At the end of spring training, I published a post entitled "Nats News Network's 2011 Predictions Edition", and followed that up the next day with "The Great Michael Morse Debate", where I predicted that Michael Morse would be the Nats "Biggest Disappointment" in 2011.  That opinion wasn't necessarily based on his projected performance, but Nats fans expectations for Morse heading into the season.

Here's what I said in the predictions post:

I just don't see anything in his history, other than his resemblance to Jayson Werth, that leads me to believe he's going to break out this year any more than he did last season while they were managing his at bats. If he duplicates last year, I'll be happy and surprised.

The next day, I published my 2011 projection for Morse, based on the information we had at spring training and his career ratios:

My official projection for Morse: 380 plate appearances, .272/.337/.461 with 17 home runs. And even then, I'm being optimistic compared to most available independent projections.

I was optimistic against independent projections.  Baseball Prospectus had Morse with 302 plate appearances and .277/.341/.458, 15 homers and 41 RBIs.  Baseball Forecaster had Morse for 325 plate appearances and .268/.320/.463 with 15 homers and 47 RBIs. 

Since he's out of the lineup for today's finale, Morse's final line (not withstanding a pinch-hit chance) is .303/.360/.550 with 31 homers and 95 RBIs in 571 plate appearances.  Did he out perform my projection?  He sure did.  He outperformed every single independent projection as well.  But if you look at the HR/PA rate instead of the raw numbers, we're not that far off.

His earned HR/PA rate in 2011 was .0538.  My projection was .0447.  If you extrapolate my rate over his actual plate appearances, the projection would have been for 25.7 (26) home runs, so my projection for playing time was off more than his production.

In Morse's career before this season, his HR/PA rate was .0306 (21 homers in 685 PAs).  In the minors, it was .0227 (69/3039).  Last season, it was .0511 (15 homers in 293 PAs).  So this season Morse produced at a rate he's never accomplished before in his career.

So how did Morse outperform his projections?  His walk rate was down.  His K rate was up.  His BABiP was above league average, but right on his career average.  His platoon numbers are negligible.  His line drive percentage, HR/fly ball percentage, everything else is all in line to how he performed last season, which is slightly elevated from his career numbers.

So what was different?  Simply playing everyday.  He finally found himself healthy and in an organization that overlooked his shortcomings on defense and let him play, first in left field (where he was very below average defensively) then at first base, taking over for the injured Adam LaRoche, where his range was quite suspect, but other than that handled himself pretty well.

Will he continue to produce at this rate?  That's very hard to say.  He's already at the point where the affects of age will start becoming evident.  Some players age better than others.  But we can really only expect peak play through the very early 30's and Morse will be 30 at the start of spring training.

Morse made himself a lot of money this season and will be due a huge raise in arbitration this off-season.  It will be interesting to see how GM Mike Rizzo treats Morse's salary and contract status the next two seasons.  Because if he keeps up this production, when he becomes a free agent at the end of the 2013 season (along with Ryan Zimmerman), he'll be looking at a big, multi-year deal at the age of 32, just like the player Morse believes he most resembles, Jayson Werth.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it at least a thousand times more:  I love Baseball-Reference.com.

I was doing some research for a question in a comment thread over on Federal Baseball.  It was a two-part question.

Can I see some stats on Jayson Werth I guarantee he leads the league in:

1. Failing to get a runner from second to third when their are no outs, just hit the ball to the right side please.

2. Failing to get a runner home when the runner is at 3rd with less than two outs, get the ball out of the infield please.

Well, BR can't tell us exactly if Werth leads the league in these things as these particular stats aren't aggregated anywhere, so B-R isn't perfect.  But what we can find out quite easily is Werth's success rates in these particular scenarios.

1) Werth has had 23 plate appearances this season with a runner on second and no outs. He advanced the runner eight times, for a success rate of 35%.  His lifetime average is 47% in those situations. MLB average is 56%.  So we can't tell if Werth "leads" the league in this situation, but we can tell he is significantly below league average moving runners over from second with no outs.

2) In plate appearances with a runner on third and less than two outs, Werth has been successful in 15-of-37 opportunities, a 41% success rate. His lifetime average is 48% and league average is 51%.  Again, this season he's significantly below Major League average in this particular scenario.

Interesting that his LIFETIME averages in these situations are below Major League average as well.  Now in the first instance, I don't think Werth's managers merely want Werth moving that runner over.  He's up there trying to produce that run, so you'll live with Werth not hitting the ball to the right side to advance the runner, I think.

But the second scenario is a situation where you really want a batter to drive that run in.  Once again, we find that Werth hasn't been particularly effective at this skill across the entirety of his career, not just this year. 

***But I also think it's instructive that Major League average of plating a runner from third with less than two outs is "only" 51 percent.  I found that somewhat surprising, and I think most casual baseball fans (and some newspaper columnists) would think that percentage should be around 80 percent or something silly like that.

If we look at any situation where Werth has runners on base, and those runners scored by the result of his plate appearance, Werth has been successful roughly 10 percent (32-of-305) of the time this season.  Lifetime he's been successful at 14 percent and Major League average, including pitchers, middle infielders, everybody, is 15 percent.  For example, Albert Pujols is successful driving in base runners 19 percent of his plate appearances.

Again, I'm not making a value judgment here, just presenting the numbers for you, our loyal readers.

By the way, it took me three minutes to look these numbers up.  Did I mention I love Baseball-Reference.com?

The title of this post is not a serious indication of my feelings about Davey Johnson's post-game comments last night about the possibility (likelihood?) of Michael Morse moving back to left field once rosters expand to make room for Chris Marrero, and staying there next season when (if?) Adam LaRoche comes back healthy (hopefully).

"Ideally, when LaRoche comes back we'll have LaRoche at first and probably [Morse] in left field," Johnson said of potential plans for next season.  Earlier in his comments, about roster expansion, he mentioned Morse moving back to the outfield, couching it with the comment,  "We got a guy down there [in the minors] that can play a little first base."

But, but... anecdotal evidence suggests (in ridiculously small sample sizes) that Morse can't hit when he plays the outfield!  In 35 games as a left fielder, Morse is hitting .248/.292/.339 in 120 plate appearances.  At first base, in 93 games (373 plate appearances) he hits .334/.389/.607!  He's a FIRST BASEMAN!!! 

