Announcer Dumbness IV

This isn't a specific quote, but during the Yankees - White Sox game the Yankees announcers have been going on and on (and on) about starter Javier Vazquez and the fact that he "didn't make it in New York," like "so many other players" who just "couldn't cut it" there because of all the pressure bla bla. This relates nicely to Joist's most recent post about Gammons' latest claptrap. But even if you buy this "if you can make it here you can make it anywhere" stuff in general, it makes zero sense as applied to Vazquez. It's amazing how many people forget this (including Yankees fans, who tend to have severely selective memories), but Vazquez was actually excellent in the FIRST half of his one season on the Yankees, to the tune of a 3.56 ERA at the All-Star Break. Of course, he mysteriously took a tumble in the second half. Did he suddenly realize after the All Star Game, "Holy crap! This city is friggin' 'uge!" (to borrow Michael Kay's pronunciation)? No. Fact is we don't know what happened to him, but can we stop saying it was the "New York pressure"? Thank you.

Gammons Makes His Triumphant Return

For those of you wondering why we went nearly a month without a post, it's because this blog's namesake has done the same. His previous post was so full of meaningless drivel and ambiguities that I thought maybe some lowly intern at ESPN had read Foist's attack and finally pointed out to Gammons that maybe he should stick to TV or something. Of course, said intern would likely have been fired immediately, but maybe Gammons took his words to heart, took some time off, read our entire blog, and reevaluated the way he writes. Maybe, after a brief hiatus, Gammons has resolved to write informatively and with unique insight. Let's check the title, shall we?

It's very different in N.Y., Boston

Hmm...not looking good so far. Let's check the "Gammons Crappiness Checklist", shall we?

1. Poorly reasoned and/or obvious point?
2. Overly Boston/NY-centric?
3. Unnecessary Boston-specific references?
4. Unnecessary name-dropping?
5. Uninteresting ideas? And, of course...
6. Bad writing?

Let's run through some of the column and see where we stand.

The numbers are not pretty. Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy have started a combined seven games, pitched 30 1/3 innings and are 0-5. Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz have started seven games, and won two.

Alright, so far, so good. Those pitchers have been underachieving, and Gammons sums up this point nicely.

After two of Hughes' losses, there have been references to the Yankees' refusal to trade him for Johan Santana, and recently Hank Steinbrenner expressed his desire to move Joba Chamberlain out of the Yanks' bullpen and to rescue the rotation. In one Boston paper, there have been references to Santana in stories putting Lester and Buchholz in lives-in-the-balance mode ... before the Boston Marathon had even started.

Ugh...so much for that. We've got an incorrect verb tense ("have been" should be "were") as well as a couple of unnecessarily vague statements ("there have been references" instead of "Columnist X" or whoever, "one Boston paper" instead of "the Boston Globe" or whatever). And of course the gratuitous Boston reference at the end - who the fuck outside of Boston knows on what date the Boston Marathon falls? What does it have anything to do with the baseball season?

It's very different for Hughes, Kennedy, Lester and Bucholz than it was for Shawn Marcum and Dustin McGowan as they were allowed to develop in peace in Toronto, or the way the White Sox have slid John Danks and Gavin Floyd into their rotation.

Firstly, didn't Gammons himself point out that the Boston Marathon hasn't occurred yet? Whenever that is? He's already concluding that those young guys won't do as well as Danks and Floyd, who were universally projected to suck this year? This sentence is also a grammatical mess, but I need not get into that. Also, the last clause about Danks and Floyd sounds like something out of a Danielle Steele novel.

Secondly, is the pressure really THAT much worse? The White Sox and Blue Jays (at least in their own eyes) are contenders, so it's not as though they would stand idly by if their young starters struggled for extended periods of time. I'm sure Danks, Floyd, McGowan, and Marcum are also feeling "pressure", to, like, perform or something.

Finally, the "Boston/NY players feel more pressure" argument has always struck me as shallow. I'd like to see a study showing that an inordinately high number of young players struggle in those cities. Seems like for every Ian Kennedy, there's a Joba Chamberlain, and for every Clay Bucholz, there's a Jacoby Ellsbury. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that young players often struggle when they first get to the majors, whether they happen to play in the Northeast or not?

