Master Index of Archived Threads


The Nats

F'real!

2 votes

They won't make the playoffs, but they'll finish ahead of the Mets

5 votes

They are going to melt this summer like a creamsicle on a DC sidewalk

10 votes

Edgy MD Jul 01 2005 07:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 01 2005 07:41 AM

Clearly, I sorely underestimated these guys. I had in my head the fun but foolish notion that Vinny Castilla was right behind Tony Womack on the list of players you sign when you don't want to succeed. But clearly there's something going on. It's also so typical of DC to go after Guillen after he burned his bridges with Anaheim right before the playoffs. Mike Tyson is such a sociopath maniac that Nevada won't let him fight anymore? Let's get him here! For years the Expos would improve then sell off, improve then sell off, and now they seem to have benefitted from the last (though certainly not the best) harvest of young Expos talent, while suddenly being able to retain that talent and add a few more outside players. I still think their GM is a retrograde old boy, though.

smg58 Jul 01 2005 07:13 AM

The bizarre stat with the Nats is that they've allowed more runs than they've scored, but are something like 20-7 in one-run games. Have they been more lucky than good to date? Can Chad Cordero maintain a sub-1 ERA all season? On the other hand, their best player Jose Vidro is still on the DL, and they're winning like this.

soupcan Jul 01 2005 07:28 AM

Melting. They are drunk with the excitement of a new city, new uniforms, fans, etc. and are feeding off it. As a result they are unbeatable at the Bobby and that is carrying them. Get ready for the hangover.

Johnny Dickshot Jul 01 2005 07:38 AM

They're like 60 games over 500 with a negative run differential! Can't last at least at this rate. Whether they make the playoffs depends some on how the guys chasing them do. Oh, and if they move to improve the O they can win too.

Elster88 Jul 01 2005 08:19 AM

I'll take the fourth option: I have no idea.

Willets Point Jul 01 2005 08:43 AM

My conspiracy theory is that MLB and the 29 teams that own the Nats want the team to as well as possible so they can sell the team for beaucoup bucks. There's probably a flaw in that theory, but that's true of all conspiracy theories.

Rotblatt Jul 01 2005 08:44 AM

Melting. Totally unsustainable but fun to watch. They may very well finish better than us, but I don't think they'll make the playoffs--unless, of course, the rest of the East continues to blow chunks.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 01 2005 09:00 AM

I'm one of the four (so far) who voted for the middle option.

seawolf17 Jul 01 2005 09:09 AM

I'm tempted to think they'll last, but I guess I probably would have picked "I don't know." I feel like the whole team is playing over their heads, and I have to figure they'll fall back to earth. So I picked "melt."

Elster88 Jul 01 2005 09:19 AM

I went with melt too, I didn't want to be left out of the poll.

Rockin' Doc Jul 05 2005 09:23 PM

They seem to be winning with smoke and mirrors. Miraculously, they just keep winning. I just can't see it continuing. Of course, I never saw it coming at the start of the season either.

Bret Sabermetric Jul 06 2005 05:48 AM

Not to be needlessly provocative or anything (what Dickshot refers to as my "caustic fucktard" mode), but if the Mets had the Nats' w/l record and run differential and first place, don't you think the only one around here voting for "melt" would be me? Don't you think you'd be finding a way to explain the record by "guts" or "brains" or "backbone" or "managerial genius" or "desire" or "will-to-win" or "intangibles" or "savvy" or "chemistry' or "cahnfidence" or some other bullshit, and be real mad at anyone who suggested the common sense approach you're rightly applying to the Nats' success? You don't? Then, never mind.

seawolf17 Jul 06 2005 06:06 AM

See, that's because we're Mets fans. If you hop over to the Matt Cepicky Forum, I'm sure that's the way they're explaining it (although they wouldn't get the "caahnfidence" jokes). Part of being a fan is enjoying a club when they're winning, and not waiting for (or expecting) them to fail.

cooby Jul 06 2005 06:16 AM

Seawolf. Give it up.

seawolf17 Jul 06 2005 06:18 AM

I know, I know. I try to let it roll, and sometimes I even agree... but sometimes... you know.

cooby Jul 06 2005 06:20 AM

Just let your eyes glaze over, and skip ahead, buddy. Honest, it works.

Bret Sabermetric Jul 06 2005 07:20 AM

I guess I find it fairly amazing that you're perfectly willing to apply rationality to baseball, but when rational explanations are offered to explain the Mets' performance, you get all insulted. (NB: If you, personally, are not accurately being described by "you" in the preceding sentence, then by all means follow Cooby's dictum and indeed glaze your eyes over and forget all about my existence.)

