PDA

View Full Version : Gammons Likes Carl


havelj
07-03-2005, 12:50 PM
From Peter Gammons:

"Carl Everett (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5073) does not get credit for what he means to the White Sox, not only as their only legitimate left-handed threat against right-handed relievers, but for the edge and energy he brings to that team."

soltrain21
07-03-2005, 12:54 PM
I think A.J. may have something to say about being a threat.

JB98
07-03-2005, 12:58 PM
From Peter Gammons:

"Carl Everett (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5073) does not get credit for what he means to the White Sox, not only as their only legitimate left-handed threat against right-handed relievers, but for the edge and energy he brings to that team."

Rare praise from Gammons. It's definitely true that Carl doesn't get enough credit. A lot of people are saying he should be traded right now, and I couldn't disagree with those people more. Carl has been consistent this year. He's knocked in a lot of big runs. His hitting from the right side of the plate has been a pleasant surprise, and he hasn't embarrassed himself when asked to play the outfield. I also think he and AJ have made a difference in the attitude of the team this year. Those two bring a lot of intensity to the field, and it's rubbed off on other players. I think that's something that has been lacking the last couple of years.

JB98
07-03-2005, 01:06 PM
I think A.J. may have something to say about being a threat.

Well, AJ's home runs are up this year, but his average is down. I don't think opposing pitchers fear him as much as they fear Crazy Carl. I think AJ's main contribution so far is the way he handles the pitching staff, and also, the intensity he brings to the field. Offensively, I don't know that we've seen the best of AJ yet this year. His average has been hovering in the .250s, and he's very capable of pushing that up to .280 or .290.

RallyBowl
07-03-2005, 01:12 PM
Carl and AJ are both studs. You cannot describe what these two guys bring to the team. when you include Sweet P, I cannot believe there were people out there trying to discredit our off-season moves. Suckers!

downstairs
07-03-2005, 01:44 PM
Gammons likes people because he knows he's going to have to like them on chance that they may be an impact in a playoff series win against his BoSox or Yankees.

Any serious analyst would be able to pick the most interesting stories equally across the league. Even if Gammons saw a potental superstar playing for Tampa Bay, he'd never write about it UNLESS Tampa started to make some run at something.

As well, the guy never has the guts to call mediocre Yankees/BoSox players for what they are (read: Jeter, etc.)

JohnBasedowYoda
07-03-2005, 01:49 PM
carl gets plenty of credit

Go Go Everetts
07-03-2005, 03:54 PM
All the anylists/Jay Marriotti couldn't have been more wrong about Carl's comments in Maxim affecting the clubhouse.

fquaye149
07-03-2005, 03:56 PM
From Peter Gammons:

"Carl Everett (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5073) does not get credit for what he means to the White Sox, not only as their only legitimate left-handed threat against right-handed relievers, but for the edge and energy he brings to that team."
I can't believe this guy gets paid to write. That is one of the most awkwardly worded sentences I've read. It's hard to tell if he's saying Carl does not get ENOUGH credit or if he's saying he will award no credit to Carl. I'm pretty sure it's the former, based on context clues, but I'm not getting paid to fill in the blanks

batmanZoSo
07-03-2005, 04:26 PM
I can't believe this guy gets paid to write. That is one of the most awkwardly worded sentences I've read. It's hard to tell if he's saying Carl does not get ENOUGH credit or if he's saying he will award no credit to Carl. I'm pretty sure it's the former, based on context clues, but I'm not getting paid to fill in the blanks

How could you not tell? He wouldn't mention "Edge and energy," and "only legitimate left-handed power hitting threat" if he was criticizing him.

Huisj
07-03-2005, 04:29 PM
I can't believe this guy gets paid to write. That is one of the most awkwardly worded sentences I've read. It's hard to tell if he's saying Carl does not get ENOUGH credit or if he's saying he will award no credit to Carl. I'm pretty sure it's the former, based on context clues, but I'm not getting paid to fill in the blanks

I don't know, I didn't find it very awkwardly worded. It might just be that sox fans are so shocked to read something positive from Gammons that we can't help but nit pick it to find something wrong with it.

fquaye149
07-03-2005, 04:40 PM
How could you not tell? He wouldn't mention "Edge and energy," and "only legitimate left-handed power hitting threat" if he was criticizing him.

I could tell. Or at least I could make a guess at it. But if you were Billy Beane and dismissing intangibles you could write the same thing:

Carl does not get credit for the extras and intangibles he brings to the squad.

Or:

Scott Podsednik does not get credit for his exciting stolen bases

Or:

Derek Jeter does not get credit for his clutch hitting

Or:

Joe Crede does not get credit for the powerful blasts he hits while the Sox already have a comfortable lead

and it might mean a totally different thing.

That is why it is a poorly worded sentence. Completely unambiguous clarity is what a writer (especially a professional writer) like Peter Gammons should strive for. Even if 95% of the people know what he means, 100% SHOULD. I had to go back and read it twice just to make sure it wasn't a compliment of the backhanded variety.

Since the writer is not able to engage in dialogue with the reader, the only dialogue exists between the sentence and the reader. Therefore, as I stated above, whether Billy Beane or a non-SABR head wrote it would determine meaning. Not every reader is able to instantly guess the nuances on a person's baseball worldview, and therefore it is a poorly worded phrase.

There's a reason there is teal and deep pink on this message board: the written word is a very confusing medium, and its foremost goal is to communicate. Therefore any ambiguity must be motivated or else be distracting.