Comments on: Quick note

By: DMBank

DMBank — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:28:08 +0000

Gammons, because he fashions himself a good sports writer, seems to believe that he only has to hit .300 – .350 in order to be considered good. It seems that he’s wrong about two-thirds of the time…

By: JPWood

JPWood — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:55:44 +0000

For comparison, unfair of course, does Gammons stand up to the standards for research, reflection, analysis and regularity set by Leonard Koppett?

By: The Ancient Mariner

The Ancient Mariner — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 05:55:04 +0000

1) I wouldn’t say he has “repeatedly shown a willingness to embrace novel statistics that fly in the face of covention,” though he has shown more openness than some.

2) Hatred? More like disdain, and not for the issues you seem to think are the issues. From what I’ve seen the disdain has more to do with the number of columns he seems to write on autopilot, his credulity, the fact that he doesn’t seem to challenge, analyze, or sift much of the vast amount of information, innuendo and hearsay that flows through his notes, and the resulting frequency with which people in baseball simply use him as a mouthpiece and/or floater of trial balloons. I respect the success he has had at building a huge network of contacts throughout baseball, I respect the fact that he gets pretty much everybody to talk with him, but I don’t see any particular reason to respect him for what he does with what he hears.

By: kenshin

kenshin — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 04:09:19 +0000

I have never fully understood the hatred of Gammons in the sabermatic community. He has repeatedly shown a willingness to embrace novel statistics that fly in the face of covention. Given the size of his audience and his traditionalist background, he should be lauded and not condemned for his imperfections.

By: The Ancient Mariner

The Ancient Mariner — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:25:41 +0000

Gammons is an idiot, in certain respects. He knows more about baseball than some beat writers, and he hears just about everything, which is why he’s useful; but he’s not very good at separating out fact from fiction from trial balloon, and he doesn’t seem to know when he’s being used (which combined with the size of his audience is why, when Selig et al. need someone to use the way the M’s use Finnigan, they use Gammons).

By: Grant

Grant — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:21:06 +0000

Geez, you guys are going pretty hard on Gammons. I think he knows a lot about baseball, and gets the scoop on trades sometimes, and he is way less annoying than say Harold Reynolds who is always praising the Yankees. And c’mon he’s no Finnegan

By: Tyler

Tyler — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:36:50 +0000

I’ve got a feeling that Richie Sexson is simply moving to Seattle. He’ll be playing for another team, but in the off-season, he has to live somewhere.

By: The Ancient Mariner

The Ancient Mariner — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:09:05 +0000

Gammons :: Bud Selig as Finnigan :: Howard Lincoln

By: Matt Williams

Matt Williams — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:52:12 +0000

Employs. I wonder if being exployed would mean being fired?

By: Matt Williams

Matt Williams — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:51:20 +0000

And the sad thing is, he’s still in the top 50% of the writers and commentators ESPN exploys.