Author Topic: Nationals suck  (Read 1948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Dave B

  • Posts: 6015
Nationals suck
« Topic Start: August 25, 2005, 05:05:04 PM »
they do. believe it. it makes taking the losses easier.  20 games over .500 was a complete fluke.  of course, i might change my mind after they wint the next game.  for the next 24+ hours they suck and i hate all of them. unlclutch, nagging injury (insert expletive of choice here)

edit:
i've calmed down a little. i dont hate them. but they still suck

Offline Ryan Zimmerman

  • Posts: 544
Re: Nationals suck
« Reply #1: August 25, 2005, 05:53:10 PM »
I concur man.........the nats suck big time....ugh.

Offline rileyn

  • Posts: 1623
Nationals suck
« Reply #2: August 25, 2005, 06:01:10 PM »
Our situational hitting sure sucks.  I have never seen a team so often fail to get a runner home from 3rd with less than 2 outs in my life.  I said last week that we shouldn't even go to 3rd.  Stay at 2nd unless forced to go 3rd.

Offline ernie0326

  • Posts: 2113
Re: Nationals suck
« Reply #3: August 26, 2005, 08:01:41 AM »
Quote from: "Dave B"
they do. believe it. it makes taking the losses easier.  20 games over .500 was a complete fluke.  of course, i might change my mind after they wint the next game.  for the next 24+ hours they suck and i hate all of them. unlclutch, nagging injury (insert expletive of choice here)

edit:
i've calmed down a little. i dont hate them. but they still suck


Feel better now that you got that out of your system?

Offline Kenz aFan

  • Posts: 5433
Nationals suck
« Reply #4: August 26, 2005, 11:17:48 AM »
In comparison to the first half of the season, the Nats are indeed playing lousy baseball. But think for a sec, even playing lousy baseball, they are still only 2? out in the wild card race. Why are they still only 2? games out of the wild card, because they are not the only team playing lousy baseball. If they can find a way to lift their game up just a little, they could be the NL wild card team.

Scot

  • Guest
Nationals suck
« Reply #5: August 26, 2005, 11:43:01 AM »
In large part, I agree - 20 games over .500 was a fluke, and the Nats aren't really legitimate contenders for the WC.

So what, though? Get past the unreasonable expectations created by the flukishly good start, and just enjoy the rest of the season for what it is: major league baseball. They'll win some, they'll lose some, but in every game win or lose there will be something to enjoy (Vidro snagging the line drive and turning the double play with the bases loaded yesterday, or Wilkerson's HR in the ninth, or a bunch of other things).

Scot.

Offline Kenz aFan

  • Posts: 5433
Nationals suck
« Reply #6: August 26, 2005, 05:04:32 PM »
Quote from: "Scot"
In large part, I agree - 20 games over .500 was a fluke, and the Nats aren't really legitimate contenders for the WC.

Actually, the Nats aren't playing much better or worse than most of the teams in the wild card race. Until one team steps forward, they have a much a chance of winning the wild card as anyone.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 41234
Nationals suck
« Reply #7: August 26, 2005, 05:32:21 PM »
Quote from: "Scot"
In large part, I agree - 20 games over .500 was a fluke, and the Nats aren't really legitimate contenders for the WC.


I don't buy either of these points.  If you're 20 games over 500, you deserve to be 20 games over 500.  The fault of our collapse lies almost entirely with Frank Robinson and significantly with Jim Bowden.

After the Cubs series, we were 50-31.  You don't stop managing at 50-31.  You don't stop general managing at 50-31.  This is especially true when you have some holes in your roster, which we do.  You always have to look to make yourself better.  If a player isn't hitting well, you sit him.  You call players up.  You send players down.  You tinker with the lineup.  With this roster, Frank Robinson the manager had to be better, but Frank Robinson wasn't better.  He didn't give us anything we needed.

I would believe in this collapse if Robinson and Bowden had done all the right things this season.  Instead, they've done few right things, especially in the second half of the season.

Scot

  • Guest
Nationals suck
« Reply #8: August 29, 2005, 11:23:39 AM »
Quote from: "PC"

I don't buy either of these points.  If you're 20 games over 500, you deserve to be 20 games over 500.  


I disagree. If you're 20 games over .500 but you've been outscored on the season, it's a pretty good indication that you've been pretty lucky to manage to be 20 games over .500. In general, if you've been outscored by your opponents, you should expect to be below .500. Score as many runs as your opponents, and you should be at .500. Outscore your opponents, and you should be above .500. The Nats were basically a .500 team that got lucky for a few weeks. The luck ran out.

Bowden and Robinson have made some questionable moves, no doubt. But the main reason the Nats are ~.500 right now is because that's the level they've been playing at most of the year. The Nats have the talent to be a .500 team, and that's about it.

