Matt Capps: All-Star? Trade-bait?

Is Capps even the sixth best "closer" in the NL?

Heath Bell has more saves with better numbers in the WHIP and strikeout categories, plus a solid 1.72 ERA.

Jonathan Broxton waited until June 23rd to walk his 4th batter, at which point his ERA was 0.89.

Carlos Marmol has struck out an absurd 72 (seventy-two!) batters in 39 innings.

Billy Wagner has a WHIP under 1.00 and has given up 5 runs while recording 17 saves

Leo Nunez has been brilliant all-around.

That leaves Capps in the same category as Matt Lindstrom, K-Rod, Francisco Cordero, and Brian Wilson. If you were GM, would you select Capps given first pick of those guys? Which is why the Nats need to capitalize on the All-Star misconception and sell high.

Capps Cracks Again

It wasn't a rally squandered, but more of a quick reality check; the best way to help a closer out is to give him more than one run to protect. Every closer looks like Mo Rivera with a three run lead. Trust me, Mark Davis is not walking through the door. And most non-Hall-of-Fame closers will drop five or so games a year, and most of the time it is a one run lead and one of two pitches get away. The only alarming stat is that he hadn't cracked before despite a WHIP around 1.50. The regression is strong with this one, methinks.

Capps Gifted and Robbed... a Team With an Identity Crisis

It all balances out.

Friday night, Matt Capps was set a standard "free save" situation, bases empty to start the ninth, three run lead. He then proceeded to let four straight reach, cutting the lead to two with the bases loaded an nobody out. The Nats win probability had dropped from 95% to 50% in a matter of seconds. All seemed lost.

Matt Capps pulled a Maverick and "re-engaged" striking out two straight. A couple of the borderline calls went his way. Then, with the strike out eliminated in the form of David Eckstein, he forced the chop out to end the game. Bases loaded nobody out is almost a certain run, as few pitchers can force the 1-2-3 double play. Mat Capps took advantage of a couple of weaker hitters and a friendly strike zone and saved the day.

Sunday afternoon, he was not as fortunate. A good fastball looked to get the hometown call and extended the at bat one pitch too many. Close games, by design, will break pretty close to 50/50 over an extended sample. The best way to win baseball games is to either score a lot of runs, or give up very few runs. The Nats currently do neither of these things. They tend to play to the style of their opponent. They will chase Philly in bunches, then play small ball against the Padres. It is an interesting dynamic, but not one that will likely produce prolonged success.

So what is the Nats scheme?

Rizzo has built a staff of a bunch contact pitchers, but aside from Zimmerman and Desmond, the defense isn't above average. Riggleman wants to run, but none of his fast guys can seem to get on base. They have the reputation of being a strong offense, but from an advanced standpoint, the team relies on timely hittling from the likes of Roger Bernadina and Wil Nieves to scrap out 4-3 wins. Strasburg shows up next week, but what does he change? Sure, he'll get the strikeouts, but the well hit balls will fall and runs will still score... this isn't AA. In the end, this team really needs to find long term solutions in right field and at catcher. Jesus Flores isn't walking through that door, and Justin Maxwell may be finished as a DFA yo-yo.

In other words, Rizzo needs to stop posturing with this whole "contender" status and find a prospect with what little bait is on the line. I want to keep the Hammer more than any one of the ten readers of this blog, but what choice does the organization have?

The Pleasant Surprises, and a Couple Unpleasant Ones

Aside from the record, the Nats continue to exceed expectations despite not being all that much better a team from last summer. But of course, for every champion, there has to be, well, not a champion.

Champion
Matt Capps, Closer: Matt Capps has gotten it done every which way but lose this year, which considering that he has saved 11 of the 14 Nats wins without blowing one (and one was a complete game from Livan). That warrants some sort of accolade. He has flashed the ability to strike out the side, as well as the ability to get out of jams. He has charged in to retire more than three outs, and his best outing was in a losing effort against the Dodgers. Sure, he has posted an unsustainable strand rate (96.4%), which has neutralized those uncharacteristic walks. Gravity will likely catch up to him, and the ERA will settle in around 3, but there is no question who comes out of the pen when the game is on the line.

Not-So
Cristian Guzman, Nomad: Guzman has never been able to grasp the concept of the walk, and since his career was reborn following having missed all of 2006, he has desperately approached each at bat like he was sitting on 2,999 hits. The result this season has been an OBP under .300. Match that with below average defense all over the diamond, and you have a player incapable of contributing at the major league level. The only thing keeping him in the lineup has been the injury to Zimmerman and the fact that Adam Kennedy has been no better.

Later, how Ian Desmond projections continue to be spot on, and why.

Matt Capps- 3.5 million

This isn't an unreasonable deal if he in fact is the closer. However, there is an equally reasonable chance that he isn't even the best ex-Pirate reliever to come to town. One year gives the Nats a low risk option to evaluate all their closer options, which should include everybody floating around. I really feel that Clippard and Storen are the two best options, followed by Capps and MacDougal.

To be fair, Capps was ridiculously unlucky (.370 BABIP) on an offensively challenged team, following two seasons of fortune (.272 BABIP). He's a standard fastball/slider closer, and his velocities have remained solid for three seasons. It's unlikely he will be as bad as his 2009 numbers would indicate, but I'm not sold loading up on former Pirates.