Gammons' title is "Ring is Next on C.C.'s List," so you might expect the article to tell C.C.'s story, extolling his accomplishments and discussing his future expectations and such. You would be wrong. It is written mostly from (the superior) Beckett's point of view.
While C. C. Sabathia earned the Cy Young, Josh Beckett earned his place alongside Johan Santana as the best pitcher in baseball.
Wait, how can two people be "the best pitcher" in baseball? It's amazing the nonsensical things you can say when you don't write proper English. This might actually be grammatically correct, since the subject of the sentence is technically still just Beckett, but substantively makes no sense. If he's "alongside" Santana, then does that not imply that they are together at the top? I guess Gammons just wants to say that Beckett is the best pitcher in baseball (ignoring his persistent blisters and struggles during much of his career with the Marlins and his first season with the Red Sox), but wants to cover himself by mentioning the more obviously correct choice, Santana. And he can do this, because he doesn't give a crap about making sense.
Now, Gammons commences the recycling:
One of the reasons Beckett was good and reliable and fresh in October -- taking the role of a No. 1 starter, carrying his team through three straight series and winning a world championship for the second time in five years -- is because he didn't have to do what Sabathia did in the regular season. And the award is based solely on the regular season. Sabathia threw 40 more innings, faced 143 more batters and threw 478 more pitches than Beckett. He picked up the slack with Jake Westbrook disabled, and Cliff Lee and Jeremy Sowers back in Buffalo, and deserves top 10 MVP votes for getting the Indians to a tie with the Red Sox for best record in baseball. But all those innings, batters and pitches showed in October. Velocity is never an indicator of wear or injury -- command is. And the man with the 5.24 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio was clearly gassed trying to deal with the hitting approach of Boston's hitters.
Gammons, a week ago:
These days, starting pitching depth is extremely important, as we saw by the contrast of Josh Beckett and C.C. Sabathia in the postseason. Beckett is in a youthful prime at 27 years old, and even though logging 43 fewer innings than Sabathia may have lost him the Cy Young award, it won his teamates World Series rings.
Gammons, October 25:
As the rest given to Josh Beckett during the season might have cost him the Cy Young but gained him historic October stature, so the way Papelbon and Okajima were handled is a significant part of their 17 1/3 innings of postseason shutout relief.
Gammons, October 20:
Now, in Game 7, Daisuke Matsuzaka goes out with Hideki Okajima, Josh Beckett and Jonathan Papelbon capable of a combined five or six innings because of the way Francona backed off all three pitchers during the season. He sat Okajima in September. He forced Beckett onto the DL in one stretch and backed off him in September, which is why C.C. Sabathia will win the Cy Young while Francona has the best of Beckett in October.
There might be more, but that's enough. You see my point. Now, I'm not doubting this theory. It actually is plausible, even if I'm not as sure as Gammons about its veracity. I mean, geez, something happened to Sabathia in October, and the huge number of innings is as reasonable an explanation as any. But Gammons is so excited by actually having a plausible theory, that he feels the need to repeat it to us on a weekly basis. Peter, time for some new material.
Also, velocity is never an indicator of fatigue? It's always command? You sure about that?
Beckett won one more game (20-19), but C.C. had the better ERA (3.21 to 3.27), threw more innings, had more quality starts (25-20), had the higher quality-start percentage (74 percent-67 percent) and had 1.05 runs per start less support. But as C.C. will tell you, he'll gladly trade the award next year for what Beckett has won twice this century -- a World Series ring.
Beckett won 2 World Series by himself, apparently. Little known fact. And I guess that means he singlehandedly missed the playoffs last year when he posted an ERA over 5? Also little known -- players care more about winning the World Series than winning individual awards. At least the ones that respect the game and prioritize winning (YEAH I'M TALKING TO YOU A-ROD!). Read Peter Gammons, learn new things.
After a brief and characteristically over-optimistic discussion of the Indians' pitching depth in '08, Gammons says:
Sabathia has worked diligently to earn this Cy Young, and a rare place in the game's hierarchy.
Obviously, the comma does not belong there and causes some initial confusion. But "rare place in the game's hierarchy"? Just weird. Gammons' attempts to write creatively always come off as awkward and just plain weird.
Then, he finishes off the article with two sentences on the Red Sox that don't mention Sabathia at all. These sentences also recycle what he has already said numerous times in this article and elsewhere:
He paid for that diligence and durability in October, and now has something else to shoot for -- Beckett's crown as the premier money pitcher in the sport. The Red Sox's ace is a 6-0, 1.73 ERA in 10 career playoff appearances (72 2/3 IP), and only Curt Schilling has more World Series rings in the 21st century. Between them, Schilling and Beckett are 16-1 in the postseason this decade, and their teams have won nine of the ten series in which they've pitched.
As shown above, the "innings cost Sabathia in the playoffs" thing is well-covered, but the rest of this is also repetitive. Cf., Gammons, just last week:
[Schilling] is 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA in 19 playoff starts (sorry, but the postseason is not random), and Schilling's ability to win under pressure is a major factor in his teams' 10-2 record in postseason series, which is what it's supposed to be about.
This was just about Schilling, but obviously Beckett's "money" status has also been well-documented, ad nauseum, by Gammons. We get it, Peter -- Beckett and Schilling always win in the playoffs, all by themselves, because they are just so clutchy. Except when they stink and miss the playoffs altogether. I'm bored.
No comments:
Post a Comment