Martin Prado’s bases loaded home run in the bottom of the 7th inning tied the game at 5 — and the Atlanta Braves went on to win, 6-5 in ten innings against the Nationals in Atlanta. The Prado blast came against reliever Sean Burnett, but the game might have gone the other way: a check swing on a 2-2 count should have put Prado back on the bench and preserved the Nationals’ lead, but the call gave Prado a second life. The loss in Atlanta prevented the Nationals from notching a sweep of the Braves, and a victory that would have provided a positive end to a tough N.L. East road trip.

Prado’s ten pitch at bat, and the check swing, remained the topic of conversation after the game. “I think Burnett got the non-benefit — or whatever the terminology is — on a couple of check swings,” Nats’ manager Jim Riggleman said after the loss. “That irritates the heck out of me, those check swings. He’s got to end up throwing a pitch to Prado with the bases loaded, when maybe that wouldn’t have been the case.” The might-have-been loss squandered a good outing from Nats’s starter Jordan Zimmermann, who threw 6.1 solid innings. This was the kind of outing the Nats were looking for from Zimmermann, who struck out 11 and walked just one.

Once again, the Nationals seemed unable to loosen up their bats. The team registered just five hits against Atlanta’s very average Derek Lowe and a gaggle of relievers. Lowe struggled through six, but Craig Kimbrel — the goat on Thursday — gave the Braves a badly needed three-up-three-down 10th inning. Kimbrel struck out Ian Desmond, Jayson Werth and Laynce Nix to pitch a perfect frame. “That might have been the best outing he’s had all year,” Atlanta manager Fredi Gonzalez said after the Atlanta win. The Nationals are at home tonight, where they will face off against the Florida Marlins.

Those Are The Details, Now For The Headlines: The most exciting game on Thursday night took place just up the highway in Baltimore — and featured one of the best pitchers’ duels of the 2011 campaign. The Orioles, as inconsistent as any team in baseball in the early going, pulled out a 1-0 walk-off win in the 12th inning, but the story of the night was the pitching of O’s rookie Zach Britton and Mariners’ semi-veteran Jason Vargas. Both hurlers threw the best games of their career.

Britton, a 6-3 California lefty, was the odds-on early season favorite for Rookie of the Year honors — and last night’s performance confirmed that judgment. Britton’s nine inning stint was a thing of beauty: three hits, no runs, no walks and five strikeouts. Vargas matched him pitch-for-pitch — nine innings, four hits, no runs, one walk and four strikeouts. Baltimore won the game in the extra frames on a single from just-returned shortstop J.J. Hardy. The victory notched an Orioles’ sweep of the Mariners. “We wanted to win in the ninth for Zach,” Hardy said. “Once we were down, we definitely didn’t give up. That was a big win for us. I know everybody in the lineup wants to go out and score runs for a pitcher who does that. You want to give him the win.”

The Orioles are a fascinating team to watch, the first time anything like that could be said in, oh, about ten years. Their off-season moves included a swap with Minnesota of two relievers for Hardy, the signing of on-his-last-legs Vlad Guerrero to a one year $8 million deal and former North Side Drama Queens first sacker Derek Lee (one year $7.25 million). The Orioles completed the overhaul of their infield by trading for Showboats’ third baseman Mark Reynolds and signed sometime closer Kevin Gregg (for $10 million over two years with an option). The only real head-scratcher in all of that was the trade for Reynolds, a strikeout and long-ball machine who — when he’s not stroking the ball out of the park — can’t hit worth a lick.

But the story of the O’s is their young starting pitching. In addition to Britton, the Birds of Baltimore feature Chris Tillman (don’t laugh, he turned in a long-awaited gem against the Mariners on Thursday), and righty sleeper Jake Arrieta (who’s 4-1 so far this year), to go along with Jeremy Guthrie who, on odd occasions (mostly against Minnesota), pitches like Jim Palmer. Waiting in the wings is uber youngster Brian Matusz, who’s just about to return from a torn intercostal muscle. Matusz’s return will be welcome, as it will nudge struggling wannabe Brad Bergesen back to where he belongs: as a sometime starter who has yet to learn command.

