Author Topic: There are exactly 26 weeks in the season (Read 10393 times)

PC · « **on:** April 10, 2007, 06:48:56 pm »

If you break the season down into 26 equal parts, we just have to win 2 games per week and we'll win 52 games this season and avoid historical infamy.

One week down, and we're already behind the pace...

Is two wins every seven days too much to ask (pray) for???

Rojo Johnson · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2007, 01:13:29 am »

With this team? That might be asking too much. When they have high school pitchers going every game, it's not going to be pretty. I see us losing 115 games this season. I've come to that conclusion.

This doesn't mean that I won't support them. I will go to my 2 or 3 games a year, and watch them on MASN when I'm home. This season is down the tubes.

KyleScha · « **Reply #2 on:** April 11, 2007, 01:21:32 am »

Honestly I'm more worried about the offense and defense. I fully believe the pitching will sort itself out IF the defense sorts itself out. It must be terrible for those pitchers. In order to pitch effectively you have to know if the ball is put in play there will be an out made. With the rate the Nats are fudging even routine plays, I have to imagine our pitchers are scared to pitch to contact. That results in alot of walks and alot of balls right down the middle because they have gone 3-0 on the batter trying to strike him out.

arlington · « **Reply #3 on:** April 11, 2007, 09:43:52 am »

Our pitchers may not be great, but all of them are pitching scared, knowing that when they give up even 1 run the chances of getting a win become slim. A lot of pitchers can't take this kind of pressure.

Sutton metioned over the weekend that good pitching and defense can make it less likely that a team loses a game, but offense is only thing that can win a game. Right now, the Nats have no offense.

It must be frustrating for the players. It is also hard to watch.

PC · « **Reply #4 on:** April 11, 2007, 07:28:00 pm »

If two games per week is too much to ask, how 'bout having a "winning record" in "two games per week" parts? Can we, at least, go 14-12 in winning two games per week?

Right now we're 0-1 and, based on last night, Week 2 ain't looking too good...

....Ugh, I can't believe this is what it's come to, and after only 8 games. :'(

PC · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2007, 07:25:57 pm »

After today's win, we're 1-1 in "two wins per week"'s.

Nat of the Living Dead · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2007, 08:00:19 pm »

Captain Morgan is whispering in my ear and he says... "Oh f yeah! We can do it!"

GburgNatsFan · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2007, 08:12:30 pm »

It's still the worst record in major league baseball, but it's so much better than it was three days ago...

KyleScha · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2007, 01:11:03 am »

They have shown that they can win...starting pitching has been nothing short of great the past week or so. If Zimm starts hitting everything will come together. Defense has been so improved too.

PC · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2007, 11:28:05 pm »

Tonight's win against the Phillies gives us our 2nd win of the week! That makes us 2-1 (in "two wins per week"s) in the first three weeks of the season!!!

The Chief · « **Reply #10 on:** April 19, 2007, 01:01:53 am »

Quote from: GburgNatsFan on April 14, 2007, 08:12:30 pm

It's still the worst record in major league baseball, but it's so much better than it was three days ago...

Not anymore... we're only the 3rd worst now

KyleScha · « **Reply #11 on:** April 19, 2007, 02:32:40 am »

yup, no first pick in the draft next year! (I hope...)

Kenz aFan · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2007, 02:48:15 am »

With Bergmann's start on Wednesday, the Nats starters have gone through three rotations. Here are the won/loss records of those first three times around.

NATS NATIONALS STARTERS BULLPEN AS A TEAM W L ND W L BS W L 1st time around 0 4 1 1 0 0 1 4 2nd time around 0 4 1 1 0 0 1 4 3rd time around 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 9 4 3 1 2 5 10

GburgNatsFan · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2007, 07:53:34 am »

Nice job with the stats. It's really telling what a better SP performance gets you, isn't it.

Quote from: Kenz aFan on April 19, 2007, 02:48:15 am

With Bergmann's start on Wednesday, the Nats starters have gone through three rotations. Here are the won/loss records of those first three times around.

