I've got to be brutally frank with all the members of The Nation: your Red Sox didn't impress me very much at all. You could say that they didn't exactly blow my sox off. Not only are they underachieving, but they're getting paid an extraordinary amount of money while underachieving.

Gee thanks Joey, we hadn't reached that conclusion on our own. Considering the pitching matchups I don't think the Sox losing the series was that shocking. Yesterday was certainly the only game I thought the Sox would have been favored.

The outfield injuries are finally starting to come to roost I think. We got some wins thanks to guys like Nava and Podsednik but that is only going to last so long. If guys like Pedroia and Gonzalez don't get hot and do it damned soon (like tonight) we could be 8-9 out of a playoff spot pretty damned soon.

As for the Nats it's hard not to have been impressed. I don't know if they showed it on TV but Harper stumbled as he was running on the pitch when Bernadina doubled and was still flying by the time he hit second. I was very disappointed that he pinch hit and didn't swing the bat once. I really wanted to see him swing in person.

The Red Sox are mediocre but the more I see of this Natinals team the more I think they're a legit contender right now. ITSH, of course.

A lot of that high Boston payroll isn't on the field. Matsuzaka made his first appearance in nearly a year Saturday.

Red Sox are an oldish team, and have nobody of the upside potential of Strasburg and Harper. To a large extent, that's a function of what's coming through the minors, and part of my anomie about the 2010-2012 Sox may simply have been the result of a minors drought, which Theo tried to solve not very effectively by throwing money at the problem. Still the team would be both better and younger right now with Lowrie and Reddick, and I'd rather punt 2012 and trade Youkilis (who I've never much liked) for prospects than see any more of our young hopefuls vanish (it's not at all clear for example, that Gonzo is worth both the cash AND the three kids we gave away.)

Considering the pitching matchups I don't think the Sox losing the series was that shocking. Yesterday was certainly the only game I thought the Sox would have been favored.

Considering the pitching matchups that the Nats can present against any team, I don't think that the Nats winning any series should shock anyone. This team is totally for real, and the Red Sox are but one more team who's found that out the hard way. And much as I dread it, the Yankees may well find it out next weekend.

A 90 OPS+ and a 133 ERA+ for the Nats so far this year. I'm not one of those anti-offense guys, but I find good no-hit, all pitch teams pretty exciting to watch and this team is no exception. Gio, Zimmerman and Strasburg have been amazing to watch this year. Jackson isn't a slouch either. And Zim and Strasburg are out hitting every one on the team other than LaRoche and Harper.

Red Sox are an oldish team, and have nobody of the upside potential of Strasburg and Harper. To a large extent, that's a function of what's coming through the minors

To an even larger extent it's a function of where the Nationals got to draft those two years, and where the Red Sox have been drafting the last 10-15 years.

There's no doubt that for the Nationals to be a legitimate contender to win it all, the offense is going to have to get better. The good news is that Zimmerman and Morse have basically done nothing so far this season. Once they get it going, I think it's possible the offense might be just good enough.

Red Sox are an oldish team, and have nobody of the upside potential of Strasburg and Harper.

Nobody has a tandem with the upside potential of Strasburg and Harper.

Frankly, it feels a little insulting to say "potential" regarding these two guys. Strasburg is unquestionably one of the best pitchers in baseball right now and Harper probably is one of the best position players in the game. I'd like to wait a bit before anointing Harper but he's awfully good already.

Red Sox are an oldish team, and have nobody of the upside potential of Strasburg and Harper. To a large extent, that's a function of what's coming through the minors

Ellsbury, Pedroia, Lester, Beckett, Gonzalez and Ortiz is as good a core as anyone has.

Nobody has a tandem with the upside potential of Strasburg and Harper.

Verlander and Cabrera might. Price and Longoria probably fall a bit short, but not much, also Kemp and Kershaw.

Red Sox are an oldish team, and have nobody of the upside potential of Strasburg and Harper.

I continued reading after this because it was clear there was no way to follow this sentence with a suggestion to trade for Manny.

There's no doubt that for the Nationals to be a legitimate contender to win it all, the offense is going to have to get better. The good news is that Zimmerman and Morse have basically done nothing so far this season. Once they get it going, I think it's possible the offense might be just good enough.

Right now the Nats have an OPS+ of 90 and an ERA+ of 133.

Here's a team that managed to win 100 games and go 7-1 in the postseason with an OPS+ of 84 and an ERA+ of 122. And I don't mean the 1906 White Sox.

Considering the pitching matchups that the Nats can present against any team, I don't think that the Nats winning any series should shock anyone. This team is totally for real, and the Red Sox are but one more team who's found that out the hard way. And much as I dread it, the Yankees may well find it out next weekend.

