Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Lineups From PNC Park

I'll post the Pittsburgh lineup when I get it.

Washington

Morgan - 8
Guzman - 6
Zimmerman - 5
Willingham - 3
Dukes - 7
Belliard - 4
Kearns - 9
Nieves - 2
Balester - 1

By Chico Harlan  |  August 2, 2009; 10:22 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pirates 11, Nats 6
Next: A Lineup Change, and the First Base Picture

Comments

someone apparently believes belliard is valuable roster "inventory." that's loser thinking.

Posted by: surly_w | August 2, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

I don't know how you can win a mlb game with any two of belliard, nieves, Gonzalez or hernandez in your lineup. I can't imagine we have won any games where we just give the other team two automatic outs like that.

Posted by: curz | August 2, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I am in Pittsburgh. I may just head home now. The bottom four of that lineup - my gawd. Didn't we learn in Baltimore that you can't bat Belliard and Kearns back-to-back? Or have them out there at the same time? Or have them out there at all?

Posted by: NFBLooser | August 2, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

baltova1 says: "I don't usually believe in spending big money on players but if they don't do something to make this team competitive and fast, they're going to be doomed to second class citizenship here for a long time to come."

I can go with that. But consider the following: what if the Nats, with one of the lowest payrolls in all of MLB, had just spent up to MLB-average on the team in the last three seasons? This is not your "big money" but just average money. Think of all the players the Nats would have had, to not just make the team respectable, but also to trade for prospects that would make the Nats competitive in the years ahead.

I would be glad to be patient, if the Nats were not so cheap. Considering that the Nats are in one of MLB's largest and wealthiest regions in the USA, is MLB-average too much to ask?

Here are the payroll data:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ew-fwu2XT3cpPRtt9qIGw

Posted by: EdDC | August 2, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

This is a line-up that gives me every reason to lose interest in the Nats plus it's unfair to Balester to give him such weak offensive and defensive support. There is no market for Belliard and Kearns so there is no reason to showcase them anymore.

Posted by: Bill-CH | August 2, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Why not play Harris instead of Kearns? Or Belliard?

This lineup makes no sense to me.

Posted by: natsfan111 | August 2, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Someone remind me why having Riggleman as manager is better than having Acta. I don't see any difference myself.

Posted by: nunof1 | August 2, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Riggleman's kidding, right? Just because Belliard and Kearns are still on the roster doesn't mean he has to start them - EVER! This team is 40 gams under .500 and we've all seen the movie featuring Kearns and Belliard. This is ludicrous.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 2, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure Riggleman been given his "marching orders" that is the only reason Belliard and Kearns are in the lineup and i don't have a problem with Nieves in fact Bard is slow and imo doesn't call a smart game, this team misses Flores, ya think?

Posted by: dargregmag | August 2, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Upon reflection...how does this line-up make us better in 2010? It doesn't...therefore it is a waste of time. Getting better next year is the criteria for this year....

Posted by: Bill-CH | August 2, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Lets hope for rain, this has been a miserable series. We should not be playing this bad against a AAA team.

Posted by: Tom8 | August 2, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I like all the belliardaching. It guarantees a Nats win today. Good karma.

Posted by: cokedispatch | August 2, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Interesting article in today's NY Times about the sub-standard playing conditions the Lake Monsters have to deal with:

http://tinyurl.com/lq8dpo

There have been other articles about their field also. Among other things not mentioned in this article, apparently until recently the bases were not spaced at 90 feet exactly, and the mound was not regulation size.

Now the Lerners don't own the Lake Monsters, but they do have the right to demand adequate playing conditions for their prospects. If "The Plan" were for real, one might think that they would have more interest in protecting some of their "inventory."

Posted by: CoverageisLacking | August 2, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

ABM,

1 error in 6 games......that is one difference...more aggressive running and better use of the bull pen...going with Bergman for example..But as Rigs said....he thinks Acta had all the right line ups and rotation of days off......I agree this line up and others like it spell the death of Rigs.

Posted by: JayBeee | August 2, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Won't even bother turning on the TV for this one. Maybe not even the radio.

Posted by: leetee1955 | August 2, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Is it raining yet? Let's hope for a wash out!

Posted by: johnbear1 | August 2, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Yeah i'm with leetee1955, got some things to do with the boss(my wife) so i'll probably catch a few innings, not worth the tivo.

