I king of think the early-season MVP might be Harper, don't you!?

But, yes, I see Maddux impact already on Strasburg, who loves talking with him, Gio, who seems to be trying to discover his age-30-to-35 pitching style with an average fastball around 90-91 but better focus, a REALLY good change-up and perhaps less use of the famous Gio curveball, except when he really needs it.

Also, Ross now has a change-up and it may be a pretty useful one. He threw only one in his first start. In hiss second start hee threw 14 -- eight for strikes with three swings and misses. He kept it down pretty consistently. At 22, it would be unfair to ask a young pitcher to forego his normal development -- learning a third pitch at AA or AAA. So, it looks like the Nats are so impressed with Ross that they are lettiung him "learn on the job" at the MLB level with the change-up. He's (still) one of the youngest players in the majors. And very poised.

More Maddux: Strasburg definitely has a slider, now. (And a cutter?) Pitch(FX) had him throwing 11 sliders in his last start. Whatever it is, it's something he needed, imo, to get to the top level. Ironically, in what may be his last year in D.C. we may see the First True Strasburg Season. If he gets 32 starts, I think he'll win 18-or-more. Pitching sick in his last start was another piece of the puzzle: more toughness with maturity. After that game he was The Most Awful-Looking Player I have ever seem after a game -- his lips were so parched and his eyes so sunken that he really did (well, by MLB standards) look like Lawrence of Arabia (the movie, not the reality) coming out of the dessert. I take that back. I once saw Johnny Damon after he'd been knocked unconscious in a playoff game. He looked worse after the game. He barely knew where he was. While he was IN the game his last couple of innings, Strasburg actually looked just fine. I think the exhaustion hit him afterwards. I think he was pretty proud of himself, an d probably should have been.

The Nats were VERY good at holding runners last year and stopping the running game. The Nats and Cards were the two best teams by a margin. Nats allowed only 53 stolen bases -- lowest in MLB -- while throwing out 32 runners (very good). So, pitchers held the runners so well that they seldom tried to steal and Ramoss (mostly) threw them out so well that they were seldom successful when they did try to run. The Cards allowed 54 stolen bases -- one more than the Nats -- but threw out fewer runners (29 to 32).

The Nats ability to prevent wild pitches, and also allowed very few passed balls, is a hidden strength. Obviously, most of this is Ramos. He HAS to be the best catcher in baseball at preventing (combined) wild pitches and passed balls in MLB. He gets NO credit for this -- though I'll write about it sometime soon. (I guess I'm writing about it now.) Last year, the Nats had the fewer wild pitches in MLB (39) and the fewest wild pitches plus passed balls (46). The Giants (Posey) were 2d-best in fewest WP and the Mets were second best in fewest WP+PB (46). Yes, it matters.

Ramos probably doesn't get credit because he's had a bad history on fielding-and-tagging on throws from the outfiewld to the plate. I mentioned to a new member of the Nats staff last week that Ramos (and Lobaton) were the BEST in MLB at preventing balls from going to the screen. He said, "Really? When I got here I heard everything went between the wickets him (Ramos)." Another example of Don't Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Bad Reputation.

What about this year? The Nats have allowed only three steals (4th fewest in MLB) and have thrown out 4 stealers.

Part of thee reason the Nats are 9-2 is weak opposition. BUT playing the Braves, Marlins and Phils has little or nothing to do with fielding (errors) or defensive efficiency. The Nats are No. 1 in fielding percentage so far (three errors) and third best in defensive efficiency. In past, they've been mediocre or worse in both errors and DEF. We'll see if this continues or if it's a fluke. Baker has been known for having teams that made very few errors. How on earth can a manager impact that? I doubt he can. But we'll see. Sometimes a generally-happy upbeat manager can make his points about what is important to him by showing his temper in only two or three areas -- like errors. The word gets around pretty fast, "If you want to get your *** chewed out by the skipper, maybe right in front of everybody, just make errors. It drives him nuts." Don't know if that's Dusty. Will try to find out.