The Orioles could use another pitcher (or two), but a rotation of Guthrie, Britton, Matusz, Arrieta and Tillman not only isn’t bad, it’s damn good. If the Birds can get that done, they’ll be more than halfway to respectability — which hasn’t happened in Birdland for an awfully long time. The only thing left then, will be for Buck Showalter to tell Reynolds there’s a place for him on the pines, counsel Nick “big-hat-no-cattle” Markakis that it’s time to become the star everyone thinks he is, and find a place for Cubs castoff Felix Pie — dumped by the North Side Drama Queens because . . . because that’s what they do. But nevermind, the story (as proved last night by Britton), is that there’s finally a team worth watching in Baltimore, and it’s chock full of young arms.

The book on David Price reads something like this: the 25-year-old has a great fastball and pinpoint accuracy. He’s tough, he’s competitive, he’s a already a superstar. And from time to time, and for absolutely no reason at all, he loses confidence and focus. This usually happens in the 5th or 6th innings. It’s a puzzle. Of course, this complaint is nit-picky; Price was 19-6 last year and one of the dominant pitchers in the American League. He’s Cy Young material. So, no problem. Right? Well, maybe — and maybe not. Price’s habit of losing focus not only makes him merely human, the Tampa Bay brain trust is worried that it could lead to bigger problems.

The nit-picky problem with Price was on full display last night in the Rays’ Opening Day tilt against the Baltimore Orioles. The Fighting Showalters couldn’t do anything with Price through four innings as he moved his fastball (clocked at 98 mph) in and out and up-and-down in the strike zone. But he wasn’t getting the inside corner and, in the 5th inning, he decided he would start moving his fastball out over the plate and rely more on his curve. But here was the problem: the Orioles hadn’t really touched his fastball — so why change? Never mind: Price decided that while he was pitching well, he wasn’t pitching well enough. The perfect became the enemy of the good. In the 5th, as Price was losing his razor short first-four-innings focus, the Orioles touched him for three runs.

The Price story is all over Tampa this morning, with little heed given there to Jeremy Guthrie’s seemingly effortless gem. But it was hardly effortless. After the Orioles put their first win in the books, Guthrie told MASN viewers what they could find out from watching the game: he has mastered his 12-6 curve, a biting overhand offering that set Tampa hitters back on their heels. “We’ve seen Guthrie with that kind of stuff,” O’s catcher Matt Wieters said after the game, “but to be able to do that on Opening Day against a good lineup, that’s pretty special right there.” Guthrie’s triumph is good news for the O’s, who ought to have plenty of hitting, but are a little short on arms. “He was awesome,” said second baseman Brian Roberts said of Guthrie. “I think we believe that Guthrie can beat anybody.” Last night, in a game worth watching, Guthrie was confident and tough. David Price wasn’t.

You’d have to be nuts not to want Adam Jones on your team: the fleet-footed Baltimore center fielder is young and tough, and fated to play the green expanses of Camden Yards for years to come. So why doesn’t Jones get more respect? The youngster didn’t make MLB Network’s Top 100 players and was virtually ignored by the media in the offseason — at the same time that a mini-boomlet was being engineered for Pittsburgh’s Andrew McCutchen. What a waste. Jones is no slouch: last year (at age 24) he hit .284 with 19 home runs and (arguably) is the key to a revamped Orioles line-up. Say what you will about Mark Reynolds (who comes over from Arizona), J.J. Hardy (shipped out of Minneapolis after an injury plagued year with the Twins), and Derrek Lee (who now mans first base), if the Orioles are to be any good at all, then Jones has to shine. And dollars-to-donuts, our opinion is that Jones is better than any of them.

The Orioles have revamped the left side of their infield, putting strikeout-a-lot Reynolds at third and veteran Hardy at short. With steady Brian Roberts healthy and manning second and former Gold Glove first baseman Lee at first, the Orioles have a solid infield with a potential ton of power at the corners. If Derrek Lee returns to form and Reynolds matches his power output from 2010, the Orioles line-up will give the rest of the A.L. East fits, even if the Yankees and Red Sox fight it out for first — as is expected. Oh, and let’s not forget: the O’s signed Vlad Guerrero to DH, the underrated Luke Scott is still in uniform, back-up journeyman Jake Fox has hit the cover off the ball in Florida, Felix Pie and Nolan Reimold are contending for starting spots, catcher Matt Wieters is greatness-waiting-to-happen, Nick Markakis is a heck of a ballplayer, and Josh Bell can still play. That’s a lot of moving parts, and a lot of potential lumber in the O’s line-up. But . . .

