Plan "B"

[Minty Fresh]

Is anyone else nervous that Nick could be on the DL to start the year because he overextended his wrist doubling down? 

[HalfSmokes]

Is anyone else nervous that Nick could be on the DL to start the year because he overextended his wrist doubling down? 

Can he get a designated thrower at the craps table?

[natsfan4evr]

I'm with the GMs on this one. They recognize the players that aren't worth a crap and this proves it.

The writer is a moron. 4 years, $56 Million for Dunn would be one of the worst contracts in baseball history.

I hope the writer is right that Dunn only gets a 1-year deal.

If Dunn signs a 1-year deal it will not be with us. Mark my words

[natsfan4evr]

Does Jeff Moore realize we don't play at RFK anymore?
Even if we were, didn't Soriano prove that when you have power, you really have power?  Most of Adam Dunn's shots are well over the wall, and would be a HR at nearly every park in the majors. He isn't hitting cheapies when he gets a hold of one.

[tomterp]

Does Jeff Moore realize we don't play at RFK anymore?

Yeah, what's all this talk about Nats Park being a pitchers' park?  It's probably damn close to neutral, so enough already. 

[tomterp]

Upon further research, ESPN has a ballpark factors calculator, which has Nats Park at 13th for overal offense (slightly better than average) and 16th for home runs, just below the mean.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?sort=HRFactor&season=2008

[DCFan]

Yeah, what's all this talk about Nats Park being a pitchers' park?  It's probably damn close to neutral, so enough already. 

They might be misidentifying the Nats anemic homerun totals because they're playing in a pitchers park (as RFK was) instead of a lack of talent?

[tomterp]

They might be misidentifying the Nats anemic homerun totals because they're playing in a pitchers park (as RFK was) instead of a lack of talent?

No because it compares Nats stats at home vs on the road.  For example, here's the formula for runs factor:

PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))

Just substitute hits, or HR, or whatever you want to get a park factor for any stat.

I will say that one season (81 games) is a relatively modest sample size, and that this stat may trend up or down over time, but just looking at the park dimensions and altitude, it seems to sync with common sense that the park plays relatively neutral.

[blue911]

No because it compares Nats stats at home vs on the road.  For example, here's the formula for runs factor:

PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))

Just substitute hits, or HR, or whatever you want to get a park factor for any stat.

I will say that one season (81 games) is a relatively modest sample size, and that this stat may trend up or down over time, but just looking at the park dimensions and altitude, it seems to sync with common sense that the park plays relatively neutral.

Did they breakdown the Nationals lineup? With most of the "power" hitters missing substantial playing time, I don't know how you can tell anything by looking at home vs. away stats.

[tomterp]

Did they breakdown the Nationals lineup? With most of the "power" hitters missing substantial playing time, I don't know how you can tell anything by looking at home vs. away stats.

No, but as you go smaller down in the weeds, like to the player level, you are getting into smaller and smaller sample sizes and thus more error.  LIke, maybe Dukes faced #1 pitchers on the road and 3-5 at home, which would skew the results. 

What I'm saying is, take the data with a grain of salt, but as for the pundits that are talking about home runs dying on the Nats Park warning track, they have little evidence to support that contention.

[DPMOmaha]

How long will it take before we can get a reasonable sample size?  3 years?  5 years? 

[tomterp]

How long will it take before we can get a reasonable sample size?  3 years?  5 years? 

Just a hunch, 1-2 more years it ought to have reached its terminal values, and won't change much.  Just this year alone will double the data on which the values are based.

[DCFan]

No because it compares Nats stats at home vs on the road.  For example, here's the formula for runs factor:

PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))

Just substitute hits, or HR, or whatever you want to get a park factor for any stat.

I will say that one season (81 games) is a relatively modest sample size, and that this stat may trend up or down over time, but just looking at the park dimensions and altitude, it seems to sync with common sense that the park plays relatively neutral.

You just made my point for me. The average sports columnists isn't going to jump thru these algebraic hoops when they can simply rely on perception, commonly held beliefs, and a basic stat sheet.  Everyone knew that RFK was cavernous and most shots died at the warning track. Moving into the new park they saw the Nats anemic homerun totals and 'assumed' that Nats Park had the same characteristics as RFK. 