Making the decision that Morse can't hit playing left field based on those numbers in that small a sample size is akin to nominating a party's candidate to run for President based on the exit polls of the first state to hold their primaries.  Oh wait. That's probably a bad example.

Michael Morse dealt with a knee injury earlier this season.  He hit .258/.286/.351 through May 21.  Since that date, when he coincidentally took over at first base for the injured Adam LaRoche, he's hit .345/.401/.641 with a .390 BABiP. 

He got healthy, benefitting from playing a less physically demanding position.  He's been somewhat lucky.  It was a coincidence.

Of course, Morse has to continue at the pace he's on for this debate to remain pertinent, but that's another story.  But if he can hold his value for the remainder of this year and next year, this team is much better off with him in left field and a healthy LaRoche at first, as opposed to the NRI platoon of Laynce Nix and Jonny Gomes in left.

Bottom line though, when Bryce Harper (then 20) and Chris Marrero (then 24) take over in left and at first Opening Day 2013, none of this will matter.

For my post today over at MASNSports.com, I take a look at yesterday's hero, Laynce Nix.  I've been meaning to analyze his success this season, but just hadn't gotten around to it.  After hitting a home run off Roy Oswalt and making the game-saving catch in the Nats 2-1 win, I figured now would be the perfect time.

Nix is a good story for the Nats so far.  He's far outplaying his projections and career averages.  But a look into some pretty simple advanced statistics reveals he's living on luck and an elevated HR-per-fly ball ratio.  Once his BABiP reverts to mean and that HR:FB ratio flattens out, he's going to be the same old Laynce Nix who owns a lifetime .248/.290/.437 slash line. His K/9 is way up and BB/9 is way down in relation to career norms as well, another bad harbinger.

His line drive, ground out and fly out rates are all steady with career norms, so it's really just the case of a few extra fly balls turning into home runs and balls falling in for hits.  Nats fans should enjoy his success for what it is, but have a realistic idea that as the summer wears on Nix will probably return to his career rates.  Is it possible he's enjoying a career year at age 30? Sure, but he's doing so with the benefit of some pretty extreme luck right now.

I don't write this to be a killjoy. I want the Nats to succeed and have players that are legitimately good.  But I also want Nats fans to be educated about what's going on behind the boxbar numbers so that if (when) Nix returns to earth they aren't shocked.

It's like that old conundrum: Would you rather be optimistic and disappointed or realistic and pleasantly surprised?

GM Mike Rizzo gave an interview to Fox Sports' Ken Rosenthal that was published yesterday, and the gist of the piece was that Rizzo was happy with how his Washington Nationals were playing except hitting with runners in scoring position.  In fact, he said exactly that: 

"We’re playing terrific baseball except for the fact that we’re struggling with runners in scoring position.”

Rizzo echoed the sentiments later in the same article in context to winning.

“Am I happy with the won-loss record? No. But I think it’s really based on us not hitting with runners in scoring position, getting the big hit."

Yahoo.com's Hardball Talk took these comments to task: 

Washington is hitting .230 with a .663 OPS overall, compared to .228 with a .697 OPS with runners in scoring position. In other words, they’ve actually been slightly better with runners in scoring position. Obviously the Nationals would have more wins if they were hitting, say, .328 with runners in scoring position, but when a team bats .230 overall and .228 with runners in scoring position, pointing to that as the problem is silly.

Rizzo and Riggleman are absolutely correct that he team isn't hitting well with runners in scoring position.  But as the statistics show, they aren't hitting well period, hitting .230/.301/.361 overall (15th, 15th and 13th in the N.L.), and the difference between their numbers with RISP and not is, well, statistically negligible. 

The Nationals are playing well defensively, and up until the last few nights were still getting pretty good pitching, things that the Nationals have every right to be happy about so far this season.  They are breaking in young players at short, second, catcher, center and closer, have been without their best player for the entire season minus eight games, and just lost their first baseman for an unknown length of time.

The real problem the Nationals have offensively is that they just don't have enough baserunners.

The Nats are exactly league average at converting base runners into runs (14 percent), but they are 14th in the league in number of base runners (just one base runner more than Pittsburgh).  Looking deeper into the stats, the Nationals are tied for first in the league percentage-wise (59 percent) scoring a runner from third with less than two outs.

They are second in the league advancing runners from second with no outs, and first in the entire league in "productive outs" percentage.  The problem, again, is that they are 14th in the league in such opportunities.

The statistics suggest that it's not how the Nationals are performing with runners in scoring position, its that they simply don't have enough opportunities to bat in those situations.  And that all comes down to on base percentage.  Baserunners equal runs, and the Nats just aren't getting on base enough.

All statistics courtesy of this table at Baseball-Reference.com.

(ed. Earlier attribution of second quote to Jim Riggleman has been edited to properly attribute to Mike Rizzo.)

With Thursday night’s crushing 6-5 loss to the Atlanta Braves, the Washington Nationals record is one game below .500 at 18-19. They've accomplished this despite being dead last in the league in hitting. So how are they doing it? Primarily with decent starting pitching, (mostly) excellent relief pitching from a few key relievers, and improving defense. The team is 14-9 when not committing an error and 4-10 when they do. That's how close their margin of error has been.

But just how good has the pitching been? Well, they are right at  league average in runs allowed per game at 4.19, and the team ERA is slightly better than average at 3.77. The Nats are fifth in fewest walks allowed per nine and have surrendered the fourth fewest home runs overall, but also next to last in strikeouts per nine. Their ERA+ according to Baseball-Reference.com is league average. They are right in the middle of the pack overall.

There are some pretty fancy stats out there if you really want to get involved with that sort of thing. I like to dabble in them myself from time to time. But pitching is pretty elementary: fewer base runners means fewer runs against. You can use all the new-fangled stats you want, but you can still do a pretty good job evaluating a pitcher by a few simple stats. And you can make a reasonably educated prediction on whether a player is going through a streak or slump just as easily.

All it takes is to know what you're looking for. For general performance, you want to look at hit rates, walk rates and home run rates, and for projection you want to look at BABiP. And you need to compare them to the league average and the player's career average.

Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABiP) measures how many of a batter’s balls in play go for hits (minus home runs). For pitchers, obviously, BABiP against is the percentage of batter balls that fall in for hits against. Typically, around 30 percent of all balls in play fall for hits. This is based on decades of MLB data. This season so far, BABiP across Major League Baseball is .299.

