Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Opening Day Ceremonies

Classic rock reference ("Tangerine trees and marmalade skies. Lugo in the sky with Neil Diamonds.")? Check

Dig at Schill? Check

Dan manages to sneak both those staple into his detailed recap of yesterday's ceremonies and game. A pretty good piece with some original humor. I am just glad he was there to capture all the nonsense and I could change the channel.


roger bournival said...

Lugo in the sky with Neil Diamonds.

Behold - this is what passes for insightful sports commentary at the Boston Globe, and they still can't figure out why readership is declining?

Chris said...

Strangely missing: any commentary on the FACT that the MEDIA was to blame for Buckner's decades-long personal crisis. This would be the same 'media cabal' that Shaughnessy is a 'proud' member of. I swear, there will be a parade in Boston when Shaughnessy takes a buyout or otherwise 'ceases to exist.'

dbvader said...

I may have to rethink my opinion on the Shank column.

Check out MacMullan's piece on Matsuzaka.

She has a theme, sticks to it, and highlights the key moment in Matsuzaka's game.

Dan's piece, on the other hand, reads like a second grader's 'What I Did on My Summer Vacation' essay.

First, they raised the flags. Then the planes flew over, then we went to our grandmother's in Ohio, then they played a Neil Diamond video, then I went to camp. I liked it. It was good. The end.

I would just like for him, onetime, to make an effort a craft a cohesive column about an important aspect of a game

Anonymous said...

Hey Chris, I don't think CHB missed it. He didn't report it but he probably had that comment by Buckner in mind when he snidely wrote: "Right up until he made the toss to Dwight Evans, we wondered whether John McNamara might send Dave Stapleton out to make the throw..."

What a jerk.

Anonymous said...

"... a blissful Nation that today knows little of ancient curses and defeats..."

Shank is really trying to keep that moronic curse alive. He's like a guy that can't get over a girl that dumped him.

Dave M said...

Two issues for me in particular

- The McNamara comment was uncalled for. Jerk

- The F-16 reference was not clean...the F-16 is an Air Force plane; Maverick and Ice were Naval aviators.

JJS37 said...

Dan is a douche...What the f did he say? Did he actually say anything? I mean, it seems like this guy is just being sarcastic the entire time. I mean, he's sarcastic over a World Series victory celebration to start the year? He makes it seem like his job is so insufferable. Oh my god. How can he sit through all of these celebrations? Wow, what a guy!!! And the whole joke about McNamara was Dan being a douche. Like he wasn't sitting in the press box in 2004 wishing Rivera would close out the Sox so he could write a sequel to "Curse of the Bambino." Douche.

Objectivebruce said...

We're defending John "I gotta to go f---ing Mass" McNamara?

How low will you people sink?

roger bournival said...

We're defending John "I gotta to go f---ing Mass" McNamara?

Ah. You must be the board's resident asshole...

Um, maybe you should read the comments again. You know, a comprehension thing!

Stating (re: McNamara) that a comment is uncalled for and that the writer is a douche / jerkoff / dickwad, etc. is not the same as defending McNamara. Is it a) Dan or b) McNamara that is the subject of those comments?

Let's leave you with this thought - if McNamara is indefensible (you seem to be saying that), yet none of the comments on the issue are actually directed at McNamara (that's the flip side of the comprehension thingy), isn't the whole point of the comments about Dan Shaughnessy sinking low?

Anonymous said...

Okay, I hate to say it, but I agree with Shank on one thing. The whole sideshow/Disneyland bullshit is getting really, really old. It's not a marketing vehicle, it's a fucking baseball team. Stop. Please, make it stop. I'm not one of those McAdam/Buckley baseball-as-metaphor for life, lyric little bandbox douchebags, either. I'm just so sick of the bandwagon, pink hat corporate fuckfaces that pass for fans these days.

Shaughnessy is a lazy, patronizing, passive-aggressive dickwad. But on this issue, he's right.


