Author Topic: ESPN's Szymborski "Nats can be historically great"  (Read 1141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove12/story/_/id/8879981/washington-nationals-teams-chance-historically-great-2013-mlb

Unfortunately the article is that stupid Insider crap so I can't read it... but I get the gist of it... Do you think we are capable of winning 110+ games this year? I mean this team is pretty stacked in every aspect. I think that'd be incredible if we reached such a feat.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15298
A lot depends on injuries,  if every starter stays healthy,  it's not out of the question- especially if the fish and mets are historically bad and the Phillies are down

Offline nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 2158
It will be hard with a team as good as the Braves in the division.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 17765
  • Adam who?
It will be hard with a team as good as the Braves in the division.

Our pitchers can set k records though. 

Offline PebbleBall

  • Posts: 2803
  • Now that right there is baseball.
There's not much to the article really.  But ZiPS gives the Nationals a brow-raising 27% chance of winning 100 games.  As for the Braves being in their division, it's outweighed by having two prime 100 loss candidates (NYM and MIA). 


Teams with at least a 10 percent chance of 100 wins.

TEAM   100 WINS?
Washington   27%
Los Angeles (A)   16%
Texas   15%
Detroit   13%
Los Angeles (N)   11%
Atlanta   11%
Toronto   10%
Cincinnati   10%


Teams with at least a 10 percent chance of 100 losses.

TEAM   100 LOSSES?
Houston   70%
Miami   36%
New York (N)   34%
Minnesota   34%
Colorado   14%

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5223
The 1998 New York Yankees won 114 games, becoming the first team to pass the 110-win mark since the 1954 Indians. Three years later, the Seattle Mariners performed the same feat, winning 116 games and tying the 1906 Cubs for the most wins in a season, albeit with 10 more games on the schedule.

Rather than signaling a new era of dominant superteams, the well has been dry, with only a single team (the 2004 St. Louis Cardinals) hitting 105.

Even the century mark, usually the hallmark of a dominating season, has been eclipsed by only three teams in the past five years. Today, Buster Olney ranks the top 10 teams of all time. With that in mind, I figured this was as good a time as any to look at which 2013 squads, if any, have a chance of joining those ranks. And there are a few.

Generally speaking, for feats of extreme winnage, a little bit of luck is necessary. You can have Barry Bonds in your lineup, but you still have eight other starting spots. You can have Justin Verlander or Roger Clemens at the top of the rotation, but he's not going to pitch every inning. Even Hall of Famer/Twitter legend Old Hoss Radbourn topped out at 73 complete games and 678 2/3 innings, not even half a modern schedule.

But as fortune would have it, a 162-game schedule is a short enough period of time that all the vagaries of luck won't even out. Even if you knew for a fact that every team in baseball was an 81-win team, a level of certainty that would require Sauron's One Ring, you would still expect six teams on average to miss or exceed the .500 mark by eight or more games. With a little luck, those 90-95 teams can hit that 100 mark.

So which teams are the most likely to win 100 games this year? To answer this question, I consulted the updated ZiPS projections, reflecting moves made through the Justin Upton trade. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, the 2013 season was simulated a million times.

ZiPS thinks this is a promising year to get a 100-game winner, with 1.43 teams winning 100 games on average. Four teams have at least a 1-in-3 shot at 100 losses, more than was simulated last year, which makes those high win totals a little easier for the rest of the league. With two of those teams (the New York Mets and Miami Marlins) in their division, the Washington Nationals are the best projected candidate to hit the 100-game barrier, with a 27 percent chance of winning 100 games. Seven other teams have a projected chance of at least 10 percent to win 100 games: the Toronto Blue Jays, Los Angeles Angels, Texas Rangers, Los Angeles Dodgers, Cincinnati Reds, Atlanta Braves and Detroit Tigers.

(David Schoenfield wondered about the odds of the Braves and Nationals both winning 100 games. As he noted, only once in the wild-card era have two teams from the same division won more than 100 games -- the A's and Mariners in 2001 -- and there is a 1.5 percent chance of it happening in the NL East this year.)

As one might expect, the odds of a 110-win team are considerably longer. No team has greater than a 1 percent projected chance at 110 wins, with a 3.7 percent chance of at least one team becoming a supercentenarian. The odds are 1-in-140 against besting the Mariners at 117 wins. If the odds are that bad every year going forward, most of us reading this page are unlikely to see a new wins champion.

In a million simulated years, the most games won by a team was the year the Angels won 124 games. If that happened, I imagine team owner Arte Moreno won't mind paying top dollar for the declining years of Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton.

