NY Press Rips Gammons!
#1 Tiger Fan
entirety in case it vanishes before you get a chance to read it. My
all-time fave from Gammons was how in August of 1987, writing in The
Sporting News, he stated that the Tigers were dead and had NO CHANCE
of winning the east. Here is the URL for this story:
http://www.nypress.com/content.cfm?content_id=3934&now=03/28/2001&content_section=1
********************************************************************************
Slack Gammons
The "Dean" of Baseball Journalism Rises to His Level of Incompetence
Baseball fandom is fueled by information. Who’s getting traded, who’s
the hot prospect, who’s having trouble hitting left-handers. That sort
of thing keeps us going. If you follow baseball, this season or any
season for the past quarter-century, chances are good that you got
your information, at least some of it, from Peter Gammons.
Gammons is the most influential, recognizable and widely respected
baseball journalist in the business. In addition to three lengthy
stints with his hometown paper, the Boston Globe, Gammons has done two
tours as baseball columnist for Sports Illustrated. His biggest
audience comes from his on-air gig, since 1988, as ESPN’s top baseball
analyst. His most recent deal with ESPN also made him a regular
columnist on ESPN.com, in addition to his continuing work for the
Globe, Baseball America and ESPN The Magazine. Gammons is commonly
referred to as "the Dean of Baseball Journalism," even "the Unofficial
Commissioner of Baseball." He is a shoo-in for induction into the
writer’s wing of the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Now, I don’t know Peter Gammons and I’ve never met him. For all I know
he’s a wonderful man who tithes to his church, takes in stray animals
and volunteers at homeless shelters. I really have no idea. But I do
know a little about baseball and a little bit more about journalism,
and I am here to tell you that as a baseball writer and as a
journalist this guy sucks.
Let me explain why.
His reporting is lazy and frequently inaccurate. He relies almost
entirely on nameless sources–"one AL GM," or "a veteran player" or
"one scout"–whose hip-shooting takes Gammons presents as gospel. His
tone of absolute authority approaches arrogance. Yet he rarely, if
ever, admits when he is wrong. He is way behind the times with his
apparent disdain for statistical analysis. He often fails to cite even
an anonymous source for some rather outrageous allegations. To make
matters worse, his prose often reads like a high school kid’s.
The first example that springs into my mind, mainly because it’s a
recent one and seems to encompass every egregious Gammons-ism, is the
"Dave Nilsson incident." Nilsson is Australian. He played eight years
with the Milwaukee Brewers as a catcher and first-baseman before
taking a year off in 2000 so he could compete for his home country
when it hosted the Sydney Olympics. He had also been injured. This
past winter, the Boston Red Sox were looking for a power hitter, so
they flew Nilsson in for a physical exam.
On Feb. 25, Gammons said this in response to a reader question in his
"mailbag" on ESPN.com: "After the Red Sox decided to go in another
direction and pretended that he flunked his physical to get out of the
deal they had with him, he decided to stay in Australia."
Pretended? Am I insane, or is that an extremely grave
accusation–something akin to an employer faking a positive drug test
to get a worker canned? A failed physical could stall or terminate a
player’s career. What possible evidence could Gammons have uncovered?
In his March 5 "mailbag" Gammons answered a letter asking him for
"proof." Gammons’ reply: "Nilsson and his agent claimed, as reported
in the Boston Herald, that he passed the physical. Then the next day
the Red Sox decided to go in another direction when they lost out on
Mike Mussina and decided to keep Scott Hatteberg."
I’ve searched and scoured the Herald’s online archives and I can’t
find the story to which Gammons refers. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t
exist. I’ll assume that it does. So, let me get this straight:
According to a local newspaper (Gammons’ Boston competitor,
incidentally) Nilsson said that he passed the exam. But the Red Sox
"decided to go in another direction." Incontrovertible evidence,
indeed! Chicanery runs unchecked!
