This is What Happens When We Skip a Paragraph from Gammons' Column

We end up missing gems like this:

Two months ago, a general manager said we are watching the unfurling of two dramas we have never before seen in our lifetime, and may never see again.

I will bet you ten dollars that the general manager in question did not use the phrase "watching the unfurling of two dramas". I've alluded to this earlier, but I'm honestly curious how many quotes Gammons either rephrases or makes up entirely.

One is Rick Ankiel, who has played less than two years as a position player and is so good a center fielder and everyday player that he certainly could have been here for the All-Star Game, what with 20 homers, 50 RBIs, an .880 OPS and the defensive show he has put on in center field.

"One" what "is Rick Ankiel"? One drama? But Rick Ankiel isn't a drama. He had a drama, perhaps. But a person cannot simply be a drama. Unless you're Peter Gammons. Also, nice use of the horrible awkward and unnecessary phrase, "what with 20 homers..."

To overcome his pitching nightmare of the 2000 playoffs, then after six years to become a hitter, and then overcome a blown-out knee …

"To overcome"..."To become"..."Overcome" [cue Sesame Street music] Which of these things is not like the others?

… few players are better inspiration for the capacity to never back down or give up.

I swear, I copied and pasted this directly. Peter Gammons actually believes that a person can inspire a capacity. I...have no words.

Josh Hamilton Makes Grumpy Old Man Marginally Less Grumpy

I haven't posted here in a while, but I just reached a point that I reach every year at this time. It occurs about five minutes into the All-Star Game, when I suddenly remember that the All-Star Game is boring. And every year, I wonder how I forgot this.

But you know who isn't bored by the All-Star game and related festivities? Peter Gammons. In fact, they inspire him to bring his claptrap to a whole new level of inanity.

As you know if you read this blog, Peter Gammons is REALLY angry about the steroid scandal. Like, super duper PO'ed. It's not clear, though, whether he's angry about the fact that players actually took steroids, or that everyone found out, or, as we have theorized, that he didn't break the story himself years ago. His latest article only confuses the issue further.

Hamilton an inspiration in so many ways

That's Peter's headline. If you expect Peter to detail many different ways that Josh Hamilton is an inspiration, then, well, you haven't read much Peter Gammons.

One of the best things about baseball is that someone else comes along and
recreates being the hero.

This is actually a difficult article to pick apart, only because it is SO bad, SO far from being written in readable English (even for Gammons), that it's hard to pick out specific problems. Take this first sentence. "Someone else" besides whom? And what does "recreates being the hero" mean? I don't even know how to correct this phrase. It just isn't English. How do you recreate the state of being something? I know, only from reading the rest of the article, that what Gammons is trying to say here is that every so often, a new person comes along and saves the sport in a new way, or from a new problem, or something. This, to Peter, is "one of the best things about baseball." Makes me wonder if Peter really likes baseball all that much.

By the way, if Joe Buck calls that dark, dank, 1970s monstrosity that is Yankee Stadium a "jewel" one more time, I am pressing "mute."

Out of the embers of the Black Sox scandal came Babe Ruth. As a nation regrouped
between World War II and the Korean War, Jackie Robinson bravely changed the
face of sports and American society.

The metaphor in the first sentence is not that bad, by Gammons standards. But I included it because it highlights how little sense the second sentence makes. How did the nation regroup between World War II and the Korean War? Did the nation actually regroup from the Korean War in advance, before it even happened? Now, we can't really expect a sports writer like Gammons to be an astute scholar of U.S. history, but then why doesn't he just shut up about it? Because he's an arrogant old man that wins Peabodys, gosh darn it.

After the strike that canceled the 1994 World Series and led to the coldest
winter, along came Cal Ripken, the dignity and might of the Joe Torre/Derek
Jeter/Mariano Rivera Yankees, and then the summer of '98 with Mark McGwire and
Sammy Sosa. And when that entire era went to black and the waste depository of
the BALCO and aging clinics, Jose Canseco and gopher slimeballs reached the desk
of George Mitchell and millions wondered if they could ever trust the sport
again.

