The Year of the Pitcher may well turn into the year of the underdog, with the lowly, no-acount, we-can’t-hit-worth-a-damn San Francisco Giants slaying the pound-em-out hit-heavy Texas Rangers. Really. It could happen. But don’t tell San Francisco Giants fans. McCovey Chronicles is emblamatic of how the team’s followers feel: they can’t quite believe their good fortune, remain puzzled about how a team with three top pitchers (and not a whole lot else) can be playing for all of baseball’s marbles and reminisce about all those San Francisco might-have-beens. The 2000 version of the Giants (who did not get beyond the NLDS), and the 2002 contenders for the title, were far better teams than the 2010 McCoveys (these fans contend) because the current Giants lack the big bat that would make a World Series win a lock. “That 2000 team…man. They were stacked,” McCovey Chronicles notes. True. But they didn’t win the Series.

Back in 2000, J.T. Snow, Jeff Kent, Rich Aurelia, Bill Mueller and (oh yes) Barry Bonds were a near-cinch to lead San Francisco to the promised land. But it didn’t happen (not even close). And the reason it didn’t happen wasn’t because the Giants didn’t have hitting, it’s because the front three of Livan Hernandez, Russ Ortiz and Shawn Estes couldn’t compete with the New York Valentines, who were led into the NLDS by Mike Hampton, Al Leiter, Bobby Jones, Glendon Rusch and a bullpen spearheaded by Armando Benitez — the class of baseball’s closers. The Apples outfield looked mediocre (Derek Bell, Jay Payton and Benny Agbayani — for God’s sake), their infield was filled with holes and, much like the 2010 version of the McCoveys, everyone wondered where the Mets were going to get their runs. They didn’t need to. Even the Mets’ mid-rotation pitchers were better than the Giants’ hitters. In game four of the NLDS (just as an example), Bobby Jones bested the Giants’ line-up, holding the McCoveys to (count ‘em) one hit. Barry Bonds was .176 for the series. The Giants went home and the Mets went on to eat the St. Louis Cardinals in the NLCS.

The temptation here is to compare the 2010 Giants with the 2000 Mets, though comparisons of one team with another in different years is always chancy. Yet, for fans of the McCoveys to reminisce about that “stacked” 2000 team misses the point — their pitching was very average. If that. The 2010 version of the San Francisco Giants is totally different: they are pitching dependent, counting on runs from a handful of slap-and-tickle vets like Andres Torres, Edgar Rentaria and Juan Uribe (the absolutely key Juan Uribe), a couple of bench veterans (Pablo Sandoval and Aaron Rowand) and a rookie whiz (Buster Posey). But forget that. Here’s the true comparison. In 2000, the Valentines rode into the World Series against the Yankees on the strength of their arms: and hit a buzz saw. Why? Because the Empire’s arms (Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and Orlando Hernandez) were damn near unbeatable. So ignore the hitters, and consider this: the 2010 Giants are “stacked” with pitching — and boast the best front three (Lincecum, Cain and Sanchez) in the post-season since the 2000 Yankees made the Mets look silly. Don’t kid yourself. It’s still the year of the pitcher.

. . . and last in the N.L. East. The Washington Nationals fell to the Philadelphia Phillies 7-1 at Nationals Park on Wednesday night, but that was hardly a surprise. The surprise came when the cascade of Nats’ fans decided to stream from the park at the end of the game — shunning the last-at-home festivities planned by the Lerners and hosted by the glass-half-full team skipper Jim Riggleman. The departing throng joined those other fans who had left after the seventh inning stretch, knowing that the Half Street Nine were not going to catch the Ashburns, and knowing also that Riggleman & Co. would be recycling the message from last year’s end-of-game spiel — we’ve made great strides, the future is bright, we’ll be better next year (just you wait and see) and, oh yeah, thanks for coming. It’s not that the words weren’t heartfelt (they were), it’s simply that a large host of Nats fans (defined as those in the ballpark not rooting for the Ponies), are more skeptical than ever.

