John Lannan pitched into the sixth inning and contributed two hits, and catcher Wilson Ramos hit his ninth home run, as the Washington Nationals defeated the Atlanta Braves at Turner Field, 5-2 on Saturday night. The victory, sparked (oddly) by Lannan’s bat, brought the Nats back to .500 — one-half game behind the New York Mets in the N.L. East.

Lannan provided another solid start to what has to now be considered a very successful 2011 campaign by the savvy lefty. But Lannan’s hits were the surprise of the game. He had two in all, his first two of the year, and his first two in 32 at bats. “We have been taking a lot of BP. I have been struggling out there,” Lannan said after the victory. “I never was a really good hitter. Some days, I get good pitches to hit and I was able to hit it back up the middle. Every starter up here is difficult to hit.”

The Nationals were able to tack on runs in the otherwise tight ballgame when Ramos homered with one on in the sixth. The Ramos dinger landed well back in the left field bleachers. “We are used to one-run leads, but that was big. That made us all feel a lot easier,” Nats’ skipper Davey Johnson said of the Ramos home run. “He is a great young catcher. He is looking good.”

Lannan was helped by his bullpen, which held the Braves scoreless in the game’s last innings. Ryan Mattheus, Tyler Clippard and Drew Storen combined for 3.1 innings of work, giving up no hits and no runs. Drew Storen pitched the ninth inning, notching his 24th save. It was Clippard’s 24th hold.

Those Are The Details, Now For The Headlines: John Lackey’s in-game antics are starting to get old, according to the commenters on “Baseball Tonight.” Lackey threw up his arms during Boston’s 9-5 win against Tampa Bay yesterday when Marco Scutaro boofed a grounder and Adrian Gonzalez followed suit. Then Lackey let manager Terry Francona have it when he was lifted with two outs in the sixth, mouthing guttural out loud condemnations that anyone with eyes could lip-read.

(more…)

Jordan Zimmermann notched a complete game against the Angels on Wednesday night, but the young righthander’s brilliance wasn’t enough. The Halos were able to beat Zimmermann and the Nationals, 1-0, in a classic (God, this game went fast) pitchers’ duel. The Nationals were simply unable to solve Los Angeles righty Dan Haren, who pitched 7.1 innings of two hit baseball. Haren took the win, Zimmermann took the loss.

The Nationals finished out what had promised to be a successful road trip by being swept in Anaheim. The Nationals were outscored in the series, 16-8. The loss on Wednesday dropped the team to a single game under .500. “I ran into a pretty good pitcher today,” Zimmermann said after the loss. “He had our hitters off balance all day. It was a battle for both teams to score some runs.”

Once again, the Nationals’ bats have gone silent. Haren and two Angels’ relievers held the Anacostia Nine to three hits on the afternoon — with Haren throwing 120 pitches, 77 of them for strikes. Haren’s high pitch count was a sign of Nationals’ patience at the plate, as Anaheim’s righty went to multiple 3-2 counts. But Haren was always able to make a good pitch when he had to. In truth, Zimmermann was much sharper, but without the run support that didn’t matter. The Nationals return home to face the Pirates and then, for the July 4 holiday, the visiting (and semi-revived) Chicago Cubs.

Those Are The Details, Now For The Headlines: The Red Sox are struggling against National League teams. They play a rubber game in Philadelphia today against the Phillies, but have dropped two series in a row against teams in the senior circuit. They recently lost two of three to the Padres, and then two of three to the Pirates. They were dumped 5-0 on Tuesday at the hands of Cliff Lee, and then 2-1 last night when Raul Ibanez went deep on John Lackey . . .

(more…)

You have to give Cubs’ fans this: they travel well. The city of Boston was filled with Cubs fans, great crowds of them, who came in on flights from the Windy City all of Friday, donned their Grace and Sandberg and Soriano uniforms and mostly waddled their way towards Fenway. The faithful of Red Sox nation were puzzled by their appearance, almost indulgent (this would never happen in Philadelphia): in the midst of Friday’s 15-5 pasting, a Red Sox fan behind the Cubs’ dugout turned on one of them and shook his head — “You root for these guys.”

