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!