Scot.

Offline Kenz aFan

  • Posts: 5433
Nationals suck
« Reply #9: August 29, 2005, 11:41:30 AM »
Overall, the Nats are pretty much where they should be, in last place in the NL East. Every one of the other teams in our division is better than the Nats, not just on paper, but on the field. We were all excited when they got as high as 19 games over .500, but deep down we all knew it wouldn't last. Oh we all wished and prayed that it would, but reality eventually set in. This team is not one iota better offensively than the team that won just 67 games last season. They are better defensively and that will get them some extra wins over last year.

My hope is that the team can finish over .500, but if they don't I wont be disappointed, because I've always felt that anything over 75 wins would be icing on the cake.

Offline Nationalzfanatic88

  • Posts: 1039
Nationals suck
« Reply #10: August 29, 2005, 04:11:10 PM »
Do you guys seriously think about what you say before you write it? Like I've said in my new post, you guys are talking about the Nationals as if they were the best team last year and they havent performed up to expectations. I'm sorry, even though the Nationals are in a 17-32 slump (I've counted), I refuse like the rest of you to give up hope. I truly am sorry, but it disgusts me how ill you guys are speaking of this team. I joined this form so I could discuss the Nationals with people who I actually CARED about the team, not people who we're gonna abandon them as soon as trouble started. Sure, the nationals will probably finish in last place in the NL East and they might also finish below .500 But hey, this is my first year in DC and my first year in baseball, and I feel just blessed enough having the Nationals. Even if they go 0-32, i will look back on this year and cheerish their NON-FLUKE 20-6 run because I am the only one that believes it was not a fluke and because I was thought to always look on the bright side of things!!!

Offline Kenz aFan

  • Posts: 5433
Nationals suck
« Reply #11: August 29, 2005, 10:57:36 PM »
Quote from: "Nationalzfanatic88"
I'm sorry, even though the Nationals are in a 17-32 slump (I've counted), I refuse like the rest of you to give up hope. I truly am sorry, but it disgusts me how ill you guys are speaking of this team.

Every member of this forum WANTS the Nats to do well, on the field and off, game in game out.... You're wanting them to win is nothing special in this forum, WE ALL WANT THEM TO WIN.

NONE OF US DESERVE to be berated by you or anyone else for expressing our opinions. You have no right to sit there and tell us you care more about this team than we do. Just because we choose to share our thoughts, and just because it doesn't jive with your way of thinking, does not mean your way is the right way. So what if our opinions are different from yours, WE ARE ALL NATS FANS, just as much as, and certainly no less than you are.

Fans come to and stay in this forum because they can criticize (as well as praise) the players, coaches, front office and goings on in and around the team, without fear of getting their heads ripped off. Just because someone has an opinion about the team that's not up to someone else's standards, doesn't make them less a fan.

In this forum, we are all Nats fans, and part of being a fan is being able to critique the team.

Opinions always have been and always will be part of the game. And remember, there's not a blessed thing wrong with being passionate about the team you love.

I was taught to look at the bright side of things too, and the bright side of all this, is that there WILL BE A NEXT YEAR and come January 1st 2006, no matter what the team looks like, they are still tied for first, have the same magic number as every other team. And another bright side is that the team will finally have an owner who WANTS the team, who WANTS to make it a WINNER.

If your ancestors (Re. forefathers) couldn't take criticism, do you think being an American would worth a hill of beans? If they could do it, why cant you?

No disrespect, but complacency breeds losers. I want this team to improve, not just today but every day... So I will criticize, complain, gripe, scream and bellyache till the cows come home, or until the Nats WIN, whichever comes first.

Scot

  • Guest
Nationals suck
« Reply #12: August 30, 2005, 10:57:19 AM »
Quote
No disrespect, but complacency breeds losers. I want this team to improve, not just today but every day... So I will criticize, complain, gripe, scream and bellyache till the cows come home, or until the Nats WIN, whichever comes first.


Yep. If you accept mediocrity, then that's what you'll end up with.

Scot.

Scot

  • Guest
Nationals suck
« Reply #13: August 30, 2005, 02:53:45 PM »
From an article on today's baseball prospectus:

Quote
For my money, the single most important tenet of sabermetrics is that there's a predictable relationship between a team's winning percentage and the number of runs it scores and allows. Bill James first codified this in his original Pythagorean formula:

win% = (RS^2)/(RS^2 + RA^2)

RS and RA are runs scored and runs allowed, G is games. Studies by BP's Clay Davenport have shown that not only is the Pythagorean formula a good predictor of a team's winning percentage after the fact (how many games should team X have won), it's a better predictor of future winning percentage than the team's actual winning percentage.


