Nationals Inquirer

Every new beginning is some other beginning's end . . .

2005-10-04T22:25:00.000-04:00

. . . YEAH!

Anyway, I started this thing on Wednesday, January 19. As my first post indicates, I didn't have any grand designs for Nationals Inquirer; in reviewing my content since then, I can only conclude I met such high expectations!

To every thing there is a season, of course, and at the sake of infusing mock-sentimentality, I'm here to note that NI is shutting down about 48 hours after the Nationals' season did. You see, in the recent past I received an offer to join up with the Sports Blogs Nation network. I was very flattered by the offer, mulled it over, and concluded, "Why the heck not?"

And here we are. NI is shutting down, but we're basically looking at the same blog---only it'll be better-looking. As the one who's looked at this blog the most in the past eight or nine months, trust me on that one!

So, here's where you can find me, starting . . . now: FederalBaseball.com. Thanks for reading in the past, thanks for continuing to read, and---most of all---thanks for being you, fans of the Washington Nationals. I like you guys.

Where do we go now, sweet Bodes of mine?

2005-10-04T12:14:00.000-04:00

Remember when you played sandlot football as a kid, and one of the scrubs kept on insisting, every time you huddled up, that his play would most definitely work? Come on, guys, this'll work! Two plays later: I'm telling you, give this a try. I'll catch it, I promise!

I reckon Jim Bowden was one of those guys (that's why he's a GM who never played, right?), and he's got a plan. Ah, that's a relief!

And what, pray tell, does the plan entail? Here's what: GET A LOT OF GUYS WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THINGS THE GUYS WE CURRENTLY HAVE DON'T DO SO WELL.

Awesome!

"It's that simple?" you ask. Sure, baby. But if you don't think I'm doing his plan justice, I'll review it:

---> Get power hitters.
---> Get speed guy.
---> Get starting pitchers.
---> Get "power lefty."
---> Get veteran leadership.*

Results to follow.

Yep, that's it. Now, that's a plan, gang! If only the new owner(s)---if he/she/they actually exist(s)---would give Bodes the chance to implement it, he knows it'll work. (And, considering he thought the current edition was underachieving, despite its midseason 100-win pace, this time he's serious; he was just joking back then.)

* I wonder if Carlos Baerga is available . . .

________________

Retrospectives galore!

---> Harper assumes the third rail and blog-rolls the concept (good links in there), while also kind of subtly mocking the concept. He also says the Nats' season could have been so much more (rather than could have been so much less) and predicts the Stankees will win the World Series. Boo!

---> Capitol Punishment, in a transparent yet effective attempt to give the old comments meter a few extra cranks, requested nominations for Nats-specific MVP and Cy Young awards. Today, Chris releases his picks. Like many (most?) commenters, he praised Brian Schnieder but eventually named Chad Cordero the team MVP and John Patterson the team CYA guy. I guess I'm conflicted; Cordero's definitely worthy of something, but I can't wrap my head around a guy being an MVP of anything yet also losing a Cy Young award (of any sort) to another pitcher.

---> Yuda provides his list of the top games of the Nats' (current edition) inaugural season. He also wants to know your list. Obviously, that bizarre June game in the Los Angeles Suburb of Anaheim is going to rate highly on anyone's list. I'd also nominate an April game in Atlanta. After a rain delay, the Nats rallied against then-Braves' closer Danny Kolb (heh!), capped by a Schnieder double. That was probably the moment when I suspected that this team could be something special. In a sense, it might be a more appropriate memory than anything from the ten-game winning streak in June, since that early game only gave hints of glory, not the full-born fool's gold of June. Ah well . . .

_______________

New blogs!

I've been meaning to add these to the sidebar, and still will:

---> Just a Nats Fan
---> Curly W
---> ¡Blog! (I've been really derelict in failing to add this one; sorry!)

There's another one (is it called "Nats Triple Play"?), but I can't find it right now. A little help here?

You're gonna make me lonesome when you go

2005-10-03T12:53:00.000-04:00

The Phillies just plain spanked the Nats yesterday, yet it didn't seem like that mattered. It kept the Phils in the wild card race (the actual one) for a moment or two, and it ruined the Nats' shot at a winning season, but that was sort of tangential.

Sunday afternoon completed baseball's first season back in the DC area (and, more specifically, in DC) in over three decades, and I am overjoyed I had a chance to attend this final game of the 2005 season. The game itself was not tremendously memorable---aside from, perhaps, Ryan Church's upper deck homer and maybe my circuitous adventure trying to replace someone's beer I accidentally spilled. But I had a great time nonetheless, and this being only my third trip to RFK this season, I felt a good dose of vicarious pride and commitment at the end, after the final out was recorded, when the Nats---both on the field and on the video board---thanked the fans for a truly special year.

My satisfaction was all-the-more enhanced by the opportunity to take in the game with a couple of Nats bloggers. I can now add Chris Needham (Capitol Punishment) and Ryan Moore (Distinguished Senators) to the list of Nats bloggers I've met in person. The list now stands at four, but that's only if you count me. Otherwise, I had previously only met Brick Barrientos (Eucalyptus), with whom I enjoyed a June victory.

The Nats did not come particularly close to pulling one out yesterday, but as I noted (and, as with the game with Brick in June), that didn't seem to matter, at least on a certain level. I had a great time taking in the game with Chris (and his old college roommate, Shaun) and Ryan (and his better half, Karen). Thanks for a fun afternoon!

___________________

And now it's all over, at least until the Hot Stove League. All that's left are the dedications and retrospectives. Boz has a nice one today, but all in all, I prefer Rocket's.

Well, I might as well add one, I suppose. Periodically, I've employed the somewhat lame and probably cliched schtick of converting Bob Dylan's material for my own blogging purposes. I would give thousands of reasons why I do this, but usually it comes down to two factors: 1) I get lazy, and 2) I like Bob Dylan.

Maybe that's the case here, or maybe the old mumbler has provided a song that fits the occasion. If you're an old diehard who ached previously for the Senators II (or, if you're a bit older, Senators I) and year-after-year suffered in unrequired dismay, or if you're like me who cheered and supported great teams but maybe didn't find true sporting love until this season, this one's for you:

I've seen love go by my door
It's never been this close before
Never been so easy or so slow.
Been shooting in the dark too long
When somethin's not right it's wrong
Yer gonna make me lonesome when you go.

Dragon clouds so high above
I've only known careless love,
It's always hit me from below.
This time around it's more correct
Right on target, so direct,
Yer gonna make me lonesome when you go.

. . .

Fortunately, though, we get to see our Nats again next spring.

ADJUSTED PLAYOFFS!

2005-10-03T11:58:00.000-04:00

Load up the catchy rock music snippet, FOXSports. Hey, FOX Entertainment, prepare that memorable one-liner for your next hit show ("You're risking a patient's life!!!") ---or not ("Her father's the district attorney!!!"). While you're at it, bring back the cast of Girls' Club.

On second thought, hold all that stuff.

Why settle for "actual" playoffs, when we can have "should-be-actual" playoffs? "That can be done?" you ask. For sure:

THE ADJUSTED PLAYOFFS!

Yes!

These adjusted athletes play for more than passion, more than pride, and certainly more than the love of the game. If you can believe it, they also play for more than money. Something better is out there, adjusting itself. That something is the Goblet of Third Order Wins.

Well-adjusted!

Okay, here's how the game works: the adjusted participants are determined based on the Baseball Prospectus' Adjusted Standings; as luck would have it, the Adjusted Playoffs assume the same form and (nearly; see footnote) progression as the far-inferior "real" playoffs. That makes it easier, you know.

I have not yet decided what course the Adjusted Postseason will take---whether by running simulations on MVP Baseball '05, convincing a neighbor to play a game or two of RBI Baseball every evening, or seeing whether my dog selects the bush or grass in which to relief herself---but I've got time, because at current there's a hot adjusted wild card race yet to be determined. [UPDATE: SEE BELOW!]

Here are the adjusted entrants as of the moment. All of these teams can fly Adjusted Flags, proudly and forever:

---> New York Yankees (AL East adjusted champions)
---> Cleveland Indians (AL Central adjusted champions)*
---> Oakland Athletics (AL West adjusted champions)
---> Boston Red Sox (AL adjusted wild card entrant)
---> Philadelphia Phillies (NL East adjusted champions)
---> St. Louis Cardinals (NL Central adjusted champions)
---> San Diego Padres (NL West adjusted champions)

As teased previously, one race remains: NL adjusted wild card. Prospectus is still entering the data, apparently; I imagine the Houston Astros might over-adjust the New York Mets, but we'll have to see. [UPDATE: Final returns are in, and . . . CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NEW YORK METS, 2005 NL ADJUSTED WILD CARD!!!]

You might be wondering why there's such a thing as the Adjusted Playoffs, when the point of making the adjustments in the first place is to refine our perspective of who is stronger and who is weaker over a long season. However, I think the answer is obvious: to see if Billy Beane's adjusted $%#@ works in the playoffs.

So, check back in periodically to see how the Adjusted Postseason progresses. I'll provide the critical information on my sidebar, and game recaps will be placed in this space. Survive and advance, baby!

* Adjusted home field advantage throughout.

[Lest I give you the wrong impression, the idea certainly isn't original to me. It might not even be original to the Yudites, but that's as far as I'm attributing.]

Well . . . hmmmm . . . ummmm. Crap.

2005-09-30T12:29:00.000-04:00

OR, Oh, I see. Then everything is wrapped up in a neat little package. Really, I mean that. Sorry if it sounded sarcastic.

Initially, I theorized why Jim Bowden would designate Claudio Vargas for assignment. Then, I joined the cacophony of Bodes-ridicule, in part based on the belief that Vargas could have still been optioned to the minors rather than waived. Now, I realize that this belief was incorrect.

In short, there are angles from which to attack the handling and surrender of Vargas---who, for six bright weeks or so, was pitching pretty well for Arizona. For one, you could argue that the Nats hurried Vargas back too quickly and then were forced to dump him when he pitched miserably in May; for another, you could be perplexed that Bowden couldn't swing a single deal for Vargas, for anything in return. But, to get to the "in short" part, it is mistaken, unfounded, and unfair to attack him for botching the MLB transaction rules---or, perhaps worse, to operate in contravention of them.

On this point, Bowden didn't screw up.

Why did we, in the Natosphere? The key, as it turned out, was something that we didn't know then but do know now: Vargas was on optional assignment with the Marlins in 2001.

Everything flows from there; however, to make sure we're looking at it correctly this time, I'll show the work.

First, on options:

After three years as a pro, a player must be
protected on a team's 40-man roster, or he is eligible for the Rule 5 draft . . . . Once he's served those three years, and assuming he is added to the 40-man roster, his club then has what are called "options" on him.

When a player is on the 40-man roster but not on the 25-man Major League roster, he is on "optional assignment." One common misconception about the rules is that a player may only be "optioned out" three times. Actually, each player has three option years, and he can be sent up and down as many times as the club chooses within those three seasons.

When you hear that a player is "out of options," that means he's been on the 40-man roster during three different seasons, beginning with his fourth as a pro, and to be sent down again he'll have to clear waivers . . .
Now, to apply that to Vargas:

---> His first professional season was 1998. (Though he signed with the Florida Marlins in 1995, as a 17 year old.) He barely saw any action, and the first question---one which would contribute to our doom later---is whether that counted as a full "year in the pros" for the purpose of the date on which he needed to be added to the 40-man roster. I guess it did, as we'll see.

---> In 1999, he pitched in the minors, not on the 40-man roster.

---> In 2000, he pitched in the minors, not on the 40-man roster.

---> In 2001, however, he appeared on the afore-linked March 16 transactions list:

Florida Marlins: Optioned RHPs Hector Almonte and Gary Knotts to AAA-Calgary. Optioned LHP Geoff Goetz, RHP Claudio Vargas, and OF Abraham Nunez to AA-Portland. Optioned RHPs Wes Anderson and Josh Beckett to A-Brevard County. Re-assigned LHPs Benito Baez and Michael Tejera, RHPs Mark Brownson, Brian Edmondson, Gabe Molina, Johnny Ruffin, and Doug Walls, Cs Matt Frick, Mandy Romero, Matt Treanor, and Dusty Wathan, 2B Joe Espada, 3Bs Chris Clapinski and Mike Gulan, SS Derek Wathan, and OF Edgard Clemente to minor-league camp.

(emphasis added)

Well, Frick.

That's our clue that Vargas had been added to the 40-man roster. None of us---the Nats bloggers with egg on our faces now---knew this until Yuda discovered it today. (And we weren't the only ones surprised.)

Okay, so 2001 is Option Year No. 1. Vargas spent the entire season at Double-A Portland.

---> In 2002, Option Year No. 2, Vargas spent the entire year in the minors.

---> In 2003, Option Year No. 3, Vargas made his big league debut (and actually pitched pretty well for the Expos).

---> In 2004, Option Year No. 4, Vargas again shuttled between the majors and minors, this time burdened by injury.

Wait a minute; Option Year No. 4? How is that possible? Shouldn't he have been exposed to waivers in 2004?

Actually, no. Recall that Vargas was on the 40-man roster in 2001 but did not appear in the big leagues that regular season. In such an event, the player is assigned a fourth option year. Hence, 2004 was indeed Option Year No. 4, and . . .

---> In 2005, Vargas was truly "out of options" (which means we was out of seasons to be placed on "optional assignment"). He started the year in the minors on a rehab assignment, got called up, pitched very poorly, and then gonzo.

The key was Vargas' presence on the 40-man roster in 2001; if his first appearance there had been in 2002, then under the exception provided above, 2005 would have been the legitimate Option Year No. 4. Remember, he didn't pitch in the majors in 2002, either.

But, instead, Vargas had used up his option years by the start of '05. We---myself included, obviously---didn't know this. Perhaps we should have assumed better about Jim Bowden. Regardless, mea culpa, Bodes.

Smul-bhit?

2005-09-28T12:52:00.000-04:00

Wayne Knight is officially freaked out award, September 28

Capitol Punishment directs us to a nugget at DCRTV rumoring that "Emmis broadcasting head Jeff Smulyan probably won't land the [Washington Nationals]. Sources tell us that he's being "set up" to eventually buy the Cincinnati Reds . . . "

Why is Wayne Knight assuming an increasingly uncomfortable and spooked countenance today? Because this rumor was already noted at the Ballpark Guys forum yesterday:

From what's being said, it looks like the future Nats ownership may depend on (of all things) the Cincinnati situation. If Maury is right, and Reinsdorf is pushing for Smulyan, it may be less because of the labor situation (I doubt Malek or the Lerners are going to be very pro-MLBPA, and no one expects a major war over the 2006 CBA anyway) than because Reinsdorf wants his buddy Jeff back in.If Carl Lindner is in fact going to sell his 51.5% of the Reds(and that apparently is not certain yet), and Smulyan can buy it, Bud can make just about everybody happy, which he likes to do. D.C. will get its local ownership, Smulyan will get his reentry to the lodge, and Cincinnati will get an owner less objectionable to them than he would be to DC (he lives closer to Cincy, and no one thinks the Reds are going to be moved) who would just about have to be an improvement over Lindner.

This gets me thinking about where this rumor originated:

---> did the BPG guy get it from DCRTV Dave?
---> did DCRTV Dave get it from the BPG guy?
---> did they hear it from a common source?

My mind is dazed with the possibilities and ramifications; DCRTV Dave wouldn't report as a rumor something posted on a message board, would he? Anyway, I'm going to stop now, because I feel like I'm looking for "Quelle".

I just know that I don't want Jeff Smulyan to own that Nats, that's all.

Lesson: the pros already know

2005-09-28T06:37:00.000-04:00

The Nats pounded the Marlins last night, and I mean really pounded them. Washington dropped an eleven-spot on the festering Fish. If you need evidence to underscore how far the Marlins have fallen in a very short time, read that previous sentence: the Nats scored in double figures.

How long had it been? I resolved myself to exhaust two minutes of my life looking it up. I "discovered" that it had been a long time---I mean, an extremely long time.

But then I realized I didn't need to look it up: the beat writers already went there. Oh, well.

Notwithstanding St. Barry's strange, slight error (it had been since May 7, not May 11), all the big guys covering the Nats included the factoid that the last time the team had scored in double figures was early May. Rocket Bill Ladson wins the completeness award, noting not only "when" but "how many" (fourth time the Nats have hit double figures).

Since I looked it up, I might as well note a couple useless pieces of trivia:

---> the Nats are 4-7 in "games in which either team has scored in double figures"; and,
---> the Nats' "worst month" in such games was, strangely, their storied "best month"---which would be June, when the Nats went 20-6 overall but 0-2 in the double figure games. Pythagoras says hi.

Anyway, I'm definitely not going to look this up (help me out again, professionals), but I suspect the 11 games in which either side has hit double figures represent a very low figure, relative to the rest of the league. That would make sense, of course, considering the home park, the anemic offense, and the generally solid pitching.

___________________

Did you know?

Andruw Jones is considered by many or most BBWAA-types as the late frontrunner for National League MVP honors. Suffice it to say Jones, who sports 51 homers and 128 ribbies, would not win the award based on his batting average.

Quick: When was the last time an MVP batted equal to, or worse than, Jones' current .264 average? [answer below]

Answer: Never! (at least among position players, of course).

The lowest batting average by an MVP on record is Marty Marion's .267 in 1944.

__________________

An amazing streak ended last night, as Greg Maddux and the Cubs fell to the Pirates, 5-3, in Chicago. This loss thwarted Maddux's late bid to extend his string of consecutive seasons with at least 15 victories to 18 years.

The practice of crediting "wins" to individual pitchers is, in my estimation, a beknighted one. Nevertheless, Maddux's streak, which began in 1988, is a monument to his greatness and durability. Consider all the top pitchers that have come and gone in the years 1988-2004. (Consider that some top pitchers essentially came and went in just the years surrounding one of those dates, like Teddy Higuera.) Consider that Roger Clemens, an even greater pitcher than Maddux, had:

not one,
not two,
not three,
not four,
not five,
not six, but

seven seasons of fewer than 15 victories between '88 and '04 (and he's working on another one this time around, through no fault of his own, of course).

Maddux's streak is nothing short than amazing, in other words. Of course, there's a reason for that characterization: the 17-season streak is a major league record. It's a shame to see it end.

The streak nearly ended, in 1990, at two seasons. Maddux suffered through a severe mid-summer slump, and then-manager Don Zimmer actually promised to swim "across Lake Michigan" if Maddux ever won another game. Inevitably, he did---and Zimmer fulfilled his promise by swimming across a very small section of the lake.

22 Short Films about Springfield

2005-09-27T12:05:00.000-04:00

I thought about composing a ballad (or ripping off someone better's) in praise of Hector Carrasco, but I think I'm suffering from tendonitis in my blogging arm. After giving it an aborted go in the blogpen this morning, I figured it would be best to give the ol' alto queso a rest. Instead, I'm going to employ Blogger's Copout No. 32 and just link to interesting stuff from the other Nats bloggers (in no particular order):

---> Capitol Punishment has been a busy little bee. If you're in the mood for negative motivation, I commend you to this post on the price of winning too much between now and October 2: free agent draft pick compensation. Wonky goodness!

---> Nationals Interest unfurls a grand welcome mat A.J. Burnett, current/ex- (or ex/current-) Florida Marlin. I'm not certain the Nats can budget both Burnett and a retained Esteban Loiaza, as the NI guys envision, but that sure would make for a nice four-man rotation. Whoa! Who are we to call Hector Carrasco a fifth starter?

---> Ball-Wonk is using his creative powers for evil, as per usual.

---> Distinguished Senators takes Frank Robinson to task for being a cranky and spiteful old man, also as per usual. In addition, look for the world's first comparison of Brian Roberts to Rick Short.

---> Beltway Boys punishes us mercilessly by posting the worst picture of Hondo known to man. My initial reaction was, strangely, "Arvid Engin as a coal miner."

---> Nationals Farm Authority reviews the Nats' dearth of upper-level prospects, starting at New Orleans. Quick, get me some quaaludes.

---> Nats Nation reviews the life and times of Hall of Fame Negro Leaguer Buck Leonard. Did you know that, "[y]ears before the color barrier was broken in professional baseball, Senators owner Clark Griffith inquired to Leonard if he and Josh would be interested in playing in the majors, but Griffith never went through with the idea"?

---> Nationals Opinion throws a resigned but appreciative white towel.

---> Did you know that Nationalz personally witnessed our Natty Nats sweep the Mets in Shea a week or two ago? Iiiiiiit's true.

---> Eucalyptus provides lots of interesting stuff, including a continuation of the "DC Baseball birthday" feature. Which former (old school) Nat committed suicide at the Occidental Hotel in San Francisco? Let's just say it was a no-Win situation . . .

---> Nasty Nats kills two birds with one stone: he praises Hector Carrasco and continues to be all over Tony Kornheiser like male pattern baldness on a columnist.

---> RFK Cheap Seats (formerly "Section 527") believes the children are our future, teach Dutch well and let him lead the way. (Show them all the beauty Kory Casto posseses inside?)

---> Just a Nats Fan innovates with an online magazine that looks like a "real" magazine, only it's online. Oh, and she loves Gary Bennett. (Don't ask!)

---> Thurdl Sports ("Where I'm Not Cheering for the Saints") is noodling divisional realigment scenarios. I love that stuff!

---> Nats Blog isolates some killer defeats. You'll never guessed which game ranked No. 1 in that category. (Actually, you probably will.)

---> OMG finds solace in the fact that, although the Nats screwed up last time against Florida, at least they didn't aid and abet a Marlins' playoff run.

---> Donutball, Donutball, wherefore art thou, Donutball.

---> And, finally, District of Baseball and William World News continue to do their yeoman's work---among other things, making my breakfast informative.

And that's it. I don't think I missed anyone, but if I did, you can find my blogging arm in the whirlpool.

Order 86

2005-09-26T12:19:00.000-04:00

(Well, 86th loss probably tonight)

A few months ago, District of Baseball featured a poll about Peter Angelos, in which "Emperor Palpatine" was one of the choices for best comp to ol' Capt. Asbestos. (At least, I'm pretty sure it did, although the "older polls" page doesn't reference that particular one.)

Well, lest you think the comparison is an exaggeration, I (or, more accurately, FoxSports.com) present you with ¡THIS!:

(ready?)

(are you sure?)

(are you sure that you're sure?)

(okay . . . )

Remove the suit and tie; add a robe and cowl. You get this:

It works on so many levels, doesn't it?

By the way, in an effort to add even a little substance to this post, I'll agree heartily wtih Ken Rosenthal's conclusion: Angelos should get out---like yesterday. Unlike many Nats' fans, I have no inherent hate for all things Baltimore; I spent many years of my life rooting for the O's, and I think they have a great fanbase, full of passionate and knowledgeable fans. I'd love to be able to enjoy some success for the O's, but of course that would require the O's actually to have success.

That won't happen again until Angelos and his boys get out and stay out. And, while he's leaving, he could kindly hand back the Nats' television rights, too.

The Pursuit of Hector

2005-09-25T22:46:00.000-04:00

Remember that nonsensical line from Bill Clinton's second inaugural address? You know the one: "Nothing big ever came from being small." Everyone near where I was standing shrugged at that one, too.

The line didn't tangle up Hector Carrasco, though. Why, if his quote in Rocket Bill's Sunday notes column is any indication, Hector's taken the big guy's words to heart:

Last Thursday, Carrasco made his third consecutive start and shut out the Giants for 5 2/3 innings. He struck out a career-high eight batters and walked four. As a starter, he has given up two runs in 15 2/3 innings (1.15 ERA) and struck out 17. He has taken a liking to his new role, and
would like to be strictly a starter next season.

Carrasco, exhibiting some rather "big-thinking," also noted this preference in a story by Barry Svrluga on Friday. In that article, St. Barry reported that Randy St. Claire has introduced a changeup into Carrasco's arsenal, and this addition was cited as a key to Carrasco's success. The article referenced a "conundrum the Nationals find themselves in now" concerning Carrasco's future with the team (assuming he's indeed coming back). Carrasco, of course, wants to be known as a starter; Frank Robinson seemed to envision a swing-man.

Carrasco turns 36 next month and has appeared in 560 career games; over the years, he's made all of four starts, including his last three outstanding appearances. Let's imagine that, pursuant with his hopes and dreams, Carrasco successfully transitions to starting pitching next season. I offer that this accomplishment would be almost unprecedented in the history of Major League Baseball.

Here's the all-time leaders in career appearances (Nos. 1-100); this list starts at 647 appearances. And here's the active leaders; this list starts at 588 career appearances, which nearly brings us to Carrasco.

Has there ever been a pitcher who has done what Carrasco seeks to do? That is, has anyone transitioned from career reliever to starting pitcher well into his thirties and with at least 500-600 career appearances under his belt? Unless I'm missing someone, I see only one:

Craig Lefferts.

