In his lead-in today, Shaughnessy does his best to channel classic Gammons: "....don't lower the storm windows just yet" he cautions. Autumn has been postponed. Summer lives another day.
And so the roller coaster ride that is known as a Dan Shaughnessy article/column/monstrosity continues today. As has been pointed out in this space over the past week, Shaughnessy has gone from euphoric to stable to sullen to downright vitriolic over the past week. Yesterday's "blame game" piece was particularly venemous and Shank-like.
And yet after one simple win, signs of hope and optimism emerge yet again. No blame game today. Beckett is awesome and good ole Schill is one of the best playoff chuckers in the game. Still, a little summer left. There is hope after all. Theo and the minions have been granted a pass to live another day.
Perhaps, Shaughnessy is just a fan like the rest of us poor bastards who live in Ma's basement? He does not appear to have the capacity to objectively think--he just reacts. In the wake of his euphoria last week, we pointed out that all was not rosey despite 4 consecutive wins. But Shaughnessy would not have that - the Sox run to the championship had the air of inevitability. Three losses later and Shaughnessy dug up every worm he could find - dishing Drew to Pedroia to Gagne, Epstein and Francona and pretty much everyone else. You know what, Shank....if you had looked a little closer, you would have realized that Drew and Gagne and Lugo and Crisp all stunk last week too - you know when the Red Sox were on their inevitable ride to the World Series. And they will probably stink on Saturday and Sunday too. The essential characteristics of a team don't change that much from day to day over a 1 week span.
If you had the capacity to dig a little, a three game losing streak would not have been all that surprising and we would not be subjected to your roller coaster of emotions and petty attacks. How you manage to skate by is simply stunning to me...I wonder when the storm windows of your career will be lowered?
This slightly off-topic but why do the Globe's "big three" columnists use the device: "Red Sox Nation turns its *fearful or apprehensive adjective* eyes to *the starting pitcher du jour*". Mrs. Robinson was written 40 years ago and Simon and Garfunkel and they were talking about Joe DiMaggio!
ReplyDeleteShank has done it too many times to count. Now Bob Ryan made it the first line of yesterday's column. Way to stay topical guys.
I'd love to comment, but this ranting gibberish makes absolutely no sense.
ReplyDeleteYou know what they say about columnists?
ReplyDeleteIt only has to be right today.
Thus, the yo-yo effect.
I'd love to comment, but this ranting gibberish makes absolutely no sense.
ReplyDeleteKinda like saying that an article does not mention videotaping when it is right there in the second paragraph?
Objective Bruce
ReplyDeleteRarely agree with you but never pegged you for a complete idiot.
The point is this...Shaughnessy is void of the ability to perform any semblance of reasonable analysis.
Last week, he waxed poetic about the dominance of the Red Sox. In the very pages of this blog, it was pointed out that his unbridled optimism had a weak foundation--the Sox pitching was suspect (not to mention the anemia in certain parts of the batting order.)
Sure enough, the Sox lost a game and Shaughnessy became tempered with his odd abbreviated column after last Saturday night's game. In the very pages of this blog, we predicted he would become vindictive if they lost 1 or 2 more. Sure enough, the venom emerged this week.
IS he entitled to change his position? Sure enough - have at it! My fundamental point and objection is that the things he was taking pots shots at this week were very much evident the previous week--Drew, Lugo, Gagne all stunk last week....and they stunk this week too.
If he was capable of objective analysis, he would not have been painting such a rosy picture last week and such a bleak venomous picture this week. If he was capable of objective analysis, three losses in a row to the Indians would not be a shock and an impetus for him to start playing the blame game.
The guy is a hack pure and simple. Why you cant see that is beyond me.
OB
ReplyDeletePerhaps this will make it easier for you to understand.
A reasonable analyst understands information "A" at a point in time and concludes "X"
The analyst is later given new information "B" ...has a revelation and now concludes "Y"
With Shank...last week he had information "A" and concluded X; this week he still has information "A" but now concludes "Y".
His inconsistency boggles the mind