What's that? This blog still exists?

OK, so we took a three-year hiatus.  And maybe after all this time we're not even going to write about something Gammons wrote.  However, we have made fun of Peter King before, and even though there is a fabulous website that mocks King on a weekly basis, he writes so voluminously and terribly that no one website can completely capture his idiocy.  Let's take a gander at the most recent iteration of King's  weekly football picks column, in which our hero boldly predicts the outcome of every NFL game.  

Last Week: 9-6 (.600); This Season, 31-32 (.492)

Wow!  Right out of the gate, we are assured that King's odds of predicting the outcome of a game correctly (and remember, these picks are straight up, not against the spread) are the same as my odds of winning if I bet on red in roulette.  To borrow a point from Gregg Easterbrook, you'd be better off just blindly picking the home team or the team with the better record.  King would argue, of course, that nobody wants to read a picks column in which he just picks every favorite, but my counter is that nobody wants to read his horseshit either.  He has a job only because the NFL is insanely popular, and many of the league's fans are, how shall I say this, morons.  They do not care about King's facility with words (or lack thereof); they just need to read anything and everything football-related on the internet.  (Note: this also explains the existence of television programs such as "Monday Night Countdown", a phenomenally terrible show but one that at least some people watch.) 

Miami Dolphins (1-3) at Cincinnati Bengals (3-1)Another battle of the kid Southwest Conference quarterbacks. Andy Dalton 305 yards, two touchdowns ... Ryan Tannehill 220, one. But it's hard to watch Tannehill right now and not think the Dolphins got it right, picking him in the top 10.  CIN 23, MIA 20 

King's assessment of Tannehill is based on Tannehill's most recent performance, in which he racked up 431 yards passing, albeit with two interceptions.  Of course, everybody knows you can't evaluate an NFL player after four games (now five, and he did a decent job on Sunday).  To wit, the previous week, Tannehill went 16-36 for 194 yards with an interception.  Gangbusters!  Not impressed with PK's idiocy yet?  Just wait.  

Philadelphia Eagles (3-1) at Pittsburgh Steelers (1-2)Eight years ago next month, Ben Roethlisberger led his first NFL rout -- 27-3 over Philadelphia in Pittsburgh. Steelers haven't beaten Eagles since,

Wow, haven't beaten them since? That's quite an accomplishment for Philly, considering how good Pittsburgh has been over the last decade.

though they've played only once.  PIT 27, PHI 17

Wait, what? Are we supposed to gather some meaningful conclusion from the fact that the Steelers "haven't beaten [the] Eagles since" their second-most recent matchup? I think he's actually trying to impress us with the fact that picking the Steelers to win, at home, is actually a ballsy pick, because the Eagles have DOMINATED the Steelers head-to-head.  You know, in that one game? That they won 15-6?  Domination, I tell you!

Green Bay Packers (2-2) at Indianapolis Colts (1-2)A shame this will be the last non-Super Bowl Aaron Rodgers-Andrew Luck head-to-head match until 2016.  GB 22, IND 17

Why is this a shame? Because both QBs are (or might be, in Luck's case) good? There are matchups between teams with good QBs all the time (including twelve matchups between some dudes named Brady and Manning)!  Not to mention, of course, the fact that QBs, much like starting pitchers in baseball, DON'T PLAY AGAINST EACH OTHER.  They play on the same field on the same day, but not at the same time.  I can't find it right now, but in the hype leading up to Brady-Manning XIII, Brady was quoted as saying something like, "I'm not facing Manning, I'm facing the Broncos defense."  (This would probably be considered obnoxious if somebody like Jay Cutler had said it, but instead it's just a salient, witty observation by the Golden Boy.  End of Bears fan rant.)  Also, even casual football fans know that NFC and AFC teams only play each other once every four years, and those who had forgotten were reminded by King's juicy tidbit about the storied Eagles-Steelers rivalry.

Cleveland Browns (0-4) at New York Giants (2-2)I know it looks like the Browns' 11th loss in a row, but I've got a feeling Brandon Weeden (he never got to start a game in Yankee Stadium as a Yankees pitcher, but at least he'll start a game against the former football tenant of Yankee Stadium) 

I know PK is just trying to impress us by making a witty connection between Brandon Weeden: Yankees Minor Leaguer and Brandon Weeden: Browns QB, but does ANYBODY care about this? The "former football tenant" of Yankee Stadium?  By which he means the old Yankee Stadium, which doesn't even exist anymore?  Jesus, this is terrible.  Also, if you want to make a witty connection to Weeden's minor league pitching career, how about this one: "Weeden goes from pitching for a minor league baseball team to starting at quarterback for a minor league football team."  See, it's funny because the Browns are atrocious.  

and D'Qwell Jackson (three sacks, two interceptions, a fumble recovery, two blocked passes) make it tougher on the Giants than it should be.  NYG 23, CLE 20

"Good news, Browns fans!  I know it looks like the Browns will lose, but in fact, they will lose, just not so badly."  For the record:  they lost badly.  Also, I love the name D'Qwell.  How did his mother get to that name? Did she start with the word "quell", and then add a "D" and an apostrophe, and then decided it wasn't weird enough, so she changed the "U" to a "Q"? I'm honestly curious.

Chicago Bears (3-1) at Jacksonville Jaguars (1-3)Trap game. You should be too good for this, Bears. 

Leaving aside the question of whether trap games exist (based on this article, they don't), this probably isn't a trap game, since the Bears have a bye next week.  Whatever.  Also, I love how Peter addresses teams directly in the second person, and proceeds to lecture them.  "Whatever you say, Mr. King.  I'm terribly sorry." 

And you will be, because Jay Cutler should have a relatively pressure-free game. Jacksonville's last in the NFL with two sacks.  CHI 23, JAX 15

Oh, snap!  The ol' switcheroo!  (Side note: The Jags are bad.)

Denver Broncos (2-2) at New England Patriots (2-2)The 13th time's a charm.  Tom Brady (8-4 versus Peyton Manning) has a tougher time with this Denver team than he did with Tim Tebow's Broncos last January (now, how hard would that be?), but America will be all the better for it.

First, what the hell does "the 13th time's a charm" mean? The only way this would make sense is if Brady (or Manning) had never beaten the other's team.  Of course, the cited 8-4 record belies that possibility.  Second, "America will be all the better for it?" I understand that people care, probably too much, about the NFL, and matchups between teams with marquee QBs in particular, but don't you think you're overstating the case just a tad?

