The Washington Nationals blew an 8-0 lead against the Chicago Cubs on Thursday night, rallied to tie the game at 9, and then lost on a single run — to lose the final game of the team’s set against the Chicago Little Bears, 10-9. The loss was marked by a rare implosion by starter Livan Hernandez, and the Nationals’ bullpen. Hernandez was effective until the 6th, when the Cubs put on a six run push to bring the North Siders to within two. The wind-out-of-the-sails moment  came in that inning when pinch hitter Blake DeWitt put a Hernandez offering off the foul pole in right field.

Even after the DeWitt homer, the Nationals had a chance to win: but reliever Sean Burnett could not hold the surging Cubbies. With Aramis Ramirez on base, Cubs’ first sacker Carlos Pena homered, tying the game at eight. The Cubs scored again, were matched by the Nationals — and then put the game away in the top of the 9th when Darwin Barney doubled, bringing home Tony Campana.

The Thursday loss was particularly disappointing for Nationals’ fans, who have been waiting for the team’s breakout game in a season of close one-run victories. Roger Bernadina (3-6), Danny Espinosa (2-5) Michael Morse (2-5) and Wilson Ramos (1-4) all had big nights at the plate, with Espinosa, Morse and Ramos each contributing two RBIs in the loss. Nats’ manager Davey Johnson blamed himself for the loss, saying that he stuck with Livan Hernandez for too long in the sixth. “I’m going to have a hard time sleeping tonight on that one,” he told reporters following the game.

Those Are The Details, Now For The Headlines: Nationals’ fans can be justly proud of their young and tough up-the-middle combination of Ian Desmond and Danny Espinosa, but Chicago’s shortstop-second base combo might be just as good (or better). While everyone focuses on the wizardry of Cubs’ phenom Starlin Castro, second sacker Darwin Barney is turning into the best second baseman the Cubs have had since the days of Hall of Famer Ryne Sandberg. Then too, (in case you haven’t noticed) Barney is emerging as the N.L.’s “other” rookie second sacker — along with Danny Espinosa.

(more…)

The Washington Nationals have signed Adam LaRoche to a two year contract, solidifying the Nats’ infield for 2011 — and upgrading the team’s defense. The official announcement of the signing is expected to come on Wednesday at Nationals Park. The signing was first reported by Peter Gammons on Twitter, who stated that the “aggressive” Nats had agreed to terms and that LaRoche’s physical would take place on Thursday. According to Mark Zuckerman, LaRoche will be paid $7 million in 2011, $8 million in ’12, with a mutual option worth $10 million (with a $1 million buyout for the Nats) in 2013. LaRoche was widely believed to be asking for a three year deal, but when Derrek Lee signed a one year contract with the Showalters, LaRoche’s options began to disappear, though he had been on the Nats’ radar from the moment that Adam Dunn signed with the Pale Hose.

How good is LaRoche? The lefty first sacker had a good year in Arizona, hitting 25 dingers and driving in 100 runs — and his glove at and around first is a step (or two, or three) above Dunn’s. LaRoche’s UZR at first base is third in the majors and he’s reportedly good in the clubhouse — which could help salve Ryan Zimmerman’s irritation that the front office did not make a more credible play for Dunn. Adam Kilgore, in The Washington Post, quotes Matt Capps as saying that LaRoche is “a great fit” in the clubhouse: “If you can’t get along with Adam LaRoche, you probably don’t have a heartbeat,” Capps is quoted as saying. “He plays hard and gives everything he has every night. What you see is what you get.” LaRoche is a great addition; the only question is whether his .260-.270 BA will be enough for the Nats in the middle of their line-up — a concern for the team, even after the signing of Jayson Werth. The signing of LaRoche does not mark the end of Mike Rizzo’s shopping spree; the Nats still need a front line starter and could use a bat coming off the bench.