Why is this important? Wildly high or low fluctuation from the norm in BABiP signifies a player in -- or out -- of luck: hits are either falling in or not. But it always goes back to the general norm. From Fangraphs:

If a player has a very high or very low BABIP, it means that whatever the reason for the spike (whether it’s defense, luck, or slight skill), that player will regress back to their career BABIP rates. BABIP rates are flaky and prone to vary wildly from year to year, so we should always take any extreme BABIP rates with a grain of salt.

Hitters can have a little bit of control over their BABiP: fast guys that hit the ball on the ground on purpose, for instance, tend to have higher BABiPs (Nyjer Morgan's career BABiP is .339). But pitchers will hover around that .300 mark. There are obvious outliers, as there always are, and for a more detailed look into the subject, click here.

Let's take a look at the underlying numbers for the starting pitchers so far this season.

Livan Hernandez: 3-4, 4.29 ERA, 1.450 WHIP, 10.2 H/9, 2.9 BB/9, 4.5 K/9, 0.5 HR/9, .318 BABiP

Jason Marquis: 4-1, 3.66 ERA, 1.307 WHIP, 10.0 H/9, 1.7 BB/9, 5.6 K/9, 0.6 HR/9, .327 BABiP

Jordan Zimmermann: 2-4, 4.13 ERA, 1.229 WHIP, 9.0 H/9, 2.1 BB/9, 6.6 K/9, 0.4 HR/9, .307 BABiP

John Lannan: 2-4, 4.79 ERA, 1.597 WHIP, 10.5 H/9, 3.9 BB/9, 4.8 K/9, 0.9 HR/9, .324 BABiP

Tom Gorzelanny: 2-2, 2.87 ERA, 0.903 WHIP, 5.0 H/9, 3.1 BB/9, 6.9 K/9, 1.2 HR/9, .168 BABiP

Those are a lot of numbers to digest. Who are the biggest surprises though? Marquis and Gorzelanny obviously. Can we expect them to continue pitching as well as they have?

Marquis' hit rate and K rate are right in line with his career numbers, but where he shows marked improvement is in his walk rate and home run rate. His career BB/9 rate is 3.5, and he's cut that by almost two walks per game this season. That accounts for his lower WHIP. He's also shaved a half a home run per game off his career home run rate, but he has shown a similar rate in previous seasons. Fewer base runners plus fewer home runs equals lower ERA.

So once those numbers look more like his career numbers, will he go back to his normal mid-4.00 ERA? Not so fast. He's also been pitching in bad luck, if you can believe it. His BABiP is 40 points higher than his career average. Maybe his improved control has him living in the strike zone more and hitters are getting more strikes to hit? Even so, even if his now-stellar walk rate climbs a bit, he should give up fewer bases hits as the season goes along, hopefully maintaining or only slightly elevating his ERA. Verdict: BUY.

Gorzelanny's numbers are downright unbelievable. In 37 2/3 innings, he's given up just 21 hits. His 5.0 H/9 is four full hits below his lifetime average (and 3.5 hits below 2011 N.L. average), and that shows up in his unsustainable .168 BABiP. But Gorzelanny hasn’t invented a new, unhittable pitch. Right now, everything put in play is being hit right at somebody. At some point soon, Gorzelanny's not just going to have a regression, he's going to give up hits at almost double his current rate, which obviously will lead to more base runners and more runs scored against.

One place where Gorzelanny has actually improved is his walk rate, reduced by one per nine over his career average, which is a significant improvement. But his K rate, while close to his career average, is down significantly from the last four years, where he averaged 8.4 per nine innings. On top of all of that, despite his BABiP being incredibly low, his home run per nine rate is up from his career numbers.

It's hard to imagine Gorzelanny continuing this run he's been on. Frankly, it's hard to figure out how he's done it at all. He's yet to give up more than five hits in a start, and he's given up more than two earned runs just once this season (his first start), and in that game he only gave up four hits (two of which were home runs).

Nats fans should applaud Gorzelanny for the string of starts he's made thus far but shouldn't expect it to continue. It's just not statistically possible.

The other three starters -- more or less -- are pitching the way we would expect them to and their BABiPs are all pretty much in line with their career norms. Zimmermann's strikeout rate is down overall, but his 11 K performance Thursday provides optimism, especially the way he was able to generate swinging strikes. Livo's K rate is disintegrating and his home run rate is half his career average, but he's doing pretty much what he always has done. Lannan's walk rate is back up to almost four per nine. Starters that don't strike out a lot of hitters just can't afford to give away free bases and Lannan has the least margin for error of anyone on the staff.

Overall -- barring injury -- I think we can expect most of the staff to continue their performance so far, with the exception of Gorzelanny, as his ERA will rise as the hits start to fall in more. The true test for him is to keep his walk rate down. Hernandez and Lannan should continue to eat innings and keep the team comepetitive when they can limit their walks and Marquis should enjoy his renaissance, hopefully to be flipped for assets as the summer wears on. And all Nats fans should hope Zimmermann continues to regain the command and control necessary to increase his strikeout rate and drop his ERA a little.

___________________________________________________________

One more interesting number to note is "Bequeathed Runners", that is, the number of runners on base when the starter leaves the game.  The Nats far and away lead the league in bequethed runners.  A rough translation means that Nats pitchers wear down in their final inning of work, and manager Jim Riggleman to this point generally hasn't allowed his starters to work out of jams in the middle innings. Not surprisingly, the Nats also lead the league far and away in most bequeathed runners scored.

We saw that in Thursday night's loss, as Jordan Zimmermann was cruising into the seventh, but gave up a walk and a soft line drive single and was pulled in favor of Sean Burnett, who threw gasoline on the fire.  The Nats have the second most "starters wins lost" in the N.L.; when a starting pitcher leaves the game in line for a win and the bullpen gives up the lead.  That speaks to the quality of the middle relief, a topic that seems to be on everybody's minds these days.

The Washington Nationals currently sit in third place in the National League East, four and a half games behind the Philadelphia Phillies with a .500 record of 10-10 after 20 games, roughly one-eighth of the season.  Their Pythagorean W-L (based on run differential) is 9-11, so on that hand the Nats' record isn't really an aberration.