Posted by: dargregmag | August 2, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I grew up in Vermont and have fond memories of Centennial Field, going to Reds games in the 80s and even playing there and winning a state title in high school. It would be a sad day if the team had to leave town, but if the University of Vermont has bagged its baseball team, they have no incentive to maintain the field, and I don't think the Lake Monsters can afford to do it all by themselves.
All the Lerners can do is ride the time out until the Player Development Contract is up and then find another spot to put their short-season club if that's what they want to do. It's virtually unheard of for a major league club to put money into a minor league affiliate's operations, since they shuffle so often anyway it's easier just to find a new club to sign with.

Posted by: mjhoya12 | August 2, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

At the risk of offending a few, can we lay off the uber-negativity just a little? Today's is a typical day-game-following-a-night-game lineup including the backup catcher and players who need at-bats if they're going to be needed as pinch hitters on a shorthanded (Nickless) team like ours.

I've been as hard on Kearns as anyone, but he's starting to hit a little as his hand has healed. No, it's not our best lineup, but it's an absolutely typical one for a Sunday afternoon on the road during the dog days of summer.

Riggleman is no idiot; he's been at this a long time. Please give the man at least a little credit for knowing how to handle a roster...even a low-quality one like the Nats'.

Posted by: InTheCheapSeats | August 2, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

after being mcbludgeoned last night, i would have wanted to see a more representative lineup today. but hey, when you're 32-72, maybe this is a representative lineup.

Posted by: surly_w | August 2, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Looks good to me, let's play ball!

Posted by: dand187 | August 2, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

GO NATS...lets upset the NJ naysayers today. Just win baby.

Posted by: cokedispatch | August 2, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Dukes should not be in the major leagues. Jorge Padilla should have gotten a shot.

Posted by: WJStephens | August 2, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"For the second time in two weeks, I was in a bar/restaurant in Northern Virginia at game time. Both places had about six TV's. 4-5 of them were tuned to the Orioles game, one or two to the Nats and those sets were not in prominent locations."

You have a typo in this paragraph. 4-5 of those TV sets were tuned to the RED SOX game.

Posted by: nunof1 | August 2, 2009 10:46 AM

nunof1, I thought of that, but what difference does it make?

Posted by: baltova1 | August 2, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

eddc, I agree with you. Spending average money might have gotten us guys like Hudson at 2B, Wolf and/or Garland in the rotation to buy some time for the young guys to mature in the minors and maybe a couple of relievers to avoid the embarassment we've seen this year.

Posted by: baltova1 | August 2, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Well, it's a muggy day outside, it's cool in here, I have wine, and some bills to pay and some techie issues with my phone to fix...OK, we can play ball.

Posted by: Nats_Lady | August 2, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"You have a typo in this paragraph. 4-5 of those TV sets were tuned to the RED SOX game.

Posted by: nunof1 | August 2, 2009 10:46 AM

nunof1, I thought of that, but what difference does it make?"

There are way more Red Sox fans in DC than there are Orioles fans. Probably more than there are Nats fans too.

Posted by: nunof1 | August 2, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

> Posted by: InTheCheapSeats | August 2, 2009 12:50 PM

So much for that theory of the Lerners being silent.

Posted by: nunof1 | August 2, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I agree with CheapSeats. I'm tired of the broken record uber-negativity. Besides, how could this line-up do any worse than the one yesterday?

Why would anyone think those of us who read these posts could possibly care if they watch the game or not.

I'm hoping that this group of guys, on this particular day, can put together a win and salvage something of this series.

Go Nats!

Posted by: longhorn64 | August 2, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

There are way more Red Sox fans in DC than there are Orioles fans. Probably more than there are Nats fans too.

------

Maybe, but after this many years, shouldn't they be turning more of those fans into Nats fans?

Posted by: baltova1 | August 2, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

nunof1 says: "Someone remind me why having Riggleman as manager is better than having Acta. I don't see any difference myself."

I see some differences. Manny had given up on some of the guys that Riggleman likes, such as Belli and Kearns.

But OK, we are supposed to be positive, so, hey, 32-72 is not so bad. That means that in the average 3-game series, the Nats can be expected to win .92 of one game. That's almost one game in the average series, although not quite. Close, though.

Posted by: EdDC | August 2, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company