And that's why I say that the Nationals being 20 games above .500 was a fluke. Sure, they were 20 games above .500 - but they had been outscored on the season, which is indicitive of a below .500 team. The Nats got lucky and managed to accumulate a very impressive record, but underneath it all they were still basically a mediocre team that should have been expected to be at .500 or below. It's nice to rack up an impressive win total; it's nicer to rack up the impressive win total while also accumulating underlying stats that support that impressive win total.

Scot.

Offline Nationalzfanatic88

  • Posts: 1039
Nationals suck
« Reply #14: August 30, 2005, 03:46:44 PM »
Quote from: "Scot"
From an article on today's baseball prospectus:

Quote
For my money, the single most important tenet of sabermetrics is that there's a predictable relationship between a team's winning percentage and the number of runs it scores and allows. Bill James first codified this in his original Pythagorean formula:

win% = (RS^2)/(RS^2 + RA^2)

RS and RA are runs scored and runs allowed, G is games. Studies by BP's Clay Davenport have shown that not only is the Pythagorean formula a good predictor of a team's winning percentage after the fact (how many games should team X have won), it's a better predictor of future winning percentage than the team's actual winning percentage.


And that's why I say that the Nationals being 20 games above .500 was a fluke. Sure, they were 20 games above .500 - but they had been outscored on the season, which is indicitive of a below .500 team. The Nats got lucky and managed to accumulate a very impressive record, but underneath it all they were still basically a mediocre team that should have been expected to be at .500 or below. It's nice to rack up an impressive win total; it's nicer to rack up the impressive win total while also accumulating underlying stats that support that impressive win total.

Scot.


I totally agree, according to the formula the Nats win percentage should be about .482, Dont worry before long it will be and then our season will finally be over, looking forward to the Nats crashing and burning more than they have :twisted:

Scot

  • Guest
Nationals suck
« Reply #15: August 30, 2005, 05:13:45 PM »
Quote
I totally agree, according to the formula the Nats win percentage should be about .482, Dont worry before long it will be and then our season will finally be over, looking forward to the Nats crashing and burning more than they have


You know what? At this point I'll be happy if the team manages to finish the year at .500 or above. And even if they do tank the rest of the way, I'll still try to catch as many games as I can for the rest of the season. Because for me, I'll follow the team through thick or thin. My fanship isn't tied up in whether or not the Nats make the playoffs. If they do, great. I don't think they will, but I really hope they do. I just don't expect it. If they don't make the playoffs, that's fine too. There's always next year. Or the year after. Or the year after.

And I don't really care if the Nats make the playoffs, because I don't really care much about the playoffs. Who is the best team over a 162 game season means much more to me than who gets lucky/hot at the right time and manages to win 3 short series. To me, the Nats winning 95 games but losing in the playoffs is a much better season than if they win 82, sneak in with the wildcard and win the world series. To me, it's the regular season that counts. the playoffs are a large step behind the regular season, IMHO. A small step ahead of spring training games or the all-star game in terms of importance, but well behind the regular season.

Scot.

Offline Nationalzfanatic88

  • Posts: 1039
Nationals suck
« Reply #16: August 30, 2005, 05:20:13 PM »
Quote from: "Scot"
Quote
I totally agree, according to the formula the Nats win percentage should be about .482, Dont worry before long it will be and then our season will finally be over, looking forward to the Nats crashing and burning more than they have


You know what? At this point I'll be happy if the team manages to finish the year at .500 or above. And even if they do tank the rest of the way, I'll still try to catch as many games as I can for the rest of the season. Because for me, I'll follow the team through thick or thin. My fanship isn't tied up in whether or not the Nats make the playoffs. If they do, great. I don't think they will, but I really hope they do. I just don't expect it. If they don't make the playoffs, that's fine too. There's always next year. Or the year after. Or the year after.

And I don't really care if the Nats make the playoffs, because I don't really care much about the playoffs. Who is the best team over a 162 game season means much more to me than who gets lucky/hot at the right time and manages to win 3 short series. To me, the Nats winning 95 games but losing in the playoffs is a much better season than if they win 82, sneak in with the wildcard and win the world series. To me, it's the regular season that counts. the playoffs are a large step behind the regular season, IMHO. A small step ahead of spring training games or the all-star game in terms of importance, but well behind the regular season.

Scot.


Hmm, thats a new one, I never thought that there were people that cared about the regular season more than the playoffs. But I kinda get what you mean, for me, if the Nats take the division (and stop those accursed braves division) and get crushed in the playoffs would mean a lot more to me than if they win the wildcard and the world series. Thats just how much I have come to despise the braves. But not caring about the postseason? thats a really interesting way of looking at things