Monkeesfan said...

And Maverick was a walking Section Eight, to boot.

Anonymous #10 nails it - stop with the marketing, the Disleyland stupidity, and so forth, and just play the game! Sports need less marketing than they do emphasis on their game.

Monkeesfan said...

BTW, what's next - Grady Little throws out the first pitch at Fenway during a series with the Yankees?

dbvader said...

Okay, I hate to say it, but I agree with Shank on one thing. The whole sideshow/Disneyland bullshit is getting really, really old.

Then he should come out and say it, instead of couching it in his typical petty sarcasm that is so tired that everybody dismisses it as the character Dan plays.

Look, I realize it may sound odd coming from me, but at some point you have to make a point and quit with the sarcasm and cheap shots. If Dan came out like McAdam and wrote a sincere pierce about the over the top BS, it might mean something. jjs37 had it right, Shank has to stop with the bitterness and sarcasm or else he will be easily overlooked regardless of what he says.

JJS37 said...

No one is "defending" McNamara or Little or anyone else. It just gets to the point of how much more do you need to pile on these guys? The idea would be "We've won two WS, let's just let it all go." The people who pile on McNamara & Little and the like are the crazy, psycho, stalking ex-girlfriend types. Let it go. Who cares? All better now..As far as the whole "Pink Hat" brigade thing goes, sigh: IT COMES WITH THE TERRITORY!! That's what winning/popularity brings. It's not like the Patriots were selling out in the Macphereson era. And remember way, way, way back when the Celtics sucked? You know, last year? I don't remember too many sellouts that year. The same writers who bitch about this stuff are the same ones who quote attendance figures (that wouldn't be where they are without the bandwagon fans) for stories they write on the popularity of the Sox. Relax, enjoy it, it doesn't last forever. Ortiz & Manny get old and you make the wrong moves, you're back to being able to buy tickets for face value on the internet on game day. And that will be because the team sucks. Oh yeah, Dan is a douche.

Monkeesfan said...

jjs37, the Celtics did sell out last year.

"I don't remember too many sellouts in the Dick MacPherson era." No, but then those who went to the games were real fans, and when Kraft purchased the team the fans came out in force even before a single game had been played under his ownership; today's pinkhats are not even fans - a lot of them get tickets because some company they work for buys them in bulk.

Yes, we want to enjoy the success of the Red Sox, but that success gives no right to the punkhat crowd to exist. If you want to go to the games, know something substantive about the team and want to learn about the team and the sport; don't go because you just want to socialize and be seen; there are fans far more qualified than pinkhats trying to get tickets that the pinkhat crowd gets snapped up for them.

JJS37 said...

Monkeesfan: First, Kraft didn't purchase the team and the fans "turned out" right after. PARCELLS was hired by James Orthwein, with the intention of moving the team to St. Louis, and when that didn't happen, he sold the team. The fans came because they hired Parcells and they had the first pick with Bledsoe...Also, the Celtics were 23rd in the league last year in PCT of capacity, here's the link. Yeah, maybe they sold out a few times, but not many, because they were 23rd. And you know why? Because "Hardcore" fans don't sell out arenas. You know why? Because there aren't enough of them. Everyone knows this. And even the "hardcores" weren't going to go to a game in March vs. Orlando when the Celtics had like 18 wins or something. You can argue it all you want, but it's a simple math and marketing fact: teams don't care about hardcore fans because they know they have their money. It's the pink hats that they care about, because they make the difference. That doesn't mean I like it, it also doesn't mean it's not true. P.S. Dan is a douche.

Monkeesfan said...

jjs37, Othwein talked a good game about moving to St. Louis, but he never had his heart in owning an NFL team to start with (a point surprisingly few have ever pointed out - Leigh Montville is the only on I've found point this out), plus the lease with Foxboro Stadium (controlled by Kraft) and NFL opposition made a move impossible - the Patriots were never going to go anywhere but Foxboro. But a o of peole thought otherwise, and when Kraft purched the team, the team sold out all of its home games by summer.

