Links

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

2 for the price of 1

I missed an extra Dan column yesterday, so you get two reviews from me today.

Starting with today's, a look back at a man well known in Boston Don Zimmer. A good look reminding me of what can be so special about baseball lifers.

It was yesterday's that really caught my eye. The strong finger wagging at those young whippersnappers that won't get off his lawn is an expansion on a theme in a column from two weeks ago. And when I say expansion, I mean repeating himself, almost word for word.

Let's compare the two:

9/24/08:
"Still, we could be in a place like Pittsburgh or Kansas City where baseball playoffs are merely a sweet memory, like gasoline for 29 cents a gallon."

10/07/08:
"There's no more baseball in Pittsburgh this year. Same for Kansas City and Baltimore. The good people of Milwaukee just experienced their first taste of the playoffs since 1982 and their ride lasted only four games."


9/24/08:
"Those of us who grew up in the 1950s and '60s remember the hungry years. "

10/07/08:
"New Englanders who grew up during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations had absolutely zero expectations of postseason play involving the Red Sox. It just wasn't going to happen."


9/24/08:
"Sure, there has been expansion of baseball's playoff system. There was a time (as late as 1968) when only one of 10 teams in each league qualified for postseason play. That's two of 20. Today, it's eight of 30 making the playoffs - not quite like the old NHL, which took 16 of 21, but it's considerably easier than it was in the old days.

10/07/08:
"Granted, it was much more difficult to play into October in those days. In the early 1960s, the Red Sox played in a 10-team American League and there were no preliminary rounds. There were no divisions. There was no wild card. You finished first out of 10 teams after 162 games or you went home.


9/24/08:
"That was not the first lengthy Red Sox drought. Way back in the day, the Sox went from 1918 to 1946 without playing a postseason game."

10/07/08:
"From 1918 until 1967, the Sox played in exactly one postseason series.


9/24/08:
"One of the reasons we immortalize the 1967 Red Sox is because they brought playoff games to Fenway Park for the first time in 19 autumns."

10/07/08:
""That's why 1967 remains the most important season in franchise history. It changed the way we thought about the Red Sox."

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

What caught my eye on the Zim article was:

" .... he was routinely ridiculed by his own players (Bill Lee comes to mind) and a young radio talent named Glenn Ordway (I wonder whatever happened to him. Zim remembers nights when his daughter would be in tears as he drove home from the ballpark."

So if the Shank understands how the media can cause a ballplayer's daughter to "cry", why can't he get off his high almighty perch?

Because he is a vulture that capitalizes on emotional volatility and appeals to the ignorant of the world.

OB - we don't want luv, luv, luv .... and we sure don't need to witness the Shank licking his bosses ... we just need insight that generates from knowledge not the fear and bigotry broadcasted by a Shank.

g

Anonymous said...

and to make matters worse the Shank knows he can choose a better approach, but he would rather just sell, sell, sell,….

Extra! Extra! Extra! … Read all about it in the Shank’s World (“You are stupid. I am telling you.” The Shankster)

g

Anonymous said...

Apparently recycling has caught on.

Anonymous said...

OB:

Have at it, bunky!

Your pal,

Timmy

roger bournival said...

Shank works for the Globe. I'm sure their editorial staff approves of recycling...

DryHeave said...

WOW!...that was pathetic....If anybody had any doubts that Shank was a lazy washed up hack who "mails it in" they don't now....how does he get away with that crap?....same column, he just moved the words around a little.....DISGRACEFUL!

Objectivebruce said...

Gee, boys and girls, if there's a point to this posting and the comments it has escaped me.

If someone can leave some coherent explanation as to what the beef is, perhaps I shall respond.

Otherwise, this is gibberish.

Anonymous said...

TIMEOUT:

According to what I just looked up, Zimmer was with the Sox until 1980. Ordway did not start his radio show at WRKO until 1981... A year AFTER Zimmer left. Can someone please explain to me how this "fact" that Dan is using in the article is true?

Something smells fishy about that quote...

Remember, however, I'm a young "whippersnapper" who has only known winning for my entire time as a fan of the Sawx and the Patsies (completely ignoring Rod Rust, Butch Hobson, ML Carr, and Steve Casper... look 'em up if you need too... ha ha).

Anonymous said...

And another thing... while it may be difficult to get into the playoffs in the past, isn't it more difficult to win a championship now that the playoffs expanded?

In order to win you have to play three rounds of baseball against literally the best in both leagues. Doesn't that make it more of a challenge?

Isn't that a good thing for baseball?

Vin

Anonymous said...

OB

“If someone can leave some coherent explanation …...”

Keyword = coherent.

Why does the Shank clutter our world? Explain that coherently.

Sell, Sell, Sell ...baby! So "manny" ignorants to fool huh!

g

Anonymous said...

OB:

I'm not sure, exactly, what "coherent" means, having been smoking weed during the SATs and all.

But, maybe this will help...Shank's a lazy bag of crap who plagiarized himself and mailed in a column.

Is that "coherent?"

Let me know, bunky!

Your pal,

Timmy

Objectivebruce said...

Dear Timmy,

Coherent, yes. But then Wild Red Berry was coherent.

Supported with logic, fact or sensible argument, no.

dbvader said...

OB,

I will type slowly so that you can understand. And you can read while moving your lips if that makes you feel more comfortable.

Dan is a columnist. Columnists are paid for original and well written columns. They can be funny, provocative, or in any other style, but they have to be original. Dan used strikingly similar ideas and phrases from a column he wrote in late September for the column he wrote on Tuesday. If someone else used Dan's work from September for his/her column, it would be an act of plagiarism. Instead, it is an act of supreme laziness.

roger bournival said...

If someone can leave some coherent explanation as to what the beef is, perhaps I shall respond.

Methinks the reading comprehension thingy you always talk about is contagious, no?

Anonymous said...

OB "If someone can leave some coherent explanation as to what the beef is, perhaps I shall respond."


Reponse
Shank is a lazy hack
You are an idiot

dbvader said...

write the mfer at dshaughnessy.globe.com.

Tell him he is a hack. Tell him that he is using the language from a two week old column for one from this week.

Write his enabling editor. Tell them all that they stink. Rage Rage/