It's Like Rain on Your Wedding Day

Quick, read this opening to Peter Gammons' latest column and tell me what's so hilariously ironic about it.

"It is," says Bruce Bochy, "different." It is the world of the San Fransisco Giants without the mountainous presence of Barry Bonds for the first time since the end of the George H.W. Bush administration, a world in which Bengie Molina will bat cleanup.

Now, notice that I didn't say what's bad about this opening paragraph, in which case you could point to Gammons' annoying habit of referring to a team as a "world", or his description of Barry Bonds' presence as "mountainous" (which, unless referring to the quantity of steroids he likely took, makes little sense to me).

No, I asked what was ironic about it. And the answer is that Gammons started a paragraph with the word "it", but since somebody else used the word "it", he actually explains what "it" refers to. Now, we, and in particular Foist, have been railing about Gammons' particularly vexing habit of starting a sentence or a paragraph with the word "it" and not having a logical or grammatically accurate antecedent to which the word "it" could refer. Here, in this first sentence, we have proof that Gammons is aware that if somebody uses a third-person pronoun such as "it", a quick explanation of its antecedent, when it is missing or unclear, can be helpful.

(This phenomenon takes me back to the days I used to teach SAT classes. I had a very strict teacher's guide I was supposed to follow, and one of the suggestions I was supposed to give the students for extra practice in the grammar section was to bring in magazines and newspapers and point out errors that the SAT commonly tests. I always laughed at that, because if the editors of major publications couldn't spot errors relating to subject-verb agreement or pronoun-antecedent agreement, how are 16-year-old snot-nosed kids supposed to? Now I want to go back to teaching these classes and just bring in Gammons articles, because I'd be willing to bet the farm that they'd be able to spot some of these errors pretty easily. Where was I?)

[blah blah blah, Giants are different without Bonds, blah blah blah]

Bochy is right when he talks about the pitching. The Giants play in a hitters' graveyard, in a division in which the three California teams all have pitchers' parks.

This sentence is terribly redundant and confusing. Initially, I thought that if he had only written something like, "The Giants play in a hitters' graveyard, as do two of their division rivals," it would have been a nice little sentence, especially since I find the phrase "hitters graveyard" amusing and descriptive. Of course, the problem is that Peter's own web site disputes his claim; although Petco Park truly is a "hitters' graveyard", the Giants' stadium comes in at just about average, and Dodger Stadium actually favors hitters.

Matt Cain may have been 7-16, but if he pitched for a good team, that record could have been reversed; he was 10th in the league in ERA (3.65), sixth in quality starts and seventh in quality start percentage at 69 percent, with Tim Lincecum right behind him at 67 percent with his 122 hits and 150 strikeouts in 146 1/3 innings.

1. "May have been" should be "was".
2. "If he pitched" should be "If he had pitched".
3. "Reversed" should be "inverted".
4. "With Tim Lincecum right behind him at 67 percent with his 122 hits and 150 strikeouts in 146 1/3 innings" should be taken out and shot.

OK, pop quiz. Which of these sentences did Gammons actually write?

a. The Giants' starting pitching might be good enough to compensate for their weak bullpen and offense
b. It may be that the Giants' starting pitching is so good it holds them in games

If you need a hint, look back at previous posts for examples of the way Gammons writes. Better yet, look at the beginning of this post. Remember when I pointed out the irony of Gammons taking the time to explain somebody else's use of the word "it"? Right.

There is a trial and a lot of time and history still to be written before Bonds goes onto the Hall of Fame ballot. But with so much hostility toward Barry and so many voters skeptical of his Cooperstown viability, this thought has run through the minds of some former Giants: How ironic would it be if Jeff Kent were to make it into the Hall of Fame before Bonds?

To write, "There is...a lot of time and history still to be written..." is nonsensical unless both "time" and "history" can be written. This tendency of Gammons, to apply the same verb or adjective to two nouns, only one of which logically agrees with it, will probably be featured in Chapter 2 of my upcoming book, "Top Ten Gammons Errors That Piss Me Off the Most Because He Commits Them All the Time and He Has No Editors To Correct Them".

While we're here, Chapter 3 will be his overuse of the word "with" when he doesn't even mean it. I won't bother writing a chapter about his misuse of the word "ironic", since entire books have already been written on the subject, but see the beginning of my post for a good example of how to use the word. (One could argue that Kent's becoming a Hall of Famer before Bonds, simply based on their statistics, is ironic, but by providing two good reasons why this situation might arise, Gammons has inadvertently convinced us that it is decidedly not ironic, and is in fact likely. Perhaps I am overthinking this.)

