There’s no predicting these things: C.C. Sabathia was supposed to be unstoppable last night versus the Rangers, the feisty Twinkies were supposed to throw fear into the line-up of the Empire, the Braves — energized by their retiring manager — were picked to give the Giants fits. That’s not what happened. C.C. struggled (but the Yankees rallied, and won), the feisty Twins went silently into the New York night and Bobby Cox could not, did not, save his team from an early NLDS exit. Which is only to confirm that there is nothing so certain in baseball as uncertainty, nothing so sure as that someone whom you’ve never heard of will become a series hero while the great ones will look, very often, just average. All that’s true, very true. And yet, tonight’s Citizens Bank match-up between Philly Roy ‘Doc” Halliday and San Francisco’s Tim Lincecum might be the closest thing that baseball has had to a perfect pitching match-up in this century, barring even the heart-thumping Greg Maddux-Randy Johnson tilt of 2001.

The Arizona-Atlanta match-up of 2001 is worth remembering. The Braves came into the 2001 series the favorites, boasting a class-of-baseball rotation led by Maddux, gamer Tommy Glavine and veteran innings eater John Burkett. But the difference, the pundits believed, was a line-up anchored by savvy backstop Javy Lopez and all-world long-ball artist Chipper Jones — then just 29 and at the peak of his production. The Diamondbacks responded with a twosome that was every bit as fearsome as the Maddux-Glavine duo: Randy Johnson was on his way to the Hall of Fame, while Curt Schilling (at 22-6) looked unbeatable. But the heart of the D-Backs line-up was filled with 30-somethings — Tony Womack, Luis Gonzalez, Matt Williams, Steve Finley and an aging and gimpy Mark Grace, then 37. There wasn’t an under-30 player in Arizona’s front nine, making them the odds-on favorites to head to the pines when the dust settled.

Then, as now, pitching proved to the be the difference — but not exactly in the way that everyone had predicted. The phenomenal duel-to-be of Game 1 turned out to be just that, with Johnson and Maddux mixing it up pitch-for-pitch. Maddux pitched brilliantly, but not brilliantly enough, giving up six hits and two runs and taking the loss. Randy Johnson was simply better, throwing a nine inning three-hit eleven strike out complete game. A masterpiece. The game went to the veteran over-30s, as pepperpot Craig Counsell and steady Luis Gonzalez dinked and dunked doubles and singles in a kind of baseball water torture. One run was all that Johnson needed — Reggie Sanders and Luis Gonzalez gave him two, scoring Counsell twice. The Braves could be satisfied, though barely, that their own big gun (Chipper Jones) looked solid, accounting for two of their team’s three hits. But it didn’t matter.

If the current Philadelphia-San Francisco series follows form, then tonight’s game — like the Atlanta-Arizona match-up of 2001 — will be memorable for what it tells us about the staying power of its center-stage ace. But the game will not determine who goes on to face the Yankees or Rangers in the World Series. That decision will be made in game three and four by a second-tier ace (like Roy Oswalt or Matt Cain), whose steady presence and lock-down middle-game brilliance (like that of Curt Schilling against the Braves in 2001) will allow the front-of-the-rotation hurler a second shot at a second win. Here’s how it happened in 2001. After Randy Johnson’s stunning out-of-the-gate brilliance (and with the series knotted at 1), Curt Schilling gave Arizona a leg-up with a nine inning performance in Game 3. Atlanta wasn’t worried — they had Maddux for Game 4. But Maddux was less than stellar, giving up four runs in three innings.

Suddenly faced with elimination in game five, and running out of pitching options, Bobby Cox rushed Tom Glavine back to the mound against Randy Johnson in Game 5 to stop the bleeding. Glavine was game: while pitching on short rest, he felt he could dominate the over-30 Arizona line-up. Still, this was a gamble — the Maddux-Glavine duo were matched perfectly to give the Braves their best mound presence with just the right rest. But Bobby’s gamble failed. Randy Johnson, pitching in his usual spot behind two other starters, dominated the Braves, winning his second game — and turning in a memorable (and even historic) post-season victory: seven innings, seven hits and his second series win. And so it is: we justly and properly remember the Atlanta-Arizona series for Randy Johnson’s two win brilliance, but the real difference was Schilling — whose nose-in-the-dirt performance gave Johnson the rest he needed, and made his win possible.