But then again, maybe not. 

[KnorrForYourMoney]

No, but as you go smaller down in the weeds, like to the player level, you are getting into smaller and smaller sample sizes and thus more error.  LIke, maybe Dukes faced #1 pitchers on the road and 3-5 at home, which would skew the results. 

What I'm saying is, take the data with a grain of salt, but as for the pundits that are talking about home runs dying on the Nats Park warning track, they have little evidence to support that contention.

I've quoted that before, but I remember seeing earlier on in the season at baseball reference (which uses the same park factors as ESPN) that Nationals Park was an extreme pitcher's park.  I was somewhat surprised to find, just recently, that it actually became a neutral park at season's end.  The changes in weather and sample size caused that.

[tomterp]

I've quoted that before, but I remember seeing earlier on in the season at baseball reference (which uses the same park factors as ESPN) that Nationals Park was an extreme pitcher's park.  I was somewhat surprised to find, just recently, that it actually became a neutral park at season's end.  The changes in weather and sample size caused that.

I agree with that. Weather in DC is a big factor, as there is a large change in temperatures and humidity, as opposed to San Diego or Florida where weather is much more stable.  And of course the sample size thing.

[hammondsnats]

http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090123&content_id=3767996&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was

Nats keep eye on free-agent market
No deal imminent, but team has lingering interest in Dunn, Hudson

WASHINGTON -- General manager Jim Bowden said the Nationals still have interest in signing free agents, but they are not close to acquiring one in the near future.

The Denver Post reported that the Nationals had interest in right-hander Josh Fogg, but a baseball source said the report was false. Washington is going into Spring Training with a young rotation of Collin Balester, Daniel Cabrera, John Lannan, Scott Olsen and Jordan Zimmermann. Fogg is 32 years old and doesn't fit the club's long-term plans. He is coming off one of his worst seasons, going 2-7 with a 7.58 ERA with the Reds last season.

However, the Nats still have interest in first baseman Adam Dunn and second baseman Orlando Hudson, two left-handed hitters who could off-set a lineup dominated by right-handed hitters. But right now, Dunn and Hudson have exceeded the team's price range.

"I can tell you, we continue to work hard [when it comes to signing players] and continue to give our recommendations to [team president] Stan Kasten and keep him abreast on how the market is," Bowden said.

I knew they would have that rotation going in, high risk-reward if you ask me, but we're not winning it all with our offense so may as well go with this young rotation.  Unless of course someone stinks it up/gets injured in spring training.  But I like the balance: a couple finesse pitchers matched with a couple flamethrowers.

Good to hear we haven't given up on signing a free agent that makes sense either. 

Also on the site it says the Nats/Zimmerman have good relationship and who knows a signing may be on the way soon.

[Nat of the Living Dead]

I knew they would have that rotation going in, high risk-reward if you ask me, but we're not winning it all with our offense so may as well go with this young rotation. 

Are we supposed to be winning it all? Winning anything?

[hammondsnats]

Are we supposed to be winning it all? Winning anything?

sorry typos, but not enough time to fix, i'm going out!  i'll end the night with this:

"we signed parkman ... this is the year we go all the way ... all the way ... all the way"
-randy quaid, major league II

[MrMadison]

I just have to ask.

for everyone blasting the Lerners because they haven't signed Dunn yet(or any other Free Agent Bat), and yelling about "another 100 loss season" and about how the season is doomed, we'll have pitiful attendance and all sorts of mess..

just how much better exactly, do you expect Dunn to make this team?

I have my own theories on this, but I am interested to hear yours, since the prevailing opinion is that without Dunn the 2009 Nats are one of the worst teams in baseball, destined for yet another 100-loss season and being the biggest joke in baseball(I don't agree with this opinion, but that's a different discussion).

how much of an impact do you realistically expect Dunn to have?  Suppose we sign him right now. are the Nationals no longer the worst team in the league(according to your previous view)?

Does the act of spending Free Agent Money on one or two guys(signing Dunn and Hudson, for example), simply make everything right, in your opinions? Or does the team need more of a complete overhaul?

