Give Spike a Column; Hating Mr. Wiggles; Cockburn's Reprehensible; Fairness for Transpersons; Vankin vs. Gammons
ONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
I want a weekly Spike Vrusho baseball column. I will contribute five dollars per week. C'mon, Russ Smith, pay the guy for a regular gig. You're a baseball fan, dammit! Bury it in the sex ads, I don't care. Also, Spike should know ("Oktobriana Dreams: And It's a Houston-Toronto World Series," 3/28) that the Vermont Expos' mascot is the lovable Lake Champlain monster, "Champ." Yankee fans would throw Molotov cocktails at him.
Ned Vizzini's "Since When?" column in your "Listings" section is a fun read. He's no Adam Heimlich, but at least he's Ned Vizzini.
Kaz's strip was brilliant. Neil Swaab's "Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles" is not.
Mark Duffy, Manhattan
Mirthless Laughter
I've always felt that Neil Swaab's "Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles" is a piece of shit, but the 3/21 strip was absolutely disgusting. Someone should drug and molest the talentless Swaab and see how hard he laughs.
Tim Kelly, Manhattan
Plague of Experts
As a 20-year baseball writer for the Baltimore Sun, Washington Post and Houston Chronicle, I can offer this opinion on Peter Gammons (Jonathan Vankin, "Slack Gammons: The 'Dean' of Baseball Journalism Rises to His Level of Incompetence," 3/28): he knows more about baseball than anyone. I've always been amazed at how he knew more about the teams I covered than I did. He simply is the best. If the information is sometimes up and down, that may be because baseball people are up and down. They jump off and on bandwagons so quickly, it would make a normal person dizzy. Hey, that's the business. As Ben Bradlee said, "Newspapers don't print the truth. They print what people tell them.'' Peter Gammons is a hero to all of us who've been in the trenches covering teams.
Richard Justice, Houston Chronicle, Houston
Red Sox Puppet
Jonathan Vankin: Your piece on Peter Gammons said it all. Thank you so much for the fine read. As a person who will be pursuing a degree in journalism at Boston University next year, I am heartened by the fact that there are still some courageous individuals in sports journalism. Boston is a cesspool right now, and there are tens of thousands of Boston-area sports fans desperate for a writer comparable to the 1970s version of Peter Gammons. Michael Holley is the best option we have.
Shamus McGillicuddy, Newtown, MA
Micke Likes It
This was perhaps the best piece I have ever read on Peter Gammons?and it's not like this is the first time his name has been mentioned, either. My warmest congratulations on a job very very well done! Keep it up!
Micke Hovmoller, Stockholm, Sweden
He's Your Father
Who the heck is this Jonathan Vankin guy, and why the cheap shots at Peter Gammons? It's like Stubby Clapp ripping Mark McGwire for his home-run swing. Just another idiot trying to get noticed.
I am no fan of Gammons, but I am less a fan of someone who tries to throw mud to make a name for himself.
Name Withheld, via Internet
You Validate Him
After sharply criticizing in a previous letter a restaurant review he did not long ago, it is with genuine admiration that I would like to salute Andrey Slivka for his keenly perceptive, evocative, bitingly ironic and ultimately instructive piece on Michael Moore ("New York City," 3/28). Thanks to New York Press for its wide range of talented writer/contributors.
Seth Boigon, Manhattan
Might Work
Regarding Taki's "review" of the unseen (by him) film Enemy at the Gates ("Top Drawer," 3/28), I hope New York Press will encourage him to voice his uninformed observations of other media as well. For example, Taki could share his unique insights into books that he is too cranky to read or art exhibitions that he is too lazy to attend.
Yuri Skujins, Manhattan
What Thou Lovest Breast Remains
Re: Christina Valhouli's "Topless Trauma" ("First Person," 3/28): I love boobies!
Brett Kelley, Cupertino, CA
He's the Future of Rock 'n' Roll
Alexander Cockburn: How did you get so smart? I am utterly astounded that a living being on this planet can see things so clearly and write so honestly without any apparent concession to the powers that be. I've read maybe three of your articles: they're reminiscent of Bob Dylan's cutting-through of the 1960s. Can you possibly keep this up? I doubt it, but I'll be watching.
