December 12, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (13)
Can they be the California Angels again? (9)
Another great moment in mass transit? (7)
Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (7)
Great Moments in Half-Baked Populism (8)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Nats = the 1962 MetsAs we sit around waiting for Manny Acta to be fired, the guys at USA Today point out something I did not realize:
Sunday's loss to the Rays completed a series sweep by Tampa Bay and dropped the Nationals to 16-45, the exact same record the '62 Mets had after 61 games.
Yes, they're bad, but they haven't felt historically bad to me this year. I mean, if you go back and check, I bet I said way more bad things about Washington in last year's ATH recaps than this year's. They've lost a lot of games, but the stink has been of a certain type -- lots of blown games by the bullpen and some generalized dread -- but hadn't, in my mind at least, worked its way down to a 1962-Mets level. Or even a 2003 Tigers level. But numbers don't lie.
Well, often they do, but in this case the don't.
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 3:50pm
Nationals: Can hit a little. Can’t run the bases. Can’t field. Can’t pitch.
Posted 06/15 at 05:01 PM
Before the season, I wrote to The Washington Post to dispute Tom Boswell’s rosy predictions for the 2009 Nats. I thought their hitting would not overcome a staff without a proven MLB starter and with lousy defense at most positions. I thought they could very well lose 100 games if they got bad breaks. But I didn’t think they would struggle this badly. Now, having watched and listened to many games, I’m confident they are much better than their record indicates. After they get the AL East behind them, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them play .475-.500 ball over their next 80 games.
Posted 06/16 at 08:08 AM
Travis M. Nelson said...
They’re not quite as bad as the ‘62 Mets. Those Mets had scored 240 runs and allowed 357 at this point in the season, whereas the Nats have scored 267 and allowed 350. Whether you realized it or not, the 2003 Tigers also had the same 16-45 record at this point, scoring 191 runs and allowing 302.
The Nats’ “expected” W/L record, based on that, is 22-39 instead of 16-45, still awful, but not historically bad.
it also suggests that they might “turn it around” and just be lousy instead of truly sucking.
Posted 06/16 at 10:39 AM
Travis M. Nelson said...
And of course, they do get to face Chien Ming Wang tomorrow, so there’s an opportunity!
Posted 06/16 at 10:40 AM
Dan Whitney said...
Baseball-reference says they have lost 8 games due to bad luck that they could have otherwise be expected to win. Yes, they’re terrible, but I don’t think they’re THAT terrible yet.
Posted 06/16 at 11:29 AM