But the key to the O’s success (and to any team’s success for that matter) is their pitching. In Baltimore’s case, it’s shaky. The Orioles staff is young and uncertain — and anyone who watched the team during last year’s first half got an eyeful of mediocre. Let’s see; the starting rotation is all under 25, with vunderkind Brian Matusz (that’s him, below) leading a foursome that includes Chris Tillman. Jake Arrieta and Brad Bergesen. They all have potential, but the Orioles might have tried to sign a steady veteran fifth starter in the off-season. They sure could use one. Joining this crew is late-addition Justin Duchscherer who, if he’s healthy, can be a steady presence. Jeremy Guthrie (11-14, 3.83) is another solid starter, though his name has been bandied about as trade bait. Add southpaw rookie Zach Britton to that mix and the O’s might catch lightening in a bottle. Or not. Of course, then again, the O’s staff (bad as it is) still looks a damn sight better than what Washington has.

Baseball wags are worried that the too-young staff could be victimized by a less-than-average bullpen. The O’s are counting on former North Side Drama Queen head case Kevin Gregg to be the closer and, you never know, he might be able to do the job. The O’s continue to rely on Koji (I don’t have an elbow) Uehara to do something, but I’ll be damned if I know why. “For now they can’t do enough for me to beef up that bullpen,” a baseball executive told the Sporting News in the off-season, “because the worst thing for a young starter’s psyche is to leave the game and not believe the pen’s going to hold your lead.” So there you have it: your Baltimore Orioles. They’re picked for last by nearly everyone, except for us. If they can keep their aging core off the injured list, they’ll be good. At the very least, with Showalter at the helm this year will be more interesting than last, and a damned sight more exciting for O’s fans. Though, in truth, that’s not saying a lot.

If it weren’t so obviously cruel, we’d take this space to re-baptize the Baltimore Birds the “Showalters” — in the belief that the Orioles of the last twenty years would soon reflect the go-get-’em attitude of their new manager. But even Showalter (a veteran of turnarounds in Arizona, New York and Texas), is willing to admit that it will take more than a new manager to turn around the ailing Orioles: it will take good starting pitching, a revamped bullpen, eight fielders who know their business (and can swing a bat) — and a change in attitude that has been sorely lacking in Baltimore for the last two decades. It will take, as Showalter says, little “golden nuggets” that Showalter will sift out of the detritus that has become Baltimore’s soiled nest. “There isn’t anything too complicated about this,” Showalter said at his introductory news conference. Well, he oughta know.

Showalter comes with a reputation for being a “the ultimate baseball perfectionist” with “a militaristic attention to detail.” Not surprisingly, he’s made some enemies. In his first managing job in New York, Showalter did things his way, to the great irritation of owner George Steinbrenner. Worse yet, back in 1995 — when Steinbrenner put enormous pressure on Showalter to win, he did: but not enough for George. Then too, Showalter was getting more attention than “the Boss,” a line that Yankee managers knew they should never cross. And so it was that eventually Showalter resigned — after refusing Steinbrenner’s orders to dismiss two of his coaches. But Buck he didn’t go quietly. In the wake of his resignation, Showalter called Steinbrenner “Fidel” and said that sitting next to him on a team charter was “the worst flight I ever had.” The quotes ended up in the New York Times. Steinbrenner was enraged, though not because Showalter compared him to Castro (he probably liked that), but because he’d gotten the last word. Steinbrenner didn’t know the half of it. When “the boss” died earlier this summer, Showalter praised him, called him a friend, and then paid a compliment — to himself: “I was one of the managers he never fired. I resigned because he wanted to get rid of my coaches. He knew where people’s buttons were, and mine were loyalty to my coaches.” Rest In Peace, George.

The Steinbrenner-Showalter saga is certainly known to Orioles’ owner Peter Angelos (whom Birdland fans blame for the demise of their “once proud franchise”), so it might be considered a testament to Angelos that he would hire Showalter anyway. But Showalter’s enemy’s list (“He never even smelled a jock in the big leagues,” current Pale Hose manager Ozzie Guillen once said. “Mr. Baseball never even got a hit in Triple-A. I was a better player than him, I have more money than him and I’m better looking than him”), is complemented by more than a handful of detractors who claim that “the smartest man in the room” is overrated. These detractors point out that while Showalter is given credit for turning around the last place Arizona Diamondbacks, the real credit (they say), should actually go to D-Backs owner Jerry Colangelo. Colangelo signed Randy Johnson, Todd Stottlemyre and Steve Finley to lead the team into 1999 — and into first place in the N.L. West. But this isn’t damning with faint praise, it’s faint damning with just the right praise: Showalter knew his team wasn’t going to win with Andy Benes, Alan Embree and Devon White and he made that clear to Colangelo in the off-season. The lesson is now clear; not only will Bucky get the last word, he’ll insist that you spend some money. There are worse things.