The Wisdom Of Section 1-2-9: Perhaps skeptical isn’t the right word. Cynical might be better. The section, at least last night, was livable — there were lots of Phillies fans in attendance, but they seemed mild in comparison with other nights. “They’ve clinched it, so they don’t have to be the selfish, rude and insulting little sh–s they always are ,” a fan said so every P-sketched hat would hear it. “Hard to blame them though when they’re invited in and there are plenty of seats.” A Nats fan sporting a Zimmerman jersey responded by raising his voice. “Yeah, maybe so. But you don’t see us doing this in Philadelphia.” This brought a laugh: “Three reasons. There aren’t that many of us. Citizens’ Bank is sold out. And why make the trip when ‘you can buy a family fun pack?’” More laughter — and then a general silence until the third inning, when it was clear that Ross Detwiler was going to pitch like . . . Ross Detwiler. So who’s going to be out there next year? “There’s Marquis and there’s Hernandez,” a fan said with practiced assurance. And nods, before a lone voice with a single question: what about Lannan? And then the low murmur amid the silence. “What about him?”

They’re either going to sign Dunn or sign a replacement free agent, one fan said. A fan next to me guffawed. “Why would the Lerners do that?” he asked. “Listen, this is real simple. They’re making a profit and they’re not doing anything special — and they can always count on Philadelphia fans to fill the park. Or Braves fans. Or Mets fans. Or Cub fans. They [the owners] really suffer when the Astros come to town.” Another fan shook his head. “I hear they’re interested in [signing] Carl Crawford, or Carlos Pena.” Another guffaw as a woman two rows down smiled to herself, then turned and shook her head. No way. Another fan, still in his business suit, agreed. “Carl Crawford? C’mon. Here’s what they’ll do. They’ll say that they offered Adam Dunn a contract for three years and he wanted four. And he’ll be gone. And Michael Morse is cheap. He can play first. Maybe we’ll resign Willie Harris.” A fan with a Phillies hat, listening, nodded his head. “He just needs to get his swing back,” he said — and there was more laughter.

In the fourth inning, The Racing Presidents stood in a line holding farewell signs in tribute to Stan Kasten. “We’ll Miss You Stan,” the signs read, and the crowd rose to give the outgoing Nats’ president a standing ovation. There was disbelief among the three Nats fans one row back. “Yeah, we love you Stan. But the Lerners? Not so much.” So then it started in earnest, in the 6th and 7th innings, as the fans in 1-2-9, now in the swing of things, compared notes, position-by-position. Nyjer Morgan? “Really? Give me a break. He’s gone.” Roger Bernadina? “He plays center, Willingham is in left and Morse plays right.” And at first? Silence on this, and then a consensus. “They’ll sign someone like Pena, he’s cheaper, but don’t worry — they’ll say they did it because he’s better defensively.” An unheard from voice chipped in: “He’ll break his league in May.” Nods and more nods. But then everyone agreed: Desmond and Espinosa were set up-the-middle and the bullpen was solid. A voice in the back piped in: “Riggleman says Batista is an innings eater.” The man next to me nodded. “Innings eater is code for ‘he’s not very good,’” he said.

By the 9th inning (and really, even before), the reality had set in. The game was lost, the Nats were headed to New York to finish the season, and once again Washington was in last place. It’s hard to deny the facts and Nats fans don’t really need a graph to chart the future, or understand the present. But for those of us who like these kinds of things, here’s a graph of just where this franchise stands. It recently ran in the New York Times and comes to us by way of our friends at Nats Triple Play.

Putting A Price Tag On Winning

From 2001 to 2010, the Yankees spent 42 percent more than the second-highest spender, Boston, and have also won more games than any other team — 6 percent more than Boston. Some of the lowest-spending teams, like Kansas City and Pittsburgh, were also among the worst. But there have also been some notable exceptions. Teams below the line, including Baltimore, Detroit and the Mets, have won less than might be expected. Teams above the line, including Florida, Minnesota and Oakland, have won more. Black outlines indicate teams that won a World Series in the last decade. Boston won two, and the 2010 World Series has yet to be played.

