After a long week spent unsuccessfully flogging his new book (#5303 on amazon.com with a bullet!) all the while finding time to watch himself on tv and allegedly make angry phonecalls to his detractors and their bosses, Dan returns.
And turns in possibly one of the worst columns I have ever been forced to read. I actually felt bad by the end.
They are just some headscratchers in this one. Dan mentions that only four other teams in MLB history have had a 10 1/2 game lead at this point. What are the four other teams? We don't find out.
He goes on to mention how this year is different from 1978 because "the Red Sox didn't have the pitching" and the Yankees "bear little resemblance to the blood-and-thunder rogues"(You can't sneak that Springsteen reference by me, Dan) of 1978.
If only this were true. The Red Sox pitching in 1978 was pretty good also. And this year's Yankees offense is much better than the 1978 edition. But I guess grit and tobacco juice are what make "blood-and-thunder rogues."
A couple of worn out references to Steinbrenner's past; "the immortal Tyler Clippard" (ever notice how Dan belittles any player he has never heard of? If he bothered to care, he would notice Clippard has had a very nice minor league career); and a 2003 reference without mention of Grady Little or Pedro Martinez.
And then it gets weird. Two paragraphs spent on Chazz Palmintiri, including this gem: "Chazz turned to the guy sitting to his right and whispered something like "Now, yous can't leave."" Great scene; lame, forced reference.
And he ties things up with this counterfactual statement "Imagine: a quality start for the Yankees. Very rare. In the spring of '07, there've been more Boston Pops brawls than Yankees pitching gems. Wrong. Off the top of my head: Philip Hughes no-hitter through 6 and Wang's near no-hitter.
It was a truly terrible column. Nothing there except some tired historical references, inaccurate statements, and warmed over game play-by-play. Oh, last time Dan said the Red Sox had the division won, the Yankees were a game back within a month, having picked up five games in that span.
Edit: Philip Hughes spelling and no-hitter through six
dbvader, you and the other contributors on this site do an excellent job. Now, how can we get the Boston Globe to realize how poorly CHB does his job. Perhaps the Boston Globe just wants controversy, which is all CHB is good for - certainly not insightful and well reasoned opinions, never mind just simple factual reporting. How can we stop this guy!!!
ReplyDeleteHey, did Shaughnessy really call Ortiz a sack of shit
ReplyDeletein 2003?
Can someone answer this for me?
That's great. CHB has the time to stalk his emailers, but won't make the effort to list the four other teams with 10 1/2 game leads this soon. Actually CHB probably put more research into finding out the phone number of his emailer than any he's done on a column in years.
ReplyDeleteThe CHB's reference to David Ortiz was made on WWZN on Jan. 4, 2003.
ReplyDeleteAt the time, he said: "[David Ortiz is] a giant sack of you-know-what ..."
Cue OB...
"Cue OB..."
ReplyDeleteLOL!
One of the better things about this blog (Oooooo...Evil Word, that) is that OB comes here and challenges what's been said. Problem is, his challenges are devoid of anything substantive, and instead are loaded with nothing more than the same kind of 'home-team' cheerleading for the Boston Globe that CHB whines about when referencing the 'fandom.'
Dont' forget that OB is way smarter than all of us.
ReplyDeleteAnd he knows German.
ReplyDeleteJust a theory, but OB reminds me more of CHB's equally putrid hack colleague, Kevin Paul Stupont, than the nappy haired CHB, himself.
ReplyDeleteTo wit:
Stupont is internet savvy, well as internet savvy as an aging white sportswriter can be. He's known to frequent HFBoards, often co-opting story ideas from posters there.
His ego is as large as CHB's, but since the Bruins ceased being relevant when they traded Thornton (or when they traded Ray to the older crowd of fans who were alive during the Cup runs) he has the requisite time to troll the internet to defend his Brother-in-Hackery.
Stupont is known for making straw man arguments with poor logic and statistics, a trait I've noticed of OB.
The two however are very similar
To wit:
Both have extremely inflated opinions of themselves and their value to the franchises they "cover", as well as the human race on a whole.
Both think they are clever neologists and wordsmiths with lame faux-pun nicknames of players that are neither witty nor humorous.
Both pretend to be knowledgeable about the sports they cover, and pull for the local team, yet their pieces are filled with innaccuracies, and as soon as the local team does well, they go negative.
Both have tried to drive out popular superstars of the teams they cover. (Thornton, Nomar, Pedro, Manny)
Just a theory.
Munson or Posada?