In truth, Red Sox Nation has a lot in common with Wrigleyville. Both fans are obsessively loyal, both ladle their love of their team with just a tad of cynicism. When the Cubbies finally broke out for eight runs in the 8th inning of the second game, a hefty Boston fan allowed that the problem was the decision making of Red Sox manager Terry Francona: “The man is retaaahded,” he said. It was the best inning of the series for the Cubs — a single, a single, a walk, a double, an error, a double, a strike out, a walk, a fly out, a double, an error and a pop-up. Cubs fans felt vindicated and their chants filled the bleachers. By that point, Red Sox nation had had enough of the let’s-be-polite-to-our-guests routine: “They can stick it up their aaaaas, far as I’m concerned.”

But the obsessive loyalty, tinged with cynicism — and the long history of losing (a fading memory for the Sox) — is about where the comparison ends. Adrian Gonzalez was 4-6 on Friday (and drove in four), had a “just average” 2-5 on Saturday, and a mindless 4-4 on Sunday. The Cubs don’t have anyone who even remotely compares with him: or spark plug Kevin Youklis, or Carl Crawford, or Jon Lester, or “our lord and savior” Dustin Pedroia. “We call him Pedroia the destroyah,” a Sox fan volunteers. There was faint disagreement: “Oh yeah? Well I call him layza show.”

Still . . . still, the Fenway bleachers were a carbon copy of what Cubs fans get in the bleachers in Chicago. A Cubs fan with a Boston accent stood up between innings in the middle of the second game (the loudspeaker was blaring “it’s the end of the world as we know it“) and turned to face the crowd: “Who here likes naked girls?” he asked, in a shout. It seemed like a legitimate question — and some hands went up. But the query brought a tepid response from Fenway security, and a wince from the fan, who turned around and reclaimed his seat. “The problem,” a Red Sox rooter allowed, “is that in this city some of the girls raise their hands.”

By Sunday night, most of the Cubs fans had left the city and Fenway was again filled with the Red Sox faithful. They were a lot less patient with the out-of-towners and in full throat for “waitago Timmy” Wakefield, who baffled the Cubs line-up, then tipped his hat for the faithful as he walked from the mound. The Cubs left town, having lost two of three, and returned to their quest for .500. And the Red Sox? The Red Sox headed to Cleveland, to resume their quest for another World Series.

Jim Riggleman & Company have a lot to think about over the next few months, not the least of which is how to improve the Nats sloppy defense — first in the majors in errors — and what to do with Adam Dunn. The two are closely related, particularly given the questions being raised about Dunn’s prowess at first base. Ben Goessling (in “The Goessling Game“), focused on Dunn’s defense in his latest blog, noting that the Nationals “have made no secret of the fact that Dunn’s defense is the main thing they’re still evaluating when deciding whether to give the 30-year-old a contract extension.” But Goesseling praises Dunn for making the successful switch to first base, implying that his defensive play has been one of the surprises of the year: “To Dunn’s credit, he’s improved markedly at first base this season, becoming a slightly below-average fielder instead of an anemic one,” Goessling writes.

Goessling isn’t the only one praising Dunn. Over at SI, Joe Sheehan provides a list of players who are among the worst defensive players in the game (Yuniesky Betancourt, Brad Hawpe, Hanley Ramirez, Andre Eithier and Ryan Braun), while noting that Dunn “has adapted well” to being moved from the outfield to first base “showing good hands if limited range.” Dunn’s successful shift is unusual, Sheehan writes: “It’s rare that a player can move to first base and increase his value, but Dunn has done so.” So if Goessling and Sheehan are impressed with Dunn — and if the big guy from Texas is ripping the cover off the ball (and he is) — what’s the problem? Well, the problem seems to be Friday night in Philadelphia, when Dunn’s lack of range hurt him in getting to a ball stroked down the right field line and where the big man’s size limited his stretch to snag a ball thrown by Ian Desmond. The Goessling-Sheehan notes on Dunn are now the subject of some attention on the web (as MLB Trade Rumors runs through the Nats’ first base options) and increased questions over the utility of “defensive stats.”

