I don't think I said the last two days "made" the Nats wholly unreliable. Rather, think I said "...due to the Nats being wholly unreliable from game to game as the past two days showed."
That difference is key. The last two days were just a snapshot of the season-long problem. A great win was near-always followed by a horrible loss. Or two and two. Three and three. That's why if you look at the team's record on a monthly basis, you'll see they nailed nearly perfect .500 ball most every month. Besides the obvious of .500 not being good enough to win anything, it's "flip a coin" baseball. Or, the hallmark of a "wholly unreliable" team as they've been this season.
The last two days were just the latest example of it, certainly not the cause or proof of anything. Does that make more sense?