A superb late-afternoon game Sunday, a battle to the end in Foxboro, and I say Manning's going to have the ball in his hands sometime in the last five minutes with a chance to win.  NE 30, DEN 27

This is actually a pretty accurate prediction, but I wonder whether King meant to insult Manning by suggesting that he'd have a chance to win "with the ball in his hands" but then predicted a Patriot victory, or whether he's just a sloppy writer.  My money's on the latter.

Buffalo Bills (2-2) at San Francisco 49ers (3-1)Dave Wannstedt's got to be pulling his hair out. The Bills field the best defensive line in football, on paper, and Buffalo's allowing 286 passing yards a game and 4.8 yards per carry. Buck up, Mario Williams and Marcell Dareus. You're too good to be playing this soft. I might suggest watching the relentlessness of Justin Smith and Ray McDonald. Those are two baaaaaad defensive linemen.  SF 31, BUF 17

Wanny's pulling his hair out? His head hair?  OR HIS MUSTACHE HAIR??? OK, sorry to expose you to that.  Anyway, I think Buffalo has officially relinquished the title of "best defensive line in football", if they ever had it, after being gashed for over 300 yards rushing on Sunday.  I also don't quite understand the space limitations of this column.  In several places, King writes in shorthand (as in, "Steelers haven't beaten Eagles since"), but here he finds the space to put six "A"s in the word "bad".  Color me confused.  

Tennessee Titans (1-3) at Minnesota Vikings (3-1)Thanks God it's October. That's the Titans' mantra after losing September games by 21, 28 and 24 points, sandwiched around the game that now looks totally freaky, the 44-41 win over Detroit. 

This kind of deranged analysis suggests that the calendar month actually influences the Titans' ability to be competitive.  OK, let's say that King has the inside scoop on the players, and players have privately told him that the turning of a new month does actually help them refocus.  Far-fetched, but OK.

Only hope here is to shut down Adrian Peterson, which I don't see happening.  MIN 30, TEN 12

"Thanks God it's October!  Now we can get blown out again!"  This is Peter's most accurate prediction of the week, but of course he weakens it by babbling about what month it is.  

Houston Texans (4-0) at New York Jets (2-2)I'm assuming Major League Baseball is going to put the Yankees' Division Series game two, scheduled for Monday, in prime time. Bad news for ESPN. If the Yanks play Monday night, clickers all over the metropolitan area will be switching away from this game around 9:15 Eastern Time Monday evening. Not even sure the Tebow Watch will be able to hold non-Bible Belt viewers.  HOU 33, NYJ 13

You're also assuming that a) there are people who still call remotes "clickers", and b) these "clickers" don't also have the ability to toggle back and forth between the games, which both feature lots and lots of commercials.  This is not a good assumption.

I planned to write this post on Friday, but was unfortunately sidetracked and didn't finish it until today.  What's crazy is that with all of the useless analysis, non-sequiturs, and awful writing in this piece, King actually predicted 12 of the 14 games correctly.  Maybe making fun of his writing actually makes his predictions better.  Or, maybe for King's prognosticating abilities, "Thanks God it's October!"  

Until next time.*

*Approximately April 2016.

The Formidable Aura of Gammonsology

It's amazing to me that Peter Gammons still has a job, when he continues to write things like this:

"The Philadelphia Phillies are primed to repeat as champs."

Gammons, master prognosticator, has determined that the Phillies, one of three teams (at the time of the writing) still eligible to win the World Series, might win it!

The Phillies wait a week for the World Series, which may rest their pitching staff, and may or may not cool the hitters that pummeled the Dodgers. As the rain beat down Saturday morning in the Northeast, they didn't know if their next game was at Yankee Stadium or The Big A, but it really doesn't matter, because whomever they play had better be ready for the best American League team that plays its regular season in the National League.

I'm pretty sure Peter is confusing the verb " may" with the verb "will". The Phillies' delay before the World Series will cause their pitching staff to be rested (the wait itself did not "rest" the pitching staff); there is no doubt about that. Furthermore, stating that the wait "may" cool the hitters is sufficient, since the word "may" by itself implies that the alternative is also possible. For example, if I say "Peter Gammons may be the worst writer in the history of the Internet," I am implying that it is also possible that he is not (though this is doubtful). Also, "the best American League team that plays its regular season in the National League" is so trite and unnecessarily verbose that I'm now dumber for having read it. Can't he just say "the Phillies play an American League style?" Of course, that's also a dumb thing to say; most teams that play in a bandbox have a lot of home run hitters, regardless of whether they're in the AL or the NL.

How much the Phillies deserved their 2008 World Series rings got a little waterlogged because so many followed the Tampa Bay series on Doppler radar. And while the Rays had won the AL East and defeated the Red Sox and White Sox to get to the Series, there was some fairy-tale perception that further slighted the Phillies' accomplishments.

"Doppler radar?" "Fairy-tale perception?" These are nonsense terms with regard to baseball. Also, he's using classic politician-speak, intentionally ambiguating who, exactly, were the "so many" and who had this "fairy-tale perception" because, guess what? It was Gammons himself leading the Rays fellatio party (and, by extension, "slighting the Phillies' accomplishments"). See my post here, where Peter calls the series "the worst ever". Perhaps the Phillies felt slighted by this, Mr. Gammons?

But make no mistake this year: The Phillies can win the World Series, whether it's against the Yankees or the Angels.

Peter Gammons, boldly going where no man has gone before: predicting that one of the two World Series entrants "can" win the World Series. I find it ironic that he refuses to predict an actual winner, presumably for fear that he will be called out if he is wrong, yet he has no problem writing absolute crap, presumably because he has absolute carte blanche at ESPN.

He spends the next couple of paragraphs reviewing some legitimate reasons why the Phillies are good and can win, which is funny because he's waiting until they've already made the World Series before brashly explaining why they're good enough to win. Again, Peter, just because you stiffed them last year doesn't mean they got no credit for winning, or that they have no chance this year. Then he produces a couple of REALLY important reasons why the Phillies will win:

"...they have played on the Fox stage..."

Do players really react differently depending on which NETWORK is broadcasting their games?