Over at the Custom Card Blog, a whole raft of photo shop experts and baseball fanatics spend at least some of their time creating cards of current stars — and phenoms — using old time Topps cards as models for new sets. The 1968 Topps “tribute” design shown above (and presented last October) is accompanied by this description: “If the Nationals get the first overall pick in 2010 and can draft and sign Bryce Harper, they would have two of the most coveted prospects in all of baseball with Stephen Strasburg and Harper.” Well, the Nats have got them — with Stephen Strasburg making his major league debut tonight, and Bryce Harper now taking a few weeks of rest while Scott Boras determines how much money the kid will bank. It’s possible, in fact it’s likely, that both players are over-hyped: Strasburg is mentioned in the same sentence as Walter Johnson (and Larry Benard “Ben” McDonald), while a YouTube video shows Harper hitting a 502-foot homer off the back of the dome in Tampa. These guys are “the real deal” — they “can’t miss.”

Unless, of course, they do.

The best pitcher I ever saw was a straight-up 6-0 fastball farmboy from central Wisconsin who threw about 94-95 — and no one wanted to face him. The White Sox signed him, sent him to college and then farmed him out to the Midwest League and the American Association. He didn’t dominate, but he had electric stuff. He appeared in the majors and was traded to the Cubs (with a couple of other prospects, for — get this — Ron Santo), where he reportedly threw out his arm. He was “untouchable” — until he faced big league hitters. The best hitter I ever saw (up close) was a high school kid who was once intentionally walked, with the bases loaded, because allowing him to hit was just too dangerous. He was drafted by the Marlins and ended up in Beloit (again, in the Midwest League). The rumor that circulated ever after is that, following his first stint in the batting cage (during which he lofted several flies into the farm fields beyond the center field wall, wherein grazed the requisite number of Holsteins) a Marlins batting instructor told him: “We have to teach you how to hit.” He blew out his knee.

This is the way your career ends, this is the way your career ends: not with a bang, but with a pop — of a shoulder, knee, elbow, ankle, hamstring or heel, with an arm slot that just isn’t right, with a tweeky wrist or tender oblique, with a pulled groin, or broken tibia, fibula or rib. With a cracked, snapped, torn or shredded muscle that doctors replace with other muscles from other places. But even if your career doesn’t end that way there’s this: the stuff between your ears may betray you — or, in odd but legendary cases, make you better than you really are. Scott Sanderson had nothing compared to Stephen Strasburg, but there are pitchers who would have killed for his career. “I couldn’t throw a curve in a hurricane,” Sanderson once told Tim McCarver. You could have fooled the Phillies: whom he owned. And there have been much, much better players than Mark McLemore — who hit just .259 in his career. He’d be lucky if he hit five homers in a season, let alone a single dinger that could even wink at what Harper has done. But McLemore made $20 million hitting the ball between short and third and he played for 19 years. Who wouldn’t take that?

The Nats have drafted Bryce Harper, perhaps the best pure hitter in the first year player draft since the Yankees drafted Derek Jeter (with the fifth pick for God’s sake), and they will sign him. His journey will undoubtedly start somewhere in Florida, after which he’ll head to Arizona and then on to (I would guess) Double-A Harrisburg. Stephen Strasburg’s journey as a major league pitcher will start tonight. We can expect that he’ll overthrow the first time out, before settling down. Maybe, just maybe, he’ll show tonight that he’s the phenom that everyone says he is — or perhaps the Pirates will hit him around. But it won’t matter either way: baseball is a marathon (not a sprint) and is filled with so many oddities and potholes (with so many unpredicted cracks and snaps and tears and pulls) that it will matter less what Strasburg does tonight than what he does three months from now, and three years from now. And my guess is that, given his enormous talent, his ultimate success will depend less on the “stuff” that he pumps towards the plate than the “stuff” between his ears. Tell me I’m wrong.

There are plenty of ways to lose a ballgame — and the Nats used most of them on Thursday. Leading 4-2 against Frisco starter Barry Zito going into the seventh inning (and with the game seemingly in hand), the Nationals committed a costly error, the bullpen failed to close out the game, and Washington’s bats (which had undergone a revival of sorts on Wednesday), failed to rally. The result was a 5-4 loss to the Giants in a classic “if only” game that would have given the Nats a solid on-the-road series win. The bottom of the seventh started with what should have been an out, but a ground ball from Giants’ left fielder John Bowker skipped past first baseman Adam Dunn into the outfield. A passed ball followed. The Nats were still in the game and headed for a win when the usually reliable Sean Burnett gave up a single to Nate Schierholtz, whose single to center scored Bowker. Andres Torres singled to right and Freddy Sanchez — hitting against Tyler Walker — followed with another single. That was all the Giants would need.

