Mike Boddicker is to Artist as Peter Gammons is to...?

On the heels of last night's post, I woke up to this Gammons column, which I'm happy (or maybe disappointed?) to report isn't quite as terrible as his other recent columns, at least in terms of his ideas. His word choice and clarity, however, still leave me as confused as ever. The title:

Young pitchers will shape AL East

Okay. This idea is borderline obvious, since we've all been hearing ad nauseam about Hughes, Kennedy, Chamberlain, Buchholz (that name looked really weird when I typed it out - two h's?!), and Lester, all of whom (except Joba) are scheduled to begin the year in their teams' respective starting rotations. Tell me something I don't know.

Ian Kennedy has looked like a young Mike Boddicker, an artist. We have seen Joba Chamberlain, and there is a very good chance that Ross Ohlendorf will be a significant setup part of the Yankees' bullpen.

Here's where Gammons' baseball knowledge trumps mine. I didn't immediately associate Boddicker's name with a pitching "artist", and looking at his Baseball Reference page, I don't see anything particularly artist-like. I see a 3.80 career ERA, which translates to a slightly above-average ERA+ of 108. I'm guessing Gammons just threw in a reference to the first Boston (surprise!) pitcher that he could think of.

In his defense, he did mention Ross Ohlendorf, who isn't somebody I've heard a ton about already. Of course, an opinion of how Gammons thinks Ohlendorf might pitch would be helpful, but let's not split hairs.

The esteemed Bill Madden of the New York Daily News checked with the Elias Sports Bureau and found that no team has won the World Series with two rookies starting 25 games. Indeed, there is a lot of pressure on Hughes, Kennedy, Chamberlain and Ohlendorf, but what is so different in the American League East is that the three teams that can win the division -- and you might be surprised by how many people on the west coast of Florida believe that the Jays have a legitimate chance to win the division -- are all dependent on young pitchers.

Two things here. First, he claims that we "might be surprised by how many people on the west coast of Florida believe that the Jays have a legitimate chance to win the division." The first and second times I read this, I thought, "Oh, goody. Another typo by Mr. Gammons. He meant to say Rays. They are the team that is located on the west coast of Florida." Then I saw the next paragraph, saw it was about the Blue Jays, and was thoroughly confused. Then I finally realized that the "west coast of Florida" referred not to Tampa, although Tampa does happen to be located there, but to the spring training site of the Blue Jays (which is in Dunedin, FL, a cozy suburb of Tampa).

The question is, why? Does he think that if he says "Toronto" instead, some douchebag will call him out on it? "Hey, Mr. Gammons, I hate to break it to you, but the Blue Jays are not currently in Toronto. They're in Dunedin, FL for spring training. Idiot." (On second thought, I probably would have said that.) My guess is that the only writing class Gammons ever attended was the one about figuring out different ways to say stuff. So, instead of saying, "Toronto," or, God forbid, "Dunedin, FL," he comes up with this "west coast of Florida" bullshit. Of course, he then missed the two weeks' worth of lectures on the importance of clarity in one's writing.

Second, would we really be surprised at "how many people" in Blue Jays camp believe the Blue Jays have a chance? Don't most teams enter spring training with an eye toward making the playoffs? I understand that the Blue Jays have the misfortune of sharing a division with the Yankees and Red Sox, but you don't spend tons of cash on Vernon Wells and B.J. Ryan only to say, "Man, if only we had a chance in hell at actually doing something this year!"

I usually don't pick on his bullet points, because it's his long-winded sentences and arguments that truly offend my sensibilities, but this one caught my eye.

The one place that seemed to make sense for Barry Bonds is Seattle, especially if Richie Sexson struggles and they can move Jose Vidro to first base. But indications are that if Sexson doesn't bounce back -- and Sexson's convinced he will -- then Vidro indeed will go to first, but Jeff Clement would get the first shot at being the DH.

I'm with him for part of this. I definitely think the M's could use Bonds, since almost every hitter of theirs is a right-handed hitter with gap power who doesn't walk (I read that somewhere, and it's true - Betancourt, Lopez, Beltre, Johjima, etc.), and Bonds is, well, not that. But two retarded statements stood out to me:

1. "Sexson's convinced he will [bounce back]..." Stop the presses! A player who played terribly last year believe he will improve this year!

2. "Jeff Clement would get the first shot at being the DH." I could be reading too much into this, but doesn't Gammons imply that the Mariners won't go after Bonds because they have somebody named Jeff Clement blocking Bonds on the depth chart? "Well, Barry, we'd love to sign the best hitter of the past 25 years and possibly since Babe Ruth, but we've got this guy Clement, he's had 19 plate appearances in the majors but he's showing a lot of potential, and we believe he gives us our best chance of winning." Is it possible, just possible, that maybe the Mariners won't sign Bonds because it would be a public relations nightmare?

The raves about Oakland's young pitching seems universal.

Incorrect. The raves...seem universal. You are an idiot.