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?