May 12th, Shortly Before 10 O'Clock

Sean Burnett was good last year.

Above is a win probability graph for last night's game.  An alternate depiction of the game displays where Hinske faltered at the Angle:

The Braves' falter was but momentary, as was the fever dream of a winning road trip and .500 record.  At least Ladson isn't back today.  Wait - what?

I Don't Want to Jinx It

But I think that's it for Bill Ladson at nationals.com.  Open tryouts are continuing, as Jay Greenberg took over for a little while and now it's David Villavacencio.  All the candidates seem interchangeable (honestly, someone should just write a program to churn out game recaps at this point), which further underscores how shockingly awful Bill Ladson was at his job.  He will not be missed.

Not sure what to do with this blog... but it's not the end.

Here's hoping Ladson's banishment is just as permanent.

Out With a Whimper?

Is Ladson's tenure at nationals.com over?  His 'blog' hasn't been updated since April 5th and he hasn't penned any game recaps or analysis for the team site in quite a while.  It seemed like there was some type of open tryout for the job, with Todd Karpovich emerging victorious (besting Jeff Seidel and Kristen Hudak).

I don't want to jinx it, but I think this might be it.

Has Ladson gone the way of Michael Scott?

Mystery of the Excess Runs

The Nationals have not looked good at the plate to start the season.  The team is batting .218 (15th in the NL), with an OBP of .305 (15th) and a SLG of .333 (15th).  The Nats' OPS+ of 74 is the lowest in the league.  There are two things to say - one is obvious, but I think the other is interesting:

1. The offense will get better.  Even the worst offensive team in the NL typically finishes with an OPS+ of ~83 (translation: 83% as potent as league-average).  Cold starts are no match for the power of a 162-game season.
2. For such impotence at the plate, the team is managing to score a reasonable amount of runs. This was slightly more pronounced before Kyle Lohse did his best Jose DeLeon impression on Thursday (Cardinals hurler DeLeon also pitched a CG, two-hit shutout on the same date in 1989 - against the Expos).  The Nationals are 12th in the NL in scoring (4.06 runs/game), but are much closer to league-average (4.33) than they are to the 13th-place Pittsburgh Pirates (3.53).  We know the Nats aren't hitting - so where are those runs coming from?

How are the Nationals producing runs?

Adam Dunn: Living Legend

The opening paragraph of the game recap from the Nats 5-3 victory over the Marlins on April 7th:

MIAMI -- First baseman Adam LaRoche doesn't put pressure on himself, not even when it comes to replacing Adam Dunn, a living legend in the eyes of most Nationals fans because he averaged 38 home runs during his two seasons in Washington.

This isn't the first time Ladson has called Dunn a living legend:

You are not the only one who is still talking about Dunn, who is considered a living legend to many fans in Washington.

Man or Legend?

For those unfamiliar with nationals.com, Ladson's disdain for Dunn's game is only exceeded by his contempt for Dunn supporters.  Nobody quite knows why.  With the big man only a fond memory, there seems little point in subjecting Ladson's opinions on Dunn to statistical analysis.  The past is gone - but it shouldn't be forgotten.  And by 'it' I mean the 2007 and 2008 seasons.

Technically, Anything is Arguable

This was news to me:

By pitching arguably his best game in a Nationals uniform, Marquis proved that his right elbow problems are a thing of the past.

We've already established that Ladson is a little hazy on the concept of proof*.  This is old news.  What did surprise me was the suggestion that Marquis' performance yesterday (6 IP, 7 H, 3 ER, 2 BB, 9 K on 109 pitches) was potentially his best as a Nat.  Let's investigate.

Arguably, Creed isn't a terrible, terrible band.

An Enigma No Longer?

I was skimming over Saturday's game recap against the Mets when I came to a classic Ladson-ism:

They went 1-for-9 with runners on scoring position.

If you're a baseball professional, you've heard/read the phrase 'runners in scoring position' countless times.  With such conditioning, it seems particularly strange to use the incorrect preposition.  No matter how tired I am or how informal the conversation is, I don't think I would ever tell a friend that I had a song stuck on my head.  Not because I'm a grammar whiz kid, but because I'm not a German exchange student.  And that got me thinking.

Prepositions can be tricky for German exchange students.

Ladson has been covering the Nationals since the Montreal days - is it possible that his first language is French?  It would explain his grammatical failings, awkward phrasings, and imperious tone.  Could this be the resolution to a situation that has baffled me for years?  A cursory google search proved inconclusive.

Saying Meaningful Things (About How Defense Affects Pitching)

What bothers me the most about the coverage on nationals.com is Ladson's penchant for the meaningless.  I understand that a bit of superficiality is necessary when generating content for mass consumption.  I also understand that disguising your opinions in bland platitudes and unsupported assertions doesn't constitute analysis.  So Adam LaRoche is better defensively than Adam Dunn.  OK.  What does that mean, though?  Nationals.com is a wasteland of relativity: 'better', 'worse', 'more', and 'less.'

