Dan alternates between belittling Red Sox fans as out of touch "fanboys" and stirring the pot trying to whip fans into a frenzy over the Yankees. Thanks, but I will pass, Dan.
The Clemens signing gives Dan the opportunity to write breathless passages like this: "Clemens. At Fenway. In a New York uniform. Again. It's almost as if the Great Bambino himself announced he was making a comeback with the Bronx Bombers."
Or this one: "Some week here in the Hub. First we saw photos of uber-quarterback Tom Brady walking in the East Village wearing a Yankees cap and now the locally loathed Clemens is going back to the team Sox fans love to hate."
Spare us. Fans shouldn't be too upset by this move because Roger just isn't that good anymore. Dan mentioned the last time he faced the Red Sox was Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, but he failed to note what happened in the game. Dan also failed to mention that Roger averaged 6 innings per start in the National League. A pitcher who can only go 5 innings isn't great help for a team with a bad bullpen. Finally, over his last two seasons in the AL, Roger had about a 4.00 ERA. If you look at his game log from 2003, you will see Roger feasted on the bad offenses of the AL while routinely getting rocked by good lineups. So I say, bring him on.
Gratuitous Curt Schillling Dig Watch:
"Ever the blowhard, Schilling declared, "We don't need him" -- a comment of stupefying arrogance that is sure to come up a couple of million times between now and the end of the 2007 postseason."
What was the guy supposed to say? "Julian Tavarez sucks"? I like what Schilling said. Shows confidence in the team and the only people who will bring it up a million times are Dan and his lazy ilk.
Edit: 'Roger' for 'Dan' in paragraph 4
40 comments:
This is the same guy that made fun of Roger because of his weight issues and the fact that he is a prima donna. Now we are supposed to be upset over a guy whose last decent outing against the Sox was when he was with the Blue Jays?
The nappy-headed CHB really must hate Boston fans or think we are really stoooopid.
Here's Schilling's full quote, courtesy of the AP:
“It would have been nice to have him, but we didn’t need him. We DON’T need him,” Red Sox ace Curt Schilling said. “It’s May, a long way to go, but I like the way this team is comprised right now. This team has incredible makeup, it’s got great chemistry and I feel like we were a legitimate World Series contender without him, so it doesn’t change my mind.”
What a hack thing to do.
Curt said the right thing. The video that played above the story online discredited Shaughnessy's take on it.
The title of the blog is spot-on, and, as usual CHB's comment adds absolutely no useful insight into the situation, only throwing gas on the fire by making the reference to Brady...so predictable (and irrelevant).
What particularly bothers me about this article, though, is that CHB tries to separate himself from the fray, beginning the article by saying "he last pitched against YOUR team in October 2003" and "Roger-bashing has become a regional sport." As if he's some sort of passive bystander, lecturing others about how they should act. That's like Marty McSorley going up to a ref and saying "Hey, ref, apparently there are people throwing punches out there. Want to do something about that?"
I happen to agree with Schilling. I don't think we need Roger, or the drama that would ensue when he only shows his face in the clubhouse every fifth day. When Lester comes back, we have a strong 5-man rotation and no room for a guy who's making $1 million per start. Call it sour grapes if you want, but sometimes the grapes are sour.
I was confused by the "They recoiled when he mounted a horse after winning the World Series in Yankee Stadium." statement. Wasn't that Wade Boggs? Google Images returned no photos of Clemens astride a horse, and a Yankee-fan friend of mine says that there were no horses at Yankee Stadium those years, and Clemens was on top of the home dugout, spraying the fans with champagne.
And as far as rueing blowhard comments, how about that proclamation that the 2005 AL East race was over in June, Dan-O?
Says jim:
"Now we are supposed to be upset over a guy whose last decent outing against the Sox was when he was with the Blue Jays?"
