Showing posts with label Washington Nationals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Nationals. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The Real Beltway Battle: Camden Yards vs. Nationals Park

By Mark Smith
All you can prove is that I was here, not that I illegally sat here for 6 innings.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been to too many ballparks in my life. Growing up in Louisville, Kentucky is a fairly inconvenient place for such things as Cincinnati’s close but not attractive, St. Louis is farther away and would necessitate an actual trip, and everything else is at least 9 hours away. Add to that my mother’s desire to go to the beach for vacation, and you can see why I haven’t been to many parks. I, however, was in Washington, DC for the past month, and while I was there, I took in 4 games, splitting them between Nationals Park and Camden Yards.

Location: Neither place is in a great part of the city. Camden’s existence has improved the surrounding community, but if you go too far, you’re not in the best parts of town. I went with Chip Buck from Firebrand and IIATMS the first time, and after crossing the bridge right next to the stadium, he said, “Uh oh, I think we’ve gone too far,” and after I asked if I should hide, he replied, “I’ll let you know.” Not exactly reassuring. Nationals Park, however, isn’t much different, but it’s in an earlier stage of development than Camden. Located in Southwest DC, the park is in a bad part of town, but it does have some character with the Navy Yard nearby. After a few years, I expect it will improve in the way Baltimore did.

Tickets: I didn’t go big on the spending department here. We spent $9 the first night at Nationals Park with our Student IDs for a very upper-level seat, and we spent $18 on an upper-deck seat out in right field the next. At Camden, we spent around $20 the first time for an upper-deck seat behind third base and $10 for a seat close to the top the next time (though we may or may not have snuck down behind home plate after the third inning). Neither place was a huge bargain, but Camden might have been a bit cheaper.

Entrance: Camden has a clear advantage here. It’s a nice walk-up to the stadium and through the gates, especially with the prevalence of bricks for character. The warehouse is a pretty awesome sight, and the added plaques that denote home runs hit over the right field fence and into the area is a really nice detail. Nationals Stadium, on the other hand, is rather blah. The walk-up has a few vendors and a construction site look that shouldn’t be there several years after opening. Once you walk in, there’s a vanilla concrete entrance with a couple statues and some Geico and President whatchamacallits (they’re not statues; I guess over-sized bobblehead dolls is the best way to describe it) off to the left. They’re actually pretty cool, but they’re so far back in the corner in a picnic area that I almost missed them entirely.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Jim Riggleman Is Unemployed? Now What?

By The Common Man

The baseball world is still shocked (SHOCKED!) by the resignation of Jim Riggleman earlier today. It's not surprising. After all, most managers don't up and quit in the middle of a season. Many announce their intention to resign at the end of the year, like Jim Leyland did in 1999 or Al Lopez in 1965. Some are asked to resign (or about to be asked to resign), like Edwin Rodriguez this year.  Some were forced to retire for health reasons, like John McGraw in 1932.

But very, very few managers simply up and quit in the middle of the season. Because MLB manager jobs are scarce, and there are lots of candidates.  Riggleman's move seems well timed, as it allows him to appear that he left the Nats in good shape, while distancing himself from their probable decline later this summer.  It frees him up from accepting just a one-year commitment when he might be a candidate for a three-year contract elsewhere.  But is that scenario likely to play out? 

It's difficult to tell.  It's simply a move without much precendent. But there is SOME precedent. So, what can we learn from the past? Can it tells us what the future holds for James David Riggleman? Here are the managers that The Common Man could find who just walked away from their clubs in the middle of the season of their own accord. This list is probably not complete, as its a terribly difficult to identify all the managers who resigned, and then to filter them by those who retired in-season. And then to filter those by who announced their retirement in-season, but finished out the year. We're working with incomplete data. Still, what can we learn?

Monday, February 7, 2011

3 Questions: Washington Nationals

By The Common Man

With Stephen Strasburg on the DL for what should be all of 2011, the Nationals could have been forgiven for sitting out much of this offseason. Instead, they went all in and signed free agent Jayson Werth to a huge contract, and were allegedly players for guys like Cliff Lee, Javier Vazquez, and Carl Pavano as well. They’ve got an eye toward being competitive in 2012 and 2013, but it will be an uphill climb and there are still many questions that need answering. Here are three of them. (As always, you can click here to find more 3 questions previews for your favorite MLB teams.)


Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Your 2012 Washington Nationals

I've been sitting on this idea for a while. Here's a quick look at what the local nine (well, roughly fifteen) might look like on opening day about eighteen months from now, the next time they might plausibly think about fielding a competitive squad, with their 2012 seasonal ages and guesses (where not currently signed) at the salary they might command in that season:

Catcher: Wilson Ramos, 24, near minimum
Ramos had an awful 71 games with the Twins' AAA squad in 2010, and didn't do much in the majors either, but had 20 games with the Nats' AAA team that were eerily similar to his encouraging AAA line in 2009 (.317/.341/.454 in '09, .316/.341/.494 with Syracuse in '10). That -- probably with a lower batting average and much closer to the 2009 SLG -- is right around what you might expect from him in the Majors someday, maybe in 2012. Coupled with reputedly strong defense, that would make him a well above average catcher. Derek Norris entered 2010 as one of the top catching prospects in the game, but batted just .235 (albeit with a .419 OBP) in high-A and is less than a year and a half younger than Ramos.

First Base: Adam Dunn, 32, $12 million
I've actually been dead set against the Nationals re-signing Dunn all along. It's hard for me to believe he's suddenly improved from the worst defender in the league at any position to an average 1B, and I've just assumed that he'd be more valuable to some AL team as a DH. But if 2012 is your goal, I'm not sure there's a better option. The organization's best 1B prospect, Chris Marrero, didn't have a huge year in AA and is pretty much stick-only himself. There are some good ones on the potential free agent list for 2012, but if you can see the Nationals landing Fielder, Gonzalez or Pujols, you should probably just stop reading now, because you and I aren't going to see eye-to-eye on much. If we're making a run at it in 2012, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Dunn is the guy.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Please Make Rob Dibble Go Away

By Bill

I didn't say anything about the Rob Dibble incident last week -- wherein the Nationals' qualifications-free color commentator went off and embarrassed himself, MASN and the Nationals in talking about two women seated behind the plate, including the lines "There must be a sale tomorrow going on here or something....Their husbands are going man, don't bring your wife next time" -- in part because TCM had just riffed a bit on misogyny in baseball the day before and in part because I knew it'd be well covered elsewhere in the blogosphere. And covered it was: Amanda Rykoff put a helpful roundup of all those responses on her blog.

But then yesterday, Dibble made his "apology." The full text of his on-air apology (as presumably transcribed by someone at MASN and circulated by Rykoff) is as follows:
You know, Bob, recently some things have come to my attention that, in cyberspace, some really toxic and hurtful things have been mentioned about me, something I said last week during a baseball game. To anybody that does not know me that was offended, or took offense with what I said in my weak attempt to be humorous during a down time during the game, I truly apologize. That's not truly how I feel about any baseball fan -- men, women, or children. And so I wrote a blog, in my own words, not the words of other people who'd like you to think differently, on MASNSports.com. So, my humble and sincere apology if I offended anybody last week.
The referenced blog post, here, reads much the same way (but probably worse). He tells a story about how he loves his mom, wife, and daughter, who are all baseball fans, and talks generally about how the great thing about the game is that it can appeal to everyone. And then, oh, by the way:
The other night I made an off-handed comment, the meaning of which may have been misconstrued beyond what was said. If any fan of this great game took offense, then he or she should know that this was neither my intention nor my history in the game.
But anyway, read it for yourself, lest Dibble accuse you of getting your information from "other people who'd like you to think differently."

Let's discuss a couple of things that are terribly, terribly wrong with Dibble's "apology."

First, he plays the "poor-me" card. If you start by discussing how you've been the victim of "some really toxic and hurtful things" on the internet, nothing else you're about to say matters at all: that's not an apology. Rob, toxic and hurtful things were said about you because you are a public figure who said an offensive thing on television. Your job now is not to whine about how horribly you've been treated by people who were doing no more than respond to the offensive thing you said; do that to your wife and daughter in front of a baseball game sometime. Your job is to show some sign that you understand that there's a reason that thousands of people are very mad at you right now, and that you're sorry for causing all that.

Also, he apologized for your feelings, not for hurting them. Every public apology seems to go this way, and I just can't imagine why people still seem to think it's okay. It's not a terribly subtle distinction: "I was wrong to say that, and I apologize to those I offended," on one hand, and "if you were offended by what I said, I apologize," on the other. Dibble chose the latter route. You misunderstood, you took what I said the wrong way, you don't know me, but if you were too stupid to get it, I want to humbly and sincerely apologize for that. You know, for your being stupid and all.

