It’s quite possible that finally — five months into the 2011 baseball season — the Nationals have finally found their leadoff hitter. Batting in the first slot in the line-up last night, centerfield veteran Rick Ankiel blasted two home runs in leading the Nationals to a 5-3 victory over the Braves at Nationals Park. Ankiel’s homers allowed Livan Hernandez (six innings, six hits and three strikeouts) to walk away with his sixth win of the season.

Ankiel’s homers were only his fourth and fifth of the year and came in the first and the fifth inning — both off of usually reliable Braves’ starter Jair Jurrjens, who registered his fourth loss. Ankiel, who has been in and out of the line-up all year (and has struggled at the plate) seems finally to be swinging with authority. “You just look for a pitch to drive. Sometimes you get it, sometimes you make it happen, sometimes you don’t,” Ankiel said after the victory. “Lately, I’ve been making good contact and good things are happening.”

It’s too soon to tell whether Ankiel’s Monday night performance means that he will be an every game feature at the leadoff position, but Nats’ skipper Davey Johnson liked what he saw: “Now he [Ankiel] is [playing] and he has cut down on his strikeouts, his swings are better,” Johnson said. “That comes with playing. In the last couple of years, I don’t think he has played much.”

Those Are The Details, Now For The Headlines: If either Pittsburgh or Cincinnati are to have a chance in the N.L. Central, they’re going to have to beat the teams behind them. Last night they didn’t. Newest Ahoy Derrek Lee celebrated his arrival in Pittsburgh with two home runs, but the Pirates couldn’t beat the no-account Cubs, suffering their fourth loss in a row by a 5-3 score. Catch ‘em while you can; they’re fading, and fast . . .

(more…)

Yunesky Maya finally pitched like he belonged in the majors on Wednesday, throwing six complete innings and giving up only four hits — but the Nationals fell to the Giants in San Francisco, 3-1. Maya looked confident, a significant change from his first two outings, when he was tentative, and struggling. But against the Giants he commanded the strike zone, with his off-speed pitch setting down enough McCoveys to keep the Nationals within a run of the lead.

The game was lost on the arm of reliever Sean Burnett, who continues to struggle. In the 7th, after a Cody Ross single, Burnett gave up a deep gapper to Brandon Crawford (scoring Ross) and an Eli Whiteside single, that scored Crawford. That was enough for Matt Cain, who dominated the Nationals in a complete game. The big righty threw 110 pitches, 78 of them for strikes. The Giants’ win gave them their home series against the Nationals, as the Nats head to San Diego to take on the Gwynns. (more…)

The San Francisco Giants are 27 outs from a World Series win, the first since the team moved from New York to the west coast. If Sunday night is any indication, the send-em-to-the-golf-course triumph will come as a result of stellar pitching and situational hitting: Giants specialities that have flummoxed (in turn) the Atlanta Braves, Philadelphia Phillies and now, the Texas Rangers. Madison Bumgarner is the latest example of how the Giants have dominated the series — throwing 8 innings of three hit baseball (106 pitches, 69 strikes) in shutting down a potent Rangers’ offense. Bumgarner was nearly unhittable, becoming the fifth youngest pitcher in baseball history (21 years and 91 days) to start in the Fall Classic. “He was as good as I’ve seen him,” San Francisco catcher Buster Posey said after the win. “He was in and out, really. The first couple of innings he might have yanked a couple of fastballs, but after that he was unreal.”

The Rangers, stymied by San Francisco’s arms (Bumgarner struck out Vlad Guerrero three times and Michael Young twice), will attempt to get back into the series on Monday by sending uber ace Cliff Lee to the mound to face-off against Tim Lincecum. So while a Giants’ win in the Series is far from guaranteed, San Francisco has to be confident that it can do to Lee what it did on Sunday to Tommy Hunter — and last week to the Rangers’ bullpen. And yet, Texas sounded anything but confident. “We still have to find a way to score runs,” Texas third sacker Michael Young (.250 for the series), said after the Bumgarner outing. Young’s view was seconded by Nelson Cruz — who’s hitting a Willie Harris-like .188 against Giants’ pitching: “We need more hits and more people on base.”

Those Are The Details, Now For The Headlines: Not only is San Francisco’s pitching good, it’s home grown. Tim Lincecum was a 2006 (tenth overall) San Francisco draft pick, Matt Cain was selected by the Giants in the first round (25th overall) in 2002, Jonathan Sanchez was picked up by the Gigantes in the 27th round in 2004 and Madison Bumgarner was a Brian Sabean favorite in 2007 — when he was drafted tenth overall. It’s the first home-grown rotation to reach the World Series since 1986, when Boston trotted out Bruce Hurst, Roger Clemens, Oil Can Boyd and Al Nipper to face the New York Mets. The San Francisco model (draft pitching, buy hitting) is followed throughout baseball, but few teams have had as much success in following it as the Giants. The Giants follow two other principles: they don’t dilly dally in moving their best young arms to the majors (Lincecum and Bumgarner each spent two years in the minors), and they don’t trade them for hitting — Sabean pushed aside a proposed Lincecum for Alex Rios deal, turned down a Cain for Prince Fielder deal and spurned numerous suitors (including your Washington Nationals) for Jonathan Sanchez . . .

