Spring-Training Divisional Outlook: National League East
Previous editions: AL East.
As we sit in the midst of a sneaky good stretch on the sports calendar, with early round WBC and football free agency action underway, it’s time to continue looking ahead to the regular season with the second of six divisional previews.
As we did with the AL East last week, we will use 2016 batted-ball data to get a feel for the true offensive, pitching and defensive talent of all 30 clubs, while reviewing key player movement and under-the-radar strengths and weaknesses that could make the difference in their respective 2017 campaigns. Today, the NL East.
We’ll start it off with a table that will serve as the backbone of our analysis:
| 2016 | BIP B AVG | BIP B SLG | BIP P AVG | BIP P SLG | BAT K% | BAT BB% | PIT K% | PIT BB% | DEF MULT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAS | 0.334 | 0.550 | 0.314 | 0.506 | 20.2% | 8.6% | 24.5% | 7.8% | 105.0 |
| NYM | 0.320 | 0.536 | 0.330 | 0.528 | 21.3% | 8.5% | 23.0% | 7.2% | 105.6 |
| MIA | 0.327 | 0.490 | 0.329 | 0.518 | 19.8% | 7.3% | 22.4% | 9.7% | 97.5 |
| PHL | 0.318 | 0.503 | 0.333 | 0.550 | 23.0% | 7.1% | 21.1% | 7.6% | 101.9 |
| ATL | 0.318 | 0.491 | 0.328 | 0.538 | 20.0% | 8.1% | 19.6% | 8.8% | 96.6 |
| NL AVG | 0.326 | 0.528 | 0.326 | 0.528 | 21.5% | 8.3% | 21.4% | 8.4% | 99.6 |
The first four columns indicate how each team “should have” performed at the plate and on the mound if each batted ball generated league-average results for its exit-speed and launch-angle “bucket.” The next four columns list each club’s offensive and defensive K and BB rates.
The last column represents each club’s Defensive Multiplier. This measures each club’s defensive performance compared to its opposition over 162 games. Using granular BIP data, each team’s actual AVG and SLG (excluding home runs) was compared to the projected levels (as described in the previous paragraph) for such BIP, both on offense and defense. This essentially isolates the contributions of pitching from those of team defense. If a club out-defended its opponents, its Defensive Multiplier is below 100. If a club was out-defended, its multiplier is above 100.
Color-coding is used above to note significant divergence from league average. Red cells indicate values that are over two full standard deviations above league average. Orange cells are over one STD above, yellow cells over one-half STD above, blue cells over one-half STD below, and black cells over one STD below league average. Ran out of colors at that point. Variation of over two full STD below league average will be addressed as necessary in the text below.
Next, let’s convert the above data into run values, perform some Pythagorean magic, and come up with a series of projected win-loss records: (a) on only each club’s BIP hit/allowed, (b) further adjusted for K and BB for/against, and (c) further adjusted for team’s Defensive Multiplier. This third projection represents the club’s true-talent W-L record for 2016. For comparative purposes, each club’s 2016 actual and Pythagorean records are listed:
| 2016 | BIP W-L | K/BB ADJ | DEF ADJ | ACT W-L | PYTH W-L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAS | 93-69 | 101-61 | 97-65 | 95-67 | 97-65 |
| NYM | 80-82 | 85-77 | 81-81 | 87-75 | 87-75 |
| MIA | 76-86 | 78-84 | 80-82 | 79-82 | 78-83 |
| PHL | 70-92 | 67-95 | 65-97 | 71-91 | 62-100 |
| ATL | 71-91 | 71-91 | 73-89 | 68-93 | 67-94 |
Let’s make some broad observations about each club’s 2016 performance utilizing the data in the two tables above.
The Washington Nationals were clearly the class of the division in 2017, from just about any angle of observation. With Bryce Harper and Jayson Werth enduring off seasons, and Joe Ross and Stephen Strasburg’s seasons truncated by injury, they still hit the ball harder than, and limited contact authority far better than any other team in the division. It wasn’t just the usual suspects getting it done; even subpar performer Ryan Zimmerman hit the ball quite hard, while stealthily effective Tanner Roark muted opposing contact. On batted balls alone, this was an exceptional club, with a projected 93-69 record.