"they had the best road record in baseball (48-33) and aren't likely to be intimidated by the formidable aura of Yankeeology."

Shane Victorino: Hey, coach, can I talk to you for a second?
Charlie Manuel: Yeah, Shane, what's up?
SV: I'm worried about the World Series.
CM: But we won last year. We can do it again!
SV: Yes, but this year we are playing against the Yankees.
CM: Listen, the goal is to get to the World Series. That means, in our case, facing the best team from the AL every year. Last year, it was the Rays, and this year it's the Yankees.
SV: But coach, you don't understand! We're going up against the formidable aura of Yankeeology! I'm intimidated!
CM: Ah, but you see, we had the best road record in baseball. Thus, the formidable aura of Yankeeology (which means the study of Yankees, by the way) shall not intimidate us.
SV: Ohhh. I get it. Thanks, Coach!

The fact that Brad Lidge (4 IP, 1 H, 0 R), Ryan Madson (6 IP, 8 K) and Chad Durbin (4 IP, 0 R) have pulled the bullpen together in the postseason, with J.A. Happ and Chan Ho Park, give them the wherewithal to steal a couple of 7-5, 9-6 games.

There are two incredibly basic grammatical errors in this sentence. First, the prepositional phrase "with J.A. Happ and Chan Ho Park" is misplaced, and frankly I don't know why it's there. Are they good relievers? Did they also pull the bullpen together? Second, "the fact" is a singular subject, so when Gammons finally gets around to the verb, it should be "gives", the singular form, not "give." This would be a moderately difficult question on the SAT. You know, that test that most high-schoolers have to take. You might think that Gammons would raise his game to give the aspiring sportswriters of tomorrow a role model to look up to, but he can't even master the fundamental rules of the English language.

Layoffs affected the 2006 Tigers and 2007 Rockies, and so, too, the Phillies may not be the same come Wednesday. But they are much more experienced than those other two teams, so the rust should never sleep. Bring on the Yankees, bring on the Angels; the Phillies are going to make for a fun November.

Another classic Gammons-ism: hedging the bet. "The Phillies CAN win the World Series, but this is why they might not." Also, another Gammons classic, the retarded mixed metaphor. "The rust should never sleep?" Really? I didn't know rust could sleep.

Then Gammons goes into "Leftover notes from the ALCS", of which one is particularly noteworthy.

2. It doesn't take Sandy Koufax to tell us the Dodgers need a No. 1 starter, but they aren't likely to get one this offseason.

Ok, cute, but I get it, Sandy Koufax himself WAS a No. 1 starter, so presumably he'd know a No. 1 starter if he saw one. Obviously, the Dodgers lack a No. 1 starter. It's so obvious that you don't even need Sandy Koufax to tell you this. But wait! What about Billingsley and Kershaw? They were both pretty good this year, right?

No one seems to be able to say whether Chad Billingsley's leg affected his stuff, but he was not the same the past month.

First of all, why is he so damn wordy? Why can't he just say "No one knows whether..." instead of "No one seems to be able to say whether..." It's so sloppy and childish to add extra words. Second of all, this sentence seems to contradict his thesis, since he's implying that before the last month (when he was "not the same"), he was pretty damn good. Maybe even a No. 1 starter?

Clayton Kershaw has everything it takes to be a No. 1, but he is 21 years old, and the command is a work in progress. "Kershaw's going to be special," Brad Ausmus says. "He has everything it takes in terms of stuff and makeup and drive. Just give him time."

So...in other words, Kershaw is going to be a No. 1 starter. So, after stating that the Dodgers obviously need a No. 1 starter, Gammons proceeds to explain that they had one for most of this year, and another guy who's going to be one. Well played.

Finally, Gammons is such a flake who refuses to take a stand that he didn't even submit a World Series pick on ESPN.com. He did make playoff predictions along with all the other ESPN writers, and guess which team he picked to lose in the first round? (Hint: they had the best road record in baseball, and they are unlikely to be intimidated by the formidable aura of Yankeeology.)

The Chronological Misadventures of Peter Gammons

As usually happens with blogs, Joist and I slacked off on this one. Harping on one lousy writer, with some Buster on the side, is not exactly worthy of a long-term commitment. And we were mostly just amusing each other, anyway. But yesterday, Mr. Gammons posted an article on his blog that motivated me to resurrect this page, for two reasons: 1) it discusses, primarily, the firing of Eric Wedge, a topic that hits close to home for me; and 2) it contains an immense amount of factual inaccuracy and spuriousness, in addition to the usual grammatical and stylistic atrocities. It proves without a shadow of a doubt both that no one edits Peter Gammons, and that someone absolutely needs to. It also made me realize that Gammons -- a Hall of Fame baseball writer -- is overrated on an unprecedented scale. He has been given the highest honor in his field, but not only is he not all that great -- he is positively terrible at his job.

The headline:

Wedge not to blame for Indians' misfortune

So this article should be primarily about Eric Wedge. But if you know your Gammons, you know it could be a while before we read anything remotely relevant to Wedge. Until then, grab a drink and enjoy the tangential gibberish.

It was late May and the host asked, "Do you think the Red Sox will send Jon
Lester down to the minors?"
"Whaaa …" I stammered.
"He's not pitching well," the host continued. "Callers are saying he's got to go."
"He's 24, he's got the best stuff of any left-hander in baseball, he's won in the World
Series, he was an ace down the stretch last year, everyone believes he'll turn
it around, and if, by chance, he doesn't, the Red Sox don't make the playoffs."
"The callers and most of our anchors have had it," the host said.
"Bobby Knight was, as usual, right," I said. "If you listen to the guys in the stands, pretty soon you'll be sitting up there with them."

Peter Gammons loves telling dubious and completely unverifiable stories about his coversations with unnamed insiders. (As one commenter notes: "Peter, name a source for once - this is baseball, not national security.") This one occurred, apparently, on a radio station, so it should be more difficult for Peter to get away with making it up. And yet, it's bizarre -- were people really calling for the demotion of Jon Lester in May? His ERA was kinda high but he was pitching pretty well and hits were just dropping in. And Red Sox fans LOVE Lester. Sure enough, read the comments -- several Bostonian sportsradio listeners cast some serious doubt on this story. I mean, would any radio host say "the callers and [especially!] most of our anchors have had it"? Sports talk jocks don't call themselves "anchors." And the story of a host talking generally about how most of the hosts on his station feel just doesn't ring true. It's just not in the talk radio style. The whole thing is fishier than a Boston menu.

