Links

Friday, December 12, 2008

Dan Hates People Who Use Numbers

Dan Shaughnessy has his annual appeal for Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame. It was the same last year.

And I have the same opinion.

Rice had a few great years in a career that was short in comparison to the greats. His greatness in no way approaches the greatness of Koufax, which sent him into the Hall.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

and the ObjectiveNumbNut says," another great column by Shank!

Anonymous said...

The CHB is playing both side of the fence.

First he states how he really feels (and will always feel):

“Rice has never been a certified Cooperstown lock. That's why he's fallen short. It's not because he was uncooperative with the scribes. It's because his window of greatness was a tad short, he failed to hit 400 homers, his numbers are inflated by playing half his games in Fenway, he was a corner outfielder with little speed or range, and he didn't do much in his few postseason opportunities.”

Then, because he needs to play the politically correct angle, he states:

“But he belongs in the Hall. ………. Just in time.”

What do the numbers say? How many times did CHB vote in favor of Rice? Wasn’t the CHB part of the Boston Conspiracy that has kept Rice out of the Hall?

Last year the writers voted in Rich Gossage. Wow! A part time player that thrived for a few years as a Yankee. I guess the writers can justify their vote by claiming that baseball has become so specialized and Gossage played a leading role in that trend.

Did he do more that Rice?

But back to the “two-timing” CHB:

“For decades, baseball scribes have been blasted for ignoring the numbers and hating on Rice because he did not give interviews. Now we're in the bag for Jim Ed even though his stats are unworthy? Because he was a great guy, I guess.

So, which is it?”

Depends on who you trying to fool Danny Boy. Doesn’t it?


It must be nice to hide behind the numbers when it suits you.

g

Roger Bournival said...

Excellent, much-needed column...

Anonymous said...

Roger,

Yes Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame and he should’ve been selected many year ago, but remember this post”


Anonymous said...

Glad you folks started this back up again.

I stopped reading anything by Danny Boy back in the mid/late 80's. Funny enough, the thing that did it for me was the article he wrote trying to run Jim Rice out of town. It was in response to the incident where Rice reportedly had a physical confrontation with their trainer. Shaughnessy went off the deep end with a column about "...thanks for the great years...but it is time to go..." It reminded me of the Robert Duvall character in "The Natural", -protecting- the game.

Is it really the case that old Danny Boy is tooting the Jim Rice for HOF trumpet these days? (I live 3000 miles away now and don't pay too much attention). If so, has anybody publicly reminded him of his attempt to run Rice out of town?
4:22 PM, JANUARY 17, 2008


Typical CHB – he’s a switch hitter, he likes it both ways.

g

roger bournival said...

g - my post was more of a riff on OB. About two months ago he called a Shank column 'excellent and much-needed'. Naturally, when called on it, he declined to identify which elements of the column were excellent and much needed.

I'd like to see Rice in the HOF. Maybe he didn't have the great numbers or didn't play for decade(s), but this part is laughable. Anon #2 refers to Shank:

It's not because he was uncooperative with the scribes.

Come on, Shank, who votes baseball players to the HOF? Scribes!

He didn't like the press, and they reciprocate by not voting for Rice. It's bloody obvious. If Shank thinks he can blow smoke up my ass with crap like that, he's wrong.

Anonymous said...

Roger,

OK. Makes more sense now. Jim Rice was part of a very entertaining and competitive team. Unfortunately for him, he played next to “Golden Boy” Lynn and “Sentimental Favorite” Evans.

The writers just didn’t have enough “love” to spread around and so, Rice just kept his mouth shut, played ball, and was loyal.

I am new to the Watch. My input is to monitor and point out how the CHB promotes/disguises his Agenda.

Sometimes CHB puts out sentimental salvos in order to mute his bitterness. Sure the CHB can be a reporter; unfortunately he chooses to be a prick.


g