Your stat about Celtics attendance doesn't jibe with the untrained eye - they kept sellig out even when they were a bad team.

Hardcore fans absolutely do sell out arenas. Pinkhats are never necessary or teams like the Patriots. So your argument about the pinkhats and marketing is nonsense - they can nix the pinkhat promotions and still ell out thei games by catering exclusively to real fans.

Chris said...

I love it when ObtuseBruce comes here to 'defend' the Boston Globe and all that it stands for. It's like calling a little child out to play.

JJS37 said...

Monkees: The point isn't whether Orthwein was going to St. Louis or not. The point was you said the reason why attendance picked up for the Pats was because Kraft bought the team. That had nothing to do with anything. If you showed Robert Kraft to the avg. fan on opening day vs. the Lions in '93 (I was there, Bledsoe's first home game), they couldn't pick him out of a lineup. Attendance picked up because of Parcells & Bledsoe. And where were all of the "hardcore" fans then? And, what does "your stat about attendance doesn't jibe with the untrained eye." What does that mean? Numbers are numbers. THe Celtics were 25th in percentage. Period. The Garden (or TD or whatever it's called this week) was 85% full for the season. You can keep saying "it was selling out" all you like, but the numbers don't match what you are saying...And again, answer me this question: If hardcore fans sell out buildings, how come attendance numbers fluctuate? By definition, don't hardcore fans attend no matter what? Otherwise they're fair weather fans, right? So what accounts for attendance numbers being different? Shouldn't the Garden have sold out every single game, every year?

Monkeesfan said...

jjs37, the Patriots didn't sell out all their home games in 1993; they did when Kraft bought the team; it was the first time they sold out all their home games, and no pinkhats existed; they showed up after the first Superbowl win.

As for Celtics attendence, your numbers don't jibe with the untrained eye, which witenssed continuous sellouts that make nonsense of those numbers you cite. Again, pinkhats didn't exist then; it's only now that pinkhats exist.

Attendence numbers fluctuate for numerous reasons, one of which is because the pinkhat nation has crowded out the real fans and the pinkhats don't go to all the games. The fact remains the pinkhats have no right to attend the games; the real fans have that right because they commit to the team.

JJS37 said...

Monkees: Re: Patriots numbers. Okay look, if you honestly thing even for one second that there's one person who said "Oh My god! Robert Kraft bought the team? I'm definitely going to the game now!!" You are crazy. Second, the numbers didn't start picking up UNTIL THE PATRIOTS STARTED WINNING!!! You just proved my point. THey didn't make the playoffs in '93, and did in '94, and that started everything. Why? BECAUSE THATS WHEN THEY STARTED WINNING!! Which is my whole point to begin with, and you still haven't answered my question: If hardcore fans can sell out stadiums, how come NE sells out now, but not in '93? Or any of the previous seasons going back to the late 80's? Answer: because there is not enough hardcores who will go to games whether their teams are topflight or not. Re: THe Celtics. I have not idea what "untrained eye" means. I have empirical evidence that shows the Celtics being 25th in attendance percentage, you have....what? I have no idea what "the pink hats have no right to attend a game." Who freaking cares???? You get to decide who goes to games and who doesn't? I know what you are saying, and I know it's a major pain in the ass when you are trying to watch the game and it's a big spot in the game and some stupid chick with her pink hat is standing up on a 3-2 count to Papi. I get that. I get that I get crappy seats even though I was there in 1996, 1984, and 1979, when they weren't contenders. I get all that. But you know what? That's the price of success. YOU ARENT GOING TO GET ENOUGH HARDCORE FANS WHEN YOU SUCK! So, you get the people who think it's the "in" thing. And next year it will be MMA or pro wrestling for them. Whatever. They have the right to pay their money and go to the game. Period.