Going Overboard

Dan has a piece on Jacoby Ellsbury. A balanced piece as Dan avoids all his typical whipping boys and he hits all the highlights of Ellsbury's bio. CHB nicely captures the expectations of Red Sox fans while warning all to temper their expectations.

The Son Also Rises

Dan has a mildly entertaining look at Hank Steinbrenner (son of George) stoking the fires of Star Wars. Dan says Hank will be good for keeping the rivalry heated. Dan even has a nice reach out to ESPN where he poses the question of whether the network is dominated by Sox fans?

Dan does get on his preachy "George Mitchell is on the masthead/the steroids report is tainted" soapbox but otherwise a decent enough effort.

Pasty Dan

Shaughnessy must have been feeling a little pasty. He has returned to Florida to work on his tan and write about pasty college students who stand enamored of their big league heroes. (Last year he called them pasty white so a little variety is good) Not a bad article. And it is always nice to have a reference to Schilling holding court with the media.

Boston Globe Reductions

Chris and others on this blog have been predicting that pink slips were forthcoming at the Globe. Unfortunately, that is the case. Dan Kennedy, a visitor to this blog, has broken the new on his blog, Media Nation. Details are here:

http://medianation.blogspot.com/2008/02/at-globe-dear-colleagues.html

OB posted the recent quarterly profit line from the Globe...I guess his point was that all is rosey. Not so according to the Boston Globe publisher who says, "As you all know, these are difficult times in the newspaper business." Some good commentary at Dan's site,

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Picked this up on BSMW

Our friend Shaughnessy has picked up an award for his outstanding column writing. Results are here:

http://apse.dallasnews.com/2008/judging/022608writingresults.html

Wonder if he struck a deal with the devil?

What the hell?

Seriously, what the hell is he thinking? Is it time for an exorcism?

The one omission in today's column....Suddenly it's clear, the devil took over the Boston Globe sports department some 20 years ago and left his spawn at the keyboard leaving us all to suffer.


Otherwise, I won't dignify this inane rubbish.

Whither Dan?

Where is Dan? Last spring when Shaughnessy shoowed up to spring training, he wrote articles for about 18 days in a row. I thought we would get more of the same when Dan started this spring. Dan wrote a few pieces but they have abruptly stopped. Why would they send him on a Florida assignment and then have sit there and contribute nothing? [Insert punchline here.] Did they pull him back to the mothership? Did they finally come to their senses?

Skip the Middleman

Faced with threats of irrelevancy, one might expect Dan to work harder and produce work that provides a unique perspective for his readers. Instead, Dan either lashes out with vitriolic attacks or produces columns that are little more than transcripts of press conferences.

Today, in a tribute to his capitulation, Dan combines the vitriol with the laziness.

The column is ostensibly about John Henry, but Dan manages to twist it around to his white whale, Curt Schilling, leading with a couple of shots at Schilling and a Patriots/Matt Walsh reference. Just the type of stuff you would expect.

What is most striking about the column, though, is how unnecessary Dan is. You can skip the middleman and decide for yourself. Boston.com has a video of the Curt Schilling interview session, which the Boston Globe was not invited to. The reader can watch the video and make her mind up about Schilling's attitude. No longer does she need to rely on Dan's dubious characterization that Schilling is "mad at the ball club." Further, outside of the shots at Schilling, the column is just a straight rehash of Henry's statements. A transcript posted on a blog could easily take the place of most of Dan's column. It would probably be a whole lot cheaper for the struggling NY Times Empire, too.

A Welcome Change of Pace

After a boring transcription of a Theo press conference, a rambling, illogical mess, and an unwarranted, illogical personal attack, Dan loses the vitriol and works to craft an actual well thought out column.

Too bad that there isn't much to say about Josh Beckett that we already don't know. As Dan points out, Beckett doesn't provide many interesting quotations for the press to run with. The best quotation is provided by Theo Epstein, who said "It's OK for a pitcher to be a little bit of a [expletive] on the mound."

Schilling Obsession Kicks into High Gear

I wonder if Curt Schilling sleeps well at night? I wonder if in the middle of the night he wakes up and sees two beady little eyes in the corner and asks himself, "Is that a rat?" "Oh no, " he mutters to himself, "that's just Dan Shaughnessy."

Shaughnessy's hyper obsession of the Big Lug kicks into high gear this morning as he questions the breakdown of of Schilling's shoulder just months after Schilling signed an $8M contract. While Shaughnessy raises some legitimate questions, in its whole, it is a totally irresponsible and reckless piece of journalism. At its core, there is the hallmark of Shaughnessy: a failure to do a lick of research....Schilling won't talk to him; there is no insight offered by the team; there is no analysis offered by the medical community....but that doesn't stop Shaughnessy from putting this piece of garbage together. Shaughnessy just fills the gap by pontificating, speculating and ripping...

- He hints that Schilling knew his shoulder was hurt before he even signed the contract because he so readily grabbed the Sox lowball offer. This is a really cheap shot--just to casually question someone's ethics like that

- He complains that Schilling has been shaking hands with politicians and cutting ribbons at supermarkets but that he can't throw a ball across the infield.

- He suggests that Schilling hurt his shoulder after signing the contract by doing something non baseball related (blogging or reaching for a doughnut...oh that's a good one, Dan)

- Of course, Shaughnessy is critical of Schilling's methods for communicating to the public...between the blog and paid appearances on the radio.*

(*Is it not ironic that this comes one day after the NESN article in which Shaughnessy complains about the media exposure of the Red Sox but only to be feasting like a pig from the trough himself? Schilling is no more of a media whore than Shaughnessy is. Seriously, how nice it must be for Shaughnessy to moonlight like this--he should be focused on his primary job as columnist but he is too busy filling the airwaves himself. Maybe if he took time to research instead of finding new ways to collect a paycheck, we would not be treated to this crap day after day. )

Shaughnessy lays this whole bloody mess at the feet of Schilling. No blame for the Red Sox? After all, they are the ones who signed him to the contract knowing that his velocity was down; they did not insure his contract; they did a physical and pressed ahead anyway. They had to know it was a gamble and they pressed ahead anyway. There are two parties to a contract and because one side is Schilling, Shaughnessy puts his blinders on and fires away.

In the end, this was an amateurish hack job. In the ultimate irony....Shaughnessy, the media whore himself, is spread too thin with writing books and showing up on TV to be capable of writing a legitimate piece. I wonder if Shaughnessy wakes up in the middle of night and sees the beady eyes of a monster in the corner and thinks to himself "That must be the Big Lug" before he realizes that he is just looking in the mirror.

Red Sox: All Day and All Night

Dan writes in disbelief that the Red Sox sprint training workouts are being now aired on NESN. The only thing missing from today's column are shots at the grown men wearing Schilling jerseys and/or tuning in from Ma's basement. On the other hand, we are treated to a shot at Schilling's blog for the umpteenth time--Shaughnessy is forever fixated on the Big Lug and it is going to be a sad day when Schilling retires. Wouldn't it be nice if they rode into the sunset together?

Dan uses the column again as a vehicle to show how wildly popular the Red Sox have become but he suggests that the whole experience will be hollow. In my mind, it boils down to economics - supply and demand. NESN wouldn't do this unless they felt there was a demand for it. I am sure a lot of New Englanders (after a cold winter and continued talk of Spygate) will tune in to feast on the first signs of spring. After all, there is a magical element to spring training. If the numbers don't pan out, they won't do it anymore--it's really as simple as that.

Basically, standard Shaughnessy fare...Dan's article is replete with all the Shaughnessy classics - references to parades in Groton; the digs on Schilling and other wonderful cultural references. CHB elevates his hipness quotient by suggesting that the Sox are more popular than Hannah Montana. I liked that one.

Spring Break Training With Dan

If today's column is any measure, get ready for an impressive chronicle of the Red Sox spring training.

Dan basically uses two-thirds of his column to transcribe Theo Epstein's opening press conference. The rest if filler with gratuitous shots all around.

I liked this line the best:

"Theo has earned this good will. He was right about the Sox' prospects last year."

You wouldn't be referring to Dustin Pedroia, would you Dan?

Oh No!

Dan's take on the story that you cannot shake.

Fearless Dan concludes that both McNamee and Clemens lied, that both had bad performances. Bold stuff you won't get anywhere else.