Those Are The Details, Now For The Headlines: Ben Goessling says that the Nats are still in the hunt in the Carl Pavano sweepstakes, but the trail strikes us here at CFG (here’s our mascot, for you newcomers, in her winter duds) as getting distinctly cold. Which is only to say, Pavano looked a hell of a lot better in (say) October than he does now. On any given day, Pavano can be an ace, but in any given year he can have his arm surgically removed for . . . whatever. With apologies to our female readers, this is a lot like going out with the prettiest girl in the school — you’re bound to be disappointed. (Really, ask anyone.)The upside of Pavano is that he’ll only cost money (that the Nats say they’re willing to spend), while someone like Matt Garza, or even Joe Blanton, will cost the team a gaggle of younger players or prospects — or both.

Anyone can second guess, but you have to admire a guy like Cards GM John Mozeliak, who had the foresight to trade for Ryan Theriot (for ho-hum reliever Blake Hawksworth), which leaves his options open for acquiring pitching. A guy like Theriot at second or short for the Nats would allow Rizzo a little more flexibility (if you know what we mean) in landing someone like Garza — whose value as a front line starter would outshine anything that either Pavano or Blanton could bring to the mound . . . None of this should detract from Rizzo’s signing of LaRoche: for a minute there (when everyone was abuzz over Carlos Pena), we thought the guy’d lost his touch — Pena cost the North Side Drama Queens $10 million for one year. So here’s our question: What The Hell Were They Thinking?

. . . and last in the N.L. East. The Washington Nationals fell to the Philadelphia Phillies 7-1 at Nationals Park on Wednesday night, but that was hardly a surprise. The surprise came when the cascade of Nats’ fans decided to stream from the park at the end of the game — shunning the last-at-home festivities planned by the Lerners and hosted by the glass-half-full team skipper Jim Riggleman. The departing throng joined those other fans who had left after the seventh inning stretch, knowing that the Half Street Nine were not going to catch the Ashburns, and knowing also that Riggleman & Co. would be recycling the message from last year’s end-of-game spiel — we’ve made great strides, the future is bright, we’ll be better next year (just you wait and see) and, oh yeah, thanks for coming. It’s not that the words weren’t heartfelt (they were), it’s simply that a large host of Nats fans (defined as those in the ballpark not rooting for the Ponies), are more skeptical than ever.

The Wisdom Of Section 1-2-9: Perhaps skeptical isn’t the right word. Cynical might be better. The section, at least last night, was livable — there were lots of Phillies fans in attendance, but they seemed mild in comparison with other nights. “They’ve clinched it, so they don’t have to be the selfish, rude and insulting little sh–s they always are ,” a fan said so every P-sketched hat would hear it. “Hard to blame them though when they’re invited in and there are plenty of seats.” A Nats fan sporting a Zimmerman jersey responded by raising his voice. “Yeah, maybe so. But you don’t see us doing this in Philadelphia.” This brought a laugh: “Three reasons. There aren’t that many of us. Citizens’ Bank is sold out. And why make the trip when ‘you can buy a family fun pack?’” More laughter — and then a general silence until the third inning, when it was clear that Ross Detwiler was going to pitch like . . . Ross Detwiler. So who’s going to be out there next year? “There’s Marquis and there’s Hernandez,” a fan said with practiced assurance. And nods, before a lone voice with a single question: what about Lannan? And then the low murmur amid the silence. “What about him?”

They’re either going to sign Dunn or sign a replacement free agent, one fan said. A fan next to me guffawed. “Why would the Lerners do that?” he asked. “Listen, this is real simple. They’re making a profit and they’re not doing anything special — and they can always count on Philadelphia fans to fill the park. Or Braves fans. Or Mets fans. Or Cub fans. They [the owners] really suffer when the Astros come to town.” Another fan shook his head. “I hear they’re interested in [signing] Carl Crawford, or Carlos Pena.” Another guffaw as a woman two rows down smiled to herself, then turned and shook her head. No way. Another fan, still in his business suit, agreed. “Carl Crawford? C’mon. Here’s what they’ll do. They’ll say that they offered Adam Dunn a contract for three years and he wanted four. And he’ll be gone. And Michael Morse is cheap. He can play first. Maybe we’ll resign Willie Harris.” A fan with a Phillies hat, listening, nodded his head. “He just needs to get his swing back,” he said — and there was more laughter.

