Nearly everything went right at Nationals Park on July 4: John Lannan turned in another steady performance, the Nats infield backed him with four double plays, Nyjer Morgan showed his speed in centerfield, the numbers three, four and five hitters moved runners over and produced clutch hits — and Mike McDougal shut the door on the Chops in the ninth as the Nats rallied to take the second of three from the Braves. But the star of the show was Adam Dunn, who launched a 440 foot shot into the right-centerfield second deck for his 300th career home run in the seventh inning. In the eighth Dunn was the hero again, scorching a through-the-box game winning single to ensure the Nats’ win. Dunn went two for three with two RBIs in the game.

Lannan — victimized throughout the year by the Nats’ bullpen and lack of timely hitting — was on the other end of the win today, with Atlanta Braves new phenom Tommy Hanson taking the no-decision, the result of unusually ineffective stints by relievers Mike Gonzalez, Peter Moylan and Eric O’Flaherty. Gonzalez was particularly ineffective, giving up three runs in 1/3 of an inning. The Nats were buoyed by the win, and by Dunn’s heroics. “It says a lot about the way the team battled back,” Manny Acta said after the game. “They have been doing it the whole season. Forget about the record. These guys play hard.” Dunn complimented the fans for their support. “They made it great. It was awesome.”

In truth, the stellar play of the Nats seemed to reflect an energized crowd, with few Braves fans in attendance. The thirst for a win was apparent at the outset, even as it became apparent that the Nats best hitters were going to have difficulty solving Hanson, who pitched three-hit ball through seven complete innings. But, like Lannan, the crowd of 23,000-plus hung in, sensing that once Hanson was gone the Nationals might have a chance to put some runs on the board. They were not disappointed. After Dunn’s lone shot in the seventh, Nyjer Morgan’s timely sacrifice pushed runners to second and third in the eighth. Nick Johnson followed with a timely walk to load the bases. The next hitter, Ryan Zimmerman, delivered a ‘seeing eye” single to tie the score. Dunn then put the Nats ahead to stay with a first pitch single. Lannan had told Dunn between innings that he thought the Nats could win. “The double play helped me out,” Lannan said. “It was my best friend.”

“Baseball Tonight’s Buck Showalter” can get angry in a hurry. Last night on ESPN he made a strong case for including a new statistic that he calls “team errors” — plays that cost a team an out, but that don’t show up in the scorecard. He was absolutely meteoric, his voice nearly a shout, as he voiced-over a video showing a third baseman, catcher and pitcher converging on a pop foul, which fell uncaught. “Now that should be a team error,” he said, “and it oughta be in the scorebook.”

Showalter and A-Rod in Texas

Showalter makes a good point. During last night’s tilt against the O’s, the Nationals committed a “team error” that didn’t show up in the scorebook, but that cost the Nats a run — and perhaps the game. It came in the third inning. Detwiler walked the first batter (Greg Zaun). The next hitter (Cesar Izturis), grounded to Nick Johnson (unassisted). One out, runner on first. Detwiler then walked the pitcher (Koji Ueharu) and Brian Roberts before striking out Adam Jones (bases loaded, two outs). 

The next hitter, Nick Markakis, hit a slow grounder between third and short, forcing Zimmerman to his left with Guzman behind him. The ball was hit slowly enough that Zim’s only play was at second, but when he looked there the second baseman (Willie Harris) was nowhere to be found. He was moving towards first. Zaun scored from third. It’s nearly impossible to know how to score the play — officially it’s 1B, a dead-duck-no-fault infield single.

After the game, Nats fans (on “Nats Extra Postgame”) blamed Harris, saying he had failed to cover second. But Manny Acta had another version: “Harris was playing Markakis to pull,” Acta said. “Harris told Zimmerman that [on] a ball to him, he should go to first base. Harris just bluffed [going to second]. Zimmerman was not going to second base.” That is to say: when Zimmerman looked at second, Nats fans assumed Harris should be there. In my quest to keep the perfect scorebook (and after hearing Showalter), I noted the following – Team Error: Zimmerman, Harris. I then erased it. Managers place the infielders, so I put — Team Error: Acta. But that doesn’t make sense either, as I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that bench coach Jim Riggleman positions the infielders (according to the scouting report), so I put — Team Error: Riggleman. But actually, Harris was playing Markakis correctly, so Riggleman was not at fault. In the end I erased it all, and scored it the way the official scorer had it in his book: 1B. But in my notes for the game, I wrote this: Markakis (3rd inning) infield hit, no throw. 

