Hello

Good intro, Joist, I just have some additional thoughts.

We're not perfect writers. We'll probably make a bunch of grammatical mistakes in our posts. And we don't expect Gammons to be some kind of perfect grammar machine, ready to ace a 7th-grade quiz. The Gammons we yearn for -- let's call him Fantasy Gammons -- is a writer with Gammons's scoops, Gammons's insight, Gammons's experience, and Gammons's baseball knowledge who can convey all this goodness to us in a comprehensible form, perhaps entertaining us a bit along the way. The original point of writing is to convey an idea, and Gammons routinely fails to do this. Half the time, I just have no frickin' clue what he's trying to say.

Take, for example, Joist's 2nd example. This sentence isn't just bad because it breaks a bunch of abstract rules; it's ultimately bad because you're left with NO IDEA what he is saying. I take it the team "riding shotgun down the avalanche" is the Phillies, because this is the team to which the Mets blew their lead (take notes, Peter). Okay, we figured that much out. But what is he trying to say with this shotgun-riding-avalanche thing? I'm picturing Jamie Moyer effortlessly balancing himself on a snowboard, riding an avalanche while skeet-shooting. It's not easy, but I'm picturing it. What does this metaphoric image tell me about the Phillies? Or the Mets? Or snowboarding? I have no idea.

Usually, when people mix metaphors, they're just being redundant, and both metaphors just mean the same thing. Not Gammons. He'll throw completely contradictory, unrelated metaphors and ideas into that strange concoction he calls a sentence.

Again, I just want to know what Gammons is saying. I want to know whether the Mets will try to sign six more 45-year-old pitchers with broken arms for next season, and if anyone can tell me, Gammons can. But no such luck.