Nationals Arm Race

How much live action actually occurs in each major sport?

Note: if you’ve found this and want to make a comment about how football is such a more exiting sport than soccer, or think this is some sort of anti-football post … then you’re missing the point.  This is about LIVE ACTION stats and the viewing experience.  If you love Cricket, you’ll sit there for 5 hour test matches where there’s fractions of periods of real action.  If you love football, then you’ll sit there for hours on end.  That’s not the point here.

Editor Post-publishing Update: this was originally published in July of 2013.  Over the years I have updated this post with additional information, resulting in adjusted numbers from the original.  I’m always looking for more and better information and am all ears if you have links to these kinds of studies.

I’ve never been the biggest NFL fan, despite living in a distinctly football town here in Washington DC.  But in the past few years or so, slowly my patience for watching an entire NFL football broadcast has ended.  Notice how games used to be slated for 1pm and 4pm on Sundays?  Now they’re 1pm and 4:15pm, or maybe even 4:25pm, with seemingly all that extra time now devoted to commercials.  Every time there’s a time-out, a break in play, after every challenge, there’s more commercials.  My friends and I have a joke.  I’ll ask “Hey, what time is the 8:00 game?”  And instead of the answer being obvious … the answer is 8:15 or 8:30 or whenever they’ve now pushed the late Sunday night game thanks to the 4:00 games running late (you know, since they  now start at 4:15 or 4:25 or whenever they’re slated to start).

Ironically, the same distinct lack of action complaint is easily seen in baseball broadcasts.  So I can’t be casting too many hypocritical stones against my football-following brethren (this is a Baseball-focused blog after all).

I got to wondering; just how many frigging commercials do they really show in NFL games these days?  This pursuit led to the larger issue: How often is the ball actually in play in an NFL game?  How often are the fans just sitting there watching crowd shots or replays or pictures of cheerleaders or head coaches looking constipated?

So I started looking far and wide for “Ball in Play” studies for the 5 major professional sports to compare and contrast the TV viewer experience.  Here’s what I’ve found (all sources are listed at the bottom and referenced inline).  For some sports (Hockey and Basketball) it is relatively easy to assume that, if the clock is running, there’s action.  For the others, with either a lack of a clock (Baseball) or significant periods of inactivity while the clock is running (Soccer to some extent but especially in Football) the details are harder to come by.

