That is my immediate reaction upon reading the headline to today's column, "Pieces found along the trail." Let's see how bad it can get.
It is a tired format, one that demands a lot of effort either to avoid repeating items that have already flown around the web or to bring a new perspective on an event. And Dan does alright and manages to find some items that I had not picked up, although the wear of the effort shows in places.
Dan leads with an Roger-Evita comparison that ends with ""Don't Cry For Me, NESN Tina." Meh.
A little bit more about Roger, Yankees-Red Sox, and a few bits that he really has been holding on for a while. (Manny Ramirez being taken in the NFL Draft. Mildly amusing when it happened, not so funny 11 days later.)
A few things that struck me:
Spy magazine used to have a feature called "Logrolling." It highlighted authors who would swap glowing praise in blurbs on book jackets. Dan does his half today, praising the new books by Frank Deford and Tim Kurkjian. I am little dubious of the latter's book considering Kurkjian's recollection of the last 25 years of baseball has no PED's in it.
Dan has a bit comparing reactions to Red Sox-Yanks news in Boston and New York including this line "Clemens going to the Yankees was Page One, above the fold, in the Monday Globe. It was below the fold on the cover of the Times." Anyone who has ever read the Paper of Record would recognize the absurdity of citing the Times' treatment of a sports story as indicative of the pulse of New York. In fact, that the story made the front page at all would suggest the Times went overboard.
"Didn't we all like Alex Gonzalez and Mark Loretta a whole lot more than Julio Lugo and Dustin Pedroia? The keystone change at Fenway has done wonders for the career of Alex Cora." Not good timing as Pedroia went deep last night and is looking great. I don't know why I have to remind him, but Loretta stunk last year and barely got a job this year. Also, has anyone else noticed the season Gonzalez is having? He has 7 home runs already. He is hitting .300 with a SLG% over .550.
"You simply would not believe what a big deal it's been in Los Angeles since the Dodger Stadium parking fee was bumped from $10 to $15 this year. The Ripoff Bros. lots around Fenway get $35 without argument. I will never understand Dan's inability to grasp the basics of market economies. They charge $35 because people will pay $35. Pretty simple.
28 comments:
The parking comment was the one comment that had me shaking my head. Chavez Ravine is not in the middle of of LA where Fenway is in the middle of the city. If you have ever seen an aerial photo of Dodger Stadium the parking lot is huge.
This was the epitome of a throwaway column -- a bunch of random crap that I don't really care about (horse racing, Dan's take on the Pistons, Tony Pena's son, and George Brett's benevolent tendencies). The only writers that have done this well are Mike Barnicle and Bill Simmons.
One thing that particularly annoyed me about the column was this quote:
"There's a long-held theory that Boston fans spend a lot more time thinking about New York than the other way around."
While this may be true, the evidence Dan cites is the disparate press coverage of Brady and Clemens in Boston and New York. Hello? It should have struck Dan that mabye he should have said:
"There's a long held theory that the Boston MEDIA spends a lot more time thinking about New York than the other way around."
It's like a chicken and egg thing, and I think that The CHB is the chicken laying the egg.
As the official character spokesman for the United States Postal Service, I would like to thank Mr. Shaughnessy for his patronage.
When you are mailing in a column, remember the USPS, We Deliver Drivel For You
"Didn't we all like Alex Gonzalez and Mark Loretta a whole lot more than Julio Lugo and Dustin Pedroia?
eh, no...we don't - personally I like having a short stop who can hit and a second baseman that isn't 76 years old
Didn't we all like Ernie Roberts, Ray Fitzgerald (fill in with anyone who ever wrote for the Globe) a whole lot more than that ugly curly haired moron?
Southpaw -
The biggest difference between Barnacle/CHB and Bill Simmons is Simmons is funny. One of the best columns I ever read from Simmons was his Godfather/Red Sox season column. I laughed so hard.
The nappy-headed CHB has never come close to that kind of talent.
Remarkable that comments about a "throwaway" column in a "tired format" are little more than tired throwaway lines.
Even more remarkable is the lack of reading comprehension. One example: There was a fuss when the price to park hit $15 in Los Angeles. That's an ironic item of note, considering that people here would be quite pleased to pay $15 to park rather than be gouged by parking lot operators who pack their real estate beyond the legal capacity. Right wing economics may explain it, but it certainly doesn't justify it.
And Fitzgerald was generally wonderful, especially with the second-day leads for the PM Globe on the day after a night game; Ernie "lets start of with a couple over easy with a rasher of bacon from a pig from Babe Ruth's farm, some hash browns and a couple of boysenberry pancakes topped with whipped cream and some maple syrup from Bellows Falls in honor of how it's warm out today and Carleton Fisk was born the day after Christmas when it's usually cold out, and that reminds me, some porridge with cream" Roberts wrote a pretty good Saturday notes column; and Harold Kaese practically invented the art of supporting argument through the use of esoteric statistics.