Gregory Lynn, a Red Sox fan who runs the "Red Sox Media Watchdog" web
site (http://people.ne.mediaone.net/gregorylynn/ default.htm) also
searched and failed to come up with the Herald article. But he did
find a quote from Nilsson’s agent, Alan Nero, who said, simply, "they
are seeking additional medical information which we will provide."
Lynn uncovered another stunning example of Gammons’ thin sourcing,
compounded by blow-off writing that may have sold out someone Gammons
was shielding. It came in Gammons’ Jan. 18, 2000, column about the
then-raging John Rocker racism controversy.
Here’s what Gammons wrote: "What Rocker said was unforgivable. But the
fact is, every team has heard similar diatribes those from small towns
across America have about New York City. One of the game’s best
pitchers, a sophisticated, intellectual graduate of one of the world’s
finest universities, has splattered teammates with similar comments
and boasts that he will never play without a no-trade clause to the
two New York teams."
Even a casual baseball fan, after consulting his handy pocket
Gammons-to-English dictionary, could quickly deduce the probable name
of the alleged comment-splatterer. There is a process of elimination I
could run through, just to prove the point, but I’ll save the
word-count. Mike Mussina graduated from Stanford. If he is not the
"sophisticated, intellectual graduate" Gammons has in mind, it sure
looks like he is.
As Lynn recounts, another ESPN.com columnist, Rob Neyer, went through
the process of elimination and came up with the same likely
answer–posting his results not on ESPN.com but on his own RobNeyer.com
site. Right around that time, Neyer’s ESPN.com column vanished to
parts unknown, for reasons equally murky. The Mussina piece
disappeared from RobNeyer.com. It is obvious why the revelation in
Gammons’ column would mortify Mussina. A year later, the episode would
be doubly embarrassing for Mussina, seeing how he signed a massive
free-agent contract with the Yankees. Gammons’ sloppiness left Mussina
exposed, but more important, Gammons again offered no support
whatsoever for his tale of the unidentified pitching sophisticate who
fulminates against New York in the company of teammates.
Neither Neyer nor Gammons, to the best of my knowledge, ever commented
on whether Neyer’s unexpected mini-sabbatical was related to the
"sophisticated pitcher" debacle, but Neyer is exactly the type of
baseball writer that Gammons can’t stand. An erstwhile assistant to
statistical trailblazer Bill James, Neyer formulates his opinions
based on sometimes complicated stats. Gammons forms his opinions based
on his personal, preconceived notions. When Neyer, earlier this year,
posted a column arguing that, based on his "Range Factor" statistics,
Yankee shortstop and Gammons fave Derek Jeter is, in fact, a pretty
bad fielder, Gammons shot back in his own column, "Disregard anything
when someone tries to argue range factor." Huh? Whatever for? "Range
factor is a phony stat," proclaimed Gammons in a subsequent mailbag.
"It will tell you that Roberto Alomar is a mediocre second baseman,
and he’s the best I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t take into consideration
instinct."
Whatever that means. Range factor is simply the average number of
balls a fielder turns into outs per nine innings. If "instinct"
doesn’t help a fielder turn batted balls into outs, why do we care
about instinct? If it does, than the results of instinct are factored
into the stat. All Gammons means by that preceding, foggy quote is,
"He’s the best because I say so." Yeah, and I say that Screw is a
better publication than The New Yorker. How do you argue with that?
At least in baseball we have objective measurements for reference.
Range factor may be an imperfect formulation. But "phony"? Only
because it reveals that two of Gammons’ favorite players, Jeter and
Alomar, are not as good with the glove as he and conventional wisdom
tell us they are. Some of the best managers in baseball have made
extensive use of computers and statistical databases since the early
1980s. But Gammons gets off poking fun at "Rotisserie phoophs" and
"computer people." Say what you will about them, number crunchers like
Neyer, Huckabay, James and dozens more have devoted careers to
enhancing the understanding and enjoyment of baseball for anyone who
cares to buy a big, fat book (or glance at a website).