A smaller point, a tangent on the tangent: Isn't Gammons' suggestion that "if, by chance, he doesn't, the Red Sox don't make the playoffs" an argument for sending Lester down? I don't get it. Don't the Red Sox want to avoid not making the playoffs? Shhh, Peter, that's a rhetorical question.

Finally, note that in an article supposedly about something else, Gammons leads off talking about the Red Sox. No surprise there!

In late September of 2005, the Indians were closing on the White Sox, and
"SportsCenter" was leading with the story of the chase. The Indians were good
and they were hot, but a Chicago sports shock jock ranted about GM Kenny
Williams' being fired because he didn't trade for a hitter at the July 31
deadline. The fact that no significant hitter was traded at the deadline didn't
enter into the discussion.

And the White Sox won the World Series. Shouting is easy.

Ah, here we get some plain ol' bad writing, in classic Gammons style. You read this once, and for a second you might react in suprise, "Wait, Kenny Williams was fired in 2005? Isn't he still the GM now?" Then you remember to repair Gammons' broken English. He meant to say "the shock jock ranted that GM Kenny Williams should be fired," etc.

And: "Shouting is easy." How pithy, Peter. Duh, I'm being sarcastic, y'all! My point is that this phrase is desperately un-pithy precisely when he was trying to be pithy. A hallmark of bad writing.

Still no Wedgie...

Talk radio didn't approve of Red Sox players' coming back to Fenway Park for a
modest celebration after they backed into the AL wild card. I wore my Don
Mattingly Baseball Academy shirt Wednesday because Don Mattingly was a great
player, is an even better human being, and the only time he ever got to
celebrate a playoff berth in his career was in his final season when the Yankees
won the wild card.

Oh look, more Red Sox.

I did not combine these two sentences into the same paragraph. They were adjoined on espn.com, as you see them here. If you follow me a bit, I think that -- only because I am a renowned expert in deciphering Gammons! -- I can explain how the two sentences are related.
Peter wore the Mattingly shirt, you see, because winning the wild card in 1995 was tremendously special for Mattingly, because he finally made the playoffs in the final year of his long and distinguished career. Therefore, we learn from the shirt that winning "only" the wild card can be special and is nothing to laugh at, because it took a special guy like Mattingly umpteen years to win just that (yes, I know the wild card did not exist before 1995, just stay with me here). Therefore, finally, the Red Sox celebrating winning the wild card is perfectly reasonable.

However, the reason (I think) that "talk radio" thought the celebration ridiculous was the fact that the Red Sox, as Peter said, "backed into" the wild card in the midst of a long losing streak. The fact that it is only the wild card, as opposed to a division title, is irrelevant. (Don't get me wrong -- the alleged "talk radio" opinion is silly, because the Red Sox' wild card and their party both celebrated their season-long superiority, not just how they played in the last week.) So as usual, even after making the most possible sense out of Gammons, Gammons still makes no sense.

News today travels by cell phone or by satellite or over the Internet, and its
immediacy demands instant gratification for questions raised. The easy part of
the answer, of course, is fault.

Huh?

Gammons: "Damn kids and their lightning fast satellites."

Yes, I get that the gist of this is that it's easy to point fingers, and that Gammons is just trying to say this creatively. But Gammons' attempts at creative writing are just so mind-bogglingly disastrous.

Mark Shapiro never felt that the 2009 fall of the Cleveland Indians was Eric Wedge's fault, or that any other manager could have done better with Grady Sizemore and Jake Westbrook hurt, with Travis Hafner declining after shoulder surgery, and with an Ohio economy that after the Indians got to within a game of the 2007 World Series forced ownership to move the contracts of CC Sabathia, Victor Martinez and Cliff Lee, knowing that by the end of the 2010 season all would be gone to free agency.

Ah, finally, some mention of Eric Wedge and the Indians, introduced in a magnificent, cascading run-on sentence!

Here begins the chronological fuzziness, even if we have not quite reached the level of outright falsehood. This paragraph of a sentence seems to say that right after the 2007 ALCS, Shapiro had to dismantle an excellent team for purely economic reasons, ala the 1997 Marlins. This is not true. CC Sabathia was traded on July 7, 2008. At that time, the Indians were 37-51, 13.5 games out of first place. Sabathia was to come a free agent at the end of the season and was making $11 million in 2008 already. It made perfect sense, whatever the state of the Ohio economy, to trade Sabathia.

And why were the Indians out of contention on July 7. 2008, even with all the pieces still in place from their 2007 run? Because most of the bullpen arms, and that of Fausto Carmona, completely failed, possibly due to abuse they had sustained at the hands of Eric Wedge the previous season. Other young players also got worse instead of better under the tutelage of Wedge et al., such as Ryan Garko and Asdrubal Cabrera (although he rebounded in 2009). This is just some of the evidence in favor of Wedge's firing that Gammons ignores. More to come. Lee and Martinez, of course, were not traded until 2009, so juxtaposing those trades with the 2007 playoffs is even stranger.

The Jacobs family understands that Shapiro has developed an organization that
has inherent stability given its fiscal restraints in the free agent, amateur
and developmental markets. Even with this season's disappointments, the Indians'
stability has enabled them to twice win more than 90 games over the past five
season, beat the Yankees in an ALDS, get to within a game of the World Series
and maintain an average of 83 wins in a Rust Belt division in which 83 wins in
2009 would have kept them in contention until the final weekend.

Gross inaccuracy no. 1: Dick Jacobs no longer owns the Indians. Sadly, that wonderful savior of the Indians franchise is no longer even living. What any of his family members currently "understand" is plainly irrelevant to the discussion. He sold the team, at an inflated price, to the notoriously cheap and incompetent Dolan family.

Also, observe that this error reveals more than just the error itself. It proves that Gammons' statements regarding what ownership "understands" is complete, half-baked speculation and is not based on any actual interviews or inside information regarding ownership's feelings. It also demonstrates that Gammons is completely unaware of the biggest problem facing the Indians -- the stinginess and incompetence of the Dolan ownership, in contrast with the leadership with Dick Jacobs.