Adding back the Ks and BBs makes them markedly better. The Nats were measurably better than league average in three of these four team metrics, over a half STD better in offensive K rate and pitching BB rate and over a full STD better in pitching K rate. Again, their excellence in these areas extends beyond the Max Scherzers and Strasburgs; Daniel Murphy’s low K rate and Ross’ K and BB rates deserve plaudits, as well. With Ks and BBs baked in, the 2016 Nats are now a 101-61 club.
Team defense was the Achilles’ heel of the 2016 Nats. Their overall 105.0 team Defensive Multiplier was second worst in the division and in the NL. The issue was particularly acute in the outfield, as the club posted a poor 123.6 multiplier on fly balls. Trea Turner was out of position in center field, and Werth was a liability in left. Defense knocked four wins off of the Nats’ 2016 projection, dropping them to 97-65, two games better than their actual mark.
On batted balls alone, the 2016 New York Mets were an exceedingly average ball club. They were fairly close to league average in all four team BIP metrics, over one-half STD above average in projected batting average allowed and over one-half STD below average in projected offensive batting average. On BIP alone, the Mets were an 80-82 club.
The average-ness extends to team offensive K and BB rates. The only reason the Mets were a playoff club last season was their pitching staff’s K and BB excellence. Noah Syndergaard, Jacob deGrom and friends posted a cumulative K rate over a half STD better, and a BB rate over one full STD better than league average. This adds five games to the club’s projection, up to 85-77.
The Mets’ team defense was the only one in the NL that graded out worse than the Nats according to my method. The Mets’ biggest problem was in the infield, where they posted a 111.2 Defensive Multiplier on grounders, worst in the NL. The many players manning the infield corners were the primary culprits, as the five guys logging the most innings at first and third base posted negative UZR marks. Defense lops four wins off of the Mets’ projection, dropping them to 81-81, six games shy of their actual mark.
Anything that happened on the field for the Miami Marlins last season was overshadowed by the tragic loss of Jose Fernandez in the campaign’s waning days. On balls in play alone, their offense was a maelstrom of the thunderous contact provided by Giancarlo Stanton and Christian Yelich, mixed with the hunt-and-peck stylings of Dee Gordon and Ichiro Suzuki. Their projected offensive SLG was over a full STD below league average, the primary driver of their projected 76-86 record on BIP alone.
The addition of Ks and BBs into the mix was a slight net positive for the club. Their low offensive and high pitching K rates were both over one-half STD better, while their offensive and pitching BB rates were over one full STD worse than league average. Ks matter a little more than BBs, so two wins are added to the 2016 projection at this stage, raising their record to 78-84.
The club’s Defensive Multiplier of 97.5 was a bit better than league average and was directly attributable to strong performance from the infield on grounders (79.7 multiplier, best in the NL). Adeiny Hechavarria is an underrated defensive star at shortstop who can be a true breakthrough player with subtle enhancements on offense. With team defense added in, the Fish’s projection rises to 80-82, one-half game better than their actual 2016 performance.
If ballgames were decided on BIP alone, it wouldn’t have been a pretty sight in Philadelphia last season. The club was below average in all four team metrics. They finished over a full STD below in projected offensive and defensive AVG and also defensive SLG. From a glass-half-full perspective, the main driver of these poor results was a poor liner rate on both sides of the baseball. The Phils finishes 13th and 15th, respectively, in the NL in liners for and against, and liner rates are quite volatile from season to season. On BIP alone, this was a 70-92 club.
Adding Ks and BBs into the equation did not help the 2016 Phillies. This was almost totally due to the club’s poor offensive K and BB rates, which were both the worst in the East and over a full STD worse than NL average. The departure of Ryan Howard (and hopefully the arrival of J.P. Crawford) should help quite a bit here, though admittedly it will hurt a bit with regard to offensive BIP authority. Incorporation of K and BB into the mix drops the Phils’ projection by three games to 67-95.
The Phils’ Defensive Multiplier sits squarely in the league average range at 101.9, with no meaningful variance from league norms on either fly balls and grounders. Consideration of the defensive data drops the Phils’ projection fractionally to 65-97, six games shy of their actual 2016 record and more in tune with their 62-100 Pythagorean mark.
