Baseball Tonight basically put Gammons into the Hall of Fame. He really knows nothing imo. Every "inside" scoop of trades he has are usually wrong, and if you have ever read the book Moneyball, you would know how much of a tool Gammons is. I dont know could just be me, obviously hes doing something to impress somebody at ESPN.
OK, I just watched the rerun of the show, and I read the comments on here about the show/SAS. I am guessing the majority of you will resist liking the show because you don't like SAS as a person, regardless of the fact that this was one of the best sports interviews I have EVER seen, and that's no stretch. SAS connects with athletes more than most other people do, and he is a pretty good journalist as well, which means many of his questions (like in today's episode with AI) will be good questions, frank, and honest. I love that approach. Honestly, I don't know how good this show will be over time, but if today's episode was any indication, this might be one of the best sports shows I have ever seen, and I will definitely set aside an hour or so of my time on daily basis to watch it. Great interview with AI, but that might also be because AI is such a great person to interview, very interesting, very colorful personality with more street cred than the whole league combined. I hope he has T-Mac and others on at times, it will be nice to have them open up about their pasts, their opinions about things going on in the league, among other intriguing topics. My opinion is watch today's show if you missed it, it was great, especially for a big AI fan like myself. With that being said though, I do also predict that the show will be eventually cut down to 30 minutes, but even if it didn't there will be enough commercial breaks to make it easy for SAS to fill up bout 35 minutes of pure interview time.
All athletes or just those who can put up with his hip style? Ask Matt Bullard how well they connected. It'll be interesting to see how far he strays from interviewing NBA and NFL players.
Peter Gammons has always been a well respected baseball writer. He was voted the National Sportswriter of the Year three times by the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association. He's been a correspondent with ESPN for 17 years and has written for the Boston Globe and SI. That's what he brings to the table. It's ridiculous to say that Baseball Tonight put him in the Hall of Fame.
You're judging him based on his ESPN performance, assuming the last few years. He's been with ESPN since 1988 and perhaps he hasn't been much of an on-air contribution with facts or inside information (but neither is Stephen A. Smith; he is the ultimate repetitive time filler; he is the face of the new pathetic and burning ESPN). However, these two guys got to national prominence from their coverage of sports, no matter how bad you may think they are on-air. Have you EVER read a Peter Gammons article (and not just ESPN.com; more like Boston Globe)? Personally I can't stand Smith because all he is being paid for is to criticize people based on his opinion whereas a guy like, oooohh, David Aldridge [actually did his work and had real information. I don't mind Gammons, even if he's basically the same type of filler that Smith is, but at least he doesn't come off looking like an idiot or an *******.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I knew that him and AI were tight so I expected AI to open up to him more than he would to other interviewers. We'll see how the later guest go. The interview portion was great but the opening monologue, eh...
here's the difference to me... calvin was a player. in order to be an ANALYST, i'd like for there to be some level of experience. otherwise, it's not much different from reading opinions here. everyone has an opinion. that doesn't make one an expert. what qualified stephen a. smith to be an NBA analyst?? he doesn't HAVE to be a former player to be an analyst, in my mind (though, it helps). but as best i can tell, his opinion merits no more weight than yours or mine, pgabs.
I have to disagree with this. I'm not sure how long he's been a sports journalist, but it's a lot longer than we have. While that doesn't mean he's always right, I would say that his years involved exclusively in sports helps him have a more informed opinion than me, you, or pgabs. That's not to say we can't disagree with him vehemently and be right, but I'm not going to deny that the man's been closer to sports than I ever have. And I actually like my analysts not to be former professional athletes. There's a level of condescending tones spewed from those guys that I just cannot stand. While SAS sure has his moments, I think most non-professional analysts aren't has bad as their counterparts. Granted, this is coming from someone who prefers really not to listen to any of them because they're all idiots.
Oh, I know. I like him a little more now since I saw him debate with Skip Bayless. You know what, I'm wrong, they're all condescending.
I think that the show was pretty good. Of course it was Iverson, someone he knows very well, but Stephen's presence was very good. Alot better than PTI's first few shows. People don't remember that PTI was pretty bad in the beginning because Tony and Wilbon were nervous. The reason I am looking forward seeing guests on Stephen's show is the fact he is going to ask the tough questions. It is hopefully going to be the 'real' Hot Seat on ESPN. Not the usual soft questions ESPN usually does in interviews. The Stephen I saw on the show yesterday was alot different from the one I usually see. I liked it.
Guys like Stephen A.,Jim Rome, Bayless, Woody Page, etc. are the guys who bring us the info that we talk about. You might not respect his opinion because he isn't a player or coach but he does know more than we do because he talks to players, coaches, and GM's. If someone gave Steve Francis an analyst job after he retired would you automatically give his analysis of games or the state of the NBA more than yours just because he played.
When your name is Steve Smith (I personally know two people with that name), you need a middle initial.
Most professional athletes aren't where they are because they know the sport... they're there for incredible athleticism and skill. I can't begin to describe how many times I've wanted to scream at a baseball player this year for not having the intellect to read a situation. (if you're an awful hitter and ahead 3-0 in the count and the pitch is borderline, don't ever swing... think about what your odds are to do something that pitch even if you hit it, etc.) I'm probably in the minority, but I prefer the SAS and Peter Gammons types that haven't played the game. Personally, I've played some sports more than others, but I don't think it gives me any measurable edge in understanding those sports. You can learn just as much through close observation and building contacts within organizations as you can from playing the game. I don't like the arrogance from analysts like Joe Morgan who think they're better than everyone else because they played the game... that doesn't tell me anything. Tell me specifically something you understand from playing that the Gammons-types can't and I'll be more receptive. In the rare cases that former players do have high IQs in that sport (see Tim Legler), I agree that experience in the sport is nice to have because it helps them to make contacts. But it should be far down on the list of priorities. As far as the new SAS show, I sadly admit that I forgot about it yesterday. But it sounds terrific, and I'm not surprised. SAS is a jackass on television, but you can tell the relationship he has with many athletes is different from the typical journalist and I'm not surprised that he can relate to them and get them to open up. As annoying as he usually is, he can be one of the better journalists in the business... he just has no idea how to present himself to the average guy.
Thats where your wrong, he does come off as an idiot, especially when he goes onto Baseball Tonight and starts talking about a trade thats gone through when it hasnt. In Moneyball Billy Beane talks about how he used Gammons as a way to get some players, I dont remember exactly how it went, been a few years since I've read the book, but it essentially Billy Beane told Gammons so and so was being traded for so and so, when they actually werent. Gammons the next night goes onto Baseball Tonight comes out and says these trades are basically in completion. This is a smart move by Beane because some GMs were like oh ok and had to alter what they were doing. When the GMs find out those players actually werent traded, their probably feeling r****ded, but also probably thinking Gammons is a dumbass. I must be one of few who dont like Gammons, and I havent actually read any of his articles, but I will be sure to check some out sometime. I dont doubt hes a good journalist, just sometimes think hes just rambling on just to be saying something to catch peoples attentions.