It was the Alomar gibe in a 1997 Gammons column that prompted Gary
Huckabay, then editor of the annual stathead bible Baseball
Prospectus, to initiate an online column, "The Weekly Antibiotic." The
column’s purpose was to rebut Gammons week in and week out.
In the inaugural column, Huckabay led with a Gammons quote: "Maybe the
computer people should watch Robbie Alomar instead of running
programs. Alomar is the best defensive modern-day second baseman and
has made the most brilliant, far-ranging, and creative plays to his
right of any second baseman in this era. Yet some computer printout
says he doesn’t get to enough balls to his right?"
Huckabay’s response was blunt. "You’d probably classify me as one of
the ‘computer people’...and you have no idea how many times I’ve seen
Roberto Alomar play. And yet, you feel no sense of guilt, shame, or
restraint in casting aspersions on the labor of some exceptionally
hard working and deeply passionate people. Why? What purpose does this
serve?... If you’re so certain that what you think you know about
baseball is correct, then make your case, and let others make theirs.
Leave the campaigning to the politicians."
After a few weeks, Huckabay shelved the "Antibiotic" because, he
wrote, Gammons "just hasn’t written very much. He’s spent a fair
amount of time gossiping, but by and large, there’s just nothing
there, so I’ve just let it go."
Huckabay understands. Gammons is a gossip columnist, the Ted
Casablanca of baseball. No one questions his renowned knack for
raising important baseball folks on the telephone. But once on the
horn, do they tell him anything that’s worth a damn?
I don’t have the time or the resources to do a comprehensive study of
Gammons’ accuracy in prognostications and judgments of talent.
Besides, I’d be relying on statistics, and we know how Gammons feels
about those. So I pulled one of Gammons’ columns from a year ago at
random (his ESPN.com piece from March 1, 2000), and combed it for
statements that I could check.
Gammons leads off the column with, again, l’affaire de Rocker. "The
media in this country is spun by New York. If Rocker’s vile diatribe
had been about St. Louis or Cleveland, he’d be a footnote to history.
But it was about New York, and the story became a New York story, seen
through the eyes of New Yorkers, juxtaposed with the Diallo trial."
Okay, that’s just nonsense. Does Gammons really think that if Rocker
ranted about "queers with AIDS," "foreigners" and "single mothers" in
Cleveland, no one would notice? And what the Diallo trial has to do
with it, God knows. Let’s move on.
Gammons: "The Red Sox believe that Ramon Martinez will give them a
second top-of-the-rotation starter after watching his increased
velocity, looseness, improved command and even a new slider he
concocted over the winter." Reality: Martinez accrued a frightening
ERA of 6.13 and averaged just 4-2/3 innings per start, fewest of any
regular starter in the American League.
Gammons: "Atlanta Braves officials think that 21-year-old Luis Rivera
will jump into their bullpen...and eventually can be a star... He is a
clone of another Rivera–Mariano." Reality: Rivera appeared in just six
games for the Braves, who traded him to Baltimore, where he pitched in
just one more.
Gammons: "One of the most impressive comebacks at this point is Lance
Johnson with the Indians." Reality: the 38-year-old Johnson did not
appear in a game for the Indians. He played 18 games for the Yankees,
then retired after 14 big league seasons. Gammons: "But [Johnson]
faces stiff competition from 27-year-old Dave Roberts, who is a
special person." Reality: Roberts had only 10 at-bats, with one hit.
Isn’t that special?
Gammons: "You won’t even recognize Jaret Wright when you see him.
‘He’s cleared out his head,’ says Indians pitching coach Dick Pole."
Reality: clearheaded or not, Wright pitched just nine games last year,
with a record of 3-4, plus two no-decisions.