Entering the 1992 season, Lefferts was 34 years old and had appeared in 582 career games. He owned five career starts (just like Carrasco, as of tomorrow evening), and those five were a really, really long time ago---back in his rookie season of 1983. For much of his career, Lefferts had been your typical No. 1 lefty reliever/fireman, back before the emergence of the lovable LOOGY. After debuting with the Cubs in '83, he spent the better part of the next decade shuttling between San Diego and San Francisco. He was a key member of two World Series (losers') bullpens (Pads in '84, Giants in '89) and sported a work product good for an ERA+ around the 110s. Based upon my recollection of a subset of Giants' fandom back then (relatives in the Bay Area whom I'd visit in the summers), Lefferts was regarded as decent but not reliable.

In '91, Lefferts had his worst season. Though he matched his career high with 23 saves, Lefferts posted then-career worsts in ERA (3.91) and ERA+ (97). It wasn't an excruciatingly horrid season, but back in those pre-offensive explosion days a near-four ERA from your bullpen ace just wouldn't do. (Come to think of it, such performance wouldn't even do in these days.)

Lefferts, who started those aforementioned five games as a guy in his mid-20s nearly a decade earlier, converted to a rotation starter in 1992. I seem to recall the move was long-discussed, though I could be making that up. At any rate, Lefferts was purely a starter for both the Padres (27 starts) and, during a failed stretch run, the Orioles (five starts). The results, on the whole, were so-so (98 ERA+).

The salient point is that I'm not sure this had ever happened before in the history of the major leagues. I could be missing someone, but I don't think I am.

Should Carrasco get his wish of claiming a starting role---and should he actually keep the spot---he'd follow in Lefferts' legacy, but Carrasco's feat would almost inarguably represent a more extreme conversion. First of all, though he owned only those five starts long ago, Lefferts was actually treated as a starter in those outings; twice, he pitched at least seven innings, and in one of those games he pitched into the eighth. Carrasco, as previously noted, made his starting debut in 2000 on a short and strictly emergency basis; late this season, he's building stamina, but I don't see him going "starter's innings" in his final two shots before the end of the year.

Beyond that, Carrasco is a year or two older than Lefferts was, and he is a "modern" reliever---whereas Lefferts was a "1980s" reliever. The long and short of that is Carrasco's average appearance historically has been much shorter than Lefferts' average appearance, he routinely would go two or three batters longer. That might not mean much when we're talking about starting pitching, but it does indicate that Lefferts was used to being stretched out longer.

In sum, I think Lefferts (for one season, as it were) did something that had never been done before; Carrasco, if he does likewise, would also in a sense be doing something unprecedented.

________________

Rightly or wrongly, it is impossible to consider Carrasco's unexpected career twist without thinking about Chuck McElroy. Those who followed the Orioles in recent seasons probably remember a couple of startling appearances by McElroy in late September 2000: in two unexpected starts, McElroy allowed one run in 11 innings---against two playoff teams, at that! (Oakland and New York, if you're keeping score.)

McElroy was installed as the O's fifth starter out of the box in '01, and he was legitimately used that way. Five of McElroy's first six '01 appearances were as a starter (the one exception was a blow-out loss to Detroit in which he recorded two outs); however, McElroy pitched horridly in all but the first start, and the experiment ended.

McElroy, almost 33 when he made those two late-season starts in 2000, is perhaps more comparable to Carrasco than Lefferts was. He had no previous starting experience (to say nothing of not having pitched into the eighth as a starter, as Lefferts had), and his past usage was similar to Carrasco's.

__________________

All of this is not to say that Carrasco can't transition into successful (and healthy) starting pitcher, but it is to say that it's not particularly likely. In other words, the Nats should not bank of it. Fortunately, St. Barry's article portrays Carrasco's wish as a rather singular one.

Robinson's apparent vision of Carrasco as a swing-man---or, as Bill James once called it, a "staff stabilizer": a guy who can start and relieve as necessary---is perhaps more realistic. Again, it's not something that has a whole lot of basis in the history of baseball; in fact, such a late-career change, even of this lesser magnitude, would be of essentially the same precedential value. Armed with both opportunity and his new changeup, however, maybe Carrasco can do this. Even 100-110 innings of swing work would be a boon.

Nevertheless, I find myself skeptical with Carrasco. Too much could happen between now and next season. That includes contractual considerations (recall Carrasco was a lowly non-roster invitee and figures to make guaranteed money somewhere), but it also accounts for the tweaks and tears 36 year-olds invariably receive. Who's to say he doesn't experience tightness in his shoulder or elbow next spring? That would scuttle plans of extending him out rather quickly.

The question remains, though, whether the answer to the question "Why hasn't Hector Carrasco started previously?" is Opportunity or Skill. (Or maybe the first follows the second? That was my original position, a week or two ago.) I confess he's doing marvelous work in demonstrating the former to be the case and---perhaps in a more limited basis next year---there's no reason beyond skepiticism or speculation why he can't keep on answering the question in the same way.

Tony, meet Tony

2005-09-22T18:22:00.000-04:00

With the Washington Nationals caught in a veritable death spiral, what better topic to discuss than hell?

Call me crazy---or merely not of Jewish extraction---but the first time I noted Laura Blumenfeld's Sunday Post article, the aspect that most caught my eye was that apparently "Frank [Robinson] doesn't do religion."

What, there was something more newsworthy in Blumenfeld's article? Something more newsworthy than Ryan Church's inarticulate overuse of the word "like"? Yeah, I guess there was.

Those who know me, even some people purely on-line, know that I am a religious guy; I guess it's just part of my inimitable charm. Anyway, I wasn't going to post anything on the "Ryan Church Controversy" (see any of the above links for the specifics), and I'm sure not going to engage in "you say heaven, I say hell" discussions. That's not really part of the aforementiomed charm, I confess. Yet, when I returned home from work this evening and noticed Tony Kornheiser's micro-column on the subject, I found my muse. Cheers, Tony!

Rocket has already given Kornheiser the business, as Ben Dreith would say. (Vigorous discussion also followed, and it was a true example of our American marketplace of ideas: some reasoned points and some dumbfoundingly inelegant.) Rocket's thrust is that Kornheiser pegged the wrong guy, Church, instead of Jon Moeller, the evangelical Christian chaplain who edumacated Church on matters of faith, including the proposition that those who do not accept Christ as savior---including Jews, as Church's ex-girlfriend is---are doomed to hell. Pleading for some discretion afforded to Church, Rocket proffers that Church was essentially relating the lesson Moeller taught him (and his intendant surprise to it), rather than affirmatively castigating Jews to hellfire. I don't know if that survives a more-likely-than-not standard, but if imaginary criminal proceedings were ever brought against Church on the charge of anti-Semitism, Rocket the public defender could throw a hell of an argument for the existence of reasonable doubt.

I believe Rocket has the right idea here: take the focus off of Church, because he does come across more like a dupe than an agent of evil or even a raving anti-Semite (or, for that matter, a a raving anti-Dentite); seeing as Rocket beat me to the punch, however, I'll focus on someone else. Tell you what: I'll do that in a second. First, a few points on Mr. Tony:

1. My first thought on the column---and admittedly a superficial one---is that it's so nice T.K. Stack Money notices the Nats exist. I'm not going to subject Kornheiser's last six months of work product to the Wilbon treatment, but I suspect we'd arrive at a similar result. This isn't to say that Kornheiser should be restricted from writing about whatever strikes his lingering sports fancy (and there doesn't appear to be much of that left, to be honest); on the other hand, Mr. Tony is, if not widely read these days, then widely-distributed---and it would be a shame if a national audience equated this fine inaugural season with a dumb quote from a forgotten fourth outfielder.

2. My second thought is that Kornheiser is historically rather touchy on the subject of sports figures speaking of their faith. Admittedly, Kornheiser has in the past ranted on quotations of more innocuous content; then again, Kornheiser has in the past ranted on quotations of more innocuous content.

Here's an example: five or six summers ago, Pete Sampras won (yet another) Grand Slam tournament. Since it wasn't the French, of course, it must have been Wimbledon. Sampras prevailed in a hard-fought final round and, in accepting the trophy, thanked God for "blessing him," or something to that effect. It wasn't a full-blown "Thanks to the Lord Jesus Christ for bringing me this victory" (which Tony really, really hates, apparently, and I also find cheesy); instead, I was watching the match, and I'll attest to you it was a simpler statement than that.

Kornheiser, then a nationally-syndicated radio host, ranted about Sampras' statement for a good five minutes, and I witnessed that, too. I don't want to paint Kornheiser as unreasonable, so let's assume for the sake of argument that Sampras at least intimated the "thanks . . . victory" line. (He could have intimated the thanksgiving, I suppose; however, Sampras is Greek Orthodox Christian, and most sports stars who utter the full statement are of evangelical Protestant persuasion, not that Kornheiser would necessarily know the rather large difference.) Kornheiser's rant could basically be reduced to the common rebuttal line of "God (if one exists) doesn't care about the outcome of the game."

That might be true (I sort of hope it is, actually), but suffice it to say that Kornheiser was making a definitive statement that another person's faith/belief system is just plain wrong. Even more than wrong---pathetically stupid and with no clue of the Almighty's tight logistics schedule. In essence, Kornheiser showed intolerance to Sampras' spiritual belief. (Well, first he assumed it, and then he showed the intolerance.)

In today's column, Kornheiser writes: "I'm not a history teacher, but I believe one of the founding principles of this country was religious tolerance." Sure. Yet, one could argue based on his past radio rants that Kornheiser is quite intolerant of those who express their own religious beliefs.

Now, there's quite a difference between "thanks . . . victory" and "Jews . . . doomed." I recognize that. However, unless Ryan Church is a really nefarious creature, he has no actual power to doom any person of Jewish faith, and I sincerely doubt when he's kneeling at bedside his supplications include fitting in some good damnation for the sons and daughters of Abraham. Certainly, the belief that certain people (and, lest I note, not certain people, but quite a broad swath of humanity) are doomed strikes the so-called doomees (and quite a few of the chosen, too, I'd suspect) as unseemly. But a belief's a belief, and I see no evidence that Church is doing anything to act out anything filed under "Anathema." I do see that Kornheiser is intolerant of an intolerant belief, though.

3. Of course, Kornheiser has a point: Church would have been much better off keeping his trap shut and his yapper zippered. Talk about bad P.R., baby!

4. Yet, ultimately, Kornheiser's being overly dramatic and, as Rocket suggested, off-target. If he wants to be enraged, that's fine---but he shouldn't insinuate extra-horrible things about Church (read the beginning of the column) and should instead focus his ire on the guy who most deserves it. And thus, finally, I get to the real subject of this issue:

Tony Tavares.

The guy's the team president, of course. Since the team has no owner (or 29 of them; big difference, huh?), Tavares is the man in charge. The buck stops with him; no one gets to the Nats but through him.

You don't believe me? Ye of little faith. Check out dude's authority in the Post's follow-up article:

Tavares said that the choice of chaplain was made by the players, and that the Nationals would be glad to make similar provisions for Catholics, Jews, Muslims and others who work for the club.

"But one of the cautions I intend to give anyone who comes in here is, these are private services and should be kept private," he said. "I'm not trying to change anyone's religion or beliefs. I just cannot provide a public pulpit."

Yes! With authority!

Where in the---dare I say it?---hell was Tavares before this? He didn't notice some chaplain who seems to summon his players to chapel quite a lot? He didn't notice that this chaplain is an evangelical Christian? He doesn't know the evangelical Christian view of salvation by faith alone? He didn't notice that team-sponsored chaplains are a huge presence in team locker rooms today, thanks to the encouragement of team executives like him? He didn't notice that such ministries have been profiled countless times, in all forms of media? He didn't notice a Washington Post reporter trotting around his locker room at RFK, asking his players about how cool they think their chaplain is? He didn't notice his players answering the reporter's questions?

Come now.

The real doofus in this mess isn't Ryan Church, who at least believes---however inarticulately---something millions of others do. And it's not Jon Moeller, who at least preaches what countless pastors and chaplains do. No, the real doofus is Tony Tavares.

Tavares admitted the chaplain. Tavares knows what the Baseball Chapel preaches. Tavares knows that Baseball Chapel has been profiled recently in another cosmopolitan newspaper. He knew it was only a matter of time because Moeller's chapter gained notice.

Or he should have known all these things. Just as he should have advised his players of what topics would open his team up to ridicule. As I can see, Tavares did nothing of the sort. Instead, he's ripped the credentials of a guy whose message was known to him well before the publication of this article, and he's let his own player dangle in the wind.

Tony Kornheiser could have written a substantive indictment of Tony Tavares' mismanagement of his team's own public relations. Instead, Kornheiser penned an eight-paragraph rant. To each his own---I'm a tolerant guy---but this column does nothing to inform, nothing to heal, and certainly nothing to consider.

It's a nothing column, just like most of Kornheiser's these days.

___________________

One final point: It occurs to me that everything Tavares should have known, Kornheiser also should have, too. Kornheiser's covered dozens and dozens---if not hundreds and hundreds---of evangelical Christian athletes in his day. How do I know? Because Kornheiser's covered professional football, and that sport above all is filled to the brim with WWJD-ishness.

Did Tony K. admire Darrell Green? I can't say, but I suspect he did, on some level. Green was a great player, a team leader, a respected veteran, and seemingly a perfect gentleman. Green's also an evangelical Christian. What is more, Green is a Champion for Christ and believes "fighting God" is a "dangerous thing to do." To that end, Green involves himself in typically-evangelical causes, like fighting gay marriage.

Green is also, in the estimation of Kornheiser's buddy Wilbon, heroic. Does Kornheiser also believe that? Who knows.

But it would appear that two things separate Darrell Green from Ryan Church:

---> Church actually said what Green (among others) believes; and,
---> Church is an outrageously easy mark.

Dear Baseball Prospectus,

2005-09-20T12:53:00.000-04:00

Your Hit List stinks! Stinks!

Yes, I've seen your apologia, and I understand to the best of my ability what you're trying to accomplish. In addition, I could care less who ranks first or second or third. That stuff's trifling; it's just a friendly shuffle of cards among playoff teams.

No, I'm talking about the New York Mets---the No. 11 ranked New York Mets. Explain that one, Pendejos. Be advised that any sentence containing the phrase "first-, second- and third-order winning percentages" will cause me to hit the Red Button. Don't try me.

Really, I understand what you're doing. And I understand what you're trying to do:

In coming up with a means to rank the teams, I wanted to find a way that gave weight to various categories of performance without overcompensating for any of them. That includes actual winning percentage, but goes beyond to try to get a truer picture of what's going on than simple wins, losses and run totals will tell you.

It's a noble goal, but shall I suggest that you might be undercompensating one category: actual wins? I shall.

There's a reason why the season lasts 162 games. Well, actually, there isn't; that's as arbitrary as changing the college "Top 20" to the "Top 25" some years ago. But, after 162 games, the season truly ends. Adjusted Pennants are not distributed, and Adjusted Standings do not carry over to the next spring.

The Mets might truly be the eleventh-strongest big league team this season (though I doubt it), but they haven't honored your good faith. Given fifty more games, they might eventually get around to challenging the Phillies (No. 10) or the Astros (No. 9)---but, blessed be Lord Selig, they won't get the chance. Well, they will get the chance to draw even, but it will be early next April, and the respective records will be 0-0.

And what about those Florida Marlins? The Mets would have to condescend a bit on the list just to see those guys, as the Fish are ranked No. 16. (Actually, the Mets will see the Marlins soon enough, as in tonight. Go Mets!) The Mets are 73-76, partaking in an en foldo after getting hot in late August; the Marlins are 79-71, eyeing a difficult road ahead but at least still well in the playoff hunt. Yet, not only are the Mets ranked ahead, but by five slots!

Please don't misunderstand; I don't advocate simple reliance on won/lost records. If I did, then this blogster would have been prepared to swing some playoff tickets back in early July. But, whatever your formula is to account for actual and first-, second-, and third-order adjusted records, don't you think that the actual won/lost results might be a bit underrepresented?

I don't claim to know how to help you, but Yuda might: "Winning percentage needs to be weighted more heavily—perhaps even on a sliding scale as the year progresses." Sounds reasonable. If it's already weighed heavily, then hand it over to Eric Gregg for fixing. If it's already implemented on a sliding scale, slide it harder.

Because, honestly, any system that informs you the Mets are the eleventh best team in baseball should embarrass you to no end that it has your name and goodwill attached.

Sincerely,

Nats blogger who aims not to project a dog in the fight, though he confesses to find it curious that the Nats, at an admittedly lucky 77-73, are ranked No. 20 and surrounded by teams eight and fourteen games below break-even.

IsoPow? bang-zoom...

2005-09-19T00:08:00.000-04:00

During the Nats' halcyon days of late June, I noted that our boys enjoyed a tremendous advantage in peripheral stats at RFK Stadium. More than anything else, I figured this advantage contributed to some sparkling home field play:

So far, the Nats' opponents haven't really adapted to RFK, and as a result, every home game is a feast day for the Good Guys. Opponents are slightly less patient than the Nats at RFK, but their batting average is way down and their isolated power is half-a-man short.To reinforce the point one last time, let's see the side-by-side comparison of RFK-based figures, with Washington's listed first:

Who  IsoPat IsoPow
Nats .081   .141
Opp  .074   .091

In short, this is a tremendous home field advantage for the Nats; thus, it of course comes as no surprise that Washington's 27-10 at home with a 2.86 staff ERA.

Let's review for a moment: A FIFTY POINT ADVANTAGE IN ISOLATED POWER! I don't know what that really means, but it sounds pretty good!

The effect was caused by several factors. In that post, I pointed out a "smarter" approach the Nats' hitters adopted at home. In addition, the pitchers were healthy, lucky, and probably lucky another time over. (The pitching staff is heavily flyball-inclined---a 1.04 G/F ratio, as opposed to an NL average of 1.26---and that inclination is not as severely punished in a vast crater like RFK.)

The Nats are 13-22 at home since then (and the home ERA has risen to 3.43), and as you might expect, the gap in the peripheral stats has closed. Well, that's half-right, actually: the gap in "Isolated Patience" (OPB-BA) has grown ever-so-slightly (though Nats' batters have been less patient since that earlier report), but the "Isolated Power" (SLG-BA) advantage has narrowed considerably:

Who  IsoPat IsoPow
Nats .079   .128
Opp  .069   .115

To put it simply, RFK Stadium isn't the advantage for the Nats that it was back in the good old days of bouncy seats and "Bang! Zoom!" and an indomitable bullpen. But then, I guess we already knew that by now.

Broke Down Engine

2005-09-18T22:11:00.000-04:00

Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no drivin' wheel, Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no drivin' wheel. You all been down and lonesome, you know just how a poor man feels.

Been shooting craps and gambling, momma, and I done got broke, Been shooting craps and gambling, momma, and I done got broke, I done pawned my pistol, baby, my best clothes been sold.

Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord.

I went down in my praying ground, fell on my bended knees, I went down in my praying ground, fell on my bended knees, I ain't cryin' for no religion, Lord, give me back my good gal please.

Can't you hear me, baby, rappin' on your door? Can't you hear me, baby, rappin' on your door? Now you hear me tappin', tappin' across your floor.

Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no whistle or bell, Feel like a broke-down engine, ain't got no whistle or bell, If you're a real hot momma, come take away Daddy's weeping spell.

MVP

2005-09-16T12:19:00.000-04:00

On the drive home yesterday, I heard Mets' general manager-turned-ESPN pundit Steve Phillips discussing the National League Most Valuable Player race. (I would say it's not really a "race" per se, as Andruw Jones and Albert Pujols, for instance, are not competing head-to-head. Then I remembered that, starting today, the Houston Astros are completely disassociated from the other teams in the NL wild card "race.")

Phillips cast his radio vote for Jones. In doing so, he said something that seemed odd to me, that "If I were to start a team today, I'd take Pujols, hands down"---but also stated that this preference had nothing to do with selecting an MVP. I'm not sure how to disagree with him except to say that his first statement (the one in quotes) seemed to describe "most valuable" pretty well.

In today's Washington Post chat,* Tom Boswell opined that the MVP is Jones, and "it's not close." Boz makes the positional adjustment argument in favor of Jones, but also adds what I'll call the "good-but-not-great bonus," which is expressed in lots of media outlets about this time of the year:

Cards were going to win their division even if
Pujols had an average year. Without a MONSTER career season for Andruw, the Braves might not even have made the playoffs as a wildcard. To me, Jones DEFINES an MVP year a great player rising to another level for months when his team desperately needs him.

This line of thinking---which, based on my recollection, has really taken off in the wild card era---essentially punishes players on great teams, such as this year's Cardinals. It does so in two ways:

1. It minimizes the player's contribution by placing a surcharge on the value of his teammates; invariably, this helps bring teammates, who are good-but-not-great (compared to the MVP candidate), to the fore of the discussion and dilute the star's value to his own team. To paraphrase Rob Dibble of XM's MLB Homeplate, who I also heard in yesterday's afternoon drive: "Look at David Eckstein. He works hard, plays great defense, is a sparkplug at the top of the order. He gets the thing rolling. Albert Pujols is a great, great player, but Eckstein's just as import to the Cardinals' success, in my opinion." This is a textbook example.

2. The good-but-not-great reasoning simultaneously credits the candidacy of a star on a good-but-not-great team. With the great team's postseason berth all-but locked up (or now clinched), the focus turns to those berths that are still open. A star situated on one of these teams now can be seen as "carrying his teammates on his back"---either now or at some critical point earlier in the season, as Jones clearly did. The effect becomes strangely different than the one displaced on the similarly-situated player on a great team; instead of having his value muddled with the value of his teammates, the value of the star of the good-but-not-great team is sort of placed in a "separate segrated fund," isolated from that of his teammates. This year, it's a particularly strange effect, because rookie sensation Jeff Francouer (SI coverboy!) receives tremendous praise, but his presence seems to be forgotten when Jones' MVP candidacy is discussed.

Note that I'm not advocating Francouer's contributions should at all minimize Jones' stellar season; no doubt, Andruw Jones has been a shining star this year. I'm only suggesting that Pujols' greatness is being overshadowed by the superior quality of his teammates. Re-read Boz's answer to witness this effect. He characterizes Jones' season as a MONSTER year, but says nothing praiseworthy of Pujols at all. He merely states the obvious that the Cards are a great team and then denigrates Pujols' defensive value (which, in the abstract, is a valid point). The effect, while perhaps unfair, made more sense in recent seasons, when Pujols was star among stars of a great team but was nevertheless clearly outclassed by Barry Bonds.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are your thoughts? I don't just mean "Who should be the NL (or AL) MVP?" but also "What makes an MVP?"

* Expect rather scathing criticism from my blogging colleagues to emerge from this chat, concerning other subjects.

Bangus Zoomius

2005-09-15T20:10:00.000-04:00

Meet the Mets, beat (the crap out of) the Mets!

The Washington Nationals jumped out ahead of the New York Mets today, then fell behind, then caught up, and then won it in extra innings, 6-5. I neither saw nor heard the game, but it sure seemed thrilling.

When Vinny Castilla singled home the go-ahead run in the top of the tenth and Gary Majewski, method-acting as closer for a "tired" Chief Cordero, slammed the door in the bottom, the Nats had swept the tank-tanking-tanked Mets for their first series sweep in a long time---about six weeks, I think.

[A moment of rare but earned praise for shortstop/millstone Cristian Guzman, who had his second good game in three, going 2-for-4, homering, and raising his batting average to a comparatively rarified .204. Guzman, it should be noted in all fairness, is playing good ball in September, with a 777 OPS before today's game. His second half stats are now slightly better than those before the all-star break, though still wretched, of course.]

The latest Metropolitan conquest puts the Nats at 76 wins, which blows the spring prediction of seemingly half the Natty bloggers back then, including mine. I'm delighted to be wrong.

"How wrong" is the really big question, isn't it? I've decided to do concurrent "Operation: X!" trackers above: 82 is for honor, and 87 is for glory. We'll see.

As for more important matters, the wild card is still a (remote) possibility. Three games are down on the 12-game Mets/Pads/Giants/Mets spree, and we're three up in that ledger. I'll tell you this: take those nine remaining games, and if our guys win seven, then we've got a fair shot at seeing baseball beyond October 2 (even for one day).

________________

From Rocket Bill's notes:

---> Jose Guillen sat today, but purportedly not in redress for his bat-chucking meltdown last night. Okay---Frank Robinson says he's 50/50 for tomorrow night's game in San Diego owing to a hamstring deal. (Not bronchitis?) Robinson also guarantees Guillen will be suspended but suspects the appeal will carry over to next season. Fine with me, as long as Guillen doesn't take that as license to impale the ump next time.

---> Music update! No music. If ever there was a time for your vintage, Disney-fied "Ain't No Moutain High Enough" group number, it was after today's victory. Instead, Frobby sang. Talk about deterrence!

---> There's nothing like seeing your hot prospect and future star wear women's clothing, but that's what we had today, as the rookies (including Dutch Zimmerman) bore the brunt of rookie hazing. No on the music, but yes on the blue maternity dress? Poor Ryan Church; that's two years in a row for him.