Okay, the metaphors are starting to get crappier with "the coldest winter." But we're still doing okay. Then... uh oh. The entire era "went to black." We've heard this phrase before -- it usually means, like when your TV goes black, that everything has become still and quiet. Is that what happened in baseball when the steroid scandal broke? Isn't it the exact opposite of what happened?

Next comes the dangling phrase "the waste depository of the BALCO and aging clinics." Where does this fit in the sentence? It's completely out of place. If we read it literally (always dangerous with Gammons), then Gammons is saying that the "era went to the waste depository of BALCO." That of course makes zero sense. But I have no alternatives. I'm lost. Adrift. Confused and sad. I need a hero to recreate stuff and cheer me up.

But let's forget about putting it all together. Let's just take this phrase and look at it by itself, as it dangles in the void, to see if it at least makes sense internally...
the waste depository of the BALCO and aging clinics ...
One sec... okay, no surprise, it doesn't. What is a "waste depository"? It sounds like what they would call a "dump" on a distant planet in a bad Star Trek episode. And the "waste depository of the BALCO and aging clinics"? What is an "aging clinic"? And is BALCO a clinic? Or is it called "the BALCO"? And do these clinics have waste depositories? Is that where they threw out the used needles? Okay, I have to move on, my brain hurts.

Why "reached the desk"? Just another bizarre metaphor choice. Awkward, awkward, awkward.

Finally, let's take the "substance" of this paragraph as a whole. Did you notice that Gammons has cited known steroid users Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa as "heroes" while, in the same breath, citing the Mitchell Report as a bleak crisis? How can he, and his editors (if they exist), miss the rank absurdity of this? This paragraph is only NOT contradictory if, as Joist and I have theorized, Gammons is not mad at actual steroid use at all, but at the people who broke the story (surprisingly, Gammons leaves his oft-uses slander "sewer rats" out of this particular article). Now, it all suddenly makes sense -- McGuire was a hero, because when asked by U.S. Congressmen whether he ever used steroids, he pled the fifth and kept his mouth shut. Mark McGuire, on the other hand, belongs in the "waste depository," because he ratted everyone out. Peter Gammons = Jimmy Conway from Goodfellas.

(Another quick note from the All-Star Game -- Yogi Berra just called Joe Buck "Jack." Buck looked a little flustered for a second, but didn't correct him. I don't mention this mockingly, it was actually kind of sweet.)

Every revelation about Roger Clemens' past and every "collusion" noise that
comes out of some parrot's beak has emphasized the need to move forward.

The metaphors are entering surrealist territory (did you notice I used a metaphor to describe the metaphors? good boy). Parrot's beak? I... don't even know what to say.

Also, Peter Gammons again uses language that conveys the exact opposite of what he wants to say. The claims of "collusion" don't "emphasize" the need to move forward; they do the exact opposite, according to Gammons! What Gammons means to say, of course, is that the prevalence of the Clemens and collusion stuff necessitates moving forward. We just want Gammons to say what he means, and to say it clearly. Is that too much to ask? ...Don't answer that.

That is why no team has signed Barry Bonds, who can still impact any
lineup -- owners and general managers understandably don't want to talk about
the past. They want to try to move on into an era with drug testing, in whatever
form the morphed sport takes.

What does it mean to say that drug testing will take whatever form the sport takes? How can drug testing and the sport take the same form? These are trick questions. That's not really what Gammons is saying at all. He just misplaced a modifying phrase.

By now, Hamilton's story of overcoming demons is two blocks from Hollywood. Oh,
it's easy to give it a Nancy Reagan "he made a choice" and so on and so on and
so on and so on, but the fact is that millions of people in this country get
addicted to drugs and ruin their lives.