Moving on, does Gammons possess an even basic understanding of math? How does mathematically -- and arbitrarily! -- leveling out the seven years of Wedge's tenure into an 83-win average show the Indians' stability??

Grade-School Gammons: "Mommy! Based on what I learned in school today, I just averaged out all of these numbers. Look at how similar they are now! Isn't that fucking AMAZING?" (In my fantasy, Peter was a foul-mouthed child.)

Then consider that the ultimate result of this pointless mathematical endeavor is that the averaged-out-Wedgie Indians, in 2009 alone, would have been "in contention until the final weekend"... but still would have missed the playoffs in a lousy division. Your point??

Meanwhile, hitting "undo" on that pointless averaging, we see that the Indians finished under .500 in Wedge's first 3 season, jumped to 93 wins in 2005, plummetted back under .500 in 2006, lurched back up to 96 wins in 2007, collapsed to an even .500 in 2008 (only because of a September garbage-time rally), and finally collapsed yet further in 2009 in Wedge's worst season yet. Could a seven year tenure possibly be any less stable?

A constant refrain in the ongoing (excellent!) Ken Burns documentary on the National Parks is that words cannot describe the grandeur and beauty of, e.g., the Grand Canyon. Well, this article is the Grand Canyon of stupidity. There are no words.

But it wait, it gets worse.

When a team loses close to $20 million, when it struggles to win 70 games, when
it sees attendance at The Jake dwindle from close to 43,000 a game during a much
different time to 22,144 with staggering declines in both the population and job
markets, someone had to go. So Wedge was offered up to the fan base.

Reality is that when The Jake was full every night and the Indians were a nightly bash happening, the Ohio economy was far different. There was no NFL franchise. The Cavaliers played in the suburbs. LeBron James was 10 when the Indians played the Braves in the 1995 World Series.

This is where Gammons' timing gets really surreal. Sorry, not surreal -- false.

Let's make this simple. Actual timeline:

April 1994: Indians begin playing at Jacobs Field.
November 1994: Cavs begin playing at Gund Arena, across the plaza from the Jake.
June 7, 1995: Indians consecutive sellout streak begins.
November 6, 1995: Art Modell announces that he's moving the Browns to Baltimore.
March 1999: NFL announces the return of the Browns.
September 1999: Browns are back.
October 2000: Indians miss playoffs for the first time since 1993.
April 4, 2001: Sellout streak ends at 455 games.

The most glaringly false thing about Gammons' list of excuses, of course, is his suggestion that the Cavs played "in the suburbs" while the Indians were selling out games. I have heard him say this on ESPN on tv (whereas Gammons usually restricts his more extreme stupidity to print). It's just not even close to true; the Cavs played mere yards away from the Indians at the time. The Cavs did stink then; but the more salient fact is that the Indians did not stink.
(Plus, even if the factual predicate weren't false -- where does Gammons think the Indians fans come to games from? Two blocks down Carnegie Avenue? East Cleveland? Nobody lives in Cleveland proper nowadays. No, they drive in from the suburbs.)

The Browns point is less inaccurate, but not much more convincing. The Indians sold out most of their games in 1995, before anyone knew of Art Modell's nefarious plans (the Browns had actually made the playoffs in the previous season). They continued to sell out for 2 full seasons after the Browns' return was announced, and over one full season after the Browns actually started playing games again.

Yes, the economy in Ohio has gone to the deep south in the last couple years. But the attendence plummetted way back in 2002... when the Indians started losing. Are you starting to get the pattern? The Indians problem under Wedge has been losing, and the manager has to be held responsible at some point for losing, especially when there are very specific reasons to believe that he bears some blame.

But don't look to Gammons for any meaningful or specific discussion of Wedge's actual performance. Applying reductio ad absurdum to Gammons' claptrap, if a manager can't be fired for woefully underperforming expectations; for consistently underperforming run-loss differential (which is very hard to do -- Wedge has been amazing at disappointing Indians fans); for having young players consistently become worse under his watch (cf. Peralta, Garko, Carmona, Francisco, Shoppach, Rafael Perez, Sowers, Jensen Lewis, Andy Marte, Josh Barfield etc. etc); for biannual bullpen implosions; and for just all-around sloppy, mistake-prone play... then a manager could never be fired. According to Gammons, baseball manager should be a lifetime appointment, like the Supreme Court.

Oh sorry, Wedge is also a lousy tactical game manager.

The Grand Canyon stretches out before me. No words.

The articles goes on a bit more about the Tribe and then moves on to other topics. There's probably a lot more atrocious writing and factual inaccuracies, but I don't have the time or the patience. Perhaps Joist wants to continue the resurrection...

If Gammons were one of the Seven Dwarves, he would definitely be Grumpy

Wondering, yet again, why I haven't posted in a long time? It's not because Gammons hasn't had anything ridiculous to say. Check out these recent blog headings:

10/24 - Phils, Rays bullpens different yet dynamic (Click here to learn more about how two different teams can have different bullpens that are both dynamic!)

10/17 - For one night, Fenway's ghosts haunt Rays (I thought it was some really terrible pitches to Drew and Ortiz and some bad defense by Gabe Gross - boy, am I stupid!)

10/14 - Red Sox believe they're not dead yet (I always thought a team that went down in a 3-1 series believed itself to be dead, even when said team overcame a 3-1 series deficit ONE FUCKING YEAR EARLIER)

10/14 - Rays better than originally thought (You think so, Doctor?)

I didn't cherry-pick these headlines; these are his last four columns. However, his latest one is, as Foist likes to say, "classic Gammons". You'll see why.

Weather turns Series into worst ever

Oh boy. We're not even past the title and already we have ridiculous hyperbole and negativity.

PHILADELPHIA -- Somewhere in the muck of Monday's episode of "The Perfect Storm Hits the World Series," the astute Julie Kicklighter texted, "the Trop doesn't look so bad right now."

Does Gammons know that a "perfect storm" is a metaphor for "any event where a combination of circumstances will aggravate a situation drastically" (sayeth Wikipedia)? Does he know that the phrase was selected as the number 1 most overused phrase in the English language last year? Maybe he's poking fun at people who overuse the figurative meaning of the phrase by using it literally. Nah.

So true. Almost forgiven is all the noise from the megaboard at Tropicana Field. What could have been a fascinating World Series played by two teams with engaging young players has turned into the worst ever, unless you like baseball sprinkled in with ab machine infomercials and a 46-hour half-inning break.