---> Brian Schneider is missing time to a sore right shoulder. Given the alternative of Gary Bennett, the team really needs to splurge and bring in Mr. Miyagi for that clap-rub thing. Do it, Tavares.

Vargas: "Why you gotta play me like that, dog?"

2005-09-15T19:27:00.000-04:00

You know who we haven't heard from in awhile? Claudio Vargas. Let's check in on what's up with I, Claudio:

Claudio Vargas says he doesn't pay much attention to his old club, the Washington Nationals, but he knows enough to
realize they could use someone like him right now.

Oh, right. That. The whole waiving him thing.

Well, when was that . . . late May? Time rolls on, bygones-be-bygones, seven-times-seventy . . .

"I think now I'm in the real big leagues," Vargas said. "In the past, in Montreal and Washington, it's terrible down there."

Hum.

He said he has heard from a former teammate that players are unhappy in Washington. Vargas has said he didn't feel as though manager Frank Robinson had confidence in him . . .

Frank Robinson doesn't have confidence in many pitchers under the age of 30 (they're not part of the solution; they're part of the problem), and Vargas' performance as a Nat wouldn't even have made Joel Osteen smile. But go on---

[H]e doesn't seem to think much of the Nationals' general manager, either.

Really? Nor do I! Do tell, Claudio:

"People tell me that the GM they have now, Jim Bowden, he's crazy," Vargas said. "He doesn't think before he does a lot of things."

Bowden seems to qualify as a megalomaniac; that's a kind of mental illness, perhaps. And his roster moves evince a sort of hair-brained whimsy that suggest a lack of foresight. Claudio's sources seem like gold. I wonder who they could be?

I know, I know: sour grapes. That's certainly the case, and Vargas is an ex-Nat (and an ex-Nat who's enjoyed success in a new hometown), so we should care not a little bit about him. Maybe we should even dislike him--- and I'll tell you what, Vargas has aided mightily in that process. Early returns are in, and a rather vituperative reception is in the offing. I can see that, and it makes sense.

Still, I don't know. Meh. Just insinuating myself in Vargas' shoes for a second, I can guess from where he comes. He signs with the organization, puts in his time, pitches well for the big league club in 2003, has an injury year, a new clown takes over the GM's seat, he comes back from injury and gets his brains bashed in, and the clown DFA's him, then waives him (when he had an option year remaining, mind you), and he's snapped up quickly by another team. He's in that team's rotation in no time, and he's trying to reestablish himself.

It's certainly sour grapes, but I think I can understand the feeling.

"It was a good death."

2005-09-15T12:15:00.000-04:00

"The ways of the Mets are long and pointless."

The New York Mets have a 0.43885% chance of claiming the National League's wild card berth. What were their odds at the outset of the current three-game series versus the Washington Nationals? Probably not much higher; however, it's safe to say that the Nats have taken the Mets' closed coffin, nailed it shut and now, thanks to last night's 6-3 victory, dropped the thing ignominuously in the cold, damp dirt. It's kind of gratifying, in a sense, obliterating the last vestiges of a team's hope.

Our team's hope, on the other hand, keeps hanging on---though it's hanging on life support. These two wins have kicked off a 12-game whirlwind in which the Nats play the Mets (in New York), the Padres (in San Diego), the Giants (in Washington), and the Mets again (at RFK---ah, blessed constancy!). Ten games remain of this below-.500 extravaganza, and I think the Nats need to win eight of them to keep hope alive. Such a peformance would still likely require taking four-of-six from the Marlins (down there) and the Phillies (at RFK), who just so happen to be in front of the Nats in the standings at current. There's also the Astros to worry about, who after tonight's game with the Marlins will be lone-wolfing it on a pretty easy schedule the rest of the way.

So, come to think of it, sweeping out the Mets/Pads/Giants/Mets might be quite advisable, though not at all realistic.

_____________

Last night's win was a nice one. Unlike Monday's game, which was rather dependent on poor fundamentals by the Mets, last evening marked a solid all-around offensive effort for the Nats. They squandered some opportunities, but still led 3-0. They then supplied the necessary finishing kick, and the progression from Loiaza-to-Majewski-to-Cordero was basically no worries.

Solid performances abounded: Nick Johnson hit the ball with authority; Preston Wilson knocked the snot out of a home run ball; Brad Wilkerson played smart ball; Gary Bennett, breaking out of Frank Robinson's recent and strict left-right catching platoon because of Brian Schneider's bum wing, actually supplied offense, ducksnorting an RBI single to short right; and Vinny Castilla, bouncing back from a nonchalant first inning error that would make the rawest rookie (or Ryan Zimmerman) wince with embarrassment, cranked out a dinger of his own.

Oh, and there was Jose Guillen's "performance," too. Mark Zuckerman notes in today's Washington Times that Guillen's been mouthing off more-and-more in the clubhouse lately, and that attitude spilled over to the playing field. Ejected by home plate umpire Bill Miller in the fifth inning, Guillen devoted the next few moments to a primo temper tantrum.

I didn't actually see the borderline (Zuckerman's description) third strike that raised Angry Man's ire, but I did take notice when the Mets' television announcers said, "Uh oh." I immediately knew it was Guillen. By this point he was merely ejected, but he was only warming up just the same. He took a minute to select his projectiles, and then he hurled stuff from the dugout onto the playing field. MSG color guy Fran "Doofus Voice" Healy was impressed that Guillen could toss four bats at one time with such precision. Hey, Guillen's got plenty of practice tossing stuff!

Honestly, if it wasn't so pathetic it would have been rather comical. But it was mainly pathetic. We---by which I mean Nats' fans, bloggers, etc.---make light and frequent mention of Guillen's anger management issues. We regard him, rightly or wrongly, as a timebomb waiting to go off. If it's "wrongly," it's wrong for the same reason why a defendant's seven previous robbery convictions aren't admissible in his robbery trial as proof he committed his particular robbery. Sure, Guillen's gone crazy before, but it's unseemly to use those incidents to demonstrate Guillen's bad character and use that bad character as evidence he was wrong (guilty) here. If he's guilty of being an idiot (or "idoit") in this one, it should be decided based on this one's facts, not by way of innuendo from something he did in Anaheim. Or so the reasoning would go, though I'm loosening things a bit, of course. And needless to say "the court of public opinion" isn't a court of law. Yadda yadda.

Of course, there are ways around that reasoning. One way is to use the evidence of the prior bad act(s) to demonstrate a plan or preparation or absence of mistake or accident. How is that done? (Loosely stated, of course.) What was the first thing he threw on the field in Anaheim? His helmet. And what was the first thing he threw on the field last night? According to St. Barry, it was his helmet.

Don't you see? The helmet-throwing is his signature! He decided to go on a rant, rummaged through the dugout for a good, hard helmet to chuck as his opening salvo, and exclaimed, "Bombs away! Get ready for the heavy lumber!"

Criticism-by-classification

2005-09-14T12:34:00.000-04:00

What utility does a blogger provide? What is the purpose of blogging?

If you say, "None," then you might be right. Really. However, this post also might not be for you.

For the rest of you, I might suggest that a baseball blog serves as supplemental insight and commentary, generally in an amateur fashion and generally on topics that professional media outlets cannot or are inclined not to devote their resources. But let's strip it down to essentials: we're talking about criticism.

Criticism is generally defined as the art of commenting, usually adversely. It comes in various forms; depending on the context, a given form might be appropriate. Sometimes a sheer, guttural rant is appropriate. Sometimes, a heady statistical analysis is appropriate. Sometimes, a call for protest is appropriate. Sometimes, a haiku might even be appropriate.

And, sometimes, what I'll call criticism-by-classification can be appropriate and, hopefully, enlightening. You might recall that I tried this tactic back in June with a post ("dazzingly intelligent") that attempted to frame the Robinson-Ohka situation in terms of the "crime control" and "reasonableness" models of discipline. I wasn't trying to argue that one view was inherently better or worse; precisely, that is the point: your view of a situation depends on context. I don't know (glowing reviews aside!) whether I was successful, but that was much of the intent.

Which brings me to the piece on Frank Robinson today at Capitol Punishment. For those who read that blog, you should know by now that Chris doesn't think much of . . . well, here are Chris' words:

I think it's pretty obvious that I'm not Frank
Robinson's biggest fan. Helluva player; Stinkpot of a manager.

Think this is going to turn into a sheer, guttural rant? Think again. What follows is a good example of criticism-by-classification.

There exist various different kinds of baseball teams: young, veteran, pitching-reliant, pitching-poor, take-n-rake, speedy, etc. A given manager will mesh well with some types (hopefully; why else would the guy be a manager?!), but he could be incompatible with others. This is truth; it's not offered for the sake of being "critical" (popular defintion: "a jerk").

Chris makes the solid case---completely aside from his feelings of Frank Robinson "personally"---that Robinson is ill-suited to manage this club. He does so, essentially, by classifying Frank:

[1] Frank is indicating that he prefers to work with a veteran team. That's fine. Different managers have different skill sets. Frank
is, essentially, admitting publicly that this team isn't the right fit for him as a manager. [. . .]

[2] Frank demands respect, yet he infrequently gives it to his players -- especially his pitchers

Let's take the second classification first, that Frank "does not work well with pitchers" (my words for sake of classification, not Chris'). Or maybe "some pitchers," if you prefer. Considering a team carries only 11 or 12 pitchers usually, "some" is still a substantial amount. And considering that, by a conservative estimate, about five have expressed displeasure with him this season, it's probably not unfair to say that "working with pitchers" is not Frank's strong suit.

Guess what? Frank has to; the team has little-to-no offense. Now, I'm willing to castigate Jim Bowden for acting the wastrel with what used to be a bounty of back-end-of-the-rotation types, but let's be honest: he was a co-conspirator, not the lone gunman. During the first half, the team had one main strength: pitching. Without losing sight of the fact that the team ERA has dropped in the second half, let's note that this team, which is four games out of the playoffs, has now adopted the "kitchen sink" strategy four or five times. It worked last night, blessedly, but it hadn't previously.

Frank Robinson butted heads with pitchers this team could have used. I'm not judging whether he was correct or incorrect in those situations; however, I will note, as I did before, that what works initially might not work later. This team was pitching-reliant, and Robinson played a role in, well, diverting that strength. In September, we have seen the effects; starting pitching (at times inseparable from the relief pitching) is a weakness now.

Thus, one could reasonably note that Frank Robinson's strengths as a manager do not include pitching-reliant teams---at least at this stage of his managing career.

The other criticism-by-classification, though, is the really substantial one. This team must get young; many of its veterans, including some Robinson started last night, are assured of not being 2006 Washington Nationals. Yet, not only did Robinson play them, but he fiercely defends on principle his decision to play them. It is good to have principles, but it is quite clear Frank Robinson is suited (at this stage of his managing career) to head veteran teams. The Nats might not have much (or any) farm system to speak of, but one must believe that the team will focus on obtaining a younger nucleus, or else face years of stagnation and mediocrity.

No one wants that, least of whom will be the new ownership (whoever it is). Frank Robinson, even if we were to acknowledge his strengths, does not represent the appropriate classficiation of manager to serve as the skipper into the future.

Now, I've predicted that Robinson will be back in '06 and that chances are he would be fired toward the middle of the season, with the team's record a near-reflection next June of what is was this June. It's my prediction---and, as predictions go, might or might not be accurate. It might also be my position of what should happen to Robinson (i.e., Frank should be brought back for another go), though I haven't thought about it enough yet. Instead, I've usually thought of it as Bowden-or-Frank?, in which case Frank wins in my book.

Nevertheless, Chris lays out a good indictment against Robinson now. What's an indictment? It's an instrument reflecting a provable belief that one's actions did not meet certain elements of societally-accepted conduct (or, rather, that one's actions met elements of criminal conduct). The key is that it must spell out the elements of the offense. For the Washington Nationals, anticipating their needs next year, unacceptable elements of managing would be:

a) doesn't trust young players; and,
b) doesn't work well with pitchers.

I'm not saying the jury will convict, but I'm saying this is indictable.

And, like the way our justice system should operate, this indictment (when we separate it from personal sentiment, likes, and dislikes) has been returned dispassionately and according to objective elements.

In other words, criticism-by-classification.

Never underestimate the Mets

2005-09-14T06:25:00.000-04:00

"And this is how you handle bunts, Mr. Met." "Interesting!"

Overheard at Mets' spring training camp, Port St. Lucie, late February 2005:

"Jacobs! No no no, Jacobs! When you field the bunt, don't triple-pump before you make the play. Load and explode. Load and explode, baby! Don't hesitat --- Castro! Castro! What in the Sam Hill are you doing? When you field a bunt, don't run three paces and then toss the ball high underhand! You'll overthrow the first baseman every time!"

They didn't learn, coach.

The New York Mets proved, among other things, incapable of effectively fielding bunts Tuesday night during their 4-2 loss at Shea Stadium---which is fortunate, because the bunt ranks highly among the Washington Nationals' favorite plays.

Managing for the future, Frank Robinson broke out the following Nos. 4-8 in Tuesday's lineup:

---> Preston Wilson, CF (free agent; gone).
---> Vinny Castilla, 3B (old, perhaps replaced by a hotshot, and also really old).
---> Deivi Cruz, SS (free agent; gone).
---> Gary Bennett, C (fungible back-up catcher, de facto platoon partner).
---> Cristian Guzman, SS (nonsensical free agent signing).

Depressing!

Yet, by happy fortune, Guzman last night enjoyed one of maybe a half-dozen good games this season; he went 3-for-4 all told, raising his batting average to a lofty .204. Leading off the third, Guzman stroked a ground-rule double to right field. The next batter, emergency starting pitcher Hector Carrasco, laid down a sacrifice bunt---which seconds later would be scored a sacrifice bunt/fielder's choice when first baseman Mike Jacobs, who had Guzman dead-to-rights at third, held the ball too long. Brad Wilkerson singled in Guzman, and the rally was on. Marlon Byrd and P-Wil also delivered run-scoring hits, and the Nats had wiped out a one-run deficit (acquired by the Mets when Castilla misplayed a Tom Glavine grounder into an infield hit).

Guzman also marked his presence in the ninth, when the Nats added another run. Bennett's, uh, platoon partner, Brian Schneider, who entered the game in the bottom of the eighth, led off with a single to right. Guzman then laid down a well-placed bunt; catcher Ramon Castro fielded it in time to nip Guzman at first but instead took a couple steps and then tossed the ball high, high in the air. It arched high above the first baseman and landed well beyond anyone's reach. Schneider, hustling the whole way, scored from first.

That was more than enough for the Nats' kitchen sink pitching staff, which was not quite so stacked last night. Carrasco---who apparently didn't know he'd start until yesterday afternoon, although we all pretty much knew it on Monday night---turned in a four-inning outing for the first time since August 6, 1998. (Thanks, Retrosheet!) He surrendered two runs but was generally in command, striking out six New York batters. Four relievers, including Gary Majewski, who was deemed the winning pitcher based on two innings of effective relief, closed the door.

Majewski was enabled by Jose Offerman's baserunning gaffe in the bottom of the seventh. Offerman reached via walk and then, perhaps pondering how first baseman Brad Wilkerson could draw more walks by being more aggressive at the plate, induced teammate Kaz Matsui into an 8-4 fielder's choice when he didn't run on Matsui's sharp liner to Wilson. That was pretty much the Mets' last threat.

A month or two ago, one could have reasonably expected at least one NL East team to fall off the pace. Who would it be? Philly? Florida? The Nats? Never underestimate the Mets.

_____________

A game ball of sorts goes to displaced manager Frobby, who was ejected but before that committed himself to squeezing an extra inning or two out of Carrasco. Big Hector looked pretty much gassed by the end of his outing, but Robinson effectively "shortened the game" and kept his middle and short relief manageable. Bravo, Frank!

Almost makes you forget that starting lineup . . .

____________

As if there wasn't enough evil in the world, Jeff Smulyan reminds us he's still out there, plotting. Smulyan, who aspires to own the Nats even though he appeared thoroughly miserable owning the Seattle Mariners a decade ago, is trying to solidify his campaign by adding local interests. Two words: Please and no.

October 1, 2000: Boston @ Tampa Bay

2005-09-12T23:19:00.000-04:00

Bos: 2 9 0
TB: 3 10 0

This was a truly memorable game, witnessed by 28,043 fans at Tropicana Field. (Twenty eight thousand fans? In Tampa?) Lot of noteworthy things occurred on this Sunday afternoon:

---> Steve Ontiveros, Boston reliever, appeared in his last big league game.
---> Jesus Pena, Boston reliever, appeared in his last big league game.
---> Sang-Hoon Lee, Boston reliever, appeared in his last big league game.
---> Rick Croushore, Boston reliever, appeared in his last big league game.
---> Dan Wheeler, Tampa Bay reliever, got his first big league win.

Oh, and Hector Carrasco was referred to as "starting pitcher" for the first and only time in his career . . .

. . . until Tuesday evening. (Well, maybe; Rocket Bill notes that Esteban Loiaza might go on three days' rest, and St. Barry refers to a mysterious "different approach" Frank Robinson plans to take with respect to his bullpen-by-kitchen-sink gameplan of late.)

Carrasco's line? Not bad, though a little lucky, it would appear: 2 IP, 4 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 2 SO. He also committed a balk---though, strangely, Paul Schrieber wasn't involved. (I looked it up!)

If it is Carrasco getting the call tomorrow, what can we expect? Well, considering Robinson pulled his starter after getting two outs a week ago, I wouldn't even venture to guess. But his game log reveals a handful of two-inning appearances this season. Retrosheet informs me that the last time Carrasco went three innings in a big league game was 2001. Obviously, one should not expect any more than that, if that.

[Insert snarky "I wonder what happened to all the Nats' starting pitching" comment here.]

_____________

It's White Flag Boz Tuesday at the Washington Post. Reality has sunk in for Father Foam Finger, and he's taken it with aplomb. Out with the old and in with the new, baby!

Right now, the players about whom the Nats most desperately want answers -- Ryan Zimmerman, Ryan Church, Marlon Byrd and (cue the "Bull Durham" theme) Rick Short -- are also the players who give them the best chance to score runs for a change and maybe make some noise down the stretch. [. . .]

Wasting these last three weeks by playing thoroughly known commodities such as Vinny Castilla, Cristian Guzman, Preston Wilson and (still hobbling) Jose Vidro would be a disservice to both this season and next year as well.

Really, the only guy among the top four who figures to be a mainstay for the next generation of Nats is Zimmerman; well, maybe Church will figure in somewhere, too. Nevertheless, as Boz notes, all four players are intriguing---which is more than you can say for the bottom four, who are mostly depressing.

The column is one of those something-for-all-tastes type of ventures. It contains eclectic observations from a Baseball Man (Jack McKeon, who saw Dutch Zimmerman make two errors at short and could only say Zimm would be great) and derision of scouts who discounted Short. Boz also gets in a great collateral slam on Jim Bowden:

"Load and explode, baby, load and explode," said GM Jim Bowden last week as he passed Byrd's locker, repeating a Paige mantra. "People are going to see a whole new Marlon
Byrd."

Not if he's sitting on the bench.

Boz also notes that the injury-prone Church is motivated because "some in the organization have questioned healing time in the past"---but, of course, doesn't acknowledge that he parroted the same lines in July.

Anyway, there's something for everybody here. Well, that's not entirely true; there's no mention of starting pitchers to help out. But that's easily explained: there aren't any left.

And that, my friends, is why Hector Carrasco will apparently receive Start Number Two tomorrow evening.

Clearly creamed

2005-09-12T22:56:00.000-04:00

I just watched the first at-bat back for Barry Bonds. On the tenth pitch, Bonds launched a shot deep into left-center. Initially, it looked like a homer; FoxSportsNet even did the "HR-Bonds (704)" scroll at the top of the screen.

Well, it turns out Jeffrey Maier was in attendance, or perhaps it was Jeffrey's ugly uncle. Either way, a fan reached out and caught the ball. What looked like a homer turned out to be a long, long double. Bonds scored a couple pitches later on a Ray Durham single.

Keep in mind that this was Bonds' first live at-bat of 2005. Love him or hate him, one has to concede that was pretty impressive.

Rob Dibble, wordsmith

2005-09-12T20:00:00.000-04:00

Heard on MLB Homeplate, XM 175, during the drive home:

"Albert Belle and Mo Vaughn were about equal in '95, but Mo was more egregious with the media, so he won the MVP."

Oooookay . . .

Bounce this!

2005-09-12T12:51:00.000-04:00

Would you believe a player could be so ugly that a team would consider him an attractive signing? That's Ben Weber for you, or so says Jeff "Certified" Angus, who explores the "Bounce-Back" player phenomenon at his Management by Baseball blog. Or maybe I should say "that was," though not because Weber is suddenly not-ugly. No, he's still quite ugly.

Weber, if you'll recall, parlayed his subpar looks and funkadelic delivery into three fine seasons (2001-03) out of the (former) Anaheim Angels' bullpen. Then he imploded badly last season (is it possible to implode well?) and entered the market with, as it were, zero market value. Somewhat counter-intuitively, I suppose, that's precisely what made Weber attractive to Cincinnati Reds' general manager Dan O'Brien.

That's because Weber was O'Brien's "bounce-back guy," and according to O'Brien, every team takes on one or two a season.

Although Weber didn't work out for the Reds (to say the least), Angus still noted the signing as well-considered; to that end, a bounce-back guy signing is a somewhat common move precisely because it's generally a safe move:

The key to correct application of a Bounce-Back Guy is to avoid the MBWT (Management by Wishful Thinking) lure of imagining he or she can lead you to a pennant. Bounce Back Guys are bad investments when you build a team around their success. [Julio] Franco was meant to be a bat off the bench and then a platoon partner; he succeeded beyond [Atlanta's] expectations. Low risk, good reward. Weber was meant to be a middle-reliever for a borderline maybe-contending team that couldn't fill up their roster with hot minor league relief prospects. When Weber's game didn't come back at AAA, they promoted a prospect. Low risk, low loss.

Basically, the keys are a) not to give up too much and b) not to dream for too much.

Who was/were the Nats' 2005 bounce-back guys? Without broadening the definition too much (I hope), we can point to at least three: Carlos Baerga (minor league free agent, envisioned as pinch-hitter); Hector Carrasco (minor league free agent, envisioned as middle relief depth); and Jeffrey Hammonds (minor league free agent, envisioned at most as platoon left fielder and fifth outfielder). One of those (Carrasco) hit big, and he's been used to substantial gain for the team; one of those (Hammonds) missed, but to no real loss to the team. The other one (Baerga) has done pretty much what the team expected.

I can think of two other candidates, actually. The first is Antonio "Toasty" Osuna, who was much like Carrasco except he signed a guaranteed, big league contract and blew up in April. And the other one?

Esteban Loiaza.

Think back to when Loiaza signed. (The formatting! Oh, my eyes!) The deal was for one year, at the cost of $2.9 million---though there's an additional catch, as I'll soon note. At the time of the signing, Jim Bowden acknowledged Loiaza represented a risk. But while the "Natosphere" wasn't generally enamored of the signing (there were other back-end rotation candidates already, by golly!), let's credit Bodes by characterizing the risk as "not that great." In point of fact, the Nats avoided a bidding war because Loiaza was coming off a horrid second half of '04; thus, E-Lo received no other "firm offers" for his services.

Further, did Bodes overreach in terms of Loiaza's anticipated contribution to the team? No, not really; he didn't even sound like he knew what he was buying:

"You just don't know what you're going to get," Bowden said. "Is he capable [of being a solid starter]? Absolutely. He's done it before. Will he do it for us? We don't know."

So, we've got a guy coming off a down year, a relatively low cost, and relatively low expectations. Sounds like a bounce-back guy to me. And, sure enough, Loiaza's come through in spades this season; he's by far Bowden's finest moment.

____________

Now, when the bounce-back guy actually goes ahead and bounces back, Angus notes, the guy carries a new kind of risk:

A worse application of the Bounce Back Guy tactic is when an organization buys into someone who has apparently bounced back and
believes the apex of the bounce is either the beginning of a new uptick in accomplishment or a new assumed level of performance.
This brings us right back to Esteban Loaiza---whose contract, it turns out, carries a mutual option for another $2.9 million next season. The option, of course, is not what concerns me; $2.9 million has been a tremendous bargain this season, and I'd almost assure it would be next year, too. Thus, you bet your bippy that Loiaza will decline the thing and aim toward free agency. Loiaza indicated he'd love to stay in Washington, but his agent sounded more concerned with, you know . . .

. . . money.

Now, Loiaza's certainly worth re-signing, but not as an absolute matter. There's a reasonable threshold of money and term that the Nats (whoever is calling the shots by then) must not breach. Loiaza's been quite good this season, but let us still remember that he's not getting any younger and he's a bounce-back guy. Tread wisely.

_____________

It's inevitable that the Nats will try out a bounce-back guy or two next season. Any candidates?

The illusion never fades into something real . . .