So all of this is good news, right? Well, not exactly. While Showalter was the choice of Orioles’ owner Peter Angelos, it’s not a secret that team president Andy MacPhail preferred the lower key Eric Wedge. MacPhail might have had a point — one of the reasons that former Texas Rangers’ owner Tom Hicks had problems with Showalter is because of constant complaints that Buck kept the Rangers’ clubhouse in turmoil. As soon as Showalter’s hiring was announced, the inimitable Camden Chat ran a long piece by Rangers’ blogger Adam Morse (of Lone Star Ball), who commented that “Rangers players never knew exactly where they stood with Showalter, and that he preferred it that way . . . he either wanted guys on edge, or just simply wasn’t comfortable communicating directly with the players.” MacPhail wasn’t the only one questioning Angelos’ choice. Just this morning, Orioles icon Rick Dempsey took on both Angelos and Showalter, calling the hiring “the biggest mistake made here in a long time, and I’m not talking just today, I mean over the years.” Roughly translated, what Dempsey means to say is that Angelos should have hired a manager from within. Showalter is an “outsider” — he doesn’t understand Baltimore.

So there they are, the legion of critics who think that Buck Showalter is not the second coming: George Steinbrenner, Tom Hicks, Rick Dempsey and a huge crowd of Baltimore naysayers and former players who think that a manager with “a militaristic attention to detail” and a huge ego will be bad for the Birds. As opposed to? Well, as opposed to Ray Miller, Mike Hargrove, Phil Regan, Lee Mazzilli, Sam Perlozzo and Dave Trembley, men who presumably had no egos and could care less about details — and who led the Baltimore Orioles to precisely two postseason appearances in 27 years. These naysayers ought to listen to Orioles’ commentator Drew Forrester, one of a legion of sports gabbers that we (we here at CFG) never pay attention to. Except in this case: “This is the Orioles,” Forrester writes. “And we have about 4 players who can play. And maybe two pitchers. And a couple of other live arms that need some tutoring. Of the 25 guys on the roster right now, I can think of six I’d take on my team. I hope Showalter comes in, stomps his feet and demands better players from Angelos and MacPhail. I hope he’s a prick to deal with in the Warehouse and I hope he threatens to fight people if the roster isn’t improved and quality free agents aren’t pursued.”

Yeah, that’s right. So while Showalter has a controversial background and knows how to make enemies, he also has a history of winning. Which is hell of a lot more than you can say for either Peter Angelos or Andy MacPhail.

Two wins against the defensively challenged Washington Nationals must be a source of pride for Baltimore Orioles’ fans, but they’re unlikely to quiet the outrage and disgust that permeates the Baltimore faithful. The Orioles are on track to match the epic futility established by some of baseball’s worst teams: the 2003 Detroit Tigers (43-119), the 1962 New York Mets (40-120), the 1904 Washington Senators (38-113) and (who can forget?), the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, whose record of 20-134 remains unmatched. The Orioles, despite their two recent wins, might well match the ’62 Mets or ’03 Tigers — or the ’09 Nationals, who tabulated 103 losses. The O’s losing ways are particularly grisly for fans who remember the franchise of the 1970s, viewed as one of the most successful in baseball, a fact highlighted by yesterday’s celebration of the 1970 version of the O’s. The 1970 O’s had one of the best pitching rotations in baseball history (well — nearly so) and the “two Robinsons,” Brooks and Frank, who hit for power, average, and drove in runs. Cal Ripken and Rick Dempsey then became the face of the franchise and defined it. Unfazed by bumps and bruises, the two were very different and very much alike. Both were desperate to win.

Those days are gone.

