Projecting the 2013 Nationals, Part 2: Pitching and Defense

In Part 1, we announced the starting line-up. Let’s see how many runs the pitching allows in 2013. My model conservatively estimates that in 2013, Nats pitching will account for 609 runs scored against the Nats, but defense will “save” 18 runs. Thus, the model conservatively predicts that 591 runs will be scored against the 2013 Nationals.

Here’s the table for pitching:

	Pitcher Name	Projected IP	4-Yr Moving Avg xFIP	Projected Runs Allowed	TOTAL RUNS ALLOWED
	Stephen Strasburg	180	2.56	51.20
	Gio Gonzalez	190	3.81	80.43
	Jordan Zimmermann	190	3.71	78.32
	Ross Detwiler	180	4.44	88.80
	Dan Haren	190	3.37	71.14
	Rafael Soriano	70	3.6	28.00
	Drew Storen	70	3.46	26.91
	Tyler Clippard	70	3.54	27.53
	Ryan Mattheus	70	4.48	34.84
	Craig Stammen	110	3.96	48.40
	Zach Duke	90	4.34	43.40
	Bill Bray	65	4.19	30.26	609.25

You will notice that my initial guesses for innings pitched for starting pitchers are quite low. We’ll tweak those later, but for now, I’m going to assume that these are good enough to go by.

A similar table of the defensive statistics would be tedious to recount, so let me sum it up with a few general notes:

• According to these projections, the three biggest defensive assets on the 2013 Nationals are Ryan Zimmerman, Denard Span, and Danny Espinosa.
• Ryan Zimmerman should save 7.6 runs–best on the team. The high number of defensive runs saved here underscores just how important it is for the Nats to keep him healthy.
• Danny Espinosa has been the target of a lot of fan frustration lately, especially given his struggles at the plate. His defense, however, is outstanding. The model projects that he will save 5.2 runs.
• The newest addition to the Nats defense, center fielder (and noted icthyophobe) Denard Span, is projected to save 4.6 runs. Bryce Harper had a UZR of 9.7 as a center fielder last year, so just looking at that, you might think that Span is a lousy center fielder compared to Harper. You’d be wrong. UZR is notoriously unstable–we need at least 3 years of data to get a good sample. Span actually posted a UZR of 9.0 as a center fielder for the Twins in 2011; likewise, as Twins CF in 2012, he posted a UZR of 8.5. As you can see, the projection for Span seems very conservative–but it takes into account some bad defensive years for Span (2008 and 2009). I would expect Span actually to outperform this projection.

Right, that wraps up the top of the inning. Tune in to Part 3, where we’ll discuss how the offense looks.

Projecting the 2013 Nationals, Part 1: Ground Rules & Starting Line-ups

Spring Training is well underway down in Viera. This is the season, then, of portents and omens–the latest and most amusing of which was the story of an osprey dropping a fish onto the Nats outfield. Not having any expertise in the art of augury, I don’t think I can really comment about the auspiciousness or inauspiciousness of such an omen for the upcoming season.

What I can offer you, however, is the results of my own admittedly crude projection system. Long-time readers will know that I like to think of the baseball season as a single inning of a baseball game writ very very large. In the top of the inning, we see the home team take the field, and see how good the pitching and the defense are at getting opposing batters out. In the bottom of the inning, we watch the home team at bat, and see how well they drive in runs. Then we count the runs allowed in the top of the inning and the runs scored in the bottom of the inning–if the home team scored more runs than the other team, they win.

If you want the nuts and bolts of my projection system, please, read the post I’ve linked above. It describes the general outline of the system as clearly as I can.

This year, however, I’m making a few changes to the Natstradamus projection system.

First, in pitching, I have replaced FIP with xFIP. I don’t know enough about home run/fly ball rates to tell, really, which pitchers are “lucky” or “unlucky” with respect to how many home runs they give up on fly balls. xFIP fixes that for me by normalizing runs allowed by a pitcher to a league-average home run/fly ball rate. Some pitchers get better; other pitchers get worse; but I think over all that might be a more fair way of evaluating pitchers for the purposes of this projection system.

