Quick reaction to the Nationals “firing” Dusty Baker 

I’m not surprised very often when it comes to Nationals. Most big events–free agent signings, trades, firings–are telegraphed ahead of time or rational responses to a known series of events. 

But Dusty getting the axe?  That surprised me.

Maybe it shouldn’t have. Dusty managed the entire season on the last year of his contract–a highly unusual circumstance. But I attributed that to the Lerners being the Lerners.  They always have an unusual way of doing business.  I assumed Dusty would come back as long as the Nationals kept winning. And they did keep winning. Two divisions titles in two years–the only Nationals manager to that, doing what Davey Johnson and Matt Williams should have done considering the talent they managed. 

The story will come out and this will be explained, but one thing is clear: this is Mike Rizzo’s team. When Dusty was hired, I made the observation that Rizzo’s sterling reputation as GM is most marred by questionable managerial hires. He’s back to square one. I said this last time and I’ll say it again: how many chances does he get to find the right guy? 

Advertisements

Another year, another NLDS loss for the Nationals

I wrote this in October 2016:

Here we are.  Again.  Another division championship ultimately means nothing as another team celebrates on the Nationals home field.

Now we’re here again.  Another Game 5 loss at home, again by one run.  It’s harsh to say, as I did last year, that the division title “means nothing.”  Winning the division is always an achievement.  But now it’s four attempts–and four failures–to win a playoff series.  It’s getting old.

This was an epic series with some pretty epic moments, but let’s start with Game 5, one of the most infuriating games imaginable.  Consider the Cubs scored scored on:

-A ground ball

-Another ground ball

-A passed ball

-4 runs in one inning off the best pitcher in the league, including one off a strikeout/passed ball/throwing error and one off a hit batter following a catcher interference–all with 2 outs

-A ball Jayson Werth lost in the lights

-Another ground ball

Also, the Cubs had six walks.

Meanwhile,

-Trea Turner was thrown out at home

-Ryan Zimmerman left 7 men on base by striking out 3 times

-Zimmerman didn’t score from first base on a double hit over the left fielders head with 2 outs

-Matt Wieters left the bases loaded by flying out after Dusty Baker decided not to pitch hit, when Adam Lind and Howie Kendrick were available

-Jose Lobaton was picked off at first base, ending an 8th inning rally with the tying run on 2B

To be fair, the Cubs made a ton of mistakes too–the Nats did not have monopoly on sloppy baseball.  But if this team played even a moderately fundamental baseball game, they’re on a plane to LA tomorrow.

Series are not lost in one day, however.  This team was in a do or die situation because their bats failed to show up in Game 1 and 3.  A baseball team cannot score 0 runs in one game, 1 run in another, and then give up 9 runs in another and expect to win a 5 game series.  These short series are unforgiving and leave no margin for error, as the Nationals know by now.

It’s all so infuriating because this is a huge waste.  They wasted Harper’s heroic home run in Game 2.  They wasted Strasburg’s epic performance in Game 4.  They wasted Michael A. Taylor’s grand slam at Wrigley and 3-run homer in Game 5.  Most importantly, the wasted a potential World Series run with the top three pitching ERAs in the league and an explosive lineup.  This was likely the most dangerous and complete Nationals team yet, and they didn’t get any closer than the previous versions.

There is a whole offseason to think about the player failures and managerial decisions that led to this outcome.  But for now, I’m tired so I’ll leave you with the same thing I wrote exactly one year ago.

The Nats came close, but not close enough.  The best part is we get to do it all again.  Pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training next February. 

Why is everyone so outraged about the Strasburg situation?

Nature–and the MLB postseason–abhor a vacuum. So it was only natural that a day filled with zero baseball games, yesterday, would lead to unecessary drama. 

The Nationals announced yesterday that Stephen Strasburg would not start Game 4. Dusty Baker’s press conference regarding the issue was confusing. I wrote about that yesterday. But that’s Dusty’s style, and to be honest, this decision wasn’t made by him anyway, which explains why he had trouble explaining it. 

Mike Rizzo stepped in right away, however, and was actually pretty honest about the situation. Stephen Strasburg was sick, and the team had a decision to make. Were their chances of winning Game 4 greater with an ill Strasburg or a healthy Tanner Roark?  They decided Roark, and made the the announcement, which they were required to make by MLB. Some may disagree with this decision. Strasburg is the ace, and they want him on the mound no matter his condition. This is fine. You can disagree, but I’m not sure you have a right to be outraged.  As Rizzo noted on the radio. He’s trying to win too.

