It's only fitting that Mikey put up an interesting and insightful topic about our favorite sportswriters and that not even 24 hours later I find another reason to crap all over ESPN's baseball talking-head Peter Gammons. Sorry Mikey, I tried to go a whole day without being negative but this assface Gammons just makes me too angry to hold back...
From his most recent column on the importance of a good bullpen and the difficulty in assembling one, Gammons came up with this gem:
"Dustin Hermanson has more saves than Mariano Rivera."
I read that in the context it was written and chuckled that Gammons, a supposed baseball genius, still thinks that saves are a valuable and important stat. Saves are a silly thing that baseball laypeople enjoy fawning over. All a save can tell you is who was on the mound when the last out was recorded in a 1-, 2-, or 3-run game. It doesn't tell you anything more than that.
I thought, "Ok, so Gammons wrote something stupid. It's not worth blogging it." Then, 2 paragraphs later, this:
"It's worth repeating: Hermanson has more saves then Rivera..."
Obviously saying it twice, for effect, means that Gammons doesn't get it. Hermanson is having a great season. The White Sox are having a great season. The Sox' pickup of Hermanson in the off-season was a very savvy move and one that is paying dividends. That said, I'm not sure I understand why Hermanson having more saves than Rivera is significant. The White Sox have 12 more wins than the Yanks but Hermanson has just 1 more save than Rivera. What is this telling us? That Hermanson is marginally better than Rivera? The Indians have 1 more win than the Yanks but their closer, Bob Wickman, has 3 more saves than Rivera. Is Wickman marginally better than Rivera too? Wickman, it should be noted, is a fatass who was traded from the Yanks in 1996 to make room for Rivera in the bullpen. Point made, moving on...
Gammons' last point in his column was about the MLB draft. He made a point to mention how the Yanks screwed up by not selecting the kid from St. John's who is projected to be a good closer someday. He punctuated this by saying:
"That's why Brian Cashman and Gene Michael should have more control over drafting and development."
Should Gene Michael have more say in the organization when it comes to development? Absolutely yes. He's the guy that brought us Bernie, Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Pettitte and the prospects Jay Buhner, Roberto Kelly, Russ Davis and Sterling Hitchcock (among others). The last three were the pieces that brought us Paul O'Neill, Tino Martinez and Jeff Nelson in trades. Should Brian Cashman have more say? HELL NO. If you can't evaluate major league talent then how could you be trusted to evaluate high school and college kids? I'd opine that it should be easy to say "Gee, that Roger Clemens guy looks pretty good. Let's go trade for him." I'd opine that it's not as easy to do that with unproven players with no track records. What is Gammons' obsession with fluffing Cashman? Gammons, and no one else, is the one that keeps up the persistent rumors about all of these suitors lining up at Cashman's door should Boss lower the hammer on his GM's head. If the Phillies, Royals, Mets or whoever else want Cashman, they can have him free of charge. I'm buying the airfare.
Peter Gammons' Column
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree- Peter Gammons is obviously an idiot. I didn't read the article so I'm not sure of the context but I wonder what his point was in noting (twice) that Hermanson has more saves than Rivera? Hermanson may have one more save but Rivera has a lower ERA and WHIP and more strikeouts (in fewer innings). Is he implying Hermanson is a better closer (at least this season) than Rivera, widely acknowledged to be the best ever, because he has one more save on a team that has 12 more wins? Is he implying that Rivera, arguably the most important ingredient in the Yankees' success over the past decade, is the weak link in our bullpen and the reason behind their recent woes? And even if Gammons insists on measuring success by saves (which I agree is a meaningless stat), Rivera averages more saves in a season than Hermanson has had in his entire career. So again, what is his point? Shabby analysis indeed Gammons.
Much like an altzheimers patient with their medication I'm not sure Gammons is aware of his point. I feel like Gammons is perpetually 2-3 years behind real time. So 3 years ago Brian Cashman didn't seem like that bad of a GM. Don't worry next year or possibly the year after Gammons will write an article describing how Cashman screwed up the Yankees royally.
In agreement with Mo's comment about saves there is one person who is a case in point. Lee Smith, the record holder for saves isn't even in the HOF. There are certain players like Eck, Rivera, the combined Nasty Boys of Dibble, Myers, and Charlton , and Rollie Fingers that deserve HOF status. However, the save category is a ridiculously stupid category that is only beneficial to Roto Fantasy Leagues.
If they showed saves AND blown saves, that may be relevant. Saves by itself is just idiotic though.
This leads me to one conclusion - I think someone needs to come up with a pitching equivalent for the QB Rating System, which is the most complex stat in the universe. Then, everything will be taken into account. It would be glorious!
The sabermetricians have come up with a stat called "Win Shares" which is some composite of a number of stats, just like QB rating. For the 2005 season, the top leaders in the Win Shares category are:
Derrek Lee (17), Albert Pujols, Nick Johnson and Bob Abreu (15),
Brian Roberts (14), Alex Rodriguez, Jeff Kent and Miguel Tejada (13).
I wish Nick Johnson was the Yankees first baseman and Jason Giambi was dead.
Post a Comment