Finally, when it comes down to it, he just didn't apologize for anything at all. Look, if you're talking to a group of close friends and someone else overhears, I can buy the "to anybody that doesn't know me" and the "the meaning of which may have been misconstrued beyond what was said" stuff. You, Mr. Dibble, are speaking in a medium the very nature of which is that the great majority of your audience does not know you. They can't apply your peculiar sense of humor or think, "oh, I know Robbie, he didn't really mean that that way." All they can do is interpret what you say in the way that normal, sensible people would interpret those things in a normal conversation with, say, a casual acquaintance.

And the normal, straightforward meaning of what Rob Dibble said was that two women chatting with each other behind the plate at a baseball game were probably talking about shopping and must have been dragged there by their husbands. Because it is clear from the context that Dibble didn't know these particular women, and because he had to pay attention to a baseball game and couldn't possibly have been watching those women the entire game (maybe they were watching the game but talking intently with each other between pitches about Adam Kennedy's BABIP?), the assumption a normal person must make is that Dibble assumes that all women -- or maybe just all women who talk to each other behind the plate at a baseball game, whichever -- care only for shopping and go to ballgames only because their husbands make the mistake of bringing them along.

That being the case, it wasn't our job to avoid "misconstruing" what you said; it was your job, Mr. Dibble, not to say it. Having said it, it was your job to recognize how it sounded (or if you prefer, how easily it could be "misconstrued") and to apologize -- not for the fact that people got offended, but for going on the air and clearly expressing the very views that offended those people. And you failed.

So, I don't know. Is part of this reaction (from me and others) caused by the fact that Dibble is truly terrible at his job, a know-very-little blowhard deemed qualified for the job of saying things into a microphone on TV solely because he used to be able to throw a ball really hard, who mockingly dismisses rational thought at every opportunity?

Well, yes, probably. But then, aren't those characteristics that make Dibble unbearable as a broadcaster more or less the same things that might lead one to say something horribly sexist on the air and then blame you for taking it the wrong way?

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Senatorial History

Earlier this week, of course, Stephen Strasburg gave Washington, D.C. sports fans a reason to get excited about baseball again, striking out 14 batters in 7 innings against the Pirates, while walking none and allowing just four hits. Strasburg’s dominance was a lot of fun, obviously, and The Common Man really hopes that Strasburg’s arrival, coupled with the rise of Ryan Zimmerman, the promotion of Drew Storen, and the drafting of Bryce Harper means that baseball is headed for another long period of stability and success in the nation’s capitol.

What’s that? Another period of stability and success? When we talk about Washington baseball’s past, we tend to focus on the team’s 1961 move from D.C. to Minnesota, and the short-lived expansion team that turned into the Texas Rangers. It’s natural, as anyone who actually saw the original Senators play in Washington would be at least 50 years old now, and these most recent failures are freshest in our memory. But for 60 years, baseball was played in Washington, and while it didn’t always thrive, it survived quite nicely.

True, the Senators were not always good. In fact, at first they were terrible, posting a 610-1008 record, a .377 winning percentage, in their first 11 seasons. They lost 100 games three times, including an incredible 113 in 1904, when they started out 1-16 under manager Malachi Kitteridge. They featured terrible players like Kittridge himself, who hit .219/.277/.274 in his career, as the starting catcher, Hunter Hill (.216/.257/.253) at shortstop, Casey Jones (.233/.276/.304) in the outfield, Muskrat Bill Shipke (.199/.280/.261) at the hot corner, and Bill Cunningham (.208/.271/.301) at 2B.

In 1912, however, prominent manager, and former pitcher Clark Griffith bought a 10 percent stake in the team and was named manager. Griffith added by subtraction, trading catcher Gabby Street (.208/.273/.256) to the Highlanders and the aforementioned Cunningham to Montreal in the International League for Chick Gandil. Gandil was a great pickup, who was immediately installed at 1B, and would post a 116 OPS+ for the next four seasons. The club also picked up 25 year old 3B Kid Foster in an unknown transaction. Foster would play at least 154 games in three of the next four years, and would offer above average offense from what was then a defense-first position. Danny Moeller was also picked up in an unknown transaction, and provided strong on base skills (though he was prone to strike out). The 1912 team improved by 75 runs over the 1911 squad. But even more importantly, the pitching excelled under Griffith, dropping its runs allowed by almost 200, despite not really changing personnel.

