Sunday, August 02, 2009

Shaughnessy's Piss-poor Lack of Execution

As much as I criticize Dan Shaughnessy's writing, I usually like his "turn back the clock" and high school sports pieces. Dan writes a turn back the clock piece today and the idea behind it has much potential but Shaughnessy's execution of it is shockingly bad and again smacks of his laziness.

Shaughnessy looks back 30 years - to the day Thurman Munson died; the day Edward Bennett Williams bought the Orioles; and the day Tony Larussa first got a managing gig.

- It may not have been his intent but Shaughnessy paints Munson as a petty man--padding his stats and being way too concerned about what Curt Gowdy would say about him on Saturday afternoon baseball games.

- Shaughnessy wastes a lot of space detailing his travel plans and how he missed a big story - too much detail for something that adds precious little to the story.

- I would agree that Williams' ownership was influential but it would have been nice if Shaughnessy would connect those dots. Was it because Williams laid the groundwork for Camden Yards? Or was it because (as Shaughnessy clumsily suggests) that it gave birth to the baseball career of Larry Lucchino?

- I would also agree that Larussa's managerial career is influential because I think it reflected the first wave of the overt analytical approach to managing baseball. Shaughnessy does not explore that - instead he makes a quick (and again clumsy) reference to Larussa's career victories and the fact that Larussa was in the dugout when the Sox won the 2004 World Series. Shaughnessy curiously writes "He was also in the other dugout when the Red Sox forever changed the baseball universe in St. Louis on Oct. 27, 2004." (Note, this is a World Series victory that Shaughnessy two days ago called "forever tainted.")

So, in the end, Shaughnessy seems to be losing a grip for even the types of columns for which he typically receives a passing grade. It is an astonishing collapse.


Anonymous said...

Dave M.

"Or was it because (as Shaughnessy clumsily suggests) that it gave birth to the baseball career of Larry Lucchino."

Or an Agenda.

Reflect back to The Shank's "Ortiz Lied" article where he references the movie The Sting.

The Shank and Lucky Lucchino - partner's in crime in The Setup and The Cover-up.

Can't wait for the truth to emerge.

It will be an "astonishing collapse!"


Anonymous said...

"It was a sad and dramatic day in baseball and I saw it unfold from the inner sanctum of major league clubhouses."

Once again, Dan reminds us all out here in Blogville, that he, not we, is the guy with the access, except this time....

The sale of the Orioles, the team Dan was supposed to cover happened while Shank was lolling in the inner sanctum of his hotel room.

He watched the Munson news break on television from that same inner sanctum.

As for the news that "rocked" the baseball world in Chicago, Dan was flying in an airplane that day, or was he at his inner sanctum of access at the old New York Sheraton. In any case, nowhere near the story! Just like now!

While I'm thinking on it, is that some kind of mancrush Shank has for fellow HC grad E.B. Williams or what? I mean, the guy had some high profile hoodlums for clients, but let's not move him to Legal Godhood over it, and his tenure as owner will never be as distinguished as Jerry Hoffberger's was...

The real sadness though, is that even 30 years ago, CHB was hopelessly behind the eight ball at gathering actual news and mailing in his stories. The guys at the Washington Star must have peed their pants laughing when they saw this dope get hired at the Globe after they doubtlessly helped things along with a "glowing recommendation" just to get rid of him....

Anonymous said...

and to sum it up....Shank is a no good piece of crap

Tony Tony TONE! said...

and Objectivedouche says, "it was a much needed column by my Danny boy!"

Chris said...

The days that Shaughnessy is 'turning back to' have less and less relevance to the readership. If the goal of The Globe is to reduce the average age of the reader, he's not helping by referring back to someone named 'Thurman Munson.'

mike_b1 said...

Mindless nostalgic pap!

ObjectiveBruce said...

How dare he write about events that predated SportsCenter! We don't want to know! What's next, transcripts of Warm-Up Time with Don Gillis (time for your feature baseball story before this Red Sox game, brought to you by Hanlon's Men's Shoes. Happy feet wear Hanlon's shoes.) Whoops. Got carried away. Must be the nostalgic pap.

What was the big thing about E.B. Williams taking over the O's? It had nothing to do with championships, although he won one. And it had nothing to do with building a new ballpark that was the prototype for the modern ballpark era, although he got one built.

It meant they no longer force-fed National Bohemian, a horrendously bad brew, to the multitudes (OK, it was Baltimore in the 80s, we can make liberal use of "multitudes" to describe a crowd of 11,000) at Memorial Stadium, which was terribly underrated, even though the seats were angled toward football and you had to shift onto the left cheek (visitors side) or right cheek (O's side) to watch a baseball game.

Roger Bournival said...

Look at the bright side - at least we were spared ancient Beatles, Don McLean and (I'll never forget this one) The Carpenters song references.

Nothing more inviting for basement-dwelling blogboy mockery than dating yourself on a regular basis!