"It is totally different for those four kids, who are dealing with inordinate pressure," says one GM. "It's really tough. All four should be good major league pitchers; Hughes, Lester and Buchholz should all be top-of-the-rotation starters. But there will be growing pains. But any of them that survive this should be really good."

I think Gammons interviewed himself pretending to be a GM for this quote. Two consecutive sentences starting with "but"? And what exactly is the "this" that they are "surviving"? When is the pressure period over for young players?

Hughes, living with Santana above his locker, had to start in Fenway Park on a Sunday night game televised on ESPN. Buchholz has already had two starts against the Yankees.

I just got this hilarious picture of Phil Hughes and Johan Santana huddled together in the crawl space above the locker room at Yankee Stadium. "Hey, Johan, how about you use some of that $150 million and go get yourself a 2-bedroom apartment in Queens?"

The next section of his column deals with some notable pitchers' declining velocities (Ted Lilly, Barry Zito, Justin Verlander, Jensen Lewis, and Clay Bucholz). It's long and boring and full of half-assed explanations, but two particularly amusing parts stood out to me:

1. Gammons mentions Bucholz as one of those whose velocity was noticeably lower, but doesn't mention this as a possible reason for his early-season struggles, which he talked about in the first section. Maybe he thinks his struggles are consequent of his diminished velocity, which in turn is a result of the rabid Boston media.

2. This explanation:

One general manager suggests that modern spring training is a reason for the lax early season velocities.

"We've made spring training so long [this year's report date was Feb. 14], and it's really become one long stretch where too many players get bored, especially the pitchers," the GM said. "Nowadays, you seldom see the best pitchers out there having to compete. They throw in minor league B games, or simulated games, and really never tune it up against good major league hitters until the season starts. Maybe we need to shorten spring training, but get our pitchers working in real games competing against the best hitters."

Gammons spent the entire article talking specifically about this year's pitchers who have velocity problems. Now apparently it's a result of the entire era, which would seem to indicate that this early-season diminished-velocity issue has been around for a long time. Which is it? Gammons helpfully explains this apparent contradiction as follows:

...

Oh, wait, he doesn't.

Before we go, let's briefly consult the Gammons Crappiness Checklist:

1. Poorly reasoned and/or obvious point? Check. It's actually both; the whole "lots of pressure in New York" angle is terribly overplayed (and therefore "obvious") and Gammons brings nothing other than ancillary facts to support it.
2. Overly Boston/NY-centric? Check. Obviously, it's the point of the entire article.
3. Unnecessary Boston-specific references? Check. In case you were wondering, the Boston Marathon is run every year on Patriot's Day, a holiday occurring on the third Monday in April that is only really celebrated in Boston even though it's not related to the New England Patriots. Not that I'm one to talk - in my city (Los Angeles) "Cesar Chavez Day" is observed on March 31.
4. Unnecessary name-dropping? Check. Among the brief bullet points he writes at the end is a tidbit about Alex Rodriguez's workout routine, an aspect of which Gammons quotes A-Rod as having learned from Ichiro. So Gammons name-drops A-Rod, who is quoted name-dropping somebody else! Nice.
5. Uninteresting ideas? Check. The whole "young pitchers struggle" thing has been done ad infinitum and Gammons brings nothing new to the table. I will give him points for the discussion of pitchers' velocity, since that was something I didn't realize was a league-wide issue.
6. Bad writing? Check. Ambiguous pronouns, vague references, wrong verb tenses - it's all there!

In conclusion: Welcome back, Peter!

Well-Known Error About Error Persists

An article on a teary-eyed Bill Buckner throwing out the first pitch at the Red Sox home opener included this stock narrative:

In the 10th inning of Game 6, with Boston one out away from its first world
title since 1918, a Mookie Wilson ground ball up the first base line rolled
between Buckner's legs, allowing Ray Knight to score from third and allow [sic] the
Mets to tie the series at 3 games apiece. The Mets went on to win Game 7 and the
series. Buckner, who played part of the 1987 season before being released,
played 22 games for Boston in 1990 before retiring.