2005-09-11T23:37:00.000-04:00

. . . and I can't remember the rest of the song---which is no great loss, since it was an insubstantial late-90s pop song. There was something about the Australian lady "lying naked on the floor," and that admittedly is a more intriguing concept than the rest of the Washington Nationals' season, in all likelihood.

Ah yes, there was also something about being "all out of faith." And that---finally, lamentably, inexorably---is the only reasonable posture to take with respect to the Nats' wild card hopes, after this afternoon's heartbreaking loss to the Atlanta Braves. The postseason? An illusion. A winning season? Now, maybe that'll be something real.

The illusion has been a persistent one, I'll give it that. Pick a random date, progress week-by-week or so thereafter, and you'll see:

---> On July 24, the Nats were tied for the wild card lead (and the NL East lead).
---> On July 31, the Nats trailed in the wild card race by 2.0 games.
---> On August 7, the Nats trailed by 2.0 games.
---> On August 14, the Nats trailed by 1.0 game.
---> On August 21, the Nats trailed by 1.5 games.
---> On August 28, the Nats trailed by 2.5 games.
---> On September 4, the Nats trailed by 2.0 games.
---> And on September 11, the Nats trail by 4.0 games.

How can you call your team out of a race when it (until the last few days) never dips more than a field goal out of the lead? In a sense, you can't. And, in another sense, you couldn't; the Nats had all those late-season home games in-hand, as Thomas Boswell kept reminding us. The home games could well coincide with the end of the Nats' "dry spell" (to use the term Boz inexplicably used to describe July and August), and this improbable season of joy might well continue past October 2 unabated.

The home games, of course, have largely been duds. Yet, as with Friday night's games, there have been just enough salvationary moments to keep the faith alive; well, those and rather inexplicable recent crunk-ups by Philly (mid-week) and Houston (this weekend). Even now, it's still theoretically possible to noodle a final, super-attenuated last-stand scenario for the Nats, which includes a lot of fringe considerations (including the Marlins perhaps needing to sweep the Astros in Houston) but basically boils down to the Nats turning into Robo-Cop for these final 18 games.

But don't.

It's not going to happen, folks---and not even a big win or even a thrilling in-game comeback (as today's certainly qualified) is going to change the evaluation this time. It's lamentably simple:

1) The frontrunners have games-in-hand on the Nats, which is a deficit when the Nats truly need that luxury.

More importantly, however,

2) The Nats aren't capable of sweeping-out an opponent, like Florida on the road in the final week or Philly at home to end the season.

So we can't put off the inevitable any longer. We've used up "we'll get 'em in September, with all those home games." That reasoning ended with a 4-6 homestand, when the Nats really needed at least the reverse.

Remember June fondly, but don't rely on it. June is not going to rematerialize and rescue the season. June's over, and the season soon will be, too.

But what a season it's been.

___________________

One note on today's loss, in which the Nats wrestled victory from the jaws of defeat but lost anyway, as Chad Cordero surrendered back-to-back homers to the Jones Boys and blew his third save against Atlanta:

There are two outs in the top of the ninth, and pinch-runner Pete Orr stands on first base. The Chief has fallen behind Chipper Jones, two balls and no strikes. Andruw Jones, who's hit more homers before 9 a.m. than your average slugger does all day, stands on deck. You lead by one run.

What do you do?

---> do you walk Larry Wayne, who despite his injury year is still pretty potent (better OPS than Andruw) and has the platoon advantage on the Chief?
---> and, if so, you know you've just put the potential winning run on base, right?
---> but you're not going to pitch to Andruw, right?
---> if not, you know you just loaded the bases, right?
---> and, in so doing, you know you've just put that winning run in second position for Todd Hollandsworth, who also has the platoon advantage, right?

You pitch to Chipper, don't you?

"We still believe"

2005-09-10T10:42:00.000-04:00

So proclaims Carlos Baerga, as recounted in St. Barry's gamer of last night's improbable, come-from-behind, 8-6 victory over the Atlanta Braves.

Okay, okay: maybe it wasn't so improbable; Jose Guillen's game-winning double, the 1,000th hit of his career, came against Danny Kolb. The Nats kill Danny Kolb. So does, for that matter, the entire 2005 National League.

Nevertheless, it was a great victory. I tuned in on-and-off and found no legitimate reason to believe the Nats would come back from a 6-2 middle-inning deficit. But come back they did, and in resounding fashion. On the radio, Charlie Slowes---so desperate for a thrilling burst at the end---sounded out a booming "Bang! Zoom!" after Chief Cordero recorded the final out of his franchise record 44th save. The "boom" was equal parts the fireworks and Charlie apparently rustling his microphone in excitement somehow. (The replay of the call was edited back into something a bit more coherent.)

Perhaps it was inevitable, then, that St. Barry would conjure the heady days of June:

The joyous days of June? Or the sad days of September? For a moment last night, it was hard to tell. This team has been embattled, embittered, upset and uninspired. Still, they rise for one more morning, and they're in it.

Yes, I suppose they are. (The Wild Card Tracker says so, and Jose Guillen would seem to believe so, too; he remarked that the Nats would have been "done" with a loss last night.) Let's hope that by mid-afternoon today they're still in it.

______________

Last night's game seems like one of those make-good 17th holes during a round of golf. This "map isn't drawn to scale," but the team---like a round of golf from yours truly---got an early lay of the land, set into a great groove, began playing indifferently just after the mid-way point, saw its game fall completely apart, and then rebounded with a wonderful and unlikely performance right near the end.

And last night's "17th hole" performance made the comments of Frank Robinson---who has at least appeared embattled, embittered, upset, and uninspired in recent weeks---all the more poignant:

"It may not look like it on the field," Robinson said. "But I'm with these guys in the clubhouse. They haven't quit. That's the one thing they haven't done."

Happy Thoughts Friday, September 9

2005-09-09T12:48:00.000-04:00

If ever we felt the need for one . . .

John Patterson is having a great breakout year for the Washington Nationals. (In keeping fidelity to the theme, we'll forget about last night for the purpose of this post.) Bob Cohn recently wrote a nice piece for the Washington Times on Patterson. It didn't just recount Patterson's success this season or his frustrations with the Diamondbacks' organization in past seasons. It went deeper and gleaned more insight from Patterson than we might have previously been given.

To that end, Cohn did not merely state, "Oh, Patterson's sure been a hard-luck pitcher." (Which he has, of course.) Instead, Cohn presented Patterson's perspective on the season-long lack of run support and an individual won-lost record (8-5) not commensurate with his sterling ERA. The following passage refers to a recent game in which Patterson entrusted closer Chad Cordero, the National League-leader in saves, with a ninth inning lead; Cordero, of course, blew the lead, but the Nats won in extra innings:

But Mr. Reliable blew the three-run lead in the ninth inning. It felt, Patterson said, "like somebody punched you in the stomach." Then the Nationals won in the 12th, and all was good. Earlier in the season Patterson might have pouted, sulked or otherwise showed a hissy side. Not anymore. "I can only handle what I can handle," he said. "My job is to go out and pitch and keep the team in the game for as long as I can. Personal victories don't mean as much as a team victory."

I like the world view. Personal "credit" stats for pitchers (wins, losses, saves), in my opinion, are prone to serving counter-productive purposes. A good won-lost record can hide a bad ERA and obscure the possibility that a pitcher is declining; on the other hand, an artificially poor won-lost record can prejudice a team's evaluation of a young and aspiring pitcher, or it can obfuscate an investigation into a possible free agent bargain. A mediocre pitcher can rack up lots of saves and consequently earn far too much money. (Such is not the case with Cordero, of course.)

Thus, I feel that looking solely at a won-lost record---or at least so much so, at the detriment of other indicators---is a beknighted view. It is a team game, after all, and MASN analyst Ron Darling believes Patterson recognizes this truth:

"A lot of pitchers say, 'When I start I just
want the team to win,' but few really believe it," Nationals TV analyst and former big league pitcher Ron Darling said. "They want to win. But John Patterson comes close to really believing that."

Patterson, 27, is a genuine talent, one who has battled back from injury and confidence issues. His acquisition from Arizona for lefty reliever Randy Choate is a bright mark on the ledger of former Expos' GM Omar Minaya, who has drawn considerable blame (certainly justified to an extent, but how much is legitimate one cannot really know) for stripping the organization of its future resources. Since his arrival to the Expos/Nats, the team's instructors have done him right, too:

He worked on the alterations that pitching coach Randy St. Clair [sic] made to his delivery. And he did it alone. With Arizona, Patterson said, different coaches always were suggesting different things.

Cohn describes Patterson as "the Nationals' fourth starter at best" coming into the season, which in itself might be overstating things. He was not envisioned as making the rotation, according to the Magic Dry Erase Board. He only made the rotation because an injury to Tony Armas, Jr. (I'd note "one of many," but that also wouldn't fit with today's theme), and even a dynamite first start against the Marlins "[didn't] change his status overnight," according to manager Frank Robinson.

Patterson has thrived since then, wrestling the opportunity from others cast aside and pitching like an ace, only experiencing a slighy blip around May or June. When I recall this 2005 season years from now, John Patterson will be near the top of my memory.

And hopefully, like the Nats themselves, this is just the beginning.

Four score and then eight more

2005-09-08T00:22:00.000-04:00

If Wednesday night's match-up against the Florida Marlins truly was a must-win game, the Washington Nationals posted the worst such performance since the Battle of Actium. On the bright side, at least Frank Robinson, unlike Mark Antony, actually noticed that his bullpen fleet was set on fire and thus annihilated.

Not much to say about this one, friends. The "kitchen sink" strategy did not envision the garbage disposal getting clogged, I suppose. Truth be told, twelve runs later, I'm running out of metaphors. More performances like this one, and even I won't fall prey to the abusive cycle to which Nationalz recently referred. Something positive? Outside of Rick Short homering, you tell me.

St. Barry's gamer displays what one might consider a mystified response to Robinson's ultra-quick hook of purported starter John Halama. In one night, Robinson has progressed from "Tony La Russa's 1993 experiment with short starting stints" to "trying that experiment while on speed." Halama lasted but two-thirds of an inning tonight. I'm sure he looked like crap, and we're near the end of the line here, so I'm not going to second guess a move I couldn't evaluate with my own eyes.

Speaking of St. Barry and the starting pitching, my criticism of him Wednesday morning was either premature or ill-considered; at any rate, he's providing a fuller picture of our mournful lack of depth now:

But the last two nights -- in which the Nationals started one rookie, Darrell Rasner, and one journeyman, Halama, in the heat of a playoff chase -- have served as a stark reminder of all the pitching the Nationals have traded away or lost to waivers. Zach Day, Tomo Ohka, Claudio Vargas and Sun Woo Kim all struggled with Washington. But in these lean days, when the only healthy body they have in return for those four is outfielder Preston Wilson, having even one back would be considered a bonus.

Now we're a "Jim Bowden didn't need to waive Vargas because he still had an option year" reference away from pretty much the complete tune.

____________________

Frank Robinson wants a four-man rotation; on the other hand, Randy St. Claire doesn't.

Robinson has hand, Randy. And he's gonna use it.

___________________

We in the so-called Natosphere make light of Jose Guillen's apparent (actual?) instability. I think I called him a misanthrope earlier in the season; if so, I'm sure I meant it in the best way possible. Anyway, we give him a hard time, but underneath all that Crazy, he seems to have Genuinely Good Heart. From Svrluga's notes column (linked above):

Right fielder Jose Guillen said he is prepared to make donations to victims of Hurricane Katrina based on his performance for the rest of the season. He said he would give $1,000 for every home run he hits, $200 per RBI and his entire playoff share to evacuees.

Guillen also stated that he would like to host a meal for evacuees being housed at the D.C. Armony. Recall that he earlier donated money to injured veterans of the Iraqi war.

This also seems like a good time to mention that Jamey Carroll was named the Nats' '05 Roberto Clemente Award nominee. Somehow, he beat out Preston Wilson for the award, which honors community service. Rocket Bill chronicles Carroll's good deeds.

So, on this night in which the Nats played like misfits, let us remember that they are really winners. Well, off the field, at least.

Dontrelle vs. An Army of Twelve

2005-09-07T16:55:00.000-04:00

It's a must-win, folks:

1. There's only 23 games left, and the "We'll get 'em at home" line needs to be backed up.

2. The Phillies aren't upholding their end of the bargain of beating the Astros.

3. The Nats need to beat the Marlins so that the Marlins can beat the Astros.

I know "must-win" is more cliched than "MA-ROONEY!!!" but I don't see any other way. At a minimum, the Nats need to finish 15-8. That's 87-75; it might be enough to hold off the other NL East teams, but getting the Astros to 75 losses has become even tougher, given Philly's intransigence the past two evenings.

Can the Nats even do it? Here's the remaining schedule, assuming a five-man rotation:

---> Tonight vs. Florida (Halama)
---> Thursday vs. Florida (Patterson)
---> Friday vs. Atlanta (Loaiza)
---> Saturday vs. Atlanta (¡LIVAN!)
---> Sunday vs. Atlanta (Rasner?)
---> 9/12 (Off-day)
---> 9/13 at New York (Patterson)
---> 9/14 at New York (Loaiza)
---> 9/15 at New York (Hernandez)
---> 9/16 at San Diego (Halama)
---> 9/17 at San Diego (Rasner?---Patterson on three days' rest?)
---> 9/18 at San Diego (Patterson, assuming)
---> 9/19 (Off-day)
---> 9/20 vs. San Francisco (Loiaza)
---> 9/21 vs. San Francisco (Hernandez)
---> 9/22 vs. San Francisco (Halama)
---> 9/23 vs. New York (Patterson)
---> 9/24 vs. New York (Rasner?)
---> 9/25 vs. New York (Loiaza)
---> 9/26 at Florida (Hernandez)
---> 9/27 at Florida (Halama)
---> 9/28 at Florida (Patterson)
---> 9/29 (Off-day)
---> 9/30 vs. Philadelphia (Loaiza)
---> 10/1 vs. Philadelphia (Hernandez)
---> 10/2 vs. Philadelphia (Patterson---on three days' rest, assuming it's needed).

Well, I tried. I can't really anticipate what Frank Robinson's going to do precisely with respect to the off-days and the fifth turn in the rotation. Generally, though, I estimate:

---> Patterson: six starts, assuming he's needed on 10/2.
---> ¡LIVAN!: five starts.
---> Loaiza: five starts.
---> Halama (assuming he's still the fourth man): four starts.
---> Rasner/fifth starter flotsam: three starts

And that equals 23 starts remaining.

It's a tight leash, dog. The Nats either need the Big Three (which is to say, the only three legitimate big league starters remaining on the active roster) to be invulnerable the rest of the way, or Halama and/or (preferably and) the fifth starter's spot to step up in a most unanticipated fashion.

Alternatively, the Big Three need to eat innings like there's no tomorrow, and then Robinson needs to throw the kitchen sink at the opposition in the remaining games. (And both "squads" need to be effective.) That plan started last night, and it generally went well.

Which reminds me: the offense needs to score, too.

At any rate, lose tonight, and our guys need 15-7 the rest of the way, probably at a minimum. That three-game winning streak was nice, but it can't be followed by a losing streak.

Really, it can't---or it's time to start booking reservations for fantasy camp, Brian.

Couldn't fit the word count

2005-09-07T07:05:00.000-04:00

From St. Barry's gamer of last night's disappointing 4-2 loss to the Florida Marlins:

Such is the flawed nature of the teams in this wild-card race that a has-been veteran, Valdez, faced off against a kid who had never appeared in a major league game before, Rasner. The more surprising participant was Rasner, a 24-year-old who spent the entire season with Class AA
Harrisburg and was forced into the situation because of injuries to starters Ryan Drese and Tony Armas Jr.

Actually, add some elipses(es?) here, because there's a bit more information that didn't make it into the game story:

. . . because of injuries to starters Ryan Drese and Tony Armas Jr., as well as transactions by general manager Jim Bowden that rid the team of its back-end-of-the-rotation pitching depth, including Tomo Ohka, Zach Day, Claudio Vargas, and Sunny Kim. The first two had run-ins with
manager Frank Robinson, and the latter two were let go for no compensation whatsoever.

There, it reads a little more completely now.

Mark Zuckerman of the WashTimes equates Rasner's start with Matt White's a couple weeks back. Zuckerman, like St. Barry, also focused heavily on the Nats' anemic attack against journeyman opponent Ismael Valdez (not Valdes anymore) and noted that the crowd of just under 25,000, well, stunk:

It was the second-smallest home crowd of the year for the Nationals, ahead only the 23,966 that turned out April 18 to see them play these same Marlins -- and it underscored several key points. First, school's back in session. Second, football season is upon us. And third, this town doesn't appear ready to declare the Nationals (72-67) back in the race just yet.

Let's hope tonight changes that perception; all the guys have to do is beat Dontrelle Willis. The Nats' starter? No, it's not a raw rookie. This time, it's their own journeyman, John Halama.

No sweat.

________________

The last two games, MLB.tv has carried the Marlins' TV feed. The announcers are nothing special, but the commercials blow MASN's package out of the water and back in again:

1) The meal-ticket spot, without doubt, belongs to a car dealer named "Maroone" (pronounced "MA-ROONEY!!!"). Think car dealer comercial, Dan Marino, theme to Ghostbusters ("When you need a car, van or truck, who you gonna call? MA-ROONEY!!!") There are also variations without Marino.

2) A commercial for an auto parts dealer in which a monkey apparently passes gas. Pure hilarity!

3) A Baccardi commercial in which a midget dances with two supermodels. Genuine class.

September 6, 1995

2005-09-06T18:30:00.000-04:00

I'm not going to start one of those lame "Where were you?" threads, but I'll tell you want I was doing when this happened: I was just returning from a German class I'd drop a few days later. Hielsgeschicte, Batman!

Maybe this will diminish my DC fan street-cred, and I don't care: I love Cal Ripken, Jr. I love the way he quietly played the game, and I love the way he effectively played the game. If you denigrate him, I'll be sure to cut in and defend him to the death. Try me. Neverthless, the premise of Kermit the Kurkjian's article (linked above) is nonsense. I regard Ripken's consecutive games played record the way Bill James regarded Lou Gehrig's consecutive games played record: it's not invincible, because there's no reason why someone exceptional can't come along and beat it.

Or, as Rene Gonzales put it, there's no reason why some "alien" can't come along. In every generation of players, there's going to be "humans" at most every aspect of play. There will also be the "freaks" or the "aliens." Even if the common ballplayer is not as tough or dedicated as before (and, as we know, "old ballplayers never die"), nothing really rules out some freak coming along that obliterates the consecutive games played record.

Of course, one or two more "aliens" and the record truly might be unattainable, even for subsequent freaks of nature. But Ripken pushed the record ahead by only three more years, and there's still room for someone in the future to operate. Or at least I see no real reason why there can't be.

On the lighter side, check out Jayson Stark's look at the "anti-Ripkens". He's got the old reliable Pascual Perez getting lost story, sure, but there are a couple (Jeff Juden's infected tattoo; Junior Felix's strained hip flexor suffered while sliding between Mike Henneman's legs) that I didn't recall.

In other news . . .

2005-09-06T13:22:00.000-04:00

. . . Cristian Guzman will not be allowed to give birth on live television, but his baby may be shown briefly on camera, the Dutch Social Affairs ministry ruled Tuesday.

The baby can be shown on camera once per day for eight days, and must otherwise be kept in the clubhouse or a corner of the dugout where no filming takes place. When Guzman is playing---which, considering Jose Vidro's latest injury woes, improbably seems will be a frequent occurrence---recent minor league call-up Ryan Zimmerman will babysit.

"We've been trying to develop Zimm into a well-rounded ballplayer and caretaker," Washington Nationals Vice President and General Manager Jim Bowden said. "That is why we are sending him to the Arizona Fall League after the postseason is over."

Love is patient, love is kind, love is never slow to hack at the first pitch

2005-09-06T12:29:00.000-04:00

Over at the Hardball Times, Dan "Agonistes" Fox takes a gander at pitch data today. He's apparently trying to determine whether such data (e.g., "Pitches per Plate Appearance," "First Pitch Swing Percentage," etc.) are valuable tools for performance analysis. Fox seems to conclude the information, as a whole, has limited utility to that end.

Pardon me for being provincial, but I guess I'm more interested in seeing where individual Nats show up on his lists. And here they are, ranked among "the 473 players who had at least 500 plate appearances between 2000 and 2004":

---> Deivi Cruz: No. 5, "Least Pitches per Plate Appearance" (3.15); and,
---> Vinny Castilla: No. 4, "Highest First Pitch Swing Percentage" (47.7%).

We hardly know the recently-acquired Cruz; well, we as Washington Nationals' fans hardly do. As for others, including me, who have followed the Baltimore Orioles in recent years, well, let's just say that yesterday's early-count hacks against the Florida Marlins were not the least bit surprising.

Nor should Castilla's rank in first-pitching-swinging come as a surprise. Frank Robinson expressed severe consternation over this tendency back in June, and---although I of course don't have access to this season's data---I'd reckon he has not taught this old dog any new tricks.

One MILL-ION Dollars . . .

2005-09-06T06:43:00.000-04:00

. . . or some tickets. Close enough!

It's a contest from CaptialWeather.com. Compete!

CONTEST: We have a couple extra tickets for Thursday's game against theMarlins. By 4pm today [ed: Tuesday] predict the
gametime temperature for Tonight's game for a chance to win the tickets. Send all guesses to feedback@capitalweather.com This contest is displayed in CapitalWeather.com's exclusive NatCast feature at http://www.capitalweather.com (loads about 5 secs after page appears)Thanks, Jason Samenow, CapitalWeather.com Chief Meteorologist

Fidelity to Casto

2005-09-05T09:44:00.000-04:00

As noted over at Nationals Farm Authority, the organization appears set on converting Potomac third baseman Kory Casto to second base---or at least attempting the conversion in the upcoming Dominican Instructional League. (The move is a sign that third base is once again regarded as the sole projected spot for Ryan "Z Man the He Man"* Zimmerman.)

Casto turns 24 in December, and he's yet to face a pitcher at the Double-A level; thus, I'm rather skeptical of his strong production (.288/.391/.501) at High-A Potomac. Perceiving him as a touch or two too old for his level (as many Nats' position player prospects are) is probably a knee-jerk reaction, and maybe I shouldn't be making it. I've never seen Casto play, but if Baseball America's review of him is to be trusted, concern should be leveled at Casto's defense, not his bat. From BA's 2005 Prospect Handbook:

. . . If Casto reaches the big leagues, it will be on the strength of his bat. . . . There are scouts who question whether Casto can even become an average defensive third baseman. His hands are stiff, his feet are heavy, and he lacks instincts. . . .If Casto doesn't figure at third base, he may have enough bat for left or right field.

Keep in mind that essentially a full season has transpired since this review was published, and maybe it was ill-considered in the first place. Who knows? Hopefully, the organization knows more about Casto's defensive abilities than a publication (even a respected one like BA). Regardless, let us hope that the alleged stiff hands and heavy feet no longer figure into an evaluation of Casto's defense, because such characteristics would not tend to mix well with the keystone.

I suspect---but I don't know, of course---that a successful switch to second base would be Casto's surest route to the majors. He's blocked at third base, of course, and I'm not sure we can project his bat to an outfield corner.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves; as noted, Casto hasn't even unpackaged his bags at Double-A yet.

* Makes "Dutch" sound positively inspired, doesn't it?

The first rule of the clubhouse . . .

2005-09-04T21:34:00.000-04:00

. . . THERE IS NO MUSIC IN THE CLUBHOUSE!!!

Man alive, I take a few days off, and all I read about is this clubhouse music business! Esteban Loaiza pitches an eleven-strikeout gem today, leading the Nats to victory, and what is the theme of Rocket Bill's gamer? This ban on music, that's what:

A few minutes after the Nationals wrapped up their 6-1 win over the Phillies at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium on Sunday afternoon, some of the Nats asked manager Frank Robinson if they could play some music in the clubhouse. The answer was no. Robinson, who banned music, card games, video games and cell phones in the clubhouse after Thursday's loss to the Braves, said they could start playing the music on Oct. 3, which is the day after the last game of the regular season.

Rocket Bill's story is supplemented by another one this evening, involving the mystery of who keyed up the boom-box following last night's harrowing yet thrilling 12-inning victory.

So, who is behind this music? No one knows, but Frank's hunting down the leads:

Robinson asked outfielder Jose Guillen and reliever Joey Eischen if they turned the music on, but both said they didn't. Shortly thereafter, the music was turned off. In fact, Guillen said before the music was turned on, he went out of the clubhouse to make sure that he wasn't blamed. [. . .] As of Sunday morning, Robinson still didn't know who turned the music on.

This musical moratorium is so pervasive a story that it's even inspired inter-publication intrigue. This morning, Ken Wright of the Washington Times seemed to imply that Guillen begged out of Friday's lineup as an act of defiance against Robinson's anti-music edict. I'm not sure if that even makes sense, but Guillen started neither Friday nor Saturday night, Robinson was alternatively evasive or instransigent in (not) explaining why, and Guillen was quoted by Wright sounding very much like Jose Guillen---which is to say, the gentle reader had no idea what the hell the guy was talking about, anyway.