Or is it?

The Nats have heavily loaded their wins with runs.  Naturally, one would assume that a team would score more runs in a win than a loss.  But the Nats are taking this to an extreme.  They've scored five or more runs in a game nine times this season, including Sunday's 6-3 over the Pittsburgh Pirates.  In those nine games the team is a perfect 9-0.

But in games the Nats have scored fewer than five runs, they are a paltry 1-10.  That's right.  Only once this season have the Nats won scoring fewer than five runs, a 4-3 10-inning win over Milwaukee.  That speaks to the ineffectiveness of both the hitting and the pitching.

Just how bad is that?  In four of the Nats 10 losses, the opposition has scored fewer than four runs and in two more losses the other team scored five.  So more than half the Nats' losses have come when the opposition has scored five or fewer runs.

To compare, the San Diego Padres, the lowest scoring team in the majors, earned five of their eight victories scoring five or fewer runs.

Essentially, the idea of the Nats starters "keeping their team in the game" has been meaningless thus far.  The Nats have either won with an offensive explosion (by their measure) of they've lost.  They haven't had any in-between.  They aren't winning low scoring games and they aren't winning close games because they just aren't in many (1-2 in one run games).

Shall we examine the individuals?

Of the starting players (position players that have garnered the most at bats at their position), the Nationals have exactly two players hitting higher than .260: rookie 2B Danny Espinosa (.281/.364/.484) and Ryan Zimmerman, who hasn't played in almost three weeks and currently has no timetable for return.

The outfield of Jayson Werth, Rick Ankiel and Michael Morse is hitting .220 with five home runs combined.  I went through Werth's troubles here, and his proclivity for hitting ground ball outs this year is alarming.  In Sunday's win he grounded out four more times and struck out in his last at bat.  Again, alarming.

But the other two are playing at very predictable levels, if you paid attention to pre-season analytical projections instead of anecdotal evidence from spring training.

In fact, the only hitter you can really state is slumping, with any confidence, is Adam LaRoche, who is one of the most consistent players in the game.  LaRoche is traditionally a slow starter though, with a career .213/.308/.394 in April.

But then, his partially torn rotator cuff may be giving him more problems than he -- or the team -- is letting on.  That's not an injury that heals itself, and any loss of joint stability could be affecting his strength, whether or not the player feels pain in his swing.

The most troublesome slow start belongs to Ian Desmond.  He's supposed to be part of The Plan v2.0.  He looks as lost at the plate right now as he ever has, reaching base just 20 times in 79 plate appearances (.253 OBP).  In fact, he's struck out as many times as he's reached base.  That's just not acceptable for a non-power hitter.

The rest?  They are what they are at this point in their careers.

What can the Nats do to score more runs?

Hope Ryan Zimmerman returns sooner than later.  Hope Jayson Werth figures out what's wrong with his swing and stops grounding out.  Hope something clicks with Ian Desmond.  Hope Adam LaRoche is going through his usual April swoon and not that his swing is being sapped by injury.

That's a lot of things to hope for.

Jayson Werth, the Washington Nationals $126 million dollar man, has struggled so far this season, to a slash line of .200/.302/.382 before the start of play Wednesday.  He had an RBI in the first game of the double-header against the St. Louis Cardinals, just his third of the season and first that did not come on a solo home run.

In Philadelphia, it was widely acknowledged that Werth transformed himself as a hitter when he lowered his hands and shortened his swing, somewhere around the 2009 season (when he hit 36 HRs, followed by last year's 27 HRs accompanied by the NL lead in doubles).

Notice Werth's hands in this video from 2010.  You'll have to forgive the fact it's a game-winner against the Nats.

So fast forward to this season, and you can notice stance is dramatically different. His hands start very high, with an open stance, but his toe tapping mechanism that triggers the swing brings him into a closed stance.

Click to Werth's MLB.com bio page and click on the video "Werth reaches on error".  It's a routine ground ball to short.  In fact (short sample size warning), so far this season Werth is grounding out at rates that are astronomically higher than his career averages and much higher than N.L. average.

Werth's Ground Ball to Fly Ball ratio is 1.21, DOUBLE his career 0.63 ratio.  His Ground Out to Fly Out ratio is 1.54, again almost double his career 0.84 and his line drive rate is 14 percent, well below his career 20 percent.

He's hitting twice the amount of ground balls, make almost twice as many ground outs, and one-third fewer line drives.

Again, 65 plate appearances isn't much of a sample size.  But if he put these numbers up over the course of a season, people would say that he got really old, really fast.  But what's seems clear is that his mechanics are causing him to hit ground balls at an alarming rate.

Now that we've all dug out of this weeks' snowstorm and steel ourselves for next week's apocalyptic storm, let's take a look at yesterday's big news, the DFA of OF Justin Maxwell to make room for Todd Coffey on the 40-man roster.

Maxwell, 27, is a toolsy outfielder: tall and lean, strong and fast.  He plays very good defense in centerfield, and has solid power -- when he makes contact.  That's been the biggest thing holding him back from making "the jump".

He's got a lifetime .261/.357/.442 slash line in the minors in 1778 plate appearances, so he has talent.  Despite a not-so-great batting average, he still has a good eye in the minor leagues, getting on base at a solid clip and showing good power for a guy that can play center field like he can.

So why are so many ready to throw dirt on the guy?

Let's compare the numbers of four Nats outfielders in their first three seasons in the bigs.  Three of these players debuted at 23, the other at 24.  But all the stats below were accrued before the player turned 27.

Player A:  122 games; 269 plate appearances; 9 HRs; 26 RBIs; .201/.319/.379.

Player B:  107 games; 337 plate appearances; 3 HRs; 37 RBIs; .300/.365/.397.

Player C:  130 games; 430 plate appearances; 18 HRs; 63 RBIs, .255/.329/.461.

Player D:  163 games; 552 plate appearances; 11 HRs; 49 RBIs; .241/.306/.364.

Granted, these are tremendously small sample sizes, but it's that size that Mike Rizzo just made his judgment on Maxwell.

Can you guess which stat line goes with which Nats' outfielder?

There's only one whose OBP is more than 100 points higher than his batting average, Player A.  That shows a keen, almost elite eye at the plate. If we could only coax a bit more contact out of him, we might have the making of a Major League hitter.