Wrong:
5/27/99, 7IP, 2 hits, 1 ER
5/28/00 9 IP (CG), 5 hits, 2 ER
9/8/00 8 IP, 5 hits, 0 ER
4/14/01 6 IP, 5 hits, 2 ER
8/31/01 7 IP, 7 hits, 1 ER
9/3/02 7.1 IP, 4 hits, 1 ER
5/26/03 6 IP 9 hits, 2 er
10/11/03, 6 IP, 5 hits, 2 ER (ALCS W)
And yes, there were some shellings betwix and between, but his last "decent" outing vs. the Sox was hardly when he was with Toronto.
OB/Dan:
Why the constant hostility toward Curt?
Political views? Income envy? Or just plain
bitterness and stupidity?
When's Borges (Your fellow pinata) coming back?
Bruce
Any comment at all on the way Shaughnessy twisted the Schilling quote?
Please give me some sort of explanation for why he wrote the article up in the way that he did.
alright, well pretty much i think everyone in here is wrong/right simultaneously. bruce, you are right in that people do blindly worship the athletes around here. but you are also wrong,in that shaughnessy really is a hack and describing him as a "journalist" would be quite a euphemism. this blog, sucks, it's not funny, and if you don't like chb then don't read him. Firejoemorgan.com is funnier and makes more sense. Get over it, Schilling is a major dick, and Theo fucks up occasionally (though he's a damn good GM). The media, the players, most of them are just people trying to make money, they both can suck. Schilling and CHB would probably act remarkably similar as their counterpart if their situations were reversed (shaughnessy would be a loud mouth dick, schill would be that writer that is such an asshole that someone would make a blog about him).
anon 5:51
You really don't get the point. This isn't some Red Sox blog or Boston sports fan blog. It is a blog dedicated to skewering CHB. The motto is "We read him so you don't have to."
The point of the site isn't whether Theo made a good trade or if Schilling is a blowhard. It is Dan's kneejerk attacks on sports personalities without a whiff of insight. Twisted quotations and ad hominen attacks are Dan's specialty and this site will be here to expose each instance.
'Ever the blowhard?' Boy...talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Quote: "...Twisted quotations and ad hominen attacks are Dan's specialty and this site will be here to expose each instance."
To the Internet & blogs, we thank thee for existing.
Finally, over his last two seasons in the AL, Dan had about a 4.00 ERA. If you look at his game log from 2003, you will see Dan feasted on the bad offenses of the AL while routinely getting rocked by good lineups
I think you meant to say Roger had a 4.00 ERA, not Dan. I find it amusing because Dan seems like one of throw-like-a-girl types.
Also Roger feasted on bad offenses. Dan merely feasted on the free post-game buffet table while he sharpened his hatchet.
anon 5:51 ... ever notice there is no anti-Bob Ryan blog, no anti-Jackie MacMullan blog, there isn't even an anti-Gerry Callahan or anti-Borges blog. Yet this blog thrives. Maybe there's something to it?
I agree with the previous poster. There are aspects of this column that suck.
It sucks that Mr. Shaughnessey is so unprofessional, arrogant and downright weird that he generates a blog like this.
It sucks that there are so many sports fans in the Boston area (and, I assume, beyond it) that are so frustrated by this man that they feel they have to have a forum like this to vent their collective spleens.
It sucks that CHB was once a columnist that many in Boston felt represented them, a writer that was close to the pulse of Boston sports, and now is an angry, bitter and lazy, hack. (And if he's not lazy, then the medication needs strengthening: It was Wade Boggs that rode the horse!)
Indeed, it sucks that Boston sports fans, who love sports as much as or more than fans in most other cities, have a great paper like the Globe that has a sports section that is now the laughingstock of New England sports departments.
That's what sucks about this.
The columnist does seem to have confused Clemens' horse ride with that of Boggs. Clemens mounted up in 1986 and rode out to right field after he beat the Angels for the Pennant. But then I have never been one to spend much time watching Yanqui victory celebrations.
It's good to see that some of the knee-jerk haters managed to emerge from the basement long enough to check out Page One of the Monday Herald. This quote that Shaughnessy is being roasted for using was the front page hed. If there had been no Shaughnessy column Monday, would the self-appointed media reviewers have jumped all over the Herald about its hedline? Not a chance. Events must be shoe-horned to fit the agenda that emerges from the basement, and that agenda is to confirm pre-conceived notions about every column he writes.
