The Nats

[Edgy MD]

Clearly, I sorely underestimated these guys. I had in my head the fun but foolish notion that Vinny Castilla was right behind Tony Womack on the list of players you sign when you don't want to succeed. But clearly there's something going on.

It's also so typical of DC to go after Guillen after he burned his bridges with Anaheim right before the playoffs. Mike Tyson is such a sociopath maniac that Nevada won't let him fight anymore? Let's get him here!

For years the Expos would improve then sell off, improve then sell off, and now they seem to have benefitted from the last (though certainly not the best) harvest of young Expos talent, while suddenly being able to retain that talent and add a few more outside players.

I still think their GM is a retrograde old boy, though.

[smg58]

The bizarre stat with the Nats is that they've allowed more runs than they've scored, but are something like 20-7 in one-run games. Have they been more lucky than good to date? Can Chad Cordero maintain a sub-1 ERA all season?

On the other hand, their best player Jose Vidro is still on the DL, and they're winning like this.

[soupcan]

Melting.

They are drunk with the excitement of a new city, new uniforms, fans, etc. and are feeding off it. As a result they are unbeatable at the Bobby and that is carrying them.

Get ready for the hangover.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

They're like 60 games over 500 with a negative run differential! Can't last at least at this rate. Whether they make the playoffs depends some on how the guys chasing them do.

Oh, and if they move to improve the O they can win too.

[Elster88]

I'll take the fourth option: I have no idea.

[Willets Point]

My conspiracy theory is that MLB and the 29 teams that own the Nats want the team to as well as possible so they can sell the team for beaucoup bucks. There's probably a flaw in that theory, but that's true of all conspiracy theories.

[Guest Rotblatt]

Melting. Totally unsustainable but fun to watch.

They may very well finish better than us, but I don't think they'll make the playoffs--unless, of course, the rest of the East continues to blow chunks.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm one of the four (so far) who voted for the middle option.

[seawolf17]

I'm tempted to think they'll last, but I guess I probably would have picked "I don't know." I feel like the whole team is playing over their heads, and I have to figure they'll fall back to earth. So I picked "melt."

[Elster88]

I went with melt too, I didn't want to be left out of the poll.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

They seem to be winning with smoke and mirrors. Miraculously, they just keep winning. I just can't see it continuing. Of course, I never saw it coming at the start of the season either.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Not to be needlessly provocative or anything (what Dickshot refers to as my "caustic fucktard" mode), but if the Mets had the Nats' w/l record and run differential and first place, don't you think the only one around here voting for "melt" would be me? Don't you think you'd be finding a way to explain the record by "guts" or "brains" or "backbone" or "managerial genius" or "desire" or "will-to-win" or "intangibles" or "savvy" or "chemistry' or "cahnfidence" or some other bullshit, and be real mad at anyone who suggested the common sense approach you're rightly applying to the Nats' success?

You don't? Then, never mind.

[seawolf17]

See, that's because we're Mets fans. If you hop over to the Matt Cepicky Forum, I'm sure that's the way they're explaining it (although they wouldn't get the "caahnfidence" jokes). Part of being a fan is enjoying a club when they're winning, and not waiting for (or expecting) them to fail.

[Guest cooby]

Seawolf. Give it up.

[seawolf17]

I know, I know. I try to let it roll, and sometimes I even agree... but sometimes... you know.

[Guest cooby]

Just let your eyes glaze over, and skip ahead, buddy.

Honest, it works.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I guess I find it fairly amazing that you're perfectly willing to apply rationality to baseball, but when rational explanations are offered to explain the Mets' performance, you get all insulted.

(NB: If you, personally, are not accurately being described by "you" in the preceding sentence, then by all means follow Cooby's dictum and indeed glaze your eyes over and forget all about my existence.)

[Benjamin Grimm]

[soupcan]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Not to be needlessly provocative or anything (what Dickshot refers to as my "caustic fucktard" mode), but if the Mets had the Nats' w/l record and run differential and first place, don't you think the only one around here voting for "melt" would be me? Don't you think you'd be finding a way to explain the record by "guts" or "brains" or "backbone" or "managerial genius" or "desire" or "will-to-win" or "intangibles" or "savvy" or "chemistry' or "cahnfidence" or some other bullshit, and be real mad at anyone who suggested the common sense approach you're rightly applying to the Nats' success? You don't? Then, never mind.

I don't, but I'll still address your query. If it were the Mets winning the way the Nats are I'd be so insecure about the ways they were winning that I would certainly doubt their ability to keep it up. Would I be hopeful? Yes absolutely, but unless my team is as deep as Mayor Bloomberg's pockets in an election year I never get overcahnfident in their ability to sustain success.

[Frayed Knot]

Don't you think you'd be finding a way to explain the record by "guts" or "brains" or "backbone" or "managerial genius" or "desire" or "will-to-win" or "intangibles" or "savvy" or "chemistry' or "cahnfidence" or some other bullshit

Sure, because those phrases are passed off as analysis so often 'round these parts.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Frayed Knot wrote: Don't you think you'd be finding a way to explain the record by "guts" or "brains" or "backbone" or "managerial genius" or "desire" or "will-to-win" or "intangibles" or "savvy" or "chemistry' or "cahnfidence" or some other bullshit Sure, because those phrases are passed off as analysis so often 'round these parts.

Sarcasm noted, but this is twice in two days you've referred to something happening around here on a regular basis which, in reality, hasn't happpened around these parts in years. In this example, for these phrases to have been posted, the Mets would have had to be playing out-of-their-heads crazy-lucky nothing-up-their-sleeves fantastic ball, a phenomenon about as common lately as a Mo Vaughan RBI

[Guest d'Kong76]

[Benjamin Grimm]

Is that John Candy wearing a bra and eating a strawberry?

[Guest d'Kong76]

I suppose it could be.

I googled up sourpuss images and got a picture of what I somtimes envisioned
a poster from our far far past looked like and now I'm constantly being reminded
by another poster of how annoying her act was.

[Willets Point]

Looks kind of like Screech out of costume.

[Frayed Knot]

"but this is twice in two days you've referred to something happening around here on a regular basis which, in reality, hasn't happpened around these parts in years. In this example, for these phrases to have been posted, the Mets would have had to be playing out-of-their-heads crazy-lucky nothing-up-their-sleeves fantastic ball, a phenomenon about as common lately as a Mo Vaughan RBI"

a) haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about

b) not sure I care to find out

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

You've got to ask nicer than that.

[Guest d'Kong76]

No one asks him anything, yet he answers. At least it's not three
paragraphs long.

[soupcan]

What did I miss?

When did Bret go from Stodgy Old Forum Curmudgeon to 'Pool-bic enemy #1?

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'm just joking around, don't put any enemy words in my mouth.

And thanks for feeding him.

Thanks a lot.