It’s not that the Washington Nationals have slipped back into their old 2009 ways (they haven’t, at least not completely — and at least not yet), it’s that their sloppy defensive play of the last two days (and their successive losses to the forlorn Houston Astros), are a cautionary note for the future. The Nats are a poor defensive team and will need to improve their fielding performance if they hope to contend this year. We begin this sad tale on Tuesday, when the Nats blew a one-run seemingly in-the-bag win against the Astros, with an unusual error by Nats third sacker Ryan Zimmerman. The error put the Astros back in the game and led to a Matt Capps blown save that gave the Astros a 8-7 win. That Lance Berkman, whose checked swing on a Matt Capps offering should have been called a strike notwithstanding — the simple fact is that if the Pedro Feliz grounder had been fielded cleanly, Berkman (an intimidator, and Nats slayer) would not have come to the plate.

The Nats’ defensive woes were even more evident on Wednesday. In the midst of a sixth inning in-the-MASN-booth love fest between Bob Carpenter and Ray Knight over how Ian Desmond reminded them of the young Derek Jeter (Holy Cow!), the rangy rookie Nats shortstop committed two errors on one play: failing to step on second on a force and then throwing wide to first. The otherwise impressive Desmond (and it’s true, he’s a work in progress) bobbled a grounder from Berkman in the seventh. It was an unusually poor play, as Desmond seemed unsure whether to charge the ball, or play it back. “Berkman doesn’t really run that well,” Desmond explained. “I figured if I stayed back on it, I’d still be able to turn the double play. It kind of took a bad hop on me. Ate me up a little bit. I trust myself as a player. Tomorrow will be a new day, bounce back and everything will be fine.” Okay. But the defensive failures and the team’s high strikeout total (thirteen, against so-so Astros’ pitching) led to an indifferently played and disappointing 5-1 loss.

All of baseball was abuzz on Wednesday with the blown call of umpire Jim Joyce that cost Detroit Tigers starter Armando Galarraga a perfect game. The call came with two out in the ninth inning: an infield roller was scooped up and served to Galarraga covering first. The ball and Galarraga clearly beat a sprinting Indians hitter Jason Donald to the bag, but Joyce called Donald safe. Joyce maintained his stance — the infield hit was a single, transforming a perfect game into a one-hit shutout. But after the game, Joyce saw the replay and admitted that he’d made a mistake. “It was the biggest call of my career,” Joyce told reporters, “and I kicked it. I just cost that kid a perfect game.” The admission set off an explosion of commentary about the use of instant replay — but that debate isn’t likely to be resolved soon.

I was hoping that Tim Kurkjian (who seems to know this kind of stuff) could have added some perspective to the Joyce call, by citing the number of calls that had gone the other way; that is, that gave pitchers no-hitters and perfect games when they didn’t deserve them. There must have been at least some small numbers of such incidents, which is not to mention the widened strike zone that recently (and in at least two cases) gave Roy Halladay strike outs instead of walks. So it is: no perfect game is possible without such calls, just as no no-hitter can go into the books without some kind of fantastic play somewhere. It’s a given. Then too, as we might remember, Milt Pappas was one pitch away from a perfect game (on September 2, 1964) when umpire Bruce Froemming, after calling two strikes on the last batter, called the next four pitches (all strikes) balls. Pappas never forgave Froemming and told him, the next day, that he’d blown a chance to call a perfect game. Froemming — who, like Pappas, could be a nasty piece of work — just smiled. “Show me an umpire who ever called a game without making a mistake,” he said.

Backed by two homers from Adam Dunn, right handed rookie starter Luis Atilano subdued the Los Angeles Dodgers on Friday, 5-1. It was Atilano’s first start. The rookie threw an effective mix of fastballs, curves and change-ups in notching his first major league victory — earning the praise of both Dodger skipper Joe Torre and Nats’ manager Jim Riggleman. “The youngster really did a good job of throwing strikes and changing speeds,” Torre said. “We had some scouting reports on him and some video, but the fact that he had so many strikes early in the count enabled him to do what he did, which was very impressive. He did a great job.”

While Dunn passed off reporters who questioned whether his 2-3 showing ended his slump, the slugger seemed more comfortable at the plate than he has since the beginning of the season: “It’s just a first game. But it felt good,” Dunn said. “Again, I’ve been feeling good all along. I just haven’t been doing much. Two thoughts went through my head. On the first home run, I went up there, I was going to basically jam myself and stay inside of [the ball]. The other one was to revert back to slow-pitch softball, minus the beer coolers in the dugout.” Dunn’s game vaulted his BA above .200 for the year and eased fears that his slump might be more permanent. His first home run of the night (in the fourth inning) was prodigious — it landed in the upper deck in right field.