The Atlanta-Arizona model could well hold true for what we will see in Philadelphia tonight: an ace performance from an ace pitcher like Roy Halladay or Tim Lincecum. But the real test for these teams will come later this week, when Philly sends Cole Hamels to the mound against Matt Cain. If either manager — Charlie or Bruce — are then forced to throw Halladay or Lincecum out of their normal rotation spot (as Bobby Cox — in 2001 — inserted Glavine on short rest to salvage a single game and keep Atlanta’s hopes alive), then this series will be over. Predictions? On paper, Philly has the edge. It will be hard for San Francisco to match-up against the fearsome threesome of Halladay, Oswalt and Hamels. But don’t bet against San Francisco. Tim Lincecum could just as easily be the Randy Johnson of 2009 — or, more importantly, Matt Cain could be San Francisco’s Curt Schilling.

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’s not often you see a walk off grand slam in person — so it’s easy to get giddy. And that’s exactly what happened here in Washington. During Wednesday night’s post game radio gabfest (which followed the Nats’ dramatic grand slam walk off over the loathed Mets), callers predicted “big things” for the Anacostia Nine: ”With these young guys, we should be in the wild card hunt next year,” one said. Another chirped in: “We’re only a couple of pieces away.” That last little phrase bears reflection, especially since we’ve heard it alot lately. In fact, we’ve even heard from team officials. “We are tremendously excited. The next big step is right there to be taken,” Stan Kasten told Thomas Boswell in today’s Washington Post. “This is not a great year if you want a Sabathia or Mark Teizeira. But the players who are available are just what we need: a veteran starter in the rotation, two more arms in the bullpen and a middle infielder who helps our defense.”

Well, Stan oughta know. Right? But you have to wonder, honestly, if what he (or some of our giddy fans) think is really true. Are the Nats really only one or two players away from contending? Or even three or four?

Just as Justin “Walk Off” Maxwell was crossing home plate in Washington on Wednesday night, up the road in Philadelphia, the Phuzzies were putting ten runs on the board to capture their third consecutive N.L. East Division Championship. While the Phillies clinched (and fairly easily, at that), no one in Philadelphia thinks they’re a shoo-in to capture their second World Series. There’s good reason for the skepticism. The Phillies can’t find a dependable back-of-the-bullpen guy (Brad Lidge has blown eleven save opportunities), they strike out too much in key situations (Ryan Howard hits ‘em long, or not at all) and one of their most dependable starters, Jamie Moyer, is finished for the post-season. Of course, Nats’ fans can be forgiven for taking this amiss: the Phillies are in the playoffs, and for the long-suffering D.C. red-and-blues that ought to be enough. Philadelphia should just stop whining and play the game.

But here’s the deal: while hobbled and uncertain and filled with angst (and now not picked to take it all), the Phillies are a tough, smart, experienced and deep team. They’re the kind of team that regularly gets in the playoffs. What will it take for the Nats to do the same? What would it take for Rizzo’s Nine to become Ruben’s Nine?  The one piece of good news is that the Nats have a head start: we have hitters — and they compare well with the biggest boppers in the Phillies’ line-up. Or do they? The Nats have two guys (Zimmerman and Dunn) with over thirty home runs this year. The Phillies have four: Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Jayson Werth and Raul Ibanez. Their shortstop, Jimmie Rollins, has had an off year: he’s hit only 21. So Phillies fans (awake at night; worried – tossing and turning) keep asking: what is it that we have to do to get Jimmy Rollins back on track? Here’s an idea: trade him to the Nats. We’ll take 21 homers from a shortstop, or fifteen. Hell, we’d take ten. And we wouldn’t call it a slump.

Then there’s the pitching. The Nats are only a couple of pitchers away from contending. That isn’t bad really. I mean, think of all we’ve developed so far. Why, there’s John Lannan and there’s . . . ah, John Lannan . . . and there’s . . . well, there’s Stephen Strasburg (maybe) and Jordan Zimmermann (when — and if – he gets healthy), and there’s Craig Stammen and J.D. Martin and Ross Detwiler. So it’s true: if all works out as planned, the Nats will have a steady starting staff. But let’s not kid ourselves: even if all goes as planned it won’t happen next year, and maybe not the year after. Right now, the Nats have John Lannan, who’s good enough to go 17-9 on a good ball club. But that’s it. John Lannan (I’m with ya John, I’m all for ya), is – - what — we — have. What do the Phillies have?