NATS NATIONALS STARTERS BULLPEN AS A TEAM W L ND W L BS W L 1st time around 0 4 1 1 0 0 1 4 2nd time around 0 4 1 1 0 0 1 4 3rd time around 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 9 4 3 1 2 5 10

GburgNatsFan · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2007, 07:55:09 am »

What a difference three days makes, huh?

Quote from: The Chief on April 19, 2007, 01:01:53 am

Not anymore... we're only the 3rd worst now

PC · « **Reply #15 on:** April 27, 2007, 10:13:44 pm »

3-1

Kenz aFan · « **Reply #16 on:** April 27, 2007, 11:50:07 pm »

What's 3-1?

The Chief · « **Reply #17 on:** April 28, 2007, 12:19:28 am »

Quote from: Kenz aFan on April 27, 2007, 11:50:07 pm

What's 3-1?

I think he's referring to weeks in which we've successfully won at least 2 games.

Kenz aFan · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2007, 02:09:01 am »

OK, that makes sense, but winning 2 games a week is not a success, it's an embarrassment. If the Nats keep up this pace (if you can call it a pace) they will end up with 56 wins and 106 losses, and there's nothing good about that.... Not even if the prize if the first overall draft pick

PC · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2007, 03:05:03 am »

Quote from: Kenz aFan on April 28, 2007, 02:09:01 am

OK, that makes sense, but winning 2 games a week is not a success, it's an embarrassment. If the Nats keep up this pace (if you can call it a pace) they will end up with 56 wins and 106 losses, and there's nothing good about that.... Not even if the prize if the first overall draft pick

But it does avoid "historic infamy" which was my point in the original post of this thread. For a team that all of major league baseball dumps on, that some have predicted would lose 130, winning twice a week is an accomplishment because it would give us 52 wins.

BTW, we're not limited to two games per week, that's just the minimum. Winning three or four games in a week counts too. I'm just considering anything over two as gravy.

Nat of the Living Dead · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2007, 10:33:09 am »

Well here is my question, what is worse?

A team like the Nats with a low payroll, no major superstars (yet), and not expected to produce much or a team like the Cubs and Yanks (currently) who have talent, who have payroll, yet they are producing like a bunch of bums? To me that is more of a story for the sports writers than constantly nagging on a team that isn't expected to work miracles.

GburgNatsFan · « **Reply #21 on:** April 28, 2007, 02:13:50 pm »

Great point. And the Yanks are losing with A-Rod hitting great.

Quote from: Nat of the LivingDead on April 28, 2007, 10:33:09 am

Well here is my question, what is worse?

A team like the Nats with a low payroll, no major superstars (yet), and not expected to produce much or a team like the Cubs and Yanks (currently) who have talent, who have payroll, yet they are producing like a bunch of bums? To me that is more of a story for the sports writers than constantly nagging on a team that isn't expected to work miracles.

PC · « **Reply #22 on:** May 06, 2007, 05:46:12 pm »

3-2 in "two wins per week"

...after going 1-5 this week.

Kenz aFan · « **Reply #23 on:** May 06, 2007, 06:45:34 pm »

Quote from: Nat of the LivingDead on April 28, 2007, 10:33:09 am

Well here is my question, what is worse?

A team like the Nats with a low payroll, no major superstars (yet), and not expected to produce much or a team like the Cubs and Yanks (currently) who have talent, who have payroll, yet they are producing like a bunch of bums? To me that is more of a story for the sports writers than constantly nagging on a team that isn't expected to work miracles.

Considering that both the Yankees and the Cubs are in 2nd place in their divisions and that both could improve on that, the answer isn't as cut and dry as you make it. As you pointed out, they both have the talent and any team that has the talent has the ability of pulling itself out of any doldrums they might be in. The nats have very little talent to speak of, only some potential and not an overwhelming amount of it. Given the choices you offered, I'd rather have a high budget team.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of waiting for the team to climb out of the division cellar. I've had to watch a last place, or next to last place team 10 of the last 11 seasons, I'm sick of waiting for next year.

PC · « **Reply #24 on:** May 13, 2007, 10:39:26 am »

4-2 in "two wins per week", after last night's or, more accurately, this morning's series clinching victory over Florida's Marlins.