The preceding rant was triggered by months of claims that better defense will result in better starting pitching.  Sounds logical.  Unfortunately, it also sounds meaningless.  How much better will the Nationals defense be this year?  What are the ways in which an upgraded defense creates better starting pitching?  Have other teams experienced these effects?  If so, what level of improvement can we expect (measured in ERA+, wins, etc.)?

The great thing about baseball analysis in 2011 is that the answers are out there.

As long as 'out there' doesn't mean 'nationals.com'

Ladson's Secret, One Ingredient Formula for a 13-Win Improvement

In the latest inbox, Ladson writes:

I predict the Nationals are going to win 82 games this year. The defense is improved. With better defense, you'll have improved starting pitching. Although the Nationals were shut out by the Braves on Thursday, I think the offense will hold its own. I'm not worried about it.

I'm due for another post on defense because things are getting downright strange over at nationals.com.  I'm going to hold off a few more days so I won't have to revisit the subject when the 'Defense Can Cure Heart Disease' and 'Defense is the Key to Winning in Afghanistan' articles go up later in the week.  Marginally improved defense apparently has nothing on Bill Brasky:

Getting back on topic, I mainly just want to point out that Nats fans are receiving analysis from someone who believes that a slightly improved defense is going to catapult them to 82-80.  That would be a remarkable result.  Who are these defensive wizards that are going to conjure up 13 extra wins?

2011 Projected National League Standings

In honor of Opening Day, here are the projected standings from Baseball Prospectus and Las Vegas.  The Vegas over/under lines are as of March 1st; BP projected standings were pulled on March 29th.

The two takeaways for me is that Vegas loves pitching (Phillies and Astros), while nobody has yet created an algorithm that can detect the stench emanating from the Pirates and Mets.  Computers always underestimate the 'crushed soul' factor.  It's very real.

BP and Vegas are in agreement over the Nationals and I see no reason why anyone should expect anything drastically different than 72 wins.  Hopefully I'm missing something - an Espinosa 30/30 season?  Zimmermann for NL Cy Young? - I guess we'll see starting tomorrow.  Go Nats.

Comments and Batting Lineups

Ladson's crazy understanding of what constitutes proof and this blog's first ever comment got me thinking about the importance of batting lineups.

How much does it matter how you fill this out?

One way to try to quantify the impact of lineup order is with baseballmusings.com's lineup analysis tool.  The tool projects runs scored per game based on each player's on-base and slugging percentage.  I put in the expected Nationals Opening Day roster here (using Baseball Prospectus' 2011 projections for OBP and SLG).

The (Dis)Burden of Proof

In the spring training dispatch 'Riggleman juggles batting order' we are treated to the following:

"Werth proved in a 5-2 victory against the Tigers on Thursday that hitting second is a good idea. He went 2-for-3 with a home run and two RBIs."

I don't have a fully formed opinion on Werth hitting second, but it distresses me that Ladson believes that a single spring training game constitutes proof.  On the scales of justice, the closest equivalent to 'one spring training game' is shown below:

Identical weight.

Although the passage is minor, I think it provides insight into how Ladson is capable of churning out such intricately flawed conclusions on the regular.

Whoops: A Continuing Series (Manufactured Runs)

Bill Ladson wants everyone to get this through their thick skulls once and for all:

"I've said this many times. This team is still not good enough to rely just on the long ball. I would like to see it do the little things -- hit and run, sacrifice bunt and steal bases, for example -- to win games."

Although their failings were manifold, I strongly doubt that the inability to manufacture runs was a fatal flaw for the 2010 Nationals.  Let's consult the numbers.

Fatal flaws: MacBeth was ambitious; were the Nats overly reliant on HRs?

When is Predicting a Breakout Season Meaningless?

When your prediction is Collin Balester.

Two questions immediately spring to mind:
1.  What does a breakout season for Collin Balester mean?
2.  Why would you pick a failed-starter-turned-middle-reliever as a 'breakout' candidate?

I assume the safe answer to Question 1 is that he'll provide consistently above-average middle relief.  A more generous answer would be Balester pitching his way up the bullpen hierarchy to become a critical setup man (i.e. the 2010 Burnett).  Even if this implausible scenario materialized - would it significantly affect the course of the Nats' season?  Is it something that Nats fans can get excited about for the future?  Why would someone make a prediction that is both incredibly unlikely and of such limited impact?

A breakout candidate whose potential impact on the team is roughly on par with Collin Balester's

Dialing Back the Crazy Meter on Defense

The entirety of a brief spring training dispatch:

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- One of the reasons the Nationals haven't been able to win many games the last three seasons is because of their below-average defense. So far, little has changed this spring. The Nationals have made 13 errors in eight games. 

