Monday, May 09, 2011

What A Difference A Game Makes

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Dan Shaughnessy a) absolutely sucks at making predictions and b) shows little, if any, consistency in what passes for analysis when attempting to make these predictions. You'd think someone who has followed professional basketball for thirty years would learn from that vast reservoir of experience. You'd be oh, so wrong...

As a result, we get two massively contradictory columns. Five days ago the Miami Heat is winning the series with the Boston Celtics, 2 - 0, and what does Shank proclaim? Get the shovels out - Celtics are done.

Returning to the Garden, the Boston Celtics win Game 3 two days ago, and what's the opinion now? Probably the greatest freakin' series EVAH!

Fans of this site may be aware that I rarely use this forum in attempt to lecture Shank directly, as such criticism is routinely dismissed by dead tree types as 'fanboy, basement dwelling bloggers' and other such ad hominem substitutes for refutation of the criticisms presented. But how is a rational Globe columnist logically able to defend this pirouette? I strongly emphasize the word 'logically'.

Naturally, in true Shank fashion, he leaves himself an out:
Old NBA Axiom No. 101 holds that a playoff series doesn't start until the road team wins a game.
I'll check you guys in an hour with the update (time stamp at posting - 8:39 PM).

Update at 10:04 PM - Heat win, Shank still sucks, in my book...

1 comment:

Anonymous said...


Is there a difference between:

"Shank still sucks"


"Shank always sucks"

I was not an English major.

By the way, Shank's article today sucks.