Benjamin Grimm Jul 06 2005 07:25 AM

soupcan Jul 06 2005 07:34 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Not to be needlessly provocative or anything (what Dickshot refers to as my "caustic fucktard" mode), but if the Mets had the Nats' w/l record and run differential and first place, don't you think the only one around here voting for "melt" would be me? Don't you think you'd be finding a way to explain the record by "guts" or "brains" or "backbone" or "managerial genius" or "desire" or "will-to-win" or "intangibles" or "savvy" or "chemistry' or "cahnfidence" or some other bullshit, and be real mad at anyone who suggested the common sense approach you're rightly applying to the Nats' success? You don't? Then, never mind. I don't, but I'll still address your query. If it were the Mets winning the way the Nats are I'd be so insecure about the ways they were winning that I would certainly doubt their ability to keep it up. Would I be hopeful? Yes absolutely, but unless my team is as deep as Mayor Bloomberg's pockets in an election year I never get overcahnfident in their ability to sustain success.

Frayed Knot Jul 06 2005 07:41 AM

Don't you think you'd be finding a way to explain the record by "guts" or "brains" or "backbone" or "managerial genius" or "desire" or "will-to-win" or "intangibles" or "savvy" or "chemistry' or "cahnfidence" or some other bullshit Sure, because those phrases are passed off as analysis so often 'round these parts.

Bret Sabermetric Jul 06 2005 09:48 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Don't you think you'd be finding a way to explain the record by "guts" or "brains" or "backbone" or "managerial genius" or "desire" or "will-to-win" or "intangibles" or "savvy" or "chemistry' or "cahnfidence" or some other bullshit Sure, because those phrases are passed off as analysis so often 'round these parts. Sarcasm noted, but this is twice in two days you've referred to something happening around here on a regular basis which, in reality, hasn't happpened around these parts in years. In this example, for these phrases to have been posted, the Mets would have had to be playing out-of-their-heads crazy-lucky nothing-up-their-sleeves fantastic ball, a phenomenon about as common lately as a Mo Vaughan RBI

d'Kong76 Jul 06 2005 10:18 AM

Benjamin Grimm Jul 06 2005 10:26 AM

Is that John Candy wearing a bra and eating a strawberry?

d'Kong76 Jul 06 2005 10:55 AM

I suppose it could be. I googled up sourpuss images and got a picture of what I somtimes envisioned a poster from our far far past looked like and now I'm constantly being reminded by another poster of how annoying her act was.

Willets Point Jul 06 2005 11:03 AM

Looks kind of like Screech out of costume.

Frayed Knot Jul 06 2005 11:13 AM

"but this is twice in two days you've referred to something happening around here on a regular basis which, in reality, hasn't happpened around these parts in years. In this example, for these phrases to have been posted, the Mets would have had to be playing out-of-their-heads crazy-lucky nothing-up-their-sleeves fantastic ball, a phenomenon about as common lately as a Mo Vaughan RBI" a) haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about b) not sure I care to find out

Bret Sabermetric Jul 06 2005 11:52 AM

You've got to ask nicer than that.

d'Kong76 Jul 06 2005 12:23 PM

No one asks him anything, yet he answers. At least it's not three paragraphs long.

soupcan Jul 06 2005 12:40 PM

What did I miss? When did Bret go from Stodgy Old Forum Curmudgeon to 'Pool-bic enemy #1?

d'Kong76 Jul 06 2005 12:54 PM

I'm just joking around, don't put any enemy words in my mouth. And thanks for feeding him. Thanks a lot.

cooby Jul 06 2005 12:57 PM

YOU'RE the one who mentioned three paragraphs...

soupcan Jul 06 2005 01:02 PM

To be fair I'm just getting that sense from the masses, not KC in particular. If I'm wrong and I just can't sense the friendly sarcastic banter I apologize for mistakenly lighting a fuse.

d'Kong76 Jul 06 2005 01:07 PM

>>>YOU'RE the one who mentioned three paragraphs...<<< So. Why CAPS?

cooby Jul 06 2005 01:27 PM

Because that is how my PC at work types, all caps

d'Kong76 Jul 06 2005 01:31 PM

CAPS are generally used for yelling and anger. I'm sorry I pointed out Sal's (sometime) use of three paragraphs instead of one sentence. I won't post again for three days. Everyone is ganging up on me. WHY ARE YOU TWISTING THIS INTO ME BEING POOL-BIC ENEMY #1???

seawolf17 Jul 06 2005 01:31 PM

Cooby: WHAT SIZE YOU DO YOU WANT ON THAT SWEATER? HOW ABOUT THOSE SLIPPERS? Customer: Why are you yelling at me? Cooby: I'M NOT YELLING AT YOU. Customer: I'm going to LL Bean.

cooby Jul 06 2005 01:34 PM

KC, I couldn't get mad at you if you tried. Seawolf: I am the one who gets yelled at, about 33 year old blankets splitting in half, sigh...

d'Kong76 Jul 06 2005 02:40 PM

Thanks coob. Didn't mean to lump you in with all the other posters who ignore me and are driving me away from this fine place on a daily basis.