• Baseball: Per the 2013 WSJ study, Baseball games feature 17 minutes and 58 seconds of action.  Baseball games have been increasing in length (thanks in part to the eighteen annual 4-hour marathons between the glacial Boston Red Sox and equally glacial New York Yankees) over the years.  But, the amount of action has stayed roughly the same.  A 1952 TV broadcast showed about 13 minutes of action but just 9 minutes 45 seconds of commercials. The latest WSJ study found that fully 42 minutes and 41 seconds of between-inning inactivity would be purely commercial time on TV broadcasts.  That means there’s nearly 5 times as many commercials now than 50 years ago.  2015: thanks to new pace of play rules, the average length of a baseball game dropped by 6 minutes from 2014.  2017 update: ESPN published a study of the 2017 playoffs, which have been dragging.  The average MLB playoff game in 2017 has been going 3hrs, 35mins, which is up 10 minutes from 2016 and an astonishing 21 minutes from 2015.  I get that playoffs are more strategic, that pitchers are on quick hooks b/c there’s a finite amount of time, but this 3hrs 35mins is brutal.
• Football: Per the WSJ 2010 study, NFL games feature about 11 minutes of action.  The amount of action in football games has been roughly the same since the early 1900s.  There was roughly 13 1/2 minutes of action in 1912, and slightly less in the 2010 study.  Other studies have shown that football generally ranges between 12-17 minutes of action.  Personally I tracked one quarter of an NFL playoff game  a few years ago with these numbers: in 50 minutes of clock time we saw exactly 250 seconds of action (4 minutes, 10 seconds) accompanied by no less than 20 commercials.  And this turned out to be a relatively “easy” quarter: one time out, one two-minute warning and two challenges/reviews.  It could have been a lot worse.  More recent studies have found that things are worsening for the NFL: WP’s Fred Bowen counted the ads in a 2014 NFL game and had seen an astounding 152 advertisements during the game.  152; that was more ads than plays from scrimmage.  Update for 2015: the early returns on the first few weeks of the season show a huge up-tick in penalties, which have slowed the game by four minutes from 2014 and average times are now at 3hrs 10minutes for games.  2017 update: the NFL has made some tweaks and the average game length through 2 weeks is down significantly, to 3hrs 4mins from 3hrs 15minutes in 2016.
• Basketball: NBA games average 2 hours and 18 minutes in actual time.  Working backwards (since the clock only runs when the ball is in play and we know there’s exactly 48 minutes of play time) we know that there’s 138-48 = 90 minutes of “down time” of some sort in a typical NBA game.  Not all of that is commercial time but all of it is inaction.  I cannot find any documentation of typical number of commercials so i’ve just split the difference between on-screen inaction and off-screen commercials in the table below.  If you’re a big-time NBA watcher and feel this isn’t fair, please comment as such.
• Hockey: The Livestrong piece below (side note: why is Livestrong doing “ball-in-play” studies on Hockey?) quotes average NHL games being 2hours and 19minutes in the 2003-4 season.  Working backwards from this, you have three 20-minute periods and two 17 minute intermissions, which leaves 46 minutes of remaining idle time.  Given that the idle times in Hockey are not nearly as long as those in basketball, I’m going to estimate that about 2/3rds of that 46minutes is commercials.
• Soccer: Per the Soccerbythenumbers.com website 2011 study, between 62 and 65 minutes of ball-in-play action is seen on average in the major European pro leagues per game.  For the table below i’ll use 64 minutes as an average.  The duration of pro soccer games is relatively easy to calculate: they fit neatly into a 2 hour window by virtue of its 45minute halves, 15 minute break and an average of 3 minutes added-time on either side of the halves.  45+45+3+3+15 = 111 minutes of a 2 hour/120 minute time period.  Thanks to a bit of fluff on either side of the game, you generally count a soccer broadcast to last 1 hour and 55 minutes.  In the table below i’ve assumed that a huge portion of the intermission is commercial; in fact it is a lot less since most soccer broadcasts have a half-time show and highlights.  So if anything, the # of commercials in soccer broadcasts is less than listed.  Post 2014 World Cup Update: FIFA estimates that the group stage games averaged 57.6 minutes of action per game (if i’m reading their stat page correctly).  I’ll use this as the number going forward, even though World Cup games might be a bit “slower” than your average pro soccer game due to the careful, tactical nature of most of the matches.

So, in summary, here’s how the five major sports look like in terms of Ball in Play and # of commercials the viewer is forced to endure in a typical broadcast:

From this you can clearly see that watching Soccer gives you the most amount of live “Action,” though cynics and soccer-haters would probably claim that a lot of that action is “dead action,” defenders passing the ball around and not the type of action you see in other sports.  I’m a soccer fan and would rather have this type of “dead action” than what we see in the NFL: one 3 second running play then more than 30 seconds of watching players stand around before running another 3 second running play.  Don’t be fooled; there’s plenty of dead action in other sports too that gets counted as “live action” here … players walking the ball up the court in slow motion for 10 seconds in Basketball, the dumping of the puck to the end of the ice to facilitate a line shift in Hockey, etc.  So this kind of analysis is not an exact science.

Soccer is easily the most predictable of the five sports to plan a viewing experience around; you know for a fact that a regular-season/non-Overtime game is going to be over within 2 hours.  All the other sports can go into over-time and lengthen the time commitment.

Professional Football is at the bottom of all of these Viewer-experience measures: it is the longest broadcast, shows the least amount of game action and forces around 50 commercials an hour onto its viewers.  And the NFL is only getting worse; recent years have seen the introduction of new commercial breaks where none existed before (after a kickoff being the most ridiculous, but the mandated booth reviews at the end of halves now gift-wrap new commercial breaks to broadcasters at a game’s most critical time).

Thoughts?  If you have better information I’m all ears.  I’ve had very good suggestions to add to this data stuff like College Football, College Basketball and Tennis.  Perhaps some day with more research we’ll revisit.