NOTE: I'm NOT arguing against spending money. I'm merely trying to gauge where the popular opinion is in regards to how much improvement spending the money is expected to bring.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

I expect Dunn to have a pretty profound impact, to be honest.  I'm talking 5-7 wins.  That's a lot for a single player.

The reason I say this is depth.  Our options become really intriguing if we throw Dunn in the mix.  Take him out, and an early injury to one of our glass warriors could really make this offense very impotent.  Add Dunn, and suddenly you can move guys around and not have to worry about your team scoring two runs per night just because you lost Nick Johnson or Elijah Dukes.

The homers and OBP certainly help too, but now you have some consistency and dependability where you once didn't.

[MrMadison]

I expect Dunn to have a pretty profound impact, to be honest.  I'm talking 5-7 wins.  That's a lot for a single player.

so you are saying that signing Dunn alone, moves this team from a 100-loss team, to a mid-90 loss team. (starting from the Worst Possible Outcome, which seems to be the standard arguing point among the LernerCheap Squad)

yes?

[Nat of the Living Dead]

I just don't understand how Adam Dunn makes a last place team any easier to watch.

I think it's safe to assume that the majority here agree that it is going to take more than any one player, Dunn or otherwise, to make this team anywhere near a contender.

[houston-nat]

To be honest, the Nationals as of now are no longer the worst team in the MLB, because there have been some minor improvements to us (and a major one, firing Lenny Harris), and also because some other teams (the Marlins, the Padres) have gotten considerably worse. I think with Dunn and Hudson we are, say, a 70-win team. But the more important part of the equation - more important than the free agents - is improvement from our youngsters. If Milledge, Dukes, Zimmerman, Flores, Shell, Hanrahan, Balester and Zimmermann can be consistently good and consistently off the DL, then we have a shot at 75+. Worst case scenario, we become Dr. Hideous' Injury Funhouse again and everyone slumps again and our pitchers get blown up and demoralized and we duplicate last year. Best case scenario, our youngsters all get hot, Dunn and Hudson join the fun, our pitchers learn on the job, and we actually exceed .500. I believe that is at least possible.

[hammondsnats]

While some of you say I have an obsession w/ Dunn or sound like a broken record (much like everyone else on here), I don't think Dunn is the savior.  But he is a significant upgrade over what we have in place right now.  How often do you get a 40 HR hitter available?  We've had one in our time since coming to DC, in Soriano, and correct me if I'm wrong but that was our best offensive year. 

I think we will be better this year, but that's not saying much, we were embarrassingly bad last year.  I don't have a number of how many wins Dunn would contribute to, b/c that's too hard to gague.  But he makes our line-up better, that's for sure. 

[KnorrForYourMoney]

so you are saying that signing Dunn alone, moves this team from a 100-loss team, to a mid-90 loss team. (starting from the Worst Possible Outcome, which seems to be the standard arguing point among the LernerCheap Squad)

yes?

Personally, I don't believe that this team will undergo "worst possible outcome" again, but yes.  They're already going to have improvement with the additions of Olsen/Willingham.  I'm thinking that's about 4 wins right there.  We can also expect some progress with our youngsters.  I reasonably expect somewhere from 95-88 losses from our current squad.

Given your premise, however, yes, that's what I expect. (Sorry for beating around the bush there.)

If this is a 95 loss team, I think it's likely to become at least a 90-loss team.  Best case scenario, in my mind, is that an 88-loss team becomes a .500 team.

I think so much of it hinges on the bullpen.

To answer NOTLD: I think Dunn really does make our team that much more watchable, at least in my mind.  Last year's team was painful to watch.  The 2007 team, while somewhat devoid of long-term pieces to the club, was rather exciting and had a lot of interesting and worthwhile games.  They didn't have the lifeless feel of the 2008 squad.

So imagine something a little better than the 2007 team, except you have: A) a big-bopping slugger who's a threat to hit one out of the park any time he steps up to the plate (this is mostly superficial, but you have to admit it makes things more interesting), B) a team that's mostly competitive yet filled with a lot of youngsters who might be around for the long haul.

To me, that's a really intriguing prospect.  Seeing Zimmermann, Balester, Mock, etc. is already exciting enough, but it's a great bonus if they're part of a team that doesn't suck rocks.