The final line is frustratingly incomplete, but elegantly simple: BB, 3u, BB, BB, K, 1B, F9.

After The Game: I tuned into the Nats postgame call-in program and was surprised at the number of angry fans commenting on the loss. One caller suggested that Willie Harris “be waived” (for his apparent third inning “error”). But most of the calls focused on Manny Acta, for not being tough enough. I generally don’t like this kind of thing: it’s “football think” — where fans believe that winning games is a matter of “character” and “toughness,” words used by football commentators who pass themselves off as “analysts.” Do we really think that throwing buckets will make this team play better? Be patient. We just don’t have the horses folks . . . One of the callers, the night before last, had come down from Baltimore. He criticized Nats fans for being impatient. You have a beautiful ballpark, he said, and some very good young pitchers. The O’s look at Jordan Zimmermann and wish they had him. All true. But then again, we’d do anything to get this guy . . . After the Pale Hose worked hard to land Jake Peavy in a trade with the Friars (a panicky move to shore up their suffering starting pitching), White Sox pitchers threw two shutouts in a row, one from Gavin Floyd and the other from Clayton Richard. The second city’s second team has to feel better, but it won’t last . . .   

Defining The Game: Washington author Paul Dickson is finally getting the attention he deserves. The Dickson Baseball Dictionary was featured in today’s New York Times. It’s been a ready reference of mine for many years and is now in its third (new and expanded) edition. CFG readers might remember my chat with Paul about the definition of a Bugs Bunny Change-Up. It would be interesting to get his views on “team errors” and hear him whinge on about the history of the scorebook . . .

A Purging of Demons: Being the manager of a 7-17 ball club instantly makes him a candidate for an ulcer, not just because the team is bad but because the team is bad in so many different ways. It’s much like the notion that happy families are all alike, but unhappy families are unhappy for different reasons. Well, bad ballclubs are bad for different reasons on different days; bad pitching one day, bad defense the next . . .  So it is with the Nats this year. One day they hit but don’t pitch, another day it’s acceptable pitching, but they boot it around.

Speaking of bad pitching, the Post had a very good piece on Friday about Thursday night’s debacle in which the home town nine fought the first place Cards to even through eight innings and then threw the game away in the last frame with a hit batsman, a wild pitch and a couple of walks. To be precise, it went like this: walk, double, walk, hit batter, single, error, balk, stolen base, sac fly, single. Five runs: say “good night” Gracie. Manny Acta, God love him, was also precise: “You’re pitching for a last place team in a half empty stadium. What could be intimidating right now?” Amen. What I hope he also said, but the Post couldn’t print, was something along the lines of “Just throw the freaking ball!”

What I think should happen is for Acta to one day go all Ozzie Guillen on the team. I think it’ll do them some good. You know, an honest-to-goodness ten-minute Gatorade cooler-kicking, bat throwing, expletive laced Spanglish tirade at no thing and no one in particular. Just for the release. Just to vent. Just to protest general ineptitude. A purging of demons and karma and frustration. Like when dad goes ballistic for reasons that unknown to a ten year old and the dog. The specific catalytic event is must plain mysterious but you know it’s not a good time to stick around. Not because dad would ever lay a hand on you (or the dog), but you never know where the alarm clock or empty gas can might end up.

And then the storm passes and a calm settles over the ballclub. It is quiet for a time. And the striving for something approaching good can begin anew.

Bound To Continue: I’ve been thinking about the Nationals obsessively for a week now – ever since Washington Times writers Tim Lemke and Mark Zuckerman published a piece on how the policies of the tight-fisted Lerners have sparked a “growing level of frustration with the team’s ownership, stretching from the front office to the clubhouse.” While the Post’s Tom Boswell was not nearly so negative, his September 17 article on the Lerner ownership group included complaints from one player that while the Nats were “making money,” they seemed unwilling to spend it.