Kent seems to be a Cooperstown certainty. Among all-time second basemen, he is first in homers, second in RBIs and slugging,third in extra-base hits, fourth in doubles and fifth in total bases.

If he were to ride his motorcycle into Cooperstown ahead of Bonds, that would be an ironic, yet sad, story. Kent has been a tough, tremendous player, but exactly where his numbers would be without the six years he played with Bonds is hard to quantify.

Oh. So Gammons is arguing that Kent's Hall of Fame election before Bonds' would be ironic because Kent owes his success to Bonds. Well, that is still pretty stupid. First of all, the only stat Gammons mentions that was directly influenced by Bonds' presence in the lineup is RBIs, and any logically minded person would tell you that RBIs are an inferior measure of individual performance precisely for this reason. Granted, most Hall of Fame arguments exist because many voters continue to overvalue luck-based stats such as RBI, but then Kent will also end up in the Hall for many other reasons, most of which have little or nothing to do with Bonds.

Also, I do enjoy Gammons' assertion that Kent's stats without the six years he played with Bonds would be "hard to quantify". This is like saying, "If Franklin D. Roosevelt had run for president against George H.W. Bush, the voting results would be hard to quantify." Should we also penalize all of the Hall of Famers from the Big Red Machine, because Joe Morgan's numbers without Johnny Bench are "hard to quantify"? Argh.

Not To Be Outdone, Peter Gammons Makes Some Bold Predictions of His Own

I think the Peters get writing tips from each other. I posted this morning about Peter King's prediction that Rod Smith "likely" won't play again, unless something unlikely happens. Now comes Gammons with some bold predictions about the AL West. Specifically:

M's making a run at the Angels

Okay, I can see how the Mariners' deal for Bedard gives them a better shot, at least. Let's see how Gammons supports this idea:

Bill Bavasi deserves a lot of credit for evaluating the Mariners and the fact no team won more games than Seattle's 88 without making the playoffs and realizing their negative run differential meant they had to do something to go after the Angels.

This sentence is absurdly bad. Let's break it down. Bavasi, according to Gammons, deserves credit for (I think) three things:

1. Evaluating the Mariners. I am of the opinion that most GMs at least attempt to evaluate their own teams. I would suspect that if Bavasi didn't evaluate his own team, he'd be summarily fired. Although if he's not getting fired for paying Richie Sexson $174,157.30 per base hit (seriously), it's possible he possesses some seriously damaging blackmail material about his employer, thus ensuring his job security.

2. The fact no [sic] team won more games than Seattle's 88 without making the playoffs. I agree, this is a pretty good accomplishment. Except Gammons doesn't even get to the end of the sentence before diminishing this feat. Observe.

3. Realizing their negative run differential meant they had to do something to go after the Angels. Which is it? If Bavasi gets credit for realizing that they're not that good, he should also be blamed because, well, they're not that good. Instead, Gammons twists the facts so that he gets credit for the team overachieving, and then more credit for realizing that the team overachieved. Oh, and he also gets credit for evaluating them. Well played, sir.

Note, also, the complete lack of any kind of parallel structure in the sentence. I broke it down to a list to make it semi-comprehensible to the reader, but I'm not even sure that was his intention.

So he started with the Mariners' weakness, starting pitching, which was 59-62, 5.16 in 2007. There is no question Erik Bedard is going make [sic - where are the damn editors???] a huge difference, whether or not he's ever thrown 200 innings. He is a power pitcher going from a bandbox to a pitcher's park with the highest strikeouts and lowest base runners per nine innings in the American League.

"Whether or not he's ever thrown 200 innings"? Has he or hasn't he? JUST FUCKING TELL ME! I happen to know that he hasn't, but the casual baseball fan may not be aware. Allow me to propose an infinitely improved version of this sentence (my changes in italics):

"There is no question Erik Bedard is going to make a huge difference, even though he's never thrown 200 innings in a season."

Actually, although it's clearer, it's still Gammons-esque in its verbosity. Here:

"Erik Bedard will unquestionably make a huge difference, even though he's never thrown 200 innings in a season."

Much better.

