Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?

[R-Zim#11]

Nationals: From bad to how much better?

In his column for this morning's birdcage liner about Mike Rizzo's offseason overhaul, Boz sizes up the chances of the Nationals making large enough strides to finish .500. He writes, "Even under best-case scenarios, the Nats probably aren't a .500 team in '10. Improving by 22 wins in a year is very rare."

How rare? Since 1970, a year chosen somewhat arbitrarily, a team has increased its win total by 22 or more victories 28 times, less than once per season. (That doesn't include strike-shortened outcomes.) In the '00s, it happened eight times, including once last year when the Mariners improved 24 games to finish 85-77.

Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/02/from_bad_to_how_much_better.html#more

Interesting post.

Bi-Polar Boz is impressed with the Nats offseason (although still takes the LAC Cheap Shots)...so...how much better will the Nats be overall?

[Obed_Marsh]

Whaaah! I wanna .500 team or better.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

must not gratify chief...must not gratify chief...

[Ray D]

We came pretty close, 1968-69.  21 win difference.

[The Chief]

must not gratify chief...must not gratify chief...

[Evolution33]

If it happens once a year then I have to think out of the god awful teams last season we have the best shot at it. I think the other teams with a shot at it would be Royals, Pirates, Orioles, Indians, Astros, and Diamond Backs. Although those last two would be in the 90-100 win range with a 20 game improvement where The Nationals, Royals, Pirates, Orioles, and Indians would be around .500. Of those four teams the Indians were projected to have the best record last season and the Nationals were projected to be around 75 wins. I don't see the Pirates really improving that much and I don't think the Royals or Orioles have the talent level to contend in their divisions. The Indians have a bad manager. So with all these factors I think the Nationals are the most logical to have a 20 game improvement which is still under .500 at 79 wins. 

[JMW IV]

Nats Journal is already 200% better than it was with Food Critic. and Kilgore just started today, I think.

[Smithian]

I'd consider hitting 70 wins as a positive accomplishment and a huge step in the right direction, especially if he don't call up Strasburg early in desperation to get some wins.

[epic_phalanx]

I was wholly expecting this thread to be a discussion on the quality of Nats Journal in the hands of Adam Kilgore. He's already putting Chico to shame.

Based on how most prognostications have the Nats winning in the mid-70's, I would consider anything <70 pretty disappointing. I think they have the talent to sniff .500 sometime after the all-star break.

[houston-nat]

In my school newspaper I said 80-82, so I'm pretty much stuck with that prediction.

Evolution, the Diamondbacks have a good chance to make a big comeback with Conor Jackson, Brandon Webb, and Edwin Jackson.

[Evolution33]

In my school newspaper I said 80-82, so I'm pretty much stuck with that prediction.

Evolution, the Diamondbacks have a good chance to make a big comeback with Conor Jackson, Brandon Webb, and Edwin Jackson.

I don't disagree but they won 70 and we won 59 if they improve by 20 games they win 90 if we win 20 more gamesthen we are at 79. I think we have a better chance of winning 79 than the diamondbacks have a chance of winning 90. I really like what they did this offseason but it is easier for a truly terrible team to improve by a lot than it is for a below average team to make the playoffs. It is kind of like how it is easier for a 600 lbs person to lose 20 lbs than a 200 lbs person.

[houston-nat]

I don't disagree but they won 70 and we won 59 if they improve by 20 games they win 90 if we win 20 more gamesthen we are at 79. I think we have a better chance of winning 79 than the diamondbacks have a chance of winning 90. I really like what they did this offseason but it is easier for a truly terrible team to improve by a lot than it is for a below average team to make the playoffs. It is kind of like how it is easier for a 600 lbs person to lose 20 lbs than a 200 lbs person.

Gotcha. That's a great analogy.

[saltydad]

The Sporting News prediction for the Nats-improved but still in last place.

http://today.sportingnews.com/sportingnewstoday/20100226?sub_id=ZSJDe0gckK4h&folio=18#pg18

[imref]

I'll keep my fingers crossed for 80, meaning that we're still in the hunt for a playoff spot in September. 

[PANatsFan]

Boz's logic is stupid. The Nats could easily be that team next year. Who else improved that much?

[Dave B]

Boz's logic is stupid. The Nats could easily be that team next year. Who else improved that much?

it is pretty stupid and it's not that rare. a team does it 3 out of 4 years, almost. and not every team is really a candidate to improve that much (maybe the bottom 5 teams or so). and the worse you are, the easier it is. the nats only have to become an average team to accomplish this

[tomterp]

it is pretty stupid and it's not that rare. a team does it 3 out of 4 years, almost. and not every team is really a candidate to improve that much (maybe the bottom 5 teams or so). and the worse you are, the easier it is. the nats only have to become an average team to accomplish this

The Mariners were really no big surprise, they had a lot of talent and were expected to be MUCH better than they ended up in 2008.  They quit with a couple months to do, but that was not an indication of their talent level.  Much easier to bounce back than when you're giving a solid effort and still stink.   