On BIP alone, the Braves weren’t a whole lot different than the Phils, rating a tad bit worse offensively (both projected AVG and SLG over a full STD below league average) and slightly better on the mound (projected SLG over one-half STD worse than average). What’s a bit concerning here is that the Braves’ offensive numbers, which are independent of the pitcher-friendly nature of Turner Field, were so bad despite the presence of one of the game’s best baseball-impactors in Freddie Freeman. On BIP alone, this was a 71-91 club.
Adding Ks and BBs into the mix doesn’t materially affect the Braves. Their low offensive K rate was a modest strength, while their pitching staff’s K and BB rates were modest weaknesses. They hope that an additional year of experience for their kids, plus the addition of vets Bartolo Colon and R.A. Dickey, will help matters. It might on the BB side, but not with the whiffs. The club’s projection remains unchanged at 71-91 after the addition of the K/BB data.
Very quietly, the Braves’ defense grades out as the best in the division according to my method, which is in disagreement with most publicly available metrics. This is due to a strong 88.9 Defensive Multiplier on fly balls — thanks largely to the inimitable Ender Inciarte. Unfortunately, he will be flanked by Matt Kemp for a full season in 2017, which will make that number difficult to repeat. The defensive data adds a couple wins to the Braves’ projection, up to 73-89, four-and-a-half games above their actual 2016 record.
Now, let’s look forward. Below are the current Fangraphs projection, as of Wednesday afternoon:
| 2017 | FANGRAPHS |
|---|---|
| WAS | 91-71 |
| NYM | 85-77 |
| MIA | 78-84 |
| ATL | 73-89 |
| PHL | 71-91 |
While last week’s subject, the AL East, might be the best division in baseball, the NL East is at the other end of the spectrum. There is a measureable chance that there might only be one .500 team in the group.
Let’s briefly discuss some key issues – and some of the important changes from 2016 — for each club below:
Washington Nationals
A lot to report here: Matt Wieters replaces Wilson Ramos behind the dish, while the club thinned out its pen by letting Mark Melancon walk and its minor-league system by dealing high-end talent for Adam Eaton. It’s win-now time, with urgency, in Washington.
The front-line talent is excellent. There’s even reason to be optimistic about 2016 non-achievers such as Ryan Zimmerman and Jayson Werth, who both deserved much better offensive fates based on their exit-speed and launch-angle data. Harper should bounce back, and Anthony Rendon appears ready to take the next step toward stardom. They’re all in, however, and have little depth behind their front line. The bullpen is a particular area of concern, more so for the playoffs than the regular season. They are the clear pick to win the East, but success or failure will be determined by their October performance.
New York Mets
The Mets are apparently quite satisfied with the status quo entering the 2017 season. They were the only club to enter spring training with no players on their 40-man roster who were in another organization at the end of the 2016 season. That might not be a big deal if they didn’t have such an obvious boondoggle of an outfield situation. There’s no way on earth that Michael Conforto should enter 2017 without at least the large half of a platoon in his back pocket, but that’s not the way things stand at present.
With David Wright‘s ongoing injury woes and the general uncertainty surrounding Jose Reyes, third base could be an issue, and the clock should be ticking on Jay Bruce’s tenure in right field. The starting-pitching depth is quite exceptional, but they might again need every bit of it, with no guarantees surrounding the near-term availability of Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler. My gut tells me that this is a retrenchment year for the Mets; by next March, Amed Rosario might be in place, Conforto will be a mid-order fixture, and they can build from there. Second place should be expected, but I think 85 wins is a bit high.
Miami Marlins
The loss of Fernandez hits the Marlins hard on the field and in the heart, and will affect them for years. The Marlins again trot out a very strong, though small, nucleus of exciting young stars such as Stanton, Yelich and Marcell Ozuna. None of them are pitchers, however, and their farm system is as barren as can be. An injury to any one of those outfielders means tons of at-bats for Ichiro, which is cool and all, but isn’t going to help these guys win.