Second, I have tweaked the defensive calculations slightly. Instead of using UZR, I have calculated a UZR/game, and then multiply that  by the number of games in which I expect each player to appear. Again, this is crude, and defensive metrics are highly unstable anyway, but hey, it’s all I’ve got.

Remember, my projections are based on four-year trailing averages for each stat. That is, they’re the averages of the past four years.

With those preliminaries out of the way, let’s start this year’s predictions off by going through the 2013 Nationals’ projected 25 man roster:

Starting Rotation

• Stephen Strasburg, xFIP 2.56
• Gio Gonzales, xFIP 3.81. I do not believe Gio will be subject to a suspension for his alleged involvement in the Biogenesis scandal. I explained my view on the situation here.
• Jordan Zimmermann, xFIP 3.71.
• Ross Detwiler, xFIP 4.44
• Dan Haren, xFIP 3.37.

Starting Position Players

• Adam LaRoche, 1B.
• Danny Espinosa, 2B
• Ryan Zimmerman, 3B
• Ian Desmond, SS
• Bryce Harper, LF
• Denard Span, CF.
• Jayson Werth, RF
• Wilson Ramos, C
• Kurt Suzuki, C. I have Ramos and Suzuki splitting playing time evenly.
  

Bench

• Chad Tracy, OF/3B
• Tyler Moore, OF/1B
• Steve Lombardozzi, IF/OF
• Roger Bernadina, OF

Bullpen

• Rafael Soriano, xFIP 3.6, Primary Closer
• Drew Storen, xFIP 3.46, Primary Set-up, Back-up Closer
• Tyler Clippard, xFIP 3.54
• Ryan Mattheus, xFIP 4.48
• Zach Duke, xFIP 4.34, Left-handed long reliever/Spot starter
• Craig Stammen, xFIP 3.96, Right-handed long reliever/Spot Starter
• Bill Bray, xFIP 4.19, Left-handed one-out guy. This is probably the most controversial pick; others might put Henry Rodriguez or Christian Garcia here instead. But I’m going to assume Bray heads north with the club.

No surprises, then. Stay tuned as we discuss pitching and defense in Part 2 of our projections.

The Trial of Gio Gonzalez

I didn’t want this to be the first post of the 2013 season, but I guess I don’t have much of a choice in the matter.

I’m going to come right out and say it: given the evidence available right now, I don’t think there is enough evidence to find that Gio Gonzalez possessed or used any banned performance-enhancing substances.

By now, you all know the story. A report in the Miami New Times seems to have uncovered a doping ring operating out of Miami. One of the players mentioned in connection with the doping ring is Nats left-hander and all-around nice guy Gio Gonzalez:

There’s also the curious case of Gio Gonzalez, the 27-year-old, Hialeah-native, left-handed hurler who won 21 games last year for the Washington Nationals. Gonzalez’s name appears five times in Bosch’s notebooks, including a specific note in the 2012 book reading, “Order 1.c.1 with Zinc/MIC/… and Aminorip. For Gio and charge $1,000.” (Aminorip is a muscle-building protein.)

Gio has denied any connection with the lab in question.

I've never used performance enhancing drugs of any kind and I never will ,I've never met or spoken with tony Bosch or used any substance—
Gio Gonzalez (@GioGonzalez47) January 29, 2013

Provided by him.anything said to the contrary is a lie.—
Gio Gonzalez (@GioGonzalez47) January 29, 2013

Today, the New Times released images of every time Gio’s name appears in connection with the lab in question. Also, we found out today that Anthony Bosch, who operated the lab, has also vehemently denied liability.

Those are, as I see them, all the relevant facts. Before we dive deeper, let’s pause here and consider what, precisely, we’re talking about.

The MLB drug testing and compliance regime grows out of a document called the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program [PDF]. The Joint Drug Program defines everything we need to know about what sorts of substances players are not allowed to use or possess (Section 2); and the means by which the League will impose discipline on them (Section 7).

By now, we’re all familiar with the punishment provision of the Plan: a first violation of the Plan’s “performance enhancing substance” provisions leads to an automatic 50-game suspension. (Section 7(A)(1)).