Gammons: "Want a sleeper? Try Tampa right-handed reliever Jeff Sparks,
who at 28 may steal a job in one of the league’s deepest bullpens."
Reality: Sparks pitched a mere 20-1/3 innings in 15 games, allowing 13
hits and a stomach-churning 18 walks.
Gammons: "Scott Erickson’s injury could be a huge problem for the
Orioles’ starting pitching depth." Reality: It was. I’ve got to give
Gammons credit where credit is due.
In any event, I think that a picture of his reliability emerges,
unless by pure chance I caught Gammons on an extremely tough day. I
doubt it. The real shame of Gammons’ career is that he wasn’t always
this useless. Back in the 1970s, when he was the Red Sox beat writer
and baseball columnist for the Globe, he was a true innovator. He
invented the baseball "notes" column, the model for the type of
insider journalism now required of all sportswriters. I used to read
Gammons all the time back then. His full-page (!) Sunday column was
the one absolute must-read of the week. His 1985 book, Beyond the
Sixth Game, was remarkably prescient about the financial problems that
baseball faces, more than 15 years later, and it remains one of the
best books about baseball in the era of free agency.
I can say something else good about Gammons, who will turn 56 a week
into the coming baseball season, and it is a very good thing to say
indeed. He still loves the game. Even through the tv screen, I can
tell–he has never succumbed to the effete cynicism fashionable among
sportswriters, a group Hunter Thompson once characterized as "a rude
and brainless subculture of fascist drunks."
Most amazing to me, Gammons has been a member of the Boston media for
32 years and has never caved in to the region’s long-established and
craven negativity, embodied by such currently active idiots as the
Globe’s Dan Shaughnessy and the Boston Herald’s Gerry Callahan. Online
columnist Bill "Boston Sports Guy" Simmons visited Gammons at ESPN and
reported that Gammons will talk baseball with anyone, anytime. You
have to love that. Gammons does.
The problem is, from reading him, you get the distinct impression that
he has no idea what he’s talking about.
********************************************************************************
#1 Tiger Fan
**************
--
"belive me I am nothing to bragg about so dont waste all your time.®"
"it seems like every boddy trys to be politicly incorect these days®"
- grapetastebasted
"Jefferies sucks!"
- Public Domain
" It is just as pertinent as Fat Albert or other aspects of our
culture.®"
-None
Winner of the "Name the Little Fool" contest!!!®
- OMF
r mcrae
positions for the upcoming decade. He picked Trammel, Whitaker, Gibson and Parrish and
also predicted that the Tigers would win the World Series in '84, '87 and '88. That
last part always stuck in my head. He came pretty close there.
Doug Evans
don't think it was any great stretch in 1981 to proclaim that those Tigers
would be players of the decade. Whitaker was ROY in 1978, Parrish was
already
a quality backstop and Trammell (two l's, please) had just come off his
first
.300 season and first All-Star appearance. That was also the time when
everyone and their mother thought that Gibby was the next coming of Mickey
Mantle. If he did actually predict those three years as World Series years,
then good for him. In hitting, 1 out of 3 ain't bad. I'd argue, though,
that
with the teams they had, they should've won more than one World Championship
in the mid-80s.
And just to make my position clear...I've thought for years that Gammons is
a
schmuck. I think that Jayson Stark is by far the more intelligent, useful
and
interesting of the two.
Best,
Doug
>===== Original Message From r mcrae <rmc...@trytel.com> =====
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
r mcrae
Doug Evans wrote:
> I can't decide whether or not you're defending Gammons with your post. I
> don't think it was any great stretch in 1981 to proclaim that those Tigers
> would be players of the decade. Whitaker was ROY in 1978, Parrish was
> already
> ------------------------------------------------------------
Pat McLean
is
> a
> schmuck. I think that Jayson Stark is by far the more intelligent, useful
> and
> interesting of the two.
Doug,
I'll leave it at I agree with you on Gammons, and disagree on Stark.