The Yanks will get a bit of a break in that Strasburg pitches Wednesday afternoon in Toronto and will next pitch vs. Tampa. Expect Gonzalez, Zimmermann and Jackson to face New York.

Once they get it going, I think it's possible the offense might be just good enough.

Alfonso Soriano is available.

The Yanks will get a bit of a break in that Strasburg pitches Wednesday afternoon in Toronto and will next pitch vs. Tampa. Expect Gonzalez, Zimmermann and Jackson to face New York.

So assuming that the Yanks' rotation stays as it's been, it looks to be Gonzalez vs Hughes on Friday, Zimmerman vs Pettitte on Saturday, and Jackson vs Nova on Sunday. Three weeks ago I'd have called that an easy 2 wins or a sweep for the Nats, but now that Yankees' rotation has straightened itself out a bit, it should be a pretty good series. (How's that for a fearless prediction!)

Well, Red Sox - Nats was a pretty good series, too. Six runs difference in three games isn't much.

I said this over in ST, too, but while getting swept sucks, I don't think anything was learned one way or the other about this club. They're still a good-not-that-good team so long as they don't have an outfield, and that's how they've been playing both during the last week (1-5 with a -2 run differential) and during the happier weeks which preceded.

A 90 OPS+ and a 133 ERA+ for the Nats so far this year

Is there any way I can just build an auto-reply in the site that says "team OPS+ for NL teams is deceptive, because the baseline doesn't include pitcher hitting and the team's numbers do?" The average team OPS+ in the NL this year is 94; 90 is still below average, but it's not disastrous. You want an all-pitch, no-hit team that's contending this year, try the tied-for-first Pirates (ERA+ 118, OPS+ 76).

rankly, it feels a little insulting to say "potential" regarding these two guys. Strasburg is unquestionably one of the best pitchers in baseball right now and Harper probably is one of the best position players in the game. I'd like to wait a bit before anointing Harper but he's awfully good already.

I'll give you Strasburg, but no way is Harper one of even the best 50 players in baseball right now. Give him another month or two and see where he is at. History is full of prospects with one month of great ball(or in his case, good ball) who the league eventually catches up to.

#18 - Strasburg and Zimmermann (two 'N's for the pitcher, please) both have smoked home runs, and Strasburg has 3 doubles. Despite the SSS that's not too shabby for a couple strikeout machines. When Strasburg first came up to the bigs he swung the bat like a girl, and I think they were telling him to go up, take 3 hacks, and sit his expensive butt back down. I don't know what changed but I like it. Nevertheless, when your pitchers are standing shoulder to shoulder with your position player hitters, you really need to fire your hitting coach get the fielders hitting better.

#14 - I hardly consider Gio and Znn "a bit of a break". Strasburg faded there for a couple starts and had me reaching for Brian's bottle of rye. Gio has been a real surprise and sports a 2.6 bWAR to Strasburg's 2.0 bWAR. Zimmermann has been a bit inconsistent, but he's no picnic when he's even close to being "on". When all 3 face you in a series you should consider calling in sick for that series (I mean you as a fan and them as the opposing hitters).

After suffering through all the on-field and off-field travails of the Nationals the past 7 seasons I'm still holding my breath that they don't fade after the All-Star Break, but damn this team has become really fun to watch!

A 90 OPS+ and a 133 ERA+ for the Nats so far this year

Is there any way I can just build an auto-reply in the site that says "team OPS+ for NL teams is deceptive, because the baseline doesn't include pitcher hitting and the team's numbers do?" The average team OPS+ in the NL this year is 94; 90 is still below average, but it's not disastrous.

And that was exactly my point in citing the 1969 Mets.

Well, Red Sox - Nats was a pretty good series, too. Six runs difference in three games isn't much.

I said this over in ST, too, but while getting swept sucks, I don't think anything was learned one way or the other about this club. They're still a good-not-that-good team so long as they don't have an outfield, and that's how they've been playing both during the last week (1-5 with a -2 run differential) and during the happier weeks which preceded.

Boy, talk about a change in tune. Just a few short days ago you were telling me that you thought that every team in your division was better than every team in our division.

Frankly, I don't believe for a second that you thought going in that there was a chance that you would get swept. Especially considering the last time a NL team swept a three game series at Fenway was ten years ago.

Either way, damn it feels good to be a Nats fan. This doesn't feel like 2005 at all, where we were floating at the top of the NL East based on little more than luck. The pitching and the increasingly competent hitting is what makes the 2012 Nats look like authentic contenders.

Livan Hernandez, John Patterson, Esteban Loaiza, Ryan Drese and Tony Armas, Jr.

VS

Stephen Strasburg, Gio Gonzalez, Jordan Zimmermann, Edwin Jackson, and Chen-Ming Wang

Yeah, that's a hell of a difference.