Wright's angle didn't survive Guillen's scrutiny, who sounded off in Rocket Bill's notes column linked above. And Rocket Bill was naming names:

Guillen was very upset after Sunday's game because the Washington Times reported that he asked out of Friday's game because of Robinson's strict rules in the clubhouse. Guillen said the report in the newspaper was false. In fact, Robinson told the media Friday that Guillen was hurt and wanted to give him the day off.

Well, that makes sense; of course, in Wright's article, Robinson is not nearly so candid. Whatever. At any rate, Guillen's not speaking to the media until the Times publishes a retraction. But I guess he spoke to Rocket Bill, anyway. I wonder if this means St. Barry is punished as an innocent bystander.

As for Saturday night's sounds of celebration, Robinson will continue to search for the perpetrator's identity---and, once ascertained, presumably kill him. To Carlos Baerga, though, that seems a bit harsh:

Infielder Carlos Baerga, the team leader who keeps everybody loose in the clubhouse, said that until late last week, he had never seen strict rules enforced on a team during his 14 years in the big leagues. "Myself, I don't believe we are losing games because of the TV or the radio," Baerga said. "Everybody that puts on the uniform knows what they have to do to be ready for the game."

Nah, that sounds too reasonable.

___________________

Like Brian, I've gotta give Boz a little credit in this space; it comes fairly infrequently, you know.

Just a couple days ago, Thomas Boswell participated in a rather heavy-handed, foam-fingered Washington Post chat. Included in the discussion were a laughable defense of Jim Bowden and a rather ridiculous assertion that Preston Wilson would either be traded or resigned---when, as one chatter pointed out, neither consequence is a possibility at all. But my favorite bit of fanboyism was in Boz's introduction/greeting:

In any case, barely noticed it seems to me, is that the Nats stabalized themselves about three weeks ago and have gone 10-10 after their series in Houston.

Ooookay. Keep in mind he was just idiotically accusing the other NL East wild card competitors of stagnating. These teams had, at the time of the column, won 12-out-of-20 and 15-out-of-25---that kind of thing. The Nats split 20 games (7-10 against teams other than the Colorado Rockies), and Boz is flinging whoo like it's going out of style.

But, thanks to a column exhibit the unending faith he possesses, Boz deserves praise. He doggedly refers to the entire months of July and August as "dry spells" and "stagnant, ugly periods." He's infuriating, but he's consistent.

Here's what the NL East looked like on July 3:

TEAM  W  L  PCT  GB
Wash  50 31 .617 --
Atl   45 37 .545 5.5
Fla   42 37 .532 7.0
Phil  41 41 .500 9.5
NY    40 41 .494 10.0

And here's what the teams have done since then:

TEAM  W  L  GB
Atl   33 22 --
Phil  32 23 1.0
NY    30 25 3.0
Fla   30 27 4.0
Wash  21 35 12.5

In two months, the Nats lost 11.5 games to the Phillies, 9.5 to the Mets, and 8.5 to the Marlins. (Who even cares about the Braves at this point?) That's neither dry nor stagnant; that's despicable.

Indeed, as of Saturday morning, the Nats had surrendered 13.5 games to the Phillies since early July. They trailed the Phillies by four full in the "real" wild card standings. Yet good ol' Boz is as constant as he is faithful, and he was only going to worry when he deemed it time to do so.

By Saturday morning, it was time to do so. But he was calm in his worries:

Eventually, the time for patience expires and only deeds, not excuses, will suffice. For the Nats, that time is now. Their numerals are backed against their mis-marked walls. [. . .] But don't start the funeral too quickly. The weak-hitting Nats may get a large break at exactly when they need it. [. . .] In the next two games, which are as close to "must wins" as baseball provides with 27 games left in a season, Washington will send two of its best pitchers, John Patterson and Esteban Loaiza, against a pair of emergency starters for the Phils -- Eude Brito and Gavin Floyd (14.14 ERA), who aren't even part of Philadelphia's normal rotation.

You know what? Boz was right! As he noted, the Nats forfeited Friday night, with their own fill-in starter (John Halama). Then the Nats turned about and did enough against Brito and Floyd; not a lot, mind you, but enough (five runs in ten innings). They also sufficiently battered the Phils' bullpen and stayed afoot following a ninth inning roundhouse to Chief Cordero on Saturday night.

In the end, sure enough, Boz came out smellin' like a rose: the Natty Nats claimed the last two, won the series, and currently sit two games back. This was the first leg of Boz's grand success scenario, and perhaps we should trust him on it:

By a fluke of the way pitching rotations fall, the Nats will escape meeting five fine starting pitchers during this RFK stand -- Brett Myers and Jon Lieber of the Phils in the next two games, A.J. Burnett of the Marlins and both John Smoltz and Tim Hudson of the Braves. Instead, they'll see those teams' No. 4 and 5 starters, names such as Jason Vargas, Ismael Valdez and Jorge Sosa.

And so we hit Labor Day, and the thought occurs to me that maybe Boz's foam-finger is wise. The question can't be "Are the Nats out of it?" because it's ridiculous to rule out a team that's two (or four) games back with nearly a month to play. The better question is not "Can they win it?" (Of course they can; anything's possible.) Instead, the better question is "Is it likely the Nats will win it?"

In a five team race, I'm not sure any team is likely to win it. But the Nats' chances just got better over the weekend, by which I mean they demonstrated they still have a chance. And some chance is better than none at all, which I think we could all conclude would have been the estimate had the two games gone in the opposite direction.

Two games back instead of six; yeah, I can live with that.

______________

Of course, it's still not best to get too carried away here. The two wins certainly saved the season---if temporarily, perhaps---but they could not save "Operation: 89!" I knew that was too optimistic, but I went for it, anyway. Nevertheless, an 18-7 finish is not going to happen. It might still have to, given Houston's schedule, but hopefully 86 or 87 wins will suffice. We'll see.

To that end, I've dumped "Operation: 89!" and am taking a more conventional approach in the new "Wild Card Tracker."

You'll see that I'm "rooting for" Philly to defeat Houston tomorrow. My rooting interest will have to depend to a great degree on what the Nats do on a given day (for instance, we cannot root for Philly to win too much and grab a five-game advantage by Wednesday if the Nats start losing), but at least for tomorrow we have to hope Houston loses. The Astros are the one team whose schedule is not regulated by the wild card race. Boswell calls them "the elephant in the room" and the point is taken; the NL East competitors have to beat each other up, and they have to help beat up the Astros when they can.

Here is Houston's remaining schedule; I'll eyeball some reasonable results while I'm at it:

---> 3 at Philly (1-2);
---> 3 at Milwaukee (2-1);
---> 4 vs. Florida (2-2);
---> 3 vs. Milwaukee (2-1);
---> 4 at Pittsburgh (3-1);
---> 3 at Chicago (2-1);
---> 2 at St. Louis (1-1); and,
---> 4 vs. Chicago (3-1).

I suppose the predictions are reasonable. Maybe Houston gets hot and sweeps all these jokers aside, or maybe the offense continues to sputter and Pittsburgh destroys Houston's season. But these seem reasonable, if a bit conservative.

The Astros are currently 72-64; this estimate adds ten losses, for a final tally of 88-74. That would represent a mightly speedy pace car for our Nats, who would need a 17-8 finish to force a one-game playoff (or, rather, -in) game. So we have to hope Philly holds serve (but not too well) and Florida holds its own at Minute Maid Park. It would really help if the Brewers prove the able spoiler many believe they will be, Lloyd McClendon inspires the Pirates' players to save his job, or the Cubs grow a spine. The Cardinals could also use those two games to their maximum effect, too. That would be nice.

Well, it will be tough, but it still can be done---I think. But at least we're not at the point where it can't be.

Rueckel Report, September 1

2005-09-01T12:40:00.000-04:00

The Outright this! edition

I know, I know. It's only been a couple of days since the last, rather mournful report. Well, it's near the end of the season, and I want to pack in a couple more updates.

Oh, and Baby Ruckles just tossed a kick-butt performance, too:

---> August 31: 3 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 4 SO (credited with save in 5-3 Harrisburg victory over Reading).

[By the way, be sure to read the game summary thread by CHIP over at the BPG board. He recounts a triple play that occurred in the game. Unfortunately, it was turned against the Senators and involved a momentary lapse of reason by Ryan Zimmerman. Consider it a last hurrah for Zimmerman, who's now a big leaguer.]

SEASON TO DATE:

G  IP  H  R  ER HR BB SO W  L ERA  SV
52 77  81 36 32 6  19 69 9  5 3.74 7

________________

Brick drops an interesting factoid:

Jason Bergmann shares his birthday with Danny Rueckel, September 25, but is one year younger than Baby Ruckles. Should it be Baby Bergmann?

Good question.

The funny thing with "Baby Ruckles"---if you've ever wondered of the derivation---is that I had no part in its creation. For the story, check out the very first Rueckel Report, specifically the first comment by "The Natsural." It's totally a product of Charlie Brotman, the RFK Stadium sound system, and a creative interpretation thereof. I've proferred other nicknames, such as "Grand Master Ruckus," but "Baby Ruckles" is the one that's most reoccurred here, by a wide margin.

Oh, and check out the fifth comment; it's from Poppa Ruckles. I'm sure I've long scared him away (and I'm sure there's probably a restraining order prohibiting me from setting foot in an Eastern League park), but that was pretty cool.

_______________

Ever wonder what a Rueckel Report from "Across the Pond" would look like? Me too!

We're in luck, then, because Pete from Donutball has created the Alex Smit Dispatches, in which he follows the aforementioned Nederlandse Honkballer.

Smit, 19, is a reliever in the Twins' system. He pitched this season for Elizabethton in the Appy League. So, it's not really an "Across the Pond" thing? Oh, but it is; Smit pitched for the Dutch in last year's Olympics, and he's a member of the Dutch squad that will compete in the World Cup, which begins tomorrow. (This is different from next spring's "World Baseball Classic"; Pete is hopeful Smit will make the team for that.)

In addition to providing an interesting narrative, Pete drops a great number of familiar names in this update, including: Gene Kingsdale, Calvin Maduro, Randall Simon, "Bam Bam" Meulens, and Davey Johnson (the US coach, as it were). Furthermore, Pete inserts a quote from Dutch coach "Robert A. Hoorn," who might very well be former big leaguer Robert Eenhoorn---who, Bill James once quipped, played in the "Oolympics."

Baseball, international intrigue, stalker-ish following of a player . . . don't miss The Alex Smit Dispatches, people!

Nepotism, eh?

2005-09-01T12:14:00.000-04:00

There are certain things of which a Major League Baseball announcer need not be familiar---the Periodic Table of Elements or Jack Nicholson's monologue/diabtribe at the end of A Few Good Men, for instance. Other things, however, . . . .

"One thing I hadn't heard of until recently is
that [Nick] Johnson is the nephew of Larry Bowa . . . "

---Chip Caray, Braves' radio, August 31, 2005, Game 1, top of the fifth inning.

How could any sentient being receive regular paychecks to announce baseball games and not know this "until recently"? If you follow baseball, you knew this by the late 90s. You'd say, "Hey, that's Johnson. Oh yeah, he had a .545 OBP at Norwich and is related to Larry Bowa."

Nick Johnson has played for the Yankees. He's played in a World Series. He's been in the league for close to five years now. He was the DHL delivery guy on FOX's pregame show last Saturday, for pete's sake! He's not an anonymous player, and he sure as heckfire doesn't have an anonymous uncle in Bowa.

Everybody knows their relationship by now. My dog is even familiar with it, and English isn't her first language.

Chip Caray, n. Def: Idiot.

I don't know, Dei.....vi

2005-08-30T22:24:00.000-04:00

God bless the internet. Rocket Bill gets the scoop on the Deivi Cruz trade, beating the print guys. Here's the Cruz trade "In a box":

WHO: Deivi Cruz, formerly of the San Francisco Giants, an infielder hitting .268/.301/.397.

WHAT: Acquired for minor league reliever Ben Cox. Nationals Farm Authority has the skinny on Cox, who looks to lack much in the way of a distinguishing feature except for substandard control.

WHEN: Cruz will join the team tomorrow and should be in Atlanta in time for the second game of the twin-bill.

WHERE: Cruz, who can play all infield positions, most likely will replace Cristian Guzman as the starting shortstop.

WHY: Because Guzman stinks (and the second- and third basemen---Vidro and Castilla, respectively---are both hobbling).

HOW: The Nats will have to send down a player for a day in order to fit in Cruz on the 25-man roster. The most likely candidate is reliever Jay Bergmann, who was impressive tonight in relief for John Patterson (see below) and probably wouldn't pitch tomorrow anyway. He'd likely be back on Thursday, when the roster expands.

A couple other notes, courtesy of Rocket Bill:

---> Cruz will be a free agent after the season; we're on the hook for $136,000 of his $800,000 salary.

---> Cruz is being brought in to "jumpstart the offense," which is laughable but sadly relevant from a certain point of view; he certainly packs more of a punch than Guzman or Jamey Carroll, not that we're breaking any news there.

Here's Bodes:

"I need to give [Robinson] some choices. Between this trade and our callups on Thursday, he has some more choices. We are going to have some fresh legs and some fresh bodies. Maybe they will spark the guys we have now. ... We are going to do what we can to jumpstart us and get some energy. It gives us some depth. It gives us protection."

Yeah, you're a real hero.

---> Brandon Watson, Kenny Kelly, Ty Godwin (toolsy outfielders: be fruitful and multiple!) and reliever Bill Bray likely will be recalled when rosters expand.

Finally, and most interestingly:

---> Rocket Bill reports that Ryan Zimmerman will be called up and take over as the regular third baseman.

Like all things Zimmerman, I'll believe it when I see it. As Brian notes, the acquisition of Cruz more than likely moots out the Zimmerman-to-shortstop switch, which looked dead in the water anyway when Zimmerman moved back to third at Harrisburg recently.

I saw no way the Zimmerman switch would come to big league fruition at the time---

My take is that this won't happen; Zimmerman won't start a single game at shortstop this season for the Washington Nationals. The whole story sounds like one of Jim Bowden's grandiose chimeras, if you ask me. It's little different than Brandon Watson representing that speed demon the team needs to turn the corner. That vision lasted all of four
games.

---and I'm naturally skeptical that Zimmerman will supplant a veteran as the "regular" anything. But we'll see.

____________________

The Nats took (or, rather, stole) a big one tonight, one of those games they shouldn't have any right winning on the face of it and that could come in handy down the road in September. The bullpen was the key:

Rookie Jason Bergman [sic] earned his first major league win, leading a Washington bullpen that pitched 6 1-3 shutout innings in the Nationals' 3-2 victory over the Atlanta Braves [. . .] After Washington starter John Patterson was limited to 2 2-3 innings by stomach cramps, Bergman pitched two shutout innings in his second major league appearance to lead a strong effort by the Washington bullpen. He also scored the tying run in the fifth.

Carrasco, Majewski, and Cordero followed to shut down the Bravos. In the ninth, The Chief battled through---if you believe MASN play-by-play guy Mel Proctor---the tightest squeeze since Joanie & Chachi. But it couldn't have been done without Bergmann, a 23 year-old rookie.

Back in early June, as part of my extraneous duties as Rueckel Report correspondent, I dished out some praise for Bergmann:

[A] 23 year-old converted starter. He split 2004 at High-A Savannah (ineffective starter) and Low-A Brevard County
(effective reliever). His numbers so far (30 IP, 23 H, 12 BB, 27) are very strong, though perhaps not indicative of an ERA in the low ones. But if a non-Rueckel from the Harrisburg pen is going to get the Nats' attention, I think it has to be Bergmann at this point. Baseball America rated Bergmann the No. 22 prospect in the system prior to the season. [. . .] Bergmann has been rather impressive so far and, if I had to guess, Bergmann will rank somewhere between No. 15-20 among the organization's prospects by season's end.

Maybe that's even an understatement, especially given the Nats' shallow farm system. Welcome to the big time, Jay Bergmann!

Rueckel Report, August 30

2005-08-30T19:32:00.000-04:00

The I'd like to outright Bodes, right out of town edition

Before I get to my recap-as-per-usual, there is---unfortunately---breaking news. Thank you to Brian from the Nationals Farm Authority for the tip. And now I have my confirmation from Pravda:

NATIONALS OUTRIGHT RIGHT-HANDER DANNY RUECKEL

Here's the full text of the announcement:

The Washington Nationals today outrighted right-handed pitcher Danny Rueckel to Harrisburg of the Double-A Eastern League. Nationals Vice President and General Manager Jim Bowden made the announcement. Rueckel, 25, is 9-5 with six saves and a 3.95 ERA (32 ER/74.0 IP) in 51 games out of the bullpen for Harrisburg this season.

There are many V-Chip worthy expressions I'd like to use under the circumstances, but they'd feel out of place in this generally PG-rated blog. So I'll refrain. Instead, I'd like to make use of this space to say two things:

1) Bodes, why you gotta play Baby Ruckles like that, dog?

2) Memo to Rocket Bill Ladson, because chances are you wrote that two-sentence masterpiece above: learn how to calculate a friggin' ERA.

Here, I'll show you. You've got the necessary components already (32 ER, 74 IP), but you don't know what to do with them, apparently. So, let's sound it out:

a) you take the earned runs allowed (32); then,

b) you multiply them by nine (32 x 9); then,

c) you take that new figure (288); and,

d) you divide by the innings pitched (74); so you get,

e) an ERA of 3.89.

It's 3.89, not 3.95! I know it doesn't mean much to you, but if you're going to issue a press release about a guy being outrighted---hence, forcibly removed from the 40-man roster by the idiot pretty boy GM---the least you could do is get the guy's ERA right, no?

I guess courtesy is dead these days.

__________________

As for the on-field stuff, that wasn't great, either:

---> August 25: 2 IP, 4 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 3 BB (?!), 1 SO, 1 HR (blown save in 4-3 Harrisburg defeat against Binghamton)
---> August 28: 1 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 1 SO (no decision in 5-1 victory over Erie)

SEASON TO DATE:

G  IP H  R  ER HR BB SO  W  L  ERA SV

51   74   81    36    32    6     19    65      9     5     3.89   6

_______________

What happened when Rueckel was outrighted to Harrisburg? Essentially, it means he was waived by the organization, no one else took a chance at him, and he was pulled back to Double-A. From the MLB Transactions Calendar:

MAY 3: Beginning today, outright assignments to the minor leagues may be made ONLY with Outright Waivers in effect

Rueckel wasn't going to be called up in September anyway, and the Nats needed the 40-man roster space (see below), and Rueckel can always be added to the 40-man again in the offseason (the Nats can "purchase his contract"). Unless he's exposed to the Rule V draft and has a route to the big leagues, that is . . .

__________________

As noted, the Nats needed the roster space, because BODES MADE A BIG MOVE, PEOPLE!!!

Get a load of your new shortstop, Nats Nation:

Deivi Cruz!

Sad as it is to say, Cruz is a better option at short than Guzman or Carroll. If Baby Ruckles is going to take a bullet for the team, it might as well be one that helps out. Just doing his part, he is.

Boz is a dreamer, and Kasten is a crazy man

2005-08-30T12:12:00.000-04:00

Dispatches from a couple of correspondents out to lunch in outer space:

---> Boz sees "no reason why [the wild card qualifier] couldn't be the Nats," assuming for the sake of argument they make it out of Atlanta alive:

As for Robinson and Bowden, they sometimes sound as if they've been reading "The Power of Negative Thinking." However, if the Nats grasp two central facts -- that their foes aren't very good and that (except for Houston) everybody faces incredibly difficult schedules -- then the Nats are perfectly capable of joining the rest of this Futile Five in a
September pennant-race frolic.

That's a rather weighty parenthetical Mr. Boswell tossed out there, but we'll get to that in a second. As for the rest of the "Futile Five":

Right now, the Nats think they have it bad. But they should look around. On Sunday, all five wild-card contenders lost.

One of said contenders lost at home; that would be the Nats, who just completed a 2-4 homestand. But should we mention that? Nah, there's no time.

Before anyone disparages the chances of the
humble Nats, read on. The Marlins, Phillies and Mets are probably already dead. They just don't know it yet.

If that's the case, DON'T TELL 'EM, BOZ! (You'll only angry up their blood.)

Florida's previous 24 games were against teams
with records of .500 or below. Now, all 31 games left on the Marlins' schedule are against currently winning teams. That's nuts. Has anybody ever heard of playing 24 straight losers followed immediately by 31 straight
winners?

I don't really know; have you?

If Florida was going to make a move, it should
have done it by now. It didn't. Soon, the floundering Fish will feel as if they've been tossed on dry land.

I'm a bit dubious as to this "floundering Fish" comment. I looked it up, and they went 13-11 in those 24 games. That's not great, certainly, but it's not horrid. Further, if Boz wanted to toss a "floundering" pun, then way back on August 8 was the opportune time. The Marlins were swept at Colorado, unbelievably, in a doubleheader. (Boz, no doubt: Oh yeah? The Nats swept the Rockies!!!) The Marlins took 12 of the final 19 games from the losing-record chuckleheads, before falling to the Cardinals yesterday in St. Louis (Game One of the Grueling Home Stretch).

I'm not saying that the Marlins don't have a tough road the rest of the way, but I'm not sure how a 12-8 stretch is evidence the team is floundering yet.

Regarding the Mets (admittedly, out of order a bit), Boz writes:

They've been coasting in a soft schedule since
the all-star break -- only two of 12 series against currently winning teams. The Mets, like the Marlins, should have made a move. Instead, they just stayed in the pack.

Boz is completely oblivious that the Mets have made a move! Remember, Boz is portraying the wild card race as it was on Saturday and Sunday, as a race to the bottom. Then keep this in mind:

The Mets have won seven out of their last ten games, 10 out of 15, and 12 out of 20. If only the Nats had won 12 out of their last 20 games, Boz!

I frankly don't get it. The Mets lost Saturday and Sunday in San Francisco; however, prior to those two losses, the Mets had won five in a row (including a complete FUBAR job on the Diamondbacks), seven of eight (taking two in a weekend series against the Nats that Boz presumably attended), and nine of eleven.

As for the Mets' schedule:

What the Mets face may be just as bad. Their
next 28 games are against teams with winning records, including 10 against the Braves and Cards! Most are also on the road. New York closes with four games at home against the pathetic Rockies. But will the Mets still be breathing by then?

Who knows? But I think Boz is minimizing the importance of FINISHING THE SEASON WITH THREE AT HOME WITH THE COLORADO ROCKIES!!!

And then we get to the Phillies:

The Phillies are in the same predicament. Like the Mets, their schedule has been friendly since July 19th -- two of 12 series against teams currently above .500. But did they build
a wild-card lead? No, they have merely stuck their nose ahead briefly.

I'm not quite sure what to say here. The Phillies have played .600 ball (15-10) in August so far. That they didn't "build a wild-card lead" is a testament to:

a) the fact that they were coming from something of a deficit (first against the Nats, then against the Astros); and,
b) the possibility---just the possibility---that the other NL East teams haven't floundered or squandered to the extent Boz is portraying.

Quite simply, Boz is projecting two days' worth of bad play onto all teams. Why? He's rationalizing a 2-4 homestand that needed to be 4-2 or 3-3, at worst.

Alright, now we're getting to the good stuff. This NL East junk is just the undercard. Remember back when Boz said there's no reason why the Nats couldn't be the wild card entrant in the postseason? You know, back earlier in the same column? We get to the curious case of the Houston Astros:

Everybody in this wild-card cluster has already started buckling, gagging, choking, bickering and spitting the bit. Nobody's happy. Nobody's confident or truly believes they're good. Almost everybody is utterly terrified of their schedule.

Follow the progression: "[e]verybody"; "[n]obody"; "[n]obody"; "[a]lmost everybody." Ah, it looks like a hedge! The parenthetical returns! Careful, children: it may take on different shapes!

If the final standings ended as they are now, the Nationals would play an astronomical 100 games this season against winning teams. At least other NL East clubs have had a similar
burden: the Mets would meet 103 winners, Philadelphia 93, Florida 90.

But what about Houston? As matters now stand, the Astros would play only 55 games against winning teams this year. The Mets 103. The Nats 100. The Astros 55. Okay, sure, that's fair. On Mars.

Oh, that's right! The Astros have an easy schedule. Why didn't Boz mention that before? Why does Boz laboriously plow through the schedules of the other teams and just make passing reference to Houston's schedule? Why does he, when he actually do so, characterize Houston's schedule as a pressing moral issue? Why does he whine in the middle of a rough-and-ready, boostrapsy column? Inquiring minds want to know . . .

For the record, I agree that the wild card is an unfair proposition. I can't stand it in principle and as it's applied. But, I'll confess, it's kind of fun this season.

Anyway, after all my posturing here, what does the column really tell us?

a) the NL East teams are going to beat up on each other in September, and at least the Nats are at home; and,
b) the Astros have a relatively easy road home.

