Dan writes about the Celtics' decisive victory over the Pistons in Game 3 of their playoff series last night. Dan says the Celtics had their game faces on and played crisp basketball in winning their first playoff game on the road.
One thing he mentions that makes you realize how ridiculously drawn out the playoffs are is that the Celtics have not won at home since April 14--it has been a long long time. This also helps you realize about how long Shaughnessy has harped on this home-road story line - it has been a long, long time. It will be nice to finally move on. No telling what he will grab on to next.
As a game recap, Dan's account is pretty good. Where Dan always seems to falter in my opinion is when he editorializes. He says things like "There's certainly great temptation to overstate Boston's decisive win last night." in a story in which he does just that -- hinting now that the Celtics have won game 3 that their path to the finals is clear.
He also continues his rants about the peripheral -- in Cleveland, he hated the "diff board" and in Detroit, he hates the noise and pyrotechnics. Although I tend to agree with him that things like these are grating, it is not as if it is a new occurrence--NBA arenas have been packaging games like this for years (and I believe Stern has recently stated he would like to take it down a notch or two)
Bottom line: It is a decent enough read just with your typical Shaughnessy stock room side commentary.
8 comments:
He also continues his rants about the peripheral -- in Cleveland, he hated the "diff board" and in Detroit, he hates the noise and pyrotechnics.
And we've exhumed Gino from the American Bandstand graveyard. Funny how Dan doesn't mention that war crime.
The question of the day, however, is how ignorant will the commentary be about Shaughnessy's other column of the day, which is an excellent look at the level of access and familiarity of journalists to and with players.
I think I'll go brace myself for the coming onslaught of ignorant smart-guy remarks that "newspapers hate it that everyone has access," or "the dinosaurs are whining about their monopoly," or (my personal favorite) "the Globe will be dead soon."
Bring it on.
Or that no talent white guys who know the home row on a keyboard are suddenly authorities on basketball when they've never run a flex offense or the Georgetown drill or couldn't tell a drop-step from a dropkick...
O. Bruce
Thanks - I must admit missing Shaughnessy's commentary. I will write about it later tonight.
As for ignorant commentary, you should know it well. You are a master of it
Dave M
The CHB's piece on access to players was, despite his exhortations to the contrary, nothing more than a long whine.
To believe it is to believe the media back in the day gave their readers an honest appraisal of their subjects.
To believe it is to believe Will McDonough (whom openly mocked The CHB, by the way) could honestly write about Bill Parcells after the two spent several nights together as boating/drinking buddies; or that Tony Maz could write a fair, unbiased piece on Big Papi after writing his authorized biography -- and financially benefiting from the work. The writers are too close to their subjects; they can't.
To believe it is to believe that Curt Schilling, to name one, can't tell us what's going inside his own head better than The CHB, who never misses an chance to toss a grenade at him.
But The CHB, whom in all other rambles holds himself up as a beacon of ethics and fairness, ignores all this.
As Gob, Will Arendt's character on Arrested Development might say, "COME ON!"
Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
or (my personal favorite) "the Globe will be dead soon."
Bring it on.
Is this what you're talking about?
Just curious...
The Globe won't be gone soon, which is of no concern. The real issue is that the adopted orphan (Globe) and sick parent (NYT) are both doing horribly. We have a poster child for DSS right there. Let the pink slips and plummeting morale continue; That the newspaper won't be 'gone' doesn't mitigate the basic doom & gloom surrounding parent and 'child.'
As for Shaughnessy, I loved this column because it reinforces his utter disdain for the 'new' media and his anger at generally being short-circuited from the news-delivery process. He's an old-media 'gray-hair' who is paddling against a tide he didn't want to see turn. The irony is that the truest 'gray hair' is Ryan, who carries himself with complete class and dignity. I laugh every time I see Ryan throw Shaughnessy a bone by 'allowing' him on his NESN 10.0 show. Shaughnessy, of course, could never win a TV hosting spot if his life depended on it. He is too despised and looks like a sick hospital clown.
Go 'brace yourself' for whatever onslaught you like. You're a lone wolf here, and we all enjoy your presence. Your responses are laughed at and easily swatted away.
Good one on the stock chart, Roger! I'm sure there's a 'pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain' explanation coming from OB on that. "Nothing to see here, folks...move along" will be the tone of his reply.
Post a Comment