Sources:

• WSJ study of a handful of MLB broadcasts in Oct, 2010.
• Subsequent WSJ study done in 2013, hat/tip to Tango Tiger’s blog.
• WSJ study of a handful of NFL broadcasts from Jan, 2010.
• This blogger‘s detailed timing of the 2010 superbowl.
• BusinessInsider.com study of baseball games from Dec 2010.
• This 2011 study of the four major European Soccer leagues for ball-in-play timings.
• This weaksideaction post about the average NBA game lengths from a few years ago.
• This livestrong post about Average NHL game lengths from a few years ago.
• Fifa World Cup Brazil 2014 Stats page
• This Nov 2014 Washington Post article referencing the WSJ article but adding some author observations.
• BusinessInsider 2015 piece on the rise of penalties in the new season, leading to longer game times.
• NBCSports/Hardball Talk piece about 2015’s pace of play rules and new average length of games.

We know the offense is bad.  Even given Dan Haren‘s continued struggles, he’s not the problem.

Here’s a telling statistic; from Baseball-Reference here’ links to 2013’s Team Scoring Summary report and a comparison to 2012’s version.  I did a version of this analysis mid-last year to show the amazing record the 2012 team had in games in which they scored 4 or more runs.   Lets see what’s changed this year:

Some telling breakdowns:

In 2012:

If they scored 4 runs, they won 83% of their games last year.  There were a couple weird games (they lost three games in which they scored 9 or 10 runs; that’s hard to do) but overall these stats are pretty constant for most teams; when you score 3 or fewer runs it is awful hard to win.  4 runs is the benchmark to shoot for.

More specifically though, the 2012 Nats were an astounding 17-6 when they scored exactly four runs.  You would expect something closer to a .500 record in games like that, given the RS/RA averages and league ERAs in baseball.  That’s indicative of just how good our starters were last year collectively.

In 2013, through Monday 6/17/13 game:

The percentages are roughly the same.  They’re losing a few more of the low-scoring games thus far, but are winning a few more of the higher scoring games.   But look at the number of times they’ve already scored 3 or fewer runs (40) versus all of last year (67).  And their record when scoring the magic 4 runs exactly?  0-3.

On the bright side, they’re closing out wins much better when scoring 5 or more than they did last year (when they had some amazing blown leads).

Conclusion?  Hope for 4 runs every night (though it didn’t work last night).  And then hope again for that 5th run.

He’s continued to hit in the pros like he used to in college.  Photo: Brett Coomer/Houston Chronicle via chron.com

The Nats continue to struggle offensively.  They’re generally only above the Mets and the Marlins in key offensive categories, two teams that have basically given up for 2013.  They’re hitting worse than the Astros, a team that also had given up on 2013 before it started and whose payroll is 1/6th of ours.   Our best hitter Bryce Harper languishes on the D/L, but the team has (finally) made some adjustments and shed some of the underperforming players on its roster and rookie Anthony Rendon has been living up to his expectations.

So, what is Tom Boswell‘s weekly chat is going to be about?   Here’s his 6/17/13 version.  As it turned out many of the questions were about the US Open, and a few about Hockey and Football.  But lots about baseball.  As always I answer here before reading Boswell’s response and edit questions for clarity.

Q: Is Davey Johnson the problem with the Nats in 2013?

A: Despite some complaints about his Starting Pitcher and bullpen usage earlier this year, Davey Johnson isn’t the reason this team is losing.  Not with a team whose offense ranks 28th in the league in all the basic run-creating categories (Runs, Batting Average, OBP, and OPS+).   Changing the manager won’t help; all you can do is change the personnel.  And the Nats have done what they can; sending Tyler Moore and Danny Espinosa to the minors, calling up Rendon (slash line as of 6/16/13: .361/.426/.525; yeah that’s pretty darn good), giving Chris Marrero some at-bats.  The obvious: they need Harper back, they need the bench to start producing like it did in 2012, and they need Wilson Ramos to come back and spell the quietly falling-apart Kurt Suzuki (he’s now hitting just .215 with little power).  Boswell agrees; its the offense.

Q: Did Johnson screw up by not loading the bases in the Friday loss?

A: Situation: 2nd and 3rd with none out; do you load the bases?  I’d normally say that it depends on the matchups; a fly ball beats you anyway, so you’re looking for a pitching matchup that you can either get a punch out or a ground ball.  Well, they got their groundball; it just wasn’t enough to get the guy at the plate, who broke on contact and was fast.  A bases-loaded situation there means Suzuki doesn’t have to make the tag, just get the force out.  I guess Johnson could have loaded the bases.  Boswell points out the similarities to this and the NLCS Game 5 situation with Pete Kozma but doesn’t give an answer.

