The Under-The Radar Team Adjustments

My latest Baseball Prospectus article is here. I look at three teams that have changed sharply from 2015 to 2016 in ways that aren't well-reported:

• The Washington Nationals have gone from a team that hits a lot of balls to the opposite field to one that rarely goes the other way.
• The Milwaukee Brewers have gone from one of the most free-swinging teams to the team that swings the least frequently in the majors.
• The Pittsburgh Pirates' pitchers have gone from being one of the stingiest at allowing home runs to one of the most homer-prone.

Next Up: The Washington Nationals

The Pirates will hope for improvement over their first series against the Nationals in mid-June, in which they were, well, annihilated. They lost three games in Washington by the aggregate score of 19-3 and were outhit 34-14, including Max Scherzer's near-perfect no-hitter. 

How Are They Doing Lately? The Nationals are 14-9 over the last 30 days, the second-best record in the National League. They've scored 3.5 runs per game, the sixth fewest in the league, and allowed 2.9 per game, the second fewest. A 14-9 record is about what you'd expect from a team with that run differential. They've opened up a three game lead over the Mets in the National League East, though their overall record of 51-42 is the poorest of any division leader, and is 2.5 games worse than the Pirates' 54-40.

What's Going Right? The Nationals' starters have a 2.96 ERA over the past 30 days, fifth best in the league. They've been by far the stingiest starters at issuing walks, just 3.5% of batters faced (the league average is more than twice as high), and although they've allowed a lot of fly balls (38% of balls put in play, second highest in the league), 11% of them have been infield flies (fourth most) and only 8% have gone over the fence (fourth fewest). They're No. 1 at pitching in the strike zone and No. 2 at inducing swings outside the zone. The relievers have followed a similar pattern over the past 30 days: Fourth-lowest ERA at 2.56, second lowest walk rate, third highest percentage of fly balls staying in the infield, fourth highest percentage of pitches in the zone, and third highest rate of swings outside the strike zone.

Who's Hot? You've probably heard this before, but right fielder Bryce Harper is having a great year. Over the last 30 days, though he's cooled off a bit, he's still been the team's best hitter, with a .294/.435/.529 slash line and three homers. Clint Robinson, pressed into action by injuries to left fielder Jayson Werth and first baseman Ryan Zimmerman, has a solid .369 on base percentage over the past 30 days. 

The Pirates will face Doug Fister, who has a 3.38 ERA over the past 30 days, tonight, then the same three pitchers they faced in June: Scherzer (3.03 ERA, one walk and 28 hits over his last 35.2 innings), Gio Gonazlez (1.89 ERA in three starts over the last 30 days), and Joe Ross who's posted 2.70 in four starts for the Nationals as he's split time between Washington, AA Harrisburg, and AAA Syracuse. Closer Drew Storen's had a hot hand, with a 0.87 ERA and nine saves over the past 30 days.

Who's Not? You've probably heard this before, but shortstop Ian Desmond is having a terrible year. Over the last 30 days, he has a .181/.238/.333 slash line. (The league average is .253/.315/.397.) Rookie Michael Taylor, pressed into action action by injury to center fielder Denard Span, has been barely better: .230/.264/.310. \

It's hard to find a Nationals pitcher who hasn't been at least average, but over the last 30 days, Tanner Roark has had a 7.71 ERA in five relief appearances and, in one start, allowed eight runs in 3.1 innings.

What's the Outlook? The Nationals, while pretty clearly the class of their division, continue to underperform, hurt by injuries to Werth, Zimmerman, Span, starter Stephen Strasburg, and third baseman Anthony Rendon. When everybody's healthy, they're a formidable club. But not everybody's healthy. This is a chance for the Pirates to get back on the winning track, having started play after the All-Star break 1-5, in front of the home fans at PNC Park.

Next Up: The Washington Nationals

On Wednesday, I mentioned that the Pirates' 30-inning stretch of no runs allowed was tied for the fifth longest in club history. It reached 35 innings that evening, tying for the third-longest in club history. (Historical footnote: I used a data source that goes back to 1914. According the Travis Sawchik, the longest streak in club history, 51 innings, was in 1903.) 

Anyway, after running up their winning streak to eight games against three of the worst teams in baseball--the Brewers (second-worst record), Phillies (worst record), and White Sox (seventh-worst)--they travel to the nation's capital to play three against a team with a winning record, the enigmatic Washington Nationals.

How Are They Doing Lately? I say enigmatic because the Nats were pretty much unanimous picks to win the National League East and were considered to be one of the best teams in baseball. I considered their prospects to finish first as one of the "five locks in baseball." (I'm currently two-for-five on my locks: The Dodgers are in first, and the Phillies are in last.) Instead, the Nationals enter the series against the hottest team in baseball (the Pirates' 21-6 record since May 20 is the best in baseball) just 34-33, a game and a half behind the Mets in the National League East, and just 11-16 over the last 30 days, the third-worst record in the league. The Nationals have scored runs (second in the league in runs per game, 4.4) but given up too many (4.3 per game, seventh most), betrayed by a terrible defense (turning 66% of balls in play into outs, the lowest percentage in the league). One of their marquee players, pitcher Stephen Strasburg, is on the disabled list with a 6.55 ERA. The other big star, 22-year-old Bryce Harper, is having an MVP-caliber season (third in batting average, first in on base percentage, first in slugging percentage, second in homers, first in home run frequency, fifth in runs scored, third in runs batted in, first in walks), strained his hamstring yesterday night and is day-to-day. Their shortstop, Ian Desmond, the National League's Sliver Slugger (awarded for offensive performance) in each of the past three seasons, is batting .224/.269/.346 (his career averages entering the season were .270/.317/.431) and he leads all National League fielders in errors with 15. Another star, left fielder Jayson Werth, is out until at least early August with a broken wrist. First baseman Ryan Zimmerman is disabled with plantar fasciitis. If you've ever had plantar fasciitis, you know that it's tough to guess how long he'll be out.

What's Going Right? The Nationals haven't been notably good at anything over the past 30 days. They're twelfth in the league in batting average, eleventh in on base percentage, and tenth in slugging percentage.  The starting pitchers' 4.20 ERA is exactly in the middle of the league, and the relievers' 4.21 ERA is third worst. How's this: Their pitchers have walked only 6% of the batters they've faced over the last 30 days, the second-lowest percentage in the league after the Pirates. There's that.

What's Going Wrong? Just as the Nationals haven't done anything particularly well of late, they haven't been really bad at anything, either. They're middle of the pack in home runs with 26 over the past 30 days, but Harper accounts for seven of them, so without him they've been short on power.

