Five things I don't quite get
Oh. Um. Never mind. What is it that you don't get?
1. Why there is so much made of who hits behind whom, when it's who hits in front that counts.
Well, that was a confusing sentence. I think he was so excited to use the word "whom" correctly that he sacrificed coherence to do it. Of course, coherence is so often a sacrifice with him that I'm not sure "whom" had anything to do with it. What he's trying to say is that the hitter who bats after a specific player is not as important as the hitter who bats before him. Now, let's see what "evidence" he brings to support this hypothesis:
Keep your bases-empty stats. The definition of a rally is someone on base.
This makes absolutely no sense. If somebody does well with the bases empty (i.e. gets on base a lot), wouldn't that lead to the "definition of a rally", according to Gammons? Also, if you had to boil down the definition of a rally to something even Gammons could understand, it would probably be "multiple people getting on base", in which case it wouldn't matter who bats in front of whom (ha!) because they would both seemingly need to get on base.
David Ortiz can't hit without Manny Ramirez? He has experience doing just that.
In Sept. 2007, Ramirez played in six games, and Ortiz led the majors with a 1.341 OPS for the month. Ramirez batted behind him in one game.
In Sept. 2006, Ramirez again played in six games, Ortiz was second in the American League in OPS at 1.146.
I love how he says "Ramirez again played in six games", when the "again" refers to something that happened a year later. That's like saying, "In 1996, Bill Clinton was elected president. In 1992, Clinton was again elected." Also, nice run-on sentence.
Then comes a handy-dandy chart showing that Ortiz's OPS is actually slightly better without Manny in the lineup. (The chart, handy-dandy though it may be, does not indicate whether the "without Manny" column refers to Manny not hitting behind Ortiz or to Manny not being in the lineup at all.)
In his Red Sox career, Ortiz's OPS with Ramirez hitting behind him is 1.000. With anyone else, it's .998.
(Minor quibble, but technically Ortiz's OPS did not have a Red Sox career; Ortiz had a Red Sox career.)
From the evidence Gammons brings (and also from what he doesn't say), I wouldn't conclude that the importance of a batting order lies in the batter who hits before a particular hitter, but rather that the importance of a batting order is generally overstated. I would conclude this because Gammons brings absolutely no evidence that Ortiz fares better or worse depending on who hits in front of him. All I can conclude from his arguments is that Ortiz is no worse without Manny in the lineup, which, granted, is a valid point, but does nothing to support his theory.
Moving on to the second thing Gammons doesn't get...
2. What's going on with the Dodgers' money? Greg Maddux would have liked to finish the season with the Dodgers, and the Dodgers wanted the Hall of Famer. But when Maddux cleared waivers this week and the Padres went to trade him, Los Angeles demanded that the Padres pay $2.5 million of the $3 million remaining on Maddux's contract this year, and would not offer a useable prospect. Now, the Dodgers got the Red Sox to pay all of Manny Ramirez's contract, and the Indians to pay all of Casey Blake's deal. When the Dodgers tried to get in on CC Sabathia, they wanted the Indians, who have the second-lowest payroll in the AL, to eat the majority of Sabathia's remaining contract. And when the Pirates talked to them about Jack Wilson, the Dodgers wanted the Pirates to eat most of Wilson's contract for 2008 and 2009.
Um, Peter? I think I get it. The Dodgers are cheap. Next?
3. Two National League scouts this week predicted the Marlins will end up winning the East for the same reason -- their young pitching. Ricky Nolasco is already one of the better young starters in the league at 11-6 after two years of arm problems, but the scouts see Josh Johnson -- a potential front-end guy --as well Chris Volstad and Anibal Sanchez. And it's not only in terms of their 5-2 record and raw stuff, but the fact that they are fresh for August, usually considered the month of the power arms. Johnson and Sanchez have but 83 innings between them -- counting their minor league stints -- and the 21-year-old Volstad is still under 120 innings.
So...what's the part Peter doesn't get? Seems like a well-reasoned argument, if full of typos and incomplete sentences ("but the scouts see Josh Johnson as well Chris Volstad and Anibal Sanchez").
4. The Mets did not put in a claim for Livan Hernandez because they believe John Maine will be back, and they're willing to try Jon Niese if necessary. They will try Eddie Kunz as closer until Billy Wagner gets back.
Can anyone not be happy for Fernando Tatis with his .893 OPS and nine homers in 62 games going into Wednesday night? He says he quit the game in 2004 "because my body and my mind were worn out by the turf in Montreal." Hey, he was once a 30-homer guy, and one of the nicest folks walking.
I guess Peter Gammons is so smart that he couldn't keep the "5 things I don't quite get" gimmick going after number 2. Also, #4 contains two separate points, one of which is an explanation as to why the Mets didn't claim Livan Hernandez. What a mystery! Maybe they didn't pick him up because HE'S LIVAN FUCKING HERNANDEZ.
Also, Tatis is one of the nicest folks walking, but he's an asshole compared to all the cripples in wheelchairs. That is one nice group of people.
5. One NL team's defensive statistics, scouting and ratings have John McDonald of the Blue Jays as the best defensive shortstop in the majors. No surprise. They have Boston's Jed Lowrie at No. 5 among the 62 ranked shortstops, even if his sample is small. Derek Jeter and Jose Reyes, who is still working out mechanical start issues, are in the 40s, among the 62 shortstops. Edgar Renteria and Jeff Keppinger are among the bottom 5.
5 things I don't get about the number 5 thing Gammons doesn't get:
1. What is the difference among "statistics, scouting, and ratings"? Aren't ratings a combination of scouting and stats?
2. Why am I not surprised that Gammons singles out the Red Sox shortstop who's been playing for a month?
3. Who is Jeff Keppinger?
4. What are "mechanical start issues"?
5. How many Yankee fans will take issue with Gammons suggesting that Jeter is ranked in the 40s among 62 shortstops?
There, see, Gammons? It's not that hard a gimmick to maintain.