And Dan manages to get this wrong:

"Pettitte's deposition shreds Clemens's story. Under oath, Pettitte told Congress that Clemens admitted using HGH. Twice. Pettitte said he relayed the conversations to his wife. Mrs. Pettitte recalls the conversations and said so in her affidavit.

Well, as Dan's colleagues over at the NYT reported Pettitte testified about a single conversation with Clemens, which Roger later disputed according to the affidavit.

Dan Just Doesn't Get it

Today, Dan engages in a discussion that thousands of New England sports fans have been doing all week...trying to rank the Patriots loss in the Super Bowl in the list of all-time worst moments in Boston sports history. He writes this column just a week after prematurely trying to place the Pat's season in the tops of all time list.

Dan ultimately concludes that despite the fan's vote which puts this at the top, he would actually put it behind the Sox infamous troika (1986, 1978, 2003) . His premise is that the Patriots have had inordinate success, already winning three Super Bowls this century. No big deal he claims....the Pats have had a great number of years. He does not seem capable of grasping of why Patriots fans are so disconsolate - you have a chance at perfection--a chance to do what no team has ever done...you lived through the ups and downs and the close calls where the Patriots had everything go their way...you get within two minutes of victory....and then poof, it is gone. The Patriots will win many more games in the future and we can hope for a few more Super Bowl victories but the opportunity for perfection like this? An infinitesimal chance. Not only that, the Patriots have almost come a punchline -- how many times will Patriots fans hear "You cheaters got what you deserved!"

Prior to 2004, the Red Sox were lovable losers--so as bad as their defeats were, you could lean on the sympathy from not only fellow Red Sox fans but from many others who could sympathize like long suffering Cubs fans. It's not this way with the Patriots - people seem to genuinely hate the Patriots and this loss gives them ammo--plenty of it to rub Pat's fans faces in it.

A few other points

- Full disclosure: This past week I myself did a rack and stack of the worst moments in Boston history in an email exchange with a friend and I ranked the 78 and 86 Sox ahead of this year's Patriots. I think this owes mostly to the fact that I was much younger when those occurred and thus much more nostalgic. (I also place the 76 Pats team loss to the Raiders near the top of my list)

- Of course Dan has to make reference to Schilling and the question of how ugly his dispute with the Red Sox will be. Guess he has not read the recent articles which claim that Schilling really seems to have come around to the Sox way of thinking

- Whoever patted Dan on the head and said "Good Boy" when Dan coined the phrase "Bill Belichick's History Boys" should be shot

A Super Special Picked Up Pieces

A Dan staple is back. It is hard to believe that he was holding back these tidbits. It has all his staples.

It All Comes Back to the Red Sox

No column about the Patriots can be complete without the requisite Red Sox references. Because sports fans in New England cannot understand anything without somehow relating it to Red Sox history.

What Can You Say?

Dan has the recap of the awful turn of events. Not a very interesting take.

Blah, blah, blah

This morning's entry attempts to set the stage for today's big game. It almost sounds like it is written for the uninitiated...those people who woke up this morning and for the first time in a year decided to check the sports pages because they heard something about the local football team playing in a big game today. Nothing original , nothing insightful...We get such analysis and tidbits such as this:

"The Patriots are expected to put a lot of points on the board."

"Patriots fans expect New England to score early and often"

"The Patriots have a lot of players who have been here before."

"[Eli] Manning is the younger brother of Patriots nemesis Peyton Manning"

"The Patriots...attempt to become only the second team in NFL history to complete a season without a loss (the 1972 Miami Dolphins finished 17-0)"

Holy cow - what a waste of space! Absolutely nothing original. Compare this to Kevin Paul Dupont's article on Bill Belichick and ask yourself if Dan is capable of writing a piece like that?

Spygate Revisited (Bravo Dan)

Dan writes about the curious re-emergence of the spygate scandal. In a rare instance, I think I agree with every single point that Dan makes and he articulates a number of points that were percolating in my mind. Brings out some interesting stories about Sen Specter being a regular caller to sports radio call in shows. It is an excellent article in my humble opinion.

Later today, I need to go back to do a little research because I don't think Dan has always had this perspective on Spygate but again, I appreciate his perspective this AM.

DM

The Great Debate

As the Patriots' march into the history books enters its final steps, Dan opens the debate of "greatest story ever" of a New England area sports team/athlete. It is a meandering article that covers a lot of familiar ground. Yet, it is a thoughtful article in that Dan does not beat the reader over the head with his answer -- in which he narrows the debate between the 2004 Red Sox and the 2007 Patriots and then seems to imply that his answer would be the 2004 Sox.

He does wander though from point to point. (Attention deficit perhaps? Or just lazy writing?) Early in the article, Shaughnessy calls the area a baseball area first and foremost and points out that the Patriots were not even invented until 1960, casually dismissing the grip of the Pats on the locals. He contrasts this to Pittsburgh which is such a strong football town. But later he acknowledges that the Patriots have done many things to captivate the fans and almost (but not quite) puts the Pats on equal footing.

In the end, however, I think this article would have been better served next week in the aftermath of a victory or defeat. It's premature speculation.

More Dan

Dan has the Plaxico Burress comment and the Patriots' reaction.

An Insightful and Original Column

Reading back that headline makes me laugh.

A google news search of "media day" and "super bowl" returns over 1,400 hits, a lot of which highlight the bizarre going ons. Dan mentioned Media Day as a circus twice yesterday. What does the bravest columnist write about today? The craziness that is Media Day.

Dan slips in a cute little comment about the weather, also. Fans despise hearing sports media members bitch about their situation while getting to cover the Super Bowl. Dan knows that and slips in a few sly references to the cold weather ("I wonder if he/she is cold"). Cute, Dan. You could be up here covering the Bruins.

Chat Wrap (or A Look Back at Dan Doing the Least Amount of Work in Order to Justify His Week in Arizona)

pesky4prez__Guest_
Hey Dan! Enough about Brady's foot. Enough about Moss's legal issues. Enough about girlfriends in the crowd. What is the biggest "football" issue nobody is talking about? I think the Giant's secondary -or lack thereof - is what will decide the game. Agreed?

Dan_Shaughnessy
you may be right. we don't know what the biggest football issue will be -- could be the giants running game vs. the pats old cagey linebackers. but there will be a lot of nonsense in the two weeks in between games -- none more than today at media day

Those are the words of Boston's Bravest Columnist. Basically, "I don't know." He's a columnist, he is paid to have opinions and that is what he comes up with.


I have said this before, but I don't understand how people are smart enough to find their way into a boston.com chat and ask halfway decent football questions and yet cannot realize the futility of asking Dan anything other than what Tom Brady had for breakfast or what Belichick said at a press conference attending by scores of other media members.

You can post your favorite answers in the comments below.

Dan on Belichick

Dan comments on the "different" Belichick that is on display in Arizona.

It's a look at Belichick's press conferences this week in which he seems to be revealing a more playful attitude.

The highlight of the article, though, is Dan's mention of a NYT article from yesterday. A good read about Belichick's memories of his time working for the New York Giants.

Dan Writes About His Crush

Dan loves talking about Tom Brady. Dan plays it cute, though. He mocks the New York media coverage of Brady, but it shows through that Dan really is interested in knowing what Brady ate during his stay in New York. Dan, what did you tell us about holding up athletes as heroes?

Another History Lesson

Today, Dan writes about Belichick and Coughlin's time together on the staff of Bill Parcells' New York Giants. Parcells provides a few quotes, nothing very revealing. Both are serious minded and don't talk much.

If you look at it more closely, the relationship reveals itself to be less interesting. Belichick was the defensive coordinator and spent over ten years either working with or for Parcells. Coughlin was a wide receivers coach and spent three years with Parcells. I am sure much more will be made out of these three seasons in two men's 30+ year careers.

All He Needed Was A Litttle Time

Dan has a full day to write a story and it shows. This little piece comes with a point. Dan gives us the history of the Giants-Patriots rivalry, making an interesting connection between it and the Harvard-Yale rivalry.

The piece includes an interesting story about the opening night of Schaefer Stadium and the history of the Giants in New England.

Dan Has Got Something to Tell You

People accuse Dan of being lazy, holding grudges, and displaying faulty logic. But most recognize that Dan can write well, regardless of the underlying sentiment or point. Today's column made me rethink that belief.

