For While it Lasts - Tracking the Nats Wild Card Chase

[welch]

Still a game above .500. Closing in on June 18, the Day of Doom

[welch]

Two games above .500, at .514. Two games behind the Phillies for second place in the NLE.

[imref]

Dougherty looks at the buy/sell discussion:
https://www.notus.org/sports/nationals-bounce-back

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Cards    39-31  +2.5
Phils      39-33  +1.5
Padres   37-34     --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nats       38-35    --
Cubs      38-35     --
Dbacks    37-35    -0.5
Marlins    36-37    -2.0
Pirates    36-37    -2.0

[JCA-CrystalCity]

After 2 games with the Royals  and before the ASB, the Nats have 3 series against playoff-position teams: 3@ the Rays,  4 with the Phillies, and 3 with the NYY. In between the Phillies and the NYY, the Nats have 12 games with < .500 teams: 3@ Os, 3 @ Boston, 3 with the Pirates, then 3 with the Astros. Should know a lot by the ASB.

[imref]

4 game series against the Phillies coming up will be critical.

[Natsinpwc]

After 2 games with the Royals  and before the ASB, the Nats have 3 series against playoff-position teams: 3@ the Rays,  4 with the Phillies, and 3 with the NYY. In between the Phillies and the NYY, the Nats have 12 games with < .500 teams: 3@ Os, 3 @ Boston, 3 with the Pirates, then 3 with the Astros. Should know a lot by the ASB.

None of those teams are really bad though.  Well maybe the SAWX 

[Natsinpwc]

4 game series against the Phillies coming up will be critical.

The teams always even Steven out for me. So figuring a split

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T9W_jW4e_uY&pp=ygUaamVycnkgc2VpbmZlbGQgZXZlbiBzdGV2ZW4%3D&ra=m

[tomterp]

High degree of variability in various playoff odds prognostications.  Clearly Baseball Reference is most accurate.   

Baseball Reference -  33% - WC 32.1%, Div 0.9%  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/2026-playoff-odds.shtml
Baseball Prospectus - 5%   - WC 5%       Div 0%   https://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/
Fangraphs -             7.6%    -WC 7.4%   Div 0.3%  https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/fg/div

[PowerBoater69]

High degree of variability in various playoff odds prognostications.  Clearly Baseball Reference is most accurate.   

Baseball Reference -  33% - WC 32.1%, Div 0.9%  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/2026-playoff-odds.shtml
Baseball Prospectus - 5%   - WC 5%       Div 0%   https://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/
Fangraphs -             7.6%    -WC 7.4%   Div 0.3%  https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/fg/div

Won't be long and we'll be posting the World Series odds.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

High degree of variability in various playoff odds prognostications.  Clearly Baseball Reference is most accurate.   

Baseball Reference -  33% - WC 32.1%, Div 0.9%  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/2026-playoff-odds.shtml
Baseball Prospectus - 5%   - WC 5%       Div 0%   https://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/
Fangraphs -             7.6%    -WC 7.4%   Div 0.3%  https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/fg/div

FG has their primary playoff odds, but they also have their weekly assessments of team strengths, and Ben Clemens a few weeks  ago tried a different method that  is more responsive to current strength of teams and banked wins. Both of those were much more  up on the Nats. Their "Power Rankings" have the Nats 12th (curiously, the Marlins are 11th off of their strong stretch on recent play).
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/fangraphs-power-rankings-june-8-14/

The Clemens piece was from 5/20 and used a statistical method I could not begin to describe.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-bayesian-check-in-on-our-playoff-odds-at-the-quarter-season-mark/

As the resident FanGraphs playoff odds watcher, I spend a lot of time looking at our playoff odds and trying to figure out both what they’re seeing and what they’re missing. Over the years, I’ve written many audits of how well our odds perform. Last fall, I described a Bayesian method that does slightly better than any of our existing models at predicting playoff teams. It’s particularly useful early in the season, when the headline FanGraphs mode (using projections) can be slow to pick up on new information and the season-to-date mode is prone to overreaction. A Bayesian filter does a good job balancing those two – or so I found last year.

At abotu 1/4 of the season, his Bayesian method had the Nats at 13.8%, when the regular FG system had the Nats at 1.7%.

[tomterp]

Correct me if I've over simplifying, but pretty much all the projections (say, at start of year) are based on the collective projections on individual players added up and then the season is played out in a Monte Carlo simulation to get projected records.

Organizational changes are given exactly zero weight.  A new pitching coach, a new trainer, whatever - zero.  An entire new staff from minors through majors, organizational philosophies, disciplined execution, management skill and focus - zero. 

Of course, many WNFF posters also gave zero credit to changes being made, if anything they equated likelihood of success with $ spent, the whole enterprise doomed to failure.

