We're 60% of the way through the season; I don't give a flying crap at this point about what ZiPS said.

Let me clue you on in something: young players have been known to suddenly and unexpectedly improve after a few years as they approach their prime. Jose Bautista went from an average hitter to a MVP caliber type of player, virtually overnight.

If you want to be a slave to some speadsheet that came out six months ago, knock yourself out. Personally, I'm going to just enjoy spending the next three or four years watching my awesome team win lots and lots of games.

FWIW, I've seen several of Strasburg's last few starts (so this is a stats report, not scouting) and he hasn't gone more than 5 or 6 in those starts because he became quite ineffective toward the end. He probably should hvae been pulled sooner in them.

I don't know if that means he needs to be limited or it's just a small sample size. I've argued the limit is stupid - if they're still playing for a title, their best pitchers should be on the field. However, I would be receptive to an argument that, due to the injury and rehab, he's tired to the point he isn't one of their best pitchers. Obviously, I'm extrapolating from here to a point where he isn't effective even early.

Anyway, Nats fans who are here: is my impression correct? Has he been getting pretty shaky after 4 or so innings?

young players have been known to suddenly and unexpectedly improve after a few years as they approach their prime

And who on the Nationals fits this description? Even just the "approach their prime" part, much less the "suddenly and unexpectedly improve." Maybe Bernadina and Desmond, but that's about it as far as I can tell. Morse is 30 and having a down year compared to his last couple. LaRoche is 32. Espinosa and Ramos are young, but doing about what you'd expect based on their past performance.

EDITED to add a little more detail.

I don't think Ian Desmond has suddenly "got it" and that we can expect him to put up .900 or better OPS from here on out. That isn't to say that we should expect Ian to put up sub .700 OPS year in and year out. I'd guess somewhere around .750 to .800 or so based on this season so far.

In the month of July the Nationals have played exactly three games against a team with a staff ERA above league average (July 3-5 against SFG.) They're not suddenly superpowered offensively. This entire conversation - in total, and around Ian Desmond:Masher! - is a case study in the stupidity of small sample size theater. Someone go get Voros to explain baseball to Joey, please?

My problem with the Nationals has always been that they rip their fans off when it comes to ticket pricing. You for whatever reason took exception to this.

I missed that conversation, McCoy. Would you be more specific as to the seats in question? My season tickets are situated 10 rows behind the visitors' dugout and, since the stadium opened in '08, I have paid a very reasonable* $60 per seat per game.

* They are reasonably priced considering the location. I would be surprised if they don't get raised by at least $10-15 for next season.

You can get some decent seats at Nats Park for $10 (upper outfield gallery, upper right field terrace -- and the lower RF terrace are $15). Moreover, the two furthest sections in the upper deck on the third-base side are available first-come, first-served the day of the game for $5.

Are there a lot of overpriced seats in Washington? Certainly. But if you pick and choose, you can find some reasonably priced ones, too.

I missed that conversation, McCoy. Would you be more specific as to the seats in question? My season tickets are situated 10 rows behind the visitors' dugout and, since the stadium opened in '08, I have paid a very reasonable* $60 per seat per game.

$60 for a season ticket (which comes discounted) for a team that has been crappy since almost day one is not very reasonable to me. For years the Nationals have had trouble selling tickets to the park and yet all that time they've had rather expensive tickets as compated to the actual demand of those tickets and for the quality of the team on the field.

$60 for a season ticket (which comes discounted) for a team that has been crappy since almost day one is not very reasonable to me. For years the Nationals have had trouble selling tickets to the park and yet all that time they've had rather expensive tickets as compated to the actual demand of those tickets and for the quality of the team on the field.

I have a different perspective. The Nationals may have had difficulty filling the seats in the upper deck or outfield, but they have not had too much trouble selling the seats where I am situated. (I have only two seats, yet have never been unable during the offseason to move closer to home plate.) Also, don't forget about the generous Red Carpet Rewards program, which I imagine will be discontinued after this season.

They have a red carpet reward program in part to justify the prices they are charging. While 10 rows behind the dugout might be in demand 15 to 20 rows behind the dugout are not in as much demand and they charge the same price for them. For instance I checked 4 or 5 games over the next month and all of them have dugout box seats available within 15 to 20 rows of the dugout and they cost $80 to $90 dollars as single game tickets.



Of course since we start talking about the Nationals and their offense they get blanked.

They have a red carpet reward program in part to justify the prices they are charging.

And I can tell you that the plan succeeded, at least for my season ticket group. The thought of seeing 24 games for the price of 16 or 15 for 10* has its appeal.

* The extra games usually consist of seats in the club level behind home plate.

Your point is taken though. I was talking only about my little piece of real estate and those ticket holders even closer to the field. I can only imagine how much I would pay for the same seats at Citi, let alone NYS.

With a Nats postseason spot nearly certain -- CoolStandings lists their playoff odds at over 89% -- it will be interesting to see how the team prices games for next season and then how fans respond, both in terms of '12 season ticket sales and overall attendance during the first two months.

The thought of seeing 24 games for the price of 16* or 15 for 10 has its appeal.


Of course it does because the tickets are cheaper. If the tickets were cheaper I wouldn't have a beef with the Nationals and their ticket pricing. This year I discovered seatgeek and have gotten tickets for about 75% off their face value and have gone to about 10 games or so.

For instance right now I can get tickets to Wednesday night against the Phillies behind the Nationals dugout and about 15 to 20 rows up for $25. If I went through the Nationals it would cost $90*


*obviously both prices don't include service fees.

Do many fans still buy individual game tickets via Nationals.com though? And how are Seatgeek and Stubhub different?

EDIT: Ah, it appears that Seatgeek is the Kayak of event tickets, an aggregator site.

Do many fans still buy individual game tickets via Nationals.com though? And how are Seatgeek and Stubhub different?


Just because a lot people have realized that the Nationals are ripping them off in terms of prices doesn't free them from the scorn caused by trying to rip people off.