Poll

Will the Nats win 100 games?

Yes
36 (67.9%)
No
17 (32.1%)

Total Members Voted: 53

Author Topic: 100 wins watch - now with poll!  (Read 4095 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eddiejc1

  • Posts: 400
    • http://www.femfour.com
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #50: August 12, 2012, 02:14:12 PM »
You mention about hoping that the Reds don't get hot again. I'm wondering if the Reds DO get hot again and win home field advantage for the NL playoffs, it will almost be as if the Nats are thrown into Brer Rabbit's briar patch. Then it would be the Reds sitting around waiting to see if they have to travel to Pittsburgh or Atlanta for the first round of the playoffs while the Nats can make plans to go to SF. This year, it's almost a DISadvantage to have HFA.

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 5941
  • From the best seat in the house at Nationals Park
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #51: August 12, 2012, 02:17:50 PM »
Reality Check: we face two more Dback starters with good ERAs, and then the friggin Giants in SF. This win streak is ending soon and pray to the deity of your choice that we do not go on a big losing streak.

The Giants have hardly been world-beaters recently - just 16-12 since the All-Star break; the Mets took three of four from them a week and a half ago at AT&T Park. They can be beaten.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28215
  • Hell yes!
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #52: August 12, 2012, 02:18:55 PM »
what you mean to tell me that SF screaming at players on WNFF doesn't affect the on field product?

I know, hard to believe, but it is what it is...

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 5500
  • Team America 2014
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #53: August 12, 2012, 02:33:21 PM »
You mention about hoping that the Reds don't get hot again. I'm wondering if the Reds DO get hot again and win home field advantage for the NL playoffs, it will almost be as if the Nats are thrown into Brer Rabbit's briar patch. Then it would be the Reds sitting around waiting to see if they have to travel to Pittsburgh or Atlanta for the first round of the playoffs while the Nats can make plans to go to SF. This year, it's almost a DISadvantage to have HFA.
Interesting view point but I like the idea of playing a team who blows their ace the game before. My guess is the Nats would face the winner between the Braves and the loser of the NL-West. That means we could miss Sheets/Hudson, Cain/Vogelsong, or (drumroll) Kershaw.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15139
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #54: August 12, 2012, 02:50:59 PM »
Well we'll never catch them at this rate.


:lmao:

Offline welch

  • Posts: 8527
  • Myer and Travis and Rice, and Bucky to manage...
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #55: August 13, 2012, 01:15:18 AM »
I just want to win the NL East and post a mini-pennant. Last Washington team to finish about .500 was the miraculous Ted Williams team of 1969. They made it to 71 -66 with a 3-2 victory over the Angels in front of about 6,000 fans at RFK on September 2. The '69 team was pretty good, with Del Under leading off, and McMullen, Howard, and Epstein hitting 3/4/5. This team is much better.

Offline captkirk42

  • Posts: 535
    • Curly W Cards
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #56: August 13, 2012, 01:31:46 PM »
:w: ins til 100 = 27 :?

47 Games left. 
If we win half those we win 24 (23.5 technically half since we are dealing with odd numbers you can't win 1/2 a game) Then 3 more for 100. Still Possible but starting to look not as likely from the  point of view of winning only about 1/2 the remaining games.

WE just have to win 11 games to have a winning record. That is very doable. Then 8 games on top of that to reach 90 wins. Doable? 19 Wins out of 47 games? Possible not as easy as those first 11, but not to unreasonable.

At any rate I have been enjoying this season and will treasure it like I do the '05 season, at least the first half of the '05 season. The second half of '05 I still enjoyed due to the Nostalgia of having baseball back in DC, but it wasn't as fun as the start.

Offline MorseTheHorse

  • Posts: 2133
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #57: August 13, 2012, 01:43:54 PM »
You mention about hoping that the Reds don't get hot again. I'm wondering if the Reds DO get hot again and win home field advantage for the NL playoffs, it will almost be as if the Nats are thrown into Brer Rabbit's briar patch. Then it would be the Reds sitting around waiting to see if they have to travel to Pittsburgh or Atlanta for the first round of the playoffs while the Nats can make plans to go to SF. This year, it's almost a DISadvantage to have HFA.

I kinda agree with this and I'm not sure it's just a this  year thing.  Seems like it will be quite common to rather face the 3rd division winner than a WC team (even with the WC team having to blow an ace)

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 18224
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #58: August 13, 2012, 01:44:55 PM »
:w: ins til 100 = 27 :?

47 Games left. 
If we win half those we win 24 (23.5 technically half since we are dealing with odd numbers you can't win 1/2 a game) Then 3 more for 100. Still Possible but starting to look not as likely from the  point of view of winning only about 1/2 the remaining games.

WE just have to win 11 games to have a winning record. That is very doable. Then 8 games on top of that to reach 90 wins. Doable? 19 Wins out of 47 games? Possible not as easy as those first 11, but not to unreasonable.

At any rate I have been enjoying this season and will treasure it like I do the '05 season, at least the first half of the '05 season. The second half of '05 I still enjoyed due to the Nostalgia of having baseball back in DC, but it wasn't as fun as the start.

They've got a .617 winning percentage on the year.  If they continue at that rate, they'll win 100.

Offline soxfan59

  • Posts: 1200
  • Gough, Gough White Sox!!!
    • John R. Russell, Ltd.
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #59: August 13, 2012, 04:08:13 PM »
Since the AL and NL split into divisions, winning 100 games is not a guarantee of success.  Indeed, it often seems a terrible burden. Here are some recent statistics.  Because I am 54 years old, "recent" includes the 1980s.