After a week of pondering this, I’m not sure I buy what Lemke, Zuckerman and Boswell are selling. True: this crackerjack triumverate has a lot more access to the Nats than I have, but there’s something lacking in their critique that leaves me puzzled. I am not arguing with their reporting, but with their perspective. My skepticism took shape during the course of the Sox-Tigers playoff game when, in the middle of the fourth inning, the WGN camera panned into the empty bleacher seats at Chicago’s U.S. Cellular Field.  

Empty bleachers? I was stunned. While the Nats drew “only” 2,320,400 fans for 80 home games (ranking 19th in the majors), I am as certain that an Anacostia playoff game would be sold out as I am that fossels are not placed in rocks by this guy. The Pale Hose drew 35,923 for their one game do-or-die tilt with the Leyland’s, 5000 less than capacity. In a playoff game! In Chicago! And there’s this: the White Sox, a storied club with a shot at the series, drew only 100,000 more fans than the Nats. A pittance. If you think the Lerners want a more loyal following, think of how Jerry Reinsdorf must feel. 

We have to remember: we live in a town where pastors rush their Sunday prayers so they won’t miss the opening kickoff, where baseball knowledge is as difficult to come by as bank bailouts and where the likes of “Doc,” “The Coach” and “Smokin Al” spend the summer talking about (gag) basketball (Koken hates baseball, taking every opportunity to claim, as he did recently, that it’s way behind the popularity of the two sports he loves.) 

There’s worse. In early July, three months after opening day, radio “personality” Andy Pollin, the sidekick of on-air semi-celebrity Steve Czaban talked about how he would never drive to Nationals’ Park because of the “huge” traffic back-ups. “The Czabe” (as he is known) was quizzical: “oh yeah?” Pollin was positive: “You kidding? Anyone who doesn’t take the metro is out of his mind.” And it occurred to me: these guys had never been to a Nationals game. How do I know? Because after Opening Day there were no “huge” traffic back-ups – at least not in the 26 games I attended. I can only conclude that Andy and “The Czabe” are confusing Nationals Park with some other stadium.

So here it is: as a part of this blog’s “state of the Nats” end-of-year reflections, I am prepared to give the Lerner family the benefit of the doubt. Not least of which because “a guy” who knows them (in the real estate business), says that while the Lerners are businessmen first, they have a reputation for spending money on projects only when necessity demands. “They save their money until they can spend it wisely,” he says, “so stop worrying.” The operative word is “wisely” — which is to say, don’t trade your seed corn for Eric Bedard and don’t trade your best prospects for left-handed busts. Don’t want to spend millions signing Andruw Jones? Fine by me. 

It’s true: the Nats have yet to build a solid fan base, have yet to put a decent team on the field, have yet to spend big money on a big player. But it’s also true: the Nats have yet to find any D.C. sports yakker who knows anything about baseball (except for the MASN team – and Phil Wood), have yet to adequately promote their on-air presence, have yet to reap the benefits of a not-bad marketing plan. How long will it take to build a fan base? 

Of the eleven teams that finished below the Nats in attendance, six of them (Pittsburgh, Oakland, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Minnesota) are among the oldest franchises in the game. Three of them (the A’s, Indians and Twins) are perennial contenders. Two other teams in the bottom third (the Marlins and Rays) have very good teams and they still can’t draw. And the Marlins (get this), have won two World Series in the last fifteen years. Two! Which is one more than the Phillies, who were founded in 1883. There’s even a team in baseball that hasn’t won a World Series in 100 years (there’s no certainty they’ll win one in the next hundred by the way. In fact, they might not). Which means that glory in baseball is not  just “occasional.” It’s rare.

Baseball is not a game of infant gratification, but of perseverance and patience. It takes a long time to build a ballclub, longer still to build a fan base, and even longer to grab the prize. Such knowledge might be only a modest salve to the wounded fans of Natdom, but it’s the truth. I am living proof. It used to be that watching my favorite team was a painful experience, because they always, always, always disappointed me. I was “miserable.” And then, about ten years ago, I realized my love for my team was making it impossible for me to love the game. I was a fan, but not a baseball fan. 

Then the Nats arrived. It used to be that I would drive 90 minutes to Birdland to watch a team I didn’t particularly like. Now it takes me 30 minutes to get to a ballpark to watch a team that outdrew them and that just might — might — someday, have a shot at something special. There’s also this. If you think Ted Lerner is bad you-oughta-geta-loada-this-guy:

 

You would think that all of this is known to the likes of Lemke, Zuckerman and Boswell, who know baseball, but in their recent commentaries they seem as innocent as eggs. Give Ted and Stan and Jim and Manny a break. They’ll get there.