Oh no, more metaphors. "Too blocks from Hollywood"? I have no flipping clue what that means. The next sentence is just flabbergasting. Why does he say "Nancy Reagan"? Is this a reference to something the first lady said in 1982 that I don't know about? And why does Gammons say "and so on" four times? Why oh why oh why oh why? Isn't that annoying?

Finally, how does the "fact" that millions get addicted to drugs make it less their fault? I'm not making the argument that it is their fault; unlike Gammons, I don't use my sports-themed blog to make hackneyed political points. But Gammons' opposition in this sentence makes no sense.

After that, the article starts talking about Hamilton's addiction and his efforts to help others, and that stuff is too serious to mock. Besides, that part is not as badly written, perhaps because Gammons is putting aside his tortured attempts at wit and satire to talk about something serious.

But then he gets back into Grump Mode and rambles back into incoherence:

Baseball is not about corporate boxes and extracting licensing pennies from poor
kids or taxpayer dollars donated to construct ballparks to help billionaires
make millions. It is about Babe Ruth changing the sports culture, Jackie
Robinson changing America and Cal Ripken changing lives.

Here Gammons also slips back into one of his annoying habits -- saying "it" is "about" stuff. Just vague, lousy writing.

And how on God's green earth is baseball "extracting licensing pennies from poor kids"? Don't they extract licensing fees from companies wanting to make money off of baseball's intellectual property? Where do the poor kids fit in? If people who run merchandizing companies can be referred to as "poor kids," than society has come very far indeed.

And I'll grant, arguendo, that Cal Ripken's streak was an impressive accomplishment, even though I never found it particularly exciting. But how did Cal Ripken showing up to a lot of games in a row change people's lives??? That is some wacky hyperbole.

Finally, that sentence is just grammatically a complete mess. But I'm getting tired, so I won't get into the details of that. Let's just finish this up...

Baseball has always been able to turn the page because of someone and
something always grew up out of the rubble, and Josh Hamilton began the process
of turning the page on Monday night.

This is one of those times where I wonder if Gammons isn't just getting a little senile and if perhaps we should just let him be. He clearly just lost track of this sentence in the middle. He wrote "because of someone," then forgot about the "of" and wrote, effectively, "because of something always grew up." This is also one of those times where Gammons just needed an editor to give it one lousy proofread.

Okay, let's skip to the last sentence:

We are reminded that baseball can help us remember what we stand for, not against, what we believe, not what we fear, and that while we learn from the past, what we all want is to open the door to the future.

And we come back to my original comment, that this article is so bad that there's nothing to correct. This sentence is just totally incoherent. It just contains a lot of cliches thrown together in one mess of a sentence. And lord knows what it all has to do with Josh Hamilton.

Okay, the All-Star game just got less boring again. Some jerk from the Team That Just Won't Go Away just tied the game up for the AL...

Maybe We Need To Start an "Edit Buster Olney" Blog

Today, my question isn't, "How stupid is Buster Olney?" but rather, "Which of these two headlines is dumber?"

7/7/08, the day after C.C. Sabathia was traded to the Brewers:

Count on Sabathia having an impact in the NL

7/8/08, the same day Rich Harden was traded to the Cubs:

Don't expect Cubs to answer CC trade

The first headline is the baseball equivalent of, "Count on the sun to rise tomorrow". The second is not only untrue, but was proven to be false less than 24 hours after the column was posted. I leave it to you to decide.

What Is This "Rulebook" Of Which You Speak?

From Buster Olney's blog, about an umpire who got nailed twice by foul tips in a game yesterday:

But he was OK to travel Wednesday evening; his crew's next series will be in Chicago this weekend. One of the medical personnel whom Welke spoke with mentioned to him that he seemed to be seeing more direct shots back into the umpire's mask in recent years, and Welke has a theory about that: As umpires have worked to adhere to the ball-strike standards imposed by the QuesTec technology, they have had to stand taller behind the catcher.

