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.)