Q: Is Rick Eckstein culpable for the Nats Offensive woes?

A: Boswell answered an identical question on 5/28/13.   I’ll say the same thing again: I just don’t see how a hitting coach is responsible for players who suddenly hit 200 OPS points below their career averages as we’re seeing with a huge percentage of this team.  Rick Eckstein isn’t in the batter’s box; these guys are.  Boswell agrees, saying it isn’t Eckstein who is waving at balls a foot outside.

Q: Are the Nats just mentally fragile?

A: Possibly.  I think the weight of expectations is causing them to press.  But you have some veteran guys in that clubhouse (Jayson Werth, Adam LaRoche especially) who should be leading the team and helping to manage this.  Maybe these guys just aren’t “Captain” material?  Notice too that the two most senior guys on the pitching staff (Dan Haren and Rafael Soriano) aren’t exactly the best role models either; Haren is struggling too much to command any respect, and Soriano doesn’t appear to be a big clubhouse influence (and I privately wonder if there isn’t lingering animosity towards Soriano’s signing from the rest of the bullpen, which seems relatively close in age and experience).  Boswell notes that the team leaders need to step up.

Q: Why is Dan Haren pitching again?

A: Asked and Answered here four days ago.  Boswell didn’t really answer.

Q: Should we eliminate pitcher Wins and Losses?

A: Well, if you’re a sabrematrician we should.  A pitcher can give up one hit in 5 innings (as Stephen Strasburg did on sunday) and take the loss, while a pitcher can give up 5 runs in 5 and get a win if his offense bails him out.  That in a nutshell is the issue most people have with the Win and Loss statistics.   I saw a stat on billy-ball.com today that Chad Billingsley took the loss in an 8-inning one-hit outing in 2011 (the run was un-earned to boot).  That’s pretty unlucky.  Bill James said recently that he continues to use W/L records simply because they’ve been the default way to express stats for pitchers for 100 years.  I now view them sort of as throw-away stats written ahead of the meaningful measurements for pitchers, things like Fip and xFip, perhaps Siera.  I like ERA+ and K/9 as good short-hand measurements too, but realize that every one of these stats has flaws.  The pitcher “Win” used to mean a lot more than it does now; when a guy went 9 innings every day instead of going 5 2/3 and having a bullpen close out more than a third of the game it becomes harder and harder to equate one with with another.  Boswell agrees.

Q: How much of Rendon’s hitting is a reflection of his talent, and how much of it is a product of teams not having a book on him yet? Certainly he’s not a .350 hitter, but is he a .300-.310 hitter?

A: Great question.  I think its part column A and part column B.  For one, he’s an exceptional hitter.  He wasn’t College Player of the Year as a sophomore at Rice by accident.  He should have been a 1-1 pick had it not been for lingering issues that dropped him into the Nats lap in 2011.  And in his short sample size so far in 2013 we’re seeing his great approach; fast hands, ability to use the whole field, opposite field power.  Now, a new hitter hasn’t had “the book” written on him (that’s what advance scouts do) so yes, we’ll expect to see teams identify weaknesses in Rendon’s swing and start pitching him accordingly.  The great players then adjust to the adjustments.  In the ESPN documentary Bryce Begins there was a very telling quote from Braves pitcher Kris Medlen, who commented that Harper had “already made the adjustment” to the way the Braves were pitching him from one series to the next.  The film then showed Harper fanning at a pitch to strike out .. and then clobbering the same pitch in a subsequent game.  That’s what pro hitters do to stay good, and that’s what Rendon is going to have to eventually do to keep his lofty average.  Boswell raves about his stat lines all the way up the minors.

If you’re seeing this, we’re live at the new host.  Upgraded version of WordPress, more stable server (it is no longer hosted on a machine that literally is sitting on someone’s desk).

I lost a comment on my forkball article; apologies to Frank M.  (I only saw it at the last minute before the cutover).

Let me know if you see any issues.

Hello all.

A quick note: we’re moving the NationalsArmRace.com blog today (June 15, 2013) to a new hosting provider that will give us a lot more stability and should effectively end the downtime issues we’ve been having.  The new host also has a better WordPress configuration which should allow us to do some more plug-ins, have better tracking, etc.