John McLaren made him the opening day starter to further take pressure off Felix Hernandez, who they believe will be a 20-game winner and their ace after he turns 22 in April. After watching him give up 18 0-and-2 hits last year, they have given Hernadez back the spike curveball he ditched because of his elbow, and with that curveball might lay claim to the best stuff of any starter in the game.

Does he mean that Felix will be a 20-game winner and their ace because he turns 22 in April, implying that he's sufficiently mature and has enough experience that he'll be able to take the next step? Because he uses the word "after", implying that Felix will suck for his first, like, two starts, but then he'll turn 22 and magically morph into a Cy Young-caliber pitcher. Am I being too nitpicky? I say no.

But, as McLaren warns, "Don't underestimate the Angels."

Who underestimated them? Despite Gammons's incredibly persuasive pro-Mariners argument, I'm pretty sure the Angels remain the prohibitive favorites in the AL West. Let's see what reasoning Gammons uses now:

First, remember that Jon Garland is six months younger than Bedard and has 52 more career wins.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Ha. Does Mr. Gammons really expect us to buy that Jon Garland is on the same planet as Bedard, in terms of pitching ability? Let's take a quick look at some numbers.

Bedard, 2007: 13-5, 3.16 ERA, 182 IP, 221 K, 57 BB
Garland, 2007: 10-13, 4.23 ERA, 208.3 IP, 98 K, 57 BB

The only reason Garland's win total is higher is that he was rushed to the majors by a White Sox team desperate for pitching. (Well, that, and the fact that Garland somehow managed 18 wins in '06 despite a higher ERA.) Only once in six full seasons as a starter has he managed an ERA below 4.00, and that was in '05, when the entire pitching staff sold its collective soul to the devil. Bedard, on the other hand, had one of the best K:BB ratios last year in baseball history, which any statistically minded person will tell you is one of the best indicators of future performance.

Ok, where was I? Oh, right. Gammons. There are many reasons to favor the Angels (Lackey, Escobar, Guerrero, Rodriguez, and Kendrick to name a few). Garland's slightly-above-league-average pitching is not one of them. Certainly not if compared to Bedard, who is probably the best lefty in the AL now that Santana's gone.

Gammons then points out some other boring stuff, Clemens blah blah blah, Cubs, Gagne, some other crap, and then ends the post thusly:

Torii Hunter will be a huge help turning Howie Kendrick into a star.

No explanation. What a weird blanket statement to end a column with. I'm tired.

Peter King Writes a Column Every Week, Unless He Doesn't

Couldn't resist this gem from today's MMQB column:

It's a sad day for the NFL if [Rod] Smith isn't going to play anymore -- which, barring a very unlikely recovery by the 37-year-old, is likely.

There exist two terrible aspects to this sentence. First, the Gammons-esque ambiguous pronoun to start the sentence - what, exactly, is the "sad day"? If the sad day is the day Smith announces his retirement, then why not say that? If it's the day Smith attempts a comeback but is really still hurt and he runs one route before collapsing to the ground in pain, that would also be sad, but we don't know what he means. Instead, he gives us the extremely abstract "if Smith isn't going to play anymore".

Second, this is the qualifier to end all qualifiers: he's saying that Smith's retirement is only "likely" if his "unlikely" recovery doesn't happen. Way to put all your eggs in one basket, Peter! I'm surprised his Super Bowl prediction wasn't something like, "The Patriots are likely to win, unless the Giants win, which is unlikely. In the unlikely event that the Giants win, the Patriots' chances of victory become significantly less likely."

Gammons Attempts to Reach out to His Urban Readers

I almost spat out my drink when I saw how Gammons opens this entry (sorry, I know it's belated):

C.C. Sabathia's wish list for 2008 is first, for the Cleveland Indians to win the World Series, and second, for the New York Yankees to miss the playoffs.

Ring.

Then bling.

It took me three times just to figure out what Gammons meant, since, ostensibly, the Yankees' missing out on the playoffs has nothing to do with Sabathia's "bling". Incidentally, I just consulted both dictionary.com and the Urban Dictionary to make sure, and the consensus is that "bling" refers to excessively gaudy jewelry often worn by rappers and African Americans.

As I see it, two possibilites exist:

a) Gammons actually meant to say "Cha-ching", which also rhymes with "ring" and correlates more directly with the Yankees, since (according to Gammons) the Yankees will pursue Sabathia and give him lots of money if they miss the playoffs.

b) Gammons is terribly racist, and used the word "bling" to indicate that Sabathia, as an African-American, is most definitely going to use his upcoming extreme wealth to purchase excessively gaudy jewelry.