Who's Hot? Well, Harper, but he may not play in the series. Other than Harper (who, incidentally, earlier this month faced a pitcher younger than he for the first time in his entire professional career, including rehab stints at the A and AA levels in each of the past two seasons), the best Nationals hitter over the last 30 days has been third baseman Yunel Escobar, (who's been playing third largely because last year's third baseman, Anthony Rendon, has been hurt and ineffective), with a .326/.375/.421 slash line. Catcher Wilson Ramos has five homers over the past 30 days but little else (.182 batting average). On the mound, the winter's big free agent signing, Max Scherzer (seven years, $210 million), has a 2.21 ERA over the past 30 days with 47 strikeouts and just 24 hits and six walks in 36.2 innings. In his last start (Sunday against the Brewers) he pitched a complete-game one-hit, one-walk shutout, striking out 16 (thereby wisely limiting his fielders to eleven outs). Closer Drew Storen has a lackluster 4.15 ERA over the past 30 days but has pitched better than that'd indicate (14 strikeouts and one walk in 8.2 innings).

Who's Not? As mentioned, Rendon has been bad (.222/.328/.296 over the past 30 days), as has Ramos when he's not hitting home runs. Desmond's slash line over the last 30 days is worse, .194/.224/.311, and Zimmerman was worse still before he went on the DL. Rookie Michael Taylor, rated the No. 32 prospect by Baseball America before the season (and more than a year and a half older than Harper), has hit .216/.280/.311 filling in for Werth. 

What's the Outlook? The Nationals are going through a rough patch, but there are a lot of talented if underperforming players on the team. The lineup without Harper lacks a big bat, but the pitching is solid. Not to nitpick about an eight-game winning streak, but the Pirates scored more then three runs only twice during the streak, against some of the worst teams in the majors. They'll face Joe Ross (1-1, 3.46 ERA over the past 30 days), Scherzer, and Gio Gonazlez (1-2, 4.61) over the weekend. Look for more low scores.

April Oddities

Here, in no particular order, are my view of the five strangest things in baseball's first month. (Full disclusure: I am not trying to imitate Jason Stark's Strange but True column, if for no other reason than that Stark is way more clever than I.)

• The First Place Houston Astros. Five teams finished April with 15 victories. Two, the Cardinals and Tigers, were expected in many circles to win their divisions. Two more, the Mets and Royals, were pegged as wild card contenders. Then there's the Astros. They're viewed as up-and-coming, with a young team (weighted average batter's age 27.3, youngest in the American League) and, according to ESPN Insider Keith Law, the third-best farm system in baseball. But the team was 70-92 last year. The Astros were 51-111 in 2013. They play in the same division as the Angels, who had the best record in baseball last year; the A's, who were a wild card team and had the best run differential in the league; and the Mariners, who were only a game behind the A's and picked by many to win the division this year. Now, granted, the Astros have played the easiest schedule in their division so far, but they have the second-best run differential (1.3 more runs scored than allowed per game) in the league so far. They had the best team ERA, third-best starter ERA, and third-best reliever ERA in the league in April, after finishing 12th, ninth, and fifteenth, respectively, last season. As expected, their batters are striking out a lot (24% of plate appearances, most in the league), and their team batting average of .238 was 12th in the league. But their .316 on base percentage is ninth and their .411 slugging percentage is sixth, so they've made up for the lack of batting average with walks and power. They've probably been a little lucky, and I don't expect them to remain in title contention--this year. But there may be enough here for the team to be a 2016 contender.
• Clayton Kershaw, 1-2, 3.73 ERA. There are 60 National League pitchers who qualify for the ERA title (one inning pitched per team game played). Kershaw is 32nd. I could list some of the unlikely pitchers who rate higher, but really, anybody ahead of Kershaw's a surprise. The defending NL MVP has led the league in ERA for each of the past four years. Now, granted, he had a 4.08 ERA in May 2014, but that included arguably the worst start of his career, when he gave up seven runs in 1.2 innings against Arizona on May 17. The last time before that he'd had an ERA as high as 3.73 was April 2009. So other than the one start last May, this is his worst month in five years. Here's the catch, though: His underlying statistics suggest he was a lot better than his record indicates. His strikeout/walk ratio of 6.1 is seventh in the league and he leads the league in strikeout rate. His fielding independent pitching, which is an ERA-like measure based on strikeouts, walks, and homers (and a better predictor of future performance than ERA), is 2.85, eleventh best in the league. If you normalize that for his unusually high (and possibly bad luck-driven) 22% ratio of home runs to fly balls allowed (fourth highest in the league), it drops to 1.95, which is best in the league. So expect a return to ridiculously good form from Kershaw.
• 10-13 Washington Nationals. They were a near-unanimous pick to win their division. Several saw them as the best team in baseball and the favorite to win the World Series. So seeing them half a game behind the Marlins and Braves, and fully five games behind the Mets, at the end of April is jarring. Like Kershaw's start, the Nationals' problems don't seem likely to persist. They ended April winning three straight, scoring 34 runs. The pitching's been OK but the team was 11th in the league in both batting average and on base percentage in April. Slow starters in April included shortstop Ian Desmond (.217/.287/.326 slash line; the league average including pitchers was .248/.310/.383), left fielder Jayson Werth (.175/.254/.211), and first baseman Ryan Zimmerman (.217/.277/.380). Starter Max Scherzer had a 1-2 record despite a 1.26 ERA; in two losses and a no-decision his teammates scored a total of six runs. The return of third baseman Anthony Rendon (currently rehabbing a sprained knee) who finished fifth in MVP voting last year, should help, and I'd expect improvement as players return to form and the amazing Bryce Harper (.286/.440/.545, still the second-youngest player in the league) continues his strong performance.
• Mike Moustakas, Batsman. I'm don't get too excited about a month's worth of batting statistics. Anybody can get lucky (or unlucky) for a month. Light-hitting Marlins second baseman Dee Gordon and Tigers shortstop Jose Iglesias batting .423 and .370, respectively? Not going to last. Neither will some of the poor performances (see next point). But Moustakas may be different. The third baseman was one of several highly-regarded Royals prospects a few years ago. In four years in the majors, he's been a disappointment. His batting averaged declined every year from 2011 to 2014 (falling from .263 to .212), as did his on base percentage (from .309 to .271). His OPS last year, .632, was the lowest of his career, third lowest in the league among players with 500 or more plate appearances, and 25% below the league average, adjusted for park. Last month, though, he was tenth in the league, at .942, 67% better than average. The reason it doesn't appear to be luck is that Moustakas has overhauled his approach to hitting--not easy to do at age 26. He's been an extreme pull hitter. Batting left, he only 20%-30% of his base hits went to the left side of the field in 2012, 2013, and 2014. As a result, he faced an extreme shift, with three infielders to the right of second base, in 71% of his plate appearances last year. He was easy to predict, easy to defense. But this year, he's got 32 base hits. Of them, thirteen singles, four doubles, and a homer--over 56% of his base hits--have gone to the opposite field. That's a real change, and the five extra-base hits indicate that he's not just popping bloop singles out to left. By using the whole field, he's become a different, and, finally, good hitter.
• Andrew McCutchen, Sub-.200 Hitter. I'm not going to get into this a lot, because I've written about it enough: My concerns about his health here, my analysis of what's wrong with him (mostly, bad luck) here. During April, among 86 National League batting title qualifiers, McCutchen's .194 batting average with 80th, his .302 on base percentage 59th, his .333 slugging percentage 73rd, and his .636 OPS 68th in the league. He had the worst batting average on the Pirates, and the second-worst slugging percentage. Now, hold that for a minute, because I want to talk about fielding. Yesterday, I heard two SiriusXM MLB Home Plate hosts go on and on about how one of the advanced fielding metrics rates Mets center fielder Juan Lagares as slightly below average so far this year, and how this proves that you can't trust some of these new statistics. Look, nobody's going to argue with the idea that Lagares is probably the best center fielder in baseball today. He won the Fielding Bible Award last year and was runner-up the year before. Without getting into the mechanics of how the advanced fielding metrics are calculated (I think they're sound), let's look at what the numbers for Lagares are saying: That he didn't have a fabulous April with the glove. Is that true? I don't know. I didn't watch every play he made, and neither did the folks on the radio. The people who calculate these advanced metrics did. But that's not the point. The point is that the stats are saying Lagares didn't have a great April in the field. So what? Getting back to McCutchen, the stats say that McCutchen didn't have a great April with the bat. Is anybody going to deny that? If a radio host said, "Andrew McCutchen hit .194 in April, therefore he's a bad hitter," we'd call him an idiot. We would also call him an idiot if he said "Andrew McCutchen hit .194 in April, so batting average says he's a bad hitter, which we know if false, so we can't trust batting average." No, no, no. But that's what the guys on satellite radio were saying: if the stats don't say that a great fielder is great every month, the stats are wrong. No, the stats are right, just like McCutchen's slugging percentage is right. But what they measure isn't a player's overall value, it's how they did over a 30 day period. Lagares's defensive numbers in April should be viewed the same way as McCutchen's batting numbers in April: An aberration, unusual but well within normal variation, for an excellent ballplayer. I feel pretty confident in saying that, by season's end, Juan Lagares will be rated as one of the top fielders in baseball, just as I feel pretty confident in saying that, by season's end, Andrew McCutchen will be rated as one of the top hitters in baseball. The fact that the numbers didn't reflect that in April about Lagares doesn't indict the fielding stats any more than McCutchen's .194 indicts batting average.