They have a pretty decent starting staff, despite the problems they’ve had with it this year: Cole Hamels and J.A. Happ and Joe Blanton are all top of the rotation guys and any Nats fan would love to have any of them. But Philadelphia (just for the record) wasn’t satisfied with just those guys: so in mid-season they signed up future hall of famer Pedro Martinez and traded for Cleveland ace Cliff Lee. And it’s a good thing they did, because their innings eating get-em-on-the-outside corner bioman (Jamie Moyer) went down with a lower abdominal strain. That’s alright: the Phillies starting staff is so deep they actually might not need J.A. Happ in the starting rotation for the playoffs. He’s not good enough. Can you imagine? He’s not good enough – and he could be the N.L Rookie of the year.

Then there’s the bullpen. The Phillies are worried about their bullpen and they should be. Brad Lidge is suffering, Ryan Madson doesn’t seem cut out for the closer’s job and the rest of them (the tough middle of the game guys) are good, certainly better than average — but you wouldn’t want them closing games. So the bullpen is a mess: but it’s better than Washington’s — and not by a little bit. Park and Romero and Walker and Meyers (Meyers!) and all of those guys who come in and pitch and pitch and pitch: there are teams in this league who would kill to have them, any of them. Including the Nats. 

So here’s the arithmetic, though admittedly it’s very unscientific. For the Nats to be the Phillies (that is, not to just contend, but to have a shot at winning the N.L. Least — perhaps the least competitive division in baseball), they (we!) need two more 30-plus home run hitters, a shortstop  in a slump (who only hits 20), three more starters (and maybe more, if one goes down — as happened to the Phuzzies) and a bullpen where there are two closers (or more) and two set-up men who can carry the team through the eighth inning, plus a lot of moving pieces — including a guy who can hit a home run in the playoffs to win a game and (oh yeah), a catcher who stays healthy. And the Nats need team defense and speed and (on top of everything else) they need to have a mix of veterans and youngsters.

But don’t get me wrong: I am all for getting the “couple of pieces” that will make the Nats better. I will be there, at Nationals Park, next year, re-upped, for twenty-plus games to see the Nats carry on. And I’ll be there whether they win or lose. But that’s because I’m a fan of the Washington Nationals: not the Washington Dreamers. We’re a couple of pieces away, alright – a couple of pieces away from maybe (maybe) being a .500 ball club. Maybe.

The Nats head to New York to face the faded and no-account New York Chokes after being swept in three games in Philadelphia. The latest instance of Nats futility was a 4-2 sigh at the hands of Phuzzie lefty Cole Hamels, who appears to have returned to his 2008 end-of-season form. Hamels, pitching like he meant it, had a perfect game through five. Up and down all season, Hamels attributed his good outing to the heat of the pennant race: “I think it’s being able to go out there, knowing what’s at stake,” he said following his outing. “I think anytime September rolls around, and fortunately enough, I’ve been here when we’ve had to win every game. You still have to go out there.” Hamels was aided in his victory by the continued no-show of Washington lumber: Guzman, Zimmerman and Willingham were a combined 2 for twelve against the lefty (Dunn, the only Anacostia bopper who’s actually hitting was given the night off), bringing the middle-of-the-order Nats to a stunning 2 for 27 over the last two games. If there was any good news from the last game of the sweep it was that Ross Detwiler looked passably competent: pitching five innings of four hit ball — for his sixth loss without a win.

The New York Stinks host the Nationals today on the heels of a five game losing streak, which included a just-yesterday three game sweep at the hands of the Chops, and a record of 1-9 over their last ten games. The good news for Mets fans is that they won’t have to suffer through a September collapse this year: they did that all the way back in June. The Mets are in terrible shape. Unlike the Nats, they don’t seem to have a firebrand prospect (Ian Desmond) wowy-zowing the crowd, or a potential game-changing hatchling (Stephen Strasburg) waiting to flap his wings, or a tested and still-young lumberjack (Adam Dunn) that can put the horsehide in the cheap seats. Even the most tried and truly tested Chokes’ fanatics are desperate. We here at CFG say that advisedly because the last time we talked about the Chokes at any great length there were riots in New York. We had to put on our kevlar. We had to call in airstrikes. Even so, we’ll give it another try: so what should the Mets do.