The club’s record, obviously, improved tremendously. They won 91 games in 1912, and 90 in 1913. They finished above .500 in each of Griffith’s first four seasons (and missed by a game in 1916), and in five of his first seven. After purchasing the team outright after the 1920 season, Griffith moved upstairs and the team had even more success. From 1921-1933, the Senators finished 1102-887, a .554 winning percentage. More importantly, they went to the World Series three times, winning once (1924). In his tenure as manager and owner, Griffith brought in Hall of Famers Sam Rice, Goose Goslin, and Joe Cronin as youngsters. He made a steal of a trade to get HoFer Stan Coveleski from the Indians for something called Carr Smith and By Speece. He paid a high price in Goslin to acquire another HoFer, Heine Manush and General Crowder, who had the best years of their careers with the Senators. He made canny deals to bring in valuable role players with good on-base skills like catcher Muddy Ruel and SS Roger Peckinpaugh. He also recognized and developed other role players with strong on-base and fielding skills, like 1Bs Joe Judge and Joe Kuhel, 3B Ossie Bluege, and 2B Bucky Harris (who would become a Hall of Fame player-manager with Washington), and 2B Buddy Myer. Griffith was an impressive judge of talent who almost built Washington into a perennial powerhouse.

Alas, the economic realities of the game crept up on Griffith. The Senators drew a high of 817,000 fans in 1925, and finished as high as 2nd in the AL in attendance, in 1933 (with only 437,500 to see a pennant winning team at the height of the Great Depression). Griffith was even forced to sell his son-in-law, Cronin, in 1934 for $225,000. After their third World Series appearance in 1933, the Senators were mostly a below .500 team. They popped above .500 in ’36 (3rd), ’43 (2nd), ’45 (2nd), and ’52 (5th), and only were close to the leader in ’45. It was a dismal stretch that popularized the phrase, “First in war, first in peace, and last in the American League,” though the club finished 8th in the American League only 3 times between the time Griffith joined the club in 1912 and when he died in 1955.

At Griffith’s death, his stake in the club was divided between two of his children, Calvin and Thelma (actually his niece and nephew, who he Clark had adopted after their parents died). Calvin would run the team until 1984. Those last five seasons in D.C. were tough for the Senators, as they finished last three times (all consecutively), 7th three times and 5th once. With attendance falling, Griffith made his famous decision to pack up and leave for Minnesota, who had built a new stadium for the team.

The old Senators were replaced immediately by the new Senators, and it must have been like the old team never left. The club lost 100 games in each of its first four seasons, finished dead last in four of its 11 seasons, and only finished above .500 once (1969).

The new team had constant turnover at an ownership level. General Pete Quesada first owned the team, but sold in less than two years to three men, James Johnston, James Lemon, and George Bunker. In 1965, apparently instituting a James-only policy, Johnston and Lemon bought out Bunker. Finally, in 1969, the two remaining owners sold to Bob Short, which was pretty disastrous. Short, ironically from Minnesota, had previously purchased and moved the Minneapolis Lakers to Los Angeles, so it shouldn’t have been a surprise that Short up and moved the club to Texas at the first chance he got. Indeed, in a Major League-esque plot, he has been alleged (by his own broadcaster, Shelby Whitfield!) to have deliberately sabotaged his team to make moving to Arlington more likely.

By far, the most prominent faces of Washington baseball in the 1960s and 70s were Frank Howard and Ted Williams. Howard arrived in 1965 after the Dodgers became disenamored of his strikeouts and declining power numbers. With Washington, Howard blossomed, regaining much of his lost power immediately, and adding to it. He would lead the American League in homers, with 44, in each of 1968 and 1970. In between, he hit 48. The Capitol Punisher was probably the most feared hitter in the American League, and walked an amazing 132 times in 1970.

Williams was hired by Short immediately after he bought the team in 1969. Given a great deal of free reign, despite never having managed or coached before, Williams was initially very successful. Teddy Ballgame is given a lot of credit for the team’s offensive turnaround, as the Senators improved their scoring by more than a run per game from ’68 to ’69, and the Senators surged to their lone winning season. In actuality, due to expansion and the lowering (and standardization) of the pitching mounds, the American League’s scoring rose by .68 runs per game all on its own. Washington only rose from 7th in the league in scoring (in a 10 team league) to 6th in a 12 team league. What actually helped the Senators immensely was improved pitching. In a pitcher’s league, Washington hurlers gave up 4.13 runs per game in 1968, and gave up 50 runs more than their closest competitor. In a better hitters’ environment, Washington actually dropped its runs allowed by 20, and would finish fifth overall. Most of that improvement came from a couple big steps forward from 22 year old Joe Coleman and 25 year old Dick Bosman, both of whom were excellent in ’69. The bullpen was also much better, thanks to the emergence of Bob Humphreys, Darold Knowles, and Casey Cox, who logged major innings in relief.