Bizarro Baseball

The season's only a week old, and you can't conclude anything from five or so games. That being said, the National League standings as of this morning are weird.

• In the West, the Los Angeles Dodgers, picked by most people (including me) to lead the division with one of the best records in baseball, are in last with a 2-3 record. The Colorado Rockies, expected to battle with the Arizona Diamondbacks for last, are leading the division with a 4-1 record.
• In the Central, the Cincinnati Reds, largely viewed as a last-place team, are 4-1 and in first. The Pirates, seen challenging the St. Louis Cardinals for the division lead, are tied with the Brewers for last at 1-4.
• In the East, the Washington Nationals are the consensus pick for first and a strong World Series candidate. They're tied with the Miami Marlins, who are expected to battle for second and a wild card spot, for last at 1-4. The Atlanta Braves, a rebuilding club anticipated to battle the Philadelphia Phillies for the worst record in the National League, are the senior circuit's only undefeated team at 5-0.

None of this, of course, will last. But it's been an exceptionally unpredictable start of the season.

This instability hasn't carried over to the American League. The Detroit Tigers and Kansas City Royals, playoff teams last year, are undefeated at 5-0 in the Central division. The Boston Red Sox, seen as candidates for a worst-to-first bounceback season, lead the East at 4-1. The West, a hard division to predict, is a muddle, with two teams at 3-3 and three at 2-3.

Happy Opening Day!

Here's a fantastic heartwarming piece by the great Joe Posnanski. He calls it "A Baseball Story." It's not. It's a human potential story. Posnanski is a national treasure.

Now, on to the season. Last year I did detailed predictions for each division. Given that the season's started, and I was out of the country since mid-March, I'm not going to do that this year. But let's get some stakes in the ground:

National League East
Washington Nationals, 91-71: There are, in my mind, five locks in baseball this season. Three are in this division. This is one of them. The Nationals are, to me, clearly the best team in the division, arguably in the league.
New York Mets, 84-78: Mets fans are pessimistic about the team. Mets fans have learned their pessimism from experience. Still, even with young righthander Zack Wheeler out with Tommy John surgery, this is a...well, not excellent, but an okay team. Sure, the offense is suspect, but in 2015, just about everybody's offense is suspect.
Miami Marlins, 81-81: The Marlins are kind of a fashionable pick. I don't care for that fashion. The outfield's great, and they have some good arms, but there are too many weaknesses elsewhere for me to get excited.
Atlanta Braves, 69-93: Lock No. 2. The Braves have all but admitted they're in rebuilding mode, shedding stars (Jayson Heyward, Justin Upton, Craig Kimbrel) for prospects. But they won't be in last place because...
Philadelphia Phillies, 64-98: ...the Phillies are probably the worst team in baseball right now. Lock No. 3

National League Central
St. Louis Cardinals, 89-73: Yes, the Cards have a great farm system, but they're also reliant on some older players (Adam Wainwright, Matt Holliday) who are going to get old someday. Probably not today, though.
Pittsburgh Pirates, 85-77: Probably the best outfield in baseball, but the loss of catcher Russell Martin to free agency will be felt, and I have a hard time seeing last year's surprise hero, Josh Harrison, duplicating his performance.
Chicago Cubs, 81-81: Cool your jets, Cubs fans. Your farm system's fantastic, even after graduating a lot of guys to the majors. You got Jon Lester and Joe Maddon during the offseason. But this was a last-place, 89-loss team last year. Getting to .500 would be a tremendous improvement.
Milwaukee Brewers, 78-84: They spent most of last season in first place. I'd be surprised if they see much if it this year.
Cincinnati Reds, 72-90: They can't hit, and if they're out of contention at the All-Star Break, they might trade starting pitcher Johnny Cueto, an impending free agent, and then things would get really ugly.