There is plenty of quantity, including free-agent signee Edinson Volquez, in the competition for rotation slots, but it’s reasonable to question whether there is a No. 1-3 starter anywhere in the system. Their pen is versatile and somewhat deep, and it will need to be. Justin Bour is healthy and ready to shore up first base, and Hechavarria’s batted-ball data suggests he’s closer to a poor man’s Elvis Andrus offensively than the automatic out he was in 2016. If Yelich and Stanton are MVP candidates, they could contend for a Wild Card spot, but those odds are slim. I see them bobbing somewhere between 75-78 wins, battling to hold off the two young upstarts behind them.
Atlanta Braves
I’m going to put it right out there: I just don’t get the love the baseball media has bestowed upon this organization of late. Sure, they fleeced the D-backs in the Shelby Miller deal. Kudos to them for that. I like their farm system, but in my humble opinion it’s not quite a top-five group, let alone the consensus No. 1. Too much of their high-end talent resides in the lowest levels, with little track record. This is a key year for the big club, as they move into a new stadium and attempt to build a bridge from their Colon-Dickey present to a winning future.
Potential holes are aplenty. Catching won’t be one of them if Tyler Flowers, who deserves 350 plate appearances to show what he can do, gets the opportunity. The husk of Brandon Phillips will play second base, relegating better option Jace Peterson to the bench. Adonis Garcia has done nothing to show he’ll be a quality starting starting third baseman, and Matt Kemp will give away any offensive contribution he makes with his glove. Some might consider Nick Markakis another potential hole, but I like his high-floor, modest-upside package. Batted-ball data to this point also suggests that Dansby Swanson is more of a tomorrow than a today guy. The 2017 season will be during wihch this program gets a dose of reality. Last place with about 70 wins sounds about right.
Philadelphia Phillies
Here’s another club that won quite a bit in the not-too-distant past that’s trying to find its way back home. As with the Braves, this is a key transition year for the Phils. Huge 2016 holes in left field, right field, and first base have been filled by Howie Kendrick, Michael Saunders and Tommy Joseph. Their best prospect, Crawford, is almost ready for prime time, filling another pseudo-hole currently occupied by Freddy Galvis, and BIP data suggests that Maikel Franco possesses a good deal of remaining upside.
The big deal here is the starting pitching. In Aaron Nola and Vince Velasquez, they have two high-ceiling studs coming off of injury. In Velasquez’ case, it’s not his first rodeo in that regard. In Jerad Eickhoff and Jeremy Hellickson, they have two guys whose numbers can be penciled in with some reliability. And hey, Clay Buchholz is here, too. That’s a nice base from which a young club can build. They were the worst team talent-wise in the East last season, but aren’t this time around. If they can turn two or three of their promising young talents into above-average major leaguers, the Phils can contend as soon as 2018. This year, they’ll win 75-78 games and duke it out with the Marlins for third.
“This is due to a strong 88.9 Defensive Multiplier on fly balls — thanks largely to the inimitable Ender Inciarte. Unfortunately, he will be flanked by Matt Kemp for a full season in 2017, which will make that number difficult to repeat. ”
Yeah, but on the other hand, he’s also flanked by Nick Markakis. Wait, no . . . that’s the same hand.
Dear Sir, I believe you mean “…were clearly the class of the division in 2016.” A nice way to kill time before happy hour. Thank you.
Harsh vibes, bro.
This is a fun and interesting way to attempt to project though. Did you look at how your overall projections from last year matched up with other projection systems?
“The husk of Brandon Phillips will play second base, relegating better option Jace Peterson to the bench.”
Phillips was worth 0.9 WAR last year, and 5.2 WAR over the last three. Jace was worth 0 WAR last year, and 0.4 WAR for his career (the last three years). Certainly, Phillips isn’t going to get any better at his age, but I don’t see Peterson as a better option even now.
Both guys are likely to be below average, less than 2.0 WAR guys this year. Phillips, though, is at the end of his career and Peterson is young. Peterson probably won’t be special, but he might be able to turn himself into a cheap, average type of player and for a rebuilding team like the Braves it’s more valuable to see if he can develop than it is to trot Phillips out there to be average at best.
Peterson arguably has had quite a bit of chance to prove himself, he has 1000+ mlb PA’s, and he seems to be what he is. A good obp guy who can play all over the diamond.