Since 1980, 31 teams have won 100 or more games. Four won the World Series, seven lost in the World Series, eight lost in the league championship series, 10 lost in the league divisional series and two teams (San Francisco 103 wins in 1993 and Baltimore 100 wins in 1980) did not even make the playoffs.

Since 2000, 14 teams have won 100 or more games. Only one team won the World Series, two lost in the World Series, three lost in the league championship series and eight lost in the league divisional series.

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7666
  • ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
    • Photos
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #60: August 13, 2012, 04:19:05 PM »
Because I am 54 years old, "recent" includes the 1980s.

 :nono: Some of us know you were born on March 30, 1853, Vincent. ;) 


Offline captkirk42

  • Posts: 535
    • Curly W Cards
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #61: August 14, 2012, 09:35:46 AM »
ACK! I just realized my total was off it was 29 not 27 games. With 72 :w: ins we are Now 28 wins away from 100. And yes it is true that 100 wins does not GUARANTEE you will make the playoffs at all anymore, just as in football winning 10 of 16 doesn't guarantee a playoff birth. Since the division rule (whenever they started that, I don't recall since it was during a time I wasn't following baseball closely) you need to win your division to be guaranteed a playoff spot.

Remember at the start of this season all the experts were saying the best the Nationals could hope for this season was a Wildcard to get to the playoffs. They are still in position to win the NL East. The wheels are still on the bus, but that doesn't mean they can't fall off.

Atlanta is now 5.5 games behind and they have 47 more games to play (we have 46) it is still possible for them to catch up to us and pass us at worst. I'm guessing they will get within 1 game of us before the season is over and possibly have some cardo-grabbing days of being tied with us for 1st.

Offline Jordanz Meatballz

  • Posts: 4556
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #62: August 14, 2012, 10:56:42 AM »
Do you guys realize the Braves are four games lucky?  By performance, the Nats should be 9 games up on the Braves.  They'll fade.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33840
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #63: August 14, 2012, 10:57:54 AM »
Do you guys realize the Braves are four games lucky?  By performance, the Nats should be 9 games up on the Braves.  They'll fade.

You can't judge future performance based off pythag... which just shows what they should have done with their runs scores/runs allowed output up to this point.

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5218
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #64: August 14, 2012, 11:11:57 AM »
You can't judge future performance based off pythag... which just shows what they should have done with their runs scores/runs allowed output up to this point.

Well Pythagorean is the best predictor of future performance.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33840
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #65: August 14, 2012, 11:17:05 AM »
Well Pythagorean is the best predictor of future performance.

The best predictor would be a simulation of the current roster over the rest of the season as BP runs.

Pythag means nothing if you suddenly lose your best player. Once again... it's not predicting the future at all. It's just saying this is what your record should have been with how many runs scores/given up.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14322
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #66: August 14, 2012, 11:17:45 AM »
You can't judge future performance based off pythag... which just shows what they should have done with their runs scores/runs allowed output up to this point.

By that logic, we can't expect the Nats to have a winning record for the remainder of the year because we have no indication that they will.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33840
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #67: August 14, 2012, 11:20:38 AM »
By that logic, we can't expect the Nats to have a winning record for the remainder of the year because we have no indication that they will.

Which is why I said the best predictor of future record is the simulation BP uses.

Pythag can too easily be influenced by blowout games.

How many extra games do you think the Rangers picked up on their Pythag the year they put that 30 run beat down on the O's?

Offline Jordanz Meatballz

  • Posts: 4556
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #68: August 14, 2012, 11:24:56 AM »
I'm not using pythag anyway, I'm using WAR winning percentage from Fangraphs.

Besides, the Nationals are as healthy as they've been all year :shrug:

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 5500
  • Team America 2014
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #69: August 14, 2012, 11:28:18 AM »
If Ian Desmond is swinging the bat well in September, I think we hit 100.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14322
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #70: August 14, 2012, 12:30:11 PM »
Which is why I said the best predictor of future record is the simulation BP uses.

Pythag can too easily be influenced by blowout games.

How many extra games do you think the Rangers picked up on their Pythag the year they put that 30 run beat down on the O's?

I honestly have no idea, but with their pitching staff, I'm sure the '07 Rangers had their share of blowout losses too.

Fair point about BP vs. Pythag, though.  I'd trust them or coolstandings too.  I just thought you were trying to say that you can't use past performance to predict the future when it's basically all one can use.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28215
  • Hell yes!
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #71: August 14, 2012, 12:37:58 PM »
Well Pythagorean is the best predictor of future performance.

PECOTA would factor in current/expected roster going forward, and exclude past contributions from players that may not be available due to injury.  In that sense PECOTA is an upgrade over the quick and dirty Pythagorean view.     Currently projecting the Nats to 98 wins, Braves to 92.

Offline soxfan59

  • Posts: 1200
  • Gough, Gough White Sox!!!
    • John R. Russell, Ltd.
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #72: August 14, 2012, 01:34:14 PM »
:nono: Some of us know you were born on March 30, 1853, Vincent. ;) 



You're only as old as you feel.  I feel about as old as the 1853 date.

Offline soxfan59

  • Posts: 1200
  • Gough, Gough White Sox!!!
    • John R. Russell, Ltd.
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #73: August 14, 2012, 01:35:49 PM »
If Ian Desmond is swinging the bat well in September, I think we hit 100.
:minigunz: I hope so -- Des is on my fantasy team.


Offline captkirk42

  • Posts: 535
    • Curly W Cards
Re: 100 wins?
« Reply #74: August 22, 2012, 04:43:01 PM »
OK so now we are at 77 :w: with 40 games left in regular season. Playing and winning at only .500 puts us at 97 wins. Just 5 games till we have a WINNING Season. Then it is what another 13 games to top the Franchise and city's best all-time record?