National League West
Los Angeles Dodgers, 94-68: The fourth lock. They've been criticized by some for trading outfielder Matt Kemp and second baseman Dee Gordon, but the replacements (rookie Joc Pederson, former Angel Howie Kendrick) could wind up being just about as good.
San Diego Padres, 86-76: Another trendy pick, as new GM A.J. Preller remade the team. They'll be better, but the infield's awful.
San Francisco Giants, 84-78: No, it's not just because the Giants win only in even-numbered years. They lost third baseman Pablo Sandoval to free agency, outfielder Hunter Pence is on the disabled list, and there are a lot of questions in the rotation after postseason hero Madison Bumgarner.
Colorado Rockies, 78-84: DON'T SAY IT. Yes, I know, this team could be pretty good if shortstop Troy Tulowitzki and outfielder Carlos Gonzalez can stay in the lineup together. But they can't. One or the other will get hurt. Or both. Don't get your hopes up.
Arizona Diamondbacks, 71-91: I wouldn't say they're a lock for last, but they're not a good club, either. Worst record in baseball last year, you know.

American League East
Boston Red Sox, 88-74: Viva la parity. The additions of Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez, and the presumed return to health of Dustin Pedroia and Mike Napoli, makes the team's offense formidable. The pitching...not so much. But this is no longer a killer division.
Toronto Blue Jays, 84-78: Really, you could almost draw the names of these five teams out of a hat; they're all pretty close. I really like the additions of Josh Donaldson and Russell Martin.
New York Yankees, 82-80: Because the Yankees are incapable of finishing a season with a losing record.
Baltimore Orioles, 80-82: Over the past three seasons, the O's have won the second-most games in the American League. I haven't been able to figure out why. The batters don't get on base a lot and the starting rotation is unimpressive if solid. In Buck we trust, I suppose. I'm probably going to be wrong about them again.
Tampa Bay Rays, 77-85: I think the departure of GM Andrew Friedman and manager Joe Maddon are the beginning of the end for one of my favorite teams. (I like small-market, low-budget teams.)

American League Central
Detroit Tigers, 88-74: They've won four divisional titles in a row. The streak will come to an end, probably soon, as the team's getting old. But I don't think this is they year.
Cleveland Indians, 84-78: Another trendy pick, and I would like nothing more than to see this small-market, low-budget team succeed. But the team's pitchers, unbelievable in the second half of the year (2.95 starter ERA, best in the league), are due for regression, and the team's defense won't help. But I'll be pulling for them, if for no other reason than radio announcer Tom Hamilton's home run calls.
Chicago White Sox, 83-79: Another greatly improved team - they lost 89 games last year - but not enough to contend, yet.
Kansas City Royals, 79-83: Yeah, I know, they came within a game of winning the World Championship. But they didn't win their division, and they kind of lucked their way to a wild card win. Over the winter, they lost their No. 1 starter and their DH. I'm not buying sustained success.
Minnesota Twins, 70-92: My fifth and final lock. I've documented my lack of affection for the Twins.

American League West
Seattle Mariners, 89-73: You can make a case that the other two top contenders in this tight division enter 2015 weaker than 2014. Not so the Mariners.
Los Angeles Angels, 86-76: They had the best record in baseball last year. But they enter the season with concerns in the rotation and at second base and overpaid slugger Josh Hamilton recovering from shoulder surgery and a drug relapse.
Oakland Athletics, 79-83: I mentioned that I don't understand how the Orioles have managed the second-most wins in the league over the past three years. I even more don't understand how the A's are No. 1, but they are. What they did this offseason strikes me as a teardown. But I've been wrong before.
Houston Astros, 79-83: Everything is going according to plan. The Astros improved by 19 games last year, and I see another nine this year. Eight or so next year, and they're talking playoffs.
Texas Rangers, 75-87: I thought they might rebound strongly from their injury-riddled 2014, but then ace pitcher Yu Darvish went down with Tommy John surgery.

On The Horror of a Wild Card World Series

Look, I'm not wild about it either. For the second time in baseball history (2002, Angels-Giants), we will have two wild card teams--i.e., teams that couldn't even win their own division--meet in the World Series. That's a far cry from the years though 1968, when a team had to be the best in and eight- or ten-team league in order to make the Fall Classic. Now, you don't have to even win a five-team division.

Except. There is an element of variability in most everything in life, including baseball, that is almost always ignored. Say there's a game, tied 3-3 in the eighth inning. The pitcher throws a ball on the border of the strike zone. The batter doesn't swing. Is it a ball or a strike? 

Well, the average major league hitter had a .251 batting average, .314 on base percentage, and .386 slugging percentage in 2014. After a 1-0 count, that rose to .267/.373/.420. After 0-1, it became .221/.261/.331. 

That difference, in the late innings of a close game, is enough to sway a ballgame. The batter who gets a strike call is far less likely to get on base and score a run than the batter who doesn't. How many times do fluctuations like that occur over the course of a season? Take the Royals. They finished with 89 wins. If you were to replay 2014, over and over again, using the exact same players, same lineups, same injuries--do you think they'd win exactly 89 games every time? I don't. Maybe they'd win 88 or 86 or 92--it all depends on little things like ball/strike calls, a tiny movement in a batter's swing, the precise timing of a fielder's leap. How random are things like that? Maybe, say, 3%? Then over a 162-game season, we'd expect variance of 162 x 3% = 5 games. So the Royals may have won 89 games this year, but it's just as likely that they're an 84-win team that got a little lucky, to the tune of five wins, or a 94-win team that got a little unlucky, to the tune of five losses. Yes, the 89-win Royals knocked off the 98-win Angels and 96-win Orioles, but you can easily build a case that the Royals, if we were to replay the season over and over, might have, in the long run, a better record than the other two. Maybe the Angels and O's are really, in the long run, 93-win teams that got a little lucky this year while the Royals are really, in the long run, a 94-win team that got a little unlucky this year. 

Same in the National League. The Giants won 88 games, and they knocked off the 96-win Nationals and the 90-win Cardinals. But were they an inferior team? Those differences are both within our 3% margin of error. 

I've quoted baseball analyst Joe Sheehan before, but his observation from his newsletter bears repeating: Variance swamps everything. The fact that we're seeing two wild card teams in the Series doesn't mean we're seeing two inferior teams. We're just seeing two teams that didn't compile as good a record over a six-month, 162-game season as the teams they defeated. Maybe they picked the right time to get hot, or maybe they took advantage of their opponents' injuries (the Royals faced an Angels team without its No. 1 starter and an Orioles squad without its starting third baseman, first baseman, or catcher), or maybe some pitchers were more worn down in October than they were in April, or any of many other factors. The point is: If the goal were to insure that the teams with the best record meet in the World Series, then we should return to the pre-1969, pre-divisional play baseball world in which there were two leagues and one champion per league, period. As FanGraphs managing editor Dave Cameron said in his chat last week, "If you crown your champion with a postseason tournament, you’re asking for randomness."

And that's what you get: Randomness. There are two things I hate hearing, incessantly, during the postseason. One is all the myths I addressed last month: that prior postseason experience is important, that having veteran players provides an edge, that momentum matters, that good pitching stops good hitting, that reliance on home runs is bad, that ace starters confer an advantage. All of those, I explained, are dubious. 