Or they won’t.

Put Up Your Dukes: Our friends at Federal Baseball weigh in on the Elijah Dukes-Manny Acta dust-up on Tuesday night, even going so far as to show a clip of Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon agreeing that now is the time for Dukes to go. What? Already? Listen, the Boston Red Sox are having fistfights in their dugouts for God’s sake and the World Champion Yanks of Billy Martin’s years couldn’t stand each other. So who the hell cares? Maybe a little dust-up will do these guys some good.

MLB.com, meanwhile, puts all of this down to “dugout miscommunication.” Of course, that explains everything — and nothing. Every baseball tiff (and every war, come to think of it), is about miscommunication. Still, there’s a story here somewhere, so here’s the scoop so far. Apparently (although this is just one version of the story), Dukes thought that Acta had not properly congratulated him on his double against the Pirates in the top of the ninth (followed by the Lastings Milledge home run). He was miffed. Others, unreported others, believed that Acta was angry with Dukes for overly celebrating after Milledge and Dukes had crossed home plate. This would not be the first time — or so the story goes — and Acta lost his temper, confronted Dukes in the dugout and read him out.

Dukes does not take these things lightly, of course, so after the game, he refused to high-five Acta during the traditional on-the-mound handshake. Acta gave a sly and cynical smile to this and kept on walking, but this was an act that was not bound to please. After the game there was a closed-door meeting between Dukes, Acta and GM Jim Bowden to clear that air. We can only imagine.

So what happened? The Washington Post blog on the Nationals had this exchange between Acta and reporters:

Q: Can you expand at all on what happened in the dugout yesterday?

MA: No, that’s yesterday’s news, and I don’t read yesterday’s paper. It’s over with. What happens in Pittsburgh stays in Pittsburgh. We talked it out after the game, and we’re cool, we’re fine.

Q: So does the decision to have Elijah back in the lineup emphasize what you’re talking about – that it’s over?

A: That had nothing to do. I’m never going to do something against my club because of whatever happens on the field. That had nothing to do whatever happened yesterday. He’s our right fielder.

So there you have it. Now you know as much as we do. Which is exactly nothing.

Complete Games: I watched the Nats lose to the Bucs tonight in Pittsburgh, then switched over to watch Ryan Dempster pitch the Cubs’ first complete game of the season, against the Braves. The Nats have not had one yet, but have come close. I thought that John Lannan had pitched one, but stats don’t lie — he went 7.1 against the O’s in a gem, while the up-and-down Jason Bergman went a full 8 against the Diamondbacks.

I only mention this because the other night I was checking some stats on the Baseball Reference and was curious about Sandy Koufax’s pitching record. I was always confused about the way sportwriter’s viewed Koufax. There was no question that he was a dominant pitcher, but he was not dominant over an extended period of time — like, say, Walter Johnson (21 years, 417 wins), or Christy Mathewson (17 years, 373 wins) or even Bob Gibson (17 years, 251 wins). Koufax, in comparison, pitched for only eleven years and had just 165 wins.

But here’s the difference. For a short time in those eleven years, Koufax absolutely defined pitching. The Cubs got their first complete game tonight. In 1965, Koufax threw  27 complete games. He did it again the next year, in 1966. Twenty-seven complete games. Koufax was brilliant but, in my opinion, Bob Gibson was better.

In 1968, when Gibson went 22-9 for the Cardinals, he pitched 28 complete games. The other great pitcher on the staff was Nelson Briles. The number three starter was Steve Carlton, who would later be traded to the Phillies for Rick Wise. Gibson’s ERA in 1968 was 1.12. He threw 304 innings, and gave up 62 walks. He allowed 38 earned runs during the entire season. In his World Series career, Gibson won seven games and lost two. Backed by Gibson’s pitching, the Cards won the Series in ’64 and again in ’67.

But here’s the thing that gets me, and that no stats book will show. In 1968, Gibson’s manager never made a visit to the mound to talk to Gibson — or to bring in a reliever. The pitching coach did, but never to take him out.