Bob Stephenson, via Internet
Hip Hip Murrah
Good for Alexander Cockburn ("Wild Justice," 3/28)! Someday I might become a crazed bomber and kill hundreds of mothers and fathers and children, and then I, too, will want someone to speak up in my defense. My country made me what I am today. Hey, Timothy McVeigh could have gone to join the Taliban.
Fred Lapides, Orange, CT
Unlikely
Alexander Cockburn's recent column making fun of the people of Oklahoma City is the most sickening, cold-hearted thing I have ever read. You should fire him, and apologize to your readers.
Skip Goforth, Dixon, MO
Hip Hip McVeigh
Alexander Cockburn's "Wild Justice" piece on Oklahoma reaches a new low. Whatever legitimate criticisms there may be of U.S. policy can be made without citing Timothy McVeigh. Cockburn's piece becomes a justification for terror, magnifying the act of a madman. Cockburn's moral equivalencies say more about Cockburn than about his subject.
McVeigh has a right to publish his views, no matter how reprehensible they are. There is no justification for Cockburn to claim those views are anything more than the ravings of an intelligent madman, or for your publication of these views.
I am not a particular fan of memorials to Oklahoma. But kitsch and lack of historical context are not crimes. The real memorials are the metal detectors and identification checks thousands of federal employees and users of federal facilities must pass through every day in order to carry out their routine business.
Thanks to McVeigh we all feel daily the brunt of the police state we have built in order to protect ourselves from madmen. Strangely enough, Cockburn's piece generates in me a greater emotional response to the Oklahoma bombing than anything that has gone before.
Leonard Grossman, Oak Park, IL
Timmy, We Hardly Knew Ye
Alexander Cockburn thinks that we should know more about the person who was responsible for the deaths of a 168 people at the Alfred P. Murrah building. Because after all, what's the point of killing people if you can't be memorialized for it?
I think that we should take this a step further. We should put a statue of Mark Chapman outside of the Dakota, along with a multimedia explanation of Chapman's views. If John Lennon's mentioned, it should only be as a phony who needed killing. That way, the philosophical underpinnings for Chapman's killing of Lennon would be understood and appreciated by all. He killed somebody to get it across, but he makes a good point, after all.
We publicize McVeigh only because he's a murderer. That's the only reason people know who he is. He's only able to speak because he wasn't turned into a mass of bloody rags by a truck bomb. His victims don't have the same luxury. You don't like the kitsch of the memorial, fine. You want to make sure that McVeigh's twisted, guilt-tweaking rationale for his inexcusable actions is made clear to those who visit?
I wonder: Are you just trolling for a bunch of angry letters? Or are you serious in what you say? Either way, I'm not impressed.
Darren MacLennan, Shaker Heights, OH
Give Me Air Conditioning or Give Me Death
MUGGER: I love being in California, but I laugh at the politics here. As P.J. O'Rourke once wrote, "When Republicans ruin the environment, destroy the supply of affordable housing, and wreck the industrial infrastructure, at least they make a buck off it. The Democrats just do these things for fun." And the Dems continue to fiddle, blaming "price-gouging energy suppliers" while we burn?as we will this summer, when we have no power.
Gordon Smith, Pleasanton, CA
Hillbilly Like J.R. Taylor
Crispin Sartwell's 3/21 "Farm Report" was a breath of fresh air. Back when I lived in New York City I'd tell people I liked country music, and I could just see my IQ fall 50 points in their eyes. Tell 'em you liked bluegrass and it was like you told 'em you had sex with your first cousin. So it's a relief to see someone writing about country music in your paper and getting it right, talking about Dwight Yoakam and Merle Haggard and John Anderson with the respect they deserve. No mention of Steve Earle, my own personal fave, but that's a minor point. Good work. Great column.