So  . . . how concerned should the Nats be with Adam Dunn’s defense? Dunn has made seven errors in 116 games playing first for the Nats, a statistic that actually reflects the common judgment that Dunn is a below average first baseman. Derrick Lee has made six errors (in 106 games), while Joey Votto has just four in 112 games. Lee and Votto ought to be considered the class of the league (Lee is tall, agile with lots of range; Votto is young and tough with great leaping ability), but the best in baseball (at least according to this single, and admittedly limited, “errors and chances” measure) might well be Friars’ first sacker Adrian Gonzalez who seems to have everything — agility, range, height and experience. Gonzalez has just five errors in 118 games, and he’s there, day-in and day-out. Which is not to mention Albert Pujols (with just three errors), who has everything that Gonzalez has (but perhaps not as much agility), or James Loney (a Gonzalez without the range, it seems to me) — with an astonishingly nearly perfect three errors in 122 games.

So the critics are right: Adam Dunn is an average to below-average first baseman: he ranks below Derrick Lee, Joey Votto, Adrian Gonzalez and James Loney, is on a par with Atlanta’s gimpy and aging Troy Glaus, but is a ton better than either Arizona’s Adam LaRoche (10 errors in 112 games) or Philadelphia’s Ryan Howard — whose defensive gaffes are legendary (11 errors in 101 games). The problem with all of this is that defensive stats don’t really tell us a lot, which is why Sabermetricians have struggled to come up with better ways of measuring defensive prowess. But, as Tim Marchman noted recently, the statistical models are controversial, contradictory, and often fly in the face of common sense. In truth, it’s nearly impossible to compare Dunn’s defense to Pujols’ or Loney’s or anyone elses, because only Dunn offers a glove to Ian Desmond — whose lack of experience regularly (viz. Friday night in Philly), makes Dunn look like Adam LaRoche (whose own shortstop, Stephen Drew, throws baseballs as naturally as the rest of us eat chicken).

That’s not to say that fans of Adam Dunn should ignore his defensive woes, or refuse to admit them. It’s only to note that, when it comes to Dunn (and anyone else playing in the field), defensive stats will either only confirm what we already know (do we really need a raft of stats to tell us that Adam Dunn lacks range, experience and agility), or will stand as a confusing single data point in an overall picture (Colin Wyers over at Baseball Prospectus points this out, and pretty convincingly). Which leads us back to where we started — with this single question: do Adam Dunn’s offensive stats (his home run, OBP and RBI totals) compensate enough for his defensive woes to make Riggleman and Rizzo think about signing him for a few more years? The answer, as always, depends on the option — of whether Dunn’s prospective replacement will improve the Nats defense so markedly that they can live without the 40 or so home runs that the Texan will hit.

Ben Goessling says that the Nats are thinking along these lines, by considering Carlos Pena as a useful replacement for Dunn at first. Pena has the same kind of pop (39 home runs last year, 46 in 2007), and while he’s more experienced and more agile at first, it’s hard to argue that he’s actually better defensively (10 errors in 133 games in 2009). Perhaps more importantly, it’s hard to argue that Pena’s more resilent. The savvy Tampa first sacker sat out most of 2005 and nearly all of 2006 with injuries, is known to be plagued by an inexplicable June injury bug — and has been hit with broken fingers, pulled hamstrings and swollen foots. And Adam Dunn? The last time that Adam Dunn had any kind of injury at all (knock wood, right now, and knock it hard) was 2003. Over the course of the last seven seasons, Dunn has played in (count ‘em) 161, 160, 160, 152, 158, 158 and 159 games. That’s the real stat, the one that matters. In comparison, in that same stretch, Carlos Pena played in 131, 142, 79, 18 (18!), 148, 139 and 135 games. Nearly a full season less. Maybe Pena is better at first. Maybe. But it’s hard to make an error when you’re sitting on the bench.

