Saturday, October 18, 2008

Choker Rays?

Dan examines how the Rays might react to the colossal lost on Thursday night and compares them to the Angels of the past couple of decades--the 1986 Angels who could not recover after a similar Game 5 loss and the Angels of more recent vintage who Shaughnessy claims have little Red Sox dancing in their heads.

Dr Dan loves to explore the psych side of winning and losing and so this was a natural column for him - a lot of rehash of years gone by coupled with superficial speculation and analysis and you have a Shaughnessy column.


Anonymous said...

The Shank never learns.

Maddon said yesterday, “every situation is unique unto itself and it always depends on how you react”

Think about Shank, that is what “real” athletes understand – “uniqueness of the moment.”

Maybe that is why the “athletes” don’t treat you with respect … you don’t understand!


Anonymous said...

A little off topic

Curt Schilling really gave it to Shank on Dennis and Callahan yesterday. Now even I admit,Schilling is a microphone/camera hound. That being said, IT WAS STILL GREAT TO LISTEN TO!......Shanker deserves to be bashed at every turn.

Dave M said...

Anon 10:40

What was the gist of Schilling's comments?

Dave M said...

Found the link to Dennis and Callahan

roger bournival said...

Rippage begins at the 14:15 mark and ends around 19:30.

Would be interesting to get OB's take on that, sans the 'luv, luv, luv' nonsense.

Monkeesfan said...

Look out for Shank's "Choker Rays Limp Into Game Seven" on Sunday.

objectivebruce said...

My take on Schilling on Shaughnessy:

1. The Great Schill is as thin-skinned an athlete as has been in Boston since the 1971 Bruins (look them up, paying carefully attention to Andelman's playing of 'Taps'). His public persona is so carefully contrived that any criticism is taken far too seriously.

2. Schilling seems to be of the opinion that writers should sick back and say "how cool is this," rather than deign to point out the failings of people paid millions of dollars per year to entertain us. Sports reporters should never rise above jock-sniffer in the world of The Great Schill, who clearly believes he does for a living is just so complicated that those who write about it can never understand it. Unless they're heaping praise on him.

3. The Great Schill's claims that Shaughnessy is a phony and a fraud, without telling us what is phony about him or fraudulent about his work. It was a grade-school quality tirade that can be boiled down thusly: "He said mean things about me. I don't like him."

When cObjan we start referring to The Great Schill as "former Red Sox pitcher?"f

Anonymous said...


1. Amen to the “The Great Schill is as thin-skinned an athlete…..”.

2. However, Schill has a point – “Sports reporters should never rise above jock-sniffer …….”

3. "He said mean things about me. I don't like him." This is the same attitude the Shank has when athletes don’t relate to him.

Both the Schill and the Shank are cut from the same cloth. They stir up the minions in order to experience the thrill of being the instigator.

I prefer to watch athletes compete and then let them go home when the “theater” is over.

Shank & Schill just take us where most don’t need to go.