The Globe Sports' featured columnist (I cannot believe it either) begins the column with a series of one-, two-, or three-sentence paragraphs. Dan uses the word "history" six times in the first half of his column. A terrible, boring read, repeating the same thought over and over. The Patriots are close to perfection and making history, we all know that Dan. One of the most momentous occasions in Boston sports' history is celebrated with this bland recap. Why does the Globe do this to us?

Picked up useless pieces of trivia

Dan's "Picked Up Pieces" are not typically founts of knowledge, but today's example of lazy journalism is particularly empty. When the third item is that the Fenway Coke Bottles will be moved before next season, there isn't a whole lot of meat on those bones.

Dan leads by stating that Pats fans should have rooted for the Colts to win last Sunday, stating "Wouldn't that be like beating Derek Jeter and Friends en route to the 2004 World Series win?" A lamer argument has never been made. You play the teams you play. All that matters is winning the Super Bowl.

After an item revealing Shank's subconscious xenophobia ("Those foreigners with their hard to pronounce names. How wacky!"), an item about two things nobody cares about (Boston Magazine and Charlie Jacobs), Dan states he found out why he is not going to Beijing to cover the Olympics. Is it because CHB shows no interest in any other sport than basketball and has no interest in learning about or appreciating any other sport? Of course not! That would mean Shank is much more self aware than he has ever shown himself to be. Rather its because Dan is too critical for the sensibilities of the Chinese government. Funny joke, Dan.

Dan goes on to finish up with his typical flotsam: a dig at sabermetrics; a lot of items about people you don't know or care about; and dated references.

I made it to the end of the piece because that's my job, that's what I do, but I challenge any of you to get past the fourth item. Good luck!!

Multiple Recaps

The Globe sent its press corps in full force to Foxboro last night...Dan writes what appears to be one of two game recaps...there is one by Gasper and there is Shank's. I think the editors got bored with Shaughnessy's because they go with his recount up through the first drive of the second half and then the article is mysteriously truncated with a classic Shank ending, "Bring on the [insert team name here]" I doubt they intended Shank to write a game recap and maybe once they realized what he was doing, they cut him off and decided to end it peacefully.

Nevertheless, we are treated to Shaughnessy classics...the aforementioned "Bring on the X"; a reference to the Red Sox; the use of "History Boys"; a use of "Mssrs", and a description of how the hoodie was worn.

Jim Rice, again

It has been an extra special Christmas season for Dan. He can repeatedly blather on about two topics, Roger and Roids; and Rice and the Hall of Fame.

Today it is a combination of the two.

I don't think Rice belongs in the HoF. Too many mediocre or stinker seasons ('80-'81; '87-'89), too short of a career, and an unimpressive defensive reputation. But Dan will say anything and throw out any stat to support Rice's campaign.

He was the dominant slugger of his time, a man capable of inducing an intentional walk when the bases were loaded. He amassed more than 400 total bases when he was MVP in 1978. He hit 35 homers with 200 hits in three straight seasons. He was more feared that Tony Perez, who is in the Hall of Fame.

That statement says it all. He was feared, he had three very good seasons. But that is it. Jim Rice may have been the dominant slugger of the late '70s, but when do players get into the Hall based on three seasons? Mike Schmidt was the dominant slugger over Rice's career.

Dan tops it all off by stating that Rice "knows he was a better hitter than former teammates Perez and Wade Boggs."

Two things:
1) If Dan thinks that Rice was a better hitter than Boggs, he has lost all credibility regarding baseball analysis.
2) The argument "If player A is in the Hall, than Player B should be" is tremendously weak and would lead to absurd results. Every player needs to be considered individually and not against the worst selections in the Hall.

Dan ends with more Roger bashing. Yawn.

Roger Clemens, Take 3

With the publication of the Mitchell Report, Dan supported Roger. A few days later, Dan was disbelieving.

After last night's "60 Minutes" interview, Dan thinks Roger "looks dirty." Well, if he says so!

I didn't see it. And I don't get the overall criticism of his performance. He is doing what sportswriters always clamor for, an athlete stepping up and facing his accusers without hiding behind lawyers or written statements. Now that Roger does it, he looks guilty. You can spin it any way. If you believe Roger is guilty of the accusations, then you think he sounded or looked guilty.

TV Watching

Dan explores how a few of the Patriots will spend the weekend watching NFL playoff games.
Even by the low standards Dan has previously established, today's column is particularly bad.

This is one of these columns where you have got to wonder if Globe management and senior editors ask themselves, "Is this really the guy we give top billing to?" As a reader, I find myself constantly asking "How is it possible that a person be paid so handsomely for producing such mindless and condescending drivel?" Heck, I imagine that even Objective Bruce is sitting back thinking, "Not even I can defend this piece of garbage".

Shaughnessy criticizes Belichick for being evasive about his plans for watching this weekend's games after Belichick says yeah "I'll definitely watch it..." How is that evasive? Just because Coach Bill can't/won't describe where he is going to watch the game, Shaughnessy rips him. Shank, while it may be the case that you have loads of time to plan your game watching, does it occur to you that Belichick has a few more higher priorities than you and hasnt given much though to where he will watch the game? Can you blame Belichick for being a smart ass?

Shaughnessy concludes with one of his typical condescending, insult the reader lines when he says:

So there. This weekend you are just the same as Richard Seymour. You are glued to the TV, watching football. Your heroes are doing the same thing as you. If you are a Patriots fan, this should make you feel warm all over.

If you have read Shaughnessy long enough, you know he despises when adults worship professional athletes (his constant criticism of 40 year olds who wear Schilling jerseys). In this context, Shaughnessy's last line is just another in a long line of sarcastic jabs at his readers
--By the way, Dan, I am a Patriots fan and it does not make me feel warm all over when you tell me that professional football players watch professional football games on TV--is this some great revelation on your part?

What is really ironic is that once again Dan makes a jab at his readers for their hero worship and yet he writes a column that perpetuates a characterization of athletes as being a different breed -doesnt the fact that he feels compelled to describe the TV watching habits of pro athletes feed this hero worship fire?

Tomorrow's News Today

Dan trying his best to be funny.

You can be the judge.

Before you read it, try to think of all the Dan cliches that will be present. I don't think you will be disappointed

History!

Dan provides the game story from the Patriots record-setting, history-making win over the Giants. Why Dan gets to lead the coverage is puzzling but then again, I sort of expected it.

As of 0934, the online version of the story had at least three typos/missed words...that is really more the editor's fault than it is Dan's though. Will see if they clean that up.

Shaughnessy's recap is fair enough but it is filled with the classic Shaughnessy formula.

- Calls the Patriots "Bill Belichick's History Boys"

- Bruce Springsteen reference or was it a mafia reference? (He liked that Boss scored a touchdown before half and says always "Beware of Boss in the Meadowlands")...

- Got a good rip in on Moss for the excess celebrating after the first TD. I agree with Shaughnessy to a large extent - I despise showboating but is Shaughnessy reaching by blaming the ensuing Giant's TD kickoff return on Moss's penalty?

- A reference to the Grumpy Old Men (72 Dolphins) and no champagne for them. If the Patriots are fortunate enough to win the SB, I hope that puts to end all champagne references for eternity. (Heaven forbid we hear about the Sons of Belichick sipping champagne in 2037)

Dave M

Dan and the Hall of Fame

Dan presents his votes for Cooperstown. Jim Rice's bona fides are the focus of the article.

There has already been some debate on the subject in the previous comments section and baseballthinkfactory.org has many threads on the issue. My point of view is that Jim was a great slugger for a while, but he was not the dominant offensive force over an extended period that makes a player great. Combine that with an average defensive reputation, you get a very good player, not a Hall of Famer.

Dan mentions that the presence of McGwire on the ballot will affect voters' perception of Rice. I sure hope not as it would be more proof of the stupidity of baseball writers. If Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer now, he was one back in 1994. It shouldn't have changed because of what a bunch of players have done over the last 10 years.

Grumpy Old Men

As the Dolphins prepare to visit New England this weekend and as the Patriots prepare to eclipse the regular season perfect mark of 14-0, Shaughnessy dusts off the tired old tale of the grumpy/champagne-cork popping curmudgeons of the NFL's only perfect team, the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

The only freshness in an otherwise stale piece is the perspective of some of the ex-Dolphins on the Patriots (Seau and Evans) as they discuss how the streak is viewed in Miami. Also, he does discuss how Belichick has great respect for the 72 team and that he had dinner with Shula in the off-season.