"You have to get as high as you can to see the ball on the outside," said Welke. The veteran umpire repeated that he was fine, though. "It's just part of the job," he said.

This is what makes me hate umpires (and, to a lesser extent, Buster Olney). Everybody together now: the strike zone is clearly defined in the rulebook, which predates Questec by, what, 120 years? The reason Questec was instituted was that umpires were notoriously creating their own strike zones - calling strikes on pitches a foot off the corner, calling belt-high pitches balls because they're "high", etc. Also, the strike zones varied widely from ump to ump; some were known as "pitchers' umps" because they'd extend the corners, and some had infamously tight strike zones that obviously favored the hitters.

(By the way, an increasingly frustrating subplot to this phenomenon was the blithe acceptance of it by announcers. "Oh, tonight's umpire has a very wide strike zone, so the hitters will really have to bear down and be prepared to swing at those outside pitches!" "Well, this umpire really hasn't been calling that pitch, but at least he's consistent." etc.)

Anyway, along came Questec with the desired result of - get ready - a uniform strike zone! Wow, what a novel concept! Of course, umpires and pitchers were both pissed about it; umpires because they actually had enforceable standards to which they now had to adhere (as opposed to freely interpreting the rulebook to fit what they personally feel should be a strike), and pitchers because the umps' subjective interpretations generally favored them.

This piece, however, takes the prize for "most moronic case against Questec." Welke is apparently blaming QuesTec for making him get into proper position to call the outside pitches. What was he doing before QuesTec, reclining in a lawn chair and guessing wildly where the ball was? "Well, fuck positioning myself to get a call right, I might get hit by a line drive!" Yes, obviously, some risk is involved in standing about 65 feet from a guy throwing 95 mph, but I'm pretty sure he knew about the risk when he signed up to be a professional umpire. In fact, he even acknowledges that he's aware of the risk, when he bravely admits, "It's just part of the job."

As stupid as Welke comes off in this, though, Olney's words might be even dumber. Let's reprise them:

As umpires have worked to adhere to the ball-strike standards imposed by the QuesTec technology, they have had to stand taller behind the catcher.

The key word there is, of course, "imposed". Again, QuesTec did not "impose" ball-strike standards; those have been around as long as baseball itself. It helped "enforce" the standards, or perhaps "strengthen" them. It's one thing for an umpire who, rightly or wrongly, feels like his authority is being challenged and his physical safety compromised by machines. It's quite another for a writer, with no vested interest whatsoever, to imply that MLB caused more umpire injuries by imposing "new" standards.

Ironically, We Have Fewer Posts About Peter Gammons, a Baseball Writer, During the Baseball Season

It's been, what, six weeks since our last post? Oh, well. Life goes on. Foist is moving soon, I'm lazy, and life goes on. Take heart, though. Gammons continues to befuddle. Observe:

After the title ("Harden Could Be Big Prize"), the first paragraph consists of two words, in bold and italics:

Rich Harden...

I'm not really sure what to make of this. It will be come clear later in the column, but only MUCH later, so in the meantime, let's just assume that Peter is harboring a strange heterosexual man-crush on him.

Indians general manager Mark Shapiro is doing the right thing, collecting due diligence should he decide that trading C.C. Sabathia will bring him more than two draft choices. Cleveland is in the process of thoroughly scouting eight organizations, from the Yankees to the Red Sox to the Cubs to the Dodgers.

Didn't believe me that Gammons continues to befuddle? Consider:

a. "Due diligence" cannot be "collected".
b. As much as he would like to, Shapiro does not get to "decide" whether trading Sabathia brings him more than two draft choices.
c. The last sentence should be six (or even five) words. Five points to the person who can figure out which six.
d. Connection to Rich Harden? Later? Okay, then.

