Author Topic: Leading off for the Nats  (Read 1952 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KV

  • Posts: 1786
  • Believe!
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #25: June 06, 2016, 12:51:12 PM »
The same guy who was completely unwilling to do anything to adjust his approach at the plate when he was here?
Yup....that's the one!

Offline Optics

  • Posts: 9233
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #26: June 06, 2016, 12:54:23 PM »
Revere has hit .300 the last few years. He'll get it going eventually, but once you hit this poorly through the first two months(although he missed one of those)it's kinda hard to get back to .300.

Its frustrating because it doesn't seem like he actually gets lead off hits very often. He did get a nice clutch knock yesterday to tie the game but how often does he actually open the game with a hit to immediately apply some pressure?

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 29499
  • King of Goodness
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #27: June 06, 2016, 01:31:31 PM »
How about trading for that guy from SF who's batting .266 / .359 / .358 with 7 stolen bases?

We could have had the Angels centerfielder...so essentially we traded away Trout to get Revere, and two early exits from the postseason due to a crap closer.  Solid move, Rizzo...


Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11499
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #28: June 06, 2016, 01:54:10 PM »
We could have had the Angels centerfielder...so essentially we traded away Trout to get Revere, and two early exits from the postseason due to a crap closer.  Solid move, Rizzo...
Come on, you know that's weak. The Nats were one of 21 teams who passed on Trout. And the baseball draft is such a crapshoot compared to any other sport's draft. What is, just over two thirds of first round picks even make the majors? I wish the Nats draft Trout, so do 20 other teams. Even if you think that was an unforgivable error, rosters are made up of 25 guys. Bryce Harper, and Mike Trout, both sat at home last year come playoff time. Bryce Harper has yet to make it past the first round. Mike Trout has not even won a single playoff game.

It's not worth getting that red assed over one individual player.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 29499
  • King of Goodness
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #29: June 06, 2016, 02:03:13 PM »
Come on, you know that's weak. The Nats were one of 21 teams who passed on Trout. And the baseball draft is such a crapshoot compared to any other sport's draft. What is, just over two thirds of first round picks even make the majors? I wish the Nats draft Trout, so do 20 other teams. Even if you think that was an unforgivable error, rosters are made up of 25 guys. Bryce Harper, and Mike Trout, both sat at home last year come playoff time. Bryce Harper has yet to make it past the first round. Mike Trout has not even won a single playoff game.

It's not worth getting that red assed over one individual player.

Did you find something wrong with my "math?"  That's the way it worked out...we got crap for the 10th pick in the draft...

Offline skippy1999

  • Posts: 19411
  • Believe!!!
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #30: June 06, 2016, 02:03:52 PM »
Come on, you know that's weak. The Nats were one of 21 teams who passed on Trout. And the baseball draft is such a crapshoot compared to any other sport's draft. What is, just over two thirds of first round picks even make the majors? I wish the Nats draft Trout, so do 20 other teams. Even if you think that was an unforgivable error, rosters are made up of 25 guys. Bryce Harper, and Mike Trout, both sat at home last year come playoff time. Bryce Harper has yet to make it past the first round. Mike Trout has not even won a single playoff game.

It's not worth getting that red assed over one individual player.

It's not really that weak, people were pretty incredulous at taking a flippin' relief pitcher in the first round weren't they?

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 63106
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #31: June 06, 2016, 02:04:01 PM »
We could have had the Angels centerfielder...so essentially we traded away Trout to get Revere, and two early exits from the postseason due to a crap closer.  Solid move, Rizzo...


Could have taken Jose Fernandez over Anthony Rendon.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21606
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #32: June 06, 2016, 02:17:12 PM »
The same guy who was completely unwilling to do anything to adjust his approach at the plate when he was here?

He should have been more like revere who really seems to have taken the nats approach to heart

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11499
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #33: June 06, 2016, 02:21:11 PM »
It's not really that weak, people were pretty incredulous at taking a flippin' relief pitcher in the first round weren't they?
It was a pick the Nats made because they knew they could sign him. Happens all the time in baseball. The Nats knew they would have a fight with Strasburg so knowing they could just plug Storen into the system was convenient. Storen ended up making the majors, picked up tons of saves, and although he was crap in the playoffs and it ended badly I can say right now I'd prefer him right now over the Papelbon experiment. For a signability pick, he provided more value than may have been expected. If you think the Nationals should have picked another high potential player right there and broke open the bank for him, then I won't argue with you there.

Offline dracnal

  • Posts: 1696
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #34: June 06, 2016, 02:28:45 PM »
It was a pick the Nats made because they knew they could sign him. Happens all the time in baseball. The Nats knew they would have a fight with Strasburg so knowing they could just plug Storen into the system was convenient. Storen ended up making the majors, picked up tons of saves, and although he was crap in the playoffs and it ended badly I can say right now I'd prefer him right now over the Papelbon experiment. For a signability pick, he provided more value than may have been expected. If you think the Nationals should have picked another high potential player right there and broke open the bank for him, then I won't argue with you there.

Pretty sure the reason we had the pick for Storen was because Crow refused to sign the year before. Storen signed within 24 hours and was with his minor league team within a few days at most if I remember right.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 29499
  • King of Goodness
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #35: June 06, 2016, 02:29:08 PM »
Could have taken Jose Fernandez over Anthony Rendon.