So what’s wrong in Baltimore? While baseball analysts talk of poor drafts, poor development, poor scouting, “a culture of losing” and an indifferent owner, a not-very-close study of the O’s young players shows an Andy MacPhail bias that is hard to defend. MacPhail, the former President and CEO of the Chicago Cubs (and the former “boy wonder” of the Twins’ of the 1980s) has brought Wrigleyville east — to Baltimore. If you don’t believe me, check the O’s roster. Journeyman lefty Will Ohman was drafted by the Cubs in 1998, spent time with the Dodgers and Braves, but then came into Baltimore — an Andy MacPhail idea. If Ohman looks around he’ll see a lot of former teammates: Jake Fox (Chicago to Oakland to Baltimore), Scott Moore (who came, with Rocky Cherry, to Baltimore from the Cubs), Corey Patterson and Felix Pie (great hopes in Chicago, before failing), tweaky armed Rich Hill and lots-of-promise Lou Montanez, the Cubs first pick in the 2000 draft. There are others, squirreled away in the minors or nursing injuries on the DL. But this is good enough: evidence that MacPhail favors those he knows — even if they’re products of a dysfunctional organization.

MacPhail isn’t alone in trading for his bias — Mike Rizzo is as partial to the outliers of the Arizona Showboats as Jim Bowden once was to the farm system of the Cincinnati Reds. But there are limits, and MacPhail seems to have reached them. Felix Pie may or may not someday be a great outfielder (as the Cubs once thought), but it’ll probably be someday. Rich Hill is a talented lefty, but the Cubs decided they couldn’t wait for his arm to be surgically reattached. Jake Fox is a pretty fair ballplayer, but the fact that Billy Beane was anxious to move him (for pitcher Ross Wolf, who apparently hasn’t pitched since 2007) oughta tell you something. Corey Patterson looks good now (.273, 3 HRs), but he’s never been able to hit anything but a fastball his entire life and Rocky Cherry — well, Rocky Cherry is gone. That leaves Will Ohman, Luis Montanez and Scott Moore. All of them are serviceable. Ohman is a tough competitor and Montanez and Moore might actually make good ballplayers some day. But let’s be clear, in the AL East, guys like Will, Monty and Scott aren’t going to win you any pennants. Or lift you out of the cellar.

It took a while for Andy MacPhail to wear out his welcome in Chicago, in part because the Cubs had sunk so low. But eventually fans of the North Side Drama Queens turned against him. He seemed to lack the “feel” for young players who could turn into something. Cubs fans now refer to those twelve years as “the reign of terror,” but only because after more than a decade at the helm in Wrigleyville the MacPhail version of the Cubs had proven to be, well, the same old version of the Cubs (their record under MacPhail’s leadership was 916-1011). MacPhail’s first round picks in the first year MLB draft included such memorable names as Ryan Harvey, Todd Noel, Ben Christansen and Bobbie Brownlie. The development and scouting department that MacPhail put in place consistently failed to produce home grown products and, when they did, they couldn’t quite believe it — MacPhail traded them in a panic to fill immediate needs. Like Jon Garland, whose trade to the South Siders (for God’s sake) left Cubs fans spinning in despair. You could hear the screams from the bars on Division Street all the way to Wrigley Field: “For Matt Karchner. Matt  f-ing Karchner.”

Last week on the radio, Peter Gammons said that he’d heard that there were two lists of candidates for the manager’s slot in Baltimore. The first list, he said, was “the Peter Angelos list” and the second was a list kept by Andy MacPhail. At issue, apparently, is the power that a new manager will have. Gammons and just about everyone else thinks that, to be successful, Angelos and MacPhail need to bring in someone who knows how to handle young players and will have the run of the system. Someone who will have “complete power.” The phrase hints that what Baltimore’s Birds really need is a baseball man who can overrule the decisions of Angelos and MacPhail, and bring order out of chaos. But ask yourself: how likely is it that either a former abestos lawyer and his sidekick enabler (who are, after all, responsible for this debacle) will cede power to a manager who can veto their decisions? The final verdict will tell the tale. Orioles fans desperately need a guy like Buck Showalter, but if Angelos and MacPhail get their way, they’ll probably get Eric Wedge.

John Lannan’s stellar eight inning performance on Friday night — which should have led to a Nats’ win — was reversed with one swing of Albert Pujols’ bat in the ninth inning, as our Anacostia Nine lost to the St Louis Cardinals 3-2. But after the game, it wasn’t Pujols’ walk-off home run, given up by Jason Bergman, that Lannan regretted, but his own eighth inning pitch that pinch hitter Khalil Greene muscled out of Busch Stadium that tied the game at two. Greene, who has struggled all season (and is hitting near the Mendoza line) came to the plate with Lannan clearly in control, but lifted a Lannan pitch that was up in the zone into the Busch Stadium bleachers. The homer shocked Lannan as much as it energized the St. Louis crowd. Without that homer, Lannan speculated, he might have made it into the ninth: and the Nats’ loss might easily have counted as a win.

