.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} >
 

Tudorian Careers

[April 11th] -- John Tudor was a pretty darn good major league pitcher. He won 117 games over twelve seasons with a very sharp 3.27 ERA. I was living in St. Louis when he was traded to the Cardinals from the Pirates in a four player trade that featured George Hendrick going to Pittsburgh. Though I thought it a good trade, I saw Tudor nothing more than a #3 pitcher. Over the previous two seasons, he went 25-23 with an ERA in the mid threes. I expected another near .500 effort in 1985. When he began the year 1-7, 4.40, I figured the 30 year old just wasn't that good. Cardinal fans were screaming for Whitey Herzog to get him out of the starting rotation. The St. Louis Cardinals were just too good for him.

Then something interesting happened. He found the flaw that was causing the problem and fixed it. Over the remainder of the season, Tudor went 20-1, 1.44, and led the Cardinals into the World Series against the Kansas City Royals. In his last five seasons (injuries cut short his career), the southpaw went 44-18, 2.78. In his first six years, he was just 69-54, 48-46 if you don't count that turnaround year in 1985.

The point is, he showed no real promise early in his career; he was a .500 pitcher and looked like he would always be just that. Then he had some sort of epiphany, and he finished his career as one of the best pitchers in the Major Leagues.

Right now, the Nationals have a couple of starting pitchers - Matt Chico & Jason Bergman - who are underwhelming Nationals' fans. Both have shown flashes of competency over their short careers, and could "get it" at some point and fix those faults that make them only pseudo-effective. Or they both will end up having careers where 12-11, 4.40 years are the norm and are welcomed by the Nationals. For now, that kind of production works. In the future, when the team matures and is finally ready to contend, it may not be enough. We'll just have to wait and see.
d
In 2005, the Nationals had only one or two minor league pitchers that anyone thought had much of a chance to make an impact with the big club. A quick glance this morning found 14 pitchers who could make a difference: Ross Detwiler, Colin Balestar, Jack McGeary, Josh Smoker, Jordan Zimmermann, Colton Willems, Tyler Clippard, Garrett Mock, Mike O'Connor (I still like him), Shairon Martis, Jhonny Nunez, Adrian Alaniz, Hassan Pena and Cole Kimball. If just 30% of prospects (real prospects) become solid major leaguers, then the Nationals have 4-5 starters that will take their place in the Nationals' - or someone else's via a trade - rotation.
f
The Nationals are going to be just fine. Shawn Hill, Bergman, Chico, Odalis Perez and Tim Redding are good enough for now. In time, we'll be able to tell if any of them will be like John Tudor and turn an average career into a stellar one. It'll hurt on the field until we all find out, but after all, none of us expected that much from these guys this year. 75 wins. 85 wins. Somewhere in between. Three years from now, no one will remember, and no one will care.
h
Stay the course.
g
Now, while I'm not worried about the wins and losses, I must admit that the 15,000 or so empty seats the last few games is bothersome. Those same whispers about Washington not being a baseball town that we hear today were around forty years ago. I can remember dozens of games in the late 1960's where the attendance at RFK was 7,000 or less. So after losing two teams in ten years, yes, I am a little skittish when it comes to fannies in the seats. With a new stadium and a long lease, the team isn't going anywhere. That said, I don't want us to become a Cincinnati type team with a moderate payroll and inability to keep our free agents because we don't draw well.
fFrankly, I was worried that the Nationals wouldn't be able to draw any more than 35,000 fans a night to watch the Marlins play. I hope - I pray - that the Braves series will average at least 30,000 per game.
d
The Nationals try to stop a seven game losing streak tonight. Against Tim Hudson. Change of waking up tomorrow morning and finding the Nationals 3-8? Oh, I dunno -- 75%?


 

ACHIEVING THE POSSIBLE

[April 10th] -- There weren't many certainties heading into the 2008 season for the Washington Nationals. About the only one was a guarantee that they weren't - weren't - going to start the season 1-8 and thoroughly embarrass both themselves and their fans.

And they didn't. After nine games, they're 3-6.

Much, much better. Good job, guys.

Seriously, globally, the Nationals have yet to make me want to push the panic button. Individually, however, there are some concerns. Why is it, for example, that Jason Bergman can look like Bob Gibson for the first four innings and Hoot Gibson thereafter? And is Austin Kearns ever going to become a powerful right-fielder? Come August, they could ultimately become two of the Nationals' best players. I'm just saying ......