Hear that, Tropicana Field megaboard? Peter Gammons almost forgives you! Also, "...sprinkled in with ab machine infomercials" makes no sense. I'll address the 46-hour half-inning break in a bit.

If the Phillies were going to win,

How about "If the Phillies win"?

it is a shame that the feeling was iced.

Don't you hate those "iced feelings"?

For baseball, even perfect telecasts can't save ratings or the majesty of a dramatic World Series, which the sport hasn't had since 2002.

WHAT???? I want you, the reader, to read this sentence three times. I defy you not to be MORE confused every time you reread it. Where to begin? First, the introductory phrase "for baseball" is useless and confusing. Second, I'm not sure what a "perfect telecast" is, but it probably wouldn't include ab machine infomercials, so I guess he's not talking about this year. Third, and this always bothers me, NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE TV RATINGS OF A WORLD SERIES EXCEPT THE NETWORK BROADCASTING IT. Since people seem to love blasting Fox's broadcast (and, specifically, its broadcasters, though I don't mind them nearly as much as most), they should, if anything, pray for low ratings in the World Series. This way, Fox will decide not to carry the World Series in the future, and people can stop bitching about the network. Fourth, I don't know what the "majesty of a dramatic World Series" is. Fifth, the 2003 World Series would certainly qualify as exciting, featuring Josh Beckett shutting down the Yankees on short rest in Game 6. Granted, both of those teams were pretty detestable, so I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have, but it certainly didn't lack for drama.

Say the Rays were to come back and win it with James Shields and Matt Garza pitching in the Trop we miss, there will be a hanging chad feel to the championship.

Wrong. They will be thrilled that they came back from a 3-1 deficit. Yes, the Phillies got hosed (ha!) in Game 5, and they have a semi-legitimate beef in the way it was handled by Selig. Nevertheless, if the Rays come back, the "drama and majesty" that Gammons yearns for would probably come back as well, so what, exactly, is it that he wants? Also, that sentence is a run-on.

And as the winds and the rains and even the snowflakes rattled across Pennsylvania,

I can think of many verbs to describe the effect of bad weather. "Rattled" is not among them.

there was no chance they could move the bottom of the sixth inning to St. Pete, similar to what happened in the 1959 Junior World Series between Gene Mauch's Minneapolis Millers and Preston Gomez's Havana Sugar Kings. The first two games were played in Bloomington, Minn., on Sept. 27-28, but the weather turned so miserable that they moved the rest of the series to Havana, where the Cubans beat Carl Yastrzemski and the Millers in seven games.

What is the Junior World Series? Obviously something between Cuba and the US, but considering that I (and, likely, the vast majority of his readership) have no idea what he's babbling about, I don't think it would kill him to take a sentence to explain what the Junior World Series is.

For those who like domes, that was September.

Um, he was the one who almost absolved Tropicana. Also, what is his point? Here are the possibilities:

1. Bad weather affects the ability of players to play baseball.
2. It would not have been possible to move this game to Tampa's home field.
3. Not only was Gammons alive in 1959, he remembers something called the Junior World Series which took place then.
4. ???????

I'll take number 4.

And remember, folks, next year's World Series is going to be a week later.

Good golly. The World Series has, like, NEVER been that late before. (Note: untrue.)

What happened enabled those who blame Bud Selig for everything this side of global cooling to somehow blame the commissioner again,

Nobody, NOBODY, blames Selig for anything unrelated to baseball. People blame Bud Selig for things that Selig screws up. Such as, I don't know, not understanding weather forecasts and then blaming them for being inaccurate. Or supposedly discussing contingencies ahead of time and then not sharing them with the public until after the fact, casting suspicion on the notion that these contingencies were discussed at all.

but he maintained the game's integrity by insisting it will be concluded, one way or another; you can't end the Super Bowl with a college overtime or end the Stanley Cup Final with a shootout.

I agree that the game should not have been shortened by rain. However, this has little to do with the game's integrity, and the comparisons he draws to football and hockey fall short for a simple reason. Well, more than one reason, but we'll stick with the simple one. The rules for football and hockey specifically state that their games cannot end with college overtimes or shootouts. There is no baseball rule, yet, that says that a postseason game must go at least nine innings. That's why the announcers were saying, after Tampa finished the top of the fifth, that the game was now official; everybody was operating under the assumption that the rules that govern every other baseball game apply similarly to this game. You could even argue that the baseball commissioner suddenly changing the rules halfway through a baseball game contradicts the integrity of the game. That said, I agree that Selig really had no choice in this matter.

Credit Joe Maddon for praising the Philadelphia grounds crew, his hotel in Wilmington, Del., the Rays' traveling secretary and players on both teams for making the best of a grungy situation.

We have to praise Joe Maddon for praising other people? Wow, what a man!

When this World Series finally ends, there will be a great deal of discussion about how to avoid this sort of misery.

He's probably right, but there shouldn't be. As he points out above, bad weather can show up even in September. The World Series has been starting at the end of October since MLB incorporated a third round of playoffs in 1995, and this is the first time since then that a game had to get delayed or suspended.

The first will be to figure a way to shorten the schedule. Say the schedule was reduced from 162 to 148 games (records or no records; the Steroids Era made too many baseball records meaningless), then the division series and League Championship Series could be played between Sept. 20 and Oct. 6, with the World Series theoretically completed by mid-October. Granted, the loss of the seven home dates would hit teams' revenue streams, but they'll just have to adjust player salaries; CC Sabathia and Manny Ramirez might have to make ends meet on measly $20M salaries.

This is a terrible idea. First, it's amazing how bitter Gammons STILL is about the Steroid Era, for reasons we've already discussed. Second, Gammons knows every insider in baseball; does he actually think the players union will agree to shorten the season (and, probably, their salaries) by nearly 10%? Third, why effect such a radical change when the likelihood of bad weather is only slightly decreased? Fourth, this is a better idea then the next one he's about to propose.

In the mid-'90s, several owners went to a Miami Super Bowl and discussed the notion of having a 10-day World Series at a neutral site.

I cannot believe he's suggesting this. Football fans don't have a problem shelling out the cash to go to a Super Bowl at a neutral site because it's ONE DAY. How many average families are going to be like, "Let's go to Arizona for TEN DAYS to watch the Yankees"?