Player B looks like a slap-hitting singles hitter, his high average is supporting his OBP.

Player C already is showing some real good power, but it's coming at the expense of plate discipline.

Player D looks lost.  There's some raw power in there, but isn't making contact or showing any patience.

You've probably guessed by now the identities of our four players.  In order:  Maxwell, Michael Morse, Jayson Werth, and Roger Bernadina.

This exercise is almost pointless.  But it illustrates just how little evaluative time sometimes general managers have to make a decision on a player.  And Maxwell has received the fewest plate appearances of any of the four to display his talent.

Whether Maxwell clears waivers and stays in the system, or goes somewhere else, he has the requisite talent to be a good ballplayer.  Someone just needs to convince him to shorten his swing and let his natural talent take over.  He already has the skill of plate discipline -- he knows the difference between a ball and a strike. 

What's wrong with him is fixable.

Oh, and my last point: over 131 plate appearances last season, in which his batting average was .141, his BABiP (remember, league average is right around .300) was a less-than-paltry .200 exactly.  So it wasn't just the strikeouts.

Where I bore you with some statistics with arbitrary end points...

• In his last 133 plate apperances (dating back to Aug. 7 -- 33 games), Adam Dunn is hitting .205/.323/.375 with 4 HRs and 14 RBIs.  He's struck out 42 times against 19 walks.  That's a pace over 162 games for 225 Ks.  Eleven of his 23 hits over that time frame have been for extra bases so he has that going for him.
  
  
• In the ten games since the brawl, Nyjer Morgan has hit .297/.350/.351 in 41 plate appearances. 
  
  
• Since his recall Aug. 1, John Lannan has looked like his old self, only better.  In eight starts, he's gone 5-3 with a 3.08 ERA.  The difference?  His K/BB rate is 35/9 (again, in eight starts).  His first 14 games?  He struck out 24 and walked 35.  He's still giving up his share of base hits as a "pitch to contact" guy, but there are much fewer walked batters to get driven in these days.  He's also pitched into the seventh inning four of his last six starts.
  
  
• Since the calendar flipped to September, Bernie is 6-for-38 with three walks, zero extra-bases and three RBIs.  That makes his slash line .158/.214/.158.  Ouch.  Bigger sample, you say?  Since Aug. 1, it's .228/.289/.360 in 150 plate appearances with 30 Ks against 11 BBs. Think Roger Berndina is wearing down as the season progesses?  Or have pitchers figured him out?
  
  
• Careful what you wish for:  Since the All-Star break, Livan Hernandez' ERA is 4.86.  Batters are hitting him at a .293/.344/.406 clip in 18 starts.

Part of the debate on whether to trade or re-sign Adam Dunn is that we know what he is now, but what will he be in the future?

Will Dunn contunue to slug 40 homers and draw close to 100 walks a year?  Will his defense, which has been bad this season, but not historically bad, stay roughly the same or get even worse as the years advance?

Will he finally decide that a move to the A.L. would increase his value to a team?  Or will he stubbornly hold to his belief that he's a complete player and insist to stay in the National League.

Dunn has been an incredibly gifted offensive player for his entire career.  He came up as an outfielder and moved to first base last season.  He's never posted an OPS+ lower than 114, and his career 162-game average is 133.  For 2010 -- at age 30 -- he sits at 151, which would be his finest OPS+ season of his career.

Sounds an awful lot like a couple of other players in MLB history. 

Jim Thome came up a a third baseman, made the transition to first base relatively early in his career, and has been primarily a DH for the last five seasons.  He is one of the elite power hitters of our generation.  Until his age 37 season, he never put up an OPS+ under 126 in a non-injury year.

In his age 30 season with the Indians, he put up -- to that point -- a career high 170 OPS+. 

What happened to Thome? 

The next season, at age 31 was even better, leading the Majors with an astounding 197 OPS+.  Remember, this was 2002.  Anyway, in 2003 at age 32 he signed his big free agent contract and put up OPS+ of 144, 85 (he was injured most of the year), 155, 150, 123 and 118 last season.  This year, at age 39, he continues to be a valuable member of a competitive team posting a 150 OPS+ in 192 at bats for the Twins.

Richie Sexson came up an outfielder and gradually transitioned to first base.  He didn't put up quite as gaudy OPS+ numbers as Dunn or Thome, but in 12 seasons he averaged 122.  His career high OPS+ was 144 in 2005 -- at age 30. 

After his age 30 season, the Seattle Mariners re-signed the big guy (6'6") to a new contract that paid him $44 million the next three years.

What happened to Sexson? 

At age 31 he had a decent, but not stellar 117 OPS+.  At age 32 it dropped to 84, and at age 33 went to 88.  His last four years his homers dropped from 39 to 34 to 21 to 12.  The Mariners released Sexson in July of 2008 and was signed by the Yankees a week later.  He appeared in just 22 games for New York before he was released.  He never played again.

I'm not equating Dunn, Sexson and Thome.  But looking at their statistics, they certainly followed the same career arcs up to their respective age 30 seasons carrying the same skill set:  power hitter, patient at the plate, defensively limited and transitioned to first base.

The difference is what happened next.  Will Adam Dunn be able to follow the career arc of Jim Thome and be included in the list of the finest power hitters of our generation?  Or could Dunn's skills erode as quickly as Sexson's?

We don't know the answers to those questions, but Mike Rizzo has to make an educated decision in the next ten days.

Photo by Cheryl Nichols/Nats News Network.  All Rights Reserved.

Today, Tom Boswell writes about how Stephen Strasburg is on pace to obliterate strikeout records, akin to the great strikeout artists in the history of the game.

The title of the column is "Can Stephen Strasburg resist the urge to become a strikeout king?" and he concludes,

Will this ultra-high-strikeout pattern, one that nobody -- even the Nats and Strasburg themselves -- anticipated just one week ago, continue? Should we even want it to? No one knows. But you can bet we'll be waiting, every five days, to find out.

The answer is simple:  Yes.  Strasburg, the Nats, and Nats fans should want the strikeouts to continue.

Will Strasburg continue striking out batters at a rate of 16.1 per nine innings?  No, he won't.  That's outlandish.  But he appears to have several different, legitimate strikeout pitches, which is incredible in its own right.

