cherson@nonode.DEC (09/26/85)
This is in reply to the ridiculous comment Daniel Schneider made re: Peter Gammons. Just because there was a trade rumor going around about Gedman & Evans for Winfield is no reason to attack Peter Gammons. He is the best sportswriter in America today and is probably the most unbiased and informative. He doesn't spare criticism where it's needed, especially on the Red Sox. The reason that he said that the Red Sox wouldn't trade Gedman even up for Winfield is based on the fact that the Sox have to stop their ages old habit of going after the "big boppers". Their philosophy has to change from waiting for the 3-run homer to acquiring speed & defense (not that Winfield lacks in these depts.). Peter Gammons has never dumped on Winfield, quite the contrary, he never stops to praise him as a great player. His concern was that the Sox have a great catcher and shouldn't entertain any thoughts of trading him. By the way I occassionally glance through the Times' sports section, in comparison to the Globe sports it doesn't even come close. Murray Chass couldn't even hold Peter Gammons' keyboard! The NY papers haven't had a quality writer since Red Fisher died. One more thing, I believe the distance from home plate to second is the same in every park, including Fenway & Yankee Stadium. I wouldn't trade Gedman for both Wynegar and Hassey. David Cherson (not a Red Sox fan, in fact I've always despised them)
schneider@2littl.DEC (10/02/85)
> This is in reply to the ridiculous comment Daniel Schneider made re: Peter > Gammons. Just because there was a trade rumor going around about > Gedman & Evans for Winfield is no reason to attack Peter Gammons. It is best to be sure of one's facts before using a term like "ridiculous". I never "attacked" Gammons and it wasn't because of the rumor. I contradicted his assessment of a hypothetical trade of Winfield for Gedman in which he claimed Gedman to be the most valuable catcher in baseball and one of the highest valued players period. One should learn to read more carefully before critisizing another. > He is the > best sportswriter in America today and is probably the most unbiased and > informative. He doesn't spare criticism where it's needed, especially on the > Red Sox. I read and enjoy the weekly Gammons' baseball column, but at the same time I recognize it for what it is: basically a rehash of the style of reporting that Dick Young developed in the 50's - baseball tidbits/rumors/scandel sheet. As far as his writing goes I suggest you should do more reading because his prose leaves a lot to be desired. His column is interesting and informative, but far from literary excellence. As for being unbiased, for fans who don't view the Red Sox through rose- colored glasses, Gammons is often wide of the mark. For every year I have read the Globe he has vastly overrated the team, but always finds an angle on which to rest hope for the next season. His criticisms are few and far between for a team which perpetually hovers around .500 > The reason that he said that the Red Sox wouldn't trade Gedman even up for > Winfield is based on the fact that the Sox have to stop their ages old habit > of going after the "big boppers". Their philosophy has to change from waiting > for the 3-run homer to acquiring speed & defense (not that Winfield lacks in > these depts.). True that the Red Sox have to make player adjustments to get some speed and defense but false that that was what Gammons was propositioning. His was launched claiming how great both offensively and defensively Gedman is, first placing him at the top of the AL heap then the entire major leagues. As evidence he cited unnamed authorities and innuendo. This is not what I consider to be great reporting. > By the way I occassionally glance through the Times' sports section, in > comparison to the Globe sports it doesn't even come close. Murray Chass > couldn't even hold Peter Gammons' keyboard! The NY papers haven't had a > quality writer since Red Fisher died. You have now effectively shown that you do not know what you are talking about. The Times and the Globe approach sports in quite different ways. The Globe relies heavily on "reporting" sports while the Times would rather produce sports "journalism". The only Globe writers who do that are Bob Ryan, Mike Madden and Leigh Montville, and I'm afraid if the two papers merged, only Montville would still be employed. > One more thing, I believe the distance from home plate to second is the same > in every park, including Fenway & Yankee Stadium. You missed the point here by a mile. A study by Bill James showed that playing in Fenway Park adds about 15 points to a players average while playing in Yankee Stadium subtracts about 10 points. The difference in home runs is large also as most baseball fans know. My implication here is that Gedman would not be as effective a hitter if you took him out of Fenway Park. > I wouldn't trade Gedman for both Wynegar and Hassey. Nor would I if I were representing the Red Sox. Nor would I trade Winfield for Evans and Gedman from a Yankee standpoint. Nor would most baseball people. I just hope someone puts a gag on Steinbrenner and his trade talks for the winter. > David Cherson (not a Red Sox fan, in fact I've always despised them) Daniel Schneider {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-monty!dec-2littl!schneider
jmh@ltuxa.UUCP (Jon M. Hanrath) (10/04/85)
> >> This is in reply to the ridiculous comment Daniel Schneider made re: Peter >> Gammons. Just because there was a trade rumor going around about >> Gedman & Evans for Winfield is no reason to attack Peter Gammons. > >It is best to be sure of one's facts before using a term like "ridiculous". >I never "attacked" Gammons and it wasn't because of the rumor. I >contradicted his assessment of a hypothetical trade of Winfield for >Gedman in which he claimed Gedman to be the most valuable catcher >in baseball and one of the highest valued players period. One should >learn to read more carefully before critisizing another. > ... and on and on. It's funny, Dan, that you should say this to someone, after you (in an earlier posting) wrote that my comments were "way off base". Maybe YOU should read more carefully before critisizing another, since you do it so often. Oh well, back to BASEBALL: It seems to me that it's a rare year when three races aren't decided with only three games to go in the season. I'll be watching the Cards-Cubs tonight on the tube you can bet. As far as AL rookies: Ted Higuera is 15-8 now after shutting out the Yanks. It may have been a very big rookie win. I think I would still vote for Riles as AL rookie, though. Does anyone know if Gooden is pitching this weekend? Jon Hanrath ihnp4!ltuxa!jmh