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.