Facing The Friars: The Padres are baseball’s surprise team — they lead the NL West by two, are nine games over .500 and have one of the best young pitching rotations in the majors. But let’s get real: the Friars don’t have an outfield, are backing and filling on defense (Chase Headley is scooping up the impossible at third, but that won’t last), and no one excepting Adrian Gonzalez has the power of Ryan Zimmerman, Adam Dunn, Josh Willingham or Ivan Rodriguez. Credit the Padres magnificent start, then, to the pitching of groundball specialist Jon Garland, the always-around-the- strike-zone youngster Matt Latos and Pale Hose trade bait Clayton Richard. And, to be honest, the Little Monks have been helped immeasurably by an early schedule that featured massacres against Arizona, Milwaukee and Seattle.

This should not detract from what San Diego has accomplished. The Friars took three from San Francisco in mid-April, then four of five in May. The McCovey’s were embarrassed, as well they might be. Seven of eight wins against Frisco and dominant series against the three stooges (the Showboats, Brewers and Navigators) have been more than enough to compensate for what San Diego lacks: a line-up that (with two lone exceptions) does something besides stand at the plate and pretend to hit. Too harsh? The Padres rank 25th of 30 in BA, 25th in home runs, 25th in hits, and 22nd in RBIs. As for their pitching — well, they rank 1st in ERA, 1st in shutouts, and have given up fewer runs than any other team in baseball. They rank fifth in strike outs. What is even more impressive is that the San Diego rotation does not have a pitcher equal to the NL elite of Jimenez, Halliday, Wainwright, Lincecum, Carpenter, Haren or Hamels — relying for wins on free agent afterthought Jon Garland (6-2, 2.10 ERA), newcomer lefty Clayton Richard (4-2, 2.73 ERA),  talk-of-the-town speedballer Mat Latos (4-3, 3.09 ERA) and Frisco retread Kevin Correia (4-4, 4.03 ERA). Oh, and Heath Bell — who has an eye-popping 1.29 ERA to go with his 13 saves.

So here’s the question: are the Padres for real? The answer, as given by a Padres fan, is probably “no.” Writing in The Hardball Times, Friars’ partisan Geoff Young opines that the Friars “have gotten where they are by pitching way over their heads.” Which is to say — this isn’t going to last. Not only have the Padres yet to face the league’s stiffest competition, it’s hard to imagine that Garland & Company will match up well against a staff that features Halliday and Hamels, or Carpenter and Wainwright. That . . . and the Padres flat out just can’t hit. Of course the San Diego front office could dangle Adrian Gonzalez for a top-of-the-line bat, except for one thing — Gonzalez is a top-of-the-line bat. All of this is said while tempting the fates: for the Nats are headed into the dog bowl tonight to test the thesis that, sooner or later, the Pads will fold. But until they do, there’s this: if you can’t get to San Diego’s starters you’re not going to win. Because if you go into the 9th behind, you’ll be facing Heath Bell — the best closer in the game.

Backed by two homers from Adam Dunn, right handed rookie starter Luis Atilano subdued the Los Angeles Dodgers on Friday, 5-1. It was Atilano’s first start. The rookie threw an effective mix of fastballs, curves and change-ups in notching his first major league victory — earning the praise of both Dodger skipper Joe Torre and Nats’ manager Jim Riggleman. “The youngster really did a good job of throwing strikes and changing speeds,” Torre said. “We had some scouting reports on him and some video, but the fact that he had so many strikes early in the count enabled him to do what he did, which was very impressive. He did a great job.”

While Dunn passed off reporters who questioned whether his 2-3 showing ended his slump, the slugger seemed more comfortable at the plate than he has since the beginning of the season: “It’s just a first game. But it felt good,” Dunn said. “Again, I’ve been feeling good all along. I just haven’t been doing much. Two thoughts went through my head. On the first home run, I went up there, I was going to basically jam myself and stay inside of [the ball]. The other one was to revert back to slow-pitch softball, minus the beer coolers in the dugout.” Dunn’s game vaulted his BA above .200 for the year and eased fears that his slump might be more permanent. His first home run of the night (in the fourth inning) was prodigious — it landed in the upper deck in right field.

