Author Topic: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2  (Read 4524 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 10393
  • babble on
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #975: June 29, 2011, 01:44:13 AM »
Well, that's two late nights I'll never get back.  And I have a meeting at 8:00.  Ah well.


Online PC

  • Posts: 38979
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #976: June 29, 2011, 01:44:42 AM »
5 errors.  That is some wretched baseball.

Offline TylerDC

  • Posts: 5954
  • The Future.
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #977: June 29, 2011, 01:44:59 AM »
Plate discipline and batted ball tendencies tend to stabilize a little more quickly than BA, and Espi looks like a flyball / strikeout guy, not many line drives.  He'll never hit for super high average, I don't think.  I'd imagine he'll end up hitting around .230-.240 with that kind of batted ball profile, mostly thanks to the HRs.  But, that's a very informal diagnosis.  A proper regression analysis would be pretty time consuming.  Personally I wouldn't weight either the .220 or the .300 too highly at this point.  However, since he's a rookie and rookies do tend to exhibit improvement throughout their rookie seasons, the .300 gets a little more weight than it would coming in an established hitter.
Makes sense. Thanks for the breakdown.

Offline Kentucky_National

  • Posts: 4594
  • BANG ZOOM
    • My Twitter
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #978: June 29, 2011, 01:45:01 AM »
Thank goodness tomorrow is a new day. Thanks for welcoming me to my first game thread! Glad to no longer be a lurker.

Let's get em' tomorrow and come back home with a winning record. Go Nats!

Offline TylerDC

  • Posts: 5954
  • The Future.
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #979: June 29, 2011, 01:45:55 AM »
Thank goodness tomorrow is a new day. Thanks for welcoming me to my first game thread! Glad to no longer be a lurker.

Let's get em' tomorrow and come back home with a winning record. Go Nats!
Haha, the GDT's are addicting. Nothing better during a game.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #980: June 29, 2011, 01:46:23 AM »
In other words, they're stuck where they are (which is no different now than a month or two ago) forever?  You said it again by saying you didn't say it!
...Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?  I just gave a bunch of examples of guys who have improved over their careers.  But you'll find precious few who improve significantly after age 30 without either the aid of steroids or turning to a knuckleball, which to the best of my knowledge none of these guys have.  And their strikeout to walk rates, flyball profiles, etc. have all remained very similar.  So the logical conclusion would be that they're probably just experiencing random variation when you're talking about a month's worth of sample size.  That's especially true of relievers, who often don't even accumulate enough PAs in a single season to really definitively say they're as good as they seem.  That's one reason for the volatility of closers.

Let me be really clear about this, just to avoid confusion: it might be true that Coffey or H-Rod or Marquis have improved their true talent since the beginning of June.  But the onus of proof is on the person trying to reject the null hypothesis (which is that there's no difference)... you don't assume the difference.  So you need a much larger sample size than a single month to have a meaningful discussion about it.

Online PC

  • Posts: 38979
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #981: June 29, 2011, 01:55:20 AM »
...Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?  I just gave a bunch of examples of guys who have improved over their careers.  But you'll find precious few who improve significantly after age 30 without either the aid of steroids or turning to a knuckleball, which to the best of my knowledge none of these guys have.  And their strikeout to walk rates, flyball profiles, etc. have all remained very similar.  So the logical conclusion would be that they're probably just experiencing random variation when you're talking about a month's worth of sample size.  That's especially true of relievers, who often don't even accumulate enough PAs in a single season to really definitively say they're as good as they seem.  That's one reason for the volatility of closers.

You can't have it both ways.  Either they can get better (ie lower their averages over a significant sample size) or they're can't so they're stuck where they are forever. If they can't lower their averages over a significant sample size then, by definition, they are stuck where they are forever.

It's one or the other.  Clearly, I think we're talking past each other.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #982: June 29, 2011, 02:00:07 AM »
You can't have it both ways.  Either they can get better (ie lower their averages over a significant sample size) or they're can't so they're stuck where they are forever. If they can't lower their averages over a significant sample size then they are stuck where they are forever.

It's one or the other.  Clearly, I think we're talking past each other.
Ugh.  I think I see where the problem is here.

