Author Topic: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?  (Read 6290 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2010, 04:35:06 pm »
I remember when the team finished ahead of the Marlins in '07 and everyone thought that things were on the way up and that Manny was a great manager.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2010, 04:43:39 pm »
Agreed on the free agents, modest improvement.  Pudge > Bard, Kennedy > Gonzalez, Marquis a big > Cabrera.
NJ + Dunn > Willingham + Dunn, Zimmermann > whoever takes his spot, '09 Olsen > '10 Olsen

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.
Can't disagree about about the bullpen, that is the basis of my optimism for improvement.  I'm taking a wait and see attitude toward Riggleman, a losing record over less than half a season isn't enough for me to sing his praises. 

Our starting pitching is going to be interesting early in the season until Wang and Detwiler get healthy.  I think I saw you post about Strasburg making the opening day squad and I have been predicting that for a while.  I am also concerned with our offense, despite improvement last season we were still below the median in most offensive stats and I don't see us getting much better.  None of our outfielders are terrible but they aren't among the top players in the league either, we should have looked to upgrade.

I'll ask the same question about your prediction from last season.  From posters forecasting a big jump I'd really like to gauge their level of optimism over the past couple years vs. the reality of 100+ losses.  (I picked 73? in '08 and 69 in '09.)


Offline EdStroud

  • Posts: 10139
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2010, 06:16:17 pm »
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.

Hey somebody remembered, "The Creeper"!!!!

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2010, 09:44:34 pm »
Hey somebody remembered, "The Creeper"!!!!

Funny, I could have named the whole '69 normal lineup with the exception of one Ed Stroud.  But when I saw welch's post, I wondered if you would check in in time to see it.   :thumbs:

Offline EdStroud

  • Posts: 10139
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2010, 11:57:47 pm »
Funny, I could have named the whole '69 normal lineup with the exception of one Ed Stroud.  But when I saw welch's post, I wondered if you would check in in time to see it.   :thumbs:
I try to get in here as much as I can.  I don't think anyone would remember because right-field for the '69 Senators was a merry-go-round with Ed playing 59 games, Lee Maye 57, Hank Allen 44, Brant Alyea 36 and Sam Bowens 22.  I didn't even remember Bowens being with the Senators that year.  Moving his average up to .193 for Washington after slumping at .191 in 1968.  

Offline JMW IV

  • Posts: 11345
  • Name on the Front > Name on The Back
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2010, 04:31:00 pm »
This year i think that 75 wins would be a massive success.

my expectations for this season are lower than that in reality.

however, I can't call it, but i just have this hunch that we'll definitely see the playoffs(more than once) during Riggleman's tenure here. I have no factual basis for this, its just a nagging hunch that I can't shake. call it blind faith or wishful thinking if you want, but Its just what I feel.

I have faith that Riggleman will get us there. He may not get us all the way there(World Series), but he'll get us into the playoffs at the very least. and it will make for a phenomenal "local boy comes home" type of story in the future.

Offline saltydad

  • Posts: 3722
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2010, 03:14:57 am »
This year i think that 75 wins would be a massive success.

my expectations for this season are lower than that in reality.

however, I can't call it, but i just have this hunch that we'll definitely see the playoffs(more than once) during Riggleman's tenure here. I have no factual basis for this, its just a nagging hunch that I can't shake. call it blind faith or wishful thinking if you want, but Its just what I feel.

I have faith that Riggleman will get us there. He may not get us all the way there(World Series), but he'll get us into the playoffs at the very least. and it will make for a phenomenal "local boy comes home" type of story in the future.

From your lips to G-d's ear.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21925
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2010, 10:02:15 am »

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2010, 10:10:44 am »
really?

He's thinking of the 2005 NJ, not the 2009 NJ.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2010, 10:19:47 am »
He's thinking of the 2005 NJ, not the 2009 NJ.

I was thinking of the September Willingham.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2010, 11:06:12 am »
Kilgore has so many posts up that I don't have time to read them all right now. And the games haven't even started in Viera. UPGRADE!

Offline UnkleWheez

  • Posts: 106
    • UnkleWheez DC Sports Fan
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2010, 10:51:52 pm »
Nats coverage as a whole is a lot better. Even MASN is better.I never would have thought that the Times busting up would lead to better coverage, but oddly it has.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2010, 07:50:22 am »
Nats coverage as a whole is a lot better. Even MASN is better.I never would have thought that the Times busting up would lead to better coverage, but oddly it has.

I think the thing at the Washington Post is unrelated. They got rid of a guy that was collecting a paycheck and replaced him with someone that actually likes baseball.

MASN online getting better is completely related to the Times breaking up since Goesling is the one running it now.

Offline RL04

  • Posts: 4041
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2010, 12:59:38 pm »
Put me  in the 75-win camp.
That would be 16 more wins than last year and something I would regard as a "success."
(The Mets were 70-92 last year.)

A .500 season (or better) would be really cool, but I'll settle for 75 - 93 and finishing above last place.

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14327
    • Twitter
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2010, 04:42:35 pm »
50 runs in four games.  Most of those pitchers won't make the opening day 25, but it sure doesn't say much about our depth.  Since the first four games of spring are possibly the four most meaningless games of the season I'm not going into full scale panic mode yet; I'm just going to say that it sure doesn't appear that we are looking at a 20 game improvement.

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7593
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2010, 05:24:12 pm »
Maybe they are all working on a splitter. ;)

Offline RL04

  • Posts: 4041
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #41 on: March 12, 2010, 06:34:45 pm »
50 runs in four games.    I'm not going into full scale panic mode yet; I'm just going to say that it sure doesn't appear that we are looking at a 20 game improvement.


Unless Stephen starts every other day I'm afraid you might be right.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #42 on: April 06, 2010, 12:17:15 pm »
Ryan Kilgur has arrived!


Quote
The Phillies ruined Lannan's second opening day start. Of the 28 starters who opened their team's season, only Victor Zambrano and Vicente Padilla, judging by ERA, had a worse start.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/04/the_phillies_beat_john_lannan.html

Offline Nathan

  • Posts: 10726
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 16304
  • pissy DC sports fan
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #44 on: April 06, 2010, 08:58:33 pm »
:rofl: But please, Kilgore has a long way to go before he reaches Weedlin status.  Who the hell is Adam Zimmerman?  At least Victor Zambrano is an actual baseball player.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2010, 09:06:57 pm »
I love Kilgore's work ethic and writing.

Offline Galah

  • Posts: 2859
  • 2016 - the year that everything changed, again.
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #46 on: April 06, 2010, 09:45:47 pm »
I love Kilgore's work ethic and writing.

He sure does right mighty purty

Offline xposbrad

  • Posts: 364
Re: Nats Journal: From bad to how much better?
« Reply #47 on: April 08, 2010, 08:11:31 am »
I remember when the team finished ahead of the Marlins in '07 and everyone thought that things were on the way up and that Manny was a great manager.

I remember when people here thought Willy Mo was one of the top outfielders in the N.L. It happens every year, just like people thinking the team is going to get to 80 wins. The best thing this team could do is get another top 3 pick, because it's almost impossible to overbid vs the big teams in terms of salary/winning oppurtunity on big free agents. I'm already a bit disappointed because I would have liked to see this team more aggressive in getting guys like Chapman (who had a great spring training) but it looks like the big boys really don't have a solid plan just yet. loduca/marquis/irod , money could have been spent way more wisely in rebuilding/shaping this club.