But go back and re-read the first paragraph of Section 7(A): the punishments apply to a player who “tests positive for a Performance Enhancing Substance, or otherwise violates the Program through use or possession of a Performance Enhancing Substance.” (emphasis added). The or is important: it means that punishments will apply even without a positive test–in what the jargon-lovers call “non-analytic positives.” So, the League need not show that analytical chemistry revealed the presence of a banned substance in Gio’s body: they only need to show that Gio either used or possessed a banned substance.

OK, still with me? Based on the New Times‘ published images of the Bosch notebooks, this is what we think we know:

• Gio’s name (and what some figure to be his stat line 3 games into last season) appear on the same page as a recipe for something called “Pink Cream,” that, in turns, seems to contain “Test.[osterone?], 3%” among its ingredients.
• Another entry, the fifth in the series, contains the cocktail described in the original report: “1.c.1 with Zinc/MIC/… and Aminorip.” MIC seems to refer to a supplement injection thought (without much support) to promote weight loss. [I am aware of the irony here: I am linking to LiveStrong in a story about doping.] “Aminorip” is a proprietary amino-acid supplement. Neither contain any ingredients that are on the list of prohibited performance enhancers–nor, to my knowledge, are any of them “anabolic androgenic steroids and agents (including hormones) with antiestrogenic activity that may not be lawfully obtained or used in the United States,” that would violate Section 2(B) of the Joint Drug Agreement.
• The most troubling entry, to my mind, is actually the fourth entry, which seems to read thus: “MAX/GIO GNZLZ/CREAMS [illegible] AMINORIP & [illegible]“. That doesn’t look good. It links either Gio or his father, Max, with “creams,” and we already suspect that the lab has been dealing in testosterone cream (which, it bears repeating is a banned substance).

But that’s all we know. Remember, to violate the Joint Drug Agreement (and thus be subject to the fifty-game suspension), the league must prove that Gio Gonzalez possessed or used a performance-enhancing substance. What we have here, so far, is evidence that the lab here prepared a “cream” (contents unknown!) for either Gio or his father, Max. There is no evidence–yet– that Gio had it on his person, in his house, in his car, in his bag, in a box with a fox, anywhere. In short, although this is worrying news, we don’t have any evidence yet that Gio has violated the Joint Drug Agreement at all.

The evidence itself is subject to question. We only “know” what we know because we assume that the materials in the New Times report are genuine: that is, that they really are what the New Times’ sources say they are. Although for now these seem to be what they say they are, Bosch, who is alleged to be their author, has himself denied them. That’s going to be subject to proof.

I’ll close with this: I can’t really pretend to be impartial. I’m a huge Nats fan, and a huge Gio Gonzalez fan. I love Gio. But this news has saddened me a bit, because it has brought him under suspicion. And, even though I don’t think there’s enough evidence for the League to punish Gio for doping, there will be a cloud over Gio’s name for as long as anyone can see his name next to an order for “CREAMS.” The slimy feeling from that association will take a very long time to disappear–if it ever does.

Put Down the Tarp, Nats Town

Stay safe out there, everybody.

Put the tarp on and stay safe DC! I know what you're going through. It rained one time in California. #hurricaneparty #sandbagitude—
F.P. Santangelo (@FightinHydrant) October 28, 2012

This hurricane is a worse than even THIS Nats park rain delay:

You remember that rain delay, right? When the skies cleared, Jayson Werth tied the game in the bottom of the ninth with a monstrous home run.

Well, Charlie and Dave sure didn’t forget it when they called Werth’s epic Game Four walkoff.

Stay safe, Nats town. When this rain delay we call winter is over, we’ll be back at the park soon enough.

Silly Season

I went ahead and checked the #nats hashtag on twitter for the first time in ages.

Bad choice. Some damn fool is out there ranting about how Storen shouldn’t be back with the Nats, and looking at Rafael Soriano, the Yankees’ reliever, as a possible “savior.” This is the stupidest thing I have read in many weeks.

Go ahead. Compare Storen with Soriano head-to-head since 2010. They’re not all that different from one another, actually. So, on the surface, it doesn’t seem like an implausible suggestion, if, for instance, Storen were to be injured or otherwise unavailable.

But consider that according to Cot’s Contracts, Soriano would be owed some $14 million in 2013. If he takes a $1.5 million buyout and becomes a free agent, it’s safe to assume that Rafa Soriano would demand a contract at least as generous as the one the Yankees had given him, and perhaps even more so. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say the Nats could sign him for whatever the Yankees would be due to pay him–14 million.

