"The Philadelphia Phillies are primed to repeat as champs."
Gammons, master prognosticator, has determined that the Phillies, one of three teams (at the time of the writing) still eligible to win the World Series, might win it!
The Phillies wait a week for the World Series, which may rest their pitching staff, and may or may not cool the hitters that pummeled the Dodgers. As the rain beat down Saturday morning in the Northeast, they didn't know if their next game was at Yankee Stadium or The Big A, but it really doesn't matter, because whomever they play had better be ready for the best American League team that plays its regular season in the National League.
I'm pretty sure Peter is confusing the verb " may" with the verb "will". The Phillies' delay before the World Series will cause their pitching staff to be rested (the wait itself did not "rest" the pitching staff); there is no doubt about that. Furthermore, stating that the wait "may" cool the hitters is sufficient, since the word "may" by itself implies that the alternative is also possible. For example, if I say "Peter Gammons may be the worst writer in the history of the Internet," I am implying that it is also possible that he is not (though this is doubtful). Also, "the best American League team that plays its regular season in the National League" is so trite and unnecessarily verbose that I'm now dumber for having read it. Can't he just say "the Phillies play an American League style?" Of course, that's also a dumb thing to say; most teams that play in a bandbox have a lot of home run hitters, regardless of whether they're in the AL or the NL.
How much the Phillies deserved their 2008 World Series rings got a little waterlogged because so many followed the Tampa Bay series on Doppler radar. And while the Rays had won the AL East and defeated the Red Sox and White Sox to get to the Series, there was some fairy-tale perception that further slighted the Phillies' accomplishments.
"Doppler radar?" "Fairy-tale perception?" These are nonsense terms with regard to baseball. Also, he's using classic politician-speak, intentionally ambiguating who, exactly, were the "so many" and who had this "fairy-tale perception" because, guess what? It was Gammons himself leading the Rays fellatio party (and, by extension, "slighting the Phillies' accomplishments"). See my post here, where Peter calls the series "the worst ever". Perhaps the Phillies felt slighted by this, Mr. Gammons?
But make no mistake this year: The Phillies can win the World Series, whether it's against the Yankees or the Angels.
Peter Gammons, boldly going where no man has gone before: predicting that one of the two World Series entrants "can" win the World Series. I find it ironic that he refuses to predict an actual winner, presumably for fear that he will be called out if he is wrong, yet he has no problem writing absolute crap, presumably because he has absolute carte blanche at ESPN.
He spends the next couple of paragraphs reviewing some legitimate reasons why the Phillies are good and can win, which is funny because he's waiting until they've already made the World Series before brashly explaining why they're good enough to win. Again, Peter, just because you stiffed them last year doesn't mean they got no credit for winning, or that they have no chance this year. Then he produces a couple of REALLY important reasons why the Phillies will win:
"...they have played on the Fox stage..."
Do players really react differently depending on which NETWORK is broadcasting their games?
"they had the best road record in baseball (48-33) and aren't likely to be intimidated by the formidable aura of Yankeeology."
Shane Victorino: Hey, coach, can I talk to you for a second?
Charlie Manuel: Yeah, Shane, what's up?
SV: I'm worried about the World Series.
CM: But we won last year. We can do it again!
SV: Yes, but this year we are playing against the Yankees.
CM: Listen, the goal is to get to the World Series. That means, in our case, facing the best team from the AL every year. Last year, it was the Rays, and this year it's the Yankees.
SV: But coach, you don't understand! We're going up against the formidable aura of Yankeeology! I'm intimidated!
CM: Ah, but you see, we had the best road record in baseball. Thus, the formidable aura of Yankeeology (which means the study of Yankees, by the way) shall not intimidate us.
SV: Ohhh. I get it. Thanks, Coach!
The fact that Brad Lidge (4 IP, 1 H, 0 R), Ryan Madson (6 IP, 8 K) and Chad Durbin (4 IP, 0 R) have pulled the bullpen together in the postseason, with J.A. Happ and Chan Ho Park, give them the wherewithal to steal a couple of 7-5, 9-6 games.
There are two incredibly basic grammatical errors in this sentence. First, the prepositional phrase "with J.A. Happ and Chan Ho Park" is misplaced, and frankly I don't know why it's there. Are they good relievers? Did they also pull the bullpen together? Second, "the fact" is a singular subject, so when Gammons finally gets around to the verb, it should be "gives", the singular form, not "give." This would be a moderately difficult question on the SAT. You know, that test that most high-schoolers have to take. You might think that Gammons would raise his game to give the aspiring sportswriters of tomorrow a role model to look up to, but he can't even master the fundamental rules of the English language.
Layoffs affected the 2006 Tigers and 2007 Rockies, and so, too, the Phillies may not be the same come Wednesday. But they are much more experienced than those other two teams, so the rust should never sleep. Bring on the Yankees, bring on the Angels; the Phillies are going to make for a fun November.
Another classic Gammons-ism: hedging the bet. "The Phillies CAN win the World Series, but this is why they might not." Also, another Gammons classic, the retarded mixed metaphor. "The rust should never sleep?" Really? I didn't know rust could sleep.
Then Gammons goes into "Leftover notes from the ALCS", of which one is particularly noteworthy.
2. It doesn't take Sandy Koufax to tell us the Dodgers need a No. 1 starter, but they aren't likely to get one this offseason.
Ok, cute, but I get it, Sandy Koufax himself WAS a No. 1 starter, so presumably he'd know a No. 1 starter if he saw one. Obviously, the Dodgers lack a No. 1 starter. It's so obvious that you don't even need Sandy Koufax to tell you this. But wait! What about Billingsley and Kershaw? They were both pretty good this year, right?
No one seems to be able to say whether Chad Billingsley's leg affected his stuff, but he was not the same the past month.
First of all, why is he so damn wordy? Why can't he just say "No one knows whether..." instead of "No one seems to be able to say whether..." It's so sloppy and childish to add extra words. Second of all, this sentence seems to contradict his thesis, since he's implying that before the last month (when he was "not the same"), he was pretty damn good. Maybe even a No. 1 starter?
Clayton Kershaw has everything it takes to be a No. 1, but he is 21 years old, and the command is a work in progress. "Kershaw's going to be special," Brad Ausmus says. "He has everything it takes in terms of stuff and makeup and drive. Just give him time."
So...in other words, Kershaw is going to be a No. 1 starter. So, after stating that the Dodgers obviously need a No. 1 starter, Gammons proceeds to explain that they had one for most of this year, and another guy who's going to be one. Well played.
Finally, Gammons is such a flake who refuses to take a stand that he didn't even submit a World Series pick on ESPN.com. He did make playoff predictions along with all the other ESPN writers, and guess which team he picked to lose in the first round? (Hint: they had the best road record in baseball, and they are unlikely to be intimidated by the formidable aura of Yankeeology.)
No comments:
Post a Comment