They'd have to get local fans to buy into destination and vacation packages.

Delete the word "into" and you're starting to get the idea.

There wouldn't be the feel in Anaheim, San Diego or Los Angeles that there is in New York, Chicago, St. Louis or Boston.

So he's freely admitting that not a lot of fans would make the trip to see their teams.

But then the Cardinals are the only team since the 2002 Angels to win in front of their home fans.

Utterly irrelevant. "Sure, fans of team X, you got to see your team play in the World Series. But you didn't see them clinch! Was it really worth it? Why don't we just move the Series to San Diego?"

It would be a hard sell, but the notion of a World Series week has some advantages.

It has ONE advantage. And lots of disadvantages.

May I suggest Punta Mita, Mexico? The Four Seasons would be a perfect headquarters hotel. Anguilla would work.

I really, really hope this is a joke. Not that it's funny.

The World Series is, after all, significant television programming, and the good folks at Fox would love predictability. It's better than the official first dud of the fall TV season, "The Perfect Storm Hits the World Series."

At the risk of sounding redundant, a "perfect storm" is...ah, screw it.

There are a lot of questions that will be weighed after this, the worst World Series in memory. The first? With plummeting television ratings and the collapse of the economy, will the free agent market continue to inflate, or will it cool the market? The impact of this World Series may last right through into January.

This question is full of grammatical holes ("will it cool the market?" makes no sense because "it" refers to...nothing). I thought he said the first question to be dealt with was how to avoid weather problems in future World Series. I also thought he said this was the worst World Series ever, not the worst World Series "in memory".

The bigger issue, however, is that these radical suggestions (moving the World Series to a neutral site, shortening the season by fourteen games) and the excessive negativity (the "perfect storm", worst World Series ever, etc.) all stem from one game that had to be suspended for two days. If Tampa comes back and wins the Series, most people will look back on it as a particularly exciting World Series interrupted by some crappy weather, not a World Series that should have been good but was ruined by a stinking rain delay. If Philly holds on and wins Game 5, then there's still more drama than there otherwise would have been if the game had been completed on Monday.

Instead of focusing on the positive aspects of the extra drama foisted (ha!) upon this series by Mother Nature, Gammons bitches about how things used to be better back in the days when the United States and Cuba got along and the World Series ended two weeks earlier. He claims that this is the worst World Series ever, seemingly forgetting that the 2007 Red Sox trounced the upstart Rockies in four games that weren't particularly close, or that a clearly inferior Cardinals team ran over a Detroit team that couldn't field the damn ball. This series has at least featured three close games, some good pitching performances, and even a walk-off win. More importantly, it's not over yet. I can think of a number of outcomes that would make this series objectively better than the last few (a walk-off homer by Philly to clinch the Series tonight, Tampa roaring back to take the Series in 7, Philly blowing games 5 and 6 and then rallying behind another brilliant Hamels start to win in 7, etc.) It's worth noting, by the way, that the last scenario I mentioned would only be possible thanks to the two-day rain delay, allowing Hamels to come back for a potential Game 7.

After reading this column and writing this entry, I'm still stuck with some unanswerable questions. Why is Gammons so grumpy about all this? Why is he weirdly sympathetic to Fox? Why is he proposing radical measures to counter one stinking rain delay? Why does he complain about the lack of drama in recent World Series, overlooking the potential drama that still exists in this one? Finally, why is he such a bad writer?

Breaking news from Buster Olney

To wit:

Relievers will ultimately decide Game 5

Good Lord.

Gammons Needs To Take Lessons From Peter King On How To Incorporate Dumb List Gimmicks Into His Columns

Say what you will about Herr Gammons, but at least he understands the game, you know? He's just so knowledgeable. There's never a time that you think to yourself, "Man, this Gammons just doesn't get it." Right?

Five things I don't quite get

Oh. Um. Never mind. What is it that you don't get?

1. Why there is so much made of who hits behind whom, when it's who hits in front that counts.

Well, that was a confusing sentence. I think he was so excited to use the word "whom" correctly that he sacrificed coherence to do it. Of course, coherence is so often a sacrifice with him that I'm not sure "whom" had anything to do with it. What he's trying to say is that the hitter who bats after a specific player is not as important as the hitter who bats before him. Now, let's see what "evidence" he brings to support this hypothesis:

Keep your bases-empty stats. The definition of a rally is someone on base.

This makes absolutely no sense. If somebody does well with the bases empty (i.e. gets on base a lot), wouldn't that lead to the "definition of a rally", according to Gammons? Also, if you had to boil down the definition of a rally to something even Gammons could understand, it would probably be "multiple people getting on base", in which case it wouldn't matter who bats in front of whom (ha!) because they would both seemingly need to get on base.

David Ortiz can't hit without Manny Ramirez? He has experience doing just that.

In Sept. 2007, Ramirez played in six games, and Ortiz led the majors with a 1.341 OPS for the month. Ramirez batted behind him in one game.

In Sept. 2006, Ramirez again played in six games, Ortiz was second in the American League in OPS at 1.146.

I love how he says "Ramirez again played in six games", when the "again" refers to something that happened a year later. That's like saying, "In 1996, Bill Clinton was elected president. In 1992, Clinton was again elected." Also, nice run-on sentence.

Then comes a handy-dandy chart showing that Ortiz's OPS is actually slightly better without Manny in the lineup. (The chart, handy-dandy though it may be, does not indicate whether the "without Manny" column refers to Manny not hitting behind Ortiz or to Manny not being in the lineup at all.)

In his Red Sox career, Ortiz's OPS with Ramirez hitting behind him is 1.000. With anyone else, it's .998.

(Minor quibble, but technically Ortiz's OPS did not have a Red Sox career; Ortiz had a Red Sox career.)

From the evidence Gammons brings (and also from what he doesn't say), I wouldn't conclude that the importance of a batting order lies in the batter who hits before a particular hitter, but rather that the importance of a batting order is generally overstated. I would conclude this because Gammons brings absolutely no evidence that Ortiz fares better or worse depending on who hits in front of him. All I can conclude from his arguments is that Ortiz is no worse without Manny in the lineup, which, granted, is a valid point, but does nothing to support his theory.

Moving on to the second thing Gammons doesn't get...