ReplyDeleteChambliss or Mientkiewicz ?
Randolph or Cano?
Nettles or Rodriguez?
Dent or Jeeter
Pinella or Matsui?
Rivers or Damon?
Jackson or Abreau?
White/Johnson or Giambi?
I give \\\'78 the edge at 1b, 2b, lf, rf, cf; \\\'07 the edge at ss, 3b and DH and a draw at C/
What is interesting about that 1978 team is the number of complete games the Sox starting rotation had by the end of August. That was the main reason why they flagged, that and the fact they had no true go-to guy in the bullpen.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why he just doesn't try anymore. Its like he's at his computer rummaging thru old columns and cutting and pasting a new column together.
A draw at catcher? Posada is crushing Munson in terms of production. Piniella-Matsui is a wash (and I would go with Matsui over the season considering he was injured at the start) and I would take Damon over Rivers.
ReplyDeleteHave you noticed what Posada is doing this season? He is hitting better than Munson ever dreamed of.
I hope someone else besides me goes to Firejoemorgan.com today and reads the piece they just reviewed about Wakefield. Read it with their comments or without. If one thing can be said about the that piece, its that even Shaughnessy wouldn't have written anything that crazy.
ReplyDeleteEspecially the part about it being a long game when Wake pitches. That makes absolutely no sense to me. That article is a true piece of wreckless journalism.
Did anyone else laugh maniacly when the Celtics got the fifth pick besides me. I think that its true justice for that front office brain trust of Ainge, Rivers and Grousebeck to have that happen to them. The three of them completely tanked the end of the season for the hope of the ping-pong balls falling the right way. I truly think that the Celtics got what they deserve out of this.
ReplyDeleteOh and BTW, if the Pats or Sox had tanked the season the Celtics did, the Boston media (from Borges (RIP) to Shaughnessy, to Buckley, to Jackie Mac and everyone else in between) would have lit either franchise up like a Christmas tree. At least one writer would have accused them of some sort of consumer fraud.
Sure, I'll take the bait.
ReplyDeleteLet us see some evidence other than hearsay for the Ortiz comment. And spare me using as evidence that one Bruce Allen posted a quote about it; he is someone who thought nothing of stealing a column name from the Globe and using it repeatedly. Some of us call might such an incident plagiarism, especially since it was carried out on multiple occasions.
Is there tape of this quote allegedly made on a radio station? Have any of the actual participants corroborated it? I'm still waiting, and it has been a long wait.
I have read the review of the column posted here, and it seems more of a springboard for random comments, including bringing up the discredited "watching himself on tv (sic)" reference, and parading complete ignorance of the team that was the 1978 Yankee team that went 48-20 after Billy Martin was fired. Who do you want in the foxhole with you, Alex Rodriguez or Graig Nettles; Munson or Posada; Chambliss or Mientkiewicz?
I found it rather amusing, by the way, that Shaughnessy confronted a clown who sent him a snide comment accompanied by a copy of a photo taken by a guy claiming to be a columnist or writer or some such thing for a skin mag/sports review. The description of the guy who had taken a hit-and-run photo of him and didn't have the integrity to ask a simple question was apt, if vulgar (but at least the vulgarity was expressed on a personal level and not in print).
I'm not sure that 'home town cheerleading' for the Boston Globe is quite right, but it is a very good newspaper, especially when compared to the dreadful suburban dailies in New England and the even more dreadful Boston Herald.
I'm just glad Dan is back to Red Sox coverage and leaving my Patriots alone. I guess the Globe needed someone to pan anything the Patriots did since their #1 Pats guy was suspended.
ReplyDeleteWho do you want in the foxhole with you, Alex Rodriguez or Graig Nettles; Munson or Posada; Chambliss or Mientkiewicz?
ReplyDeleteOB is Bob Ryan?
I would want the guy more likely to hit the ball. And there a lot more of them on the '07 Yankees than the '78 team.
Cut the foxhole crap. It's a lame analogy for a any sport, let alone baseball.
he is someone who thought nothing of stealing a column name from the Globe and using it repeatedly.
Oh, heaven forbid. First, column titles aren't protected. I am sure if you went across this great nation, you would find many columns with the same titles. Second, I believe that when he started the column in question, the Globe had ceased to publish it. It later restarted the column.
I have a tape of Shaughnessy saying the Ortiz quote.
ReplyDeleteI will sell it for $500.
Damn Firefox. I hit restore session and now I see we need a lesson on stealing.