In the fourth inning, The Racing Presidents stood in a line holding farewell signs in tribute to Stan Kasten. “We’ll Miss You Stan,” the signs read, and the crowd rose to give the outgoing Nats’ president a standing ovation. There was disbelief among the three Nats fans one row back. “Yeah, we love you Stan. But the Lerners? Not so much.” So then it started in earnest, in the 6th and 7th innings, as the fans in 1-2-9, now in the swing of things, compared notes, position-by-position. Nyjer Morgan? “Really? Give me a break. He’s gone.” Roger Bernadina? “He plays center, Willingham is in left and Morse plays right.” And at first? Silence on this, and then a consensus. “They’ll sign someone like Pena, he’s cheaper, but don’t worry — they’ll say they did it because he’s better defensively.” An unheard from voice chipped in: “He’ll break his league in May.” Nods and more nods. But then everyone agreed: Desmond and Espinosa were set up-the-middle and the bullpen was solid. A voice in the back piped in: “Riggleman says Batista is an innings eater.” The man next to me nodded. “Innings eater is code for ‘he’s not very good,’” he said.

By the 9th inning (and really, even before), the reality had set in. The game was lost, the Nats were headed to New York to finish the season, and once again Washington was in last place. It’s hard to deny the facts and Nats fans don’t really need a graph to chart the future, or understand the present. But for those of us who like these kinds of things, here’s a graph of just where this franchise stands. It recently ran in the New York Times and comes to us by way of our friends at Nats Triple Play.

Putting A Price Tag On Winning

From 2001 to 2010, the Yankees spent 42 percent more than the second-highest spender, Boston, and have also won more games than any other team — 6 percent more than Boston. Some of the lowest-spending teams, like Kansas City and Pittsburgh, were also among the worst. But there have also been some notable exceptions. Teams below the line, including Baltimore, Detroit and the Mets, have won less than might be expected. Teams above the line, including Florida, Minnesota and Oakland, have won more. Black outlines indicate teams that won a World Series in the last decade. Boston won two, and the 2010 World Series has yet to be played.

Jim Riggleman & Company have a lot to think about over the next few months, not the least of which is how to improve the Nats sloppy defense — first in the majors in errors — and what to do with Adam Dunn. The two are closely related, particularly given the questions being raised about Dunn’s prowess at first base. Ben Goessling (in “The Goessling Game“), focused on Dunn’s defense in his latest blog, noting that the Nationals “have made no secret of the fact that Dunn’s defense is the main thing they’re still evaluating when deciding whether to give the 30-year-old a contract extension.” But Goesseling praises Dunn for making the successful switch to first base, implying that his defensive play has been one of the surprises of the year: “To Dunn’s credit, he’s improved markedly at first base this season, becoming a slightly below-average fielder instead of an anemic one,” Goessling writes.

Goessling isn’t the only one praising Dunn. Over at SI, Joe Sheehan provides a list of players who are among the worst defensive players in the game (Yuniesky Betancourt, Brad Hawpe, Hanley Ramirez, Andre Eithier and Ryan Braun), while noting that Dunn “has adapted well” to being moved from the outfield to first base “showing good hands if limited range.” Dunn’s successful shift is unusual, Sheehan writes: “It’s rare that a player can move to first base and increase his value, but Dunn has done so.” So if Goessling and Sheehan are impressed with Dunn — and if the big guy from Texas is ripping the cover off the ball (and he is) — what’s the problem? Well, the problem seems to be Friday night in Philadelphia, when Dunn’s lack of range hurt him in getting to a ball stroked down the right field line and where the big man’s size limited his stretch to snag a ball thrown by Ian Desmond. The Goessling-Sheehan notes on Dunn are now the subject of some attention on the web (as MLB Trade Rumors runs through the Nats’ first base options) and increased questions over the utility of “defensive stats.”

