Washington Nationals VOC: Graph of the Day

"All of us at Majestic Athletic want to apologize to both the Washington Nationals and Major League Baseball for accidentally omitting the 'o' in two Nationals jerseys," Majestic Athletic president Jim Pisani said in a statement distributed at Nationals Park on Tuesday.
"We take 100 percent responsibility for this event and we regret any embarrassment for the Nationals organization, players and fans," the statement continued.
From ESPN.com, April 23, 2009 - Majestic Athletics must have an awful lot of regret
3.0 WAR.
Pretty much an above average major league starter or position player. Guys in that range include Randy Wolf and Jeff Nieman and Paul Maholm for pitchers, Rafael Furcal, Nate McLouth and Adam Lind for position players. Guys who are solid pieces of winning teams, no doubt. If they're your best player, you're in serious trouble, but they don't actively hurt you and they're just on the precipice of being difficult to replace as you approach the border of the standard deviation from the mean. Not superstars, not goats. Reliable.
Unless ... 3.0 WAR represents something else. Something cumulative. Like say, the entire Nationals pitching staff, All 30 of them that threw an inning this year. .1 WAR apiece. Is this even possible? It is, and it's even worse than it sounds.
In such a case, you'd probably be wise to be incredulous about the data. So you'd consider some possibilities - perhaps a key player was injured, and the high minors were barren of decent fill-ins, and rather than rush prospects, they just took their lump with non-replacement level journeymen so they wouldn't have to give up key pieces. In this scenario, there'd be a player who was embarrassingly bad, driving down the overall numbers almost single-handedly. So you look.
Only it's not true. The worst player posted a -.7. Every other team we've done a VOC study on has had a pitcher worse than that, most of them 2 or 3, relievers or spot starters who tanked and then quickly vanished. But of course, none of those teams had an "ace" who put up a 1.8 WAR either. If your best starting pitcher is half as good as Jorge De La Rosa (3.6 ... no, really), I don't really know what to tell you.
Well, wait. I do. It actually gets worse still. For those unfamiliar with the pitcher WAR calculations, they use FIP, so defense is as of yet unaccounted for this disaster. Of course, more hits from bad defense leading to more runs leads to fewer innings for good starters, so yes, it manages to factor it's way in, and because of the usage relationships between starters and middle and long relievers, those innings were going to (reasonably) worse players. But somebody was getting those innings. Barring daily downpours in the 6th inning anyway.
I promised I wouldn't bring him up, since he got so much of my loving attention yesterday, but Adam Dunn gave the Nationals -35 runs on defense. So the entire worth of the Washington pitching staff got washed up by one gargantuan clumsy outfielder/first baseman.

There's enough signs here that things are not going to get better soon. As productive as Nyjer Morgan was for them (especially on a defense that needed it badly), they got both older and more depleted by the trade, not a savvy move for a team this far from contention.
As much as I disagree with ridding the system of the huge potential of Lastings Milledge, I can understand if he was truly a malcontent and a bad fit. Still, the Nationals would have done themselves more of a favor by taking a risk on several younger players, even C grade prospects, and played the odds. Even an 8% chance that one of those players would have panned out in 2014 or so is better than a practically 0% chance that Nyjer Morgan will be productive by then. I think more alarming is that this trade seems to indicate that the Nationals think they are closer to competing than they are, a genuine red-flag for poor understanding of personnel worth, and a probable recipe for a lot of heartache, barring some preternaturally good luck.
Considering the history of the franchise, I wouldn't count on it.
Graphs by Justin Bopp, Analysis/Snark by Walter Fulbright
9 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good Graphs
I can’t believe the Nat’s did this bad this year. I projected them to have at least 75 wins this year. Not evne close. And -35 Runs for Adam Dunn on defense? Holy crap. Would you be able to tell me how many runs his bat produced?
Carlos Guillen, the Latino Nick Punto - BouJouma
Please takeyour latte circle jerk to another thread. -WU
babies are young and under team control for at least 12 years -Billyok
i heard kenny williams' mother bought a lottery ticket and lost so kenny williams traded his mother - Billyok
It's in yesterday's GotD
But it’s something like 38 runs.
Oh, and this set of graphs is perfect for my article. Thanks to Justin for the visuals and Walter for the awesome words. Good stuff guys.
Marlin Maniac, a Florida Marlins blog
Check me out at Beyond the Box Score as well.
thanks for the stats
I can’t imagine haveing Dunn just as a DH. That would be insane.
Carlos Guillen, the Latino Nick Punto - BouJouma
Please takeyour latte circle jerk to another thread. -WU
babies are young and under team control for at least 12 years -Billyok
i heard kenny williams' mother bought a lottery ticket and lost so kenny williams traded his mother - Billyok
47.9 runs batting above replacement at his cumulative positions, weighted for time. The Adam Dunn giveth 5 wins, and the Adam Dunn taketh 3 wins away.
by Walter Fulbright on Sep 30, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
nice
how about if he was just a DH. He would probably be one of the best in the game. Thanks for the stats
Carlos Guillen, the Latino Nick Punto - BouJouma
Please takeyour latte circle jerk to another thread. -WU
babies are young and under team control for at least 12 years -Billyok
i heard kenny williams' mother bought a lottery ticket and lost so kenny williams traded his mother - Billyok
Keep in mind just being a DH takes 1.75 wins away.
2.25 if you include the fact that non-DHs generally struggle in the first times as DHs.
DH is down this year
So before doing National to American League adjustments, Dunn puts up 39.9 runs above replacement this year as a full time DH. After the adjustment it’s still an improvement of about 2 total wins from letting him play the field.
I’m definitely interested in the information you have regarding first time DHs moved from being position players struggling. Is this possibly statistical noise from the factors that caused them to move to DH in the first place, specifically advancing age that was deteriorating their hitting ability regardless of position?
A 3.0 WAR (a full win drop) makes him the second best DH in the American League, behind only Adam Lind.
by Walter Fulbright on Oct 2, 2009 5:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Morgan/Milledge
While I can understand the author’s viewpoint on the Milledge/Morgan deal, I disagree with the conclusion. It might not make sense out of context, but in the context of the Washington Nationals organization this was a deal that had to be done. The Nats had dozens of corner OFs, most of whom had little to no trade value (Dunn, Willingham, Kearns, etc) , but no one capable of playing even mediocre CF defense. Just as rough estimate, the Nats defense at CF before acquiring Morgan at the end of June was about -11.0 UZR, which extrapolated over the course of the season would have given them the worst CF defense in baseball (about -18 UZR). Coincidentally, Morgan also nicely filled the lead off spot that had previously been manned by Cristian Guzman’s .308 OBP.
So in the end, the Pirates got a young pre-arb player with lots of potential, but character questions. The Nats got a not-so-young pre-arb player who has proven to be one of the best defensive CF in baseball. I thinkk it’s a win for both sides.
On another note, it will definitely be nice for the Nats to rid themselves of the left quarter of the payroll pie chart at the end of this season.
There’s good reason to believe that Nyjer Morgan is headed for Junior Spivey-dom … I’m very incredulous of guys breaking out at 29.
And why did it have to be done? So they could lose 100 instead of 104? Any move that makes you older, and particularly past 27 is probably a mistake for a team not on the verge of winning 90 games.
by Walter Fulbright on Sep 30, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions

by 

