So it makes sense to start BP (far less versatile) over JP so Jace can float around and be the utility guy.
I think if you were to actually sit down and rank the minor league organizations, you’d have to concede that the Braves are still a top 5 farm. What you say about much of their talent being in the lower minors is true, but it’s true for most of the other top 5 farms as well, only to a lesser extent. and the Braves make up for that by having far more of it than the rest.
Agreed. I’ve been reading Blengino’s work since the old Benson/Blengino annuals of 20 years back, and I respect the hell out of him. But Atlanta is no doubt either the #1 or #2 farm system, alongside the Yanks.
Maybe Tony isn’t including Dansby as a prospect, due to his substantial MLB time last year. But as far as I know, he’s still eligible for ROY, and Swanson & Albies are the best 1-2 punch in prospectdom now that Benintendi and Moncada have been split up. Moreover, Atlanta’s minor league starting pitchers are rivaled only by those of St. Louis, in terms of both quantity and high-upside quality.
Man, I’d like to know who Tony’s top 5 systems are, if Atlanta ain’t among them.
Every projection I have seen has recognized that the Mets pitching could be very good, but each one, not unfairly, adds a few reservations. Injuries cannot be ignored but, barring those, their rotation is potentially the best in baseball. Syndergaard is the nominal ace but the grossly underrated DeGrom is also a #1. Most seem unwilling to give Harvey and Matz much chance of making 25+ starts and are hesitant to consider Gsellman a solid addition. If these pitchers approach their best levels, the defense, an admitted weakness, should be enough to catch the weak grounders that come their way and throw the ball around the infield after all the K’s. The offense performed at an almost unbelievably poor level last season with runners in scoring position and a return to the mean should produce enough runs for the Mets to look to win over 90 and the division.
Lemme sum up: “If everything breaks the right way for the Mets, they can win the division.”
I can play, too! If the Nats’ rotation stays healthy, Harper is healthy & returns to 2015, Murphy only slips a little, Turner and Rendon continue to rise, Zimmerman’s stats catch up to his batted ball numbers and Werth has anything left, the Nats would be set up to win around 100 games and the division.
All of which means little. Best case scenarios are fun, but unlikely.
If things break well for both teams, the Nationals will win the division easily, but it won’t take more than a few key injuries to bring the Nats crashing back to the low 90s or high 80s. The Mets, on the other, have much more depth and less variance. I think the projections undervalue the Mets, who have much more talent on the 40 man now than they did on opening day in 2015 or 2016, when they won 90 and 87 games, respectively.
I’m amazed this is coming from someone named “Teufel Shuffle”. “If things break well for both teams, the Nationals will win the division easily”? The last time things “broke well” for the Mets (not average, but actually “well”) was the 2nd half of 2015. They were #1 in offense, embarrassed the Cubs and saw a World Series. That was with very little from Matz and no Wheeler. Why do you feel your team at full-strength is that weak?
The Nats with injuries might be in the low 90’s? The Nats at full-strength won mid-90’s — much of it against the Mets. If they lose either ace for an extended period or Harper, they’re looking at a below-500 season (as any team would). Last year showed the Mets floor in a “disaster” scenario due to their depth.
JCC, do you realize your “Best case scenario” for the Nats is almost exactly what did happen last year. The only out-liner is Harper rediscovering himself. Everything else was indeed the best-case scenario.
There is no medical reason to believe the Mets starters won’t be able to pitch this year. Rose colored glasses would be thinking David Wright will be hitting 5th. Assuming young arms come back from routine tune-ups after World Series fatigue isn’t that far-fetched. Expecting perfect health is indeed foolish, but assuming Washington is the favorite is also assuming they’ll be lucky enough to get an average of 28 starts each out of their top 5 — as they did last year.
I’m not worried about Max Scherzer, even though he can’t grip a baseball properly, because bones heal. Why should a Mets fan worry about the routine surgery of deGrom and Matz (who are both throwing great)? The surgery Matt Harvey had has nothing to do with his arm, so it’s just about getting feel back. From there, three guys need to soak up 200 innings total. Anything can happen, but the people seem to be putting too much value on last-year’s injuries.
In 2015, the Nats were pretty banged up and in 2016 they weren’t. The Giants are good every two years…. it happens this way a lot.