But the other thing that I hear a lot, and which is probably more offensive, is that the postseason is a test of character. It's a short series of baseball games, not a morality play, for crying out loud. The Royals and Giants didn't advance because they're better people than the players on the Angels, Nationals, Orioles, and Cardinals. They didn't win because they were able to "put it together," "draw on their inner strength," "function better as a team," "will themselves to win," execute under pressure," "perform when they had to," and whatever other crap you read and hear, while their vanquished opponents didn't. They're each here because they won eight baseball games, spread over a one-game play-in and two short series. And, to the delight of baseball fans, most of those games were tight and exciting. Isn't that enough?

What the Result of the NLDS Does and Doesn't Mean

The Cardinals defeated the Dodgers and the Giants defeated the Nationals, thus guaranteeing that, as has been the case every year this decade, the Cardinals or Giants will be the National League representative in the World Series.

But if you're here, you probably already knew that.

What you might not have known, at least if you weren't listening to Sirius/XM this morning when I was, what it means.

(Disclaimer: I have been a subscriber to Sirius/XM for years, and I like it. Particularly during the baseball season, a long drive while listening to a ballgame makes the miles shoot by. I will always remember hearing the entirety of Roy Halladay's perfect game against the Marlins while on a drive home in 2010. What I heard on satellite radio, this morning, I'm sure, is duplicated in all sorts of major media outlets that I choose not to read/watch/hear.)

Here's what the two series do not mean: That the Cardinals and Giants have some quality--Guts? Grit? Fortitude? Grace under pressure? Knowing How To Win?--that the Dodgers and Nationals don't possess. I mean, come on. We're talking FOUR BASEBALL GAMES. 

The overarching response should be, to quote baseball analyst Joe Sheehan: Variance swamps everything. Take the Giants-Nationals series. Giants pitcher Tim Hudson had an 8.72 ERA in September. He allowed 35 hits in 21.2 innings. In five starts, he lasted only 5, 6, 1, 4.1, and 5.1 innings. (I know this, he was on my fantasy team.) That 18-inning Giants win Saturday would not have happened if Hudson hadn't held the third-highest-scoring team in the league to one run and seven baserunners over 7.1 inning pitched. His rotation mate, Ryan Vogelsong was nearly as bad, matching Hudson's 0-4 record in September while compiling a 5.53 ERA. Last night, he held the Nationals to two hits and two walks over 5.2 innings. On offense, oft-criticized Washington outfielder Bryce Harper batted .294 with three homers and had some great plays in the field, while the Nationals' 3 and 4 hitters, Jayson Werth and Adam LaRoche, hit .059 and .056 respectively, racking up only one single each. Does that say that Hudson, Vogelsong, and Harper stepped up their games, while Werth and LaRoche collapsed under pressure? If so, how do you explain the way that Hudson and Vogelsong pitched down the stretch, when the Giants both lost a chance to beat the Dodgers for the divisional crown and ceded home field advantage for the wild card game to Pittsburgh? If Harper's a young stud, what was going on when he returned from the disabled list on June 30 with the Nationals struggling to get past the Braves and proceeded to hit .209 with a .329 on base percentage and .328 slugging percentage (and only two home runs) over the next 21 games? If Werth's a choker, how do you explain his .351/.500/.676 slash line in eleven World Series games? If LaRoche succumbed to the pressure, how is that he had a .392 on base percentage and .595 slugging percentage in three prior Divisional Series?

The answer is: None of it means anything. As John Sterling and the very clever website would say, you can't predict baseball. There's a random element that doesn't have to do with character, or leadership, or sucking it up, or whatever. It's just random. 

And really, isn't that what we like about sports? We don't know what the outcome will be. We go to work and do more or less the same thing every day. Not a lot of variance there. We go to the mall, we know what we'll find. Hey, thanks to Nate Silver, even elections are predictable. And there's nothing wrong with that--one of the things that separates our lives from those in the third world is the certainty that when we flip the light switch the room will get bright, that when we go to the grocery store there'll be food on the shelves, that when we turn the faucet we'll get potable water. Our games are fun because we don't know the outcome. The Nationals had the best record in the National League, but that didn't guarantee them victory. Same for the Dodgers, who had the second best record. You gotta play the games to see how it'll turn out. It's like flipping a coin--it's unlikely that you'll get heads ten times in a row, but once every 1,024 or so times, it'll happen. That randomness, not the intestinal fortitude or lack thereof of the participants, is what we tune in to see.

Now, that doesn't say it's all random. The pitchers have to make the pitches, the batters have to hit the ball, and the fielders have to catch it. But also, the managers have to put their teams in the best position to win, through lineup construction, in-game tactics, and managing the starting rotation and the bullpen. And I think that's where we can say the losing teams demonstrated some shortcomings. FanGraphs managing editor Dave Cameron has a great essay up today entitled "Matt Williams and How Not to Run a Bullpen"--here's the link--explaining how the Nationals manager's moves probably cost the team during the seventh inning last night, when the Giants took the 3-2 lead that was the game's final score. 

In the other game, Dodgers manager Don Mattingly benched Yasiel Puig, the team's best hitter (.863 OPS) during the regular season, in favor of Andre Ethier, who was picked off third, snuffing out a Dodgers rally in the sixth inning (two runs in, runners on first and third for A.J. Ellis, the team's hottest hitter). Granted, Puig had had a tough series, batting .250 and striking out eight times through three games, but was it reasonable to believe that Ethier, whose slash line was .249/.322/.370 during the regular season, would fare better than Puig, with a .296/.382/.480 slash line? Against Vogelsong, against whom Puig was 2-for-5 over the past two years while Ethier was 1-for-6? (Yes, those are samples too small to be relevant. Which is my point: There was no basis to assume Ethier was the better choice, when he hadn't been all season.) Then, when starter Clayton Kershaw, pitching on short rest, tired in the seventh, did Mattingly bring in Kenley Jansen, by far his best relief pitcher, to face the heart of the Cardinals order? Granted, that would have made Jansen likely unavailable to close the game, but the Cards had their 3-4-5 hitters due up on the seventh. Why not bring in Jansen for the pressure at-bats, leave him in for an inning or two, and let someone else face the weaker Cardinals hitters? Instead, Mattingly stuck with a tiring Kershaw, who allowed a game-winning three-run bomb to Matt Adams. (Jansen, for the record, over four games in which three games were decided by one run and the fourth by two, faced three batters over the entire series, appearing in just one game.)

I'm not suggesting that Williams and Mattingly lost the series for their clubs. But I think it's a lot easier to assign blame to them, for some of their decisions, than to their players, for some unquantifiable, unmeasurable, and likely non-existent character traits.