Are The Nationals “For Real?” It’s a good question — at least for baseball commentators and “power ranking” gurus. From “Baseball Tonight” to the MLB Network, the Nats are getting a lot of ink. The Nats 9-8 record is nothing to brag about, unless you’re a team with 103 losses in 2009. But the baseball press is taking the Nats seriously, in spite of injuries to Jason Marquis, Ryan Zimmerman’s nasty and nagging hamstring and Adam Dunn’s power outage. Tim Kurkjian (not surprisingly) predicted the Nats’ break out, calling the Nats the “most transformed team in the National League” at the beginning of the season. Baseball’s “power rankings” reflect this new reality: the Nats are listed at 24 (ahead of the White Sox and Mets) by ESPN, but 18th by Fox Sports (ahead of the Red Sox!).

There are some simple truths here: the Nats are better than last year, are better than the Astos, Diamondbacks, Orioles and Royals and deserve credit for their strong and early start. But it’s hard to believe that a staff of Lannan, Stammen, Olsen and Hernandez can out-pitch a staff anchored by the likes of Lester and Beckett. Nats fans know that “power rankings” go out the window once Rizzo and Company have to rely on rookie pitchers to provide stop-gap wins. But the glass is half full: if Chien-Ming Wang can return healthy when he’s supposed to, if Jason Marquis can come back quickly and if Stephan Strasburg is all everyone says he is (and he is), then come June all bets are off. For the first time in five years, the team is tough defensively and has a strong bullpen. It might be hard for some to swallow (like Mets fans for instance, or that team up the road) , but Nats fans don’t need the power rankings to tell you — this team is for real.

It looks like all-glove-little-lumber Alberto Gonzalez — CFG’s favorite non-starting infielder (we have plumped for him ’til we’re nauseated) — has made the Washington Nationals’ roster cut, and will head north with the team when they break camp. It’s a great decision: putting aside all those weepy Nats fans who rode Gonzalez mercilessly last year, the Venezuelan had a single slump, while otherwise registering a fairly respectable season. He was getting hot again just as the season ended and finished the year off at .265 with nearly 300 at bats. Not bad and, in fact, for a guy who was seeing just his second full year in the majors, it was damned good. It’s likely, barring an injury, that he’ll get the same number of plate appearances this year — and if Adam Kennedy slumps (it’s happened before, and it could happen) we might see him back at second full time. 

Gonzalez picked up in Spring Training where he left off in September — swinging the bat with authority. He had a terrific Grapefruit League campaign, a fact commented on by Nats’s Manager Jim Riggleman, who can now be counted as part of the Alberto Gonzalez fan club (which, probably, makes two of us): “He has great hands. He has a good strong arm, doesn’t make errors and has good at-bats. Unless there is an unforeseen circumstance, we would count on him … this year. He has been very solid this spring and did a nice job for us last year.”

With Gonzalez headed north, the pressure now appears to be on the remaing pitchers — with Olsen, Martin, Bergmann, Chico (and guys like that) on the bubble — as well as a catcher, now that Mike Rizzo has signed Chris Coste. It would be great if Mike Morse could head north: in case there’s a breakdown (like a .220 BA) in right field. The Gonzalez news is news; the much-criticized second sacker (he played short left while he was at shortstop) needed to rethink his mechanics at the plate, which he did with the help of Rick Eckstein. “He knows his strike zone, he is discipline to swinging at strikes in the strike zone,” Eckstein said about Gonzalez. “He is really battling and staying on pitches during his at-bats. He is a very solid player. Since he walked into camp, he’s had a real good focus, real good work ethic and a passion to be the best he can be.”

Those Are The Headlines, Now For The Details: So, which team is the most “transformed” team in the National League? That would be the Nationals — at least according to Tim Kurkjian (who spent a good deal of last season wondering whether Washington should even have a team). But Kurkjian dampens his view by noting that the transformation might not show up in the standings. He’s right about the transformation — our bet is he’s wrong about the standings . . . our fans are getting impatient, urging us to return to our time-worn tradition of making predictions, and so we will. We’ll do that this weekend. My daughter (here’s a childhoood picture) is particularly intent to hear what we have to say about her Chicago Cubs. She’ll have to wait, but here’s a preview — the Cubs are like the little girl with the curl: when they’re good, they’re very, very good. But when they’re bad, they’re horrid. This year? Stay tuned  . . .