Lannan was nearly spectacular: reversing a series of indifferent outings. He threw only 91 pitches, more than two-thirds of them for strikes. “That was more like what we saw earlier in the year,” interim manager Jim Riggleman said of Lannan’s performance. “He was outstanding against a good hitting ballclub. He got a lot of ground balls. He pitched a great ballgame. He got behind on Khalil Greene, and Khalil has a little power. And he had to put one in there, and Khalil took advantage of it. That was the big blow.” In fact, the big blow came one inning later, against Jason Bergman, who served up a classic in-the-wheelhouse pitch to Pujols, who rarely misses. Bergman’s third pitch of the night was his last, as Pujols’ jacked just one under the second deck in left field.

Down On Half Street: Last Monday, “Baseball Tonight’s” Buck Showalter presented his plan to realign major league baseball, arguing that the ”integrity of the MLB schedule could use an overhaul.” The way to do that, Showalter argued, is to get rid of two weak teams (the Ray and Marlins), do something about the DH (either keep it or get rid of it) and realign the league into four divisions of seven teams each. The divisions would be renamed for Babe Ruth, Henry Aaron, Roberto Clemente and Jackie Robinson. Each team would play every other team exactly six times: three home and three away and because the teams are geographically aligned, the economic savings would be obvious. Not bad. It’s a compelling idea and shouldn’t dismissed. So watch the video, it’s entertaining. The former Rangers’ skipper is right about baseball’s current problems: the schedule is badly unbalanced, attendance is weak in at least four markets and it makes no sense for (say) the Red Sox and Yankees to play each other eighteen times.

There’s been a lot of comment about Showalter’s plan, most of it negative. Umpbump points out that Showalter’s plan worsens the problem it’s intended to solve: ”None of the alleged benefits of these new divisions that Buck and [Steve] Berthiaume spend so much time praising will come to pass at all if each team plays every other team exactly 6 times. Teams will have to fly farther, more often, fans will have even more games outside their time zone they’ll have to stay up late for, and regional rivalries will be much reduced because the fans will only see that rival team three times a year.” Bleacher Report, meanwhile, rightly reports the obvious: “Some of the teams who don’t win now would go out of the frying pan and into the fire. The Nationals would not only still have to compete with the Mets and Phils, but they would pick up the Yanks and Red Sox as division rivals.” The Fair Ball notes that convincing the owners in Tampa and Miami that they should cash it in for the good of baseball is probably not going to work. (Truth is, if I had my way, I’d get rid of the Toronto Blue Jays, but only because I can’t stand them.)

Realignment in baseball is worth doing, but radical realignment isn’ possible – and it isn’t necessary. It’s time to kick the Brewers back into the American League (to help resolve the problems caused by the unbalanced schedule), get rid of the D.H. (add an extra player to each team’s roster in five years, to satisfy the players’ union), work with weak franchises to ensure the building of new stadiums (like Tampa), negotiate an increase in the luxury tax on high salary teams (and require recipients of the tax to spend it on player development) and allow teams to trade draft picks in the first year player draft. These are fairly modest proposals and they’ve been heard before: their chief elegance is that they’re actually doable.  

Still, there’s something about the Showalter proposal that is oddly compelling. It keeps you awake at night, thinking about the possibilities. Is it true that putting the Nats in “The Babe Ruth Division” consigns them to interminable mediocrity, with little hope of ever seeing the postseason? I wondered this last night, eyes staring at the ceiling, as I heard St. Louis fans cheer as Albert Pujols circled the bases. And I began to think about what the Nats might do in “The Babe Ruth Division,” say, next year. And it occurred to me. It might not be so bad. So instead of grouping the teams alphabetically (as Showalter had done in his presentation), I ranked them in order of predicted finish for the 2010 season.

So. Whaddayathink?

The Babe Ruth Division: 2010 Season

1. New York Yankees
2. Philadelphia Phillies
3. New York Mets
4. Toronto Blue Jays
5. Washington Nationals
6. Baltimore Orioles
7. Boston Red Sox

Pretty good prediction, eh?