The clause "with Boston one out away from its first world title since 1918" is, of course, inaccurate. Boston was in fact only one out away from taking the game to the 11th inning, as the Mets had already tied the game. Bizarrely, this inaccuracy persists, even in reputable news sources, even though one so frequently hears pundits and fans commenting on how prevalent the error is.

Announcer Dumbness III

Darrin Jackson, in the ninth inning of today's White Sox-Tigers game, after some Bobby Jenks chin music sailed over the catcher's head and narrowly missed the umpire, who somehow resisted the urge to get the hell out of the way:

"The umpire...did not flinch, that was pretty impressive. Didn't blink, didn't do anything."

Darrin Jackson: mediocre color commentator, and Guy Who Can See Through Umpires' Masks.

Will Blog For Currency

Peter Gammons has some predictions to make, but first he's going to undermine the entire exercise... I think.

Predictions have no currency; they are non-fiction, radio-TV shock-jock stuff.

Huh? I mean.... huh? I think Peter means to say that predictions are flashy and an easy way to get attention, but lack substance. I say this because two of the four descriptions in this opening sentence (specifically, the last two) are consistent with this idea, which is also a reasonably true one.
But... "have no currency"? If he means that they are not current or prevalent, he is certainly wrong, as at this time of year predictions are flying around like unsubstantiated allegations in a Jose Canceco book (that one was for you, Peter). I guess he could mean that any particular prediction has no currency, in the sense that it will never become the prevalent prediction among all prognosticators; everyone will always have their own "hunch." Maybe. That's my hunch (it has no currency).

Far more baffling is "non-fiction." Isn't he disparaging predictions here? I have absolutely no idea, not even a guess, as to why he says predictions are non-fiction.

Joist would definitely quote the 2nd sentence, as it lacks proper parallel structure, but I'm bored with that parallel crap, I'm moving on to the 3rd sentence:

The Red Sox may be the favorites to win the World Series for the third time in
five years (the house postgame show Tuesday opened with "Red Sox Nation's dreams
of a 162-0 season are still alive"), but if anything happens to Josh Beckett or
Jason Varitek, they, as Dylan once said, ain't goin' nowhere.

First, I thought in those parenthesis he would verify that, indeed, they are the favorites. Instead, he quotes an overused joke. Being the guy that says "we're going 162-0!" after a win on opening day is like being the guy in a sauna that says "it's like a sauna in here!" Lame. More importantly here, do you really mean Beckett or Varitek? I understand Beckett, but... Varitek?? Varitek is still a decent player. He has a .788 OPS last year, which is pretty good for a catcher. But he threw out only 24% of runners last year (putting him in the bottom half of baseball), is on the downside of his career, and is on a team full of megastars. But I suppose I haven't factored in his contributions as "Captain." But can't he perform his Captain-ly duties from the bench? I mean, you strain your quads, and then you can't be Captain anymore?

Then Gammons puts on a sarcasm clinic. A clinic, I tell you:

Yeah, we all knew that Fausto Carmona would go from 1-10 to fourth in the Cy
Young balloting; that Dustin Pedroia would hit .182 in April and, with the heart
of a world champion, end up as the AL Rookie of the Year; that the top three
closers in terms of saves would be Joe Borowski, Jose Valverde and Francisco
Cordero; or that three players who started the season in the minors -- Ryan
Braun, Hunter Pence, Kyle Kendrick -- would all end up in the top five in the
National League Rookie of the Year balloting.

Yes, Fauto and Pedroia were surprises. The closers were less surprising, as Valverde and Cordero at least had been plenty good before last year. But how in the world is it surprising that the ROOKIE of the Year would start the year in the minors? You do not need to play a full season to qualify, and it's a contest specifically for players who were oh-so-recently in the minors (or, perhaps, in Japan). These were all very highly regarded prospects on the verge of a call-up. Of course, I would not go so far as to say their finishes were easy to predict, but they're not shocking, and they're certianly not shocking because they were in the minors on April 1.

