be expected to share a typical start of roughly seven innings. If teams balked at that, we could go with three starters each with a pitch limit of 45 pitches—roughly once through the order for each pitcher. I’d allow for seven relief pitchers, but they’d be true relievers to keep the distinction between starters and relievers. And then maybe five bench players (an extra catcher, a couple of pinch hitters, and a couple of defensive substitutes or platoon players). Basically, I’d like the bench and bullpen to look as much as possible like a regular team’s (except better, of course). If we went with three starters per game (nine altogether), each team’s roster would need to be about 30 players—16 pitchers and 14 position players
With a three-game series played like actual baseball games, I think fans would start following and rooting for the teams. It’s at least worth trying.
Nats Noodles 