Jeff Wood, Ft. Collins, CO
Nead Vizzini
John Strausbaugh: I notice that you and other writers at New York Press occasionally use the word "hed" to refer to a headline (as in the online "Billboard" of 3/23). I realize that every trade group and profession has its own specialized lingo, but why "hed"? It's rumored that Led Zeppelin chose their spelling so dumb Americans wouldn't be pronouncing it "Leed Zep," but how could anyone mispronounce "head"? Or is this a question that the teeming millions should ask Cecil?
Jonathan Goodnough, Hoboken
Tyke Path
I have always enjoyed MUGGER, yet there is one aspect of it that I find torturous. Why must we constantly be updated on Junior's latest exploits? If there is one thing I have learned as a parent, it is that others really don't give a shit about the cute little goings-on of my little ones. Save the Kathie Lee and Cody banter for a.m. television and stick to what you do best.
N.S. Heftler, MD, Manhattan
Russ Smith replies: I appreciate the correspondent's comments. However, MUGGER is a personal column and consists of whatever's on my mind at a given time. Self-indulgent? Of course. That's the nature of journalism, no matter what Prof. Gore might tell his students at Columbia.
We'll Stick to the Sullen, Wormy Hipsters
I'm rather glad to see that Mary Karam has discovered Everything Goes ("Scouting Report," 3/28), which is indeed one of the secret treasures of New York City. The review she wrote was most interesting, informative and well-written. I do feel, though, that she should have stressed how easy it is to get to this location from Manhattan. Many people who have never stepped foot on the shores of New York City's secret borough have no idea that St. George is the area right by the ferry.
I do have one not-so-petty gripe to convey. I'm getting a bit tired of reading, from time to time, sniping remarks made about the drag queens at the Strand bookstore. I'm not sure whether there were, or are currently, drag queens (in the precise definition of the term) working at the Strand, but when I worked there, from 1990 through 1992, there were three transsexual women. I am quite sure that none of the three of us find the term "drag queen" to be correctly descriptive or flattering.
I do believe that your paper would be able to thrive quite well without making disparaging remarks at the expense of people who find difficulties facing them constantly due to the negative stereotyping that is being constantly offered as either light humor or sardonic wit. The publication of such jibes as the one made by Mary Karam sends forth a message that such antisocial behavior is not only acceptable, but rewardable. I do realize that it is considered quite inappropriate to make remarks about other groups that are traditionally the targets of venal humor, and that people need to have some outlet for rude impulses, but we are no less human than any other group of people, and just as easily hurt by such insensitivity.
In the whole, most of us who are transsexuals just wish to get on with the business of living our lives without being the focus of media and other unwanted attention. Ours is not a lifestyle, ours is not a choice. We are merely people who were born with a misalignment of body and essence, and it matters not why that is so.
I would appreciate it very much if some sensitivity toward transpersons as a group was exercised in the future. I do not particularly like being in the position of making a pointed complaint, but I have grown more disgusted over the years with the continued abuse that seems to be acceptable behavior when directed at transpersons.
Lisanne Ferne Anderson, via Internet
Revolutionary Fratello
This letter is in response to David Horowitz's full-page ad in your 3/14 issue. The only legitimate reason why reparation for slavery is a bad idea is that as soon as a black man puts out his hand to receive it, the government is going to slit his wrist.
Francis Caterino, Manhattan
Radio Ga-Ga
Just read Jim Knipfel's article ("New York City," 3/21) about how the rates for pay phones are increasing a dime. As a way out, consider getting an amateur radio license! As an amateur radio operator, I enjoy talking with other operators locally. Or in Binghamton, about 65 miles from where I reside, or around the world?without considering the cost. I just turn on one of the radios I have, then choose the frequency and enjoy!
There are now no-code licenses for those who choose not to pass code licenses at higher amateur radio license class levels. It's a wonderful hobby that enhances other hobbies and interests, and a hobby that keeps you busy, 24-7.