Both improvements ended up being a mirage, as the club fell backward on both sides of the ball in 1970. After the season, Short would make the infamous deal that sent the team’s starting SS, 3B, and ace starting pitcher to the Tigers for Denny McLain and change, a deal alleged to have been designed to secure the Tigers’ vote to approve the move. 22 McLain and 96 team losses later, the Senators were no more.

You may have noticed that The Common Man didn’t mention the most prominent player to make his way through Washington in this history lesson. TCM will be back tonight to discuss this player and others in an exploration of other prominent debuts in Washington baseball history, as Washington Week continues here at The Common Man.com.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Nickname Review: Washington Strasburgs...er...Nationals

Well, Happy Stras-mas everyone! The debut of Stephen Strasburg is an exciting and important event, important enough to keep The Common Man from tuning in to at least part of the Twins game tonight. His debut and yesterday’s selection of Bryce Harper in the Amateur Draft also provide a nice excuse for The Common Man to objectively assess the quality of the Nats’ nickname, so that Mrs. Strasburg and Harper know what they’re getting into.

Basic Stats:
Name: Washington
Nickname: Nationals
NicknameTypology: Human
Definition: A citizen or subject of a particular nation who is entitled to its protection (dictionary.com)
Characteristics: unremarkable, faceless, in need of protection

Best thing about being a National:
You know that somebody has your back. Indeed, everyone who qualifies as a national has some government entity who is supposed to ensure that their rights are protected. Some of these government entities, such as the former Soviet Union, do a pretty poor job of it. Others, however, such as the United States and Canada, have historically done a pretty decent job of protecting the rights of their citizens, particularly when those citizens are visiting overseas. It’s reassuring to know that someone, somewhere, will have your back when you get into trouble, which the Nats have been doing for several years now.

Worst thing about being a Nat: Anonymity. In general, the rights of the country from which you hail apply to all citizens of that country. Indeed, there is nothing terribly special about a national, beyond his or her nationality. What TCM is saying is that a prototypical national is Jason Marquis, a guy no one really knows a lot about, isn’t a difference maker, and has been largely forgotten about on the disabled list. With such big time talent coming into the organization, potential stars like Harper, Strasburg, Storen, and Zimmerman will have to do something really noteworthy (like go hiking in Iran, or swimming into Burma) to get really noticed.

More good news: Nationals can have a very strong sense of belonging, which will be important if the Nats want to keep Strasburg and company around for more than the required initial six seasons. If the Nats treat them right, the team’s up and comers will remain loyal, retiring with 348 wins and 620 homers respectively 20 or so years from now. Also, some of the countries that nationals hail from are particularly awesome. TCM has already covered the Yankees, and how being from the U.S. rocks pretty hard. Canada’s also very pretty. TCM’s uncle just came back from the Dominican Republic, which he said was gorgeous. But TCM’s thinking he didn’t make it to the heart of Santo Domingo.

On the other hand: Just because you’re from somewhere awesome, doesn’t mean you yourself are awesome. For instance, Sir Sidney Ponson is from Aruba, and TCM thinks we’re all in agreement that he’s pretty much a waste of a decent right arm. Maybe he’d have been less of a lout if he wasn’t sweating gin. Anyway, it’s also worth noting that, because of the anonymity problems mentioned above (seriously, name a Nat that isn’t Ryan Zimmerman, Adam Dunn, Storen, or Strasburg), nationals will always generate fewer product endorsements than their counterparts. Also, the lack of a real affiliation with each other (all players are nationals, but may be nationals of someplace else) could lead to a lack of team identity and team unity. Finally, the relegation of a human being to a single defining characteristic that only refers to their nation of origin is pretty dehumanizing, isn't it?

Final analysis:
This is tough. It really depends on which country a person is a national of. Some countries (the Sudan, for instance, or North Korea) don’t inspire the kind of awe and reverence that you’d typically like from a national affiliation, and do a piss poor job of respecting the rights of their citizens. Indeed, without more detail, The Common Man would normally forced to give the Nationals an incomplete, and ask them to resubmit by Friday with more detail. If they are unable to provide a better account of themselves, The Common Man is going to have to give them a C-.