I am talking about some nebulous number called their "true talent."  Which is to say, at any given point, if I were God, I would know their true talent--what their actual ERA was going to be in any given season, based on their sheer pitching talent.  We can't measure that directly, though.  We try to approximate it based on past in-game results, statistics like FIP and SIERA, etc.  And those statistics are affected by each and every game, and even when regressed our estimations of the true talent are going to differ.  But.  That doesn't mean that a single game, or month, or even year in some cases, is going to be enough to convince us that a talent change has indeed taken place.  We've been burned too many times before by pitchers that get hot, then cold, then hot, then cold again, or hitters who have one great month and slump the rest of the year.  So we require largish samples for the various stats, until we reach some empirically determined point where the latest results actually have predictive value.

I am not saying that Marquis, Coffey, and H-Rod, and pitchers like them, can't get better.  I am saying that we need a hell of a lot more proof than a single month before we accept that as a likely hypothesis.  If you think a month is a "significant sample size," then that is where we will have to disagree, particularly for a reliever whose month often consists of ten innings or less of work.  Historically speaking, pitchers over 30 rarely improve without either steroids or developing a knuckleball, and historically the kind of sample sizes you're talking about are way too small to make any long-term judgments about someone.  That's what I'm saying.  Please don't put words in my mouth and say "so you're saying pitchers can't improve" because that is not what I'm doing at all.  I will say, however, that at this point any changes in true talent are likely to be age-related... and the aging curve for pitchers usually involves a plateau followed by a sudden, sharp drop.

Online PC

  • Posts: 38979
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #983: June 29, 2011, 02:02:54 AM »
Ok.  :)

...but one more thing before we end this.

I never assume that someone's reached their "true talent" level.  I always assume that it's unreachable so you're always below it, consequently, you can always get better, theoretically.

I also think and have seen a "team" play "over its head" for as long as a full season.  I double quoted team because, despite what everyone who plays and watches and writes about, there really is no such entity as a "team".  A team is merely a collection of individual player metrics, combined and for the "team" to play "over its head" you need some combination of some/all individual player metrics to be some degree over their previous metrics.

In the case of the Nationals, as I've written before in these forums, I think it's necessary to have a season "over its head" to break the losing inertia that has trapped this franchise and I don't believe just getting better players is enough to do it.  I had hoped that this would be the inertia breaking season.

Getting back to "over their heads", that doesn't mean a World Series championship.  It doesn't even necessarily mean making the playoffs.  Over their heads for the Nationals is actually fairly low.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13456
  • Bring on the ribs.
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #984: June 29, 2011, 05:36:07 AM »
Five errors?  Wow.  Are the Nubinals back and the Nasty Nats out?

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #985: June 29, 2011, 05:43:47 AM »
Five errors?  Wow.  Are the Nubinals back and the Nasty Nats out?

I know - I woke up this morning and saw that and had pretty much the same thought.  Bullpen implosion plus 5 errors.  I've gotten too used to not seeing that anymore.

Bring back Riggles!  Fire Johnson!

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #986: June 29, 2011, 07:06:37 AM »
PC, by the definition of true talent, a player is always at his or her current true talent level.  It's not a measure of potential, but current ability.

Offline Lumbee09

  • Posts: 4
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #987: June 29, 2011, 07:24:58 AM »
Five errors?  Wow.  Are the Nubinals back and the Nasty Nats out?

Main cause of the errors is the terrible sod in Angel Stadium. Just laid down new sod after they had a U2 concert on the field. The dirt is also rock hard. Balls are taking bad bounces for both teams. 5 of the 7 errors in the game can be placed on the poor field quality.

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 5832
  • From the best seat in the house at Nationals Park
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #988: June 29, 2011, 08:39:26 AM »
Caught most of it on the radio...3hr33 to get a regulation nine-inning match into the books...dire.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 29998
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #989: June 29, 2011, 09:41:57 AM »
When I saw the box score this morning, I knew I'd made the right decision to go to bed.

Offline Fan037

  • Posts: 1693
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #990: June 29, 2011, 09:48:01 AM »
I'm angry over the following:

Riggleman leaves with a team that's playing terrifically - I said from the beginning the timing of his departure stunk.

Davey Johnson, whose reputation is sterling, comes aboard and we lose the first two games under his tutelage.  Obviously it's too early to tell what this means but it's not a good beginning.  I've compared this situation to GIBBS 2 from day one.

