Can ESPN not afford fact-checkers?

What's with baseball writers having a tenuous grasp on history? First, Peter Gammons, now Phil Rogers.

Over at ESPN, Rogers has a column on why the Washington Nationals (formerly the Montreal Expos) will succeed. Here's one of his reasons.

While the Expos have had a losing record in six of their last eight seasons, they are capable of contending soon in a division that has been ruled by the Atlanta Braves since another George Bush was in the White House.

What division would this be? The Nationals and Braves are both in the National League East. Baseball realigned its divisions in 1994, though, and it was only then that the Braves joined the NL East. Before then, they were part of the NL West (don't ask).

That other George Bush, in case you've forgotten, was president from 1989 to 1993.

Rogers's claim is that the Braves have dominated the NL East since the term of George H.W. Bush. He's wrong. The Braves have dominated the NL East since they joined it in 1994, but Bush wasn't president then. Even in '93, Bush's time in office didn't overlap with the baseball season. So Rogers is off by two seasons.

Yes, I'm being pedantic as all hell. But is it so hard to get the facts right, especially when they're easily available? Again, why doesn't ESPN have competent fact-checkers?

Rogers also argues that the second Bush administration will also benefit the nascent Nationals. I'm not quite sure I follow this argument. This bit in particular I can't make heads or tails of:

While a John Kerry team elected on populist appeal might have wanted to keep the new baseball franchise at arms length, Bush will do his best to attend as many games as possible, inviting old pals like Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens to attend games.

Huh? Why would John Kerry have distanced himself from the Nationals? Didn't Kerry display more interest in baseball this fall? And what does populism have to do with any of this? I'm confused.