In a typical Shaughnessy closing line convention, he concludes "But Belichick and the Patriots know that it's going to take 19-0 to overtake the '72 fish." Thanks for the insight.

Dan Brings It

Get Dan interested in something and he usually writes a decent column. Today is no exception.

Although, today is another in a string of Celtics column in which Dan devotes larges chunks of them to telling stories about Red. The stories are usually interesting, but they often come across as space fillers and a chance for Dan to show off how much he knows about the dearly departed.

Sometimes he doesn't know whether he's coming or going.

It took Dan less than a week to flip flop on his opinions regarding the Mitchell Report and, specifically, Roger Clemens.

12/14/07:

"There was much gum-flapping after the release of the report, and debate will rage forever. No one will be satisfied, but here in Boston and across Baseball America, we know the biggest loser of Dec. 13, 2007, was Roger Clemens.

The Rocket's résumé was flushed down the toilet yesterday when he was dimed out by a report that relies heavily on witnesses of questionable credibility. The report holds that Clemens was a steroid guy, starting in 1998 and continuing through two years with the Yankees (2000-01). The juicy disclosure might not hold up in court...

Clemens sounds like a man ready to fight. He didn't have an ounce of Mark McGwire in him when he issued his denial last night through his attorney....

Why name names? Why sign on to such an obviously incomplete report (Mitchell did not have subpoena powers and almost 100 percent of the ballplayers told him to take a hike)? Why put so much weight on the testimony of a former bat boy and a onetime trainer who cooperated under the threat of prison time?"

12/19/07:

"The walls were closing in. Roger Clemens had to do something. Going all McGwire on us wasn't going to get him out of this one.

Fraud. Cheat. Liar. Hypocrite. Juicer. Clemens in the last week emerged as the five-tool player of the Mitchell Report.

First he was dimed out by Brian McNamee, a former trainer who had nothing to gain and much to lose (prison time) by lying to George Mitchell....

It's more than Mark McGwire ever did, but it's hardly a threat to sue the pants off Mitchell and McNamee. We are left to wonder when, precisely, comes "the appropriate time" for Clemens to answer questions. Will that be when O.J. starts looking for the real killer?"

Why the flip-flop? Dan mentions a NYT article that states that McNamee faces criminal prosecution if he lied in his statements to Mitchell. However, the Report stated clearly that "[d]uring each of the interviews, the law enforcement officials warned him [Brian McNamee] that he faced criminal jeopardy if he made any false statements." [Page SR-21]

I guess Dan missed the widely known fact that McNamee participated as part of his plea deal.

Plugging Along

Dan has to write a column and this is what we get.

He starts inauspiciously by discussing the handshake and it is all downhill from there. A Roger Clemens reference and an "Animal House" reference make this classic Shank.

What Will Dan Write?

Everybody's favorite game:

What cliched, uninformative piece regarding the Mitchell Report will Shank come up with tomorrow?

My quick guess: Lots of Roger references, something about why did Gagne stop, and a bunch of references along the lines of "the immortal Paxton Crawford."

More .....

Dan leads with "We wrote this story back in..."

If there were ever a more fitting lead to a Shank column, well I never saw it.

Actually, Dan rehashes a tired subject with a a good reference. The comparison with the Muhammad Ali-Ernie Terrell fight was interesting and illuminating.

Stuck On Repeat

Dan, always known to work a well until it is bone dry, goes back to the perfect season angle, which he wrote about ... the day before.

And it is equally as boring with equally bad references.

As monkeesfan pointed out, Dan writes about this off the field crap because he cannot put the work into describing and analyzing what goes on the field. He probably spends the game thinking of Seinfeld references and waiting for the press conference to get all the quotations to fill out his space.

No Guarantees

Dan writes about the guarantee foolishness from the Pittsburgh Steelers. The column itself is okay....nothing remarkable. Shaughnessy takes no shots at Coach Hoodie which is a nice change of pace. Shaughnessy is guilty of his typical hyperbole when he claims that if the Steelers win, Anthony Smith will become the boldest young gun since Joe Namath made his famous guarantee for Super Bowl III. Are you kidding me? The comparisons here are incredibly weak: Let's see, we have one team's star quarterback (Namath) versus a little known defender? A Super Bowl game versus a regular season game? A game in which the Jets were given little hope versus a game in which the Steelers are widely perceived as having an excellent chance of winning. An era where guarantees were not everyday pedestrian fodder versus an era where guarantees seem to be made every month (Hello Gilbert Arenas and the Washington Wizards). There is a huge difference between Namath and Smith.

I have a bigger issue with all the attention this story has received nationally and am surprised by the legs that it has had. What does a guarantee mean anyway? Is Smith going to give back his salary if they don't win? For that matter, did Gilbert Arenas really take a hit in the reputation department when the Wizards lost to the Celtics despite his guarantee? Do the Patriots really derive that much motivation from the words of a second year DB (and as Shaughnessy points out, the kid really kind of meandered into this statement--it wasnt the boldest proclamation in the world)

Here is my guarantee - Sunday's game will be a good one. Let it play out on the field and enough of this foolishness.

Charm City

The Patriots pull off a win more reminiscent of the 2003 season than this season and Dan has the recap.

Nice column, not much too add. I am just waiting for Dan to dump all over any (non)trade the Red Sox make.

Brighton's Championship Season

Today, Shaughnessy has a piece on Brigton's high school football championship season. They have gone from 0-9 three years ago to 12-0 this year. All the while, they have had to deal with the indignities of playing Division 4 high school to include the most recent slight of their game not being played at Gillette; all of the other state title games were played at Gillette.

Shaughnessy typically does a good job with these articles. When he has the opportunity to paint a sympathetic tale of a team or person overcoming adversity and obstacles, he is effective. He does a good job of painting the picture (for instance, detailing the long commutes of some of the players) and he taps into quotes from the players who best represent the team's spirit. This article is typical of a good Shaughnessy feel good story.

Shaughnessy will run sometimes afoul in these kinds of articles when 1) he gets overly preachy; 2) he starts drawing analogies with the local professional sports teams; or 3) he starts railing against the injustice of the "system". He refrains today and we are left with a pleasant read.

Edit Add: On a separate but related topic, last week Shaughnessy wrote about the Tri-County league--he blasted the rules that incentivized running up the score in the first half. I did a little statistical comparison between the 2006 and 2007 seasons to see if the numbers backed up this story. Took the game scores of the top 3 finishers in the league for 06 and 07. For these team's wins, the average margin of victory was 21 points in 2006 and 18 points in 2007. I then looked specificially at blowouts which I defined by a margin of victory of 20 points or greater. In 2006, the first half score contributed to 60% of the final margin of blowouts. In 2007, the first half
contributed to 76% of the final margin of blowouts. What does this suggest? Yes, in 2007, there was a larger run-up of scores in the first half...but overall "sportsmanship" really did not take a hit so to speak since the overall margin actually decreased. This is the kind of thing that would make Shaughnessy better--do the research to back up the emotional claims. Makes for a stronger story although I think Shank would also find that the stats would sometimes get in the way of a good story he is trying to spin--God forbid!

The Knicks Stink

Shaughnessy directs his criticism at a new target - the New York Knicks. He says they are a joke of an organization and I have to agree that he is right although this is not a startling relevation. It is amazing to me that Thomas still has a job. And thank goodness Dolan is not the owner of the Red Sox. I am shocked that Shaughnessy did not bring up Isiah Thomas' (in)famous line about Larry Bird..where Thomas claimed that if Bird was black that he would be just another good player.

You know it is easy to carp away at Shaughnessy's style. Perhaps I need to channel Belichick and realize that "It is what it is". Nevertheless, Shank does some things over and over again and you have to wonder if he has any new tricks up his sleeve...yet, it is obvious he doesn't. Some of these annoyances include:

- Multiple Red Sox and Patriots references to benchmark the success of the Celtics (the win against the Knicks was Belichickian) -- he cant resist bringing in the other local teams

- A backhanded compliment of Theo (Danny Ainge is almost as smart as Epstein)

- A continued lack of appreciation of basic economics. Calls the NFL Network "hideous". I realize many were angry about not being able to see the game last night but as an economist, I see this as a simple case of economic forces actively at work. Shaughnessy calling the NFL Network hideous is very much a childish/ignorant reaction in my humble opinion

High Scool Football

For the past couple of days, Dan has been taking on high school sports. Today's article focuses on the complex tie breaking rules in the Dual County League in which Lincoln-Sudbury, Acton-Boxboro and Wayland finished in a three-way tie but only Wayland advances because of a perverse tie-breaking system which gives incentive to running up the score in the first half. Not living in the local area, I am admittedly removed from the ins and outs of local high school football but I tend to agree that the system as Dan describes it needs to be changed. That being said, what were league officials thinking in the first place when they approved such a rule set in the first place?