ReplyDeleteCan I run out and start a new radio program and call it "Imus in the Morning?" CBS canceled the program and he's not using the name. Maybe I'll do a cooking show and call myself Gus Saunders, since he's dead he's not using the name.
As plagiarism is plagiarism, stealing is stealing, so this fellow Allen stole a column name from a local paper. There is acceptable excuse for it; hiding behind half-baked references to copyright law can't justify it. It is shoddy and it is wrong -- the same way Borges work was shoddy and wrong.
Find me a single newspaper in a large or major market across the United States that uses the SportTView standing hed in the way the Globe did, with uppercase TV in the middle.
Now I must run off to meet with investors about my plan for a go-cart business. I think I'll call them Plymouths or Oldsmobiles, since those names aren't in use.
OB, way to conflate different issues and concepts to hide the fact you have nothing to say.
ReplyDeleteCar names are trademarks, and thus, property that continues to exist and have protections after the cars are on the market. There is no parallel to sportview. Are you really that stupid?
If your name were Imus, you could have a show Imus in the morning, but otherwise you would be misappropriating another person's name and using unfair business practices. The name doesn't have copyright protection, but there is some protection.
Are you going to go after The Herald in Sharon Pa for using the same column name? Or IPTV for using the same name with raised letters? The Globe dropped the column and Bruce tried to fill the void and pay tribute.
You will do anything to distract from the issue at hand. Because Bruce Allen used the same column as a discontinued Globe column nothing he ever says can ever be trusted. You are a bigger joke by the day.
OB:
ReplyDeleteI gotta admit, when you use wicked precious newspaper terms like "hed" and "makeread" ...
I get a boner.
Is that weird?
Vene vidi autie!
Wow. Obuse Bruce is beyond boring. He might even classify as formaldehydic. I can see why most posters don't survive repeat visits here - between the rancidity of Gangrenous Dan's tapped-out regurgitations of yesteryear's monochromatic contempt for everything that isn't red-headed, Irish, drunk and on ass-kissing terms with him, and OB's bizarre perspective of the midget's condescension, there is scant room for the oxygen on which we mere mortals subsist. While we're all swallowing our tongues with anticipation and anxiety of who Basement Bruce could possibly be, maybe he should take a glance down below his feet (since, as he has painstakingly pointed out, he's not presently in the basement) and recognize that the unionized sinecure that he calls his floor ain't there no more. As the Great Eno once said, "oh you headless chicken, can those poor teeth take so much kicking?"
ReplyDeleteThe Sharon (Pennsylvania) Herald? Sharon, Pennsylvania? That's the best you can do?
ReplyDeleteOh, right. IPTV.
You can't be serious.
Certainly a media "critic" who is so indignant about plagiarism ought not to be stealing column names from newspapers in his backyard. How can a thief be credible?
P.S. Do a bit of studying before taking your Copyright Law 001 final.
Get a clue. There is no issue of copyright.
ReplyDeleteJuli, there's that phrase again "unionized sinecure". Um, what is it with you and "unionized sinecure"?
ReplyDeleteI think you might be the worst writer I've ever read.
Posters don't revisit this blog because of people like you.
"Get a clue. There is no issue of copyright."
ReplyDeleteThe Berne Convention would suggest otherwise. But it would be subject to findings of law and fact if it were ever litigated.
Where are titles protected under copyright law? And why the sudden reference to the Berne convention? Are you googling as you go along to support your lost cause?
ReplyDeleteWearing your “anonymity” like a badge of honor:
ReplyDeleteI’ll be sure to tearily confess to my editor that I suck and to tell all of my readers to stop buying my books…except that I’m not a writer and this is a sports’ blog. Didn’t your mama ever tell you that when you flagrantly project your insecurities onto off-subject vitriolic attacks that you render yourself a fish in a barrel? I guess if I were Shaughnessy, I’d feel like my comments had really hit their mark, being that each of the two times I used the expression “unionized sinecure,” you responded with the predictable agitation of the affronted, even wearing your guilt on your sleeve on the first occasion and absent-mindedly accusing me of referring to your ilk as lazy, which I hadn’t done. Not to worry, though: I’m sure your “Assistant Editor – Adjunct Hall Monitor for the Photocopy Room” position is eternally protected by the latest labor agreement in spite of any prevailing realities in the real world marketplace. And if you hang in there another couple years, you might even have your pay grade raised from Level 6-17b.I to Level 6-17a.III. Now go back to the anonymity of your unionized sinecure.