[PowerBoater69]

Correct me if I've over simplifying, but pretty much all the projections (say, at start of year) are based on the collective projections on individual players added up and then the season is played out in a Monte Carlo simulation to get projected records.

Organizational changes are given exactly zero weight.  A new pitching coach, a new trainer, whatever - zero.  An entire new staff from minors through majors, organizational philosophies, disciplined execution, management skill and focus - zero. 

Of course, many WNFF posters also gave zero credit to changes being made, if anything they equated likelihood of success with $ spent, the whole enterprise doomed to failure.

Trade deadline changes are not factored in. I haven't been following the betting odds, but I'm starting to get curious on how the Nats playoff odds are moving.

[Slateman]

Correct me if I've over simplifying, but pretty much all the projections (say, at start of year) are based on the collective projections on individual players added up and then the season is played out in a Monte Carlo simulation to get projected records.

Organizational changes are given exactly zero weight.  A new pitching coach, a new trainer, whatever - zero.  An entire new staff from minors through majors, organizational philosophies, disciplined execution, management skill and focus - zero. 

Of course, many WNFF posters also gave zero credit to changes being made, if anything they equated likelihood of success with $ spent, the whole enterprise doomed to failure.

Organizational changes are given weight post facto, as they should impact player performance and require a revision of projections.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Correct me if I've over simplifying, but pretty much all the projections (say, at start of year) are based on the collective projections on individual players added up and then the season is played out in a Monte Carlo simulation to get projected records.

Organizational changes are given exactly zero weight.  A new pitching coach, a new trainer, whatever - zero.  An entire new staff from minors through majors, organizational philosophies, disciplined execution, management skill and focus - zero. 

Of course, many WNFF posters also gave zero credit to changes being made, if anything they equated likelihood of success with $ spent, the whole enterprise doomed to failure.

There are different ways to project the strength of the team in order to set the odds in the head to heads before running it against some random outcomes.  Playing time for players is a factor, too, in projecting team strength. If you  have a relatively sticky way of projecting player ability, your odds might not change much. Banked wins too might impact things. FG I  think starts heavily weighting player projections and projected playing time, then over time reflects more results to date and adjusted player time and performance. It is sticky early.

[welch]

Nats are three games above .500. Why not enjoy it?

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Nats are three games above .500. Why not enjoy it?

we are in an interesting season. It's fun to look ahead. Seems like there's more to think about than just deadline dump offs for now.

As a SPH holder who cut his ticket buy in half after 2021, I'm looking forward to maybe even getting new partners and expanding again.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

With both the Padres and Cubs losing tonight, the Nats now lead for the final NL wild card spot by a game.

Just like everyone expected back in March.

[imref]

Well. I predicted 55 wins, just not by July.

[tomterp]

Well. I predicted 55 wins, just not by July.

Some of those prognostications aren't going to age well.  Already regretting my timid 75 wins, though at the time I made it it was the highest estimate.

[Slateman]

If the Nats are "going for it" this season, then obviously the bullpen needs to be addressed. I wonder how open they would be to creatively reaching into the farm system to fix it. Would they be willing to call up/rotate through guys like Kent, Susana, Perales, and maybe even Sykora when he's back? The current bullpen lacks strikeout stuff and these guys have it in spades.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

If the Nats are "going for it" this season, then obviously the bullpen needs to be addressed. I wonder how open they would be to creatively reaching into the farm system to fix it. Would they be willing to call up/rotate through guys like Kent, Susana, Perales, and maybe even Sykora when he's back? The current bullpen lacks strikeout stuff and these guys have it in spades.

I buy this for Susana and Perales, at least. I might want Kent for the rotation and Alvarez in the bullpen.

[rbw5t]

If the Nats are "going for it" this season, then obviously the bullpen needs to be addressed. I wonder how open they would be to creatively reaching into the farm system to fix it. Would they be willing to call up/rotate through guys like Kent, Susana, Perales, and maybe even Sykora when he's back? The current bullpen lacks strikeout stuff and these guys have it in spades.

It's a nice idea, but doesn't it wreak havoc on the 40-man?  All those guys, if called up this year, then become unavailable for normal development next year during the strike.  I think I'd rather trade second-tier prospects for second-tier relievers as opposed to calling up guys we really want here long term.  Like, couldn't Hassell and/or Pinckney get a decent 7th inning arm at least? See if someone is willing to trade a competent reliever for a lottery ticket in trying to fix Green, etc?  I'm not talking Mason Miller, or anyone close to a top arm, but it doesn't take much to improve our bullpen.

[varoadking]

I really don't think Toboni cares if they make the post season this year...if he did, things would likely have been done differently from the outset...

[imref]

Biggest series we've had in a long time coming up. 2-2 or better and we're still in the hunt.