Wow. I’m all for the analytical process, but missing data is dripping from each paragraph. Numbers alone tell a story only when there are limited external variables involved; it’s why computers work.
Let’s spin this piece differently and see how it flies: Let’s say a proven Wold Series caliber major league team comes down with a season-long case of Lonnie Smith disease and the residents of a local senior center volunteer to play in their absence. The year plays out and due to the inefficiency of the league, they’re somewhat competitive.
Now let’s have some fun. Let’s say (hypothetically) someone asks you to put your life savings on the table — you win and you’re set for life; lose and you’re broke. Picking the NL East winner is all you have to do… so, tell me how this equation feels:
The projections of each team shall be based solely on the overall team performance the previous year. Any non-numerical elements that might have corrupted the numbers as a measuring agent toward future success shall be ignored.
Additionally, to eliminate the burden of sample size, it’s vital to not take 2015 data into account. This is because we all know those who have career years always perform at that new pace going forward. Remember it’s not about who’s taking ABs and throwing innings in 2017… it’s about who threw them in 2016.
The last bit of data shall be non-numerical — just to be fair. You may use one instance of data pertaining to injuries, but it can only be a positive one from your favorite team.
Does thou have Daniel Murphy-level faith in that equation? Thought not…
I don’t think anyone can pick anything with certainty because injuries have more to do with a division winner than anything, but here is what I see as the missing pieces in your statistical argument:
I’ll break it down by detailed elements in regards to the Mets and Nats:
Starting Lineups:
The value of an offense = total number of ABs taken by league average or above major league hitters. The Nationals have the stronger starting eight, but only Steven Drew as a proven replacement if anyone were to get hurt. They have regression candidates in Zimmerman & Worth, Wieters is a significantly lesser hitter than Ramos in ’16 and it’s reasonable to expect Harper and Murphy to revert to their career norms. The hope I imagine is Eaton making up the offensive difference in CF. With all this taken into account, the Nationals project to have fewer ABs taken by good hitters than they did in 2016. The bench alone makes this likely.
The Mets have the less balanced and more volatile starting eight, with significant depth that reduces the amount of Abs being taken by below average hitters. Assuming David Wright isn’t on the team (it’s silly he’s ever factored in… Reyes is the Third Basemen), they have true regression candidates in Granderson (age) and Jay Bruce (career norm). That said, Flores & Conforto provide quality major league hitting depth with top prospect Rosario also on-call. They project to have more ABs taken by quality hitters — The 663 Abs taken by T.J. Rivera, Eric Campbell, Matt Reynolds & James Loney should be replaced by a combination of better bench options and the low odds of losing an entire starting infield two straight years. There is also the possibility of better offensive numbers from the catcher position. This is not to say they’ll have more ABs taken by good hitters than the Nats, but it’s saying the difference (if there is one) isn’t as dramatic as the starting eight or 2016 results would imply.
Defense:
Both teams have players out of position all over the field. The Mets & Nats outfield start with Harper & Cespedes who are both good, and grow sketchy from there. Both Eaton and Granderson are playing out of position in Center and career numbers indicate below-average as their most likely resting point. Werth and Bruce should not be on either roster. The Mets do have the luxury of Gold Glove winner Lagares to shag a few innings away from Granderson.
Both teams have defensively challenged catchers with d’Arnaud’s weak arm and Wieters terrible pitch framing being the focal points. Firstbase is average at-best for both teams with the Mets having an edge at 2B and the Nationals having an edge on the left side.
Starting Pitching:
Let’s say this off the bat — bone chips are like potato chips for pitchers; they are everywhere. The surgery used to be called “cleaning” and you expected a pitcher to come back stronger the next year. For this argument I’m going to eliminate factoring in a future injury unless a pitcher is injured right now. One team had 4/5 of their rotation go down in ’16 and the other has two aces — one who still can’t throw all his pitches due to a broken finger and the other suffering from Steven Matz disease. Let’s assume Scherzer is going to be fine not assume the rest will get hurt because “ya know, they just will”.