Are The Nationals “For Real?” It’s a good question — at least for baseball commentators and “power ranking” gurus. From “Baseball Tonight” to the MLB Network, the Nats are getting a lot of ink. The Nats 9-8 record is nothing to brag about, unless you’re a team with 103 losses in 2009. But the baseball press is taking the Nats seriously, in spite of injuries to Jason Marquis, Ryan Zimmerman’s nasty and nagging hamstring and Adam Dunn’s power outage. Tim Kurkjian (not surprisingly) predicted the Nats’ break out, calling the Nats the “most transformed team in the National League” at the beginning of the season. Baseball’s “power rankings” reflect this new reality: the Nats are listed at 24 (ahead of the White Sox and Mets) by ESPN, but 18th by Fox Sports (ahead of the Red Sox!).

There are some simple truths here: the Nats are better than last year, are better than the Astos, Diamondbacks, Orioles and Royals and deserve credit for their strong and early start. But it’s hard to believe that a staff of Lannan, Stammen, Olsen and Hernandez can out-pitch a staff anchored by the likes of Lester and Beckett. Nats fans know that “power rankings” go out the window once Rizzo and Company have to rely on rookie pitchers to provide stop-gap wins. But the glass is half full: if Chien-Ming Wang can return healthy when he’s supposed to, if Jason Marquis can come back quickly and if Stephan Strasburg is all everyone says he is (and he is), then come June all bets are off. For the first time in five years, the team is tough defensively and has a strong bullpen. It might be hard for some to swallow (like Mets fans for instance, or that team up the road) , but Nats fans don’t need the power rankings to tell you — this team is for real.

The votes are in and it appears to be unanimous: the Philadelphia Phillies are the New York Yankees of the National League — or rather, the Ponies are so good that the Yanks are the Phillies of the American. It’s not exactly a secret; the Phillies are that good. If there’s any curse on the Phillies it’s simply this: they’re on the front cover of SI, which might mean that their coming campaign will fizzle. But I don’t see how. The core of Halladay, Hamels, Happ, Howard, Utley and Werth (and the addition of an admittedly overpriced Placido Polanco) makes them the odds-on favorites in the NL Least, with the Tomahawks, Fish, Nats and Apples finishing as also-rans. It won’t be close.

What’s interesting about “the Least” is not the fight for first or even second (which will go, almost by default, to Atlanta), but the fight for third. Don’t laugh. The Marlins always seem to play over their heads, as they did for a time last year — when they were all the rage for fans who think that April matters. They’ll come back to reality in 2010 (or, being the Fish, they’ll take a bunch of mugs and win the World Series). Outside of Josh Johnson (as good a pitcher as there is in baseball) and Ricky Nolasco, their front four is shakey. They’ll have to count on Burke Badenhop to step up (how likely is that?), and outfielder Chris Coughlan will have to dodge the sophomore jinx. He won’t. True: the Fish have a power infield, with one of the strongest up-the-middle combos (with Ramirez and Uggla) in the MLB. But the Nats have their own power players, and if Stephen Strasburg arrives fully ready in June (or earlier), the front four of Strasburg, Marquis, Lannan and Stammen (and Hernandez) will regularly outpitch the Fish. So, given a little luck (and a healthy and as-advertised Strasburg), the NL Least will be 1) Philadelphia, 2) Atlanta, 3) Washington, 4) Florida and 5) New York. Or it won’t — and the Nats will suffer through a not-quite-as-bad-as-last-year season, and finish fourth.

So here’s the question: what the hell is wrong with the Mets? Well . . . maybe nothing. If Jose Reyes can resurrect his best years, if Jason Bay can be in New York what he was in Boston, if David Wright can be the bopper he was in ’08, and if the New Yorkers can find someone who scares hitters even half-as-much as Johan Santana – then the “boys of slumber” can finish as high as second. But that’s a lot of “ifs,” and a second act that features Mike Pelfrey, John Maine and a half-dozen question marks does not bode well for a team that, even when healthy, will have trouble winning 9-7 slugfests. This says it quite well: the Mets face “a rather inconvenient truth” — that even if healthy (which they’re not), they’re just not very good. So buckle your seat belts Mets’ fans: these are your daddy’s Mets.