If you haven't read the article but I give you the hint above that these high rules give incentive to run up the score, can you guess which point of reference Shaughnessy will introduce? You betcha - let's take a few swipes at Belichick and the Patriots. Shaughnessy does not disappoint here. By the way, I think Shaughnessy is convinced that Belichick originated and is almost the exclusive user of the phrase "It is what it is" ...I dont know Shank but I hear that phrase used all the time.

Finally, Shaughnessy brings up a reference to game theory..it is an odd reference in that he says "if you have memorized...game theory...." (then you might be able to understand the tiebreaker system). My point: You dont memorize game theory, you comprehend it.

An Open Letter to Objective Bruce

Dear Objective Bruce

You are always welcome to post comments on this webpage. You definitely bring a different point of view and we appreciate that. Yet, you sometimes make points which are either flawed logically or are otherwise erroneous. In so doing, you often make disparaging comments about this page’s bloggers. We often call you on these points but you inevitably fail to respond. Let’s look at two recent examples:

1. DBVader has repeatedly called on you to admit your error regarding a recent column in which you claimed a reference did not exist but DB showed definitively that it did. He has asked you about this repeatedly and you have not responded.
2. On this past Sunday’s blog entry, I claimed that Shaughnessy was being hypocritical in criticizing Schiling’s Cy Young contract clause while at the same time Shaughnessy pushed the work of his fellow Globe writers. You claimed that this was a poor comparison and you called me naïve and you called my agenda silly.

Specifically, you said:

How incredibly naive.

No, Schilling isn't going to share his million dollar bonus with a sportswriter who throws him a vote. But with a million on the table, can it be said that Schilling won't be friendly toward a sportswriter who could give him a vote? Doesn't giving a sportswriter the opportunity to single-handedly increase someone's income by a million dollars also give that sports writer greater access and give the player an incentive for giving information to that writer -- and not just information about the team but, oh say maybe information about what happened in a close-door clubhouse meeting?

The conflict of interest could not be more clear. It is truly naive if you can't see the difference between placing a reporter in a position where he can make someone that he covers a million dollars richer and praising a book by a colleague.

Now, I started to break your statement down in the blog response section but since you generally don’t respond to those, let’s do some detailed analysis of the absolute absurdity of your comment above and let’s do it on the front page.

You question the wisdom of giving a sportswriter the opportunity to single-handedly increase someone’s income by a million dollars. First of all, I would suggest that this goes on all of the time but it is not in such a direct form. I am certain that athletes give certain reporters access that they don’t give to others. What is the payoff? Favorable coverage of course. Favorable coverage translates into improved public relations perceptions of that player which means things such as more lucrative endorsements which means lots of dollars. I imagine certain players are absolute masters of this. Can you refute this Bruce?

Bruce, you talk about players giving reporters insight into the team behind closed doors. You imply this is a bad thing. Please complete this sentence, Bruce: “This is bad because….”

In my line of thinking, it is bad if 1) if the reporter does not provide a fair assessment of that player –in other words, he gives him an unjustified free pass or 2) if the reporter blatantly does something like provide an unjustified Cy Young vote to a player who clearly does not deserve it. We already discussed the fact that 1) probably happens to some degree—whether it is a deliberate act by the reporter or if the reporter does not even realize that he or she is being a pawn. I would sincerely hope that a reporter would not be so weak as to be manipulated like this—but I guess I would not be surprised either. After all,I do recall Shaughnessy's review of Larry Bird’s new line of wine a while back – Bruce, do you think that little column increased sales of Bird’s wines? What's the difference here, Bruce?

The second case (casting an unjustified Cy Young vote as a form of payback) is much more blatant – and because it is so blatant, it would play out in the court of public opinion. The reporter would likely be revealed and censured – his integrity would be under attack. Why risk this? The player would also come off incredibly poorly—would it really be worth it to the player being portrayed as manipulative to cash in on a contract clause that has marginal impact on his salary? At any rate, things have a way of self corrrecting when they are made public like this – it is the power of the market of public opinion.

What is Shaughnessy’s solution? “Let’s take the vote away from the writers.” That is pure brilliance. Does Shaughnessy really have such little faith in his fellow sportswriters to think they need to be saved from their collective incompetence? Look around Bruce…people all around the world are in positions of power – in these positions of power , they are often in a position to be bribed. By logical extension, Shaughnessy would have you believe that the solution to this would be to remove them from their positions of power. I can hear it now, “Sorry Congressman, we need to remove you from your position because you might get bribed.” If this were the solution, would anything in the world get done? Shaughnessy’s solution is absurd to its very core and it is also a slap in the face of his fellow sportswriters.

Switching gears here, let’s look at the old cronyism in the sportswriting profession in which someone like Shaughnessy endorses the work of his fellow employees at the Globe. I am perhaps guilty of hyperbole in suggesting that these guys are sharing royalties but I am trying to make a point. What if instead, there is a tacit agreement between the writers “I will give you a favorable push if you return the favor down the road.” This is intellectually dishonest especially when it is the case that a particular writer’s work doesn’t merit a push. I, as a reader, may be deceived because a given columnist (who I thought I trusted) did not provide an intellectually honest opinion about a fellow journalist because he is engaging in tit for tat endorsements. I would suggest this is just as bad as the abuses that can play out in the athlete/sportswriter relationship discussed earlier. Why doesn’t Shaughnessy suggest the ban of these endorsements? Because he's too busy doing it and does not realize the utter hypocrisy of it all.

Our agenda is not silly. Shaughnessy is paid big dollars to write for a major newspaper. His work is often fundamentally flawed and we have every right to call him on that. The readers of the Boston Globe deserve much better than Dan Shaughnessy’s mindless drivel.

Did Shaughnessy take over Bob Ryan's blog?

I think Shank is jealous of bloggers and he staged a covert operation to take over Bob Ryan's blog...see this post about Schilling

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/bob_ryan_blog/


Sounds a lot like this recent blast from the past from Shank himself

Ryan even calls him a big lug and blowhard.

Hypocrisy and other nonsense

Today, Shank meets his quarterly requirement to have a picked up pieces column—

With the Celtics doing well and with a roster of what seem to be “good guys”, I was wondering what angle Shank would take with the Celts to spew sarcasm…would it be a litany of “thanksdad” references? Rick Pitino hits? Or how about even Jesus Shuttlesworth mentions? Well, today, he uses one of his favorite techniques,,,,the “Let’s make travel dates for the XXX [insert league] finals” line…of course, this is dripping with sarcasm and a poke at the Celts euphoria since the Celts are but five games into the season.

Shaughnessy slams the provision in Schilling’s contract that gives him a $1 million bonus if he gets a single Cy Young vote. He claims that it will be easy for there to be collusion between Schilling and any particular sportswriter. He concludes that the BBWA should give up the vote because of the “blatant conflict” with clauses such as this. I guess this is to protect the sanctity of the sportswriting fraternity? Frankly, I don’t get the logic here. What is the conflict? It’s not like Schilling is going to share the money with the sportswriter, is he? That is not going to happen. If anything, I can see a NY based writer giving Schiling a vote to drive up the Sox payroll. If so, I think that would be pretty clever. In which case, I think economic market forces takes care of this issue – the Sox will realize the foolishness of such a clause and would not include it in future contracts. Problem solved.

So, while Shank gets on his high horse about “blatant conflicts”, he happily shills for a book by fellow Globe writer Neil Swidey-- a “tome” about Charlestown High School basketball. Hmmm, is there a conflict here Shank? You guys sharing royalties? Maybe it’s time for sportswriters to give up using their columns to push the work of fellow sportswriters? You are such a hypocrite.

