Links

Friday, October 17, 2008

Wow!

What a game! If you watch the video of Shaughnessy that accompanies his game story, it is actually pretty neat...you see a boyish excitement reveal itself and in a rare instance, I actually feel like giving the guy a high five and saying "Yes, the Sox did it!"

This is an exciting morning...I shouldargue that Shaughnessy did not need to add the gratuitious shot at Schilling. Plus we have the tired time stamp (12:16) technique. And I could also point out DBVader's prescience in yesterday's piece when he wrote

But this small sample size problem is just an example of the basic flaw in Dan's thesis. Dan claims that this team, down 3-1, is somehow different than all the other teams that have come back from the same deficit because this one looks
bad. But all those teams looked bad, that's why they were down 3-1. After seeing
the Red Sox get blown out in Game 3 of the 2004 ALCS, nobody thought they looked
good, poised to roar back. But they did because they began to play better, much
better. You cannot predict, just hope that it happens.
But I will show some restraint. It's a good day. Shank's story is actually good given that he had to rewrite everything minutes before deadline. If you see Shaughnessy today, give him a high five. The Sox did good. And he did okay too.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ya, Shank moves me with comments like these:

The omens for the finale were not good. The Citgo sign caught fire Wednesday morning while the region was still getting over the shock of the Sox' 13-4 loss in Game 4. The Citgo sign is to Red Sox Nation what the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg were to the Great Gatsby. The notion that this Fenway icon would be threatened and defaced on the day before an elimination game was not comforting.

Next came the Game 5 ceremonial first pitch. The Sox turned to the inimitable Blowhard himself - Mr. Big Game Bloody Sock - Curt Schilling. It was somewhat amazing that the Big Lug was available since the presidential election is less than three weeks away, but Schill strode out to his old mound of glory and bounced a pitch 6 feet in front of catcher David Ross. That's what the Red Sox got for their $8 million this year - one pitch, in the dirt.

The guy is vermin.

Anonymous said...

I am glad that that the Shank ridicules the Schill.

They are both self-righteous “talking heads” interested only in representing what is “right” in their world.

The more they duke it out and expose their farcical selves the more entertainment we experience.

What we witness is:

Daffy Duck: this black little duck is daffy indeed, with his hair-trigger temper, enormous ego and blind covetousness.

Vs.

Mr Magoo: a wealthy, short-statured retiree who is oblivious to the reality as a result of his nearsightedness, or latent myopia, compounded by his stubborn refusal to admit the problem.

g

DryHeave said...

Bottomline: Shank's petty little fued with Schilling is juvenile. It's his way of injecting himself into the game. I'd like to give Shank a "high five" alright, right across his ugly mug.

Chris said...

I think 2004 and 2007 WERE different. In those years, the Red Sox weren't playing well through the first three or four games, but they were healthy. This year, add health problems to the mix.

Anonymous said...

Shank’s OBSESSION with Schilling is downright scary. It wouldn’t surprise me if Shank has a “special room” in his house with pictures of Schilling plastered all over the walls.

Anonymous said...

Can you imagine Shank saying "it puts the lotion on or it gets the hose again"?

Anonymous said...

I must have been feeling generous this AM when I wrote. When I first read his article, I was angered by the Schilling reference. It is downright juvenile. Then I watched him on the video and he seemed so excited that I just did not have the heart to be overly critical. That and I think the Great Gatsby reference was a bit of a reach.

Maybe I am getting too soft for this blogging business?

Dave M

Anonymous said...

I must have been feeling generous this AM when I wrote. When I first read his article, I was angered by the Schilling reference. It is downright juvenile. That and I think the Great Gatsby reference was a bit of a reach. Then I watched him on the video and he seemed so excited that I just did not have the heart to be overly critical.
Maybe I am getting too soft for this blogging business?

Dave M

Jake said...

Shaughnessy is an idiot.

DryHeave said...

LMFAO! at the, ""it puts the lotion on or it gets the hose again" comment by 12:36pm Anonymous.....I think Shank would make for one scary ass serial killer. He's got the looks for it.

dbvader said...

Shank is too lazy to be a serial killer.

Monkeesfan said...

Anonymous#2, here's the differene -

Schilling tells he truth.

Shank lies.

Monkeesfan said...

Anyone else catch Schilling's blast at Shank on Dennis & Callahan?

Objectivebruce said...

Actually, the Great Schill seems to have an obsession with Shaughnessy.

It's amazing that we luv, luv, luv our heroes so much we take comments about them so seriously.

I didn't see the first pitch (and made the mistake of reclining sometime betwixt and between the Ortiz homer and the Drew double so I didn't see the last one either), but if the Great Schill did bounce one in the dirt, it is a delicious bit of irony and Shaughnessy would be an ass if he ignored it.

Anonymous said...

OB

Shaughnessy is an ass regardless

Anonymous said...

yes ObjectiveDouche, and we all know the name of the "hero" you "luv,luv,luv".....wouldn't surprise me at all if you had a hidden room of your own, with picures of Shank plastered all over the walls.

Anonymous said...

Monkeesfan… you a “sistah”?

“Schilling tells the truth.”

The Schill presents his views and then scoots. He is never accountable for the comments he makes, just like the Shank.

He slams Manny when Manny is on the other side of the continent.

Why don’t you tell me the truth in regards to this previous post in response to the Schill's claim that Manny doesn’t like to face “fireballers” like Seth McClung of Tampa in 2005:


“Hi Curt The Schill,

I remember, on October 1, 2005, Manny hit 2 homers off Yankees Randy Johnson to give the Sox an outside chance at claiming 1st place. For good measure, didn’t he put up a fight and hit 2 homers in the final game of ALDS against the White Sox?

In your expert opinion (Schill), who is a better fireballer, Seth McClung of the Rays (when they were in last place) or Randy Johnson when fighting for 1st place on the last weekend of the season?

Thanks,”

Please tell me your truthful answer.

g

Monkeesfan said...

Anonymous #17 - he slams Manny because Manny wore out the trust of his teammates and got traded. Manny deserves to be slammed. Don't rehash big Manny hits from the past because they're not relevent - what is relevent is Manny's baby act finally went too far and he got axed to LA, where now he's pouting waiting for the next sucker to pay him $20 million plus per year so he can hit baseballs and not be relevent to a team's playoff success.


OB, you have it backwards again. Schilling's blast at Shank was overdue because it is Shank who launches one cheapshot after another at Schilling for being right.

Anonymous said...

Monkeesfan…

I am not rehashing.

Schill can "slam" all he wants as long as it is truthful.

So please answer truthfully for the Schill the following:

In your expert opinion (Schill), who is a better fireballer, Seth McClung of the Rays (when they were in last place) or Randy Johnson when fighting for 1st place on the last weekend of the season?

g

Monkeesfan said...

Anonymous #19, you are rehashing. It's not a relavent question to anything, so don't ask it again.