But I'll take Shaughnessy to Hy Hurwitz, Clif Keane (with the sole exception of the paragraph that led the paper on 10/2/67), Bob Holbrook, Roger Birtwell, Jack Barry or Herb Ralby.
OB/Dan:
Wow, your knowledge of esoteric, useless Globe facts is truly remarkable. No wonder you're all bummed out that the paper is screwing the pooch.
Never did answer my question about the Globe's objectivity.
OB - "right wing economics?" It's called realworld economics. So you want the lots around Fenway to cut to $15.00? Care to offer an idea how?
One can always count on Obtuse Bruce to come through.
See Bruce, as with every other lazy item CHB dreams up off the top of his head then doesn't bother to take a minute to research, the Dodgers parking item is utterly lacking in context.
The Dodger Stadium lot has enough parking to accomodate a crowd of more than 55,000. Fenway has a few small lots in the area. Not to mention, a Red Sox fan who doesn't want to pay $35 has the option of taking the T for a whole lot less than $10, much less $35. Dodgers fans either drive, or don't go to the game.
But of course, we call you Obtuse Bruce for a reason, and that's in part because you love to distract with non-sequitors. You see Bruce, not only am I not a right-winger, but I've never voted for a Republican in my life. I did however, take Economics 101, as it would appear most of the readers here have, regardless of political affiliation, and that's why it took about three seconds to realize CHB's comparisons between the cost of parking in Boston in LA is completely without merit.
Not like the Red Sox actually *own* all those lots anyway. What does the team have to do with the prices to park in them anyway?
Jim -
Did you see the one with the "Anchorman" quotes? Even though I'm not a huge NBA fan, I think that's my favorite. Check it out: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050804
Hey Statfreaks got a question for ya (non-Shaughnessy related)
I'm trying to find out if there is anyway to figure out the correlation between a team's starting rotation staying free of injury and there overall success towards winning divisions, playoffs, World Series etc.
I seem to recall that in 04 the sox rotation missed only one or two starts all year (I think Wake missed it, not sure though). I also remember the White Sox starters being very strong all year when they won it and the Tigers being very stable too.
The reason I ask is related to Roger coming back. The Yankees have already lost a ton of starts by their best five pitchers, while the sox have been very stable.
My question is based on the last few years track records, are they really already out of the race? I think if the stats seem to say they are, then Roger didn't really come back for anything but the money. I know that's not a huge revalation overall but I would love some backup when I discuss it with Yankes fans who can't see the light.
Would someone have an idea on where to find out about that? Probably baseballreference.com or something like that I would think? Thanks
Baseball-reference.com now has a lot of split stats and such that you can look up.
Red Sox starters in 04 did not miss a start after Arroyo replaced Kim in mid-April. After that point the only start by someone outside of the rotation (Wake, Schilling, Pedro, Lowe, Arroyo)was a start by the lefty out of LBSU in a doubleheader.
As for your question. Yes, it is better if the rotation set at the beginning of the year goes is the same throughout the year. But this fact is just the result of having a good healthy rotation.
In the Yankees case, it is better to run through the pitchers early in the season to establish who can pitch (and be healthy) rather than maintaining a rotation to maintain a rotation.
Check out the Mets last year. There was some instability in the rotation yet they were probably the best team in the NL. (See also the Braves in the last few years.)
Don't confuse cause for effect in this instance. Good teams generally don't use a lot of starting pitchers because they have good SP. But a team does not guarantee a good rotation by sticking with the same 5 pitchers and a team is not thwarted by a little bit of upheaval at the back of its rotation.
Wow, morrissey mole will certainly go length to justify another round of bitters.
The point is not whether parking is scarce at Dodger Stadium or whether "economics" justify the current parking fee.
The point is that people in la-la-land are moaning about a parking charge that's less than half the fee here. It's an ironic aside. It's not a commentary on Laffer or Keynsian economics.
Don't choke on your own bile; the haste to hate should not cloud one's judgment.
We'll give anonymous at 1:29 PM his own special answer.
The Globe is far more objective than the Herald in its news columns. Both papers suffered million-dollar libel judgments. The Globe sucked it up because a defense would require revealing sources. It refused and the court would not allow it to present a defense. The Herald's behavior in "going after" a judge produced a supreme court decision that noted that a reporter was "thoroughly and convincingly impeached by his own deposition testimony," in which he "contradicted his trial testimony in every material respect."
Why did the reporter lie? Because. as the Supreme Court noted, the Herald decided to try to make a judge "the target of public disgrace," and whip up a controversy.
I don't work for the Globe and never had. But I don't think you'll find court cases detailing lies told by Globe reporters in furtherance of either the paper's political agenda or its need to sensationalize.
Story selection itself involves the imposition of one's values as to what is important, so the Globe's objectivity is always open to discussion, as is the objectivity of any other traditional news outlet.