More on conflicts, Shank rails against the fact that George Mitchell is heading the steroids probe while still being on the board of the Red Sox. This is a fair criticism except for the timing. Shank, Mitchell has been doing this probe for what, over a year now? And you are just now making this connection? Why are you just mentioning this now? My guess is that Shank is simply setting himself up for when the report comes out in January…if there are no Red Sox named, he can say “See I told you so.”

There are a few more annoyances in this disgraceful column. Read for yourself if you can stand it.

Why is everybody always picking on me?

Make games | Share | Play free online games | User Generated Games @ Pictogame

Sucking Lemon

"One thing we know they agree on is Schilling: thanks for the clutch work, big fella, now don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Speak for yourself CHB.

With the announcement that Schilling would be back another year, Dan has to suck on a lemon.

But Dan is happy to have his ignorance of the front office's inner workings exposed to be able to write about Schilling for another year.

"Love him or hate him, things are a lot more interesting and fun with the Big Blowhard around. Without Schill, we'd miss the blog, the nonstop promotion of his new company, the hard-hitting interviews/infomercials on WEEI, the butting into everyone else's business, the retraction of statements made about other people, and the eight or nine wins he's brought to the table in two of the last three seasons."

Because that is all that it is about. Picking on somebody you do not like for personal reasons. The sport is only secondary.

Also, notice the use of misleading statistics at the end. Dan overlooks the 200+ IP in 2006, doesn't mention that Dan was coming off of a severe injury in 2005, and ignores the fact that Schilling doesn't get paid in 2008 unless he hits the IP incentives. Facts are not Dan's strong point; invective is.

There are also some "cover his ass" bits, where Dan assumes certain things about the front office in order to make the signing more congruous with Dan's earlier statements. The Red Sox were "stunned by this development" and "played hardball and won." None of the accounts of the negotiations suggest either of these claims are true, but if they make Shank feel better.

Dan is trying hard

Day Two for Dan swearing off random mentions of the Red Sox in Patriots columns.

Otherwise, a piece about Belichick downplaying the significance of the game with a very special paragraph that contains a an obscure phrase ("take the apple") and a groan inducing pun.

Now on to the Pats

Now that the Sox season is over, Shaughnessy takes his worn out shtick to the Patriots.

Shaughnessy doesn't disappoint--this column comes replete with Celtics references and the dissing of Belichick's wardrobe (multiple hoodie references of course) and Belichick's favorite lines (It is what it is).

Of course, there is not a lot of insight. Key highlights

- Compares Brady/Manning to Russell/Chamberlain. But now that Manning has a SB and three straight wins over the Pats and Brady is putting up gaudy numbers, Russell has become Chamberlain and Chamerlain has become Russell. This is typical Shaughnessy hyperbole - Brady still has 3 SB wins, Shank and Manning only has 1

- Says that the image of the Pats has been forever altered by "spygate". They are no longer the darlings of high school coaches everywhere. Shank loves this storyline and he will continue to perpetuate it for many years.

- The Patriots are bad sports - they are on a mission to run up the score on everyone

All in all, we have classic Shank -- has he made any points that you havent heard multiple times elsewhere? His one "interesting" insight (Brady has become Chamerlain) is a stretch. Just for once, I would love for him to take a contrarian view and then back it up with strong facts. Just doesn't happen.

The one missing element - no Red Sox references - what gives?

Dan's Take

This is Dan's view on the Red Sox World Series win.

Again, Bob Ryan is second fiddle. I cannot imagine why Shank is the Number #1 writer on this staff.

Is he talking to me? Couldn't be!

Imagine, for a moment, a four year old kid hiding under his brother's bed in Needham, Mass in 1970 watching the Bruins play on TV, waiting to hear the name of his favorite player, Bobby Orr. This poor kid was uprooted as a 5 year old to move to the deep south in 1972 but the Boston roots stuck.

The Red Sox sprang into his consciousness in 1974...a final week of the season in which the Red Sox lost to the Orioles. 1975 was a glorious year for this 9 year old...this kid stilll thanks his Dad 32 years later for letting him stay up late on a school night to watch Carlton Fisk homer off Pat Darcy in the 12th inning of the 6th game of the World Series. Much to his dismay, Jim Burton gave up a single to Joe Morgan in Game 7 and that was all she wrote for 1975. 1976 and 1977 were fun but disappointing years - in the 75 offseason, favorite player Cecil Cooper was traded to the Brewers and this kid was depressed for months. 1978 was another terrific summer - the Sox had a big lead but saw it dissipate. This kid begged his mom to pick him up early from school to see a one-game playoff with those Yankees. On the radio, (on the way home) he heard Yaz homer early in the game...but 29 years later, he stills curses Bucky Beeping Dent and Lou Piniella too. This kid would call local radio sport shows in South Carolina debating the merits of the Red Sox lineup and it is very likely no one in the state cared but him.


Lean years until 1986. Now a college junior in these pre-internet years, he would run to bookstores in Georgetown in Oct 86, after class to scour the racks for a 2-day old Boston Globe so he could read the local Red Sox coverage. Another classic World Series Game 6 and after this one, he ran down the halls of his dormitory screaming at the top of his lungs "How could they blow this?" (Just a weeek or so after declaring Dave Henderson and Don Baylor his new personal heroes)

More pain followed....the years seem to run together as he handled military life, married life, raising 4 children. 2003 is another red letter year and Aaron Boone. Finally, fortunes reversed in 2004--tears streaming down his face--the Red Sox had finally won it all.

Excuse the dramatics in re-creating my sad little life--a life that seems to be bookmarked against the ups and downs of the Red Sox---many more memories than this but you get the idea. And I am sure many of you have very similar stories.

Flash forward to today....I have a Game 7 World Series ticket thanks to a dear friend and a fellow diehard. I would love to see the Red Sox win in 4 games but pardon me (and my friend) for having the audacity to dream about the idea of seeing the Red Sox win a World Series in Fenway Park and being present to see it. I am not rich. I plan to stretch the family budget to fly up from DC on Thursday if I am so lucky. I have not jumped the bandwagon. With this team and their history, there is something so right about a Game 7. It has never been easy and it does not feel right when it is easy. The 2004 sweep of the Cardinals did not seem right either -- but perhaps that was a cosmic way to spare people a few heart attacks after the comeback against the Yankees. Yes, the Sox won in 2004 but pardon me for thinking that it would be extra special this year if it happened at Fenway (and especially with me and my friend present to see it).

I am sure there are a small bunch of fair weather fans that Shaughnessy correctly describes but I find his broad brush criticism condescending. Again, here is a guy who is paid to go the ball park to write about the games. Does he not realize how lucky he is? Can he even begin to fathom what it would mean to an out of town fanatic to be present to see the Sox win it all?
It would quite literally be one of the highlights of my life. Forgive me for feeling that way

Those darn clueless newbies!

Since the Sox are playing so well, Dan directs snide remarks towards his newest target - those pesky bandwagon fans. Those idiot fans could not possibly conceive that the Sox might actually fall behind for a few innings--imagine the shock. Darn those fans for actually having the audacity to shell out big bucks to buy tickets and show up for a World Series Game. (I find this amusing--here is a man who gets paid to come to Fenway to watch the games for free and he takes jabs at paying customers?) I wonder how Shaughnessy tells the difference between bandwagon jumpers and the regulars anyway? Do they let out a different type of gasp? Do they not know the words to Sweet Caroline? Perhaps it is simply the case that he was not cursed as much when he made his rounds through the stadium?


As for those fabulous Sox, Shank writes

These Sox are unlike any Boston baseball team since the earliest years of Fenway Park. They have won five consecutive postseason games, six straight World Series games, and they're taking a 2-0 Series lead to Coors Field for the resumption of the 103d Fall Classic tomorrow night.

Well, this is a long way from just nine days ago when he wrote

There's just so much working against your team. It's hard to be positive. And even though the Sox aren't done yet, some of us are already at work carving up the blame pie (speaking of pies, a Cleveland sportscaster did his postgame TV show wearing a cream pie on his head late Tuesday)......It doesn't feel like we are watching a team that can crawl out of this hole

It is also curious how he calls them "these Sox" - since he says they have won six World Series games in a row, he must be combining them with the Red Sox of 2004 which then must also include the 2005 and 2006 Sox--one team that got routed in the playoffs by the White Sox and the other did not make the playoffs and they are teams that Shank has roundly criticized. Dan's thought process is fundamentally flawed but he has never been one to let the facts get in the way of a good story line.