Apparently think that we are supposed to root, root, root for the home team, any skewering of athletes and teams is an act of treason.
It is a parade of the ignorant.
As for Curt Schilling, he is one of the all-time phonies who works the camera as well as any politician ever did, but because he's one of Our Heroes, we're supposed to buy into it.
Quote: 'Events must be shoe-horned to fit the agenda that emerges from the basement, and that agenda is to confirm pre-conceived notions about every column he writes.'
Haha. Funny. Kinda like The Globe and how they 'shoe-horn' everything into their 'Bush is Bad' agenda. Don't get all 'high-and-mighty' about 'agendas' when The Globe is Exhibit A of same.
***************
The wheels are falling off the wagon on Morrissey Boulevard. Clearly. A couple weeks ago Ryan remarked after the Four-home-runs-in-a-row episode that Manny's shot landed a few rows in front of the Volvo sign. The idiot. Manny's ball soared over the sign and into the street beyond. Now Nappy-Hair is saying that Roger was on the horse.
I guess that precipitous drop in ad revenues and paid readership at The Globe has cost them a few 'fact checkers.' But then again, why let facts get in the way of a good agenda?
Bruce thank you very much for answering my question about what Dan meant by using the Schilling quote. It was concise and now I can actually see why Dan used it in that way.
No, wait a minute, I can't. That's because you once again avoided answering the question head-on like you always seem to do. That quote that was used was by Shaughnessy. I didn't even look at the Herald.
Now please, when a poster asks you a direct question about a quote, I would love to here your answer. Part of the reason for reading this blog is to here everyone's opinions on the matter, even yours. Could you please just give me a straight answer on why you think Dan used the quote this way? That's all I'm asking for.
What is Obtuse Bruce's obsession with basements? Is that where he was molested as a child or is that where The Globe keeps its jurassic park? He does supply a pretty steady stream of unintended irony, though; using Dan's cribbing of a front-page headline from across town as corroboration for his half-assed bile mongering. And yes, we are supposed to casually root, root, root for the home team without giving it too much importance, as opposed to inflicting all of our gut-wrenching socioeconomic hang-ups and accumulated slights on people just looking to kill some time with their breakfast.
Bruce, in what way are you objective? All you are is a CHB apologist whose purpose in life is to antagonize bloggers who share a common viewpoint. Get lost.
Ob,
As Bruce Allen points out, The Herald didn't call Schilling arrogant or a blowhard in reporting the quote. Big difference.
I would appreciate if you could once engage other posters on substantive issues instead of spraying insults and tired cliches about basements.
OB -
Eight games since 1996? Is that ALL there is?
To that end, he has had ONE playoff game, against the Sox that he performed accordingly so well to win. And yet you fail to mention the 2003 ALCS game 7 performance in which he was drivin out of and the 99 ALCS game where he was gone by the third inning. Name another, against any team that he performed at the level of say Schilling or Lowe or even Pedro? A game on the line. A game where it counted.
This guy ASKED OUT of game 6 in 1986, because of a damn BLISTER. Schilling had sutures in his leg and still pitched the game of his life.
I loved this guy when he was here in Boston, but I also hated his prima donna attitude and his selfish considerations.
Additionally, when he went to the Blue Jays he NEVER once mentioned Boston and its fans. Never thanked the team that gave him the chance to do what he loves. He is probably going to have a Yankee logo on his cap in the HOF, but we all know that a dollar sign should be there.
Can you blame Shank? Roger Clemens is going to make his job that much easier this year. His columns will virtually write themselves (not that they don't already).
Good shot across the bow of 38Pitches. Take what a guy said as a vote of confidence in his team and turn it into a Roger slam. Globe writers taking things out of context to suit their own agenda?...I'm shocked!!!
