Your (tough) grades for the Nationals' season
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
We asked you to grade the Nats'2026 season.
Why it matters: With a 77-85 record and missing the playoffs for the seventh year in a row, Washington was average … at best.
- Which is where the majority of our readers put them.
Here are the results, along with some explanations (edited for length and clarity):
A (2%): "They made as much progress as we could reasonably expect, and the kids are fun to watch hit." — Reid D.
B (25%): "The team made great progress in updating it's analytics and modernizing its coaching techniques. … But, they need to spend some money on pitching if they want to be competitive." — H. Parris
C (40%): "It was a wasted season. We had an elite offense but an historically bad bullpen. If Lerners had invested in a bullpen … Nats would have won 15-20 more games and competed for playoff spot." Tim M.
D (28%): "At least we're not the Mets." — Brandon M.
F (5%): "They stink." — Anonymous
Tougher graders than I anticipated; I would have checked Rate My Professor and steered clear of your classes!
My take: The Lerners carry a reputation for frugality and need to invest for the organization to take the next step. But the deadline trades were more about adding young talent than shedding payroll. The new front office laid a nice foundation.
I give the Nats a B. The offense took a leap, the farm system improved and the organization looks more modern. If they miss the playoffs again next year, we'll dock them.