What're The Odds?
OMG has your good news post 'o the day. What're the odds the Nats catch the Marlins? Lose 100 games? Or be the worst team in the league? Good, not good and not good respectively. Check out the crunched numbers and some schedule analysis.
posted by Chris Needham at
11:21 AM
7 Comments:
It’s just been fascinating this year to see how bad you truly have to be to be a truly bad team record wise. O thank heavens for the lowest of low expectations.
No doubt politicians are taking note and promising voters that they will guide their nations economies to exceed that of North Korea.
Airlines will promise their passengers that their baggage will arrive no later than a month of their arrival.
Used car salesman will assure buyers that the car will easily run well enough to get them out of the parking lot.
Etc Etc Etc
By
Anonymous, at 8/03/2007 12:58 PM
This is exactly what we all needed to do from the beginning of the year- when you root for a losing team, you take victories where you can. A year better than last is certainly better than a "historically bad" team. We don't necessarily need the first pick in next year's draft, when #15 of 2006 Chris Marrero is showing so much progress.
We can scoff at Bowden, we can spit towards Krivsky and cynical sportswriters, but the real solace is in players that perform above expectations.
By
Iron Fan, at 8/03/2007 7:46 PM
I agree with the sentiment.
But I'm tired of people trotting out the 'historically bad' canard. There was simply no way that any real analysis of this roster would yield a team that was historically bad; there's simply (as we're seeing), too many league average players to be historically bad.
So, yes, they're doing well and playing hard, but they're really not THAT far above reasonable expectations, just a few games.
What's surprising is the quality of the pitching. But as that's exceeded our expectations, it's been counterbalanced by much worse offense than expected.
By
Chris Needham, at 8/03/2007 8:11 PM
i disagree Chris. All it took was an amateur looking at the starting pitching merry go round, and their expected stats by looking at their career numbers. we're overachieving, especially with starting pitching. i think, as is MSM tendency, major hyperbole was employed to make for better copy. but looking at jerome williams, jason simontacci, Jpatt with injury track record, a pitcher who hadn't thrown above A ball and number 5 fill in the blank, you couldn't help but think the worst.
By
(j)on, at 8/03/2007 9:03 PM
That's not true though.
Here's the post I wrote in March. The pitching is doing about what I expected overall, even if the individuals are a bit different.
The mistake that many made when looking into how terrible this team would be (which was entirely based on their expectations of the pitching staff) was that they failed to look at 2006's pitching staff, which was TERRIBLE. The Nats pitching could NOT have been much wrose than 2006, even if everything went to hell. There was nowhere to go but up (well, neutral, I guess).
And for that reason, any predictions of a historically bad team were made by someone who had no idea what the hell they're talking about.
The final projection I made in that post was 69-93, which is just two fewer than what they're actually on pace for.
By
Chris Needham, at 8/03/2007 9:09 PM
As we enter the 9th inning, let's gather together on something we can all agree on. Nook Logan stinks, and needs to be jettisoned from the team.
By
Iron Fan, at 8/03/2007 10:15 PM
Shouldn't Brandon Watson have gotten a longer look? Didn't he earn it? Who cares about Nook being out of options....if he can't make it on this team, who's gonna pick him up?
Additionaly, doesn't the (relative) sucess of our young pitchers show that maybe our farm system doesnt suck that much? Maybe there's more guys down there that can contribute soon, which would help explain the trade deadline/Dimitri/Belliard thing.
Personally I feel these are signs that Kasten, et al. think we are closer to contending than they are letting on.......
And play Jesus more!!!!
By
Rob B, at 8/04/2007 12:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home