NARY A MAN IS NOW ALIVE. . .

When the Washington Nationals made it to the World Series, I wrote that hardly a man is now alive who remembers the last time a Washington baseball team got that far. The year was 1933.

Now, the Nationals have won the World Series. I suspect that nary a man is now alive who remembers the last time Washington experienced ultimate success in the sport. The year was 1924.

Like this year’s Series, the one in 1924 went seven games. In the finale, Walter Johnson, who had lost two games as a starter, pitched four innings of relief and got the win.

In this year’s finale, Patrick Corbin, who had lost Game Four in a poor performance, pitched three innings of relief and got the win. In modern baseball, three innings of relief is probably the equivalent of six innings in 1924.

This year’s Series victory is all the more sweet because the Nationals defeated a great team. I have been following baseball since 1957. I consider the 2019 Houston Astros one of the ten best teams to take the field during my time as a fan.

Recently, I wrote a number of posts about the 1969 World Series, in which the New York Mets defeated the heavily favored Baltimore Orioles. This was a major upset. The gap in regular season wins between the Mets and the Orioles was nine games. The gap in wins between the Nationals and the Astros this year was 14 games.

However, the gap was the product of the Nats’ play during the first two months of the season. From then on, the record of the two teams was virtually even.

In my “hardly a man is now alive” post, I noted that the Nationals, a team known for uptight performances in the playoffs, became this year a loose, fun loving bunch that performed best with their backs to the wall — e.g., playing from behind and batting with two out. I attributed the transformation in significant part to what I called the Latin effect — the loosening up of the team following the acquisition of Gerardo Parra and his formation of a fun bunch comprised mainly of Latin players including young star Juan Soto and potential star Victor Robles.

The Nats continued to play calmly in the World Series. There was no apparent panic after they dropped three straight games at home to fall behind three games to two. In the two subsequent elimination games, the Nats fell behind but stayed relaxed enough to win both contests late.

In all, the Nats won five elimination games this year. Each was a come from behind victory.

In the post-game celebration, star pitcher Max Scherzer spoke about the Latin effect (using the word Latin). His fellow ace Steven Strasburg, one of the more deadpan players you will ever see, praised Parra’s influence in the dugout and noted that he (Strasburg) changed his demeanor a bit after Parra arrived and set a new tone.

The presence of veterans age 30 and older, both Latino and not, presumably also helped the Nats cope with pressure. Here, limiting myself to position players, I’ll mention Parra, Ryan Zimmerman, Howie Kendrick, Adam Eaton, Kurt Suzuki, and Astrubal Cabrera.

Some may attribute the Nats’ long-awaited success simply to the law of averages. Make the playoffs enough times, and you’ve got a good chance of winning it all eventually.

There are precedents: the Brooklyn Dodgers (1947-1955), the Cincinnati Reds (1970-1975), the Los Angeles Dodgers (1974-1981), the Philadelphia Phillies (1976-1980), the Kansas City Royals (1976-1985). And now the Nats (2012-2019).

But no Nats fan who followed the team closely is going to attribute this year’s triumph to math. Not with the comeback from a 19-31 start to the season. Not with all of the come from behind wins in elimination games.

I guess most championship seasons feel like magic and many champions seem like teams of destiny. I’m not going to say that this team was destined to win or that magic was at work. But this was clearly not your average championship season and the Nats were clearly not your average championship team.

“”I’m betting the house that they will not show up at the White House.””

I hadn’t heard that they’ve been invited but I said the day after their win that if they are, I bet they decline. I hope we’re both wrong but after the booing when the president showed up for the game, it’s apparent that’s where their fans come from hence, they will go along with the fans.

Stephen Strassbergwas healthy in October. Clearly divine intervention.

Law of averages? The common denominator in the Nats long run of postseason disappointments has been injuries. They're part of the game. All teams have them But the Nats have had more than their share and they've had at least two World Series caliber teams gutted by late season injuries. They had their share of injuries this year too, but aside from Max Scherzer, most of them came early and everyone was back in time for the playoffs.

The 19-31 start was the product of a disastrously bad bullpen. The Nats led MLB in blown saves much of the season. The starting pitching was excellent. The offense was among the league leaders. They rebuilt the bullpen at the trade deadline and it was enough to get into the playoffs, but Davey Martinez was tiptoeing through a minefield in the playoffs. That's one of three huge issues for the Nats this offseason: find a reliable bullpen; retain Strassburg and Rendon if possible; and manage the inevitable replacement of all those older players over the next two or three years. This year's group was the oldest team in baseball. A whole bunch of quality guys finally won a World Series to cap a career. But big changes are coming.

Stephen Strassbergwas healthy in October. Clearly divine intervention.

... retain Strassburg and Rendon if possible...

I believe they will keep one but not both. They are both represented by Scott Boras and he will be seeking multiyear contracts in excess of $200M. Can one team afford to commit so much money for two players? Can one team even afford one such contract?!

Strassburg I believe they will keep, after renegotiating his contract to bump it up. He has been described as a creature of habit, and his extension contract was hammered out without contention. My impression is that stability is his strongest desire. Rendon will move on, for the same reason Harper did: the Nat’s insistence on making offers which including a huge portion deferred salary, going out twenty years.

Those have to be hard decisions for players in Rendon's situation. If he chooses to stay with the Nats, he will be a hero in DC for the rest of his career. If he goes elsewhere, he becomes the designated savior with the crazy money contract who is supposed to turn a struggling team around, or lift a second tier team into a World Series. If that works out, all is well. If it doesn't, he becomes an over-priced mistake, a good player who ends up crippling his team in the long run because of what it had to do to get him. He's going to be rich either way, unless Elizabeth Warren steals everything. How to factor in the risk premium comes down to temperament, and perhaps, very simply, to whether he likes DC, Davey, and his current situation off the field. I don't know anything about the agent, but as always, an agent 's or financial adviser's interest does not necessarily coincide with his client's. An agent's interest may be to drive the hardest deal possible, extract every last nickle, and tack another owner's scalp on the wall. This maximizes his commission and probably impresses prospective clients. But that may not be best for the player, who assumes a lot of risk if he leaves a sure thing for a riverboat gamble.

I'll bet Bryce Harper wishes he had stayed a Nat, although he will never say so publicly. How long before the Philly boo birds start on him for not working a miracle?

It’s not just Strasburg and Rendon who are free agents.

Adams, Kendrick, Hudson, Baby Shark Parra, Cabrera and a couple others are also FAs.

Nats had the second biggest payroll in the NL this year, and they’re a long way from the second highest revenue. They can’t afford a dynasty.

Depends on how you define "dynasty." Over the last eight years, the Nats have the third best cumulative record in baseball. That's already a dynasty, minus championships.

The Nats were in a very familiar rut, common to all sports: a very good team that perennially fell short of winning it all. DC's other classic example was the Caps in hockey, until they finally broke through to a championship. But we see it in all sports.

Yes, when we say "dynasty," we usually mean more than one championship in an identifiable era. For the Nats, I agree that's not in the cards. Money aside, they're too old. The general thinking was that the window closed on the Nats last year, culminating in the August massacre when they threw in the towel and started dealing players. This year's comeback, even after losing Harper, was quite remarkable.

That said, they're graying fast. Mike Rizzo deserves credit for patching together a solid lineup with spot pickups. That was a brilliant job. But the Nats have some serious rebuilding to do. It was great to see their odd collection of castoffs and graybeards win a World Series to cap their careers, but it's going to be a very different team next year.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.