We’ll be back soon.  Thanks.

The 2013 College World Series is through its Regional weekend, and by and large the selection committee’s work was justified with just 2 non-Regional hosts advancing to this coming weekend’s Super Regional CWS play-in tournaments.

(My original Field-of-64 thoughts are here.  My favorite no-frills just data College Baseball site is d1baseball.com, where I go for all the results).

Regional thoughts, one by one (in order of national seeds).  Note that officially there are no 9-16 seeds, but for convenience they’re listed here based on which of the 1-8 national seeds they’ll play in the Super Regionals.

1. #1 overall seed UNC advances by the absolute skin of their teeth, with Florida Atlantic forcing the monday winner-take-all game and then UNC winning 12-11 in 13 innings.  What an amazing game this final must have been; UNC took a 6-2 lead into the 9th inning only to have Florida Atlantic score six runs to take an 8-6 lead.  UNC then rallies for 2 runs in the bottom of the 9th to force extra innings.  Florida Atlantic then scored THREE runs in the top of the 12th only to have UNC rally to tie it and force a 13th inning.  Holy cow.  Can you imagine being at this game?
2. #2 overall seed Vanderbilt survives a scare from ACC power Georgia Tech, who forced a monday playoff before Vandy won handily to advance.
3. Oregon State held serve by winning a couple of close games and then taking out Texas A&M to advance.
4. LSU beat in-state rival Louisiana-Lafayette to advance.
5. Cal State Fullerton reversed a trend of early tournament upsets and swept two games from Arizona State to advance.
6. UVA won a couple of nail biters before blowing out Elon to advance.
7. Florida State looked the most impressive of any National seed, outscoring its opponents 32-4 en route to its advancing.
8. Oregon couldn’t hold off traditional power Rice and was upset in its own regional.
9. NC State held off a pesky William & Mary to advance.
10. Indiana easily advanced over Austin Peay.
11. Mississippi State held off a surprising Central Arkansas to take its regional.
12. UCLA won a tough regional filled with Southern California heavyweights.
13. Oklahoma upset regional host Virginia Tech, which couldn’t overcome the only 1-4 seed upset we saw on the first day of regionals.
14. Kansas State battered its way to a regional title, beating each of the three teams in its group along the way.
15. Louisville made a statement on its selection as a regional host, mowing down two big-time programs en route.
16. South Carolina won a delayed sunday game to advance over Liberty.

Only two Regional upsets: Rice over #8 Oregon and Oklahoma over #13 Virginia Tech.   And neither of these could really be considered that big of an upset; Rice was ranked 16th in the final USA Today coaches poll and Oklahoma was ranked ahead of Va Tech in that same coaches poll.  The Baseball America guys in their podcast talked about how “Chalk” they were predicting the Regionals to be and they were mostly right.

Surprising/Over achieving Regional losers: You have to start with Central Arkansas, the only 4th seed to make it to the championship game.   A number of #3 seeds beat out their #2 seed bretheren to force their way to the regional finals; Liberty, William & Mary, San Diego, Oklahoma State and Elon.   Connecticut getting a win over nationally ranked Virginia Tech was a surprise.  Columbia’s win over New Mexico was astounding.  And Valparaiso beat a tough Florida team and had a pair of one-run losses in its regional.

Disappointing teams: besides the two Regional hosts which lost (Oregon and Virginia Tech), Clemson under achieved in a regional some thought they’d win.  Ole Miss couldn’t handle CAA upstart William & Mary and it cost them in the tournament.  Alabama couldn’t handle in-state rival Troy when push came to shove.  New Mexico did not live up to its lofty BA ranking, finishing last in its regional.  Coastal Carolina did not live up to its at-large bid, probably exacerbating complaints out of the Campbell camp.  And despite all the howls of protest over the Mercer and South Alabama seedings, neither could overcome tiny Central Arkansas to give a weaker regional host any pressure.

Super Regional Matchups

This coming weekend the “round of 16” or Super Regionals are on tap.  Here’s the schedule; all games are at the higher seed (meaning the only last minute travel change involved NC State being handed a super-regional).