But Boras pushed Rendon on the Lerners...

Offline BrandonK

  • Posts: 8182
  • #LOLNats
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #36: June 06, 2016, 02:34:46 PM »
Pretty sure the reason we had the pick for Storen was because Crow refused to sign the year before. Storen signed within 24 hours and was with his minor league team within a few days at most if I remember right.

And the fact that Stras was going to get the highest bonus of all time...

Offline mdnatsfan

  • Posts: 220
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #37: June 06, 2016, 02:59:43 PM »
I wish they had Kershaw, and Stanton...and Trout...and Machado...and McCutchen...and Chapman...and Ruth...and Rose...and Cobb...and  :mg:

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 63106
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #38: June 06, 2016, 06:42:03 PM »
He should have been more like revere who really seems to have taken the nats approach to heart
Not really. Revere has the second lowest K rate on the team amongst players with at least 5 PAs. Seven other position players have a strikeout rate of double or more

Offline Optics

  • Posts: 9233
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #39: June 06, 2016, 07:12:58 PM »
Are we really arguing we should have taken Trout in 09? Of course we should have but NOBODY had Trout pegged as a star. MLB Draft is basically a crapshoot outside of the occasional slam dunk #1 pick(i.e. Stras or Harper).

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 29499
  • King of Goodness
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #40: June 06, 2016, 07:15:15 PM »
Are we really arguing we should have taken Trout in 09? Of course we should have but NOBODY had Trout pegged as a star. MLB Draft is basically a crapshoot outside of the occasional slam dunk #1 pick(i.e. Stras or Harper).

I don't think we are.  I happened to point out that instead of Trout, we have Ben Revere and two early postseason exits courtesy of Drew Storen.

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 63106
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #41: June 06, 2016, 10:27:32 PM »
I don't think we are.  I happened to point out that instead of Trout, we have Ben Revere and two early postseason exits courtesy of Drew Storen.

Uh ... A lot went in to those post season exits. More than Storen.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21606
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #42: June 06, 2016, 11:06:55 PM »
Uh ... A lot went in to those post season exits. More than Storen.

Storen was handed a 2 run lead in game 5 - if he does his job, the nats advance in 2012

Offline Matugi

  • Posts: 3494
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #43: June 06, 2016, 11:12:13 PM »
Storen was handed a 2 run lead in game 5 - if he does his job, the nats advance in 2012

You mean the same one where your starter, who many on this forum were likely ready to take up arms in support of him winning Cy Young, couldn't even make it through 6 innings?

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21606
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #44: June 06, 2016, 11:13:04 PM »
You mean the same one where your starter, who many on this forum were likely ready to take up arms in support of him winning Cy Young, couldn't even make it through 6 innings?

Yep,and even with all that, the closer was handed a lead in the ninth

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11499
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #45: June 06, 2016, 11:14:26 PM »
I have no idea why Trout is even relevant to this thread.

Again, teams are made up of 25 guys or Mike Trout would have at least one single playoff win to his name by now and the Nats wouldn't have had their worst season since 2011 in Harper's best year.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 29499
  • King of Goodness
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #46: June 07, 2016, 02:24:06 AM »
I have no idea why Trout is even relevant to this thread.

Again, teams are made up of 25 guys or Mike Trout would have at least one single playoff win to his name by now and the Nats wouldn't have had their worst season since 2011 in Harper's best year.

Settle down, dude...it was simple math...we netted what we have out of that draft pick.

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 63106
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #47: June 07, 2016, 08:15:29 AM »
Storen was handed a 2 run lead in game 5 - if he does his job, the nats advance in 2012

How about  the ace of your staff not giving up 3 runs in five innings? How about not bringing in Edwin Jackson in relief when he had a freaking ERA of over 6 in the first inning that season?

Can blame Storen all you want, but there was some incredibly crappy managing by Davey Johnson that game. Without a doubt, I'm convinced that if EJ doesn't come in to the game, the Nats win. The Cards don't get any momentum and they go quietly in to the night. But for whatever freaking reason, Johnson completely freaked up that decision and the result was a loss.

So yea, plenty of blame to go around.

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11499
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #48: June 07, 2016, 08:26:31 AM »
How about  the ace of your staff not giving up 3 runs in five innings? How about not bringing in Edwin Jackson in relief when he had a freaking ERA of over 6 in the first inning that season?

Can blame Storen all you want, but there was some incredibly crappy managing by Davey Johnson that game. Without a doubt, I'm convinced that if EJ doesn't come in to the game, the Nats win. The Cards don't get any momentum and they go quietly in to the night. But for whatever freaking reason, Johnson completely freaked up that decision and the result was a loss.

So yea, plenty of blame to go around.
If you told me before the game that the Nats would be sitting on a 6-0 lead with Gio Gonzalez on the mound a few innings in.....

That was a pretty collective team failure

Offline Optics

  • Posts: 9233
Re: Leading off for the Nats
« Reply #49: June 07, 2016, 12:04:05 PM »
If you told me before the game that the Nats would be sitting on a 6-0 lead with Gio Gonzalez on the mound a few innings in.....

That was a pretty collective team failure

Agreed. It was a total team loss. But still when your closer gets a 2 run lead in the 9th, he's expected to lock it down.

Storen also only had to get one out in Game 2 2014 vs. the Giants and blew that too.