Harry Jones, Dundee, NY
Ted, Red, Dead
Re: Christopher Caldwell's "Camelotta Baloney" ("Hill of Beans," 3/21): Caldwell is correct to challenge Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, on their demand that issue ads employing President John Kennedy's speeches in support of President Bush's proposed tax cut be withdrawn from the airwaves. President Kennedy's words and actions do not belong to the Kennedy family; they belong to history. The Kennedy family has always tried to control JFK's image. Sen. Kennedy's stated objection to the ad is only the most recent manifestation of that effort.
Caldwell, however, uses his rant against the Massachusetts Senator and his niece as an opportunity to give his version of history. One passage jumps from the page: "He (JFK) probably wouldn't have started the Vietnam War, either. He probably wouldn't have made the assassination of Third World dictators one of his hobbies." Even a casual reading of history demonstrates Caldwell's ignorance of the not-too-distant past.
First, Vietnam. While JFK indeed increased the number of "advisers" and military personnel in Vietnam, he hardly established the American presence in Southeast Asia, much less started the Vietnam War. A bit of history: the collapse of the French colonial presence in Indochina created a vacuum that would be filled by one of two ideologies: communism or democracy. In the early 1950s, the zero-sum game of Cold War politics, coupled with the 1949 loss of China to Mao Tse-Tung's communist forces, left American policymakers with few if any viable options regarding Vietnam. U.S. domestic political realities, e.g., the charge that President Truman was soft on communism, and the resurgence of the Republican right and the Red Scare, forced the president's hand. Thus, it was Truman who initially committed the United States to Vietnam. It was in Vietnam and Korea that the United States would roll back the Red March. Eisenhower inherited and passed on to JFK Truman's Vietnam policy. Kennedy, perhaps shortsightedly, maintained and strengthened U.S. presence.
Secondly, Kennedy's alleged dabbling in the assassination of Third World leaders. With heads of state falling like dominos in the early 1960s, it is difficult to guess which leader Caldwell accuses JFK of dispatching to the grave. Is it Patrice Lumumba of Congo? Ngo Ding Diem of Vietnam? There has never been conclusive evidence that JFK ordered, directed, authorized, planned or otherwise allowed the assassination of foreign leaders. This is not to say that, with continued declassification of government documents, evidence will not be developed to implicate Kennedy in these or other plots.
To date, however, JFK remains at arm's length from these killings. Kennedy is most infamously connected to attempts on the life of Fidel Castro. Here, too, there is no smoking gun?no pun intended?no paper trail, linking the president to plots against Castro.
Mr. Caldwell, if you want to write about history, get it right.
Christopher McVey, Manhattan
Gun Love
In his 3/28 column Taki questions the historicity of the love affair between the Red Army snipers Vassili Zaitsev and Tania Chernova that was portrayed in the recent film Enemy at the Gates. He deduces that "with the combatants covered in lice and in rags, many of them crazed by lack of food and frostbite, fucking [would be] utterly implausible."
At first glance his position sounds plausible, but truth is stranger than fiction. The movie is based upon William Craig's earlier history of the Battle of Stalingrad, which goes by the same title as the movie. In this history, Craig reports that Zaitsev and Chernova were in fact lovers. The affair ended when Tania Chernova was wounded by a mine and released from military service. In his epilogue, Craig tells us that Chernova believed her lover Zaitsev had perished in the fighting, but in fact he had survived and went on to administer an engineering school in Kiev. Apparently, she took the news rather hard. Even in 1969, two and a half decades after the affair had ended, Craig reports, she was still in love with him.
Not that the movie incorporated all these and other details. Tania Chernova was blonde and Ukrainian, not exactly Rachel Weisz's doppelganger. Nor was Chernova the city-bred intellectual Weisz played. She was a hardened partisan fighter and an accomplished sniper by the time the Germans reached Stalingrad. Instead of dignifying the Germans as humans, she had a habit of calling them "sticks." When she was mustered out of the Red Army, Chernova boasted to Craig that she had the privilege of "breaking 80 sticks."
