Somehow, I suspect the label “Master of Conciseness” would not go a long way toward growing your blogosphere fame. Gammons’ status is so firmly established that he can communicate through what he doesn’t say about a subject.  Your audience has different expectations and demands, don’t you think?  Economy of speech is impressive, but its effectiveness depends a lot on your content and your goals (see counterexamples at Posnanski, Joe). 

Still, I know that feeling. I read E.B. White and sigh audibly.

If Harang can have a bounce back year, the Reds will be pretty good this year.  Not contending for the division, but they could break the .500 mark.  Next year I think they can make the playoffs, especially if Bruce and Votto keep getting better.

TLDR.

I am a bit confused to see Vonnegut and Twain cited for long-windedness, when they’re among the handful of good America writers capable of bringing a novel into the barn in under 350 pp. Surely there are much windier examples extant.

Gammons taught me most of the stuff I learned about baseball growing up as young Boston Globe reader. It’s interesting to see him cited for concision, if only because it was driven by the need to cram all zillion pieces of worthy baseball info within the “confines” of the thousands of words available in his full-page weekly notes column.

Gammons often when on at length in his columns. But in his weekly notes, concision is the rule. So IMO its more a function of format than style.

You like Gammons because he doesn’t harangue?

He “Harangs” but does not ‘harangue”.  Nice one, BP.

What I love about Gammons (Roger Angell is the only one who has written better about baseball in my lifetime and opinion) is that though he will write about the negatives, he pursues the positives. Though he writes baseball as a profession, he does so out of love.  He LOVES baseball.  It shows.

TC