Not bad for a team that's had their bullpen devastated by injury (only one of our five starters even played in Major League Baseball last year), but my Washington Nationals are finally hitting their stride. A 12-7 win over Cincinnati yesterday (despite our best efforts to give the game away, especially in the seventh inning) means we've taken two out of three from them, and if we can win tonight we'll have our first road series victory of the season.
After a 9-25 start, we've doubled our number of wins while adding only four to our loss total. 18-29 now, only 4 1/2 games from catching the Marlins for fourth place in the East, and 5 1/2 away from the third-place Phillies.
Hey, I'm not sayin' this team doesn't have enormous problems (I'm concerned that Austin Kearns is gonna end up accidentally killing Nook Logan on one of these fly balls, for example, and we shouldn't have to use seven pitchers to win a game in which we score 12 runs), but hey, Ryan Church stepped up big with 6 RBIs, and the important thing is we got the win.
Let's go Nats!
(edited by ekedolphin on 24.5.07 1349) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Fan of the Indianapolis Colts-- Super Bowl XLI Champions
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
Originally posted by AWArulzMy Cubs encourage me too - but when they are ahead 1-0 in the 7th (as they were last night), I worry. I went to bed, because I had to.
Yes, they lost 2-1. Pitching's where it's at and nobody has enough.
(edited by AWArulz on 24.5.07 1427)
I knew it was lost when we didn't score with the bases loaded and one out (or was it none?) in the 6th.
Good luck to your Nats! No one deserves a bad century.
"Hitting their stride" is relative. I still don't think the Nats will be cracking .400 at the end of the year, although I may be willing to concede they'll lose less than 100 games. Still, the team has put up plenty of surprises so far, and there are some great things brewing (Jason Bergmann? I had no idea). Still, keep in mind that before this recent hot streak they did go 1-8 on a road trip, so even with that they're still 10-12 over their last 22.
Of course, I'd take 10-12 stretches from them for the rest of the year, so I can't complain too much. The current plan for me is to finally catch my first Nats game in person in a week, so I'm looking forward to that.
Originally posted by TheCowStill, the team has put up plenty of surprises so far, and there are some great things brewing (Jason Bergmann? I had no idea).
Let's give Bergmann at least a couple of trips around the NL before singing his praises ... Bud Smith anyone?
Originally posted by ThePessimist "Hitting their stride" is relative. I still don't think the Nats will be cracking .400 at the end of the year, although I may be willing to concede they'll lose less than 100 games.
Hey now! They are 18-29 now with 115 games left to play. To have .400 they only need to win 47 more to be 65-97 (0.401).
To lose 99 games will put them in almost the same boat at 63-99 (0.389).
Originally posted by OdessaHatesTheNats The nats not breaking the 62 Mets record will be their big accomplishment this year.
I hope they'll do more than just win another 25 games (43-119 (0.265)).
Hey, I want to be wrong about the more than 100 losses line, don't worry. Still, no team is as good as they look when they're winning consistently (and, of course, they're not as bad as they are when they're losing consistently). Also, I'm kind of an idiot for not realizing how close .400 ball and 100 losses is.
Still, there's a lot of things that are just going really right with the Nats at the moment, and while I'm loving where they are now ... they do have stretches of really bad baseball too. Take a look at that 1-8 stretch going into May or the god-awful projected Pythagorean records from the beginning two weeks of the season (stuff like 14-148, IIRC). It's looking like the team is just going to be really streaky this year - here's some rough streaks they've gone on, in order:
1-8 5-2 2-6 1-8 7-4
It's not that I don't *want* the Nats to play .400 ball, it's that I can't help but feel there's going to be some phases where the team goes ...well, 3-14. Or 4-16. Or some other suitable long-term bad streak. The components of a non-crappy ballclub are there to some degree (parts of the pitching staff, a decent offensive core), but I'm reluctant to say they're going to continue to play this well.
Well since this is the appreciation for bad teams thread, my second favorite team the Rockies are starting to come around. The offense was awful despite Holliday and Helton having great numbers. Now Hawpe is hot, Tulowitzki is playing good and Matsui doesn't completely suck like he did in New York. The pitching always needs work but they were pretty hot until the last two games. Fuentes is at least good at the end of the bullpen. I'm hoping Cincy will be as good to us as they were to Washington.
After getting thumped two games in a row by the Dodgers, we won the third game going away-- and gah, naturally I forgot to set my DVR to record it. Oh, well, I've got the next few games set up to record, though...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Fan of the Indianapolis Colts-- Super Bowl XLI Champions
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
I was at the park today to watch the shellacking San Diego laid upon them. I couldn't believe I was watching the entire lineup get to bat in the first, especially after the two huge botched plays by Logan and Guzman.
I swear, these guys have talent out the ass, they just need to peice it all together
Hold nothing sacred and you'll never be dissapointed. Especially not this statement.
Andre Dawson should have been first ballot. One of the top 4 power/speed combos in baseball history. Not a shred of doubt. Bruce Sutter as well. The man's career established the save-only closer position.
Thread rated: 5.36
#
#
Still, no team is as good as they look when they're winning consistently (and, of course, they're not as bad as they are when they're losing consistently). Also, I'm kind of an idiot for not realizing how close .400 ball and 100 losses is.
