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.