Derek Copold, Houston
On His Peter
I hadn't read your paper in five months. I picked it up the other day, and I couldn't believe how bad it had become. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned scoops, information gathering and/or wit? All the writers do is whine and berate and criticize things, in pedantic fashion, while their own writing and reporting couldn't live up to their own critical standards.
For example, take last week's article on Peter Gammons ("Slack Gammons: The 'Dean' of Baseball Journalism Rises to His Level of Incompetence," 3/28) by Jonathan Vankin. Vankin spends several columns ranting about Gammons, and then when it comes time to present the evidence, he says, "I don't have the time or the resources to do a comprehensive study of Gammons' accuracy..." He then proceeds to back up his windbag attack by picking apart one Gammons article. Incredible.
It's become nothing more than a paper full of lazy journalists assaulting other lazy journalists. What type of audience is that designed for, really?
Scott Raynovich, via Internet
Barely Literate Cant
Jonathan Vankin: Michael Jordan missed more shots than anyone in history of the game. The great ones make mistakes. Are you one of those people who spends time trying to put down anyone with success? Peter Gammons is the man, and you are definitely not. A friend of mine forwarded your article, and I am going to assume you write for some community college or something. If not, then who hired you?
Get a life.
David Chase, Canton, MA
Third Way
Jonathan Vankin: I definitely agree with your basic assertion that Peter Gammons is a windbag. He is. He talks up just about every player in the league, especially prospects. If you listen to him, every team in the majors has about a dozen prospects who are a cup of coffee away from being stars.
But to use Rob Neyer as an example of good baseball journalism is preposterous. Sure, Gammons' articles are bloated with conjecture and gossip, but Neyer's articles are just as bloated with dry statistical analysis. I couldn't give a damn about range factor, quite frankly. Personally, I think that trying to qualify defensive play with stats has never proven useful, and, most importantly, it's not fun. I like hearing somebody who's seen a lot of baseball and loves the game tell me about the best player he's ever seen. I don't enjoy somebody trying to convince me that because player A's range factor is +.010 better than player B's, he's a better fielder. Boring.
There is a place for Peter Gammons' gossip columns, just as there is for Rob Neyer's stats classes. I think that what we're all looking for is something in between.
Tom Eagan, Jersey City
Switch Hitting
Excellent article on Peter Gammons. There is only one passage I take exception to: "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..."
Go back for the past three years and look at any Gammons comment on Dan Duquette or John Harrington. Both are mercilessly hacked by Gammons at every turn. The funny thing is, I first read about each of these people in Gammons' own column, when he told readers how great each of them was.
Tim Curran, Cumberland, RI
Screw You, Abe
I am writing in reference to Jonathan Vankin's rip-job on Peter Gammons. Funny, isn't it, how low-rent writers at low-rent publications can't come up with anything better to do than bury a respected writer like Gammons?
Never mind that Gammons has been covering baseball for more than 30 years, knows all the important people and breaks stories every day. Vankin, who probably couldn't find his way to Yankee Stadium with a map, knows better. It's always nobodies like Vankin, who would take a job sweeping up at ESPN if they could get one, who take shots from afar. Next time try to come up with something unique. Jealousy is not especially interesting to read.
Abraham Peters, Hastings-on-Hudson
Peter, Piker
Jonathan Vankin: Thank you for saying it! At last some recognition of how poor Peter Gammons' journalism is and the fact that he never admits his multitude of mistakes.
I live and grew up in Massachusetts and used to hotfoot it to the local convenience store to get the Sunday Globe (among a couple other papers), for his column if nothing else.
Lately, I've noticed the same chronic deficiencies you cite. In addition, I would add another. Just like Liz Smith, Rona Barrett, Louella Parsons and Hedda Hopper, Gammons rewards the sources who give him info and punishes the people who won't talk to him. Brian Cashman, Dan O'Dowd, the deposed Herk Robinson and others who write his stories for him get fawning coverage for good or so-so decisions and passes on their botches. Dan Duquette, who gives him nothing, gets fricasseed at every possible opportunity. Cashman and the Yanks spent several million on Cuban Andy Morales, then a couple weeks later spent $17 million on Drew Henson, who didn't hit all that well during one stint in double A. But Cashman is home on the range, and not a discouraging word is heard. O'Dowd gives 10 million per year to fading fly ball pitcher Denny Neagle to pitch in Coors Field. Others roundly criticized this, but not Gammons.