• #1 UNC hosts #16 South Carolina
• #9 NC State hosts Rice
• #5 Cal State Fullerton hosts #12 UCLA
• #4 LSU hosts Oklahoma
• #6 UVA hosts #11 Mississippi State
• #3 Oregon State hosts #14 Kansas State
• #7 Florida State hosts #10 Indiana
• #2 Vanderbilt hosts #15 Louisville

Psuedo Predictions: Its hard to pick against any of the top 4 teams; there’s a distinct gap between them and the 5th ranked teams in the country.  But Vanderbilt looked a bit rattled while Louisville looked confident and I wouldn’t be that shocked at an upset there.  Cal State Fullerton/UCLA matches up frequent competitors on the Regional stage and could go either way.  I like UVA’s chances of advancing to the CWS.  Florida State seems likely to continue bashing its way to the CWS and could be a dangerous lower seed.

Picks: UNC, Rice, UCLA, LSU, UVA, Oregon State, Florida State, Vanderbilt.

Robert Coello throws a very “old school” pitch. Photo wiki/flickr via james_in_to account.

Thanks to Rob Neyer for this article, posted 5/16/13 (and subsequently Jeff Passan in this 5/28/13 article and this Ted Berg USAToday article on 5/29/13) about Robert Coello, a journeyman hurler currently with the Los Angeles Angels who throws what one executive calls a “Knuckle-Forkball” but what in reality is an “Original Forkball.”  Not a “Split Fingered Fastball” mind you, but a true-on Forkball.  Neyer then goes into some research he did with Bill James on the pitch and has a pretty interesting history on this very rare pitch.

Neyer’s post has video of the pitch as it comes out of his hand (as does the Usatoday article) and indeed the ball knuckles and dives like a knuckler.  He only threw one forkball in his 5/15/13 outing but has thrown more than a few since and is getting some national media notice.

Here’s Pitch F/X data for Coello’s 5/15/13 outing.  They classified this pitch as a “FS,” pitch f/x lingo for “Fastball-Split” or a splitter.  He threw it at 79.5mph.  Since then, he’s thrown (I guess) 11 more Forkballs (now classified in Pitch F/X as a “FO”) at an average of 79.2mph.  By way of comparison, R.A. Dickey‘s average knuckleball velocity in 2013 has been 75.3mph.  And Dickey’s knuckleball is considered so effective because he throws it with such pace (Tim Wakefield only threw his 65-66mph for the last few years of his career).  Imagine if Coello can command this pitch and throw it consistently and frequently; he’d have a chance of combining a Dickey-esque fast knuckleball with his 91mph fastball.  That could be quite a combination.

So, why is this guy so interesting to me?  Because in my own abbreviated amateur baseball pitching career, I threw the same pitch!  Somehow over the years screwing around while warming up as a middle infielder I discovered this pitch; you jam the baseball between your index and middle fingers and then throw the ball such that it “pops” out of your hand (it will even make a popping noise, not unlike a soft snapping fingers noise) and begins knuckling towards its target.  It definitely is not a diving/sinking split fingered fastball motion; it knuckles in.  You can throw it with some pace; you throw it with the same motion and intensity as a fastball, except that it gets hung up in the webbing of your fingers and knuckles out.  It is relatively easy to control, especially if you throw over the top and just “aim” the ball at the middle of the plate.  I used it as a 3rd pitch but one outing in particular it was moving so much that my catcher called nothing but forkballs.

I always called it a forkball, but figured it knuckled instead of diving down like a typical split-fingered fastball because I wasn’t throwing it at the pace of a professional pitcher.  Now as it turns out, it looks like I was just throwing a “throw back” pitch rarely seen in the professional ranks.  Cool.

This world needs more Forkball pitchers!

Post-post update: Fangraphs Eno Sarris had a great article on him 9/23/13, showing multiple gifs of the pitch, as well as noting that Coello now has a top-30 wFB pitch thanks to the uniqueness of the forkball.

A quick thought, stemming from the comments of the previous post.  I’m looking at the starters that the Nats have gone up against to contribute to their current .500 record and they’ve gotten beat by some pretty tough guys.  Johnny Cueto, Adam Wainwright, and Matt Harvey (despite his small sample size) are all “Aces” in this league, among the best in the game.  Meanwhile guys like Tim Hudson, Homer Bailey, Shelby Miller and Paul Maholm (not normally, but so far in 2013) are all “near aces” or what I like to call #2 starters in the game.