In other words, Boz told us nothing we didn't already know. Or, as Spiral Stairs put it at today's Yuda chat:

None of the teams in the wild card chase are
any good, so everyone has an equal chance. [Boswell] at first ignores the Astros in his analysis and then says they have an unfair advantage because their schedule has been so easy. I don’t quite understand why the ease of their schedule means we should discount their chances to win the wild card.

Super.

I'll add at this point that the wild card is still "do-able," as Wilbon put it last week. Then again, the Nats have gone 1-3 since his proclamation. Two of the losses were against the Cardinals, granted, but Boz's point seems to be that we can't pick our schedule. Anyway, it can be done, theoretically. But don't forget that 2.5 games over 32 contests is sometimes the difference between "good" and "excellent" baseball---and, if we're forced to witness "excellent" baseball, then the lack of an offense and a reliance on journeymen and never-weres to fill out the back of the rotation don't inspire confidence.

______________

---> Now, to Stan Kasten, featured by Hal "Kin of Selig" Bodley in today's USA Today. I spent way too much on Boz, as I expected I would, and I only have a chance to add that Kasten---a potential suitor and/or exec for our Nats, by the way---strikes me as not the least bit crazy. He's the type of guy, it would appear, who prefers to enter a negotiation with a strategy to win consisting of:

a) shaking hands with the other side's negotiator;
b) sitting down in a comfy chair;
c) opening his briefcase; and,
d) double-tapping his opponent in the temples with a concealed handgun.

You don't believe me? Read:

Stan Kasten has a dream. The former executive of the Atlanta Braves, NBA Hawks and NHL Thrashers says professional sports would be much better off if player agents were eliminated.

Say what?

"Say what" is right, Hal.

Lest you accept an out-of-context characterization on its face, I'll clarify that Kasten doesn't wish agents to be eliminated in a "mortal" sense---well, at least not publicly. He's more facile, of course:

"It's not agent abuse which is the problem.
It's the highly skilled, highly competent, highly ethical agents; they're really the problem for all of us who love sports."

Stan Kasten, a long-time sports executive, wants to do away with agent-negotiated contracts in baseball because . . . of principle? Heavens no!

It's because the agents are too good. Sports agents are too good. Sports agents are too good for sports owners and front office executives. Sports. I thought the "good" was rewarded in sports . . .

Anyway, Kasten---also a lawyer, mind you---is quite the able hypocrite:

"There are a lot of factors that should determine what a player makes, but not something extraneous by the collective skill of a negotiator," says Kasten, who is part of one of the groups trying to buy the Washington Nationals.

There are a lot of factors that should determine what party wins a trial, but not something extraneous [like] the skill of an attorney . . .

Heck, substitute back in "negotiation," and it still works for lawyers sometimes.

Kasten does redeem himself, though, when he identifies himself as a great guardian of the game:

"If you're a highly skilled, highly ethical
practitioner, your main goal in life is to look out only for the best interest of your one client at a time. Period. Nothing else matters — not the interest of the team, the player's teammates, the community, the franchise or the
sport."

Kasten, who has made a living of representing the interests of professional sports owners, cares. He's a highly skilled, highly ethical practitioner, but the difference is that he represents interests good for the sport. In other words, he's worthy of our trust. I trust him; do you?

Bodes: In his own words

2005-08-28T21:12:00.000-04:00

Rocket Bill's gamer following a consecutive six-zip loss to the Cardinals was nothing if not Bowden-centric. This was clear from the first two sentences:

After Sunday's game between the Nationals and Cardinals, Nationals interim general manager Jim Bowden was so upset that after he entered the clubhouse, he slammed the door in front of members of the Washington media. Bowden has every reason to be upset.

I don't know about you, but I wanted to read about some Billy Beane-esque chair-throwing. Alas, we didn't get that, but some particularly choice quotes followed.

On ineptitude (Part I):

"They have to get out of this thing and start swinging the bats. Nobody can swing it for them," Bowden said. "We can't make a trade to change the offense. They know where they are in the pennant race. Even though everything is going wrong, they are still [in it]. But you still have to do it.

On ineptitude (Part II):

"We gave the Cardinals this game. This was embarrassing. We gave them those runs. We let a ball drop, we didn't do well on a first-to-third steal that Tony [La Russa] put on and we gave them the game. ... We are giving the bats away. We are swinging at balls [ed: not?] in the zone. We are not swinging at the pitches we should hit and we are giving it
away."

On making due with what you got:

"[The players] in the locker room know they have three more games before the rosters expand," Bowden said. "They all know by the last game in Atlanta that there is going to be enough choices for Frank that he doesn't have to play any of them, if he doesn't want to. There's going to be choices everywhere.

On "be[ing] a man":

"These guys have three days to wake up. We are going to Atlanta with John Patterson, Livan Hernandez and Esteban Loaiza on the mound before the roster expands. Our best guys are going at them, and you know what? Be a man, wake up and do some damage. Or guess what? After that, Frank can do what he can do. When we get to Thursday, and they are not hitting, you might as well put other people in there. There are a lot of guys that can score no runs a game."

_________________

Just for reference, here's the starting nine Bowden was calling out:

Wilkerson LF
Carroll 2B
Johnson 1B
Guillen RF
Wilson CF
Castilla 3B
Bennett C
Guzman SS
Halama P

One can understand Bowden's frustration.

Wait . . .

__________________

Those other wild card suckers just refuse to win:

---> Florida got pounded, 14-3, at Chicago.
---> Houston got shut out (guess who was pitching?), 1-0, at Los Angeles.
---> The Mets lost, 4-1, at San Francisco.
---> Philly's losing, 6-2, in the third in Arizona, thanks to a Shawn "G FORCE!" Green grand slam. Oh, and guess which D-Bucks starter has been handed the lead?

So, you see, while the Nats have been given a head start in this Race to the Bottom, those other chuckleheads are playing along. As such, the Nats could go 0-for-Saturday-and-Sunday and still not lose any actual ground. If the Nats end up winning the wild card, I bet at least some people are going to credit Frank Robinson for his genius late-August rope-a-dope strategy.

Any more of this, and I'm changing my sidebar to "Operation: 87!" If that . . .

Buntbuntbuntbuntbuntbunt

2005-08-28T02:24:00.000-04:00

Dave Sheinin, who (if you follow the Washington Post chats, you should know this) is to Endy Chavez as Boz is to Juan Rivera, has written a long and interesting article on the sacrifice bunt for Sunday's Post.

It's very late and, as I noted, it's a long article. And I'm really tired, and I just don't think I can do the article justice if I evaluate it now. Me so sleepy . . .

Nevertheless, insofar as Sheinin did his research for this one and the sac bunt is obviously a relevant topic for fans of the Washington Nationals, I commend you to read the article. Sheinin runs a rather comprehensive gamut of opinion---from stat-dude James Click, to Frank Robinson, to Bill James (sort of a "moderate stathead" on the issue, I guess), with even a bit of Sheinin's O's-lovin' snagging a quote or two from Buck Martinez, who was fired by an anti-bunt GM.

Robinson's comments are especially fascinating.

PS: Look past the fact that Sheinin, like most sportswriters, uses the term "Moneyball" in a rather broad sense.

White plight

2005-08-28T01:36:00.000-04:00

Alright, so this one on Saturday didn't go quite as planned. St. Louis starter Jason Marquis, a late replacement for Mark Mulder, pitched a gem. Only base knocks by Marlon Byrd---who was just up from Triple-A---and Cristian Guzman---who doesn't ever hit---separated Marquis from a perfect game. Late in the game, tiny Cards' shortstop David Eckstein squared to bunt, pulled back, and then shot a homer over the left field fence. It was that kind of day . . .

. . . meh, I hate that expression---"that kind of day." Here, it's just a euphemism for "the Nats done got spanked." And they did, 6-0.

It was that kind of day for our White knight, Matt White. He looked fine the first time through the Cards' order, but a reasonable observer still might have been skeptical of the success, and MikeMidd nailed it at the Yudite chat: White got hammered the second time through the order. White surrendered three runs in the third inning, another in the fourth, and he was gonzo.

Literally gonzo, as it turned out; true to management's word to White prior to the game, he was sent back to New Orleans. The Nats purchased the contract of reliever Jason Bergmann to replace White.

[A word, for a moment, on Bergmann: for me, obviously, all Nats' minor leaguers are a bunch of stat lines. That includes Danny Rueckel, whose pitching I've tracked all season long and of whom I nevertheless consider myself a fan. But, among the non-Rueckel stat lines I noticed, Bergmann's was the one whose impressed me the most. I was happy for him when he got the call from Harrisburg to New Orleans, and I'm certainly wishing him the best when he makes his big league debut. Clearly, I'm in favor of whatever path to the majors is straightest for Baby Ruckles, but you'll bet I'll root on Bergmann the first time and every subsequent time he gets the ball.]

Okay, so it wasn't a "Mauro Gozzo-like" performance from Matt White; it was more of a "Scott Taylor-like" performance, I suppose. For those scoring at home, Taylor made three career starts, all between July 28 and August 7, 1995, for a Texas team that finished third in the AL West, just 4.5 games back. Taylor lost his debut (6 IP, 8 H, 5 ER, 2 HR) to the Red Sox. All told, Taylor pitched 15.2 innings for the Rangers, surrendering 25 hits and six homers, to the tune of a 9.39 ERA.

Taylor was actually credited with the victory in one of those games (he went 1-2), but truth be told: if it's him or Matt White, I'll take our White knight. He's a Nat, after all. Or at least he was.

White knight?

2005-08-27T11:36:00.000-04:00

On the morning of August 8, 1989, a baseball fan scanning the standings in the local paper found the Toronto Blue Jays at .500, 56-56, three full games behind the season's success story, Frank Robinson's Baltimore Orioles. The Blue Jays had been a tremendous disappointment to this point in the season; expected to claim the American League East division crown that had somehow eluded them the past two seasons, the Jays started with a whimper, and in May manager Jimy Williams lost his job. Batting coach Cito Gaston took the reigns and had guided the Jays back to break-even.

The Blue Jays weren't out of the divisional race by any stretch, especially since the O's were coming back to earth; however, the Jays woke up on August 8 knowing that four teams were nipping on their heals right behind them. It was conceivable, if a bit unlikely, that any of five squads could claim the playoff spot allotted to the AL East winner.

So, with the foregoing as background, Toronto sent to the Skydome mound a complete unknown, Mauro Gozzo, to make his major league debut against the Texas Rangers. Gozzo, to put it mildly, enjoyed some beginner's luck:

Name  Dec.  IP H R ER BB SO HR
Gozzo W,1-0 8  3 0 0  3  4  0

Toronto beat Texas, 7-0, and the Blue Jays had pulled to within two games of Baltimore.

The Blue Jays did not kick it into hyperdrive over the next week; in fact, by August 14, the Milwaukee Brewers had caught the Jays, with both teams sitting one game below break-even. Fortunately for both, the Orioles similarly struggled, and the gap was 2.5 games. Gozzo had earned a second start, and he did his job again:

Name  Dec.  IP H R ER BB SO HR
Gozzo W,2-0 5  7 2 1  1  2  0

The Blue Jays defeated Boston, 4-2, and kept pace with the Orioles and Brewers, both of whom also won that day.

By August 18, Toronto was 61-60, a game behind Milwaukee and 2.5 games behind Baltimore. The night before, the Orioles had bludgeoned the Blue Jays, 11-6, chasing starter John Cerutti in the fourth. The onslaught forced Gaston to expend his long-man, Frank Wills, who was no more effective but nevertheless hurled 3.2 innings. Gozzo warmed up for his third big league start no doubt knowing that Gaston would need an effective effort, with innings. And that is exactly what Gozzo produced:

Name  Dec.  IP H R ER BB SO HR
Gozzo W,3-0 7  8 2 2  1  2  0

The Blue Jays inflicted their own bludgeoning, pounding out 15 hits in a 9-2 victory. The Blue Jays kept pace with the BrewCrew and gained the game back on the Orioles.

Between August 8 through August 18, the Toronto Blue Jays won six games, and Mauro Gozzo, who had never pitched a big league game previously, was credited with the victory in half of those. Over the course of three starts, Gozzo posted a 1.35 ERA in 20 innings pitched.

Gozzo would not start another game for the Blue Jays in 1989, and three of his six appearances out of the bullpen were fairly ignominious. Nevertheless, he plugged a hole precisely when the Blue Jays needed someone to do so. It would be folly to suggest that Toronto wouldn't have prevailed in the end by two games over Baltimore had Gozzo not stepped into the breach and thrived in his three opportunities, but Gozzo undeniably played some role.

_________________

This afternoon, the Nats throw unknown Matt White against the St. Louis Cardinals. White represents something of a superficial parallel to Mauro Gozzo, except it's not quite White's big league debut today; he got his six bullpen outings out of the way in 2003. No one---and I mean, no one---knows much about White. Heck, his own manager, the aforementioned Frank Robinson, doesn't even know who the guy is, as recounted by the Post's Les Carpenter:

The Nationals will call up pitcher Matt White from New Orleans to pitch today's game against the Cardinals and their number two starter, Mark Mulder. White has some major league experience, pitching six games for the Red Sox and Mariners in 2003, but is a relative unknown in the Nationals' system. He's so anonymous that Robinson called him "Rick White."

Last night's rousing, somewhat unexpected victory over the Cards has lifted the team's (and the fanbase's) spirit again. It obscures (and momentarily obliterates) the fact that the Nats have been essentially treading water the past couples weeks after rapidly losing ground in the preceding month.

The Nats need a Gozzo-like performance out of Matt White today. The fortunate thing is this: since it's called "Gozzo-like," that's proof it can be done.

_________________

A new Nationals Inquirer feature: "Operation: 89!"

I've wagged previously that the Nats need 89 wins to feel comfortable about playing for at least one more day. When the thought coalesced in my mind, a 27-18 finish would have met the goal. Now, we're at 22-12 for the final 34 games.

Can it be done? Probably not, but who knows. Is it even necessary? Probably, but who knows.

Do I hope it can be done? Absolutely. And hopefully it would be more than sufficient.

So, track the goal in the sidebar.

Note: My baseball memory, especially of events in my teen years, is generally pretty good, but not quite good enough to put together that Mauro Gozzo retrospective. As you might have guessed, the dates, standings, and pitching lines are made possible by the incredible Retrosheet. It's definitely worth our support.

Coup d' toe

2005-08-25T23:07:00.000-04:00

Lots of interesting stuff from Rocket Bill:

---> Ryan Church, Official Sacred Cow of the Yudites, signed up for a second tour of duty on the 15-day disabled list. The cause? A "fractured right pinkie toe."

Is that a real injury?

I guess it is, because it must hurt like Hades for Church to miss two-to-three weeks as a result. How do you treat a "fractured right pinkie toe"? Church isolates a problem:

You can't put a cast on it.

Yeah, I guess that would prove difficult . . .

---> The Matt White Era begins on Saturday.

Wait---who is Matt White, and why does he deserve an era named after him? I can't answer the latter question, as I am not an historian. Concerning the former, White is a lefty with an 8-5 record and a nice ERA at New Orleans. He's not currently on the Nats' 40-man roster, but two Ghost Men are, and one of them can easily be traded out to make room.

But just who is Matt White? Why, he's the possessor of a 22.24 career MLB ERA. That mark was compiled in just six outings a couple of years ago, however, so I'm sure it's just the sample size speaking.

The Saturday start is only against the St. Louis Cardinals; hey, no pressure on White to keep it close!

---> Rocket Bill reports that Tony Armas, Jr., is . . . Tony Armas, Jr. That is to say he's hampered by something, and the Nats are hopeful TA2 can overcome it.

It's his shoulder now, which caused him to leave his last start early (but not before being beaten to a bloody pulp). That's good in the sense it's not something borderline embarrassing like dehydration; it's bad in the sense that he's had shoulder problems in the past.

I predict TA2 is good for at least two or three strong innings on Sunday.

---> Big Rocket Bill scoop of the day:

Expect the Nationals to make some moves by the end of the week. Don't be surprised if third baseman Ryan Zimmerman is called up to the big leagues on Sunday.

(emphasis added).

Brian at the Yudite chat tonight broke the news that Zimmerman played third base for Harrisburg on Thursday. Our resident Farm Commissioner, Brian just yesterday noted that Nats' suits are comfortable with Dutch's progress at shortstop.

Could the plans have changed?

Jim Bowden? Change plans? Never!

---> Finally, a couple of did-ya-knows from Rocket Bill. File 'em under "pathetic stats":

1. Nats' right fielders (mainly, Jose Guillen) have driven in 70 runs this season. That's pretty good. Last year, Expos' right fielders drove in 66 runs for the entire season; that's pretty bad.

2. Gary Bennett is hitting .303 (10-for-33) in his last 12 games. Is that even worth noting? Well, if you're a .247 career hitter with a lifetime 66 OPS+, I guess it is.

_________________

The Nats' performance in their loss to the Cincinnati Reds this afternoon, the rubber match of a three-game set the Nats rather needed to win or sweep, was probably most typified by the word "malaise." I'll have to qualify it this way, because I neither saw nor heard the game. But, just judging by the GameTracker---which can be very expressive at times---the Nats had nuthin'. The Yudite chatters who were watching weren't the least bit impressed, either.

¡LIVAN! is mired in a horrible rut---or, shall I say, malaise---and whether that's because of injury or overuse, or injury as a result of overuse, is fairly immaterial right now. He's not right. He wanted to shut it down last month, and we called him impulsive and crazy. Maybe the guy really is hurting. I suppose we've established that by now.

Anyway, St. Barry cuts to the heart of the matter of the Reds series:

[T]he schedule now gets more difficult. The next seven games are against the NL's two best teams, three at home against the St. Louis Cardinals, then a four-game series at Atlanta next week. Those seven games will determine whether the Nationals are even within striking distance when the Phillies arrive for three games the following weekend.

At the 45-game mark, I noted somewhere that the Nats needed to go 27-18 the rest of the way to feel at least somewhat safe for at least a one-game wild card playoff. That would have gotten the guys to 89 wins.

What do the Nats need now? 23-12.

You tell me.

A tall, strong drink of water

2005-08-25T13:22:00.000-04:00

John Patterson did it again last night, tossing another check on the "Marvelous" side of the ledger. What is more, the Nats actually scored for him.

Needless to say, ample bloggin' love has been doled out to Patterson this morning. I commend you to Rocket for admiration and Ball-Wonk for veneration.

____________

As Wilbon mentioned when he discovered the Nats (see previous post), the Washington Nationals are in a pennant race, baby! I still think that more factors are lined up against the Nats than for them, but---to quote Wilbon---it's "do-able." To that end, last night's victory didn't hurt.

However, Nationals Interest cautions us to "Watch out for the Mets!" in the wild card race. Apparently, Gammo and Kurk-mit the Frog like the Metsies, primarily because of ¡Pedro! and run differential, and the NI guys see merit in that evaluation.

What is more---and don't forget this---the Mets hold something of a trump card in their September schedule:

They finish the regular season, at home, against . . . the Colorado Rockies.

It could be either a great blessing for the Mets or a ready-made, choke-o-matic curse. We might just need the latter.

Hey, Wilbon likes the Nats!

2005-08-25T12:24:00.000-04:00

An amazing thing occurred today. I'm not going to preface this announcement with something lame like "Are you sitting down?" but I probably should. It's mind-blowing. Okay, are you ready:

Wilbon wrote a Nats column.

I know, it's shocking. How shocking? Well, as ¡Yurasko! wagged this morning, it's his first or second. The other possible candidate is at best debatable, since it was all about Roger Clemens, who lamentably doesn't pitch for the Nats.

Now, I should say that Wilbon is an NBA/NFL guy primarily, with some NCAA hoops mixed in for good measure. Eight or nine months a year, this guy works like crazy. He just doesn't write about baseball---and when he has, he hasn't written about the Nats. Until now.

You don't believe me? Here's his body of work, since the baseball season began. I'll even fudge it a bit and include the last week of March:

---> April 4: "Illini are biting at the underdog role"; take a guess.
---> April 6: "Good teams start with good coaching"; NBA, general.
---> April 10: "It's no way to finish"; NBA, Wizards.
---> April 22: "The NFL draft is anyone's guess"; pigskin.
---> April 23: "Jordan's Wizards, NBA running in right direction"; NBA, Wizards and general.
---> April 24: "It's time for some stops, or Wizards won't move forward"; NBA, Wizards and Wilbonian Chicago fix.
---> April 25: "It's only one game, no wonder"; NBA, Wizards-Bulls.
---> April 27: "In Southeast, wish list is dream come true"; tennis, human interest.
---> April 28: "No defense in going down 0-2"; NBA, Wizards angst.
---> April 30: "Bring it all back home"; basically, basketball-in-DC.
---> May 1: "Winning sum is big man plus 'big three' "; NBA, Wizards.
---> May 3: "Wizards, Dixon make a quick turnaround"; guess.
---> May 4: "What can Brown do for you"; NBA, Kwame Brown.
---> May 5: "At the buzzer, the sound of something new"; NBA, Wizards.
---> May 7: "Something to shout about"; NBA, Wizards.
---> May 9: "These longshots cannot misfire"; NBA, Wizards.
---> May 10: "Giving the selection some venue"; NBA, MVP.
---> May 11: "Big fella and Wade get more than enough help"; NBA, Shaq-fu.
---> May 13: "Blinded by the flash"; NBA, Wizards-Heat.
---> May 15: "A foundation to build on"; NBA, Wizards.
---> May 18: "There are some good games on the late shift"; NBA.
---> May 19: Suns-Mavs gamer.
---> May 20: "This MVP also leads in modesty"; NBA.
---> May 23: "Quietly making noise"; NBA.
---> May 25: "The great series that will not be"; NBA.
---> May 28: "Bowen: the steel glove"; NBA.
---> June 2: "A peripatetic pro on the precipice"; NBA, Larry Brown, alliteration.
---> June 6: "It is, and always will be, about O'Neal"; NBA, Shaq-fu.
---> June 6: "A flawed-character study"; NFL, Sean Taylor.
---> June 7: "Pistons play like champions"; guess.
---> June 9: "Spurs vs. Pistons: the perfect match-up"; guess.
---> June 12: "Requiem for a heavyweight"; Mike Tyson, children-eating.
---> June 13: " 'It's a hard feeling, not to be a violent man anymore' "; Tyson.
---> June 15: "Third game is the charm"; NBA Finals.
---> June 17: "Finals are a place to feel at home"; guess.
---> June 18: "Uneven play raises a series of questions"; NBA Finals.
---> June 20: "The specialist closes the deal"; NBA Finals.
---> June 21: "Sweet payback for a survivor"; NBA Finals.
---> June 22: "Taking their show on the road"; NBA Finals.
---> June 23: "The duality of a big man"; NBA, 'Sheed introspection.
---> June 24: "Duncan plays like Duncan"; guess.
---> July 9: "A case of dollars and sense"; NBA, Wizards, bye-bye Larry Hughes.
---> July 16: "So long, Kwame, thanks for nothing"; guess.
---> July 19: "I come to praise Tiger, not bury him; golf, guess.
---> July 23: "Monumental presence"; BASEBALL!!!! (Roger Clemens exclusively). ---> July 25: "Iconoclastic backs live parallel lives"; NFL, Ricky/Riggins (?).
---> August 2: "On first day of camp, Portis' voice carries"; NFL, 'Skins.
---> August 3: "We want pennant suspense, but we just get suspensions"; BASEBALL!!! (all 'roids).
---> August 8: "Men's game has a long rally ahead"; tennis, Legg Mason.
---> August 10: "The Redskins' old kid on the block"; guess.
---> August 12: "Palmeiro has his 15 minutes of shame";
BASEBALL!!! (Cpt. Winstrol).
---> August 14: "What does it all mean"; NFL, 'Skins
---> August 24: "A very familiar accusation"; Lance Armstrong, more 'roids.

Yep, this is the first one exclusively on the Nats.

The column itself, which deals with the "do-able" proposition of the Nats winning the column, is pretty good aside from the proposition itself being rather far-fetched. Still, this line is an amazing one for Nats' fans to ponder:

You think things can't change in a hurry? The White Sox lost eight games off a 15-game lead in 24 days. The Nationals don't have to make up that kind of ground.

No, they don't. But they did have that kind of ground to lose recently and did in fact lose it with similar haste.

Of course, that was back in July, before Wilbon noticed the Nats.