About That Strike Zone, Mr. Carapazza

I watched the entire 18 innings of the Giants-Nationals game on Saturday. Now, I will make two confessions. One, as you could read, I picked the Nationals as the most likely team to win the World Series in my postseason primer. Second, I have seen games at 20 of the 30 current ballparks (and seen four other teams play in the stadium prior to their current one), and there is no place I'd rather see a ballgame than San Francisco's AT&T Park. (That's not the same thing as saying it's my favorite ballpark. Easy, PNC Park.) Games there are electric, as Giants games have become the summer place to be in the Bay Area. 

I'm saying this to say that I think I'm unbiased when it comes to the series between San Francisco and Washington.

That being said, I think the Nationals got hosed Saturday night.

In an outstanding piece of writing, August Fagerstrom of FanGraphs explains how home plate umpire Vic Carapazza's calls hurt the Nationals. Of course, Nats second baseman Asdrubal Cabrera and manager Matt Williams were ejected in the tenth inning for arguing two called strikes that resulted in Cabrera being called out. Fagerstrom notes that one of those pitches was high, the second borderline, but that's not what really screwed Washington. The bigger problems were:

1. Carapazza called strikes on a lot of pitches outside the strike zone (literally outside: not high or low or inside, but outside). However, those calls clearly favored the Giants. There were 15 pitches against right-handed hitters that were called strikes despite being outside the strike zone. Of them, 12 were called with a Giants pitcher on the mound. Against left-handed hitters, the Giants got more strike calls on outside pitches, 8-7, as almost all of their pitches slightly outside were called strikes while relatively few of the Nationals' were.
2. In one of the game's two most important at bats--the ninth inning walk to second baseman Joe Panik with two outs, resulting in starting pitching Jordan Zimmermann getting pulled in favor of reliever Drew Storen, who gave up a game-tying single to Pablo Sandoval--Carapazza's ball one and ball four calls were on pitches that had been strikes, repeatedly, earlier in the game.
3. In the other key at bat, Brandon Belt's game-winning homer in the 18th, Carapazza called a ball on a 2-2 count a pitch thrown by Washington reliever Tanner Roark that had been consistently called a ball earlier in the game.

It seems to me that if Carapazza had called the same strike zone for the Nationals pitchers that he called for the Giants pitchers, the game probably would've ended in the ninth with the Nationals winning and, if not, probably wouldn't have ended in the 18th with the Giants winning. 

Check Fagerstrom's article. It's really good.

Your On The Field Of Play Postseason Primer

Postseason play starts today. I'm going to throw out some opinions and predictions. I don't pretend that they'll be right or anything like that. I'll update them as we get deeper into October. For a clever, funny take on the postseason, check out Hardball Talk's Craig Calcaterra on whom to support in the American League and the National League.

American League Wild Card Game. Predicting the outcome of one game in baseball is sheer folly, and I'm not going to do it. This isn't the NFL, where bad teams almost never beat good teams. This year the Los Angeles Angels had the best record in the American League (and, for that matter, all of baseball). The Texas Rangers had the worst. The Angels, as you might expect, beat up on the Rangers, winning the season series 14-5. That means the Rangers won 26% of their games with LA. That's dominance over 19 games, but for any one game between the clubs, the Rangers had a better than one-in-four chance of winning. So predicting the winner of one game between two good clubs? It's just silly.

Anyway, tonight's AL wild card game is Oakland at Kansas City. (Throughout this post, the links will be to my most recent 30-day flyovers of the teams. Keep in mind that the data and commentaries in the links are relevant as of the day of the post.) Whatever happens, this game will break my heart, because these are possibly the two most compelling teams in the entire postseason as far as I'm concerned. Consider:

• The Royals are making their first postseason appearance since they won the World Series in 1985. By contrast, the A's have been to the postseason seven times since the current format (Divisional Series-Championship Series-World Series) was instituted in 1995, and they've lost seven Divisional Series excruciatingly, three games to two. In the other year, 2006, they were swept in the ALCS by the Tigers. So both teams are due.
• I am a sucker for small-market, low-payroll teams. This year, only three teams made the postseason with payrolls below the major league median of $95.8 million: The Royals ($89.3 million), the A's ($74.9 million), and the Pirates ($71.5 million). Those three teams were 17th, 26th, and 27th in total payroll. The other seven playoff teams were 1st, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 15th. The A's-Royals game will eliminate one of the three low-payroll teams.
• The A's were tied for the second-worst record in baseball (5-8) over the last two weeks of the season. They had the worst record (10-18) over the last 30 days. They tied for the fourth-worst record (29-38) since the All-Star break. Yet they finished with the best run differential (729 scored, 572 allowed) in the majors. Kansas City, by contrast, scored only 27 more runs than they allowed, the second-lowest differential (St. Louis' was 16).
• The Oakland Moneyball teams were famous for drawing walks and hitting home runs. (This year's version was only eighth in homers but lead the league in walks.) The Royals were last in the league in both.
• The starting pitcher for the Royals, James Shields, was acquired by the team in a big trade last year (that many criticized because of the hitter that they gave up, Wil Myers) specifically for his ability to win big games like tonight's. The starting pitcher for the A's, Jon Lester, was acquired by the team in a big trade this year (that many criticized because of the hitter they gave up, Yoenis Cespedes) specifically for his ability to win big games like tonight's.

That's a lot of words for a single game that I think is unpredictable. Either way, it's going to be sad to see the loser go.

National League Wild Card Game. Again, predicting the outcome of one game in baseball is sheer folly, and I'm not going to do it. A few interesting points about San Francisco at Pittsburgh: The Giants travel to PNC Park, where the Pirates tied for the league lead for the best record at home (51-30). The Giants' road record of 43-38 was the third best in the league, however. The Giants' starting pitcher, Madison Bumgarner, will get Cy Young Award votes this year: He was fourth in wins (18), innings pitched (217.1), strikeouts (219), and strikeouts/walks (5.1), and seventh in WHIP (1.09). He also led all pitchers in home runs (4), RBI (15), and, among those with over 40 plate appearances, batting average (.258), on base percentage (.286), and slugging percentage (.470). The Pirates' starter, Edinson Volquez, had a career-best 3.04 ERA, aided by a career-low walk rate of 8.8% of plate appearances. On the other hand, he batted only .038--he's no Madison Bumgarner--and in his one postseason appearance, for the Reds in the 2010 Divisional Series against the Phillies, he didn't make it out of the second inning: four hits, two walks, and no strikeouts in an inning and two-thirds, good for a 21.60 ERA. If the Pirates lose, we'll be down to just one small-market low-payroll team in the postseason.