Now let’s look at Drew Storen. According to Cot’s, Storen made $498,750 in 2012. He’s arbitration-eligible this year, so he’ll be owed a raise in arbitration. We don’t know how much of a raise Storen will get [I'm hoping to figure that out in a few weeks--watch this space!], but let’s just stipulate right now that no arbitration panel could possibly award Storen a $14 million salary for next year.

One more thing, too: Drew Storen is 25 years old. Rafa Soriano is 32 years old.

So, you’re left with a choice between two substantially similar pitchers. One of them will cost you 14 million. The other will cost you, hell, let’s just say he’ll cost you 2 million. Why would you pay seven times more to get substantially the same thing, but seven years older?

If you’re seriously thinking that this sort of transaction is a good idea, I can only conclude that you hit your head on something hard when you drank yourself to sleep after Black Friday’s blown save.

Offseason Blues (part 1 in a bazillion) UPDATE: NOW WITH MORE DC SPORTS AWESOMENESS

As I went home after Black Friday, I calculated that, without baseball, I suddenly had something like twenty-four hours a week that I didn’t know what to do with–that figure being a conservative estimate of the number of hours I spent watching baseball in person or on television, or the Internet, or listening to Charlie Slowes and Dave Jaegler call a game on the radio, plus the hours spent going to, hanging out at, or coming from the ballpark.

I don’t think I’m all that unusual, and I haven’t really found anything to fill those hours.

So it’s somewhat comforting that former teen phenom (and future perennial superstar) Bryce Harper is also having a hard time figuring out what to do with his time. Harp’s turned his mind to sartorial matters lately, it seems:

Can't stop looking at clothes online and seriously changing my mind every 2 seconds…Where's a stylist when you need one?! #NOswag—
Bryce Harper (@Bharper3407) October 23, 2012

(Just to clear up any ambiguity, I think he’s referring to his own personal “swag,” rather than his ever-faithful dog, Swag)

This takes a delightful turn, though, when he asks another youthful DC sporting hero for style help:

@RGIII I need some of those socks that you got! Those are absolutely legit! Keep rolling this year, your fun to watch brotha! #skinsitude—
Bryce Harper (@Bharper3407) October 23, 2012

Even more delightfully, RGIII seems ready to oblige:

@Bharper3407 Will work on getting you a pair 👍—
Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) October 23, 2012

UPDATE: It appears that John Wall wants in on this particular conversation. This is like a perfect storm of youthful, off-the-field DC sporting exuberance. Hat tip and huzzah for Dave Huzzard, who alerted me to this :

Where mine at !! RT @Bharper3407: @RGIII Got em! #luckysocks http://t.co/k5Wp2Rsx—
John Wall (@John_Wall) October 24, 2012

(And, yeah, I know this is really more Nats Enquirer’s beat, but what can I say? I’m bored, too. When’s spring training?)

UPDATED UPDATE:The Great Wall is getting socks, too. Somebody needs to take a group picture.

@RGIII @Bharper3407 bet—
John Wall (@John_Wall) October 24, 2012

Schadenfraude ist die schönste Freude

In the dark, cold, pre-dawn of the morning after Black Friday, I consoled myself by musing on the vagaries of chance:

But every so often, just enough randomness comes along. Maybe the ball doesn’t leave your hand clearly. Maybe the ball strikes a pebble. Maybe it’s cold, or maybe it’s too hot, or maybe it rained too much or not at all. Something you didn’t expect will change the path of that ball. You should have gotten it; you didn’t.

Even as I meditated on the randomness of baseball, St. Louis players and fans were already reading too much into the events of Game Five:

One person in Cards clubhouse described Nats' collapse Friday as "the worst choke I've ever seen"—
Joe Strauss (@JoeStrauss) October 13, 2012

After the Cardinals’ epic collapse in Game Seven of the NLCS, it was suddenly the turn of the Team of Destiny to meditate on the vagaries of chance, and consider that perhaps they were, after all, as much Fortune’s victims as her favorites.

Or not.