Without Victor Martinez, Travis Hafner, Jake Westbrook, Adam Miller and a defined bullpen*, it may be impossible** for the Indians to seriously challenge*** in the American League Central. Shapiro has made it clear to other general managers that he is prepared to move sooner rather than later, which increases the value of Sabathia (who has a 2.21 ERA over his past eight starts) because if another team acts quickly, it could have the reigning AL Cy Young Award winner for an additional 4-6 starts.

*I feel like this problem is easily rectified.
bullpen –noun

1.	Baseball. a. a place where relief pitchers warm up during a game. b. the relief pitchers on a team.

There.

**If something "may be impossible", wouldn't that make it...possible? I think perhaps Peter should have stuck with "unlikely". I know he doesn't think it's actually impossible, considering we are not yet halfway through the season and it's not like there's a team in that division running away with it.

***The construction "seriously challenge" is retarded. Either they'll challenge for the title or they won't. Unless he's saying that it's only a "serious challenge" if they get within a certain distance of first place, say, three games, and anything more than that is, I suppose, a "lighthearted challenge" or a "half-assed challenge".

Alright, now we're two paragraphs, and aside from the weird opening words, still no mention of Harden. Obviously there's a connection here, since he and Sabathia are both good pitchers who may well be traded to a contender this year, but of course, we've seen Gammons make a habit of not tying his columns to their titles until he's well into his rambling. Naturally, by the time we get to this point, we have no idea what he's saying, which is why he of all people should probably stick with addressing the title as soon as possible. But, I digress. On with the nonsense.

It did not appear the Yankees would leap into the Sabathia market with a Phil Hughes or a multi-prospect package, but that may change if the right foot injury that Chien-Ming Wang suffered on Sunday afternoon turns out to be a multi-week problem.* Andy Pettitte and Mike Mussina are likely to be gone at the end of the season. Payroll will come tumbling off the books as they move into the Taj Mahal of ballparks** and even if they do not include Hughes, there are enough prospects from Ian Kennedy to Alan Horne (once a Cleveland draftee) to Austin Jackson to Mark Melancon to get a trade done. Shapiro is not going to get the package the Indians got for Bartolo Colon (Grady Sizemore, Brandon Phillips and Cliff Lee), but that was one of the most one-sided deals of the last decade.***

*This sentence's verb tenses are out of whack. "It did not appear that the Yankees would [trade for Sabathia]..." implies that this appearance was in the past, and presently they would consider it, but then in the second half, he says that "it may change if [Wang's injury] turns out to be a multi-week problem," implying that as of right now, the Yankees remain uninterested in dealing for Sabathia. From reading this, I have absolutely no idea whether the Yankees are considering it as of now. Nitpicky, yes, but the greatest baseball writer of his generation should be nitpicked, no? I hate to bring up the same analogy again, but if a young, budding sportswriter submitted this drivel, an editor would tear it to shreds.

**"Taj Mahal of ballparks"? Seriously?? What makes a stadium that HASN'T EVEN OPENED YET the Taj Mahal? This is the ol' ESPN Northeast Bias at its worst.

Also, re-reading it, the analogy doesn't even make sense. It's easy to compare ballparks, because there are thirty of them (not including ballparks that are defunct, minor-league, amateur, independent, etc.), and lots of information about each one is readily available . But what, exactly, is comparable to the Taj Mahal? How many palaces are there in the world? Do we know anything about them? I refuse to believe that the new Yankee Stadium will be so glorious and magnificent that no other ballpark can even compare. I know, I'm rambling, but this kind of retarded analogy, like much of Gammons' writing, makes sense for about six seconds, but I reread it and it makes less and less sense the more I read it. Am I the only one (besides Foist) who closely examines Gammons' writing and realizes that he makes no sense?