Each year, all of us take a look at the team's roster and predict what could happen. The problem is that our predictions are based on what the players could do and not what they probably will do. For example, here was my predictions for the '69 Senators (I know, I gotta start throwing some of this stuff away):

1B: Mike Epstein - .285-25-100

2b: Bernie Allen - .260-7-50

SS: Eddie Brinkman - .240-5-45

3B: Kenny McMullen - .260-25-90

LF: Frank Howard - .300-40-100

CF: Del Unser - .285-8-60

RF: Hank Allen - .277-13-65

C: Paul Cassanova - .250-8-45

No one prediction was off by much, yet as a group, these players (with Lee Maye replacing Hank Allen in right) really didn't come close because I assumed the best case scenario for each player. Now, take a look at my predictions for this year:

1B: Nick Johnson - .285-20-80

2B: Ronnie Belliard - .280-13-60

SS: Cristian Guzman - .270-5-45

3B: Ryan Zimmerman - .300-30-100

LF: Wily Mo Pena / Elijah Dukes - .270-25-90

CF: Lastings Milledge - .285-23-85

RF: Austin Kearns - .265-24-85

C: LoDuca / Estrada - .270-12-55

Again, each individual prediction seems reasonable, but as a group, I've probably guessed too high. Come October, three of these guys will probably do better, three will do worse, and two will do about what I figured.

And if that happens, the Nationals aren't going to have a great season.

Around the Minors: Michael Burgess his hitting just .200 for Hagerstown but has already hit two homers. He's struck out 9 times in 20 at-bats (ouch!). Bill Rhinehart continues to surprise. After hitting .299-5-43 for Vermont last season, he's at .318-1-6 in 22 at-bats for the Suns. The problem is Rhinehart is the same age as Ryan Zimmerman and is still playing 'A' ball. Andrew LeFave (also 23), obtained in the Ray King trade last year, is hitting just .083 in 2008. He has a career .348 career average in two minor league seasons.


 

YOUNG GUNS

[April 6th] -- Yeah, another bad game. Sure, the Nationals have now lost four games in a row after winning their first three.

No worries.

Any of us who went into 2008 with a "counting wins" perspective might be in for a very long summer. The team is still building and in some cases, still guessing as to who will - and won't - make a difference in the coming years.

We still have to look for stories-with-the-story to get a true sense of the team's progression towards respectability.

Like John Lannan's effort in an otherwise dismal 3-0 loss to the (not much better than us) St. Louis Cardinals.

Lannan, who was clearly the best Nats' starter in Spring Training, gets called up from Columbus and is asked to stop the team's three-game losing streak. Well, the Nationals lost, but he was about the most blameless player in a blue hat on Sunday.

Lannan pitched 6.2 innings, giving up 7 hits, 2 runs while striking out 4. Sixty-three percent of his pitches went for strikes and he left the game with a rather nifty 2.70 ERA. So, I'm thinking, what else does this guy have to do to become a permanent member of the Nationals' rotation? No question, he's still going to have his ups and downs, but let's give him some experience at the major league level so he'll be ready to make a difference next year, when things could really be fun.

But Lannan wasn't the only Nats' lefty to impress on Sunday.

Ross Detwiler was lights-out in his first start of the year for the Potomac Nationals. Detwiler (who pitched only 33 innings last year) threw 5 shutout innings against Salem, allowing just 3 hits and a walk while striking out 7. "A man among boys" was the way the Salem Avalanche broadcaster described the situation.

I understand that Jim Bowden wants Detwiler to succeed before promoting him, but if he's not going to be challenged in Potomac, send him north to Harrisburg.

So we've got these two guys - both young, both 6'5", both 200 pounds - and both will be ready to help the Nationals in 2009. But there is someone else who could be ready to make a difference as well.

Mike O'Connor, another [fairly] young, tall lefty.

O'Connor was the only one not considered to be a future major leaguer, and yet he has pitched extremely well both in spring training and in his first start with the Clippers, allowing just two hits and two walks while striking out four in five innings. Remember, before he was injured, he was one of the Nationals most consistent starters in 2006. In his first 12 starts - through the end of June - O'Connor had a record of 3-4, 3.39 in 12 starts, allowing just 49 hits in 58 innings while striking out 45. Over his next four starts, O'Connor gave up 22 runs in 15 innings (13.29 ERA) and ended the year 3-8, 4.80. I think it safe to assume that's when his elbow problems began.

So if O'Connor reverts to form - and perhaps he already has - and can once again get major league batters out, the Nationals could be sitting on a treasure trove of left-handed pitching, especially if Matt Chico's second start was an aberration.

Time will tell.

Let's get back to Matt Chico for just a second. Though his numbers didn't look very good in that first start in Philadelphia, and nothing looked very good against the Cardinals, there are still some very positive signs for the kid. Sure, he's given up 14 hits and 7 runs in 11.1 innings, but he's also struck out 9 and walked just 3. That's 7 strikeouts and 2.4 walks per 9 innings. Last year, he averaged 3.98 walks per 9 innings and just 4.75 walks per 9. He still gives up too many hits, but - regardless of his numbers thus far - he seems to pitching much better in 2008.