Nor does anyone have the right to be outraged at Strasburg. He didn’t fly home. He didn’t tell the team he wasn’t pitching. He went out and showed the team what he had in his bullpen session. Mike Rizzo, who is paid to make these decisions, thought a fully healthy Roark gave them a better chance to win. 

The biggest outrage here seems to be the team’s “poor communication.”  I concede Dusty’s pressure didn’t really settle the issue, but other than making their manager skip the league-mandated press conference, I’m not sure what else the team could have done. They were honest, which is probably what threw off the media and public. They didn’t think Strasburg could make the start. Today, he felt well enough to do so, and the Nats adjusted accordingly. 

Some suggest the Nats should have done the opposite, named Strasburg the starter and then switched to Roark if Stephen’s condition did not improve. I suppose this could have been a viable option, but is it really a better one? What happens when they name Strasburg the starter but then word leaks he’s sick and Roark was informed by the team to be ready to pitch? Doesn’t that lead to a bigger circus? It doesn’t eliminate the uncertainty, and it adds a level of deceit to the Nats’ actions. 

The Nats had a bad situation. Their number one starter was questionable to pitch. The Nats had two options. They chose to be honest. The fact that people are so outraged about that speaks more poorly of us than it does them. 

Edit: apparently the Nats weren’t required to name a starter by MLB. Even if that’s true, it still makes sense to announce Roark the night before. It is not ideal for the likely starting pitcher to go to bed having no idea whether he’ll pitch. 

Who decided to start Tanner Roark over Stephen Strasburg and why?

If I were the type of person to pray about baseball, I would have prayed for rain.  Instead, I spent all day studying the Chicago weather reports like I normally do the Nationals Baseball Reference page.  Sure enough, nature gave us a reprieve.  A rain delayed Game 4 meant a chance for the Nats to start Stephen Strasburg on full rest rather than Tanner Roark.  Yesterday, I imagined lightly hit fly balls off Roark getting carried over the fence by the Wrigley Field wind.  Today, I pictured Strasburg striking out 10 Cubs in route to a series-saving win to force a Game 5.

We got the rain, but Dusty is starting Roark anyway.  Calling this decision a roll of the dice doesn’t even begin to describe the fallout if the Nats lose a Roark-started Game 4.  This is a season-defining and possibly tenure-defining move by Dusty Baker.  Strasburg is the ace with a $175 million dollar contract.  He is rested and available.  The possibility of the season ending with him sitting on the bench, unused, is unthinkable.

At first, this appeared to be another shaky decision from a manager already operating with a postseason credibility deficit.  The Nats lost a late lead in a 2-1 Game 3 loss without either of their best relievers seeing the mound.  Starting Roark instead of Strasburg seemed like another questionable inside-the-box move from a manager who doesn’t seem to grasp the win-or-go-home mentality of the MLB postseason.

But then something odd happened at the press conference where Dusty announced Roark would start.  Baker couldn’t explain the decision.  First, Strasburg threw a bullpen session on Tuesday, so he wasn’t available on Wednesday.  Then, starting Roark was always the plan because they have full confidence in him.  Then, Strasburg was “under the weather” and there was mold in the hotel (you couldn’t make this stuff up).  Then, the team later felt the need to clarify that Strasburg threw his bullpen on Monday and could pitch on Wednesday but won’t because he is ill.

Perhaps this is Dusty being Dusty.  He doesn’t always give the clearest answers in press conferences, mainly because he’s been on this damn Earth longer than you and he doesn’t feel like he has to explain himself.  Maybe there’s a combination of factors, which led to the multiple explanations.  Maybe Dusty is just stubborn and dead set on making a huge mistake and everyone–club included–is trying to save face.  Or perhaps this a false flag operation, and everyone in Nats management is laughing their asses off right now.

The most troubling of all is that Dusty couldn’t adequately explain the decision because he didn’t make it.  Did Rizzo dictate it?  Did Strasburg or–gulp–Boras pull the plug?

I’m asking a lot of questions right now because I don’t have answers.  There’s a disturbing pattern of this franchise prematurely exiting the playoffs while their best weapons remain in the arsenal.  History has been repeating itself this series.  For Dusty’s sake, and ours, I hope it doesn’t happen again.