Duquette and the Sox have some pretty obvious faults, but you're letting Gammons off much too easily by saying that he's not negative. If you're a GM who doesn't help him by serving as the anonymous source, he's quite negative.
Thanks also for the derogatory mention of Dan Shaughnessy. He's despicable.
James Tetreault, via Internet
Roto Rooter
Bravo, New York Press! The Vankin piece on Peter Gammons came to my attention when a poster to my website, www.RotoJunkie.com, pasted its link into the body of a post.
Peter Gammons is the RotoJunkie poster boy for derision, a living, breathing spewer of anachronism who would have you believe that fantasy baseball players aren't the main reason for the success of things like ESPN.com's baseball coverage or Baseball Tonight. Although we take him to task on a weekly basis at RotoJunkie, it does my heart good to see someone else taking a whack at the man who put the beans in Beantown.
One point I will make about the column, however, is that the author might have gone a bit far in his puffing of Rob Neyer. Rob is an acquaintance and sometimes a chat guest at my site, and while I have a world of respect for him, he can sometimes play as the polar opposite to Boston's leading purveyor of flatulence. Beware the trap of thinking that baseball, or anything, can be solely reduced to the numbers. Sure, we've all heard that Mozart's symphonies are an expression of mathematical formulae, but when's the last time you saw an MIT A.I. virtuoso onstage at Avery Fisher Hall?
Thanks for the great piece, New York Press. Now, if you could just get Washington City Paper here in my home-in-exile to figure out the formula you're using.
Bob Kohm, Washington, DC
Go to Hell, Dan
Just read Jonathan Vankin's article on Peter Gammons. I was completely disgusted. It was immature, self-serving and frankly completely unprofessional. Whoever his editor is who allowed such dribble to be published needs a lesson in what's fit to print.
Yes, Gammons is wrong some of the time. He has to be. He puts forth so much more information in a 30-minute Baseball Tonight than Rotonews does in a day. It can't all be correct. As for Rob Neyer being the epitome of what Gammons opposes, I think you're crazy. The only arguments that supported what was said in your criticisms were these largely unsubstantiated and circumstantial claims. You ought to be ashamed for printing that. As for the player projections he got wrong, let it go. It happens all the time, as regular baseball readers and writers have come to expect.
A hitter is successful 1/3 of the time, but Peter Gammons can't make a mistake. Give me a break. Using your logic, no scout who passed on Mike Piazza is worth his job. Ridiculous.
Stick to writing about your own prospects. Peter Gammons is an easy target. He's got those big four letters on his contract. How about going out on a limb and letting everyone see all the projections that you got wrong and subjecting yourself to the same basic scrutiny? I think that the scales would find you wanting.
And I'll give Peter Gammons this?at least he has class. And that's something that you, sirs, should see to it that your writer learns before he publishes another article.
Daniel Devereaux, San Angelo, TX
The Miller's Wail
As a baseball diehard from Boston, I have to give props where due. Peter Gammons' "Notes" column is complete crap at least 90 percent of the time. He is the Will McDonough of baseball. As they say in the corporate world, no value added.
Joe Miller, via Internet
Crying Fowler
The article by Jonathan Vankin about Peter Gammons is an utter piece of trash. I don't care for Gammons any more than anyone else. Frankly, I don't listen to much of what he says. That said, that article was totally lacking in class and substantial and tangible evidence. You guys are hypocrites. You trash Gammons because he offered information (whether right or wrong) about the Nilsson situation without any tangible evidence, and yet you do the very same thing. You have as much evidence that he was wrong as he did that he was right. I am horrified and mortified by your poor job of journalism. As a journalist myself, I think you guys are no better than any other yellow journalistic publication.