American League Divisional Series: Detroit-Baltimore. Let's go over the negatives first: The O's have been lucky (32-23 record in one run games--that's luck, not skill), they don't get on base enough (.311 on base percentage, fifth worst in the league), and they're without three of their best players (catcher Matt Wieters, third baseman Manny Machado, first baseman Chris Davis). The Tigers' supposedly invincible rotation of Max Scherzer, David Price, Justin Verlander, Anibal Sanchez and Rick Porcello had the sixth-worst ERA (3.95) in the league since the All-Star Break; and defending two-time MVP Miguel Cabrera has been only really good (seventh in batting average at .313, tenth in on-base percentage at .371, seventh in slugging percentage at .524) instead of sensational. Overall, there's part of me that thinks that the Orioles have been doing it with mirrors: Starting rotation led by Chris Tillman, Wei-Yin Chen, Bud Norris, and Miguel Gonzalez, 54-29 with a 3.44 ERA after a combined 109-104, 4.16 ERA in their prior seasons? Home run champion Nelson Cruz with 40 bombs at age 33 after never hitting more than 33 in a season? Outfielder Steve Pearce with a .556 slugging percentage after slugging .377 in seven prior seasons? Still, I think there are legitimate questions about the Tigers pitching, and I have a mild aversion to first-year managers (the Tigers' Brad Ausmus) in the postseason, particularly when the other guys have Buck Showalter. I favor the Orioles.

American League Divisional Series: Wild Card-Los Angeles. The Angels had the best record in baseball at 98-66; a three-game losing streak at the end of the year prevented them from getting 100 victories. And they will play, with home field advantage, a wild card team with serious flaws, as the A's can't win (at least since the All-Star Break) and the Royals can't hit. Still, I could see a potential upset here. The Angels' best starting pitcher, Garrett Richards (13-4, 2.61 ERA), is out for the year with a knee injury. Their second-best starter, Matt Shoemaker (16-4, 3.04 ERA) hasn't pitched since September 15 due to a strained oblique. Jered Weaver (18-9, 3.59) has had a good season, but after that, they are probably going to tax their pretty-good-but-not-great bullpen. They're the best hitting team in the league (4.8 runs per game, 0.1 better than the Tigers) and they have the league's MVP, Mike Trout, so I'm not going to pick against them. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were to lose.

National League Divisional Series: St. Louis-Los Angeles. For whatever it's worth, I'll bet you there are more people rooting against these two teams than the other eight in the postseason combined. Of course, the biggest reason for that is that the Yankees and Red Sox aren't playing. But the Cardinals have become a postseason constant (they've missed it only four times since 2000) and their claim to the "best fans in baseball" annoys everyone who doesn't follow the team. As for the Dodgers, they've supplanted the Yankees as the big-payroll behemoth ($213 million payroll vs. $208 million for the Yankees) and they have one of the most polarizing players in baseball, Yasiel Puig. (I like him, but his antics irk a lot of people). As for the teams, they have their weaknesses--the Cardinals' offense (tenth in the league in scoring 3.8 runs per game), and the Dodgers' bullpen (eighth in the league in runs allowed per nine innings at 3.8). They have the likely 1-2 Cy Young Award finishers: The Dodgers' Clayton Kershaw (21-3, 1.77 ERA) is a mortal lock, and the Redbirds' Adam Wainwright (20-9, 2.38 ERA) is almost certainly the runner-up. The Cardinals, though, have been kind of lucky, as their run differential (619 scored, 603 allowed) is the lowest among the playoff teams, aided by a second-in-the-league 32-23 record in one-run games. That's enough for me to think the Dodgers will avenge last year's NLCS loss.

National League Divisional Series: Wild Card-Washington. As I said in my Nationals 30-day flyover: 

The Nationals don't seem to me to have any noticeable holes. The bullpen's not great, but with that starting rotation, they aren't overly reliant on their relievers. They'll get the winner of the Giants-Pirates wild card game for a five-game series starting Friday. They will be favored to win, with good reason.

(I also added, "which probably means they'll get swept or something." As FanGraphs managing editor Dave Cameron said in a chat last week, referring to success in the postseason, "There's no secret formula that works better than others. It's basically random.") This isn't a knock on the two wild card teams. I think the Pirates and Giants are both better teams than the American League entries. It's just that the Nationals have the league's best starting rotation, no glaring weaknesses in the lineup, and a bullpen that's not sensational but good enough. They're my pick to go all the way.

Flyover: Washington Nationals

Well, the season's over--dramatically, in the case of the Washington Nationals--and so is this series. At this point, the relevant teams are the ten that could still win the World Series. Nine of them are the Orioles, Tigers, Royals, A's, Angels, Cardinals, Pirates, Dodgers, and Giants. Washington's the tenth. As a reminder, for each team, I'm looking at how they've done over the past 30 days.

How Are They Doing Lately? The Nationals have the best record in the majors over the past 30 days, 20-9. They scored 4.0 runs per game, seventh in the league, and gave up 3.1, the third fewest. (The league averages were 3.9 per game). At 96-66, they tied the Orioles for the second-best record in baseball. 

What's Going Right? They're seventh in batting average (.254), fifth in on base percentage (.325), and fifth in slugging percentage (.397) over the past 30 days. The league average slash line, by contrast, is .249/.310/.379. They've walked in 8.5% of plate appearances, second most in the league, indicative of their good plate discipline (swinging at 30% of pitches outside the strike zone, fourth fewest in the league). They're fourth in the league in homers with 30, as is their percentage of fly balls that go over the fence, 12%. The latter, well above the league average of 9%, suggests they may have been a little homer-lucky, as their full season average is 10.6%. Complementing their power, the Nationals led the league in stolen bases over the past 30 days with 22, and they've been more successful at their stolen base attempts (73%) than average (68%). All told, the offense has been good and balanced.

The pitchers' 2.59 ERA over the past 30 days is second in the league. The starters' 2.32 is easily first (the Pirates are second at 2.56) and the bullpen's 3.23 is seventh compared to the league average of 3.73. The pitchers have also epitomized the On The Field Of Play mantra, it's good to throw strikes, it's better to get strikes, as they've been the best in the league at throwing strikes over the past 30 days (51.3% of pitches in the strike zone) and the best at getting strikes (opposing batters swinging at 33.6% of pitches outside the strike zone). 

What's Going Wrong? The starting pitchers have probably been a little lucky. Three of their indicators of luck--batting average on balls in play, home runs as a percentage of fly balls, and baserunners stranded--are so far below the league averages over the past 30 days that they are likely to revert toward the mean. The starters have allowed just a .262 batting average on (non-homer) balls in play compared to a league average of .307, they've allowed homers on only 5.6% of fly balls compared to a league average of 8.5%, and they've stranded 76% of baserunners compared to a league average of 72%. I'm not suggesting they'll revert to the mean--this is a talented rotation--but their seasonlong averages of .292, 8.5%, and 75% seem more realistic. Not to worry, though: Washington's 3.04 ERA for the full year is the best in the majors.