Hey Objective Dan,
So I'm ignorant because I root, root, root for the home team? Sue me, you nappy-headed sports ho. But that's it, right? You want everybody to be as f*cked up and miserable as you? Sorry. My life is pretty good, my sports teams, except for the Suck-tics, do pretty well. I'm cool with it all. Why aren't you? Dude, I'm not a shrink, but you just don't like your job, you don't like your life. It shows, it shows a lot. I think you're in denial about this, but at the same time, the way you write screams unhappiness. Not with us, not with the Red Sox, but with yourself. Talk to somebody, truly. I'm sure you'll make fun of this post, but my friend, you know I'm right.
O/B posted:
Apparently think that we are supposed to root, root, root for the home team, any skewering of athletes and teams is an act of treason
That "root, root, root" or "love, love, love" reference that Bruce has used several times is coming to the same level as "Grey Poupon". If you don't know what it means look it up.
it is kind of funny how Obtuse Bruce uses the same phrases over and over ... just like CHB himself! Coincidence?
If Obtuse Bruce uses "uber-" anywhere, he is definitely caught out. You can look it up, but I heard somewhere that uber means super and you can put it before just about any word to show you are hip to many of the expressions of the late 1980s.
And why not add Der Hauptverlierer Dan to his burgeoning list of nicknames, since it flows about as mellifluously as his prose.
It's anon 5:51 again. What I was trying to say that this website is entirely pointless. Great, you read and talk about CHB all the time. I know, I know, he is complete hack. CHB is a columnist, not really a reporter at this point, so he pretty clearly is just attempting to create a buzz. It doesn't matter if he makes absolutely no sense. Do you think Bill Oreilly is on Fox because he is known for his logical thinking? Do you think that CHB is being employed by the Globe for years on end, and they have no idea of his incompetence the one day they stumble upon this site and go "Hey...wow I NEVER NOTICED...Shaughnessy sucks, well i guess he gets the can now." It's bizarre why he in the position he is, but then again why do Bill Plasche and Mike Celzic (aka Hat Guy) have jobs? It's sports writing, this isn't coverage of Iran we're talking about.
And OB, we all know the players aren't perfect. We all know our teams aren't perfect. But what is wrong with blindly supporting a sports team? Humans have a real tendency to stray towards total, radical devotion, so isn't sports a decent way to channel it? And all this blind proclaimed ignorance in support of our local crews, I think you may stray a bit towards that in your defenses of CHB. Maybe I am just a little too removed, but I see the current atmosphere of sports coverage entirely excessive. It creates false stories and ruins the game. The steroid coverage, that is something important but again that is not something that falls just into the realm of sports anymore. I don't really see why you feel the need to defend a sports writer with such fervor or why you attack people for blindly supporting a sports team, when support of a certain sports team is entirely subjective in the first place.
Anon, I don't agree, and not just because I launched this site. "Ed Gold's" repeated send-ups of Bob Greene's work helped set the stage for the latter's eventual firing from the Chicago Tribune. No, Greene wasn't dumped based on "Gold's" (actually, Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun-Times) criticism, but he helped shred Greene's credibility and reputation, so when a young woman came forward to reveal a past relationship with Greene, there was no one left to support the hack.
Perhaps we will be as lucky.
In other news, OB's comments are a fairly obvious attempts to divert from the real issue: To document The CHB's repeatedly hypocritical writings and outright mistakes.
Wow. The Fellowship of the Incoherent.
In order of appearance (and ignoring the sillier nonsense, such as Globe hates Bush, where a home run ball landed, the Globe-is-doomed):
Anonymous 7:50: He used the quote that way because it was a rather inflammatory statement, despite the attempts by Schilling and his apologists to rationalize it. It WAS Page One in the Herald and despite the attempts to backtrack, Schilling said it. Nothing is out of context.
Juli La Chuli: The suggestion that a columnist was "cribbing of a front-page headline from across town as corroboration for his half-assed bile mongering" may be the most nonsensical statement ever made. I would suggest that the column was written before the Herald hit the street.
dbvader: Excuses, excuses, excuses. Allen made a tremendously insipid statement and has now joined his hero in backpeddling and justifying. Allen's jumping into the tank for his hero is probably deserving of more criticism than the comments of casual posters to a blog, since he seems to have annointed himself as some sort of arbiter of what is right on sports pages (and this from someone who gleefully stole a column title from the Globe.)
jim: Yup, Clemens has turned in eight decent peformances against the Hose since 1996. Which is eight more than you were willing to give him credit for.