***There is a huge, gaping hole in this argument. Most of this paragraph is about next year's Yankees (the new ballpark, Pettitte and Mussina likely being gone, etc.), and how these aspects would lend themselves nicely to a Sabathia trade, but as everybody knows (and Gammons says), Sabathia will be a free agent at the end of THIS year. The missing link would seem to be that the Yankees would only trade for him if they can sign him to an extension, but it has already been reported that the Indians will not grant a potential trading partner an exclusive contract negotiating window. As we will soon see, however, this is not the most egregious case within this column of Gammons leaving an important piece of information out of a paragraph. Are you on the edge of your seat? Me, too.

[Paragraph listing other potential suitors for Sabathia. Still no word on Harden.]

Rich Harden …

Oh, here's where he must tie in Harden.

Sometime in the next month, Braves GM Frank Wren and Bobby Cox will decide whether or not they can stay within hailing distance of the Phillies, considering all their injuries. Wren plans to do similar due diligence to what Shapiro has initiated, and if the Braves are buried too far in the NL East, they will see if they can get more than they would with two draft picks*. Agent Scott Boras is not likely to do a trade and sign deal, unless the Angels were to decide they could DH Casey Kotchman each day and were willing to deal right-handed pitcher Nick Adenhart, as the Braves need to start retooling their arms.

So after another, apparently Tourette's Syndrome-induced outburst of Harden's name, we get a paragraph only superficially related to either the title or the previous paragraphs. Now we're talking about the Braves, and how they might also be in trouble. Where did this come from? But, more importantly...

*WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? "They will see if they can get more than they would with two draft picks." Is somebody on the Braves going to be a free agent? Why, in an article ostensibly based around Harden and Sabathia (again, hard to tell), is Gammons bringing up an anonymous free agent-to-be on the Braves and NOT naming him?? This makes me very angry. I refuse to look it up, because Gammons (presumably) already knows who he's talking about, so how hard would it be to stick his name in there?

After some consideration, I'd be willing to give Peter a pass on this one (if it weren't for his countless other sloppy mistakes). It's a pretty ridiculous mistake to make, considering that the name of the player in question is the key to the entire paragraph. The question is, where are the goddamn editors? If it weren't for a lack of spelling errors or more obvious grammatical flaws, I would posit that there is simply no way that anybody read this over before it was submitted. Given the unlikelihood of this scenario, however, I am utterly dumbfounded that somebody could have read this paragraph and approved it.

The Dodgers were encouraged by two Brad Penny outings and were talking about trying to deal him for a bat (the coaching staff suggested a deal for Robinson Cano), but the shoulder problems that troubled Penny after his superb April have cropped up*, and he is now likely unmoveable.**

*If the shoulder problems have been troubling Penny since the end of April, then how did they just "crop up"? I don't even know what he means here. Did the shoulder troubles get worse? Is he referring to the beginning of April when he says that the problems cropped up? Why on earth would he use the phrase "cropped up", anyway?

**Ha. One paragraph after I suggested that the lack of spelling errors renders the scenario that Gammons simply has no editors extremely unlikely, what does Peter do? That's right, misspells a word!

No one really* believes Junior Griffey is really* going to leave Cincinnati, and just what the Reds can get for Adam Dunn is unclear; even if Boston were to lose David Ortiz for the rest of the season, his lack of contact scares them** for a mid-lineup hitter***, and might instead look**** at a count worker like the Marlins' Josh Willingham, who is arbitration-eligible at the end of the season and can fill in at DH, first base, left field and even be an emergency catcher.***** Coco Crisp is hitting the way he did in Cleveland, and when he, J.D. Drew and Jacoby Ellsbury are in the same outfield, they have the best defense in the game.******

*Really?

**Another high-school grammar lesson: "Boston", although full of many people, is a singular city, and requires a singular pronoun.

***Earth to Peter: There are major league baseball teams besides the Red Sox, many of which could use an offensive machine such as Dunn. Also, the phrase "his lack of contact scares them for a mid-lineup hitter" is ass-backwards and I have no idea how to fix it because it sucks so bad.