The Norris Nine? We’ve received a ton of mail from readers following up on our little ditty about proposed Texas Rangers’ nicknames. One reader divided his list into two parts — “old ones” and “new ones.” Among the old: the “Spurs” (an old Dallas-Ft. Worth baseball team), the “Strangers” (a 1970s nickname given the Rangers because of their relocation from D.C.), and the “Hambones” — which is Josh Hamilton’s nickname. Hmmmm. This reader lists as new ones the “Ex-Senators,” the “Re-Arrangers,” and “the Bushies.” This last makes sense, given the prominence of the Bush family, who have found themselves (with Nolan Ryan), in camera range during the Series. But the best nominee from this (anonymous) reader is “The Texas Walkers,” named for the “Walker, Texas Ranger” television series, starring (quick intake of breath) Chuck Norris. This has potential (this reader implies), because it can be morphed into “The Norris Nine” — which has a certain ring. This regular CFG reader (and who isn’t) isn’t the first fan to put the Rangers together with the aging kick boxer. Back in August of 2009, when the Rangers were contending for a Wild Card spot with the Boston Pedroia’s, a Red Sox fan (with entirely too much time on his hands), gave us this . . .

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.

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.

Just one year ago, in 2009, the Washington Nationals opened the second half of their season not only in last place in the NL East, but as the worst team in baseball. The problems then were obvious: the bullpen had imploded, regular outfielder Austin Kearns was slumping, there was no starting pitching and the team seemed uninvolved and detached. The challenge then was different than it is now: to change what was happening on the field, the Nats needed to change what was happening in the front office — a view reflected in ownership’s mid season open letter to fans that contained an embarrassing, but necessary apology. No such apology is needed now. While the Nats are yet again in last place in their division, the rebuilt bullpen is solid, Austin Kearns (DHL’d to Cleveland) has been replaced in the outfield by slugger Josh Willingham, the team’s starting rotation is filled with promise and the clubhouse is tight and optimistic. But perhaps the biggest revolution has been where the fans can’t see it: the front office is retooled — with an engaged general manager and a core of scouts and development experts who are competing with the best in baseball.

The challenges facing the 2009 Nats were obvious, the needed changes reflected in the standings. That’s less true now, particularly considering that the franchise controls one of the game’s premier young pitchers (Stephen Strasburg), has one of the most formidable 3-4-5 line-up combinations in the National League (Zimmerman, Dunn, Willingham), is steadied by a future hall of famer behind the plate (“Pudge” Rodriguez), and has — waiting in the wings — a crowd of injured starting pitchers that could energize a second half surge (Jason Marquis, Jordan Zimmermann, Scott Olsen and Chien-Ming Wang). Which is not to say that there aren’t problems. There are. The Nats defense is weak, the team’s set-up men are struggling, their center fielder is having problems on the base paths (and at the plate) and (pending the uncertain return of a quartet of tweeky arms) their starting pitching is shaky.

In 2009, these same problems (and their hypothetical resolution) spurred overly optimistic talk; that the Nationals were actually “only a player or two” from being good. That wasn’t true in 2009 — not even close, but it’s true now. The question for Mike Rizzo is whether he busts up a good thing to continue building, or whether he tweaks the team at the edges, hoping that the return of the Marquis-Zimmermann-Olsen-Wang quartet will provide the necessary spur to vault the team out of last place. It’s not an easy decision: busting up the team means trading popular and productive players (Dunn or Willingham, or both), while tweaking it at the edges probably (probably) means accepting that the Nats future is not now, but sometime next year. If there’s good news here, it’s this: Nats fans won’t have to wait until August or September to determine the team’s fate — that tale will be told before the July 31 trading deadline.

The Wisdom Of Secton 1-2-9: The CFG contingent arrived at the first game of the McCovey series with a new set of fans seated firmly in the row behind the regulars. That the two (I swear) looked like the spitting image of Omar Little and Stringer Bell was tempting: “hey, you two were great in The Wire.” The moment, thankfully, passed. The two turned out to be charter members of the Nyjer Morgan fan club, pumping their fists at every Nyjer moment: “My man,” one said, when Nyjer came to the plate. A row mate was not impressed, mimicking Casey At The Bat — “strike two said the umpire” and then the smile “not my style said Nyjer.” There were titters. When Morgan flipped his bat in disgust at a strike out served up by Matt Cain, the potential for a debate seemed electric, but one of the Morgan partisans smiled:  “You’ll see,” he said, to no one in particular. And he was right: Morgan was 2-5 and knocked in a run. “Hey man,” one of the Morgan fans said, but so we could hear it, “some of these fans don’t remember what Nyjer did for us last year.” His row mate nodded in agreement. “Yeah man, I know. Short memories.” This was greeted by silence. And chagrin. They were relentless, boring in for the kill. One of them tapped me on the shoulder: “That was a rope,” he said, after Morgan put a streaking line drive down the right field line. Okay, okay, okay . . .

“The problem with Clippard is that his curve just isn’t working,” one of the section’s middle relief experts opined in the second game of the San Francisco series. He didn’t need to keep making the point, Clippard was making it for him — “see, look at that.” Clippard looked terrible and shook his head as he came off the field. “He feels it,” and then there was just a tick before this, from a fan down the row: “Yeah, well, he should.” But the section remained optimistic (“he’ll get it back”), even as the Nats squandered a seemingly insurmountable lead (“yeah, but not this inning”). There were some few Giants fans in the seats, complete with newly minted, black and orange, Buster Posey jerseys. One Frisco fan (“San Francisco natives never use that term,” I was told) was tweeting with a family member, even as the Nats compiled a five runs lead. The message was pointed: “My boy Posey will regulate!” He did: 4-5 with 3 RBIs.