Finally now that Okajima is back and doing great, let's dust off the horse analogy from earlier in the year--you know when Okajima was a stable mate for the more famous Japanese hurler? No credit for Theo and the minions on this one, Shank? Just last week, you were quick to point out

Dan Duquette assembled half of the 2004 champs, but what we are looking at today is almost exclusively Theo's team and it's his most recent acquisitions who have been exposed thus far in October.

So when the players are bad, we get shots at the minions and always shots at Bill James. But when they are good, no credit to go around. Typical pathetic Shaughnessy

Dangerous!

Yes, the Red Sox are dangerous. And Dan has all the details in his Page A1 piece.

A pretty good wrapup (although I still don't understand why the much better Bob Ryan doesn't get the high profile gigs). There was a funny (and original) line, "Eddie Cicotte of the 1919 White Sox didn't do that badly and he was trying to lose", and none of the extraneous crap that Dan likes to throw in.

Dan continues, though, his trend of taking the most recent results and extrapolating from there. The playoffs began with the Red Sox World Series favorites, and they looked great after Game One of the ALCS, but doom and gloom soon returned until the Red Sox righted the ship and roared into the World Series. Dan might want to look back to the beginning of the ALCS. The Red Sox got off to a very similar start.

Fact Check

This sentence, in addition to being awkwardly written, is incorrect:

"In the bottom of the first, Dustin Pedroia hit Jeff Francis's second pitch over the Green Monster and the Sox put three on the board before making two outs.

Dan also has the 5,467th article about Yastrzemski and the '67 Red Sox written in the last year. It is pretty good. It captures the humble nature of Yaz and his uncomfortable relationship to his fame.

How About Some Answers...

and not just questions?

What Dan does today is typical. He points out the obvious (there is no history to the Rockies and nobody knows who they are) and fails to offer any insight or enlightenment.

Dan laments the lack of history behind the Rockies, noting how young and undistinguished the team is. Yet this simple narrative ignores the unique history of the team and the many different ways management has tried to craft a winning team in a difficult environment. There were the slugging teams that made it to the playoffs in 1995. They brought in high priced free-agent pitching. They emphasized defense. Nothing raising them out of mediocrity.

Now they seem to have figured something out, but Dan is too lazy to tell us what it could be. He simply states the obvious fact that most Boston (and baseball) fans don't know much about the team. It would have been a much more interesting column if he talked about how the Rockies have fashioned this team with groundball pitchers, good infield defense, and young, cheap bats. Dan could have used his prominent position to erase some of the ignorance that he complains about. That would have required some work, though. It is much easier to revel in your ignorance.

Theo and His Minions Watch

Sixth paragraph.

What Have They Done to Dan?

Today, Dan adopts the literary device of somebody waking up from a coma, unaware of all the changes in Boston sports.

And the writer has only praise for his usual targets. Bob Kraft, who Dan unmercifully and at times incorrectly attacked for his college athletic resume while bashing him for losing Parcells, is now the "best owner...in all of football." Bill Belichick, who Dan accused of inventing every nefarious tactic employed in football, is the "best coach...in all of football."

The Red Sox are going great. Theo is a "brilliant young general manager", not a stats obsessed geek without any feel for the game. There are more bouquets for the ownership, which Dan attacked five years ago.

Dan ends with a look at the possible week ahead: Games 6 & 7 in Fenway, Kevin Garnett's home debut and the Pats v. Colts. Too bad it has already been discussed endlessly, including a mention by one of Dan's biggest fans a week and a half ago.

Lazy sportswriting alert

They have players fans want to root for - legends like David Ortiz, Manny Ramírez, and Curt Schilling, and home-grown grinders like Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, and Jonathan Papelbon.

This is classic sportswriter speak. Short, white guys are always grinders, no matter how talented.

A New Dan?

The last three Red Sox games have crushed Dan's spirit. That is the only conclusion I can make after reading today's front page piece. Part history lesson, part game recap, there are none of Shank's staples: No shots at Theo, no digs at Schilling, Manny, Drew or Pedroia, no Patriots references.

Seeing Drew, Pedroia, Manny, and Schilling coming through over the last week has left Dan deflated.

Dan's column on Kevin Millar throwing out the first pitch was equally uneventful. It's a tough time to be Dan. There is no fodder for his shtick.

Double the Fun

Shaugnessy has two contributions today:

1) A game recap replete with his typical digs...We have the "broad shoulders of Curt Schilling" and another subtle dig at Bill James for the JD Drew signing. We also have statements given to hyperbole...this is an "improbable comeback". It is not improbable - the Red Sox have been down 3-1 4 times in the past in ALCS series and have come back twice. But Dan will spin it whichever way the wind blows

2) A look at the decision to replace Crisp with Ellsbury. Shaughnessy starts by ludicrously hinting that Francona had made the decision because of media and fan pressure but quickly corrects himself by stating "It was a baseball decision, of course". Francona does come out of the article in a positive light, handling the decision with Crisp as best he could. Shaughnessy concludes with the ridiculous tension he is trying to create between Ellsbury (of Navajo descent) having to face the team that wears silly Indian logos on their caps. Shank wrote about this last week and even repeats the same quote from Ellsbury in which Ellsbury takes the high road. ("You can look at it that it's offensive or you can look at it that they are representing native Americans. Usually, I'll take the positive out of it.")

Big game 7 tonight - will happy Shank or bitter Shank emerge tomorrow morning in the hallowed sports pages of the Boston Globe?

Where have I seen this column before?

When I read this morning's piece on Schilling, I thought to myself "Where have I read this before?" I only had to go back 12 days to find this fine effort in which he says virtually all the same things.

Both the Oct 8 and 20th pieces are odes to the playoff hero, Curt Schilling (you know, the "Big Lug", the "Blowhard")

- In the Oct 8th piece, he calls Schilling the "Mr October of Moundsmen"; sure enough he dusts that little nugget off and today again calls him "Mr October of Moundsmen"

- In the Oct 8th piece, he says Schilling has had to reinvent himself because he can't hit 90 miles per hour on the radar gun anymore. In today's piece, he talks about Schilling's reinvention and his 89 mile per hour fastball

- In the Oct 8th piece, he says Schilling cant throw much harder than John Burkett and that he has gone from being Roger Clemens to Greg Maddux. In today's piece, he says Schilling throws more like Al Nipper than Roger Clemens.

- In the Oct 8th piece, Shank says "you might remember [the game] in which he pitched with a bloody sock. Today he says "you might remember that he also did OK in 2004....with blood oozing from fresh sutures"

- They are not identical articles and in fact, today Shaughnessy makes up for not following his standard formulaic recipe to a T on Oct 8th. You see, in the Oct 8th piece, Shank must have forgotten the cook book requirement to throw in a Patriots/Celtics comparison. We just need to give Shank another chance because he does not forget that key ingredient today---the Great Schill is compared to Bird, Russell and Brady.

Now a little prediction, if Schill gets bombed tonight, the Shank claws will come out in full force
-- he will talk about Schilling no longer being the pitcher he once was; he will talk about Schilling reporting to camp 40 pounds overweight; he will talk about Schill's blog and video game empire; and he will wish Schilling well...in Tampa Bay.

Coming Back Strong

In his lead-in today, Shaughnessy does his best to channel classic Gammons: "....don't lower the storm windows just yet" he cautions. Autumn has been postponed. Summer lives another day.

And so the roller coaster ride that is known as a Dan Shaughnessy article/column/monstrosity continues today. As has been pointed out in this space over the past week, Shaughnessy has gone from euphoric to stable to sullen to downright vitriolic over the past week. Yesterday's "blame game" piece was particularly venemous and Shank-like.

And yet after one simple win, signs of hope and optimism emerge yet again. No blame game today. Beckett is awesome and good ole Schill is one of the best playoff chuckers in the game. Still, a little summer left. There is hope after all. Theo and the minions have been granted a pass to live another day.