Juli La Chuli @ 2:14: Uber-absurd. Uber-nonsense.
mike_b1: Thank you for admitting, again, that the point of the blog lies in your fantasy world that you will somehow bring down a columnist, that the point of the blog is to spew nasty stuff about one individual's work in the hope of gaining widespread recognition, and that every column will be read with an eye to ripping it, rather than intelligently considering the content.
I'm not Dan. I never met him. I disagree with what he writes about half the time, but I think the columns are engaging enough to be grand fun. After all, we're talking about sports here. I do, however, find the basic premise of this blog to be offensive in the extreme, to the point where I can't resist making a comment or two when an especially insipid comment comes floating up from the basement.
One more questions OB/Dan:
Do you work for the Globe?
Simple question.
Yes or no?
I sorry I just don't get it.
This is what Schilling said:
“It would have been nice to have him, but we didn’t need him. We DON’T need him,” Red Sox ace Curt Schilling said. “It’s May, a long way to go, but I like the way this team is comprised right now. This team has incredible makeup, it’s got great chemistry and I feel like we were a legitimate World Series contender without him, so it doesn’t change my mind.”
This is what Dan said that Schilling said: "We Don't Need Him". He then goes on to call him a blowhard and that the statement was "Stupefy(ingly) arrogant". These are Dan's words.
Where in the world did Schilling backtrack?
And also, what does the Herald headline have to do with what Dan said. Dan twisted the quote to mean something else from what Schilling said entirely.
quote: "In order of appearance (and ignoring the sillier nonsense, such as Globe hates Bush, where a home run ball landed, the Globe-is-doomed):"
I guess if you can't refute something, the next best thing is to ignore it and move on to something you can, possibly, refute.
OB,
He used the quote that way because it was a rather inflammatory statement... Nothing was out of context.
Shouldn't that be for the reader to decide? By quoting Schilling the way he did and adding the completely subjective commentary he distorted the statement. There was no context of the full quotation in which you can realize that Schilling's thoughts are developing. You must be a miserable person just like Dan in order to be able to enjoy and even defend such hackery and downright venomous writing.
"Bring down a columnist"...hehehe
I like that.
It's been great fun forcing the Globe to issue clarifications and corrections. And the voice message from The CHB himself was downright hilarious. I'm thinking of making it my outgoing message.
"And the voice message from The CHB himself was downright hilarious. I'm thinking of making it my outgoing message."
Where is this? I want to hear it! :)
Anon 5:51 once again (i finally actually registered a name), I hope Shaughnessy does get fired. He is undoubtedly a bitter man with an agenda. But he is a columnist, it's not Chris Snow or Gordon Edes writing this stuff (although they are both way too good sports writers to ever even be considered to suck like that). Why Shaughnessy? There is no lack of bad sports writers around here, or even sports broadcasters. Why not Denis& Callihan.com? Shaughnessy sucks, yes we agree. But his job isn't really to make sense. His job is to essentially be interesting. Which, granted he sucks at. This site won't get him fired, you can be sure of that. Hopefully he just lets something racist slip to get canned soon enough. I don't like the way Bruce consistently backs up CHB but in a way I have to agree in part with him. All of the articles dissected on this site are done so with an attitude heading in of "where can we find his errors today?" I really don't see the point of this site. It seems so blatantly obvious from the onset of the logical flaws with CHB's writing that a blog examining them seems entirely unnecessary. Maybe I have just never taken him seriously enough to really hate him that much. You cannot single-handedly place the blame on him for the atmosphere of the local sports media. When it comes to talking about sports in general in the media using things known as "facts" or backing up conversations with actual evidence rather than the flavor-of-the-week knee-jerk sentiment is not popular in the least bit.
The Dan Shaughnessy Watch, Watch (now under development). We'll read these chuckleheads so you won't have to.
Post a Comment