So  . . . how concerned should the Nats be with Adam Dunn’s defense? Dunn has made seven errors in 116 games playing first for the Nats, a statistic that actually reflects the common judgment that Dunn is a below average first baseman. Derrick Lee has made six errors (in 106 games), while Joey Votto has just four in 112 games. Lee and Votto ought to be considered the class of the league (Lee is tall, agile with lots of range; Votto is young and tough with great leaping ability), but the best in baseball (at least according to this single, and admittedly limited, “errors and chances” measure) might well be Friars’ first sacker Adrian Gonzalez who seems to have everything — agility, range, height and experience. Gonzalez has just five errors in 118 games, and he’s there, day-in and day-out. Which is not to mention Albert Pujols (with just three errors), who has everything that Gonzalez has (but perhaps not as much agility), or James Loney (a Gonzalez without the range, it seems to me) — with an astonishingly nearly perfect three errors in 122 games.

So the critics are right: Adam Dunn is an average to below-average first baseman: he ranks below Derrick Lee, Joey Votto, Adrian Gonzalez and James Loney, is on a par with Atlanta’s gimpy and aging Troy Glaus, but is a ton better than either Arizona’s Adam LaRoche (10 errors in 112 games) or Philadelphia’s Ryan Howard — whose defensive gaffes are legendary (11 errors in 101 games). The problem with all of this is that defensive stats don’t really tell us a lot, which is why Sabermetricians have struggled to come up with better ways of measuring defensive prowess. But, as Tim Marchman noted recently, the statistical models are controversial, contradictory, and often fly in the face of common sense. In truth, it’s nearly impossible to compare Dunn’s defense to Pujols’ or Loney’s or anyone elses, because only Dunn offers a glove to Ian Desmond — whose lack of experience regularly (viz. Friday night in Philly), makes Dunn look like Adam LaRoche (whose own shortstop, Stephen Drew, throws baseballs as naturally as the rest of us eat chicken).

That’s not to say that fans of Adam Dunn should ignore his defensive woes, or refuse to admit them. It’s only to note that, when it comes to Dunn (and anyone else playing in the field), defensive stats will either only confirm what we already know (do we really need a raft of stats to tell us that Adam Dunn lacks range, experience and agility), or will stand as a confusing single data point in an overall picture (Colin Wyers over at Baseball Prospectus points this out, and pretty convincingly). Which leads us back to where we started — with this single question: do Adam Dunn’s offensive stats (his home run, OBP and RBI totals) compensate enough for his defensive woes to make Riggleman and Rizzo think about signing him for a few more years? The answer, as always, depends on the option — of whether Dunn’s prospective replacement will improve the Nats defense so markedly that they can live without the 40 or so home runs that the Texan will hit.

Ben Goessling says that the Nats are thinking along these lines, by considering Carlos Pena as a useful replacement for Dunn at first. Pena has the same kind of pop (39 home runs last year, 46 in 2007), and while he’s more experienced and more agile at first, it’s hard to argue that he’s actually better defensively (10 errors in 133 games in 2009). Perhaps more importantly, it’s hard to argue that Pena’s more resilent. The savvy Tampa first sacker sat out most of 2005 and nearly all of 2006 with injuries, is known to be plagued by an inexplicable June injury bug — and has been hit with broken fingers, pulled hamstrings and swollen foots. And Adam Dunn? The last time that Adam Dunn had any kind of injury at all (knock wood, right now, and knock it hard) was 2003. Over the course of the last seven seasons, Dunn has played in (count ‘em) 161, 160, 160, 152, 158, 158 and 159 games. That’s the real stat, the one that matters. In comparison, in that same stretch, Carlos Pena played in 131, 142, 79, 18 (18!), 148, 139 and 135 games. Nearly a full season less. Maybe Pena is better at first. Maybe. But it’s hard to make an error when you’re sitting on the bench.

So if all of this is true, what’s all the hubbub about Adam Dunn? And why, now, are we suddenly hearing about Carlos Pena? The answer might be that the Nats really do want to get better defensively — and they think the way to do that is to replace their 40 homers a year guy with a player (like Pena) with a puzzling history of nagging injuries. Or maybe, just maybe, all of the complaints about Dunn’s fielding have nothing to do with his defense at all. After all, there seems to be a trend here, and it has more to do with the bottom line than booted balls — and should be perceptible to anyone who pays close attention: when the Washington Nationals’ front office starts talking about replacing Dunn’s below-average glove at first base, what they’re really talking about is replacing his big salary in the accountant’s book.