2. What's going on with the Dodgers' money? Greg Maddux would have liked to finish the season with the Dodgers, and the Dodgers wanted the Hall of Famer. But when Maddux cleared waivers this week and the Padres went to trade him, Los Angeles demanded that the Padres pay $2.5 million of the $3 million remaining on Maddux's contract this year, and would not offer a useable prospect. Now, the Dodgers got the Red Sox to pay all of Manny Ramirez's contract, and the Indians to pay all of Casey Blake's deal. When the Dodgers tried to get in on CC Sabathia, they wanted the Indians, who have the second-lowest payroll in the AL, to eat the majority of Sabathia's remaining contract. And when the Pirates talked to them about Jack Wilson, the Dodgers wanted the Pirates to eat most of Wilson's contract for 2008 and 2009.

Um, Peter? I think I get it. The Dodgers are cheap. Next?

3. Two National League scouts this week predicted the Marlins will end up winning the East for the same reason -- their young pitching. Ricky Nolasco is already one of the better young starters in the league at 11-6 after two years of arm problems, but the scouts see Josh Johnson -- a potential front-end guy --as well Chris Volstad and Anibal Sanchez. And it's not only in terms of their 5-2 record and raw stuff, but the fact that they are fresh for August, usually considered the month of the power arms. Johnson and Sanchez have but 83 innings between them -- counting their minor league stints -- and the 21-year-old Volstad is still under 120 innings.

So...what's the part Peter doesn't get? Seems like a well-reasoned argument, if full of typos and incomplete sentences ("but the scouts see Josh Johnson as well Chris Volstad and Anibal Sanchez").

4. The Mets did not put in a claim for Livan Hernandez because they believe John Maine will be back, and they're willing to try Jon Niese if necessary. They will try Eddie Kunz as closer until Billy Wagner gets back.

Can anyone not be happy for Fernando Tatis with his .893 OPS and nine homers in 62 games going into Wednesday night? He says he quit the game in 2004 "because my body and my mind were worn out by the turf in Montreal." Hey, he was once a 30-homer guy, and one of the nicest folks walking.

I guess Peter Gammons is so smart that he couldn't keep the "5 things I don't quite get" gimmick going after number 2. Also, #4 contains two separate points, one of which is an explanation as to why the Mets didn't claim Livan Hernandez. What a mystery! Maybe they didn't pick him up because HE'S LIVAN FUCKING HERNANDEZ.

Also, Tatis is one of the nicest folks walking, but he's an asshole compared to all the cripples in wheelchairs. That is one nice group of people.

5. One NL team's defensive statistics, scouting and ratings have John McDonald of the Blue Jays as the best defensive shortstop in the majors. No surprise. They have Boston's Jed Lowrie at No. 5 among the 62 ranked shortstops, even if his sample is small. Derek Jeter and Jose Reyes, who is still working out mechanical start issues, are in the 40s, among the 62 shortstops. Edgar Renteria and Jeff Keppinger are among the bottom 5.

5 things I don't get about the number 5 thing Gammons doesn't get:

1. What is the difference among "statistics, scouting, and ratings"? Aren't ratings a combination of scouting and stats?
2. Why am I not surprised that Gammons singles out the Red Sox shortstop who's been playing for a month?
3. Who is Jeff Keppinger?
4. What are "mechanical start issues"?
5. How many Yankee fans will take issue with Gammons suggesting that Jeter is ranked in the 40s among 62 shortstops?

There, see, Gammons? It's not that hard a gimmick to maintain.

"Buster" Is Spanish for "Glaring Inconsistencies"

Today's Buster Olney chat is a work of art. Well, to be more specific, it's a pile of shit. With apologies to the guys at FJM, who do a phenomenal job deconstructing Joe Morgan's weekly chats, I'd like to point out a couple of delightful items in Buster's chat. Before we get to the glaring inconsistencies, let's point to an excellent usage of a made-up word:

George Sherrill (Baltimore?): Hey Buster, where am I going to be August 1st? What should my O's expect in return?

Buster Olney: George: If I had to guess today (and that's all it is -- a guesstimate based on current conditions).

1. Milwaukee
2. Angels

Or 3. Orioles -- Baltimore just doesn't get an acceptable offer. But my guess is that the O's will deal him, because his value will never be higher than it is right now, and while Sherrill is pitching well and is a great, great story, nobody is going to forget that it wasn't long ago that he was an independent league pitcher; he does not have the pedigree of King Felix, as he would be the first to tell you.

Now, as any quasi-intelligent person would tell you, "guesstimate" is a word only an ignoramus would use. Whoever made it up thought she was being cute by combining the words "guess" and "estimate" into one super-word, but since an estimate is, by definition, a guess, there really is absolutely no difference between a "guesstimate" and a regular old "estimate". What makes this usage particularly delightful is that Olney is misusing the word even further by using it to refer to something that's not even an estimate. The only reasonable explanation is that Olney figured that since the words "guesstimate" and "estimate" are synonymous, then, by golly, so are "guesstimate" and "guess".

Eric (Appleton, WI): What are your current predictions on the playoff picture?

Buster Olney: Eric: They were so bad at the beginning of the season that anything I say now will have less than zero credibility, but hey, take them for what they're worth: Mets, Cubs, Brewers, D-Backs in the NL, Red Sox, Rays, White Sox and Angels in the AL.

I will give Buster credit for acknowledging that his preseason predictions were terrible, since some forecasters will just change their "predictions" every week based simply on what happened over the last week and make no reference to their earlier predictions (unless, of course, they happened to be correct). However, this blog is not about giving credit. Instead, I will just point out these aren't really "predictions", inasmuch as all of the teams he named are currently in playoff position. (Yes, I realize that the Dodgers are tied with Arizona and the Phillies with the Mets.) Now, remember these predictions.

Seymour, Brooklyn: Some of you "experts" never learn not to give up on the Yankees in the second half...

Buster Olney: Seymour: I picked them to win the division, so I'd hardly qualify as someone who has given up on them.

But, Buster, you picked them in your preseason predictions, which you yourself admitted were useless. And earlier in this chat, you picked the Red Sox and Rays to make the playoffs out of the AL East. In other words, you predicted the Yankees to succeed earlier in the season, then, asked to update your predictions, you predicted that the Yankees would not succeed. That, my friend, is the very definition of somebody who has given up on them.