****Following the rules of subject-verb agreement, I believe the noun for the predicate "might instead look" is...Adam Dunn's lack of contact! Well-played, sir.

*****Considering how many asterisks are in this sentence, it has to rank up there with the worst sentences Gammons has ever written. I didn't even mention the startling lack of parallelism in the list at the end. Well, until now.

******Rich Harden? Still AWOL.

The Cubs, who are serious about acquiring another starting pitcher, may not have enough to get Sabathia, have let the Padres know they're interested in Randy Wolf and Greg Maddux and even let it be known to the Mariners that if they want to discuss Erik Bedard, they want in. In time, if Toronto never gets hitting and keeps sitting near the bottom of the standings, the Jays may deal A.J. Burnett rather than allow him to opt out of his deal in November; if I were the Mets, I'd be trying to unload the system along with Carlos Beltran for Alex Rios and Burnett.*

This paragraph is all over the place. Cubs...Blue Jays...blah. This whole column is just a bunch of extremely loosely connected points about what players various teams might or might not trade or trade for. Seems to me like a much better option for Peter would be to just list all the teams he wants to discuss in bullet form and mention all the players each team might trade or trade for. This option would also eliminate the need for Peter to construct coherent sentences and paragraphs, which, if you've read this far, you already know is not his forte.

*Perhaps this is why Gammons is not a GM. He knows a lot about baseball, but this proposed deal seems way off. Why would they unload their reputedly loaded farm system and star outfielder (who, granted, isn't performing up to par) for a lesser outfielder and an injury-prone starting pitcher? For that matter, if the Mets are eager to rid themselves of Beltran, what would Toronto want with him?

Rich Harden …

Ok, a third time? Really? Tell me you're finally going to actually write about him. You will? Oh, thank goodness.

A call came in Sunday morning that said, "Billy Beane has the single most important piece to trade* to win the World Series. But the question is, how many songs do you let Slowhand play before a string breaks."**

*Should be "trade for", assuming that Gammons means that Beane isn't the one planning on winning the World Series by trading Harden.

**If it's a question, where's the question mark?

Also, Slowhand? Broken strings? Nice obscure musical reference. Thankfully, Gammons' bio informs us that he is a "gifted musician". Given how much his bio extols his writing, I will take this musical "gift" with several grains of salt, thank you.

Hello, Rich Harden.* Beane is right** -- Harden is the most dominant pitcher in the American League right now. Nine starts; the last time he had more than that was 2005. Seven quality starts. 11.31 strikeouts per nine innings. 53.1 innings pitched, 40 hits allowed. Has started against Boston twice, the Angels, Detroit and Atlanta once. He has a career 35-18 record, but he's had a career in which his starts have gone from 31 to 22 to nine to seven before 2008.

*Hi!

**Gammons didn't say who made the call that "came in" Sunday morning, but couldn't we logically assume it was not Beane, since the caller refers to him in the third person? Assuming that's true, it's not Beane who's right, it's the mysterious caller.

Actually, now that I think about it, how devious and Billy-Beane-like would it be for Beane to leak an "anonymous" phone call to the most famous baseball writer on the planet telling him that Harden is the best possible trade option for a team with World Series aspirations in order to raise Harden's stock? And how funny would it be if Gammons were in on the ruse and then accidentally ruined it by exposing his "anonymous" tipster the very next paragraph?

I was going to deconstruct this whole argument, using statistics and everything - Harden might be a slightly more attractive option for teams because he won't be a free agent like Sabathia would at the end of the year, but purely in terms of winning the World Series this year, I don't see how you could make the case that Harden's a better option than Sabathia, especially given Harden's fragility (which Gammons does mention later, but only at the end after lovingly floating his name a few times throughout his column). But if Gammons is in cahoots with Beane, that changes everything, doesn't it? Moneyball even mentioned instances when Beane would float rumors to Gammons in order to gauge interest/raise value/whatever. Hmmm...

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!