The Nats rotation is a cause for concern? But I thought that was impossible!

22 Comments

Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post on September 2:

The four-man rotation, primed for October that I’ve described is Gio Gonzalez, Jordan Zimmermann, Edwin Jackson and Ross Detwiler. So all of the pundits who say the Nats can’t go to the Series or even win it, just because they won’t have Strasburg, can kiss my press pass.

Barry Svrgula of The Washington Post, today:

Zimmermann’s start Monday continued a worrisome trend … Mix in poor starts from Jackson and Detwiler in blowout losses Sept. 28 and 30, respectively, with the shaky outings from Gonzalez and Zimmermann to open the postseason, and the Nationals’ most recent turn through the rotation against St. Louis has yielded 112 / innings, 16 walks and a 13.89 ERA.

Svrgula ends his column by noting that the Number One Starter Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken had a great start against the Cardinals just before his shutdown.

No, I don’t think that the Nats are toast. It’s tied for cryin’ out loud, and Edwin Jackson is capable of shutting anyone down. But the lesson of Game 2 — and really any playoff game in history — is that anything can happen. Your top pitchers can have bad outings sometimes, no matter how great they were in the regular season.

Which means that you can never have enough good pitchers. And which means that boorishly mocking anyone who dared suggest that maybe — just maybe — a team would like to have a pitcher like Stephen Strasburg in the playoffs was kinda silly.

The Hall of Fame rejected the BBWAA vote to make ballots public

Getty Images
Leave a comment

Last year, at the Winter Meetings, the BBWAA voted overwhelmingly to make Hall of Fame ballots public beginning with this year’s election. Their as a long-demanded one, and it served to make a process that has often frustrated fans — and many voters — more transparent.

Mark Feinsand of MLB.com tweeted a few minutes ago, however, that at some point since last December, the Hall of Fame rejected the BBWAA’s vote. Writer may continue to release their own ballots, but their votes will not automatically be made public.

I don’t know what the rationale could possibly be for the Hall of Fame. If I had to guess, I’d say that the less-active BBWAA voters who either voted against that change or who weren’t present for it because they don’t go to the Winter Meetings complained about it. It’s likewise possible that the Hall simply doesn’t want anyone talking about the votes and voters so as not to take attention away from the honorees and the institution, but that train left the station years ago. If the Hall doesn’t want people talking about votes and voters, they’d have to change the whole thing to some star chamber kind of process in which the voters themselves aren’t even known and no one discusses it publicly until after the results are released.

Oh well. There’s a lot the Hall of Fame does that doesn’t make a ton of sense. Add this to the list.