So if all of this is true, what’s all the hubbub about Adam Dunn? And why, now, are we suddenly hearing about Carlos Pena? The answer might be that the Nats really do want to get better defensively — and they think the way to do that is to replace their 40 homers a year guy with a player (like Pena) with a puzzling history of nagging injuries. Or maybe, just maybe, all of the complaints about Dunn’s fielding have nothing to do with his defense at all. After all, there seems to be a trend here, and it has more to do with the bottom line than booted balls — and should be perceptible to anyone who pays close attention: when the Washington Nationals’ front office starts talking about replacing Dunn’s below-average glove at first base, what they’re really talking about is replacing his big salary in the accountant’s book.

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.

The San Diego Padres have had a volatile, if often unsuccessful, history. Founded in 1969 as an expansion franchise, “the Friars” spent their first six years in last place, before future Hall of Famer Dave Winfield (22 seasons, 3110 hits, 465 home runs) was signed out of Minnesota as a first round draft choice in 1973. The Padres finished first in the NL West in 1978 and went to the World Series in 1984, where they lost to the Detroit Tigers in five games. Tony Gwynn was just 24 in 1984, but he became the face of the franchise after Winfield was signed by the Yankees. The Winfield-Gwynn “switch off” seems emblamatic of the franchise: the Friars seem always to have one future hall of famer and face-of-the-franchise in tow: in the 1970s it was Winfield, in the 1980s and 1990s it was Gwynn, now it’s San Diego native and first baseman Adrian Gonzalez.

Padres’ fans will undoubtedly take issue with that description, arguing that the Padres are a successful franchise that is deeply rooted in the San Diego community. That’s true now, but it wasn’t for many years. In 1974, the Padres were on the verge of coming to Washington — baseball card companies had even changed their card design to reflect the move. Instead, the team was sold to McDonald’s mogul Ray Kroc who, the next year, apologized to fans for his teams’ play over the team’s public address system: “I’ve never seen such stupid playing in my life,” he said. Padres’ fans will also point out that the team’s front office has a reputation for savvy trades: landing Gonzalez from Texas in 2006 for minor leaguer Billy Killian and pitchers Adam Eaton (now with Baltimore) and Akinori Otsuka. True enough. But for every Killian-for-Gonzalez trade there is an offsetting and haunting swap: like the 1981 trade that sent superstar Ozzie Smith to St. Louis in exchange for Sixto Lezcano and Gary Templeton. Padres’ fans are also quick to note that perhaps baseball’s best all-time reliever, Trevor Hoffman, was a Friars’ mainstay before moving onto Milwaukee at the beginning of the year. That’s true, but it’s also irrelevant. That was then, this is now.

The 2009 San Diego Padres bear no resemblance to the 1984 NL champs, nor the 1998 Gwynn-Hoffman nine (which lost the series in four to the Yankees) nor even to the 2006 Western Division winners. While the team has gained a cadre of dedicated fans (and committed themselves to San Diego with the building of Petco Park in 2004) last year’s cash-strapped Padres finished the season with 99 losses and have been in rebuilding mode since: attempting to off-load all star pitcher Jake Peavy for prospects and dangling Gonzalez to teams in lieu of paying him added millions when his contract is up in 2010. The club was also victimized by an off-season divorce of primary owner John Moores’ and his wife Rebecca, who fought for custody of their lavish houses — and the Padres. This is the team’s story: not of on-the-field heroes, but off-the-field eccentrics who have been undercapitalized (first owner C. Arnholdt Smith), weird (Ray Kroc), parsimonious (TV producer Tom Werner) and absent (Moores, who rarely attends Padres’ game).

Still, it is hardly the place of Nats’ fans to scoff at such a history. The Padres boast one of the games best pitchers (in Peavy, who is now on the DL) and one of its potential greats (in Gonzalez). An all star pitcher? One of baseball’s potential greats? The Nats have neither. The Nats take on the Padres in a three-game set beginning at Nationals’ Park tonight, with Garrett Mock (0-3) facing off against Matt Latos (0-1). The two teams will face-off again tomorrow (Tim Staufer is scheduled to go against J.D. Martin) and then on Sunday (with Chad Gaudin slated to face John Lannan).