The Nats have gone up against all of these guys and come away with 7 of their 10 losses (as of 4/24/13).  There’s no shame in losing to a dominant starter like Harvey or Wainwright.

(Now, as for why the Nats other three losses are against such pedigree’d pitchers as Dillon Gee, Julio Teheran and Alex Sanabia, well, that’s probably another blog entry…).

Anyway, the opposing pitchers have highlighted this blog post’s point: The Nats have had a very tough April schedule.  I didn’t really notice it until last week when I saw who the next three opponents were: St. Louis, Cincinnati and Atlanta.  Nothing like 11 straight games against 2012 playoff teams while you’re struggling to make your fanbase nuts.

Here’s a quick monthly broken-out guide to the Nats schedule (and a link to the entire schedule in list form) when looking at 2012 playoff teams to get a sense of how tough April is for us:

Look at how front-loaded this schedule is, and then look at what this team is up against in June and July.  15 of 27 games in April against 2012 playoff teams; Cincinnati twice, the Braves twice and a 3-game set vs St. Louis.  That’s a lot of games against very good teams.  It’s no wonder we’re exactly a .500 team right now.

But then look at June and July; just four total games against 2012 playoff teams (two against Atlanta a the beginning of June and then two in Detroit at the end of July).  The Nats are going to have nearly 8 straight weeks of games in the middle of the season against teams that not only missed the playoffs last year, but in many cases were downright awful and are on pace to be just as awful this year. Teams like Minnesota, Colorado, San Diego, Miami, and Pittsburgh.  Plus a bunch of games against teams from our own division that we know are going to be struggling to be .500 clubs all year (namely, New York and Philadelphia).  They also will go an entire month (from August 19th to September 16th) without playing a 2012 playoff team.

Now, the above table analysis doesn’t take into account that there are still dangerous teams out there on the schedule.  Kansas City is improved for 2013.  The Phillies are not going to be an easy out.  We’ve got an extra game thrown in against Milwaukee (a team with a winning record last year).  Los Angeles and Arizona aren’t going to be easy teams to beat either.   But we shouldn’t forget that this Washington team won 98 games themselves last year and should be the bully on the playground this year.

In a previous post I showed a scenario where the Nats can break-even on season series against the “good” teams in the league but be dominant against the lesser teams in the league and end up with a significant amount of victories (north of 100 wins) on the season.  Now, so far we’re not exactly breaking even against Atlanta, St. Louis or Cincinnati, but we have been somewhat holding serve against lesser teams like Miami and the White Sox.  We just need to get through this early stretch.

I’m not saying, by the way, that this team doesn’t have concerns.  The team isn’t hitting well, especially our #4 and #5 hitters (only the most important ones).  Dan Haren has been absolutely awful as compared to expectations so far.  Strasburg has looked hittable.  Gonzalez has been pitching scared.  The bullpen has been erratic.  The defense has been ghastly (they lead the league in Errors right now).  And I havn’t exactly been the biggest fan of Davey Johnson‘s managing thus far.   But right now these are small sample sized concerns that can (and should) iron themselves out.

The message is this, all is not lost.  Its early.  The Nats are going to struggle for the next week to keep up with Cincinnati and especially in Atlanta.  We will likely have a losing record on May 1st (I personally see us splitting the home Cincy series and losing 2 of 3 in Atlanta).  But we need to be patient and wait to see how this team performs as it enters its “easy stretch” in a couple months.  A win in June is just the same as a win in April, and a .500 month can be easily offset by a .700 month or two later in the year.

(posting this after updating for 2013’s home opener)

Here’s some fun trivia that I’ve collected over the years related to the Nats home opener Attendance and attendance records at the stadium in general.

Nats Trivia: capacity of Nats park?
– 41,888 at opening
– 41,546 in 2010
– 41,506 in 2011
– 41,487 in 2012
– 41,418 in 2013

(RFK capacity: 45,596 per wikipedia/ballparks.com)

Nats All-time Record attendance?