Manager Jim Riggleman said that he and the coaching staff address the need to improve the defense on a daily basis. The team often has fielding drills before Spring Training games.

The above stands in stark contrast to the 'defense is the reason the Nationals have lost so much' rants that have been the principle theme of Ladson's off-season coverage.  'One of the reasons.' 'Below-average defense.'  This is what progress looks like.

This calls for a round at the Progress Bar

That Just Happened: February

February's 'That Just Happened' goes to the opening two paragraphs of the February 24th article 'Maya Hoping That Comfort Leads to Success':

VIERA, Fla. -- Right-hander Yunesky Maya looks comfortable in the Nationals' clubhouse. Last Saturday afternoon, for example, his teammates were teasing Maya about wearing his first leather jacket. Oh, he was wearing it proudly. 

There was Nyjer Morgan needling Maya. Livan Hernandez was getting on Maya about the jacket. Maya then put on his sun glasses and walked out of Space Coast Stadium -- proud that he was wearing his jacket.

Each month, a deserving Bill Ladson passage is featured.

The Two Ways to Win More Games

Last season the Nationals scored 655 runs and allowed 742, for a run differential of -87 and an overall record of 69-93.  Respectively, those outcomes ranked 14th, 12th, 13th, and 14th in the NL.

What's the most efficient way to reduce post-game scenes like this one?

It is obvious that run differential is highly determinative of a team's record.  It is equally obvious that there are two paths to improvement - (1) score more runs; (2) allow fewer runs.  A huge amount of virtual ink has been spilled on nationals.com advocating for improved defense and declaring the team's offense to be adequate.  In reality, though:

• Does it matter whether the team's run differential is improved through RA or RS?
• For a given run differential, how much does the overall level of RA and RS matter?
• Generally, what can be said about RA vs. RS improvements?

Whoops: A Continuing Series (LaRoche's Offense)

From 'Nationals Introduce First Baseman LaRoche':

"LaRoche, 31, is coming off the best season of his career, hitting .261 with 25 home runs and 100 RBIs for the D-backs in 2010."

This is kind of awkward, but it was actually LaRoche's worst offensive season since 2005.  Below are his annual OPS+ and oWAR tallies:

  

Cue it up:

Confirmation We're Not in the Twilight Zone

Nats GM Mike Rizzo gets 'Ladson-ed' in a recent interview and doesn't know how to respond:

Ladson: Let's talk about Riggleman. Is he in a must-win situation?
Rizzo: You are asking a Jim Riggleman question during the second week of Spring Training?
Ladson: He is on a one-year deal.
Rizzo: Jim Riggleman is the manager of the ballclub. I have great confidence in him.

I'm always glad for confirmation that other people think Ladson is a clown.  A world where that's not the case would be the worst Twilight Zone episode ever.

Bill Ladson's Defense Fetish

Ladson loves the leather.

From the 2/18 'Inbox':  "The reason the Nationals lost so many games the last few years is because of defense."


From the 2/20 Q&A with GM Mike Rizzo:  "Defense has been the weakest part of the team since 2008."


From that same interview: "How tough was it to watch the team play defense the last three years. The team was always at or near the bottom of that category?"


These are all very strong claims - could they be true?  (Spoiler: No.)

An Object Lesson in Commitment; Or, Needless Pujols-to-Nats Buzz Killing

Pujols to the Nats?  Probably not, but it's still fun to think about. 

Straight from the February 8th 'Inbox':

"What are the chances of the Nats making a run at Prince Fielder next offseason? It seems that one more big bat would make them a very good team.
-- Jeff K., New York

From [sic] a scale from zero to 10, the answer is zero. The team is committed to Adam LaRoche at first base."

It is bizarre that the presence of LaRoche (and the one year that will be remaining on his contract) completely precludes the Nationals from kicking the tires on one of the NL's premiere players.  Bizarre enough for me to doubt this is the view of team officials, whose generic answer for such matters is always 'we will explore any options to improve the team.'  Anyway, let's just consider the stage set and move on to happier topics - namely, Pujols-to-the-Nats speculation (Tyler Kepner via the NY Times' Bats Blog):

The Origin Story

If I'm the father of this blog, then Ladson's 2011 Nationals Season Outlook is surely its mother. The New Year's Day tradition comes in the form of '10 Burning Questions,' where Ladson raises (and answers) what he believes are the 10 questions that will most impact the 2011 season.  Let's skip down the list a bit:

9. Should the Nationals re-sign Willie Harris?

E-22.  At least he had 32 RBIs.

This is not satire. Question 9 actually happened.  To nobody's surprise, Ladson's answer was a resounding 'Yes':

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Really? A blog dedicated to Bill Ladson's incompetence?

A: Really.