If you guys are so good and right so much of the time, then put your own incorrect assumptions up for ridicule. That's what I thought?hypocrites. Absolute trash.
As I said, I'm not a Gammons fan, but I will say one thing for him. He has class, something you guys are lacking.
Cory Fowler, via Internet
Pershing Missal
A few points to make regarding the "Slack Gammons" article:
You're right in pointing out that a great many observations and predictions in Gammons' columns don't pan out, but do you think his accuracy rate is lower than that of the dozens of other baseball columnists who, as you point out, have copied his "notes" format? When Gammons reports that "the Red Sox believe X" or "one major league scout thinks Y," those are accurate representations of what those people believe. Does that mean that X or Y will actually happen? No. But that doesn't make them inaccurate.
Speaking of accuracy, while there might be an exception somewhere (Nilsson being one possibility), I have never known Gammons to get the details of a major story?a blockbuster trade, for instance?wrong. What's more, he almost inevitably gets the story first, as well. This may be due to "his renowned knack for raising important baseball folks on the telephone," but don't good reporters have good sources? The fact that people who know what is going on in baseball will tell him things they won't tell other reporters makes him invaluable.
As for the debate about statistics, you're right in saying that Gammons shouldn't cast broad aspersions against statistical measures or people who use them. But nor should he be criticized simply because he doesn't swear the same allegiance to stats as some reporters do (though I would say that his dislike of statistics isn't quite what you make it out to be; he regularly makes references to on-base percentage and slugging). Remember, this isn't a settled argument. While nearly all baseball people agree that statistics are an important tool for evaluating players, there is a real divergence of opinion about whether statistics can truly give you a complete view of a player, rather than a partial one. As a baseball fan, I still happen to believe that Roberto Alomar is an excellent second baseman. I understand that many may disagree. But if managers and players who do this for a living say that Alomar is great defensively, should that be dismissed out of hand? Or should it be balanced with statistics? I would also point out that stat columnists like Neyer (whom I like) are often just as condescending and dismissive toward statistical nonbelievers as you accuse Gammons of being toward believers.
I agree that much of Gammons' reporting is speculative, but I don't think it purports to be anything else. I also say that I learn more from reading his column than I do from anyone else's. Why do you think he has such a great reputation among baseball people? Is it fear? Ignorance? I suspect that most of the people who are the most involved in and knowledgeable about the game like and respect Gammons' abilities, as I do.
Ben Pershing, Washington, DC
Gammon Slammin'
Look, I'm just a fan?not a sportswriter, nor a "Rotisserie phooph," although I have played a little in my time. Jonathan Vankin's column gets to the heart of my puzzlement about Gammons, and I applaud it.
I'm an avid reader both of Gammons and Neyer on Espn.com?in fact, if you made me pick one to give up, I'd have a real hard time. But I was astonished by Pete's snide comments about range factor earlier this year. Particularly in light of the fact that I think Gammons almost singlehandedly has brought another statistic?OPS (on-base plus slugging)?into the sportswriting lexicon. Given the way most sportswriters still treat numbers, this has been no mean feat.
As I read the column, I cringed while nodding in agreement. Besides the range factor thing, and his disparaging comments about "computer people," your other points about his inaccuracy do indeed leave me wondering how much he has left. It reminds me of what happened to Jerome Holtzman (now safely ensconced over at the Hall of Fame, where I suspect they may be waiting for him to kick off so they can stuff him). For a good long period from the 60s until maybe the early 80s he was as authoritative a baseball writer as any in the land. Then he slipped into a slow, steady decline that was painful to read, believe me.
Gammons is worth reading all the way out here in the Midwest precisely because he does love baseball. It would be a shame, after all this time, if he turns into the kind of snarly old baseball guy he probably used to make fun of.
James A. McGowan, Skokie, IL
Nothing But Troubles
Toby Young is incorrect in his assessment of the cause and extent of American support for the republican movement in Northern Ireland and in his explanation of the political situation there ("Taki's Top Drawer," 3/14). While many Americans of Irish descent may not be familiar with Irish politics and current e