Who's Hot? The Nats' outfield, that's who. Bryce Harper in left, Denard Span in center, and Jayson Werth in right have combined to bat .308 with a .398 on base percentage and a .488 slugging percentage over the past 30 days. Again, the league average slash line is just .249/.310/.379. Werth, who's drawn 20 walks, second most in the league, has a league-high on base percentage at .470. Third baseman Anthony Rendon has also been hot too, batting .319 with a .406 on base percentage and .484 slugging percentage.

As for the starting pitchers, the big question going into the postseason is which one goes to the bullpen. The starting five is Jordan Zimmermann (4-0, 1.32 ERA), Stephen Strasburg (4-1, 1.13 ERA), Doug Fister (4-1, 1.87 ERA), Gio Gonzalez (4-1, 2.48 ERA), and Tanner Roark (3-2, 3.09 ERA). Drew Storen took over as the team's closer and didn't allow an earned run during the month, compiling ten saves.

Who's Not? The only hitters with a cold bat over the past 30 days are second baseman Asdrubal Cabrera, acquired from the Indians at the trade deadline (.211/.287/.344 slash line) and catcher Wilson Ramos (.185/.202/.272). The bullpen, despite Storen's September, is probably the team's weak spot. Storen got his job because Rafael Soriano blew up, compiling a 6.48 ERA in the second half of the season after a 0.97 ERA up to the All-Star break. Over the past 30 days, no Nationals reliever with over seven innings pitched has an ERA below 3.50 except Storen.
  
What's the Outlook? The Nationals don't seem to me to have any noticeable holes. The bullpen's not great, but with that starting rotation, they aren't overly reliant on their relievers. They'll get the winner of the Giants-Pirates wild card game for a five-game series starting Friday. They will be favored to win, with good reason. Which probably means they'll get swept or something. 

Sweet Play of the Day - May 19

Actually, three.

First, on the first pitch of the game, Nationals vs. Reds, Billy Hamilton at the plate.

Same game, extra innings, two gems by Brandon Phillips and Hamilton preserve the tie in a game the Reds won in 15.

Those Kids

The Los Angeles Angels and Washington Nationals are in the middle of a three-game series in Washington that's being billed as the first major league meeting between outfielders Mike Trout of the Angels and Bryce Harper of the Nationals. They're both great young players, of course. Trout was Rookie of the Year in 2012, the year he turned 21 in August, and has been the runner-up in the AL MVP voting in both of his first two full seasons. Harper was a 19-year-old Rookie of the Year in 2012 and an All-Star in each of his first two seasons. The Angels won the first game of the series last night, 4-2, as four Angels pitchers scattered three hits and LA's Raul Ibanez, who at 41 is almost as old as Trout and Harper combined, hit a pinch-hit bases loaded double in the eighth inning to drive in three runs. Trout was 2-for-5 with two singles and a strikeout while Harper for 0-for-3 with a walk and a whiff. The game was the first meeting between Trout and Harper since they were teammates in the Arizona Fall League in 2011.

It made me think: We know these guys are great, but how historically great are they? They're both good outfielders, but they're known mostly for their bats. They're also good baserunners. Through last year, his "age 21" season--the season during which he was 21 on June 30--Trout had hit 62 homers and stolen 86 bases. Through his age 20 season, also last year, Harper had 42 homers and 29 stolen bases. How many hitters in major league history have combined that kind of power and speed? Here's the list:

Hitters with 62 HR, 86 SB through age 21: Mike Trout
Hitters with 42 HR, 29 SB through age 20: Bryce Harper

That's it. Nobody else. Not Rodriguez, not Griffey, not Bonds, not Mays. Just Trout and Harper. 

For those of you in LA or Washington, or with subscriptions to mlb.tv or At Bat 14 (note: a Premium subscription to mlb.tv gets you At Bat 14 for free), the Angels and Nationals games start at 7:05 tonight and tomorrow night.

Things I Didn't Know: NL East

In coming weeks, you will have innumerable opportunities to read previews of the upcoming season. I dug through last year's results and came up with items for each team that you probably won't see in the previews but that I thought were interesting.

I started with the NL West and Central. Now, the NL East.

Atlanta Braves, 96-66: So that's why they're giving Craig Kimbrel all that money...Relief pitchers, as a group, are not terribly consistent. A good bullpen one year can be lousy the next. The Brewers were fifth in the NL in reliever ERA in 2011, last in 2012, and third last year. The Dodgers were 14th in 2011, third in 2012, 9th last year. You get the picture. They bounce around. Except the Braves. The Braves have been first, second, and first in reliever ERA the past three seasons. That's amazing consistency. And Kimbrel, who's led the league in saves each of the past three years, has a career 1.39 ERA. You know how many pitchers have an ERA that low through their first four seasons, minimum 200 IP? One guy: Craig Kimbrel.

Washington Nationals, 86-76: The Nats were a team of extremes last year. They had a 24-41 record against teams that finished at .500 or better. No team had fewer wins against such teams. They also had a 62-35 record against teams with losing records. Nobody had more. Part of this was because they play in the NL East, where they were one of only two teams with a winning record, but that was true in the NL West too, and neither the Diamondbacks nor the Dodgers matched the Nationals' dominance of bad teams or inability to beat good ones.

New York Mets, 74-88: The Mets were a losing team last year, but they were the fourth-best road team in the NL last year, one of only four to finish above .500 on the road (41-40). That, of course, meant that they had a losing record at home. Only the Mets and Cubs lost were worse at home than on the road. The Mets were the fourth-best team in the NL on the road and the second-worst at home. Mets fans who wanted to see their team win had to travel. 

Philadelphia Phillies, 73-89: The Phillies scored the third fewest runs in the league last year, 610, which is bad enough, but that figure is inflated by the games they play at home at Citizens Bank Park, a hitters' park, where their 344 runs scored ranked fifth in the league. Which means that on the road...Yeah. Awful. Scored 266 runs; only the Marlins were worse. Fewest road home runs in the league. Second-fewest doubles. This was a terrible offense, masked by the home ballpark.

Miami Marlins, 62-100: The Marlins finished last in the National League East. They had the worst record in the league. They were really bad. So, given my west-to-east order of presentation, they're the last NL team I'll hit. So it's by coincidence, not design, that I saved the best for last: This is the most amazing tidbit I found. THE MIAMI MARLINS HAD THE BEST WINNING PERCENTAGE IN THE NATIONAL LEAGUE WHEN LEADING A GAME AFTER SEVEN INNINGS. I'm serious. Quick, who was their closer? (Steve Cishek, 34 saves) Who were their setup guys? (Mike Dunn, Chad Qualls, A.J. Ramos) How in the world did they win more of the games that they led after seven (41-2, .953 winning percentage) than the Dodgers (71-4, .947), Braves (72-6, .923), Cardinals (86-6, .935), and Pirates 74-5, .937), other than that they played a lot fewer of them? I don't know either. But they did.