We play one of our worst games of the season last night with five errors and pitching performances that were found lacking.  I went to sleep with my XM radio with earphones on.  I woke up with the Nats having taken the lead only to lose it and found myself cursing the very biased LA announcers. >:(

Tonight's game is now crucial to stay @ .500.  Hopefully Jordan Zimmermann will provide a much-needed spark.

We're about to have a long home-stand - we've played well in our own ballpark.  That needs to continue.  I really don't want to go back to watching the normally lousy Nats.


Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37344
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #991: June 29, 2011, 09:50:41 AM »
I'm angry over the following:

Riggleman leaves with a team that's playing terrifically - I said from the beginning the timing of his departure stunk.

Davey Johnson, whose reputation is sterling, comes aboard and we lose the first two games under his tutelage.  Obviously it's too early to tell what this means but it's not a good beginning.  I've compared this situation to GIBBS 2 from day one.

We play one of our worst games of the season last night with five errors and pitching performances that were found lacking.  I went to sleep with my XM radio with earphones on.  I woke up with the Nats having taken the lead only to lose it and found myself cursing the very biased LA announcers. >:(

Tonight's game is now crucial to stay @ .500.  Hopefully Jordan Zimmermann will provide a much-needed spark.

We're about to have a long home-stand - we've played well in our own ballpark.  That needs to continue.  I really don't want to go back to watching the normally lousy Nats.



haha i think you're reading way too much into his first two games.  monday we hit a bunch of solos (but failed to record hits with runners on base) while our starter didn't go as deep as we probably needed him to go.  last night was a collage of mistakes including five errors (costly one by desmond), poor pitching and once again more runners left in scoring position.

i think davey is going to be fine.

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 23756
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #992: June 29, 2011, 10:06:18 AM »
I missed the last two games and we lost.   I'll see today's "early" game and that ought to get us back in the winning column :)  ...  To piggy back on a previous comment.   That field is a mess and certainly not up to MLB standards.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 16119
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #993: June 29, 2011, 10:10:15 AM »
I missed the last two games and we lost.   I'll see today's "early" game and that ought to get us back in the winning column :)  ...  To piggy back on a previous comment.   That field is a mess and certainly not up to MLB standards.


Fire Mitlen!

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 23756
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #994: June 29, 2011, 10:13:11 AM »

Fire Mitlen!

I want a severance and want to drink with the young'uns at Caddies :)    Those are my demands !!

Offline Terpfan76

  • Posts: 3776
  • ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #995: June 29, 2011, 10:26:24 AM »
I turned the TV off right after Balasters' wild pitch. Didn't see the next pitch, didn't need to. It was almost 12:30am and I have a kid to get up with. Looks like I made the correct decision. I am not looking to far into the 5 error game. We've played some damn good defense lately and a bad game is bound to happen, no matter how good the defense is. I also don't think Johnson knows his players abilities all that well yet so to speak. I think we might struggle a bit as he becomes more comfortable with the players roles. Either way, I didn't see us as a .500 team before the season or streak and I don't see them as a .500 team now. Just hoping for improvement going into next year.

Offline Fan037

  • Posts: 1693
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #996: June 29, 2011, 10:40:14 AM »
By the way, comparing Davey Johnson to Gibbs2, I meant the new manager/head coach comes in with such a phenomenal reputation, it's hard not to expect the same results from the person's past.  Obviously, two games is not enough to tell anything one way or the other but the expectations for Johnson are HUGE.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 16119
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #997: June 29, 2011, 10:42:41 AM »
By the way, comparing Davey Johnson to Gibbs2, I meant the new manager/head coach comes in with such a phenomenal reputation, it's hard not to expect the same results from the person's past.  Obviously, two games is not enough to tell anything one way or the other but the expectations for Johnson are HUGE.


If Johnson had been named GM & Manager you might have a point. Gibbs didn't fail because he had been away from the game too long. His down fall was taking on way more responsibility than he had ever had in his first go around. 

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 11563
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #998: June 29, 2011, 10:43:58 AM »
glad i passed out when we took the lead 5-3

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37344
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 2
« Reply #999: June 29, 2011, 10:58:29 AM »
glad i passed out when we took the lead 5-3

haha and much like mitlen every game that i have not watched fully through we have lost. 

the one SF giants game we lost here (we still won the series 3-1), the SF giants out there when lannan pitched a gem (bullpen blew it), saturday's white sox game, monday night's game and the second half of last night's game.