I think it’s reasonable to expect a 150 inning average out of the 10 projected starters, with a few missing some time and others throwing a bit more. I also assume that they will all perform as they have in the past when pitching healthy. Again, Strasburg & Harvey might pitch in pain at some point, but here’s nothing wrong with these two players at this time. Also, the Mets #5 spot is bascially three guys.
Using the same algorithm I did with the hitting, but with defense mixed in — The value of a pitching staff = total number of innings thrown by league average or above major league pitchers +/- the defense. The Nationals arms will see fewer strikes and all singles against Mets pitching shall be doubles — let’s call up the middle defense a wash. The Mets are average at-best in the middle infield and the Nats are saddled with “Iron Gloves” Murph at second. CF is bad on both ends… Eaton stinks in Center and Granderson is 100 years old.
I think the pitching is where the two teams separate. The Nationals have a great five, featuring two aces and solid league average arms to top it off. Last year they needed only 20 starts outside the rotation and they’ll need that same luck to avoid having the arms behind Cole throw significant innings. The security of having Reynaldo López and Lucas Giolito were exchanged for Eaton. The 2016 innings Melancon and Papelbon soaked up are replaced by some Joe Blanton innings and a combination of minor leaguers and a mystery arm TBD at the trade deadline.
The Mets needed 33 starts beyond their original starting 5 and also had 17 additional starts compromised by Matt Harvey’s terrible performance while playing hurt. For the sake of argument, let’s split the difference and figure Harvey executes at league average performance this year. That’s better than last year, but way down from what he’s proven to be when healthy. You then need to eliminate Colon’s 191 innings and spread them out over the group of Gsellman, Lugo and Wheeler. This makes looking at last year for reference irrelevant.
The Mets have two elite-level arms, a solid #2, the wild card in Harvey and an additional three starters, all of whom are league average or better. They’ll need an average of 140 innings out of each guy to equal five starters all throwing 200 innings. Assuming the Mets get 200 from Thor and 180 from deGrom, the group of Harvey, Matz, Wheeler, Lugo and Gsellman need to each contribute roughly 125 healthy innings each (give or take) to avoid the level of arm the National see past Cole.
That upgrade, plus the additional arms in the pen lead me to assume the Mets will have significantly more innings thrown by competent pitchers this season than the Nats.
In 2016, the Nats went 12-7 against the Mets — accounting for 5 of the eight games they won the division by. In 2015, the Mets were 11-9 against the Nats, meaning the head-to-head results impacted the Nationals a bit more. In ’16, they killed Verrett & Montero in three of those games and battered a diminished Harvey in three others.
Assuming that anomaly balances out to .500, it’s the Nationals and Mets against the rest of the division/ league that should make the difference. The strength of the NL East (to me) is in the lineups. The Marlins still have good bats and the Braves are up-and-coming. To me, that makes spreading Colon’s innings across a group of higher-upside arms a wise move. A junk-ball pitcher is a better fit against green talent. I personally think top pitching plays better against the East (as well as the Cubs) than the extra bats.
That’s all I have to offer here; see whatever you see and the season will unfold soon enough. 🙂
-Nik
The Mets had everything go wrong last season and still finished with 87 wins, while the Nats enjoyed near perfect health sans Strasburg. Both will see regression. 85 wins seems like one of those projections made by someone trying to win a prediction contest then an actual factual assessment.
The Mets and Nats should be neck and neck for the division and hover around the 90-92 win mark. 85 Wins for the Mets in this division, with that team? Yea no.
Yeah I’m surprised Tony is so bearish on the Mets. They’re projected to win 85 games despite the fact that none of their pitchers are being projected for anything close to 200 innings.Even with just neutral injury luck they should be able easily clear 85 wins. They lost the following guys for a full month or more – Cespedes, Cabrera, Walker, Wright, Harvey, deGrom, Lagares, Matz, d’Arnaud, Duda. That’s your All-Star left fielder, opening day starter, #2 starter who happens to be of ace quality, #4 starter, starting center fielder and the ENTIRE starting infield. And they still won 87 games.
The Nats are clearly the better team on paper, sure. No surprise there. The line that piqued my interest was on the measurable chance that only one team would finish above .500, which is disingenuous at best. There’s a higher likelihood of the season ending with 3 .500+ teams than only one, based on these projections.