But show me where the Globe covered a news story and its repoters were found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have made a "material change in the meaning conveyed by [a] statement" made by a news source, or when one of its reporters was found by a court to have engaged in "lack of candor on the witness stand," and "failed to interview" anyone other than a single source who provided the quotes the paper needed for its sensationalized coverage. How bad was the Herald's bias? The supremes cited the herald's "purposeful failure to investigate known witnesses" and the reporter's throwing away his notes after being told by the attorney for the other side that the client had been misquoted. The court found that a jury was justified in believing that the Herald reporter "discarded his notebook in a deliberate effort to conceal what he knew were inaccuracies in his reporting," and "admitted, in his deposition testimony, that the confrontational setting described in his article might have been a fabrication."
But this was not a reporter run amok. "Purcell admitted that he knew that attributing the 'tell her to get over it' quotation to a judge in the Superior Court would cause a 'media frenzy.' The conclusion is inescapable that a 'media frenzy' was, in fact, exactly what the defendants intended."
Is the Globe objective? Against the backdrop of the behavior of the other paper in town, the Globe must be considered completely objective, with the caveat that story selection itself will be never be 'objective.'
But show me a published news story in which any of the adjudicated sins of the Herald were ever committed by the Globe and then defended by the paper in court.
Show me. Just one.
Ob -
Just stop, now.
Southpaw -
Yes that was a good one, but not on the level of the Godfather column, mainly because that season self-destructed sooooo badly.
The funniest thing about all the "mommy's basement" jokes is how many people who work on the Globe's sports desk actually lived with their mommies well into their 30s and 40s and in some cases still do.
Spare me the glib infantile remarks and show me a published news story in which any of the adjudicated sins of the Herald were ever committed by the Globe and then defended by the paper in court.
Show me where, on its news pages, the Globe is not being "objective."
I'll bet you can't.
Game. Set. Match.
Bruce, I am not disputing the claim that the Globe is more objective than the Herald. For me there really is no contest. The Herald is one step above one of the newspapers you find in check-out lane at Stop & Shop.
Having said that, I don't know if you should be claiming victory like this so loudly. I would like to direct your attention to a week or so ago when you asked (not for the first time either) for a verification on the infamous Shaughnessy quote about Ortiz. It has bee provided to you twice in the span of a month, having checked previous posts.
I would say it is interesting that you are hammering on about the Globe and declaring "Game. Set. Match.", when you yourself have a habit of ignoring answers given by others that refute your claims.
P.S. If you want to I can post the Date, Time, Radio Station and quote that Shaughnessy said again if you can't remember.
Game, set, match, my ass.
Being more objective than the Herald is akin to being the world's tallest midget, so please stop with that.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to cite chapter and verse all the times the Globe was furthering their own agenda. But you know, and I know, there is an agenda and a lack of objectivity.
To suggest otherwise is ridiculous and you know it.
Before you go off on one of your "right wing kook" rants, spare me.
I am a proudly registered Democrat and have never voted for any GOP candidate. In fact, I probably share the Globe's agenda. I just have the stones to admit there is one.
Please stop. Just stop.
Thank you, OB, for coming into this shrine of hatred for The Globe and Shaughnessy so regularly and reading through all the messages. It's very pleasing to know that even Globe and Shaughnessy defenders are getting a strong dose of this. The worst thing would be for Globe and Shaughnessy defenders and apologists to not even pay attention to this blog. It's great knowing that the bullets are hitting home! Just knowing that Dan knows he's universally hated is fine justification for all that goes on here.
I think Objective Bruce doth protest too much, methinks. Apologies to Shakespeare (look him up).
I'll be nice and say that the Globe leans to the left (a gross understatement) and the Herald leans slightly to the right (most of the time). And you know what? That's okay with me because we have a choice. We can read a newspaper that basically looks at the world through the same prism as we do or not.
So what if the Globe leans to the left? Personally, I like my news to be as objective as possible. That's why I don't subscribe to the Globe or any other newspaper in MA. I guess I'm just too hip for old fashioned media.
The Globe leans massively to the Left, but they look and sound utterly foolish in trying (weakly and weekly) to convince us otherwise. Once upon a time, before Blogs like this came along, The Globe pretty much had its way. Today, you're seeing venom and anger and rage from all the Globe writers and columnists because they do NOT have things their way.
Rupert Murdoch put it best when he did away with the charade of "objective news" by offering other opinions posing as "news" that ran contrary to standardized version of other opinions posing as news that pervaded all of the other major national news outlets: "I found a 'market niche' that happened to cater to 52% of the population of the United States."
Anonymous at 7:52 might want to try making a point without trite recitation of movie cliches.
OB/Dan:
Meow!
Anon 7:52
Speaking of 'groan,' I noticed the title of Sunday's column from Nappy-Hair is 'Decision for Schilling? No. Lots going on? Yes.'
Of course, I refused to read it...knowing full well that Nappy Hair is simply using his bully pulpit to carry forth a personal vendetta against Schilling ("How DARE you have a blog where you can communicate directly to fans! That is the job of the almighty Boston Globe and the even MORE almighty ME...Dan Shaughnessy!').
So, I look forward to reading the venom about this column even though I refuse to read the column itself. It can be said with 100% accuracy that 'We've seen this movie before.'
Post a Comment