There's a reader named AJ from Virginia who often participates in my weekly chat sessions. I think he's an Atlanta Braves fan; he's certainly not a Washington Nationals fan, and likes to post comments saying that Nationals are overrated and overhyped. On Tuesday, he wrote:

How about reading into the Nationals for the past 3 years ... checking 2012-2014 records, WASH has a .658 winning pct against teams who have not made the playoffs a single time in those 3 yrs and a .445 winning pct against teams that have made the playoffs at least twice in those 3 yrs (consistently good teams). The .658 pct includes going 11-1 against Houston and 41-15 against the Mets. Almost 30% of their wins in that 3 yr span have come against just 2 teams ... NYM and MIA. And that includes not beating the good NYM and MIA pitchers at all ... in fact Harvey/DeGrom/J. Fernandez have faced WASH 9 times with a combined 1.20 ERA and only 1 loss to the Nats. How is this not a team that seems to have proven over the last 3 yrs that they just beat up on bad teams really well. Do you still think they've "met their lofty expectations"?

AJ's numbers appear to check out. But what do they mean? I did a quick study. Over the past three seasons, six teams have had winning records all three years: the Nationals (280 total wins), the Oakland Athletics (278), St. Louis Cardinals (275), Baltimore Orioles (274), Los Angeles Dodgers (272) and Detroit Tigers (271). Here is each team's record in games against teams that finished each particular season with a losing record and those who finished .500 or better:

Versus losing teams

Nationals: 185-102 (.645)

Dodgers: 171-100 (.631)

A's: 147-90 (.620)

Orioles: 128-79 (.618)

Cardinals: 158-102 (.608)

Tigers: 134-102 (.568)

Versus .500+ teams

Tigers: 137-113 (.548)

A's: 131-118 (.526)

Orioles: 146-133 (.523)

Cardinals: 117-109 (.518)

Nationals: 95-104 (.477)

Dodgers: 101-114 (.470)

So AJ is on to something here: The Nationals do have the best record against the bad teams and second-worst against the good teams. But note this, as well: The Nationals have played, by far, the fewest games against winning teams, thanks to playing in the terrible NL East. Look at the total number of games over the three seasons against .500-plus teams:

Orioles: 279

Tigers: 250

A's: 249

Cardinals: 226

Dodgers: 215

Nationals: 199

Last season, when the Nationals went 96-66, they played just 46 games against winning teams. The Orioles played 91. In 2013, the Nationals went 24-41 against good teams, including 6-13 against the Braves and 0-6 against the Cardinals. They won 86 games and missed the postseason. So I think there's some truth to what AJ is getting at. This kind of breakdown, however, makes each team's schedule difficulty appear more extreme than it actually is. For example, using the RPI page here at ESPN.com, the Orioles had a strength of schedule of .505 last season and the Nationals .495, which is not a very significant difference.

Also, as I'm guessing AJ would suggest, I'm not sure there's a correlation between the Nationals' struggles against better teams and their lack of success in the postseason. The Giants were 27-31 last year against good teams and 44-42 in 2012 and won the World Series both years.

Anyway, that's a long lead-in to Stephen Strasburg's performance on Tuesday, in which he gave up five runs in 5 1/3 innings to the Boston Red Sox. He ultimately left with a no-decision when the Red Sox rallied to win 8-7, with the help of a big fielding miscue from reliever Blake Treinen. Neither of Strasburg's two starts have produced good results, at least in the column that matters most -- runs allowed:

Stephen Strasburg gave up a career-high 10 hits tonight and has given up at least 9 hits in consecutive games for the 1st time in his career — ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) April 15, 2015

In his first start against the Mets, Strasburg got blooped to death, and his defense hurt him as he gave up six runs (three earned). Maybe Strasburg is just a slow starter; he allowed 17 runs in 21 innings through his first four outings a year ago. He ended up with a pretty nice season: 14-11, 3.14 ERA and an NL-leading 242 strikeouts (tied with Johnny Cueto).

But buried in the numbers is the same issue that tracks to the Nationals as a team:

Strasburg is 30-16 with a 2.66 ERA against under .500 teams (65 starts).

Strasburg now is 13-15 with a 3.69 ERA against .500-plus teams (46 starts).

Does that mean anything? Do other elite pitchers have a similar split? Let's take a look at a few (regular season totals only):

Clayton Kershaw

Bad teams: 55-24, 2.55

Good teams: 43-26, 2.48

Madison Bumgarner

Bad teams: 41-21, 2.88

Good teams: 27-29, 3.33

Felix Hernandez

Bad teams: 58-38, 2.86

Good teams: 68-54, 3.24

Stephen Strasburg allowed 10 hits and five earned runs in 5 1/3 innings against the Red Sox on Tuesday. Bob DeChiara/USA TODAY Sports

Adam Wainwright

Bad teams: 68-29, 2.87

Good teams: 52-38, 3.14

Max Scherzer

Bad teams: 53-24, 3.39

Good teams: 38-27, 3.71

Justin Verlander

Bad teams: 84-29, 3.10

Good teams: 68-60, 3.92

Cole Hamels

Bad teams: 66-45, 3.22

Good teams: 42-39, 3.35

Johnny Cueto

Bad teams: 49-25, 2.98

Good teams: 36-33, 3.51

David Price

Bad teams: 33-18, 3.12

Good teams: 54-33, 3.20

Chris Sale

Bad teams: 21-9, 2.26

Good teams: 24-20, 3.10

Jordan Zimmermann

Bad teams: 37-20, 2.89

Good teams: 21-21, 3.88

As you would expect, they're all a little better against the bad teams, except Clayton Kershaw (further proof, perhaps, that he's in a league of his own). But Strasburg does have the largest ERA split between good teams and bad teams -- with his Nationals teammate Zimmermann having the second-largest difference (Zimmermann got pounded on Monday). Also note that Strasburg has a third more starts against under .500 teams; compare that to, say, David Price, who has 111 career starts against winning teams and just 72 against under .500 teams. What kind of numbers would Price have if he had spent his career pitching in the NL East instead of the AL East (and now AL Central)?

Just a little food for thought.

So where am I going with all this? The Nationals are 2-6. It's only eight games, which doesn't mean too much, yet. I still expect them to win the NL East. But are they a great team? Is Strasburg an elite pitcher? I guess I'd like to see both of them do better against the tougher teams, but my projection still is that they're not going to get much competition from their division rivals. Even so, the great ones raise their game against the best -- Kershaw in his career against his the arch-rival Giants: 14-5, 1.43 ERA -- and at this point I'm hesitant to declare Strasburg one of the game's best starters until he proves he can step it up against the best teams.