wpostServer: http://css.washingtonpost.com/wpost

The Post Most: Sports

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/tv-listings-dc
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and SarahKogod  |  The Bog on Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 09:48 AM ET, 06/07/2011

The Nats through 60 games


(Ben Margot - AP)
I think Adam Kilgore pretty much summed up my thoughts after the Nats lost in a million innings Monday night — or at least, he would have summed up my thoughts had I not gone to sleep with the Nats safely ahead, 4-1.

“It doesn’t feel this bleak,” he wrote, “but the #Nats have the third-worst record in the majors at 26-34.”

I mean, it really doesn’t feel that bleak. There seems to be young talent on display, both in the field and on the mound. Embarrassing gaffes seem to be on the decline. There are Strasburg and Harper (and Rendon) dreams. No one in the front office has been spotted wearing leather pants or riding a Segway, at least publicly.

And yet, as of Tuesday morning, the Nats are tied for the fourth-worst mark in the majors, 26-34 and 10 games out of first place. Numerically, that’s bleak.

Out of curiosity, and since 60 games is a round number, I went back through the last six years to see what the typical position for the Nats was at this point. Well, they’ve averaged 25.8 wins and 34.2 losses through 60 games, and they’ve been an average of 9 games out of first place. Meaning, thus far, this has been almost a perfectly average Nats season.

Although it doesn’t feel that bleak.

The historical record:

2010: 29-31, 5.0 games out of first

2009: 17-43, 18.5 games out of first

2008: 24-36, 11 games out of first

2007: 24-36, 12 games out of first

2006: 27-33, 9 games out of first

2005: 34-26, in first by 1.5 games

By  |  09:48 AM ET, 06/07/2011

Categories:  Nats

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company