Nats Stats (who does very good work) compared Strasburg's first two starts with regards to pitch type/location, etc.  He concluded that Strasburg was overthrowing his two-seam fastball--his sinker--throwing it out of the strike zone much of the day.  Indians hitters only swung at two of the 16 he threw.

While Strasburg was in the minors, it's obvious that the team instructed him to put away his big, four seam fastball, the one that touches 100-MPH.  He was instructed to go out and work on the two-seamer, get ground balls, concentrate on baseball situations, etc.

Once Strasburg reached the big leagues though, catcher Ivan Rodriguez has called for the heater much more often.  It's like Strasburg is a new Ferrari, and Pudge wants to see what he can do.  Against Cleveland, Strasburg threw 38 four-seamers compared to 22 two-seamers.  In his debut, the breakdown was even more drastic:  49-9. 

Some of this may be noise in the Pitch F/X data, but one thing is clear:  he's throwing the four-seam fastball much more often than he did in the minors, and that's because Rodriguez is calling for it.  He knows how effective the pitch is.

Boswell seems to be espousing a popular theme in baseball that strikeouts = higher pitch counts = bad for starting pitchers.  If he is, he's wrong.  It's always better to record an out when the ball is not put in play.  There are so many factors to recording an out after a ball is put into play, not the least of which is team defense.

Oh, by the way, the Nats lead the league in errors and are high on the list of unearned runs.

There are lots of studies available that discuss strikeout efficiency and defense of the "pitch to contact" rationale.  A very good one is here, written by 3-D Baseball in language that most casual baseball fans can grasp.  The upshot is:

...a pitcher who already has good control has no reason to cut down on his strikeouts purely to reduce his pitch count, as he generally won't see any noticeable results.

You see, strikeouts don't raise pitch counts, walks do.  It's really that simple.

The basic premise--usually purported by managers or general managers that don't have strikeout pitchers in their system--is that by "pitching to contact", you can get an out with one pitch as opposed to three pitches "going for" a strikeout, thus drastically reducing a pitcher's pitch count, making them more efficient and saving them from injury. 

But statistically, and we have plenty of years of data to back this up, it does not correlate. 

Rather, there is no statistical evidence to suggest that "ground ball" pitchers use less pitches overall than "strikeout" pitchers.  Again, from 3-D Baseball: 

As our data suggests, there is no emerging pattern that either high strikeout pitchers or high contact pitchers require more pitches to get through 9 innings. For the most part, it doesn't matter how frequently a Major League pitcher strikes out hitters or how frequently he allows hits as to how many pitches he has to throw. The trade offs of one compared to the other mostly cancel out.

-snip-

Simply put, by far the strongest factor in how many pitches a pitcher needs to get through an inning is how frequently he walks batters. Almost every time you hear a broadcaster or analyst talk about how a pitcher throws too many pitches because he strikes out too many hitters, the real reason will be because the pitcher walks too many hitters, not that he strikes out too many...

We saw clear evidence of this in Strasburg's two starts.  Against the Pirates, he walked no one, struck out 14 and cruised through the seventh inning in 94 pitches.  Against the Indians (a team that is significantly more patient at the plate), Stras struck out eight, but walked five and only got through 5 1/3 in the same relative number of pitches (95).

It wasn't the strikeouts that did him in (PIT), it was the walks (CLE).

In his history, there's nothing to suggest that Strasburg will have anything but impeccable command.  In college, and the minors, he never had a game with more than three walks.  He's facing better hitters now, but he also had considerable trouble with the mound in Cleveland.  Let's get a few more data points.

But Pudge has it right.  If you can strike batters out while limiting your walks, you will be a better pitcher.

I don't normally just link to someone else's story without offering much commentary, but I'm going to today because:

1. It's that good.
2. I'm tired.

So if you're interested in exactly how Livan Hernandez has crafted his incredible start, go read the numbers and decide for yourself if it's a resurgance or incredible fluke.

I certainly have my opinion, but if you are a Nats fan, you should read it and make up your own.

My man Mike Harris at Nats Fanboy Looser has a piece up today about Tyler Clippard and whether or not the bespeckled one can continue his torrid pace of destroying National League bats this season.  I started to type a comment to his post, but it was longer than a post comment should be, so I decided to move it over here where I could expand a bit.

And I'm going to try to do this using numbers that Mike doesn't have to break out his slide rule to understand.

Clippard has several things going for him so far this season that has led to his success:

• 
  
  He's given up eight hits in 19.1 IP.  That's a rate of 3.7 hits per nine innings.  His career number is 6.5 H/9.
• 
  
  He's not allowed a home run.  Career-wise he's given up 1.3 per nine, relatively high for a short reliever.
• 
  
  He's walked 4.1 per nine.  Career he's 5.0 per nine.

But here's the thing.  His numbers are trending down throughout the course of his career.  His 2010 numbers are outstanding and will regress somewhat.  But taking a little bit deeper look they might not be completely unsustainable.

His BABiP against (Batting Average on Balls in Play) this season is .195, which at first blush screams that regression would be imminent, owing to the fact that major league average is around .300.  But in 2009 his BABiP was .201.  In his major league career, spanning 62 games and 117.1 innings, his BABiP is .235. 

We might just be dealing with a guy that has so much deception and quirkness in his delivery that hitters don't get a good look at him and can't pick the ball up out of his hand, leading to weaker contact.  And he's doing this while remaining a predominantly fly ball pitcher (.46 ground balls per fly ball.  MLB average is .79.)

Clippard is essentially a two-pitch pitcher.  He's got a low-90s fastball that runs in on right-handed batters and a wicked change-up that falls on the tops of the shoes to left-handers.

He's getting batters to swing and miss at many more pitches out of the strike zone than he did last year (34.8% to 24.3%), and getting more swinging strikes in total (15.9 % to 13.9%).

He's not throwing more strikes, but he's doing something--so far--to make hitters think he is.

So expect a few more batted balls to end up in play, and probably a few more walks thrown in there.  And expect a couple hitters to guess right and hit couple homers against him along the way.

But it seems that the converted starter has really found a niche in short relief.  If he can maintain a repeatable delivery, confusing hitters between his fastball and change-up, the Nats might have discovered a valuable piece to a major league quailty bullpen.

Tonight's starter for the Washington Nationals, Livan Hernandez, has been something of a miracle so far for the surprising Nats, who carry a 13-12 record into the game with the Atlanta Braves.

