How the Nationals overcame losing Bryce Harper to make the playoffs and outplay the Phillies
Three main factors can explain the Nats' continued success
•
5 min read
On Tuesday, the Washington Nationals will host the Milwaukee Brewers in the 2019 National League Wild Card Game. Because the Nationals are in the playoffs and the Philadelphia Phillies are not -- and because the Nationals clinched against the Phillies last week during a five-game sweep -- it's become fair game to reevaluate the Nationals' offseason and their decision to let Bryce Harper leave for Philly.
So far, this realm has belonged mostly to hot-take artists who seem more interested in taking potshots at Harper -- and/or his contract -- than a nuanced analysis of how the Nationals were able to remain competitive after losing one of their biggest stars to a division rival.
As such, we wanted to touch on the latter by addressing three factors that help explain why the Nationals and Phillies are where they are. Let's get to it below.
1. The replacements
Whenever a player leaves, the obvious question to ask is: Who replaces them?
The Nationals, for their part, began the winter with a better outfield situation than most teams. Yes, really. Even before Harper's departure became official, the Nationals had three starting caliber outfielders on their roster: Juan Soto, Adam Eaton, and rookie Victor Robles. (This doesn't touch on Michael A. Taylor, who has started for the Nationals in the past as well.)
Soto, thus far anyway, has become the generational hitter the Nationals always hoped Harper would be. Moreover, his emergence over the past two seasons has overshadowed that he was not considered Washington's best outfield prospect entering 2018. Rather, that distinction belonged to Robles, who missed most of last season due to injury.
During the regular season, Robles had actually accumulated nearly the same number of Wins Above Replacement as Harper, albeit in a different way. Take a look at the breakdown, per Baseball-Reference:
| Stat/player | Robles | Harper |
|---|---|---|
Batting runs | -6 | 19 |
Defense + position runs | 27 | 3 |
Baserunning runs | 1 | 1 |
Total WAR | 4.1 | 4.2 |
Granted, defensive metrics are notoriously unreliable, and if we had to pick between the two, we'd say that Harper probably had the better season as a result. But Robles being anywhere close in overall production shouldn't be overlooked.
With Robles ready to go this season, the Nationals didn't have to add anyone to feel confident about their outfield. The best-laid plans don't always work out, but they did in D.C. in this regard: the Nationals received the seventh-best production from their outfielders -- that's better than the Phillies received, yes, and better than what the Boston Red Sox, Tampa Bay Rays, and Atlanta Braves (among others) received, too.
One other unheralded aspect that shouldn't be ignored about the Nats' outfield -- even if it had nothing to do with Harper -- is how Eaton appeared in 150 games after combining for 118 appearances his first two years in D.C. Sure, Eaton had a lower OPS+ than in those seasons, but there's value in not having to dig deep into your depth. The Nationals received at least 150 appearances from all three starting outfielders, thus limiting their exposure in a massive way.
2. The savings
Whenever a player leaves, the next obvious question to ask is: Who will they pay now?
The Nationals didn't forego spending with Harper leaving town. Their Opening Day payroll increased, from $180 million in 2018 to $197 million in 2019, and they made a splash signing of their own by jumping on arguably the top available starting pitcher.
Indeed, the Nationals lassoed lefty Patrick Corbin relatively early in the process, signing him to a six-year deal worth $140 million in early December. That's substantially less than what the Phillies paid Harper, and less than the overall amount the Nationals offered Harper, but remember: the Nationals' offer included significant deferrals.
As such, it's fair to write the Nationals used some of their budget earmarked for Harper to lure to town the best available starting pitcher. Corbin, paired with Max Scherzer and Stephen Strasburg, gave the Nationals a fearsome one-two-three punch -- in theory and in reality.
That trio combined to make 93 starts, over which the three ptichers threw 583 innings and accumulated a 3.18 ERA and a 4.60 strikeout-to-walk ratio. For reference, Corbin himself tossed 202 innings and had a 3.25 ERA and a 3.40 strikeout-to-walk ratio as part of a season in which he recorded 5.6 Wins Above Replacement, per Baseball-Reference's calculations.
Unsurprisingly, the Nationals had one of the best rotations in baseball. They ranked second in ERA (behind the Los Angeles Dodgers) and third in FIP (behind the Dodgers and Tampa Bay Rays) -- and did it while throwing the second-most innings, more than either of those squads.
3. The competition
To recap: The Nationals were well-positioned to replace Harper because of their internal outfield depth, and were able to leverage the savings to sign a high-impact free-agent pitcher to complete a trifecta of aces at the top of their rotation. Is it any wonder, then, why they were able to finish ahead of the Phillies, who haven't won more than 81 games since 2011?
Keep in mind, though the Phillies went through a competitive downturn, they were not able to amass countless top prospects the way other teams -- like, say, the Braves -- have during similar spiels. Rather, the Phillies have little to show for their losing ways at this point outside of a couple promising young players and a few trade acquisitions -- including J.T. Realmuto.
What the Phillies did during the winter -- signing Harper, among others -- was necessary because the only way the Phillies were going to win games is by adding external talent. And since they weren't going to be able to trade for a player of Harper's quality, they had to spend money and pay market value for him. (And let's be clear: the Phillies got their money's worth in year one by paying Harper a little over $11 million and receiving about four wins in return.)
That the Phillies have seemingly been criticized more for signing Harper -- spending money on a good, marketable player to try winning games now -- than for botching their rebuild speaks in part to baseball's messed up priorities. And that the focus as it pertains to the Nationals losing Harper is on his perceived attitude -- or God knows what else -- rather than an organization that accurately assessed its own and made a risky (though thus far fruitful) free-agent signing goes to show that some are more interested in personalities than the reality.
Harper signing with the Phillies didn't help the Nationals as addition by subtraction, nor did it doom the Phillies to mediocrity. Baseball is both a lot simpler and a lot more complicated than those silly narratives can (or will ever) capture.