Cut scene from a Werther's Originals commercial, A.D. 2045

2005-08-24T12:08:00.000-04:00

Luke Hudson III: Poppa!
Luke Hudson I: Lukie, my boy! Come, sit on my lap. . . . There you go. Would you like a candy?
Lukie: Yes, Poppa. Thank you.
Poppa: Any time, my boy. The toffee is refreshing, isn't it?
Lukie: Yes, sir. Would you tell me a story before I go to bed?
Poppa: Ab-so-lutely! What would you like to hear? The time I played drums for Iron Maiden?
Lukie: Could you tell me about the best game you ever pitched?
Poppa: Ah, the best game I ever pitched. . . . Well, that would have to be August 23, 2005, against the Washington Nationals.
Lukie: Washington Na-tion-als?
Poppa: Ah, yes. That's what the Washington Smulyans were called for a little while.
Lukie: Oh.
Poppa: Yes, it was a fine evening in Washington. Not too hot, so the ball wasn't going to be "jumping," as they said back then. I hadn't been pitching well, but I had a good feeling about this game. Remember the time the battery died in Poppa's pacemaker and you and daddy and mommy and Nanna had to rush me to the hospital?
Lukie: Yeah, I was scared.
Poppa: Ha ha, I was too! I was too. Anyway, Washington's offense was sort of like that battery . . . not much juice, you know?
Lukie: So the ballplayers all had to go to the hospital?
Poppa: No . . . Well, one of them did, I think. Or maybe he just had to go home. He had a sinus infection.
Lukie: Yuck!
Poppa: You said it, my boy. But unlike that guy, things went my way. I pitched really good---
Lukie: You pitched really well, Poppa!
Poppa: Yes, indeed. Nanna's such a stickler for detail, isn't she? . . . I pitched really well, making it through seven innings---
Lukie: Woooowwww! Seven whole innings???!!!
Poppa: Seven innings, my boy.
Lukie: But starting pitchers don't throw more than four . . .
Poppa: Back in my day, the players were tougher, my boy. The pitchers definitely were. We'd have eleven or twelve guys on our pitching staffs. Sometimes thirteen, but never fifteen, like today. So, the starting pitchers would have to go longer. Some pitchers even completed the whole game.
Lukie: Wooowwww!!!!
Poppa: Wow, indeed.
Lukie: Even to go for seven innings, you must have been really good!
Poppa: Yeah . . . good. Well, I was on that night, anyway.
Lukie: Did you ever think you weren't going to pitch so well that game?
Poppa: Hmmm . . . Well, there was this one point of the game. It was the bottom of the fifth inning---Washington was the home team of course---and their lead-off man reached base. Up to the plate next came their shortstop, Cristian Guzman.
Lukie: Was he any good?
Poppa: Not really. In fact, he was pretty bad. Remember you were a little boy, much younger than you are now, and your dog Rufus started acting funny?
Lukie: Yeah, mommy said he was really sick and needed to go to a better place. I was really sad.
Poppa: I know, my boy. Life can be rough sometimes. Remember how Rufus was acting before he went to the better place?
Lukie: Mmmm, he was really slow, and he'd fall over and bump into the walls. And sometimes he'd go to the bathroom on the floor, and mommy would get really mad.
Poppa: She'd get really frustrated with Rufus, because he was making things difficult for her. And that's the way it was with Guzman. He wasn't really a good player anymore, and people would get mad at him.
Lukie: So you got him out?
Poppa: No, he got lucky. He tried to bunt . . . Here, show me how you bunt . . . Very good, Lukie! . . . Well, Guzman bunted badly, popping the ball in the air. But he got lucky and reached first base.
Lukie: Oh no!
Poppa: Oh no is right! The next guy up was the pitcher. It had been Tony Armas---
Lukie: The scientist??!!
Poppa: The very same. But it was years before he'd devote his life to studying the causes and cures of dehydration. Back then, he was just a pitcher with a bum shoulder. And on that night he had given up four runs before leaving with a sore shoulder. And their pinch-hitter in the fifth inning was this guy named Jamey Carroll.
Lukie: What was he like, Poppa?
Poppa: Oh, he was okay, but not great. You know how you make fun of your little brother for being a "runt"? Well, Jamey Carroll was even smaller than that.
Lukie: Really?
Poppa: Nah. But he was tiny. So we were expecting him to bunt the runners over. Fundamental baseball, we called it. Instead, Washington's manager called for a hit-and-run. You know what that is, right?
Lukie: Uh huh.
Poppa: Well, it really surprised us, and Carroll just hit the ball foul. This time I got lucky.
Lukie: What happened, Poppa?
Poppa: They tried it again, my boy! And were we ever ready for it! Carroll swung and missed, and our catcher threw out the runner going to third. A slow old man, sort of like me. Except he was a slow old man back then! He was out by a country mile!
Lukie: Ha ha!
Poppa: And you know what the funniest part was, Lukie?
Lukie: What, Poppa?
Poppa: The second hit and run was all a mistake! They weren't supposed to try it!
Lukie: Then why did they?
Poppa: Well, you know how mommy and daddy sometimes get mad at each other?
Lukie: Yeah. I get really worried and think it's all my fault, but they tell me it's a "miscommunication."
Poppa: Precisely. Don't get worried, by the way---and it's never your fault. Anyway, they miscommunicated here.
Lukie: Who did?
Poppa: The manager and the third base coach, the guy giving the signs. They had a mix-up!
Lukie: Ha ha!
Poppa: So the old slow guy, Castilla, was out. And I felt much better about things.
Lukie: And then what happened, Poppa?
Poppa: I struck out Carroll, and then the next guy, too. And I got out of the inning.
Lukie: Go Poppa!
Poppa: Yes, indeed. From there onward, it was smooth sailing, and I ended up getting the win.
Lukie: "Getting the win"?
Poppa: Ah yes, Lukie. Back then, the rules of baseball assigned a "win" to a pitcher from the winning team and a "loss" to a pitcher from the losing team. It was called a pitcher's "record"?
Lukie: Did they give hitters "wins" and "losses," too?
Poppa: Nope. It was just a statistic for pitchers.
Lukie: That's kinda stupid. Coach always tells us it's a "team game."
Poppa: From your mouth to God's ears, my boy. Well, eventually, they did away with "won-lost record" and now give out the Cy Young Award based on stats you know, like VORP and Win Shares.
Lukie: Were people mad when they did away with that?
Poppa: Some were, yes. There was this guy named John Kruk. He used to be on the television. He got so upset, he immolated himself on live TV.
Lukie: What's "immolated"?
Poppa: Um . . . . hey, what's on the TV now? Why it's President Screech! Let's see what he has to say.
Lukie: Okay, Poppa. And thanks for the candy.

Rueckel Report, August 23

2005-08-23T12:16:00.000-04:00

The Eternal Return Edition

Baby Ruckles hurls a pitch on July 17. (Courtesy, senatorsbaseball.com)

It's beginning to look a lot like April.

You'll remember, valued reader, that Danny Rueckel did not surrender a single earned run in the first month of the season. Indeed, Baby Ruckles started off red hot as the Harrisburg Senators' relief ace, hotter even than his sterling 2004 debut in the Eastern League, in which he sported an ERA in the low twos. Nats' relievers, such as Toasty Osuna, NASA Horgan, and T.J. Tucker, were going down like flies. Gary Majewski had not yet turned into an action hero stud, and Hector Carrasco was still just a washed-up refugee from the Korean League or something.

I started dreaming that maybe I had walked into a goldmine here; perhaps Baby Ruckles would take a short sojourn through New Orleans and settle in as the fourth guy out of the Nats' bullpen. Dare to dream!

Then May hit, and the dream leveled off a bit. Well, how about just New Orleans, eh?

Then June hit, and Rueckel's ERA went kurplunk. First, it rose into the fours, and then---in one miserable outing in mid-June in which he surrendered sixty percent of his season's homers in one inning---it skyrocketed into the fives. Noooooooooo!

Baby Ruckles has been playing catch-up ever since, trying to reduce that ERA down to something commensurate with his K/BB ratio and HR rate. He bounced back quickly, in fact, lowering the ERA by a run in a matter of outings---including some of his best of the season. Since then, though, it's been mainly a holding action, with the ERA consisently in the low fours the past few updates, if creeping upward ever so slightly.

Until now, that is. In the five appearances over the length of this survey, Baby Ruckles didn't surrender a run. The first two games were fairly shaky, but the last three were pure April: 5 IP, 2 H, 0 BB, 5 K. Solid!

Oh, and pay no mind that the Sens lost all five of those games. They've lost ten of eleven games since my last update:

---> August 12: 0.1 IP, 2 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 0 SO (no decision in 9-7 Harrisburg defeat against New Britain)
---> August 13: 1 IP, 2 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 0 SO (no decision in 7-4 defeat against New Britain)
---> August 18: 2 IP, 2 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 0 SO (no decision in 10-0 defeat against Bowie)
---> August 19: 1 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 2 SO (no decision in 2-1 defeat against Akron)
---> August 22: 2 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 3 SO (no decision in 6-3 defeat against Binghamton)

SEASON TO DATE:

G  IP H R ER HR BB SO W L ERA SV
49 71 763430 5 16 63 9 5 3.80 6

So, the ERA, while significantly higher than last year's, is rounding into form. Baby Ruckles seems safe, baring a redux of the June 14 disaster, of keeping the ERA out of the fours, which would certainly be advisable.

Hey, speaking of the June 14 game . . . I know this is completely bogus, but it's my Rueckel Report after all, and I'm gonna see what his numbers look like without that blow-out:

G  IP   H  R  ER HR BB SO W L ERA SV
48 68.1 69 28 24 2  15 62 9 5 3.17 6

Yeah, I like these numbers much better.

_______________

So, what does the future hold Grand Master Ruckus? I'm not privy to any "internal discussions" Jim Bowden has with his ego, of course, but my guess would be either:

---> remain at Harrisburg, or
---> finish up at New Orleans.

In other words, although Rueckel's already on the 40-man roster for the Nationals, I am not getting the impression he'll be among the September call-ups. That's not unexpected, and it's understandable. I, of course, believe that Rueckel can experience success in the big leagues, but first he has to get the opportunity. Other guys (such as Bill Bray) are more likely to get the big league exposure as a result of their position within the organization's plans; furthermore, to be honest, other guys (such as Jason Bergmann) have earned the opportunity to be exposed to the big leagues more than Rueckel has this season.

But I believe it will happen and, if given a real shot, Danny Rueckel will succeed.

In the meantime, Harrisburg and New Orleans both wrap-up on September 5, so I know what I'll be doing in this space until then.

Bell(horn) tolls for we?

2005-08-20T12:29:00.000-04:00

Imagine watching Brad Wilkerson strike out. I know, it's not a stretch of one's imagination. Now imagine Wilkerson striking out even more. That's Mark Bellhorn. Can you handle it?

After Wilkerson's backwards-K with runners on the corners and one out in the eighth inning of last night's 1-0 loss to the Mets, the answer is probably "No." And I'd reckon BodesCo might agree, but it's worth noting that the Boston Red Sox designated Bellhorn for assignment on Friday. Bellhorn, in the midst of a horrible season (.688 OPS), injured his thumb against the Yankees in July hasn't been seen in Boston since. Here's some background:

[Boston GM Theo] Epstein said he expects the club to have an announcement tomorrow on the status of second baseman Mark Bellhorn, whose rehab assignment reaches its 20-day limit at that time. Bellhorn homered for Pawtucket yesterday, but is not expected to be back with the big club, having been displaced at second base by Tony Graffanino.

''That's just speculation," Epstein said, regarding the likelihood that Bellhorn would not be back, though he acknowledged discussions with Bellhorn's agent, Mark Rodgers. The most likely scenario, unless Graffanino or Alex Cora gets hurt before tomorrow, is that the Sox will
designate Bellhorn for assignment. With clubs unlikely to trade for him because they'd have to pick up what remains on his prorated $2.75 million contract, the Sox, as a courtesy to Bellhorn, are likely to grant him his release, giving him a chance to sign with another club.

I seriously doubt the Nats will express the slightest interest in Bellhorn, and although I'm a fan of the patient types who can slug a bit (especially among the middle infielder population), I'm not certain I would blame Jim Bowden if he merely shrugged upon hearing the news.

Then again, let's go through the motions here:

Can Bellhorn play shortstop?

The obvious question, naturally, and the answer at this point in Bellhorn's career is at best uncertain. He's logged 28 career games at short, one last season. Scanning his defensive stats, I suspect Bellhorn has made very few career starts there. Perhaps Bellhorn could man the position in a pinch, but chances are Ryan Zimmerman---if Operation: Dutch is in fact enacted at the big league level---could do so far more competently.

Can Bellhorn play third base?

Yes, quite so. He had 165 career appearances at the hot corner entering this season, including lots of starts. He's primarily a second baseman, and while the positions require different skills, he could probably handle it now. Can he play third well? I don't know. For what it's worth (and probably not much), his career Range Factor at third is quite a bit less impressive than the average third baseman's over the course of his career.

Would Bellhorn be an improvement over Guzman?

He certainly would be offensively, sure. Then again, that skinny dude from Road Trip probably would be, considering the depths to which Guzman has sunk this season. Defensively, who really knows? That would depend on whether Guzman's developing a mental block playing the position (six errors in a recent eight-game stretch), not to mention whether Bellhorn could actually handle it there on a regular or semi-regular basis. This is not even considering Zimmerman, who might be a better option.

Would Bellhorn be an improvement over Castilla?

Defensively, no. Castilla's old and crusty and banged up, but he can still pick it at the hot corner. Offensively, a lot would depend on whether Bellhorn's settled into a real decline or has established one of those weird serpentine-shaped careers. (Bellhorn broke out in 2002, slumped horribly in '03, played a key role on a world champion in '04, and has sucked rocks in '05.) Both players have struggled mightily this season and are posting comparable seasons in terms of rate stats. (Castilla enjoys a slightly bigger slugging advantage than Bellhorn does in reaching base.) Of course, Castilla has been saddled by a home park noted for far favoring pitching so far.

I'd say the bottom line is that, unless he is primed for an improvement from now until the regular season, Bellhorn represents no real improvement over Castilla offensively. And that's kind of sad.

Would Bellhorn be a worthwhile bench player?

Probably so, if he's healthy. He's a switch-hitter and has experience at second and third base, making him a viable candidate for mid-game pinch-hitting/double-switching situations. If Jamey Carroll is being given the starting job at short (he's made the last two starts, so who knows), then presumably Guzman could serve as the back-up. (The downside to that is Guzman might be double-switch in the game, possibly exposing him to late, high-leverage at-bats.) Bellhorn, even given this season's struggles, would reach base at a clip this team needs, although his ultra-patient approach isn't really the look a team normally wants from a pinch-hitter, who is often more success when he's opportunistic and can slap a run-scoring single. But Bellhorn's versatility, ability to reach base, and proclivity to pop a homer more than occasionally make him at least somewhat attractive.

Can the Nats fit Bellhorn on their bench?

Right now, I don't think so---or I don't think they'd want to. Given the 12-man pitching staff, the current typical bench players are:

---> Church (OF)
---> Baerga (IF)
---> Guzman/Carroll (IF)
---> Blanco (IF/OF)
---> Bennett (C)

It might be best for Church if he were optioned to New Orleans for a spell, but I've seen no indication that will happen. Baerga, I'll get to in a minute. Guzman/Carroll are the utility infielders/back-up shortstops and aren't going anywhere. Blanco is raw and offers very few positive features at this point (besides power potential and theoretical versatility), but he's a Rule V guy of whom Bodes has been protective; the Nats have held onto him all season, so (as Yuda said the other day), why risk losing him now? Bennett is irrelevant to the discussion, of course.

I'd say Carlos Baerga's existence would block out any interest in Bellhorn. If acquired, Bellhorn would probably serve precisely the role Baerga serves right now: sport starter at third and first (and, laughably in Baerga's case, at least in June, second base), pinch-hitter, late-game double-switchee. Bellhorn provides more defensive ability and versatility, which might be important if Vidro is hobbled again. On the other hand, Baerga is a "proven veteran" (I'm trying not the discount that, as he appears to be a respected member of the team) and fits the late-game opportunistic pinch-hitter profile better, and he's been a fine addition to the team, to my surprise. I see no shot of Bellhorn bumping Baerga out of a roster spot.

So, unless the Nats went back to 11 pitchers, I don't see it happening, no matter the price for Bellhorn.

Now, rosters expand on September 1, and I certainly wouldn't foreclose Bellhorn being an asset for the team by that point, for the reasons already stated. (Plus, if he can hit postseason homers, he can hit September homers too, right?) But I'd expect somebody would take a chance on him before then.

So fret not, weary observers of Wilkerson's whiffs: Bellhorn probably won't join the brigade.

Frustration, in twenty-three acts

2005-08-20T10:35:00.000-04:00

Pat'son's Log: Seven four two point three eight

Date  Opp.  Score Dec. IP  H  R  ER BB SO Curr.Rec.
4/10  @FLA  0-8   L    7   6  2  2  1  6  0-1, 2.57
4/16  ARI   9-3   W    7   4  0  0  1  6  1-1, 1.29
4/21  ATL   1-2   ND   7   2  0  0  2  5  1-1, 0.86
4/26  PHI   3-1   W    6.2 6  1  1  4  6  2-1, 0.98
5/1   NYM   3-6   ND   6   6  3  3  3  4  2-1, 1.60
5/7   @SF   11-8  ND   3   4  4  4  2  2  2-1, 2.45
5/15  CHI   5-4   ND   5.2 7  4  4  4  6  2-1, 2.98
5/31  ATL   5-4   ND   5   1  1  1  2  3  2-1, 2.85
6/5   FLA   6-3   ND   6   7  1  1  2  7  2-1, 2.70
6/11  SEA   2-1   W    7   6  1  1  1  5  3-1, 2.54
6/17  @TEX  1-8   L    5   8  4  4  2  6  3-2, 2.89
6/22  @PIT  5-4   ND   6.1 7  4  4  2  4  3-2, 3.14
6/29  PIT   3-2   ND   5   3  2  2  3  5  3-2, 3.17
7/4   NYM   2-5   ND   6   4  2  2  2  7  3-2, 3.16
7/9   @PHI  0-1   ND   7   2  0  0  2  8  3-2, 2.91
7/14  @MIL  2-4   ND   6   7  2  2  1  9  3-2, 2.92
7/19  COL   4-0   w    8   3  0  0  2  8  4-2, 2.69
7/24  HOU   1-4   ND   8   6  1  1  0  10 4-2, 2.58
7/30  @FLA  0-3   L    6   5  2  2  3  6  4-3, 2.60
8/4   LAD   7-0   W    9   4  0  0  0  13 5-3, 2.42
8/9   @HOU  6-5   W    5.2 7  5  3  4  5  6-3, 2.52
8/14  @COL  9-2   W    8   9  1  1  2  5  7-3, 2.44
8/19  @NYM  0-1   L    7   7  1  1  2  4  7-4, 2.38

Mournful odds and ends:

---> Starts: 23
---> Washington runs scored: 85
---> Runs per start: 3.70
---> Patterson's Run Support(tm): 4.03 runs per nine innings (while he's pitching)
---> Run support rank, NL: 44 (out of 52 qualified pitchers) [Bonus tidbit: Esteban Loaiza is the least supported: 3.07 runs per nine.]
---> Runs scored occurrences, greatest-to-least: 11 runs (one time); 9 (twice); 7 (once); 6 (twice); 5 (thrice); 4 (once); 3 (three times); 2 (three times); 1 (three times); 0 (four times)
---> Shut out: 17.4% of Patterson's starts
---> One run or fewer: 30.4%
---> Two runs or fewer: 43.5%
---> Three runs or fewer: 56.6%
---> Four runs or fewer: 60.9%
---> NL average, runs per game: 4.47
---> Frequency of above-average support, Patterson: 39.1%

I'm not even sure I want to do this with Loaiza . . .

Mets 1, Nats 0

2005-08-19T22:10:00.000-04:00

Pass.

___________

Okay, three comments about tonight's loss:

1. Jae Seo can really bring it. The Mets receive substantial credit for patiently nurturing his arm; on the other hand, given Seo's remarkable big league success this season, I wonder if the Mets would be a game or two better in the standings had they plugged Seo in there from the beginning---instead of, say, Kaz Ishii.

2. Brad Wilkerson deserves a heaping dose of scorn for his dismal failure to execute in the eighth inning. With runners at first and third and one out, Wilkerson faced a finally shaky Seo knowing he absolutely, positively could not do one of the things he, unfortunately, does very prolifically: strike out. Wilkerson struck out. Two pitches later, Jose Vidro lifted the 300-foot fly ball Wilkerson should have, and the inning was over.

I'm way too late into the season to start handing out awards---and even though one of our esteemed benefactors is, I don't know, out in the Badlands killing people, I'm not going to start now. But if I were of such a mind (to award, not to kill, though I admit the latter notion is tempting, given tonight's frustration), Wilkerson would win the "Thanks a lot . . . " award. He'd just hold off Jose Guillen, who followed off Nick Johnson's lead-off single in the ninth with a riveting 4-6-3 twin-killing.

3. Let's say Guillen didn't ground into that double-play. Let's say Preston Wilson didn't end the game with a strikeout against Mets' closer Braden Looper. Further, let's say the Nats had two on and two out in the ninth.

You know who would have been our last hope? Cristian Guzman.

And, after the pinch-hitter came to the plate? Nope, still Cristian Guzman.

What? Why?

Because Frank Robinson didn't have a remaining infielder on the bench, that's why.

Whoa . . . How'd that happen? Well, let's go to the videotape, circa eighth inning:

Top 8TH B:0 S:2 O:0 Vinny Castilla doubles (29) on a fly ball to right fielder Victor Diaz.

Top 8TH B:0 S:0 O:0 Offensive Substitution: Pinch runner Cristian Guzman replaces Vinny Castilla.

Top 8TH B:0 S:0 O:1 Jamey Carroll out on a sacrifice bunt, pitcher Jae Seo to second baseman Miguel Cairo. Cristian Guzman to 3rd.

Top 8TH B:0 S:0 O:1 Offensive Substitution: Pinch hitter Carlos Baerga replaces John Patterson.

Top 8TH B:4 S:2 O:1 Carlos Baerga walks.

Top 8TH B:1 S:3 O:2 Brad Wilkerson called out on strikes.

Top 8TH B:0 S:0 O:2 Offensive Substitution: Pinch runner Tony Blanco replaces Carlos Baerga.

Top 8TH B:1 S:0 O:3 Jose Vidro flies out to center fielder Carlos Beltran.

Okay, let's break this down. On the Nats' current active roster, they have eight possible infielders, two of whom can only play first:

---> Nick Johnson: 1B.
---> Jose Vidro: 2B.
---> Cristian Guzman: SS.
---> Vinny Castilla: 3B.
---> Jamey Carroll: SS/2B/3B/1B.
---> Carlos Baerga: 1B/3B/2B (in theory).
---> Tony Blanco: 3B/OF.
---> Brad Wilkerson: 1B/OF.

The starting infield tonight was Johnson at first, Vidro at second, Carroll at short, and Castilla at third. Here's how the infield was altered in the eighth:

---> Guzman pinch-ran for Castilla. CASTILLA GONE.
---> Baerga pinch-hit for (tough-luck) pitcher John Patterson. (Baerga walked)
---> Blanco pinch-ran for Baerga. BAERGA GONE.
---> With the top of the inning over, Eischen replaced Blanco in the pitcher's spot. BLANCO GONE.

Thus, as the team took the field in the bottom of the eighth, the infield was: Johnson at first, Vidro at second, Guzman at short, Carroll sliding over to third. And remaining on the bench were:

---> Ryan Church (OF).
---> Gary Bennett (C).

That's it. But it gets worse, because no one could have pinch-hit for Guzman. No combination of Church or Bennett with the remainder of the lineup could have fielded us the extra infielder we needed.

Imagine it, then: This big game (all of them are big now) is on the line, two outs, Looper peers in for the sign, and the batter, the last hope, is Cristian Freakin' Guzman.

[Well, either that, or the possibility of Gary Bennett, shortstop. Okay, maybe Gary Bennett, third baseman, with Carroll moving back to short. Like it matters.]

It didn't come to this, but it could have. I haven't been as harsh as others concerning Frank's tactics and personnel decisions this season, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention. This is two nights in a row now that he's badly mismanaged the bench.

Foot of pride

2005-08-18T22:59:00.000-04:00

My friends, this is a win. It's not one of those thrill-rich yet substance-poor "BANG! ZOOM!" June triumphs, and it's not one of those rare and unfulfilling "curly-W" July exhalations. This is a real win, an August win, a two-game-swing, four-runs-down, back-to-the-wall, no-bullets-left-in-the-chamber, gotta-have-it win. It's the kind of win that, should the unlikely cosmic forces necessary for a Nats' postseason appearance align, we will look back upon with absolute appreciation.

I fear I sound melodramatic, but at the same time, I don't care.

This is the kind of victory that sends fans to bed in Kenny "Sky" Walker mode. The Nats overcame so much to grab a game that meant so much:

---> The Phillies took the first game of the day/night doubleheader, 2-1, yet another inexorable one-run defeat of the type that has typified the second half of the season. The loss put the Nats 1.5 games behind the Phils in the wild card race.

---> In the nightcap, Ryan Drese gave the Nats nothing except a large hole from which to extricate themselves. Demonstrating marginal improvement over his aborted start on Tuesday ("It never happened . . . "), Drese bothered to retire the first batter before finding himself in trouble. The Nats trailed by a run after one inning, three after three, and four after four. Only intermittent second inning effectiveness (and additional third inning ineffecivenes) ruined the abject symmetry of Drese's evening.

