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.

Same As The Old Boss: Jim Riggleman has been hired as the manager of the Washington Nationals, according to information coming both from the team and from baseball sources. The official announcement is expected to be made sometime on Thursday during a press conference at Nationals Park. The final decision apparently came down to a choice between former Mets manager Bobby Valentine and Riggleman, but what is surprising is the news that the Nats considered several other candidates, including St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa. The other names in the running included Tim Foley, Bo Porter and Bob Melvin. An early candidate, Don Mattingly, took himself out of the running for the job.

The news of Riggleman’s hiring brought mixed reviews from the Nats blogosphere. Nationals Inquisition criticized the decision: ”This move will do little to nothing to change the losing culture of the team. I can hardly be excited by putting the team in the hands of a guy who in a whole ‘decade’ of his managerial career has only had two seasons over .500,” NI’s writer noted. FJB was also critical: “So for all practical purposes, it was Fizzleman from the start. Oh well. At least we don’t have to feel conflicted when it comes time to call for his head. And I give him a year. If he survives in this death march of a job longer than Manny did, then he’ll really have achieved something.” Nationals Pride, on the other hand, greeted the news by outlining the series of steps that brought Riggleman the job — a so called triple play that included signing Stephen Strasburg and hiring Mike Rizzo. Nationals Fan Boy Looser, on the other hand, was positive:  ”If the braintrust says this is the right move, I’m on board. In Mike We Trust has been the motto since Mike Rizzo was named GM and it will remain that way until he gives me reason to no longer feel that way.”

It’s impossible to read into the Lerner-Kasten-Rizzo calculation, but there were a number of factors that probably weighed in on the final decision — and that undoubtedly cut against the hiring of Valentine. The first, and most important, is that Riggleman is a known quantity. Lerner, Kasten and Rizzo know Riggleman and work well with him, while Valentine’s “fit” was an unknown. Riggleman’s 33-42 record as the Nats’ skipper for 2009 is hardly a reason to keep him on, but his ability to get along with the front office (despite the team’s struggles), had to be viewed as a plus. Then too, hiring Valentine would have made “Bobby Ball” the focus of the media: a negative for a guy like the low profile and low key Kasten, who consistently urges reporters to focus on the ballplayers. The last thing the Nats need is a volatile skipper. Say what you will about Riggleman, at least he’s steady. Finally, there is a sense of impermanence about Bobby V, who might well have viewed the Nats job as a stepping stone into something bigger – including a final triumphant stint in the Big Apple. If it’s anything the Nats need it’s predictability. Riggleman gives them that.

And there’s this. Jim Riggleman knows this team and knows the game. He wants to succeed and he wants to do it in Washington. He’s not a big name, not a public figure, not a controversial or outspoken celebrity. He’s the anti-Valentine. Sure, he’s not Broadway, but the Nats don’t need Broadway. This is a decision that makes sense.