Boy, talk about a change in tune. Just a few short days ago you were telling me that you thought that every team in your division was better than every team in our division.

Yeah, I have to call you out on this too. I remember it as well.

I didn't change my tune at all. I was talking about the Red Sox. My point its that I don't think we learned much from a closely played three game series.

I'd be more than happy to bet on the Sox, or any other AL East club other than the O's, against the Nats in a long series.

Any baseball fan who thinks his or her team can't get swept in a three game series doesn't understand baseball.

Have you guys ever even read Sox Therapy? Not that I suggest you have to, mind you; but it's not exactly a hotbed of "Sawx R the BEST!!" sentiment.

I'd be more than happy to bet on the Sox, or any other AL East club other than the O's, against the Nats in a long series.

I'd only bet on the Sox if they were anywhere close to full strength. Not the current depleted roster, which was further depleted this weekend when, among other things, the best of the AAAA outfielders, Nava, was first hurt and then by Sunday was completely unavailable; Marlon Byrd was taking critical late game ABs with men in scoring position; and Darnell McDonald was getting multiple ABs against righthanded pitching. Oh, and Pedroia is stupidly playing hurt and can't make solid contact with the bat as a result, and Adrian Gonzalez's surgically repaired shoulder has failed and no one will acknowledge it.

I'll give you Strasburg, but no way is Harper one of even the best 50 players in baseball right now. Give him another month or two and see where he is at. History is full of prospects with one month of great ball(or in his case, good ball) who the league eventually catches up to.

I won't argue semantics here, but there aren't many prospects who were the #1 overall pick in the draft, and the BA #1 prospect in the game for two years, and then had an excellent first 38 games in the majors, and ended up not being very good major league players. I'm sure he will have his slumps this year but if the league catches up to him, it won't be for very long.

One good thing Sox fans can take away from this series is that Lester pitched well for what seems like the first time in a while.

I'm sure he will have his slumps this year but if the league catches up to him, it won't be for very long.

That's what impresses the hell out of me, Harper's in-game adjustments. He showed it in Atlanta against the Large Tub of Goo (¡Livan!) making Harper look like a low-A ball hitter. Next AB he reminded Livo who the better player was. Harper has done that a few more times since, learning his lesson in his first AB, then coming back and applying what he has learned in his very next plate appearance. Remarkable.

Also, Harper is only nineteen years old. Somehow, I don't think the history of baseball is littered with a ton of guys who have come into the majors at nineteen years old and had the kind of start Harper has.

Also, Harper is only nineteen years old. Somehow, I don't think the history of baseball is littered with a ton of guys who have come into the majors at nineteen years old and had the kind of start Harper has.

It'd be hard to think of even one 19 year old who's had as complete a package as Harper has shown on the Major League level, at least since WW2.

Griffey, Mantle, Cedeno. That's about it. Tony C was a great hitter at 19, but didn't have the complete skillset the other guys did.

Yount? OK, not THAT complete a package, but a SS.

It'd be hard to think of even one 19 year old who's had as complete a package as Harper has shown on the Major League level, at least since WW2.

Trout may have had the package last year, but he apparently didn't open it until May 1st of this year.

I won't argue semantics here, but there aren't many prospects who were the #1 overall pick in the draft, and the BA #1 prospect in the game for two years, and then had an excellent first 38 games in the majors, and ended up not being very good major league players. I'm sure he will have his slumps this year but if the league catches up to him, it won't be for very long.

I think he's about as much of a lock as being a very good major league player as any 19 year old has been. I don't think that is a debate at all. He's going to be a star provided he doesn't Josh Hamilton his life. I just don't think it's realistic to look at any talented ballplayers first month in the majors and think that is indicative of how good he actually is right now.

It'd be hard to think of even one 19 year old who's had as complete a package as Harper has shown on the Major League level, at least since WW2.

Arom pointed it out several. (I would have included Arod though--although his first full year was age 20, and his results in age 19 weren't that impressive)

Yount? OK, not THAT complete a package, but a SS.

Yount didn't really bring much to the table until he was 22. He was lucky to be in the right place at the right time to play at that age. I'm pretty sure that if his career were replayed in almost any other time, or any other team, he spends an extra 2-3 years in the minors.

Phil Caveretta

I just don't think it's realistic to look at any talented ballplayers first month in the majors and think that is indicative of how good he actually is right now.

Why wouldn't his current performance be indicative of his current ability (especially since it's not like he's slugging 1.000 or doing anything else obviously unsustainable)? At most you can say "we don't have enough data to know how good he is right now", which is a long way from "no way is he one of the top 50 position players right now".

Have you guys ever even read Sox Therapy? Not that I suggest you have to, mind you; but it's not exactly a hotbed of "Sawx R the BEST!!" sentiment.

