When IJWMFTT started, it sought to be a critical blog on the sports radio world.   As time went by, other media drew my ire.  So when I get the chance to return to my roots, I take it.

In an earlier entry, I chronicled the failings of the Washington Nationals franchise.  Today, ESPN 980's The Locker Room With Kevin Sheehan unknowingly let us have a glimpse of that failing.  At every juncture, this team has overvalued itself.

Interim manager Jim Riggleman was on in an attempt to shed that title.  No not how you're thinking.  Most want to drop the interim.  If Nationals management were lsitening, I would seriously question both parts of the title that were bestowed upon him.

Riggleman was the bench coach, and sat alongside Manny Acta all season.  He saw the same games that you, Ray Knight, and Rob Dibble saw.  Somehow, Riggleman has drawn this conclusion: "When we put it all together, we usually win by a large margin."

Riggleman and the rest of the Nationals brass overvalue the team's offense.  What is really going on is that this team was so woeful in recent years, that mediocrity looks like a daunting line-up.  The Nats have some decent offensive players, but they each have glaring holes (which I chronicled as well in the previous post).  These holes prevent big wins. 

I was in the car when all of this ran through my head.  I knew with a modicum of research, I could prove my point that the Nats don't win big very much at all.  The reason I knew the research would be easy was because I knew it wasn't much of a chore to gain insight into their twenty-six wins. 

In fact, one need only to look at the standings page to get the information necessary to draw a conclusion.  This team is on pace to be outscored by 200 runs.  Perhaps all the blowouts Riggleman thought he was seeing were being administered by the opponents. 

Think about this: if you went 0-162, but lost each game by a run, that's a -162 differential (Right now you're thinking "Thank the Good Grapefruit I came here to learn that.")  Of course, 0-162 is all but impossible.  There have to be a few wins in there.  In order to maintain the -200 with their win percentage, there can't be many wins of great magnitude in the tally.

In fact, of the Nats' twenty-six wins, ten have been by three or more runs.  Why three or more?  Well, according to this table: www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/so..., teams up three in the ninth win at a 98 percent clip.  Putting yourself in a sure thing situation is what I would call winning big.

Now here are the other last place teams:

• Padres: 12 wins/37 total = 30%
• Pirates: 26/41 = 63%
• A's: 24/39 = 62%
• Indians: 21/36 = 58%
• Orioles: 20/41 = 49%

So the Nationals have a higher percentage of big wins than the Padres; however, the Padres have a worse offense.  The two more big wins by the Padres does say something in and of itself.

Just for fun:

• Red Sox: 32/55 = 58%
• Yankees: 25/55 = 45%
• Dodgers: 26/59 = 44%

Why did I go over the winning teams?  Well it has a little bit to do with run differential theory.  It can be effective because the blowouts can offset.  Winning baseball teams have a propensity to consistently win the one and two run games. 

Riggleman would have a leg to stand on if his assertion were true.  If the Nats had a propensity to win big, their expected W/L would be 10 games better, and we could say that this team is due for a win streak.  In other words, their wins would "catch-up" to their level of play.  Unfortunately, the team's ExW% of .364 would make this club 59-103.  If Jim Riggleman continues to overvalue his offense, and thinks his team will club it's way to respectability, his team will continue to be forty games under .500.

Edit: The team is on pace for 52 wins, so playing to their ExW/L would be an improvement.  That said, once you get below 60, aren't you just splitting hairs?