Over at The Real Dirty Mets Blog, Rusty has been going on about shaking up the dugout — a “bold move” that would change the tectonics of Citi Field and give the Moribunds some hope. His recommendation? Bring in Orel Hershiser. Not a bad idea. Hershiser has been in the running for a number of managerial posts (Rusty points out) and he was “a thinking man’s pitcher.” Hershiser might, in fact, be the spark the Mets need to shake up the on-field operations. What I mean to say is this: Jerry Manuel has lost faith in his players, and they’ve returned the favor. Manuel has made a hash of the season (injuries or no injuries) and he’s flapped his mouth on so many things so often that it’s hard to figure out what he really thinks. Worse yet, he doesn’t know how to handle the kids.

In truth, the great collapsable Mets don’t have many young stars that could form the nucleus of a future pennant winner, but even if they did Jerry wouldn’t know what to do with them. I’ll give you three examples. There was a lot riding on Mets Daniel “can’t miss” Murphy this year. The Chokes needed a big bat from one of their youngsters and Murphy was picked to supply it. Unfortunately, after 27 games the Mets’ brain trust (Manuel concurring) decided that Danny boy couldn’t play left (they called him “a disaster”), so they switched him and his leather rag to first, in the apparent belief that playing first is easier. As recently as early August, the Mets were trumpeting what a fantastic move the switch had been. But the shine has worn off and when Murphy made two errors on Wednesday, you could hear the groans all the way to Secaucus. Then too, Murphy’s ”big bat” has disappeared: going AWOL at just about the same time that the genius’s in the Mets front office decided that DM would look great at first. 

The same kind of thing happened to Bobby Parnell, who began his career as a whiz-bang reliever, giving so much hope to Mets’ faithful that they were charting the World Series parade route down Broadway. The Mets finally had the one thing that might have saved them from the Tsunami of their 2007 season: a home grown reliever who enjoyed his job and did it well. So what did the Mets do? They spent a boatload of money on a couple of free agent relievers and took Bobby out of the bullpen and made him a starter: in the belief that anyone who’s a good reliever will be an even better starter. So, how’s that worked out? Since arriving on the mound, Parnell’s ERA is 5.60 and Jerry and Company keep talking about how he’s “a work in progress.” Most recently, the Chokes announced that “the experiment” was over and that Parnell was back behind the fence in center. It was the right decision. No doubt about it. But, as usual, the also-rans did it in exactly the wrong way: they treated it like a demotion. Mets fans blame Parnell for his failure as a starter. Jerry Manuel blames Parnell for his failure as a starter. The GM blames Parnell for his failure as a starter. Now they’ve set him up to fail as a reliever. Guess what: it’s not his fault.

Then there’s Mike Pelfry. The way the Mets have handled Pelfrey tells us all we need to know about the problems with the team. Pelfrey is the one guy (he’s 25) who has the kind of stuff and tenacity the Mets need. He throws hard and shrugs off losses with an I’ll-get-em-next-time attitude. Along with his better-than-average stuff, he’s a gamer who’s only going to get better. Strangely, that’s not good enough for Jerry and Company, who lost faith in Pelfrey in early September after a rocky outing against the . . . Rockies. And things haven’t been quite the same since. This is classic Mets stuff: one or two bad outings and Manuel starts looks like he’s about the weep, the front office issues reassurances to the fans that next year’ll be different and Fred Wilpon passes out radiation sickness tablets. It’s almost as if they’re signaling to Pelfrey that unless he pitches like Johan Santana he’s just no damn good.

