Links

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Apologize for not posting lately - I am in the process of moving to Virginia and internet access on the road is dicey at best.

Quick recap--today's column on Bonds (All Star preview) is more of the same thought process from his Bonds column several weeks ago (his first game at Fenway)

Bonds is a pariah...It's a joyless/fradulent chase - okay Dan - we know where you are coming from.

No new insights here but how do you know that Frank Robinson didnt cheat? I am not saying he did but Shaughnessy is guilty of the halo effect of assuming all players from the 70s and before are beyond reproach.

Hope to get back in a regular rhythm in two weeks

5 comments:

mike_b1 said...

Frank Robinson almost certainly took greenies.

And Shaughnessy feted Bonds in the past, only to reverse course when popular opinion turned against him. Talk about asleep at the wheel.

Good luck with the move.

Anonymous said...

Another negative reference (albeit brief) to Schilling.

This must be said somewhere, only because it counts….. In the advance praise section (back of the dust jacket) of Tim Kurkjian’s book, "Is This a Great Game, or What?", Shaughnessy describes the book as “Hilarious, irreverent, informative”. He also adds that “….Kurkjian has finally collected all his great stories for everyone to enjoy. I can’t wait for volume two”.

Kurkjian writes on page 132 that Clemens set the strikeout record for a nine inning game (20) in 1985. I would think that either Shaughnessy or Gammons, who also added some advanced praise, might have informed the author that the record was actually set in 1986.

Anonymous said...

Well, you did miss two columns on the Celtics ... notable for the following:

What ever happened to young ideas?
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2007/06/29/what_ever_happened_to_young_ideas/

"So, there it was. After losing to win in February, March, and April . . . after drawing the shortest of straws May 22 in Secaucus, N.J. . . . after lying for weeks about going young and using the No. 5 for a flossy young colt . . . the Celtics caved to Paul Pierce and the howling masses."

- So by howling masses he means the readers of the Globe sports section, the fans? When I read it I thought how out of touch Shank is with the fans as every poll I saw, the fans overwhelmingly wanted the Celtics to keep and use the pick. Then just a few days later:

It's all on Pierce's shoulders now
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2007/07/05/its_all_on_pierces_shoulders_now/

When he made the deal for Allen on draft night, the Celtics were graded as big losers by many pundits and a significant portion of the dwindling Celtic constituency.

- Someone at the Globe must have clued him in since that last column and told him what 'the howling masses' really wanted.

Anonymous said...

I read that Celtics article too. The last paragraph laid on the sarcasm real thick. I believe the last three sentences were:

"It's not Wyc and Steve's fault. It's not Doc and Danny's fault. It's Paul's fault."

I think that he was genuinely putting the blame on Celtic brass, which in my opinion is completely deserved. I guess I could be totally misinterpretting it, but I think I might stand with Shaughnessy on this subject, snarkiness aside.

James said...

Regarding the Paul Pierce column... couldn't tell if DS was being sarcastic or not.

But I guess I'm one of the few fans who actually liked the trade. I think there was a screaming need for a talented veteran on that team, whether Pierce wanted one or not, and Ray Allen fits the bill. Great scorer, great guy, and the seriousness of his surgery has been WAYYYYYY overstated. He had bone spurs removed. Big deal.

Anyway, my theory is that no matter what the Celtics did with the pick, fans and sportswriters would have hated it.