Absolutely off-topic, but while I largely agree with the words above, I don't agree with the sentiment. There's a lot of "our front office is playing chess while the rest of the league thinks it's checkers" talk. Every time a non-frontline player is put on the DL and his bones didn't actually come out of the skin, there's an unspoken assumption that he's being DL'd for nefarious reasons that have nothing to do with injury; mostly to get the hot young golden boy into the lineup.

You're really reading a lot of subtext into our cynicism about the front office's roster games. I don't think there has been a single post in ST that claimed the roster games were a function of superior intelligence. It's just a funny, mostly inconsequential thing they do.

You're really reading a lot of subtext into our cynicism about the front office's roster games. I don't think there has been a single post in ST that claimed the roster games were a function of superior intelligence. It's just a funny, mostly inconsequential thing they do.

Yeah, I'd characterize the attitude more of "Our front office is playing chess, which is odd, since it's actually a game of checkers."

Why wouldn't his current performance be indicative of his current ability (especially since it's not like he's slugging 1.000 or doing anything else obviously unsustainable)? At most you can say "we don't have enough data to know how good he is right now", which is a long way from "no way is he one of the top 50 position players right now".

Because he hasn't been scouted enough by live eyes. Second time through the league is when you make or break young players. You separate the Maas's from the Griffeys.

There has only been one player in the past 50 years to post over a 110 ops+ in the majors at 19(400+ pa). Be optimistic, say he is 110 ops+ with plus's across the board. I'm not sure that makes him one of the best players at his position. We'll be generous and say he's a centerfielder. We'll even go say he's an above average fielder. Would a 110 ops+ centerfielder above average be considered top 5 at his position? I would say Kemp, Hamilton, McCutchen, Granderson, Bourn, Jay, Adam Jones, all are better than him right this moment(not counting health) and that Trout could make an argument seeing as he's having a better season and is the better defensive player. If you claim him as a right fielder, I think he falls even further behind the positional rankings.

He's impressive, and he is already a league average major league starter right now. Saying anything more than that, is buying into the hype.

Be optimistic, say he is 110 ops+ with plus's across the board. I'm not sure that makes him one of the best players at his position.

Using real results, even if the sample size is small, seems like a better basis to judge a player than using numbers pulled out of some Internet commenter's rectum.

If there's an answer to Harper, it's Mike Trout. Trout's an old man at 20, but he's still managing a .350/.407/.548 with 13 stolen bases.

Trout v. Harper feels like what Mantle v. Mays must have, or more contemporarily, Vlad Guerrero and Andruw Jones. They didn't turn into Inner Circle types, but Vlad's is likely going to be a Hall of Famer, and Jones probably should be. It's exciting to think that Trout/Harper could surpass that.

Using real results, even if the sample size is small, seems like a better basis to judge a player than using numbers pulled out of some Internet commenter's rectum.

That is fine, you can use real results based upon an unscouted, player first time through the league, that is a great way to rate players. I mean Kevin Maas, and Chris Shelton are hof players that the league never figured out. I mean the fact that only Tony C has been able to post over a 110 ops+ as a 19 year old, doesn't make you think? Mantle, couldn't, Arod couldn't Griffey couldn't.

Griffey had a .880 ops after 46 games finished the season with a .748 ops. That is the standard that Harper is looking at matching. I think expecting any more is foolish.

Jones probably should be.

Wait... Andruw Jones?

He had his last HoF-type year at 29. The last time he played more than 107 games he was 30.

Because he hasn't been scouted enough by live eyes. Second time through the league is when you make or break young players. You separate the Maas's from the Griffeys.

Sound like you would expect him to have a hot start and then start to struggle.

It's a small sample size, of course, but Harper's only getting better.

As of today, he has 163 plate appearances. Let's just cut that in half arbitrarily.

PAs 1-80: .246/.338/.449/.787 That includes 9 BB and 14 K.
PAs 81-163: .315/.398/.589/.987 That includes 10 BB and 12 K. (That's also a 35 HR pace over 162 games)

Of course, these are small samples cut from an already small sample. Still, the league is not slowing him down, yet.

The bottom line for me is that the Nationals now have two of the five most exciting and fun players in the game. I can't wait 'til they're in Milwaukee late in July. Hopefully Strasburg is pitching and Harper is making the same adjustments he has over the last three weeks.

Griffey had a .880 ops after 46 games finished the season with a .748 ops. That is the standard that Harper is looking at matching. I think expecting any more is foolish.

I'm not expecting anything, I'm waiting and seeing. You're the one that's already cast judgment, based on even less evidence than the 163 PA he has in the books.

He had his last HoF-type year at 29. The last time he played more than 107 games he was 30.

Durh. I meant to say, "Jones probably should have been." His career fell of kind of freakishly fast, and I don't know that anyone knows what happened. But he should have been a HoFer. Durh, durh.