As for the Nats — barring injury (there oughta be a default button for that phrase here somewhere), the Nats will bring the bats, and everything else will depend (as it always does) on pitching and defense. Both are better, but nowhere near where they should be. In our dreams Adam Dunn has a fantasy player year (of close to fifty dingers), Ryan Zimmerman becomes all-world (and finishes as a runner-up in the MVP voting), Adam Kennedy returns to form, Matt Capps becomes Joe Nathan (sans injury), and the platoon in right field is filled by someone like this guy. If that happens then anything is possible . . .

Since this is baseball, and anything is sometimes just not possible, the kind of season the Nats will have will be obvious for all to see within the season’s first twenty games. The bullpen is better, but it’s still iffy, and the team will need to find an early spark. I agree with the SI assessment: the early spark for the Nats will have to be Nyjer Morgan. A fast start for the fleet-footed center fielder will build confidence in a team that (after the 100-plus losses of ’09) sorely needs it. That means the pressure is on; Morgan will be expected to run the Nats into (instead of out of) games, and he’ll be expected to use his speed to make up for a shaky corner outfield defense. Which is simply to say: if Morgan proves to be the spark we expect, then the Nats will not only have a better 162-game outing this year than they did last, they’ll actually be a pleasure to watch. Especially when they play the Mets.

It looks like all-glove-little-lumber Alberto Gonzalez — CFG’s favorite non-starting infielder (we have plumped for him ’til we’re nauseated) — has made the Washington Nationals’ roster cut, and will head north with the team when they break camp. It’s a great decision: putting aside all those weepy Nats fans who rode Gonzalez mercilessly last year, the Venezuelan had a single slump, while otherwise registering a fairly respectable season. He was getting hot again just as the season ended and finished the year off at .265 with nearly 300 at bats. Not bad and, in fact, for a guy who was seeing just his second full year in the majors, it was damned good. It’s likely, barring an injury, that he’ll get the same number of plate appearances this year — and if Adam Kennedy slumps (it’s happened before, and it could happen) we might see him back at second full time. 

Gonzalez picked up in Spring Training where he left off in September — swinging the bat with authority. He had a terrific Grapefruit League campaign, a fact commented on by Nats’s Manager Jim Riggleman, who can now be counted as part of the Alberto Gonzalez fan club (which, probably, makes two of us): “He has great hands. He has a good strong arm, doesn’t make errors and has good at-bats. Unless there is an unforeseen circumstance, we would count on him … this year. He has been very solid this spring and did a nice job for us last year.”

With Gonzalez headed north, the pressure now appears to be on the remaing pitchers — with Olsen, Martin, Bergmann, Chico (and guys like that) on the bubble — as well as a catcher, now that Mike Rizzo has signed Chris Coste. It would be great if Mike Morse could head north: in case there’s a breakdown (like a .220 BA) in right field. The Gonzalez news is news; the much-criticized second sacker (he played short left while he was at shortstop) needed to rethink his mechanics at the plate, which he did with the help of Rick Eckstein. “He knows his strike zone, he is discipline to swinging at strikes in the strike zone,” Eckstein said about Gonzalez. “He is really battling and staying on pitches during his at-bats. He is a very solid player. Since he walked into camp, he’s had a real good focus, real good work ethic and a passion to be the best he can be.”

Those Are The Headlines, Now For The Details: So, which team is the most “transformed” team in the National League? That would be the Nationals — at least according to Tim Kurkjian (who spent a good deal of last season wondering whether Washington should even have a team). But Kurkjian dampens his view by noting that the transformation might not show up in the standings. He’s right about the transformation — our bet is he’s wrong about the standings . . . our fans are getting impatient, urging us to return to our time-worn tradition of making predictions, and so we will. We’ll do that this weekend. My daughter (here’s a childhoood picture) is particularly intent to hear what we have to say about her Chicago Cubs. She’ll have to wait, but here’s a preview — the Cubs are like the little girl with the curl: when they’re good, they’re very, very good. But when they’re bad, they’re horrid. This year? Stay tuned  . . .