Given how chummy Gammons is with all the players, I am forced to go with the former possibility, as fun as the latter would be. That said, it's still a weak argument, even once you get past the poor word choice and missing logical leaps, because the Yankees have always gone after the most expensive free agents on the market, regardless of their level of success the previous year. In fact, because they've made the playoffs every year since '96, and that was also around the time that their ridiculous spending took off, we really have no idea how the Yankees would react if they missed the playoffs entirely. For all we know, they would use the failure as an opportunity to reflect on their wild spending ways, and conclude that perhaps it's best not to overpay dearly for free agents. (Probably not.) Regardless, does anybody really buy that the Yankees are more likely to spend the money to sign Sabathia in the unlikely scenario that they miss the playoffs?

One can argue that the landscape never was the same after the San Francisco Giants gave Barry Zito $126 million last winter, because Zito isn't Johan Santana. Perhaps no one is Johan Santana. He makes the New York Mets the clear favorites to win the National League pennant in 2008, his picture will be up on Hank Steinbrenner's wall next to the picture of Brian Cashman and he is the reason the Indians have no chance of re-signing Sabathia unless someone finds oil in Lake Erie.

What? What landscape? If Zito isn't Johan Santana, then what does Zito have to do with anything? And if "perhaps no one is Johan Santana" (how poetic of you, Peter!) then why is Santana the reason the Indians can't re-sign Sabathia? If anything, Zito, not Santana, is the reason that the Indians can't re-sign Sabathia.

Later:

The Oakland A's received more by trading Dan Haren to the Arizona Diamondbacks than the Twins got for Santana. If the Baltimore Orioles decide to trade Erik Bedard, they will get more for him, who is a week older than Santana and never has thrown 200 innings in a season.

Sigh...

Now, when the Nippon Ham Fighters decide to post Yu Darvish -- the half-Iranian, half-Japanese phenom -- can they expect to get a $100 million posting fee in addition to whatever Darvish can extract from the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox or Los Angeles Dodgers? Probably. No prospects will be involved, and those players carry significant value.

What does he mean by "those players"? "Those Japanese League players"? "Those half-Iranian, half-Japanese phenoms"? "Those players whose first name is 'Yu'"? Kidding aside, assuming he's referring to Japanese League players, why are they more valuable than American free agents? You don't have to give up prospects to sign them, either.

By the way, we're now like eight paragraphs in, and I have absolutely no idea what his point is.

Sabathia might not be Santana in terms of his longterm viability, but we are looking at $20 million per season if the Yankees don't make the playoffs this season and the Mets play the Red Sox in the World Series. No wonder the Indians haven't traded Cliff Lee or Jeremy Sowers, and will keep developing Adam Miller as a starting pitcher.

Again, I have to assume what Gammons means, because despite his inordinately long blog posts, he never explains his (usually flawed) reasoning. I will assume here that "Sabathia might not be Santana in terms of his longterm viability" because Sabathia does not have the best, um, build, and he might be more prone to breaking down (see: Colon, Bartolo). In fact, I don't even know why Gammons says this at all, since he said earlier that "No one is Johan Santana". Then Gammons clarifies his earlier stupid argument that the Yankees would only throw a ton of money at Sabathia if they miss the playoffs, even though recent history would suggest that their lavish spending has nothing to do with missing the playoffs.

I would say I give up, but I will continue pursuing my dream of convincing everybody in Internetville that Peter Gammons, despite his reputation, is horrible at his job.

Taking the Minority Opinion Too Far

Okay, I realize I've been straying a bit from the original purpose of this blog, which is to make fun of Peter Gammons and express incredulity over the notable lack of editing of his work, either by Gammons himself or by ESPN.com editors. Let's get back to that, shall we?

We don't even have to get to the circus that will remind us why Congress has a 22 percent approval rating. This is where we are: The voices the public is listening to are Jose Canseco, John Rocker, Brian McNamee and Kirk Radomski.

Wow, these are some tortured sentences. First he implies that he somehow already knows that Congress will do a shitty job interrogating Clemens, McNamee, et al. (Did anybody else catch the irony of Gammons implying that somebody in a high-profile job actually performs said job terribly?) Then, he seems to say that the American public is retarded, because it's listening to the voices of a group of people who are, well, less than savory. But wait! If the American people are retarded, shouldn't the fact that they disapprove of Congress shed a positive light on Congress? Am I overthinking this?

