Thursday, April 13, 2006

Alls is Not Wells

It was, as George Costanza might say, a column about nothing.

The CHB's take on David Wells abysmal pitching performance last night includes shots at Dick Cheney, Theo Epstein, Bengie Molina, Tony Graffanino's and yes, Wells himself.

And, as typical, in recent columns he has droned on about how it's not yet time to panic, which is his standard fallback (he writes the same thing every year). Of course, Sybil also claims, "Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out."

What, 20 years of pitching major league ball isn't enough proof, Dan-o?

Has he forgotten that Wells stunk up the joint on opening night last year, only to morph into Boston's second-best pitcher (behind Tim Wakefield). Was last season really that long ago?

At the end Sybil's split-personality really kicks in, further muddying the point (if there ever was one). To wit:

Don't panic: "Even though the first-place Sox are 6-2 and even though Wells has pitched only once, there will be temptation to overreact."
Panic: During the winter, the Sox were all fat and happy with their seven starters. They seemed insulated from age and injuries. But now Arroyo has been traded and Jonathan Papelbon is a Radatz-like closer and Wells has yet to give us any indication that he can still get big-league hitters out. Suddenly, there are not so many options."

Don't panic (from April 12): "Veteran lefty David Wells gets the ball tonight, and another victory will give the Sox their best start since 1920."
Don't panic (from today): "Wells will get another chance, and maybe[emphasis mine] he'll revert to form ..."
Panic: "... but if he doesn't, Bob Lobel will be showing you more Arroyo highlights and asking, 'Why can't we get pitchers like that?' "

I'm beginning to wonder if Joe Sullivan knows how to read.

Bizzaro watch: Shamelessly, Dan again refers to Tony Graffanino's error in Game 2 of the ALDS last year "Buckneresque." Other than the fact that he missed a ball, there is little context for comparing the two. Of course, "context" isn't a term The CHB is familiar with.


jenny said...

Am I a terrible person for enjoying reading CHB take shots at that loudmouth tub of goo? The Arroyo comparisons are laughable (ever heard of track record, Dan? Sample size?), but making fun of him for being a fat jerk is okay with me. Call 'em like you see 'em, after all. I wish Theo would trade him, but that contract with the incentive clauses has to be one of the dumbest ideas of all time and if he continues sucking, there'll be no value in return. Ugh. But don't let him pitch any more.

The Chief said...

hey now!

Let's look at what we knew about Wells before he came here:
1. He is fat.
2. He can be loud-mouthed.
3. He can pitch.

None of that has changed. We're talking about a guy who is a league average pitcher in a park that historically has killed him, and for a price that is so incentive laden it's still a wonder he signed it at all. Given that he turns 43 in May and is coming off surgery, the only way the Red Sox get anything for him is to send him out there every fifth day (and for Wells to pitch well, of course). If they sit him on the bench, that means spending $4m for a guy who will make waves while contributing bupkiss. Given that scenario, they'd be better off cutting him.

As he was last year, Wells will be fine. He always has a few stinkers thrown in with several sterling outings.

objectivebruce said...

Tsk. I must come out of retirement to rebut inaccuracies of a week or so ago that have been brought to my attention. These remarks oozed from something entitled a dbvader; in essence his malevolent claim is that I have been ordered to stop responding to the musings hereabouts because I work for the Globe and my bosses disapprove.

Not true. I stopped because my job was done; the blogger's credibility was irrepairably shredded leaving little reason to continue, as most intelligent people have no problem recognizing this pathetic game of "Let's Pretend" for what it is.

To get to the particular false accusation that prompts these post-retirement remarks, I knew nothing about the Globe's pre-publication queue of stories about the World Baseball Classic. I would have no way to know since I do not now, nor have I ever, worked there.

But when the blogger published his typically ill-informed product of half-baked research to which I responded (on the baseball tournament), I took a quick look at the Globe on-line product for that day, which was still available, and found two stories by Shaugnessey, both slugged as having appeared on the same page on the same date and one of which made some of the very references that the blogger had criticized Shaugnessey for not making. There remain two stories on the baseball classic in the archive index from that date.