[The Chief]

STUPUD!

[Ali the Baseball Cat]

I'm still surprised that Ichiro didn't roll out a grass mat and gut himself after that season

The Mariners were really no big surprise, they had a lot of talent and were expected to be MUCH better than they ended up in 2008.  They quit with a couple months to do, but that was not an indication of their talent level.  Much easier to bounce back than when you're giving a solid effort and still stink.   

[Kevrock]

STUPUD!

 

[welch]

75 wins. That's my hope. Close enough to .500 to make it worth going to a game: about a 50/50 chance of seeing a win.

Nats from '68 to '69 was a big improvement...the last Nats team to finish over .500, by the way.

Nats from '59 to '60 was also a shock, because the '59 team broke the Phillies Major League record for consecutive losses, and because the team had been dreary since Clark Griffith died.

However, we 10-year-olds knew that there were signs of something special in '59: Sievers, Allison, Lemon, and Killebrew, plus Camilo Pascual. The team had no catchers and no infield, but the big four would make jaws drop today...especially considering that they played in Griffith Stadium, which was larger than DC Stadium / RFK, and RFK scared the wits out of current hitters.

1960 might have been more of a surprise than '69, since the '69 Nats had Hondo (48 HR), Mike Epstein (30 HR), Ken McMullen, Del Unser, Paul Casanova (great arm), Bernie Allen (a .250 hitting 2b who could field), Lee Maye [aka, "the other Lee May"] and Ed Stroud in RF, Bosman, Coleman, and Hannan starting, Darold Knowles and Dave Baldwin in relief. Ted Williams even got Eddie Brinkman to hit.

Ah...if only. To be a Senators / Nats fan is to be loyal through anything, and to look at '52, '60, and '69 as great seasons.

Oh, and a hunch: E. Dukes is gone by July. The last of the Jim Bowden science projects.

[PowerBoater69]

In my school newspaper I said 80-82, so I'm pretty much stuck with that prediction.

Most people don't make an official prediction until the end of spring training so I'd reserve the right to adjust your number up until opening day.

I find the idea of discussing the rarity of 20 game improvements laughable during the offseason.  Until we are at .500 in July this debate is premature.  Personally I just don't see our free agent signings as being incredibly impressive, I'll likely be forecasting a modest improvement in the ten game range.

Out of curiosity, how many wins did you predict last year?

[tomterp]

  Personally I just don't see our free agent signings as being incredibly impressive, I'll likely be forecasting a modest improvement in the ten game range.

Agreed on the free agents, modest improvement.  Pudge > Bard, Kennedy > Gonzalez, Marquis a big > Cabrera.

But more improvement is going to come from the bullpen overhaul, which along with the modestly improved rotation will avert the disastrous start like 2009.  We can blow past your 10 game improvement just by not sucking like the start of last year.  And I'm including a modest favorable Riggleman effect into that improvement.  So the way I see it, those things along with the few free agents and bench depth, ought to make 15 -18 game improvement well within reach.

[NatsDad14]

75 wins. That's my hope. Close enough to .500 to make it worth going to a game: about a 50/50 chance of seeing a win.

Nats from '68 to '69 was a big improvement...the last Nats team to finish over .500, by the way.

Nats from '59 to '60 was also a shock, because the '59 team broke the Phillies Major League record for consecutive losses, and because the team had been dreary since Clark Griffith died.

However, we 10-year-olds knew that there were signs of something special in '59: Sievers, Allison, Lemon, and Killebrew, plus Camilo Pascual. The team had no catchers and no infield, but the big four would make jaws drop today...especially considering that they played in Griffith Stadium, which was larger than DC Stadium / RFK, and RFK scared the wits out of current hitters.

1960 might have been more of a surprise than '69, since the '69 Nats had Hondo (48 HR), Mike Epstein (30 HR), Ken McMullen, Del Unser, Paul Casanova (great arm), Bernie Allen (a .250 hitting 2b who could field), Lee Maye [aka, "the other Lee May"] and Ed Stroud in RF, Bosman, Coleman, and Hannan starting, Darold Knowles and Dave Baldwin in relief. Ted Williams even got Eddie Brinkman to hit.

Ah...if only. To be a Senators / Nats fan is to be loyal through anything, and to look at '52, '60, and '69 as great seasons.

Oh, and a hunch: E. Dukes is gone by July. The last of the Jim Bowden science projects.

Thanks for the history lesson Phil Wood.

[tomterp]

Thanks for the history lesson Phil Wood.

 

welch, a non-sarcastic thanks from me.