Through his designer shades, Canseco saw how much money the players, owners, agents and enablers were making in the steroids era, and he questioned why he shouldn't be making his buck his way. But once Roger Clemens and McNamee are finished in the halls where the Voting Rights Act once was framed, Canseco is going to seem like Madeline Albright.

Damn that Canseco and his designer shades! Why can't he just get the Foakleys for $15 like the rest of us? And isn't Gammons ignoring the pink elephant in the room, the fact that Canseco didn't just see how much money the players were making, he also was one of these players? I mean, clearly Canseco is a weasel just trying to make more money, but Gammons is reduced to sounding like a 15-year-old girl in his criticism of Canseco. I must say, Foist's theory that Gammons is just pissed that he wasn't the journalist to break the steroid scandal looks stronger and stronger every day.

We don't know why McNamee would lie about Clemens and not about Andy Pettitte or Chuck Knoblauch, or why Rep. Tom Davis would say Pettitte corroborated McNamee's testimony. We don't know why Clemens would risk jail and his legacy by risking perjury, or, for that matter, why he kept McNamee in his employ all those years.

It is correct to say that "we don't know why McNamee WOULD lie..." because we're not sure whether he did or not, so it's a conditional statement. It is, however, incorrect to say that "We don't know why Rep. Tom Davis WOULD say Pettite corroborated..." because it's a fact that he DID say that. Also, the phrase "Clemens would risk jail and his legacy by risking perjury" is painfully redundant.

Theoretically, we will learn all that in time. And we will learn whether Rusty Hardin can prove there is a conspiracy against Clemens. Hardin is doing what he is paid to do. The late Edward Bennett Williams might have been the most charismatic, fascinating man I have ever met, and he defended Joseph McCarthy, Jimmy Hoffa, John Connally, Frank Costello …

Somebody please convince me that there's a reason for Gammons dropping the name of Edward Bennett Williams other than him trying to impress us with the fact that he met him. Also, what the hell is the point of talking about some famous lawyer's charisma? I really believe that Gammons writes a coherent column and then just rearranges the sentences around just to fuck with us. So far, we're three paragraphs in, and Gammons has informed us that Congress sucks, Canseco sucks, and Clemens's lawyer is attempting to defend Clemens, in the same way that Edward Bennett Williams defended Joseph McCarthy. Any questions? Me neither.

Clemens is a good guy who worked as hard as anyone in the game, who truly enjoyed working with the Houston Astros' minor leaguers, who savored every moment playing with his son, Koby. Now he has been made into a villain.

Here's my question. Why wasn't Gammons invited to testify before Congress?

Senate Committee: Mr. Gammons, why do you believe Clemens has been wrongly accused of taking steroids?

Gammons: Well, I know that he enjoyed working with the Houston Astros minor leaguers, and he savored every moment playing with his son, Koby.

Senate Committee: How is that even remotely relevant to whether he took steroids?

Gammons: Did you know I once met Edgar Bennett Williams?

If you read the New York papers every day, you would believe the media hates Clemens. Some appear to be consumed by him. They remember his retirement and the ovation the Florida Marlins gave him during the 2003 World Series, his resurrection in Houston, then his return for what supposedly was a higher average annual salary than Alex Rodriguez's, which made greatness seem mercenary. There are daily reminders of him beaning Mike Piazza and buzzing Alex Rios.

A few things:

1. What "supposedly" was a higher average annual salary than Alex Rodriguez's? It's four years later, and you still don't know? Let's see how long it takes me to find out.

...

Okay, that took two minutes. Rodriguez's salary in 2005 was $26 million. Clemens's was $18 million. So, Clemens's annual salary was "supposedly" higher than Rodriguez, but it was actually $8 million lower.


2. "...Which made greatness seem mercenary"? Can anybody dispute that? These are facts! Clemens sold his services to the highest bidder, and demanded all kinds of other special clauses, in exchange for his (allegedly tainted) greatness! That is mercenary!

3. He DID bean Mike Piazza.

If I may summarize what we've learned from this Gammons column: He criticizes Canseco for presenting facts to the public about the steroid scandal. He criticizes the New York media for presenting facts to the public about Clemens. On the other hand, he advocates Clemens, because of some heartwarming bullshit. I ask you: WHAT KIND OF JOURNALIST IS PETER GAMMONS? Onward!

