Gammons Makes Ass Out of Himself and Me

Apparently, Glavine and Maddux are good. The news about them is that there is no news about them. If you don't understand, Peter Gammons will, in his own form of broken, rambling English, explain:

At this point in sports history, we cannot assume anyone's innocence, but no one has ever tied Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine to any scandal involving steroids, HGH or anything else.

Note that Gammons says you "cannot assume" that Glavine and Maddux are innocent, but then writes an entire blog entry extolling their virtuous careers based entirely on the assumption that since their names have not yet surfaced in connection with steroids, they are innocent. Well, that and their terrific stats, but we all knew about the latter already.

Before they retire in the next year or two, if they remain unquestioned, then their first-ballot elections may produce a higher percentage than one can now imagine.

I just imagined really hard, and came up with 100 percent. I guess there must be a percentage higher than that.

Then, after talking about the impressive number of Wins the pair has compiled in the last several years, Gammons says:

Granted, Maddux and Glavine pitched for some very good teams, but Maddux has won four Cy Young Awards, with one second- and two third-place finishes. Glavine has two Cy Young Awards, one second-place finish and two thirds, and he closed out the 1995 World Series with a one-hitter.

This fallacy is not unique to Gammons, but what should come after the admission that the Wins were dependent on the quality of the rest of their teams is some evidence illustrating how they were good independent of their team quality or win totals. Instead, he cites their Cy Young results, which of course depend largely (and retardedly) on... Wins. It's like saying, "Santana wasn't the best pitcher in the AL last year -- he only had 15 wins! Granted, his team regularly featured Jason Bartlett and Nick Punto, but he also finished only 5th in the Cy Young voting!" Which of course was only because... aw, you get the idea.

There's also the small point that Clemens also pitched for some excellent teams in that span. I haven't checked who actually received more run support during that time, but I'm sure Gammons hasn't either. He doesn't even bother to re-read what he writes even once...

Cubs pitching coach Larry Rothschild maintains that Maddux may be the only pitcher who essentially invented two pitches -- the cutting fastball that rides either back over the inside corner to right-handed batters or over the outside backdoor corner to lefties -- as well as throwing the changeup inside, a practice that was taboo for generations.

Here once again Gammons gets lost in the middle of one his long-ass sentences. He names the first pitch -- the cutting fastball -- and then when he finally gets around to naming the second invented pitch, he leads off with a verb. If he, or some editor, had just re-read this thing once, he would have realized (maybe) that it should have read "as well as the inside changeup." Of course, perhaps he did realize this but then also realized he would have to change the wording of the subsequent phrase ("a practice..."), and said, eh, to hell with it.

Ask Derek Lowe or Chris Young or any young pitcher who'll listen, and they'll tell you how Maddux changed the way they watch games, study hitters and pitch.

Any pitcher who will listen? You mean listen to you ask the question? Or you mean any pitcher who will answer? Gammons, are players ignoring you when you ask them questions? There there. There there. Um, also, is Derek Lowe a "young pitcher"? I guess compared to Bob Feller.

This has been a trying time for those who care about the game. We don't know what's real and what isn't, who's lying and who's telling the truth, which rats are telling the truth they so long skirted.

Here he goes with the "rats" again! (At least this time they're not "sewer rats.") I think Gammons is in the Boston mob. Little known fact: Jack Nicholson based his character in the Departed on Peter Gammons.

We have judged players by their appearances, and in this time have watched Maddux and Glavine go from phenoms who threw in the 90s to guys who figured out somehow, some way to beat hitters while appearing like a couple of insurance salesmen playing golf at the country club.

Obviously you can't say "somehow to beat hitters," but still, if Gammons had just ended the sentence after "insurance salesmen," I would have been okay with this sentence. I get it, they look like a couple of nerds who somehow excel at sports. Well, Maddux does, anyway. But playing golf at the country club? Do they look rich too? How does that make their athletic success ironic? Gammons, you are a weird man.

So, on a Christmas when too many lights have burned out and too many stars and ornaments seem to have fallen from the trees,...

Was it an especially windy Christmas or something? ... ohhh, it's a metaphor. (Gag.)

...it seems like the right time to put the careers of a couple of 41-year-olds in perspective, and appreciate that if any two players embody the good old days, they are Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine, Hall of Famers.

You know, so long as you do what I admitted you can't do at the top of the article, namely, assume they're innocent.