Winning 100, 110 or 116 games generally involves defying the odds to some degree. But that's what makes great teams so fascinating.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2623
  • Too Stressed to care.
It will be hard with a team as good as the Braves in the division.
I'm not impressed with the Barves rotation. It's weak after Hudson and Medlen.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 8554
  • Myer and Travis and Rice, and Bucky to manage...
I don't want to hear about how many games the Nats "ought" to win.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 15298
I don't want to hear about how many games the Nats "ought" to win.

Better hide away for a while,  we still have BP projections and Vegas over-unders to go

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Better hide away for a while,  we still have BP projections and Vegas over-unders to go

Yeah. These talks happen every year.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28245
  • Hell yes!
I don't want to hear about how many games the Nats "ought" to win.

Afraid the jinx fairy will rise up and impose her wrath?

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Houston has a 70% chance of losing 100 games.  That is amazing.  What were the Nats chances of losing 100 before their 100 loss seasons?  I don't think the Mets will lose 100 - I think they will be closer to challenging Philly for 3rd than they will be to challenging the Marlins for last place.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 17765
  • Adam who?
Afraid the jinx fairy will rise up and impose her wrath?

my only real fear is that this team goes into the season way over-confident, and things start to come apart if there's a rough stretch.  they don't have the clubhouse presence of Morse and DeRosa.  Of course, Davey is still there.  I don't think this scenario will play out, but this is a very very confident team right now.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28245
  • Hell yes!
my only real fear is that this team goes into the season way over-confident, and things start to come apart if there's a rough stretch.  they don't have the clubhouse presence of Morse and DeRosa.  Of course, Davey is still there.  I don't think this scenario will play out, but this is a very very confident team right now.

Fair point but Davey's big skill is getting into their skulls and eliciting effort. 

To me the big threat of going north of 100 is injury risk, a mostly random variable.

Offline Hogie

  • Posts: 497
Everything is setting up for such a huge fail. I hate this season already.

Online Vega

  • Posts: 4730
I don't care how many games are won in the regular season. The only thing that matters is winning eleven in October.

Offline comish4lif

  • Posts: 2623
  • Too Stressed to care.
Everything is setting up for such a huge fail. I hate this season already.
I love this season, I hope that I won't be disappointed.

But this is much better than the Jerome Williams, Jason Simontacchi years... When you knew they were terrible.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 8554
  • Myer and Travis and Rice, and Bucky to manage...
Afraid the jinx fairy will rise up and impose her wrath?

Of course!!!

The Nats should be picked to go .500

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37068
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
my only real fear is that this team goes into the season way over-confident, and things start to come apart if there's a rough stretch.  they don't have the clubhouse presence of Morse and DeRosa.  Of course, Davey is still there.  I don't think this scenario will play out, but this is a very very confident team right now.

I think DeRosa's clubhouse presence was zeroed out by his sucky play.

Offline lastobjective

  • Posts: 4725
  • Natitude
my only real fear is that this team goes into the season way over-confident, and things start to come apart if there's a rough stretch.  they don't have the clubhouse presence of Morse and DeRosa.  Of course, Davey is still there.  I don't think this scenario will play out, but this is a very very confident team right now.

I would think that the haunting memories of NLDS game 5 should remind them that they can't be over-confident and they still have to work to be successful.

Online Baseball is Life

  • Posts: 11196
  • Proud member of the Sunshine Squad.
"historically great" is even too rosy for the SSS squad. I would be content with matching last year's win total or coming close. And 100 would be grand.

The Nats snuck up on some teams last year. Playing as the favorite has its own perils.

But I think it's Joe Gibbs who used to say that he preferred being picked to win the division versus being picked to finish last!

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 24802
only if the starting rotation stays healthy. If not, it's going to be a long year.

Offline LightningMcQueen

  • Posts: 156
100 is definitely possible with this team.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
I think DeRosa's clubhouse presence was zeroed out by his sucky play.

It's true - we don't have the Matt Stairs/Mark DeRosa role filled this year.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
The Braves rotation is fugazi.  Medlen is not that good.  Just two years ago this guy was a middle reliever getting lit up.  Look for a huge regression. 

I think Medlen showed enough last year that he proved to me that he's for real.  The rest of their rotation is a little suspect.  Minor, Hudson, Teheran, Beachy, and Maholm all have question marks.  Not all of those guys will have good seasons.  Beachy is supposed to miss half the season and shouldn't be full strength after TJ surgery.  Hudson is old.  Maholm is a little better than Lannan.  Teheran is very young.