The "35-year old" righty has baffled and fooled hitters this season to a 3-1 record with an 0.87 ERA in four starts covering 31.0 innings with 10 strikeouts and just eight walks.  He's given up three earned runs TOTAL, two of which came on home runs.

Those numbers are simply remarkable for a man that hasn't finished a season with a sub-4.50 ERA since 2005, the Nats' inaugural season.

But let me throw another number out there for you:  .177.

That's his Batting Average Against on Balls in Play so far this season.  BABiP measures how effectively the defense behind a pitcher turns a batted ball into an out.  As we all know by now, BABiP  essentially measures how lucky a pitcher (or hitter) is over a certain period.

Hernandez' career BABiP is .310, higher than the Major League average of .299.  So Livan gets hit harder than most, most of the time.  Except for so far this season, where he's barely getting hit at all.

So please, enjoy what Hernandez has done so far, because it really has been a remarkable run.  But also know, it isn't humanly possible for him to continue it.  And while it's nice that the Nats have had some success so far this season, temper your expectations knowing that a return to the old Livan could come at any time.

On the eve of Opening Day 2010, I'm going to go out on a limb and publish some highly debatable predicitons.  I'd love to hear any feedback you might have, and if you want to leave predicitons of your own in the comments, we can compare when the season is over.

Or, if you just want to rip mine mercilessly anonymously, that's ok too.

2010 Record:  Let's get the big one out of the way.  Honestly, last year's team suffered from such horrendous luck in the first half of the season, it would be almost impossible for this edition not to be better.

The turnaround had less to do with Riggleman taking over for Acta and more to the bullpen normalizing, Josh Willingham playing every day and Nyjer Morgan playing out of his head.

However, I don't think the Nats have made themselves that much better, and certainly not as much as the kool-aid drinkers think. 

The bullpen has more question marks than on the Riddler's costume from the old Batman TV series.  The rotation for the first two months will be Lannan, Marquis and three revolving doors.  Right field will be full of non-OBP slap-and-dashers.  And everyone that prays better tune the big guy up so that Willingham stays healthy, or the five hole will be a black hole.

Morgan won't hit as well as hit did during that six-week stretch last summer.  Guzman has one more year of being an albatross and will eat at bats Desmond should get.  And Dunn's defense at first just isn't going to get better.

All that said, I think this team will manage to make a ten-game or so improvement, which is relatively huge.  I'm setting the bar at 68 wins.

Biggest Pleasant Surprise:  Adam Kennedy.  I was originally against his signing, fearing that it would signal the end of Ian Desmond on the big club.  But as things have shaken out, I think Kennedy will provide decent production and passable defense.

Biggest Disappointment:  Matt Capps.  I don't think he's fully recovered from arm injuries he had two seasons ago in Pittsburgh, and if he leads this team with saves I will be very surprised.  At least it was a one-year deal.  And if he IS leading the team in saves come the trade deadline and he isn't moved...well, I guess that's just status quo.

Honorable Mention:  Ivan Rodriguez.  Anyone hoping for Pudge circa 2004 will be sorely disappointed.

Most Critical Decision of the Year:  To sign, or not sign, Adam Dunn to a long-term deal.  I'm on the record saying the team should move Dunn at the deadline to an AL team for what the going rate will be this year.  I think it's a big mistake to tie up money and a position to a 30-plus player with a skill set that does not age well and plays terrible defense.

That said, I think Rizzo re-signs him.

What's Strasburg Going To Do:  I see Saint Stephen dominating Double-A for five starts, moving up and having much the same success at Triple-A for another 5-6 starts (in five/six inning chunks) and getting the call just after Memorial Day when his "Super Two" status will pass, thus allowing the Nats to keep him from becoming a free agent a year early and adding another arbitration year.

Of course, if he becomes the pitcher we all think he will, the Nats should tie him up long-term before it gets to that.  But that's another story.

Bottom line once he reaches the bigs:  I think he'll get around 15 carefully managed starts, average around eight strikeouts per nine innings, and be prone to the gopher ball.

What About Wang?:  I think Wang will return around the all-star break (he was put on the 60-day DL today) and eventually look serviceable.  He never blew anyone way, and I think he'll be better next year than this year.  But I think he does come back and does contribute.  It could turn out to be Rizzo's shrewdest move.

Team Leaders

HRs:  Dunn with 41

RBIs:  Zimmerman with 105

Steals:  Morgan with 40 (and 15 caught stealing)

Wins:  Lannan with 12

Losses:  Marquis with 14

Saves:  Bruney with 18

Lastly, Looking Ahead:  I think Desmond gets 450 at bats, has 15 homers and 20 steals, and probably 30 errors.  Live with it this year, he'll be worth it.

Jordan Zimmermann gets four starts at the end of the season and reminds everyone why they're so high on him.

Drew Storen comes up with Strasburg at Memorial Day and initially is used in the sixth-seventh inning.  Capps and Bruney both keep getting save opportunities until the trade deadline, then Storne takes over.  I'll say he gets eight saves this year and is annointed for next season.

--------------

There you go, some bold and sure to be wrong predicitons for 2010.  Please make sure when you rip me in the comments you refrain from vulgarity.

Seriously, it might not sound like I'm looking forward to covering the team this year with some of the dour comments and predictions.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I'm looking forward to this season so much it hurts.

But I'm also trying to take a realistic outlook to what's going on and not just relying on hope and marketing to believe this season will be much different than last season.  It won't be.  But there is hope coming.  You'll just have to look carefully for it this season, and especially early on.

Orlando Hudson is a four-time gold glove winner, including last season, when during the stretch drive he was usurped at second base for the Dodgers by ex-Nat Ronnie Belliard. 

While I'm not going to debate Joe Torre's decision making there, I would like to offer some points to consider for everyone clamoring for Mike Rizzo to sign Orlando Hudson to play second base for the Nationals next season, with the idea of improving the middle infield defense.

For the purposes of this debate, I'm leaving the offense out of the equation because the stated goal here, remember, is to upgrade the middle infield defense.

Hudson's UZR/150 last season was -3.7 which placed him 13th among 20 qualifiers in the majors.

UZR is the number of runs above or below average a fielder is in both range runs, outfield arm runs, double play runs and error runs combined.  UZR/150 is the number of runs above or below average a fielder is, per 150 defensive games.