Willets Point Jul 06 2005 02:47 PM

Who ignores you? You're quite un-ignore-able. Especially since you're with that Mr. Met fellow.

d'Kong76 Jul 06 2005 02:54 PM

Everyone. Since "it" happened.

Willets Point Jul 06 2005 02:56 PM

I must have missed "it." I guess this makes me and cooby your only friends.

d'Kong76 Jul 06 2005 03:02 PM

I suppose for now, that's something. It's hard having a stance on "it" that differs from everyone elses, especially when it's so ... I can't put it in words. Thanks for not ignoring me.

ScarletKnight41 Jul 06 2005 03:05 PM

Looks kind of like Screech out of costume. I'm dying here!

cooby Jul 06 2005 03:07 PM

KC wrote: Thanks coob. Didn't mean to lump you in with all the other posters who ignore me and are driving me away from this fine place on a daily basis. Good grief, you mean Edgy still didn't answer that email you sent him about ezboard?

Edgy MD Jul 06 2005 07:00 PM

I've been away from the comp all day. Let me check. No, no new mail from KC.

Elster88 Jul 21 2005 07:53 AM

The Nats just gave the Rockies their first road series victory of the season, and Livan is upset, though apparently no one knows why. [url]http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=250720120 "I'm not happy for three years. After the season, I'm going to tell you" why, said Hernandez, 12-4 with a 3.44 ERA and the unquestioned staff ace. "It's 99.9 percent I'm not going to pitch no more" this season, he said. "I'm done, I think, so let's see what happens. ... I'll go to sleep and I'm going to make a decision tonight."

cooby Jul 21 2005 07:54 AM

Wow, another reason to look forward to October, to see what is troubling Livan!

Edgy MD Jul 21 2005 08:06 AM

Angry with America.

metirish Jul 21 2005 08:11 AM

Surgery for Livan.. http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NAS ... p&c_id=was

Edgy MD Jul 21 2005 10:22 AM

Anybody want to specualate regarding the two sources reporting apparently the same quote oppositely: "I'm not happy for three years. After the season, I'm going to tell you" why, said Hernandez, 12-4 with a 3.44 ERA and the unquestioned staff ace --- espn.com Regarding his anger, Hernandez said, "I've been happy [with this franchise] for three years. This is the best organization. After the season, I'm going to tell you something. Don't worry, I'm going to tell you." --- mlb.com

Johnny Dickshot Jul 21 2005 02:43 PM

Wow, that's great! (the quotes, not the injury). I suppose a follow-up question in Spanish would solve the discrepancy immediately: I can't imagine being a guy who covers pro ball anymore without fluency in Spanish. FWIW, I like Livan Hernandez, and even though I understand him to have Diva tendencies, I hope he's ok. Our relationship got off to a poor start when he was a part of that distastefully built-and-dismantled 97 Marlins team that charged past the genuine and loveable 97 Mets, and he got way too much credit for his early success, but I have grown to admire him in recent years for his old-school durability, the way he picked his career up off the floor upon his exit from San Francisco when nobody believed in him anymore, and for being one of the best arguments in favor of having scoreboards that show the type and speed of pitch because his are so unpredictable.

Edgy MD Jul 21 2005 03:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 21 2005 05:12 PM

I feel the same way. Don't tell him his shoulder looks like spaghetti, just give him the ball and let him throw eight. So, along with the Met wining streak: The Nats are swooning, tinkering, and their top pitcher and workhourse seems to be done. The Braves have Chipper and Hampton back, but the kiddie corps that replaced much of their ailing and failing lineup is, at least partially, falling back to earth Florida has fallen into last place, supposedly have Burnett on the block, possibly have their manager on the block, reportedly are considering re-hiring Jeff Torborg, and may get some eggz on their faces if Al Leiter continues to perform with the Yankees. That still leaves the Phils, but I imagine it's a good a time as any to make a move.

Johnny Dickshot Jul 21 2005 03:11 PM

Phillies were shut-out, and no-hit for 6 innings, by Benson Buncher Odalis Perez, falling behind the Mets and into 4th place. Maybe the Mets plan is to just sit there while the others fall to us.