But all is not lost. There’s hope in Metsland. Jose Reyes (once the best shortstop in the game) will return in 2010. As will Carlos Beltran. Eric, over a The Real Dirty Mets Blog, thinks that, because of the injuries to Reyes and Beltran in 2009, the Mets won’t trade them, but will try to win with them next year. They’re good, very good — and they’re the core. They’ll give it one more shot. But Eric adds: “I believe that next year will be the last for the core unless they win.” Will they? There’s a reason why you never hear the phrase “good team, bad shortstop,” and it’s because the heart of any winner is the guy up the middle with the soft hands. Reyes has that, and the bat to go with it. If he’s anything like he was just three years ago, the Mets will instantly improve. Add Beltran, a still-in-his-prime long ball hitter and game changer and the Mets (with Johan and Maine and a healthy bullpen) are (arguably) a better-than-.500 team and good enough to challenge for the wild card. But here’s the thing: even with all of that, the Mets need a change in culture and they need it desperately. They might want to start in the dugout.

From time to time, our friends at NL East Chatter post the latest, best exchange between NL East rivals — with questions posed by bloggers for each team. This week, to mark the Phillies-Nats toe-to-toe match-up here at Nationals Park, I asked my colleague over at (the newly redesigned and ujpgraded) Phillies Phandom five questions about the ponies. He came back with what I thought were some pretty good, and interesting, answers. As those lovable Phuzzies are in town, I thought it might be useful to reprint the Q and A for the benefit of our worldwide audience.

Q: This question has been asked a thousand times, but needs to be asked again: if Brad Lidge can’t hold down the end of a game, who can? And can the Phillies survive the post-season without him?

A: Lidge is toast. He’s finished. I don’t know who can do the job, but my top choice is Brett Myers, who showed he could do it two years ago. Myers looks good so far working in late innings, but that doesn’t make him a surefire bet to be a great closer (See Ryan Madson). Chan Ho Park is another option, but he’s too valuable in the sixth and seventh innings. I hope to see J.C. Romero back before the end of the season because I think he has the mindset to close. But… all those options have question marks. This will be an issue from now until October.
 
Q: Cole Hamels seems to have found his stride: which is great news for the Phils in the playoffs — but is J.A. Happ now a better pitcher, and do you pitch him ahead of Hamels the rest of the way? And maybe Lee, Martinez, and Happ are your one-two-three-four in the playoffs. With Blanton there, Hamels sits. Who woulda thunk it.

A: This has been a great debate for weeks now. Here’s my 1-through-4 right now: Hamels, Lee, Blanton, Happ. Hamels, even though he’s been sub-par most of the year, is a proven winner in the playoffs. Lee, while he’s probably the better pitcher, doesn’t have two MVPs. Give Hamels the benefit of the doubt. Let him pitch Game 1 in a series, especially if he continues to pitch very well… Blanton is No. 3 because he’s been the team’s most consistent starter since May… Happ over Pedro at No. 4 because Pedro would be a valuable contributor out of the bullpen – a shutdown guy in the seventh inning perhaps (a la Randy Johnson years and years ago for the D-Backs). That’s the way the roations should set up, regardless of how each inidividual performs from now to the end of the regular season.
 
Q: The Phillies just got swept by the Astros in Houston and Charlie the Man said that his team looked complacent. With a six game lead in the East that’s what it looks like. What or who is going to get them going. And when?

I don’t know. They all feed off each other. Typically, it’s J-Roll that lights the fire, but in all honesty…Raul Ibanez is the big piece here. The guy is starting to turn the corner and get back on track. He was our best clutch performer for the first three months of the season. I think it will be a different-guy-a-night thing before the rollercoaster hits full stride. I’m concerned about the lack of hitting in key situations, but something tells me the Phillies will keep finding ways to win when it matters most. They are an all-or-nothing team and nothing will really change that. You just hope the ON switch is, uh, on come playoff time.
 
Q:  That bullpen sure is shaky: Chan Ho Park? Jamie Moyer? Too late now, you’ve got what you’ve got. But it’s going to take some management. Who can the Phillies count on in those vital middle innings?

I disagree. The bullpen is very strong (albeit banged up injury-wise) except for Brad Lidge. The Phillies’ pitching, in general, has been excellent since the All-Star break. The elephant in the room is Lidge and only Lidge. The rest of the guys are doing a good-to-great job. Hopefully, all of our walking wounded (Madson, Clay Condrey, Romero) will get 100 percent healthy before the postseason.

Q: If you had to do it all over, would you trade Michael Bourn for Brad Lidge?

Yes. I know Lidge has been absolutely dreadul this year, but nothing beats a World Series championship. And without Lidge, the greatest October in my lifetime would never have happened.