However, UZR does not measure an infielder's arm, nor does it value an infielder's ability to catch fly balls or line drives--it only measures a player's proficiency at turning ground balls into outs, so it's not a perfect guage.

Now as we read above, the components for infielders UZR are:  Range, Double Plays and Errors.

Hudson was recorded with only eight errors last season, which put him in the top third of second basemen.  His range factor was 4.7, which put him in the middle of the pack.  Where Hudson's UZR number took a real hit was in double plays.  He participated in 68 DPs, which was 17th out of 20 qualifiers.

Here's another strange thing regarding Hudson's defensive season last year.  He was second among qualifiers at putouts:

Chase Utley, PHI--354

Orlando Hudson, LAD--325

Robinson Cano, NYY--308

But Hudson was only 14th in assists.  It's difficult to reconcile the fact that his range was average, but his assists total was in the lower third.  He's just not making all the plays he used to be able to, relative to everyone else playing second base in the majors last season.

Judging by the UZR/150 number, it's easy to say "Hudson's slipping as a fielder".  And he probably is.  He is 32, after all.

To put it another way so that it's relative to Nationals fans, Hudson's UZR/150 was -3.7 last season.  Cristian Guzman's UZR/150 at short was -2.6.  So relative to position and competition last season, statistically Guzman was a marginally better shortstop than Hudson was a second baseman.

Back to Ronnie Belliard for a moment.  His UZR/150 was a robust 6.6, meaning he was a better than average defensive second baseman last season, compared to -3.7 below average for Hudson.

Maybe Joe Torre knew what he was doing.

For what it's worth, Adam Kennedy, another name that's been kicked around, was -14.8 last season.

Consider all this as you contemplate upgrading the middle infield defense.

Rizzo likes to say that he uses statistics to back up what his eyes see.  In his pursuit of Hudson, at least as a defensive upgrade, he must be trusting his eyes.

Yesterday I reported that with six more home runs, Adam Dunn would become the first player in Major League history to record six straight 40-home run seasons.

As an "anonymous" commenter pointed out, this statement is inaccurate. I should have been more careful, as it is an easily verified statement. I edited yesterday's story to correct the inaccuracy.

George Herman "Babe" Ruth hit 40 or more homers every year between 1926 and 1932, seven straight seasons.

What's interesting is that in those seven seasons, including five seasons with over 140 RBIs, he was not awarded with the MVP trophy. His single MVP season was 1923, with 41 homers and 131 RBIs. He did hit .393/.545/.764 that year.

To all regular readers of Nats News Network, and any casual readers that stopped by yesterday, I apologize sincerely for the regrettable error.

And to the "anonymous" commenter that so eloquently pointed my error out, thanks for your diligence and caring enough to read my blog and point out my significant error.

The Washington Nationals fired Manny Acta and replaced him with Jim Riggleman on July 14 during the Major League all-star break. The Nats were 26-61, a .298 winning percentage, 22.5 games behind the division leader.

Since then, under Riggleman, the Nats have gone 18-20, a .473 winning percentage, and have lost ground in the division standings, at 29.5 games behind the leader.

So Riggleman must have whipped this "underachieving" crew into shape, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at what has actually happened.

In the 38 games Riggleman has managed, the Nats have been one of the streakiest teams in baseball. His tenure started with a five-game losing streak. They've also had losing streaks of four, three and five again.

The Nats have also had winning streaks, of four, eight, and three games.

Pretty incredible, right. Of the 38 games, 32 have been decided in a streak of three games or longer.

We can't remove the eight game winning streak. But IF we could, we'd see the Nats at 10-20, a .333 winning percentage not all that dissimilar to the pre-all-star record.

So how does a team that went 6-11 under Riggleman in the first 15 games reel off eight straight wins, then go right back to sucking, losing nine of their next 13?

The same way they got there in the first place.

From July 12 through the eight-game winning streak, Ryan Zimmerman went .376/.441/.800 with 27 runs, 10 home runs and 23 RBIs in 23 games. The Nats went 14-11.

Since? 11-for-46 with eight walks (.239/.352/.435) with five runs, two homers and 10 RBIs in 13 games. At least he accidentally drove in a few runs when he did make contact, but hitting .239 got Bill Hall and J.J. Hardy sent packing out of Milwaukee. The Nats went 4-9.

Once again proving that as Ryan Zimmerman goes, so go the Nats. It doesn't matter who the manager is.

Ryan Zimmerman homers against Florida on Aug. 5.

Photo 2009 © Cheryl Nichols. All Rights Reserved.

Not to marginalize the significance of the outstanding work the bullpen has done since the All-Star break, or the offensive contribution of Josh Willingham, or the consistent excellence of John Lannan, because all of those have been contributing factors in the recent spate of competent baseball on display at Nationals Park.

But I think the catalyst for the 11-4 run is much the same as one of the primary sources of the team's malaise during June and July and can be defined in two words: Ryan Zimmerman.

In his last 16 games, since his average reached rock bottom July 23 at .280/.344/.461, Zimmerman has been the hottest hitter in baseball. In 73 plate appearances, the All-Star third baseman is hitting .459/.534/1.000. Yes, those numbers are correct. He's been on base 53.4% of his plate appearances over a two-week stretch.

That torrid pace is certainly unsustainable, but it has been a pleasure to watch. Zimmerman has shown to be a streaky hitter in his career, but this season he's really taken it to the extreme, and it seems the team follows his performance.

The first week of the season, when the Nats lost all seven games, Zimmerman went 7-for-33 (.212/.235/.515) but did hit two home runs.

For the next 29 games, he was hot, going .405/.463/.653 with seven homers and 22 RBIs. The team followed suit, with a record of 11-14. It was a losing record, but within hailing distance of .500, and certainly would have been but for all the bullpen trouble during this time frame.

The following 56 games after that tells a different story. The Nats record was an abysmal 15-41, an historic pace of losing. Zimmerman, the team's No. 3 hitter and unquestioned team leader, hit a paltry .221/.293/.346 with six homers and 27 RBIs.

Which brings us back to the last two weeks, where Zim -- and the team -- have been otherworldly hot.

It's a pretty simplistic statistical evaluation, but I'm perfectly happy to state that -- for better or worse -- as Ryan Zimmerman goes, so goes the Washington Nationals.