45,966 10/12/12 game 5 2012 nlds

Other/Previous Attendance Records
– 45,274 Opening Day 2013 (new Regular Season record for Nats park)
– 45,017 10/10/12 first home playoff game
– 44,685 8/20/11 vs Phillies (longer standing Nats park record)
– 41,985 6/24/09 vs Boston. (Nats reg-season record standard bearer for a while)
– 45,157 Fathers day 2006 vs Yankees (long standing Regular season Record)
– 45,596 RFK franchise opener (long standing franchise attendance record)

Opening Day Attendances through the years
2013: 45,274 (1:05 monday game, 60 and beautiful)
2012: 40,907 (1:05 thursday game 56, partly cloudy)
2011: 39,055 (1:05 thursday game, 41 degrees and overcast)
2010: 41,290 (1pm game monday, beautiful weather 80s and sunny): phillies invasion
2009: 40,386 (3pm game on a monday, chilly 53degr and overcast).
2008: 39,389 (season and stadium opener), 8pm sunday night, Braves, nat’l tv but cold.
2007: 40,389 (in rfk, 1pm game vs Florida, 72degrees
2006: 40,516 (in rfk, tuesday day game vs Mets, 72degr and sunny)
2005: 45,596 (in rfk, debut of entire franchise, 62degr and clear, evening game).

Opening Day Box Scores

2013:
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_04_01_miamlb_wasmlb_1&mode=recap&c_id=was#gid=2013_04_01_miamlb_wasmlb_1&mode=box
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/WAS/WAS201304010.shtml

2012: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2012_04_12_cinmlb_wasmlb_1&mode=wrap&c_id=mlb#gid=2012_04_12_cinmlb_wasmlb_1&mode=box

2011: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/WAS/WAS201103310.shtml

2010: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2010_04_05_phimlb_wasmlb_1&mode=wrap

2009: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20090413&content_id=4251894&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home&c_id=was

2008: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20080330&content_id=2467836&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home&c_id=was

2007: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20070402&content_id=1874785&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home&c_id=was

2006: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060411&content_id=1394878&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home&c_id=was

2005: http://nationals.mlb.com/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050414&content_id=1015977&vkey=wrapup2004&fext=.jsp&c_id=was

So, I know “small sample sizes” and all that, but he’re something I found interesting upon watching the Nats finish their second sweep of the series against the White Sox.

Last year early on, the Nats had a bad tendency to drop the final game of series that they were on the verge of sweeping.  Check out the 2012 Nats game-by-game results: time and time again they won the first two (or three) games in a series then dropped the finale.  In April and May of 2012 this happened against the Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati, Houston, San Diego, Philadelphia, Cincinnati again, and then Philadelphia again.  That was 7 straight attempts at sweeping a series where they dropped the 3rd game (I’m not counting the 2-game mini series sweeps they had along the way).  They also threw in a couple other series where they won 2 of 3 but lost the first game instead of the last.  Finally on May 25-27th they finished off a series sweep in Atlanta (and then promptly got swept in Miami the next series).

So far in 2013, they have had two inferior opponents (Miami and the White Sox) on the ropes and then promptly  swept them.  No let down in the final game; they powered through and got the 3rd win in the series.

Why is this important?  Because these extra wins against these crummy teams will make a difference down the road.   If you sweep every sub .500 team (or come close to it) and then break even against your playoff contenders, you’re a 110 win team.   Check out this possible result-grid for the Nats 2013 season (put in with approximate records with the team splitting with any playoff calibre team and then dominating or sweeping the lesser clubs):

Looks pretty good doesn’t it?  And this assumes we break even with Philadelphia … who I think is really weakened this year and could be fodder for the Nats once the games come around.  Can this team take 15 of 19 games against Miami and the Mets?   Well, they beat the Mets 14-4 last year and they’re about the same team, and Miami is (of course) significantly weaker than the team that had a season split with the Nats last year.  So yeah I think those are decent predictions.

I also feel these 3rd game of 3 wins are important because perhaps last year they were, for lack of a better term, “embarassed” to be suddenly in the dominant position as a team, and I think mentally this prevented them from really putting their foot on the throat of an opponent and finishing them off.  Perhaps they were of the mind-set going into a 3-game series of thinking, “wow it’d be great if we won 2 of 3 here” and then they mentally let up in the finales after winning the first two games.

Now, the Nats are serious.  And they’re getting wins where they should be getting wins.  I can’t wait for this weekend’s series against what is looking like the 2nd best team in baseball (behind us of course 🙂 ).