Obviously in the blogger's world without ethics one simply ignores one's errors and moves to the next diatribe. One version of these stories may have run in early editions, and, given the ending of the game at 12:57 a.m. eastern time, this is more likely than not to have been the scenario. Somehow, this elementary deduction seems to have prompted the childish claim that I work for The Globe. I should suggest looking at the number of edition stars on the ear of the page one banner on the print copy you read before making pronouncements based on the assumption that every word is the same through the entire press run, but resorting to the well-known edition-tracking stars would probably seem too "inside" to the mal-informed hereabouts and I would then be accused of being a Taylor, a Winship or at the very least, a grandson of Merrie Morrie Gallant.

Sorry. I forgot. Corrections and ethics are something to be wished for in others, not demonstrated by this blogger.

The Chief said...

For the record, OB stops by everyday, often several times.

Maybe his name should be obsessivebruce.

fadedredsoxhat said...

OB, cant we just have our fun. Some people, like myself, think CHB is Boston's worst sportswriter since The Cake Cooker switched to the news pages. I love this site because CHB's columns are nauseating to read and like The Chief's slogan suggests, I dont have to read him. So I don't, just like you dont have to read The Chief. Why don't you start your own pro-CHB blog?

Another thing, lets not boo Carl Everett this weekend or ever again. Sure he did stupid things while in Boston but his lasting legacy is the creation of a brilliant nickname for an un-brilliant person. If CHB was as universally loved and adored as OB is demanding he should be, then the comment would have been quickly forgotten. So I say give Carlosaurus the long overdue standing ovation he so richly deserves.

dbvader said...

"I took a quick look at the Globe on-line product for that day, which was still available, and found two stories by Shaugnessey,"

This claim is laughable. Are we to believe that instead of reading the Boston Globe online, you instead went to a subscription based website to find all CHB articles that the newspaper archived at that site? Why do you have a subscription? Why did you skip over the online edition to find the quote?
Regardless of your answers, you were wrong to criticize the chief because he did not have access to this archive that you so quickly found. He statements were accurate based on both the late print editions and the online edition. Which raises another question: Why did the Globe post the shorter article on the website, where space and timing is not a concern?

dbvader said...

Also, for anyone who wants to claim that CHB is a good columnist, read Ryan's pieces in today's Globe. You may change your mind.
Ryan did more work for one day's paper than CHB puts in over weeks. The pieces had original ideas and research; contained quotations from multiple players supporting the columns; and were devoid of snide references, tangential points, and dated, forced pop culture references. To paraphrase a line from Mike & Mike's radio spot: "A sports column that actually talks about sports!"

OB, are you a fenian?

dbvader said...

Another question that came up after reviewing the article now again in question: Why did you post the direct quotation regarding Oh and Aaron that was not in the online edition before you posted the link to the newspaper archive? You knew that there was a draft of CHB's article that contained the quotation, but you failed to provide a link until you were questioned on your source.

jenny said...

Quick question: Why are we attacking Joe Sullivan? Is he the author of the Sully's Shots blog? If so, he wrote one of the best pieces on the whole Theo debacle called "A Few Bad Men" that absolutely eviscerated CHB. Maybe he's in charge of CHB and maybe his hands are tied, but it's quite obvious, if you've read anything he writes on SoSH, that he hates the guy. That was a really great article he wrote. He accused Shaughnessy of being unethical and vicious, which from one journalist to another is pretty serious. No punches pulled there.

The Chief said...

jenny, that's jeff sullivan.

joe sullivan is the hack who was promoted to run the globe sports section when don skwar (hack senior) was hired by espn.

dbvader said...

Do you read

jenny said...

Ah, my bad. Thanks for clearing it up.

The Chief said...

db, I do now. That string on the Globe is hilarious. Looks like there's a few people on that site that read this space, too.

fadedredsoxhat said...

Because I live in Seattle, I read CHB's Papelbon column for Monday's papers on Sunday night just so I can guess what The Chief will write about it. Chief, you are going to have a field day with this one. It is just so sad. Not a single original thought. Heavy on quotes. Stats and biographical info that I'm sure is found in the media guide. There's one other thing, Chief, that I hope you pick up on. Enjoy!!!

dbvader said...

"I took a quick look at the Globe on-line product for that day, which was still available, and found two stories by Shaugnessey, both slugged as having appeared on the same page on the same date"

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS. You have quite a talent for being purposefully obtuse.

Why did you check a subscription website (News Library) to find two articles written by CHB instead of What led you to look there? Why did you think that other version existed? (By the way, does not include the page number that an article appeared on.)
Why did you not include a link to the quotation in question when you first posted it?