This-N-That: Felipe Lopez has started four straight games and the Nationals have lost four straight games. Coincidence? Probably. His defense in left wasn't bad at all - much better than Alfonso Soriano at first - but he continues a downward spiral with his bat. He's now batting .188 (3-16) with a .278 OBP and 5 strikeouts. Certainly, it's a small sample, but I'm not seeing any value here, both trade and on the field .... After a slow start, Ryan Zimmerman has raised his batting average to .290 with 6 hits over the weekend. Amazingly, he has cut down his strikeouts this year, fanning only 3 times in 31 at-bats (once very 10.3 at-bats). For his career, he's struckout once every 5.2 at-bats .... Paul LoDuca has looked really bad at the plate so far (.167) but he's yet to strikeout. I thought this to be an aberration, but no - LoDuca has excellent plate discipline. Over his career, he's averaged just 43 strikeouts per 550 at-bats .... Has anyone else begun to moan and groan when Willie Harris (1-12) comes to the plate? .... It's obvious that Joel Hanrahan wouldn't continue to pitch as well as he did this spring, but really, he's not too far away. Though he has a 6.00 ERA, he's given up just 2 hits in 3 innings while striking out 5. I think Manny Acta is very pleased with his work so far.

Labels:


 

BACK TO REALITY & IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK

[April 4th] -- I thought it prudent to wait to begin blogging about the 2008 season until after the Nationals lost a game. It was important to lose a game in Philadelphia. All too often, teams that start 4-0 or 7-0 begin to press so hard to keep their streak alive that when they finally lose, they really lose. Case in point (though it's a much larger sample) was the Nationals' 2005 season when they - either through luck, or smoke or mirrors -started the season 50-31 and rolled into the All Star game in first place. They didn't have the offense, or the defense, or the pitching, to have won those many games in the first half. I think we all felt that sooner or later, things would resolve themselves.

And so they did. The Nationals finished 31-50 and limped home with a .500 record.

So, thirty-seven innings into the season, we really don't know much more than we did during that last week of spring training. The great majority of journalists and bloggers are predicting anywhere from 75-85 wins, and that sounds about right.

I think it's great that players on the Braves and Phillies have remarked that the Nationals seem much improved. They are right, of course. How much improved still remains to be seen. There is no question, however, that the new players have a far higher upside than those they replaced. So they could be much better than anticipated if they all play up to their potential.
How much better? In the perfect world, this is how good the Nationals' offense could be:

Cristian Guzman (SS) - .275-7-50

Lastings Milledge (CF) - .289-24-75

Ryan Zimmerman (3B) - .290-30-110

Nick Johnson (1B) - .280-20-90

Austin Kearns (RF) - .270-24-88

Pena/Dukes (LF) - .265-25-75

Ronnie Belliard (2B) - .275-13-55

LoDuca / Estrada (C) - .270-10-50

That's 153 homers for the starters, more than the entire team hit last year. If Kearns and Dukes/Pena do well when they return from the DL, it could even be more than that. And I'm not sure about Milledge; he could amaze us all as the season progresses.

The starting pitching staff could be equally potent - again - if health issues stop dogging the Nationals:

Odalis Perez: 12-10 4.00

Matt Chico: 12-11 4.22

Tim Redding: 13-8 3.66

Jason Bergman: 11-9 3.88

Shawn Hill: 10-5 3.44 (assuming he returns in time)

These five could amass 57 wins this year, a good number compared to last year's 39 wins by the all of those starters. Add those 18 extra wins to last years 73 and the Nationals could end up with a record of 91-72. Of course, there is no way that every player is going to play healthy or up to expectations.

So lets cut those 18 extra wins in half.

Voila! The Nats will finish 2008 at 82-78.

The wild card in all of this is how well the team's minor league pitchers will do this year. I mean, did you see that starting rotation for Columbus? Mike O'Connor. John Lannan. Tyler Clippard. Colin Balestar. Garrett Mock. Lannan of course, will join the Nats over the weekend. If these pitchers can fill the holes in the team's rotation due to injuries or poor performance, those 82 wins seem a certainty.

Of that group, O'Connor was the only one not considered to be a future major leaguer, and yet he has pitched extremely well both in spring training and in his first start with the Clippers, allowing just two hits and two walks while striking out four in five innings. Remember, before he was injured, he was one of the Nationals most consistent starters in 2006. In his first 12 starts - through the end of June - O'Connor had a record of 3-4, 3.39 in 12 starts, allowing just 49 hits in 58 innings while striking out 45. Over his next four starts, O'Connor gave up 22 runs in 15 innings (13.29 ERA) and ended the year 3-8, 4.80. I think it safe to assume that's when his elbow problems began.

So it's not like any success O'Connor might have this year would come as a surprise. He's already had success - good success - at the major league level. If he returns to form, the Nationals could then have five - count 'em, FIVE - major league caliber pitchers at the AAA level.

Who said that all that pitching help is years away?

First Impressions of 2008:


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?