---> The Nats did their tell-tale level best to waste opportunities, most notably in the top of the second. Jamey Carroll drew a one-out walk. After Drese sacrificed Carroll to second, Brad Wilkerson also walked. Jose Vidro then hit a smash back through the box that Chase Utley smothered. Utley could not recover in time to retire Vidro, but he saved a run, as Carroll had to hustle back to third. Nick Johnson, handed a bases-loaded situation, took two pitches from Cory Lidle that were not particularly close to the zone. Sitting on a fat 2-0 pitch, Johnson discovered the pitch less appetizing than he anticipated and flied out meekly to center.

---> Johnson would compensate to an extent in the fifth, when his RBI double capped a three-run rally started by Carlos Baerga and Jamey Carroll. One batter before Johnson, Jose Vidro broke through with a hot shot down the first base line to plate Cheeseburger and Chaste, respectively. When Vidro scored on Johnson's knock, the Nats found themselves down by a run. Jose Guillen lined to Utley, ending the threat. It was still early, but the evening appeared to be shaping up as another narrow loss.

---> In the top of sixth, Robinson made a truly strange strategic decision. Well, it was more than that; casting Johnny Knoxville as "Luke Duke"---the smart one, mind you---is a strange strategic decision. What Robinson did made little sense at all. Brian Schneider led off with a swinging strikeout against lefty reliever Aaron Fultz. Robinson then replaced Ryan Church (receiving a rare August start) with Preston Wilson.

Why? To gain the platoon advantage, of course; the move seemed absolutely reflexive, with little conscious reflection of the needs of the team beyond the sixth inning. Perhaps I could understand the move if there had been a runner in scoring position, but there was no one on base. Furthermore, although Church is in a wretched slump and Robinson discourages him from facing lefties (despite Church's small-sample success against them), Church was fairly likely to see a righthander next time up. Or, if the other LOOGY, Rheal Cormier, were to face Church in the seventh somehow, Robinson could perhaps try Wilson then, since there might be runners on in such a position. At any rate, Church was almost certainly assured of steering clear of Phillies' closer Billy Wagner, who could not reasonably be expected to pitch a third time in 24 hours.

It is important to consider the gravity of this move. Robinson used his best bench hitter to pinch-hit for a starting outfielder in a low-leverage situation in a middle inning. The only benefit---and certainly a benefit, as it turned out---was that Robinson's decision locked Wilson into the lineup. Nevertheless, at this point Robinson had exhausted both Vinny Castilla (receiving the night off, but used to pinch-hit for Drese in the fifth) and Wilson by the sixth inning. Wilson promptly popped out to Utley.

As luck would (appear to) have it, Baerga walked and Carroll singled, and suddenly Robinson could have used a competent hitter like Wilson; instead, he was forced to call upon Tony Blanco, a raw Rule V rookie. Blanco's strikeout was thoroughly foreseeable.

To recap, the Nats trailed by a run after five-and-a-half innings and, because the Nats had just purchased the contract of pitcher John Halama at the expense of outfielder Brandon Watson, who was optioned to New Orleans, the entirety of Frank Robinson's intact bench was Cristian Guzman and Gary Bennett. The pitcher's spot would come up again; if it arrived with runners on, the most likely person to drive them in would have been ¡LIVAN! .

It is not hypercritical to contend that Robinson mismanaged his bench, and badly.

---> And yet, the Nats came through in the eighth---with Preston Wilson in the middle of the rally. There were four heroes of this decisive inning. Three are easily identified: Jose Guillen, who doubled resoundingly to left-center; Wilson, who drove Guillen home on a shot to left field, advancing to second on the throw home; and Carlos Baerga, whose line-drive single to center would have earned him a Game-Winning RBI, if MLB still considered that an official statistic.

The fourth indispensible party to the eighth inning rally was rookie third base coach Dave Huppert, who coached the inning in an aggressive and effective manner. Wilson's single on which Guillen scored was the great highlight. The ball was sharply hit near left-fielder Pat Burrell, who came up throwing. Huppert never hesitated sending Guillen, though, and Burrell's weak throw tailed to the left of catcher Todd Pratt, well enough up the third base line for the Nats' interests.

The Nats needed to make something happen tonight. Huppert enabled that to happen, and players like Guillen and Wilson (who aggressively scored the game-winning run) executed very well.

Incidentally, one out later Guzman pinch-hit for relief pitcher Luis Ayala and flied out to center, stranding Baerga.

---> Washington, which had already spent Ayala, one of its money relievers, wasn't out of the woods yet. Lefty Mike Stanton yielded a one-out single to Bobby Abreu. As Burrell, the Phils' right slugger, strode to the plate, Robinson summoned his closer, Chad Cordero. The Chief had not worked a five-out outing since he went two innings on May 24. Yet, Robinson needed this game, and he knew it. Cordero proved worthy of the task. On a 1-0 count, The Chief induced Burrell into a six-three double-play, ending the inning. Closing with a flourish, Cordero fanned two of three hitters in a perfect ninth.

This win---this conquest---belonged to the Washington Nationals!

The night proved additionally serendipitous, as cast-off Tomo Ohka, who was traded for a broken wrist, shut down the Houston Astros. As a result, the Nats find themselves tied for second in the wild card race, one-half game behind the Phillies. One game separates four teams.

A fifth team, the New York Mets, stands only three games out and plays host to the Nats over the weekend, starting Friday night. The three games at Shea Stadium conclude a grueling 13-game road trip, in which the only unscheduled off-day was nothing of the sort and necessitated today's doubleheader. Yet, if the Nats win just one of the three games, they return to RFK on the wings of a winning trip. Take two out of three, and the Nats just might keep pace with Philadelphia (which plays Pittsburgh), Houston (Milwaukee), and Florida (Los Angeles).

The other day, I refused to get too excited about a sweep of Colorado. The Rockies, an unfortunate series at RFK aside, are not good whatsoever, and if the Nats are to remain in the playoff hunt, this kind of series should be taken care of in a coldly efficient manner. Two of three is a baseline expectation, and if a sweep occurs, you appreciate the fact and move on to the next opponent.

And the next opponent, a vastly better one, could do no better than a home split. Now there's a performance worthy of both our appreciation and our excitement as fans. Verily I say to you, I'm excited tonight. Bring on the Mets.

Turning two

2005-08-18T13:17:00.000-04:00

The word is first round draft pick Ryan Zimmerman is getting an on-the-fly organizational trial at shortstop. This straight dope comes from none other than Nats' general manager Jim Bowden:

In what will appear as a desperate move, but really shouldn't be, I have ordered our Player Development Department to begin playing June's first-round pick Ryan Zimmerman at shortstop. [. . .]
There are several reasons a GM does not want to make such a promotion, including but not limited to service time, future option restrictions, earlier eligibility to arbitration and free agency and stifling a player's development when they aren't quite ready. However, at the end of the day we are only a half game out of the wild-card race, and if bringing him up in September will help us make the postseason, then I have to do it.

Needless to say, the story is quite provocative. In just a few short hours, it has inspired much comment---some of it derisive, some of it praiseful, and much of it admittedly confused.

As for us know-thing bloggers, here's summaries of the returns from precincts of the Natosphere that have reported in at press time:

---> Capitol Punishment: Right for the wrong reasons. An amazing defensive third baseman, as Zimmerman is billed, can handle shortstop adequately. His bat could carry the position as it's currently filled, at least. But the move shouldn't be done in mid-August.

---> Nasty Nats: No problem with Zimmerman switching to shortstop in principle. If it worked for Ripken . . . ; in addition, an anonymous scout projected him as a big league shortstop. But it smacks of desperation and a cyncial CYA maneuver by Bodes.

---> Nationals Farm Report: Calculated risk; Zimmerman did play a game or two at short in college, and the coach liked him there. Defense might not be a problem, but Zimmerman isn't ready offensively, especially concerning plate discipline.

---> Nationals Interest: Bodes is taking a tremendous risk for his own short-term interests; he's setting up Zimmerman for failure to cover up for an inability to provide for a shortstop alternative to Cristian Guzman.

I'm sure there will be opinions to follow.

My take is that this won't happen; Zimmerman won't start a single game at shortstop this season for the Washington Nationals. The whole story sounds like one of Jim Bowden's grandiose chimeras, if you ask me. It's little different than Brandon Watson representing that speed demon the team needs to turn the corner. That vision lasted all of four games.

I don't even think Zimmerman-to-short will last that long---not because Dutch can't pick it there, mind you. I've never seen the guy play, and I'm no scout, either. But I see no reason to doubt the opinions of those---including one actual scout, at least---who've seen him play short and claim he can handle it at the highest level. Even granting that, I still doubt Bowden's directive will be realized at the big league level. It's a rushed plan, a back-covering plan, one derived in a hasty sweat. Too many things can happen in the meantime to thwart it:

---> Guzman could "start hitting" again and, for the thousandth time, convince the team that he's about to turn the corner.
---> Guzman could continue as he is but solidify his defense again, thus convincing the team to stick with a veteran in (hopefully) a playoff race.
---> Jamey Carroll could get some starts, play well, and claim the starting job the rest of the season.
---> Zimmerman could make two errors tonight at short, thus ending the experiment.
---> Zimmerman could slump offensively and give the team pause that he's this ready to contribute in the majors.
---> Someone could persuade Bodes that this scrawled-in-the-sand plan is a bit nutty.

I will say that it's a shame Zimmerman can't play both third and short simultaneously; otherwise, Dutch could ride in on his white horse and rescue the Nats from the atrophy of Vinny Castilla and the atrociousness of Cristian Guzman, thus enabling Jim Bowden to claim credit for drafting the savior to the problems he would never admit he caused.

Demote Ryan Church

2005-08-17T22:25:00.000-04:00

Sure, why not?

Chances are it's not an idea original to me, but then, what really is original among our collegial community of Nats bloggers? At any rate, it makes sense. Church has been relegated to the bench almost exclusively in August, but he hasn't done diddly-poo as a pinch-hitter. He's just taking up space, and he's succeeding so well at the description that's it time to think maybe he could be better served playing regularly somewhere. Since somewhere apparently won't be Washington, it might as well be New Orleans; he can ride out the season with the Zephyrs and get back into a rhythm.

Additionally, tonight's 4-3 loss to the Phillies (Hey, a one-run loss! No way!) exposed how weak the right side of the Nats' bench is, especially since Church's doghousing means that righty Preston Wilson is a full-timer. Observing a modest uprising against fireballing Phils' closer Billy "Die Feen" Wagner (Jose Guillen on first and one out---a stubborn 10-pitch at-bat by Wilson, who finally fanned), Frank Robinson faced the choice of sticking with catcher Brian Schneider, a lefty hitter, or dipping into the bench for a righty. There wasn't much from which to choose: at first blush, the options were either back-up catcher Gary Bennett, an offensive zero, or ¡LIVAN!. Robinson elected to try the third rail, Rule V'er Tony Blanco, who stood a chance against Wagner's Lohengrin only in theory and who soon fell victim to a third strike. One meager Vinny Castilla swipe at a fastball later, and Wagner had assured the win for Jon "Das Liebesverbot oder Die Novize von Palermo"Lieber.

[Disclaimer: I have no idea what any of that means.]

What I am saying is that, if Wilson is a regular for Robinson, then this team needs a sturdy right-handed swinger for its bench. Might as well use the guy who's hitting .400, right?

[Aside: Okay, maybe my perception is reframed right now precisely because the Nats are facing a team with a lefty closer. Past series have demonstrated that the Nats need lefty bats off the bench, too---often in succession. Such is the price for carrying a defensive whiz such as Cristian Guzman. I'll concede the point and counter that Rick Short deserves the call-up just based on principle.]

If one goes up, one must go down---Church or Brandon Watson. Now, the latter---despite his winning smile---isn't going to fare much better at the plate than the former. And, strangely, though Watson is a centerfielder by trade, the Nats haven't employed him as such. Talk about derailing a guy's utility! Nevertheless, if all Church is going to do is strike out, pop to right, or ground weakly to second, the Nats might as well keep Watson as a late-inning pinch-runner. Presumably, the team would trust him to do that. Heaven only knows Bodes has the guy's back.

________________

That was a fun thought exercise, but signs point to Watson being sent down before Sunday's game, to be replaced not by Short, but by swing-man John Halama, who would start the final game of the New York series. Thursday's twin-bill against the Phillies will juggle the rotation around, thus necessitating the move.

This one-week fling with Watson has been fun, really, but it also sheds light on the stranger aspects of rooting for a team run by Jim Bowden and managed by Frank Robinson. Bodes gets his outfielder de jour fix, and Robinson gets his mystifying quote:

For the third straight game, Watson was not in Robinson's starting lineup last night. "The way things were going I got to feeling that he may not be 'the guy' to turn us around or give us that shot in the arm," Robinson said. "He can help. He can help us win ballgames."

I'm not sure how one follows the other, but whatever.

As for Church, it would appear he's safe. And he's received some advice on pinch-hitting from Robinson:

"It's a mindset. During the course of a ballgame, he has to keep notes on pitchers."

Somebody needs to be taking notes, for sure. I've long thought that a two-year, Ball Four-type project, chronicling the last year in Montreal and the first in DC, would be dynamite. If I could go back in time, I'd nominate Eischen for that assignment.

____________________

Speaking of Bodes and Frank---or of their respective posteriors pointed toward the Wilson Bridge----Brick is noodling ideas for the next management team, effective whenever in the future Bud Selig gets around to selling this little concern. Brick is looking at either Boston assistant Josh Byrnes (who received the Inquirer Seal of Approval in early June) or Atlanta exec Dayton Moore (no Inquirer critique in the file) as the GM; based on these choices, he surmises Grady Little as the next field manager.

It's interesting, at the least. I can see us five outs away from the World Series, with &#161LIVAN! on Pitch No. 153. You fill in the conclusion, Nats Nation!

Parallelism

2005-08-16T13:13:00.000-04:00

In his gamer of last night's 6-3 victory over the Phillies, St. Barry makes an obvious but interesting comparison:

Back in May, when things were just starting to go right for the Washington Nationals, Manager Frank Robinson hobbled onto the field at RFK Stadium and argued that a ball hit by Atlanta's Brian Jordan, one that was ruled a home run, should be called foul. The umpires met, discussed the matter, and ruled the ball foul.

Monday night, when Preston Wilson launched a ball toward right-center field at Citizens Bank Park that ricocheted back onto the field of play, first base umpire Alfonso Marquez put his hand in the air and twirled it around -- a home run. But Philadelphia Phillies right fielder Bobby Abreu, positioned directly under the ball, immediately disagreed, saying it had hit a fan who reached over the fence. [. . .]
But even considering all that, might there be something else going on here, an indication that the Nationals are not only beginning to snap out of their five-week funk, but are having karma turn back their way as well?

The call in that May 30 game did in fact herald success for the Nats, who split the next two contests as a prelude to a 10-game winning streak. This is the point at which that infamous "luck" truly did go their way. When half of a 10-game winning streak comes by way of one-run wins, that's abnormal. It was gigantic fun, but---in retrospect, of course---it was fool's gold.

As compelling as St. Barry's comparison may be (and I'm not suggesting he's actually ascribing "karmic merit" to it, by the way), I'm not going to follow it on down the line---and for good reason. The Nats weren't just lucky to win last night; they were good. The call was not dispositive a night ago, unlike that prior game.

This team still has a huge hole in its lineup, in the form of you-know-who (whose confidence in the field has now apparently lapsed, too), but it is playing much better all the same. While it was tempting to get pumped up after a sweep, even against the Rockies, it's perhaps more judicious not to get too pumped up after one series sweep, especially of the Rockies. Thirteen-hit shutout? Yikes.

Undeniably, though, things are turning a corner. Back when Preston Wilson was acquired, I didn't think much of him in a low-altitude environment; then again, I noted that a guy with some pop can get hot for 200-or-so at-bats. Maybe Wilson is getting started now. Nick Johnson's smokin' hot. Wilkerson strikes out a lot, but we knew that already. He also laced two doubles, and perhaps the little tiff with Robinson gave him the rest he needed. Jose Guillen's body must resemble a giant bruise, but if he's as tough as he talks, then he'll be around. The one thing about a veteran team is that veterans are trusted and given playing time---give anyone semi-competent playing time, and he might turn in a hot month or two. If several guys do it at once, then 18-12 months can follow.

And that's what the Nats need. They entered last night's game with a 62-55 record. I said somewhere that they'd need a 27-18 record the rest of the way to set up at least a wild card playoff. They won last night, but I want to push things. (Besides, front-runner Houston also won.) Now I'll say the Nats need 27-17 the rest of the way; that's an even 90 wins.

Do I think it will happen? No, not really. Do I hope it does? Of course.

But do I believe it will happen? I'm starting to, and that is what's important to me.

" . . . now available as a podcast"

2005-08-14T23:58:00.000-04:00

It's that time again, Nataholics. Catch me tomorrow on MySportsRadio.com, with Rusty Wray. Tune in for stimulating coverage on a variety of subjects, as Rusty and I touched all the bases, including:

---> Ownership Derby!;
---> RFK Stadium, attendance, new park update, etc.;
---> the rest of the road trip;
---> what lies ahead;
---> the few Nats whose stats stand out; and,
---> why Bud Selig is not "one of us"---by which I mean, human.

Also, check out my characteristically daring prediction for the rest of the season. Hint: I'm optimistic but want to be reasonable about it, as sweeping the Rockies is more the work of a feather-duster than a broom.

Define irony

2005-08-14T23:04:00.000-04:00

Is it a bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash, or is it this quote?

There are five outfielders on Washington's roster with a reasonable claim to play every day (Wilkerson, Wilson, Watson, Church and Jose Guillen). Only three can play at a time, and for now, Guillen and Wilson (despite his .216 average with the Nationals) are getting two of the spots.

Of Wilson, Robinson said, "You're going to get a guy, and then in less than a month you're going to give up on him?"

Totally, man.

Sincerely,
Ryan Church

__________________

Constructing the doghouse

On July 14, Ryan Church came back from his injury. He went 0-for-1 in a pinch-hitting appearance.

On July 15, Church returned to the lineup and went 1-for-4 with a ribbie and a strikeout.

On July 16, replacing Marlon Byrd mid-game, Church went tripled and walked, scoring a run.

On July 17-18, starting both times, Church went a combined 0-for-7 with a strikeout, though he did have two ribbies in the latter game.

On July 19, Church started and went 1-for-4 with an RBI and run scored.

On July 20, starting again, Church went 2-for-4 with a double, a stolen base, and a strikeout.

On July 21, Church started and went 1-for-4 with a run scored.

On July 22, starting again, Church went 2-for-3 with a double, a ribbie, and a whiff.

On July 23, Church started and went 1-for-3 with a double, a walk, and a caught stealing.

On July 24, Church pinch-hit and made an out.

On July 26, Church started and went 0-for-3 with a walk and two strikeouts.

On July 27, Church pinch-hit and made an out.

On July 28, Church pinch-hit and struck out.

On July 29, Church pinch-hit and struck out.

On July 30, Church started, going 1-for-4 with a strikeout.

On July 31, starting again, Church went 1-for-4 with a run scored and three strikeouts.

On August 2, Church struck out pinch-hitting.

On August 4, Church started and went 1-for-3 with a walk, a stolen base, and two runs scored.

On August 6, Church started and went 0-for-4 with three strikeouts.

On August 7, Church started and went 1-for-4 with a strikeout.

On August 12, Church pinch-hit and struck out.

On August 13, Church struck out pinch-hitting.

TOTALS

G  AB  H  AVG  BB SO
23 60  13 .217 4  18

AS A STARTER

G  AB  H  AVG  BB SO
14 48  12 .250 3  14

OFF THE BENCH

G  AB  H  AVG  BB SO
9  12  1  .083 1  4

The strikeouts are kind of rough (especially when in the game they've occurred) and Church seems to have responded in a peculiarly negative manner to pinch-hitting. Then again, it's hard to see exactly how Church "earned" the spot on the bench in the first place, posting 14 mediocre but hardly awful starts. He never went more than consecutive starts without a hit, for what it's worth. If only Church were a shortstop, eh?
________________________

I confess that I find this outfield logjam fascinating. Part of my fascination stems from how Mark Zuckerman of the Washington Times has covered it. I have noticed throughout the season that the Post and the Times generally cover the same things at the same time, and they generally cover them with the same general tone and level of detail. There are variations here and there, but broadly speaking, the coverage is similar. (MLB.com's coverage, by comparison, tends to be a bit more, uh, cloistered.)

This outfield story has been different, though, mainly because Zuckerman's approached it quite aggressively. Compare his Sunday story with St. Barry's and tell me if it sounds like the same clubhouse.

It's a fascinating contrast, to say the least.

(In case you're wondering, MLB.com has moved on, perhaps because Brad Wilkerson indeed did start this afternoon, and Owen Perkins' article informs us that happy days are here again.)

Update on WilkGate

2005-08-13T23:53:00.000-04:00

A different MLB.com writer, Owen Perkins, has written a pretty long story about the Brad Wilkerson Situation. Well, I don't know if it qualifies as a Situation, capitalized, but Wilkerson was benched again tonight and---reading between the lines---he wasn't happy about it.

It only gets more interesting, as Wilkerson was originally slated to start tonight's game against the Colorado Rockies, though apparently he was included by accident:

"I feel the same," Wilkerson confirmed. "I'm ready to go. It's the manager's decision, if he wants to keep me out. They didn't ask me yesterday, so they didn't know. Today they came and asked me, and I said I'm the same as yesterday."

Robinson and bench coach Eddie Rodriguez, however, took Wilkerson's unchanged status to mean that he remained unavailable to start against the Rockies. "He didn't play yesterday, so obviously it'd be the same way," said Rodriguez. "Give him another day and continue to get treatments. We're just being careful."

A hint of controversy stemmed from the fact that Wilkerson's name was originally at the top of the lineup for Saturday's game, apparently by accident, as Robinson confirmed that based on Rodriguez's conversation with Wilkerson, he had given the outfielder a night off. "If he
came in and said he could play, he'd play," Robinson added. "Hopefully, he'll feel much better tomorrow and walk in the clubhouse and say he can play."

I'm not even going to try to make heads-or-tails of that. Well, okay; I'll try:

---> Wilkerson was benched yesterday.
---> He wasn't asked about this and was upset by it.
---> He voiced some frustration to the media.
---> Rodriguez came by today and asked him how he was.
---> Wilkerson said, "Same as yesterday"---meaning, "I was ready to go yesterday, and I'm ready to go today."
---> Rodriguez told Robinson, "Same as yesterday, he says."
---> Robinson says, "Same as yesterday? Let's bench him again."
---> Somehow Wilkerson's name appears on an "early draft" of the lineup. (Maybe this was before Wilkerson and Rodriguez spoke?)
---> Wilkerson was taken out of the lineup in favor of, presumably, Watson.
---> "A hint of controversy" emerged; in other words, Wilkerson confronted Robinson and asked what's going on.

Or something. Reading on:

Ironically, Wilkerson may disagree with Robinson's optimistic prognosis for playing on Sunday, noting that the limited preparation before the Sunday's afternoon starting time would lower his chances of feeling like his shoulder was up to speed.

"Once I get out there and get it loose, it doesn't bother me throughout the game," Wilkerson explained. "If I'm not going to play, I'm not going to play [Sunday] because we're not going to take BP and I won't have a chance to get it loose. If we can get out there and I get moving around
and get to get it loose, I feel fine."

So, continuing the recreation:

---> Robinson says, "Okay, Brad. Maybe tomorrow. We'll see how you are."
---> Wilkerson counters, "Yeah, but if it's an afternoon game, I might not get it loose in time."
---> And Robinson says, "Well, there you go."
---> To which Wilkerson asserts, "Sure, but when it's loose, it's fine. So let me get loose tonight and play."
---> When Robinson concludes, "Sorry, bub. Maybe tomorrow."

Well, that's one way it could have happened. I don't really know, of course, and I'm not trying to make Frank Robinson into a bad guy.

I'm just impressed that this much detail is provided in the MLB.com story---even if the positions taken by the parties appear couched and diluted. All in all, way to go, Owen Perkins! Journalism!

_________________

Nats win! Nats win! Gosh, that was one of the weirder games you'll see. The Rockies banged out 13 hits (and walked five times, to boot), but didn't score a single run. If he wasn't on a somewhat strict 100-or-so-pitch lease, Tony Armas, Jr. (6 IP, 8 H, 3 BB), could have put together the best terrible performance I've ever seen. As I noted over at the Yuda.org chat, that distinction belongs to John Dopson---ironically enough, a former Expos' hurler---who took an 11-hit shutout into the ninth against the Atlanta Braves on July 3, 1988. Dopson yielded four hits in the ninth, ruining the shutout. A reliever recorded the final out in Dopson's 9-2 victory.

Dopson's line:

8.2 IP, 15 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 3 SO. Un-believ-able!