In Houston, where Clemens should live out his life as a Texas legend, he is remembered by too many as the loyal Houstonian who went back to the Yankees for the annual average value, or AAV, which might mean that years from now, to expand on a very funny line, Clemens' stat lines might be DNA, AAV and ERA.

For the eighth time, Peter: Clemens is NOT A VICTIM. You can write that he "should" live out his life as a Texas legend, but HE CHOSE to go back to the Yankees for the "annual average value". While we're here, I like how Gammons tries to sound smart by saying "average annual value" instead of "more money", as if figuring out a player's annual salary, particularly when he's only signing one-year contracts, is some complicated statistical algorithm. Also, if you have to tell us that something is a "very funny line"? Probably not all that funny. That would certainly seem to be the case here.

Barry Bonds wasn't the only one, yet he has honors, riches, glory, fame and nothing much more than a warehouse to show them off. This seems to be where Clemens is headed unless Hardin can break McNamee down into a Perry Mason-esque confession if the defamation suit ever goes to trial.

The obvious error here would be that McNamee would not break down into a "Perry Mason-esque confession", since Mason was the one causing the confession. Yes, I know what he means. Still don't get why he gets to write ambiguously with no repercussions. The less obvious error would be stating that Bonds's life is severely lacking, not because he doesn't have honors, riches, glory, and fame, but that he "can't show them off", and this is the most tragic occurrence of all. Woe be unto Clemens if he suffers a similar fate! Woe, I say!

Maybe Hardin can pull that off. And maybe Bonds, separately, will end up being judged innocent of perjury. But what will Clemens and Bonds have five years from now for all their hard work and greatness?

Umm...more money than God? The reputations, albeit stained, as the best pitcher and hitter, respectively, of their era? Because Gammons's writing is so damned incomprehensible, I'm not sure, but I think he's trying to portray Clemens as a sympathetic character. If this is true, well, it is a sad, sad effort.

Perhaps that is the lesson: No matter what mountain you climb, if you break the law while scaling the peak, it can come back to roll you down the side of the mountain on your behind. If kids look at Bonds and Clemens and ask, "What did 762 home runs and 354 wins get them?" George Mitchell will have accomplished something, as inherently unfair as it might be to those two men.

Another excellent metaphor. I dunno, I kind of like the thought of climbing a mountain and then getting "rolled down" the other side. Sounds fun. More fun than climbing down, anyway. Also: as "inherently unfair" as it might be to those two men? Both have already been tried and found guilty, in the court of public opinion, of using steroids. In fact, federal prosecutors have just confirmed that Bonds failed a steroid test shortly after hitting his 73rd home run in 2003. (EDIT: This story indicates that this confirmation was the result of a "typo". However, my point still stands, as there have been other failed steroids tests for Bonds.) What, exactly, is "inherently unfair" about this?

If you want to argue that it's unfair that Clemens and Bonds catch an inordinate amount of flak for taking steroids, considering that the problem was widespread throughout baseball and there are many, many people at fault, well, that's one thing. (I could dispute that by saying that Clemens and Bonds were the very best of their time and broke records of players who were probably not juicing. Thus, if they did take steroids, which is looking more and more likely, their entire legacies must be called into question. Nobody will remember David Segui and Carl Everett for their incredible baseball accomplishments.) But Gammons doesn't even mention why Bonds and Clemens would find the Mitchell Report "inherently unfair".

Canseco has been right about a lot. Rocker is right when he laughs that only about 80 names were thrown into the media feeding pool through the Mitchell report. McNamee and Radomski have been granted more public credibility than one of the greatest position players and one of the greatest pitchers.

Okay, this has really gone too far. Please, somebody correct me if I am wrong. Is Gammons actually suggesting that, even though mountains of circumstantial and physical evidence point to the guilt of Clemens and Bonds, they should get more credibility than Radomski and McNamee, two guys who have nothing to gain by lying, just because they happen to be two "of the greatest"?

I have really never seen such an egregious display of slanted, factless, biased, obsequious journalism. I do believe that there are arguments to be made in favor of Clemens. Gammons, however, seems to be siding with him, and worse, sympathizing with him, purely based on the fact that he was really, really good. Just...disgusting.

Baseball season really can't get here quickly enough, can it?