Cards stopped hitting, got beat. Nats whizzed down their legs.—
Joe Strauss (@JoeStrauss) October 23, 2012

And now a word from Ian Desmond

How bout those Redskins. #neverbeensohardtowatchbaseball—
Ian Desmond (@IanDesmond20) October 16, 2012

Miss you, Desi.

The Human Element

Presented, by means of the TexasLeaguers’ Pitch/FX Database, the top of the ninth inning of last night’s game. Please pay attention to the two green dots inside the box.

Drew Storen, October 12, 2012, as called by Alfonso Marquez.

The first green dot came during Allen Craig’s at-bat. It didn’t matter, because Craig struck out.

The second meant all the difference: The second green dot was to Yadier Molina. If that call had been correct, the Nats would have won.

Epilogue

Sometime after midnight, as the delirious twelfth of October gave way to the dismal thirteenth, with the bases loaded, with two out, with two strikes, a pitch left Drew Storen’s hand. Unfeeling robotic eyes would record it for posterity as a sinker, traveling at 94 miles an hour. Elsewhere in Nationals Park, perhaps forty-five thousand pairs of eyes watched it intently. The air throbbed with their shouting, as if they believed they could clear a path for it safely through the strike zone and into the waiting mitt of Kurt Suzuki.

The Cardinals Daniel Descalso swung his bat. Somewhere in front of the plate, the bat struck the ball, which now rebounded to shortstop Ian Desmond. It skipped on the infield dirt and struck his glove.

Forty-five thousand pairs of eyes already saw the end: Desmond would knock this baseball down, flip it to a waiting Danny Espinosa, and send those forty-five thousand watchers into ecstasy.

But in that instant, the visions diverged. Instead, on the field, the baseball uselessly off Desmond’s glove–too sharply to be fielded properly–and into the outfield. Two runs scored. The Nationals’ advantage vanished.

If you’re reading this, the odds are pretty good that your eyes, like those of many of the forty-five thousand watchers at this game, began to fill with tears at that instant. I can offer you no consolation. I wish I had some to offer myself.

I can only offer this thought: Every ball that leaves a pitcher’s hand–as that pitch left Storen’s–is little more than a roll of the dice. Innumerable, unimaginable things have to happen to that baseball. It has to leave the pitcher’s hand cleanly. It must travel the distance to the plate, through an ocean of air (and sometimes other things) . Once it reaches its destination, it has to hit something. If that something is a player’s bat, it strikes that bat in a particular way, spinning in yet another direction. To come to rest in a fielder’s mitt, it may bounce one or more times.

Every step along the way introduces a little bit of randomness; a little roll of the dice.

We don’t live our lives as hostages to Fortune, though. The pitcher has a good idea, roughly, of where his pitch will end up; a fielder, observing the ball, will have as good an idea of where to field it, and so forth. These ideas are not innate; they are learned by practice and observation–by seeing the patterns in a thousand thousand repetitions of the phenomenon.

But every so often, just enough randomness comes along. Maybe the ball doesn’t leave your hand clearly. Maybe the ball strikes a pebble. Maybe it’s cold, or maybe it’s too hot, or maybe it rained too much or not at all. Something you didn’t expect will change the path of that ball. You should have gotten it; you didn’t.

These variations are measurable and unique. Each little quirk is like one voice, telling a story. Over time–over a pitch sequence, an inning, a ball game, a series, a season, a career– the changes seem smaller and smaller, until each individual voice fades into the loud background hum of forty-five thousand people finding their seats, buying a hot dog, filling out a score card, and milling about before a ballgame.

That pitch, this game, this series: all of them together tell a certain story about the 2012 Nationals, and it isn’t a pretty one to hear. But looking back on a 2012 season that saw the Nationals amass 98 wins–best in all baseball–and play brilliant baseball almost every night? All of those moments together, telling their stories sound like a crowd in thunderous, rapturous applause.

So before you get down on the Nats for losing this series, step back. If you get far enough away, you will hear the crack of the bat, the roar of the crowd, the howling of an umpire calling a third strike. You will hear the fireworks going bang zoom, and Charlie Slowes telling you about it; of F.P. Santangelo informing you of the death of a no-hitter; of the stranger in the next row cheering.

In all of that wall of sound, there will be a small, sad voice, describing the flight of that wayward pitch from Drew Storen’s hand.

Which would you rather hear?