Gammons then lists the contenders in each division, thankfully NOT listing them in pairs. It's acutally a reasonable list... dare I say, it has currency?

Then we finally arrive at his season-end predictions, which of course he himself has admitted are silly. But let's go back to that second sentence that I skipped:

One can spend six weeks roaming spring training and believe that the Braves
and Red Sox may well be the best teams in their leagues, but we all know
what happens if John Smoltz, Mike Hampton and Chipper Jones get hurt.

I skipped it also because it seemed a reasonable point; the Braves have some old, gimpy players -- especially on the pitching staff -- who are likely to get hurt and miss serious time. Heck, Mike Hampton is virtually guaranteed NOT to pitch (and, indeed, is already on the DL). But think about this: even with those old farts in the lineup, are the Braves even close to the "best team in their league"? Why? Their lineup is decent, but it's probably the THIRD-best lineup in the division, and their pitching could only kindly be described as mediocre, with the strong potential to be far worse than that. What about "roaming spring training" made Peter Gammons believe the Braves are so great? This would be the one interesting thing for Gammons to explain in this column. Fat chance.

But Gammons qualifies this surprising and unjustified assessment with the salient fact that the team is likely to experience some injuries. Fine. But then, still without explanation, he picks the Braves to play in the World Series. Just a total lack of currency. Slated to finish dead last in the league in "currency," Gammons is.

Then he has some other "prognostications," sneaking in a few more bizarre Gammonisms along the way:

Manny Ramirez, Red Sox. Just watch him run. The winter at Athletes' Performance
Center in Tempe, Ariz., changed him physically and mentally, and it doesn't hurt
to have David Ortiz in his tandem.

Yes, Gammons is, as always, absurdly optimistic, Manny is old and will not really get healthier, et cetera. But David Ortiz is "in his tandem"? Is this an actual phrase? Do Manny and Papi ride around together in a tandem bicycle? That must be one strong-ass bike.

Alex Rodriguez, Yankees. Sulk, Jose, sulk. A-Rod's going to Cooperstown, and
you're going into a wax museum.

Gammons spent much of his offseason spewing venom at A-Rod, to an almost slanderous degree. Could it be that Gammons actually hates Canceco even more than that? I shudder to think such hatred exists in this world. And right here on one of our most treasured sports websites.

What he is is the best catcher in the game, the Dodgers' leader, and an intense
offensive machine who can hit .330 with a .900 OPS.

"What he is is"? Gammons, are you three?

3. Derek Lee, Cubs: Best lineup he's had to hit in.

Lee: Aww, coach, do I have to hit in that lineup? FINE. (pouts.)

1. Justin Verlander, Tigers. He may be in the running every year, but in 2008
13.7 runs of support per start may win 25 games.

13.7 runs?? Is that a joke? It actually might be; Gammons is humor-challenged, so it's hard to tell.

2. Josh Beckett, Red Sox. One man for one game.

I have no idea what he's talking about. Sounds momentous though.

2. Carlos Zambrano, Cubs. Freed from contract concerns, he can be a franchise
starter.

Don't you love how in Baseball Pundit Land, being in a contract year can make you play better (because you're motivated) or worse (because you're distracted) depending on, you know, what happens? I wonder if Gammons knows what "spurious" means...

3. Johan Santana, Mets. Dealing with expectations easier with Pedro Martinez at
his side.

This is just so severe and infantile a grammatical error that I will not bother pointing it out explicitly. It's beneath this (stupid) blog (that nobody reads). I will leave it to you, (imaginary) reader who is older than three, to figure it out.

3. Delmon Young, Twins. The plate discipline will come because he wants to be
great.

I want to be great. Where's mine?
Then, after NOT including James Loney on the list of breakouts because "he broke out last season":

9. Corey Hart, Brewers. As if an .892 OPS, 24 homers, 23 steals and 66
extra-base hits didn't constitute a breakout.

As if an .892 OPS, 24... oh. Um, exactly. Isn't it nice when Gammons fisks himself?