Perhaps, Shaughnessy is just a fan like the rest of us poor bastards who live in Ma's basement? He does not appear to have the capacity to objectively think--he just reacts. In the wake of his euphoria last week, we pointed out that all was not rosey despite 4 consecutive wins. But Shaughnessy would not have that - the Sox run to the championship had the air of inevitability. Three losses later and Shaughnessy dug up every worm he could find - dishing Drew to Pedroia to Gagne, Epstein and Francona and pretty much everyone else. You know what, Shank....if you had looked a little closer, you would have realized that Drew and Gagne and Lugo and Crisp all stunk last week too - you know when the Red Sox were on their inevitable ride to the World Series. And they will probably stink on Saturday and Sunday too. The essential characteristics of a team don't change that much from day to day over a 1 week span.

If you had the capacity to dig a little, a three game losing streak would not have been all that surprising and we would not be subjected to your roller coaster of emotions and petty attacks. How you manage to skate by is simply stunning to me...I wonder when the storm windows of your career will be lowered?

Small Sample Size

If one were to read today's Shank column and conclude based on it that he sucked as a writer, you would be committing a mistake in logic. One column is not enough to show that a columnist is good or bad. To truly determine that Shank sucked, you would need to look at his whole body of work.

Dan makes such a mistake in today's column, blaming players for poor hitting over a four-game period. (My favorite is "Organization poster boy Dustin Pedroia is hitting .172 against the Tribe", implying that there is something wrong about an organization with a 2b hitting .380/.440.) Let's ignore what happened over six months for what happened over the last week. This is the same type of irrational, panicked thinking that CHB would slam fans for engaging in.

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.


Factual Error
Manny Delcarmen is not one of Theo's guys. He was drafted in 2000.

A Sudden Turn Around

Today Dan's tone is somber, as the Red Sox face elimination. A marked difference from the man who wrote the Red Sox are "favorites to win the World Series" and that there's "a sense of inevitability" about the team.

Dan also turns on Manny Ramirez calling him "classless as well as clueless" a week after submitting a glowing profile.

He cannot leave it alone department
- Just about twenty words in "a front office of stat geeks." Dan is sure that somehow it is all their fault.

It's Got It All

A Seventies music reference? Check. ("The tumbling Dice Man")

A "1918" reference? Check. ("The midgame rally now feels as though it happened sometime back in 1918.")

A reference to how much a player makes? Check. ("Acquired for the price of $103 million last winter")

A misleading use of a statistic? Check. ("Jake Westbrook, a 30-year-old righthander who went 6-9 in 2007." Wins are misleading. Westbrook had a slightly better than league average ERA.)

There you have today's column.

Mountain out of a Molehill

Dan is looking to for a controversy, any controversy. And he really has to reach.

Dan complains about the use of Eric Gagne in the 11th inning of Saturday night's game and it is remarkably overblown. It was the 11th inning, MDC, Oki, Timlin, and Papelbon had already pitched. The game was a tossup as both teams emptied their bullpens. Francona's options were Lester or Gagne. (Lopez was not an option as he has been used as a lefty specialist all season.) This game, specifically this decision, is not on par with Game 6 and is not something that deserves great attention or debate. Cleveland's crappy pitchers outpitched Boston's crappy pitchers.

He cannot leave it alone department
- As noted before, Dan has a strange fascination with game times and other boring game trivia. Today Dan gives us the time the game ended, how long it lasted, and how many pitches were thrown. Everybody knows it was long, enough with it.

- Dan was cruising along, no possible Patriot references in sight until he lays this one down:

"Tom Mastny, who retired David Ortiz, Manny Ramírez, and Mike Lowell, 1-2-3 (something that happens about as often as the Patriots tell the truth on their injury report)"

Dan, you were doing so well. Let's try to stay focused.

He must have fallen asleep

What a peculiar piece this morning....is Dan a victim of editing? Or did he simply fall asleep after the 6th inning? I dont get it.

What was Dan's job last night anyway? Was he supposed to write a simple game recap? If so, why are we served with two game recaps....one by Edes and this one by Shaughnessy that curiously ends after a discussion of the 6th inning? Or was he supposed to write a column or a "sidebar"? This definitely was not a column and not really a sidebar either

There are elements of typical Dan which emerge. He cant seem to write about the Red Sox without mentioning the Patriots and he cant write about the Patriots without mentioning the Sox. That is a critical element of Shank-ology.

Perhaps this effort simply serves as a bridge. We had "happy Dan" on Saturday after 4 straight wins talking about the inevitability of the Sox World Series run; we get straightforward (albeit abbreviated) Dan after last night's marathon. If the Sox lose Tuesday, we are sure to see the return of bitter, vindictive Dan on Tuesday.

He blows with the wind

Dan's penchant to turn with the tide is on display today. The Red Sox have won four straight convincing playoff games and Dan uses that as an impetus to call them America's team. He also says there is a sense of inevitably about their playoff run...a curious claim in one of Dan's feel good columns

A few thoughts:

- Do the Red Sox really hold the place as America's team? Granted, they are wildly popular across the country but when did they really assume that role as America's team? (I am not trying to take a shot at Shaughnessy here - I truly am curious is this a legit claim or Shaughnessy hyperbole?)

- I do object to his declaration that there is a sense of inevitably about the Red Sox playoff run. He conveys a sense of dominance that I'm just not seeing. The Red Sox have been vulnerable to good pitching this year and all it takes is a couple of strong performances from the Indians starters and/or poor performances from the Sox starters (Schilling is not a sure bet; Wakefield has even more question marks) for this to be a very competitive series. I am sure Negative Dan will emerge immediately after a loss or two



DM

Dan Tries What People Refer to as "Irony"

I think Dan has finally caught on to the fact that people think his "Boston has ... while City X has" shtick is boring. He really mixes it up today with a comparison between Cleveland and New York. Didn't see that coming did you?

Dan sneaks in a few self referential barbs. He is glad the Red Sox are playing Cleveland because of the following things:

"It's impossible to make those Harvard-Yale, Athens-Sparta analogies in any series that includes Cleveland."

"No references to Evil Empire, Bambino, Harry Frazee, Bucky Dent, or Aaron Boone."

"No USAir flight No. 1918 from LaGuardia"

"No "No, No, Nanette""

More Redundancy

When a piece opens with "Unlike the late Frank Sinatra, your Boston Red Sox get plenty of kicks from champagne", you can be pretty sure Dan's got nothing.

Dan also has a glowing recap of Schilling's performance. It is nice to see Dan can get over his paranoia and write objectively about Schilling.

October Magic

(Edited at 1315, Sat)

Dan provides a relatively straight forward game summary column this morning so between him and Edes, we are well covered...not to mention columns by Ryan and Macmullan. Two observations this morning:

- How the mighty have fallen....Dan was obsessed with Matsuzaka this spring, chronicling his every trip to the restroom. At one point, Dan was overheard from the bathroom stalls at Fort Myers declaring, "Hey Gord-o, it's a #2 this time. I think he had sushi last night."

Now, he seems downright annoyed with our Japanese friend, just like Joba Chamberlain was annoyed with those gnats last night in Cleveland. No elaborate discussion of Matsuzaka's first playoff start. No use of "Dice-K"; calls him a $100 fraud --not even giving him credit for bilking the Sox of $103M. Wow!

- Writers think they are being cute and clever when they use the good old "time of day" technique. You know like when Shaughnessy says the game "ended at 12:44 this morning" and Matsuzaka threw his first pitch "at 8:39 p.m.". Gives the game recap a certain authentic feel, doesn't it? Edes uses the time technique this morning too and he and Shaughnessy are perfectly synchronized at 12:44 (and the boys at the Herald too). It makes me wonder if the Sox have a guy in the press box that is like the doc in the dramatic scenes in hospital shows where they say, "I'm going to call it now, time of death, 2:27 am". Perhaps John Henry gives Carl Bean a wink and Bean announces "It's over....time of game 12:44." (And I wonder if they did it last night from the time the ball left Manny's bat or by the time Manny touched home plate?--must be a three minute lag there.)

Shaughnessy also has a passing mention of bloody socks Schilling and the anti Steve Bartman but otherwise, not much there

Got to run

Peace

Please Spare Us

On a morning when the Globe Sports had a game piece by Edes and a game column by Ryan, Dan, credited as "Globe Staff", gives us a some hybrid, half-article, half-column. Don't know why we needed it, considering the work done by the two great writers. Dan must have whined to his buddy Joe Sullivan to get to write this redundant piece.

This one has it all. Pointless references to the Patriots, a Dr. Charles sighting, and easy swipes again at the Rally and the President of Red Sox Nation.

Some time during the playoffs I will have to review the number of times Dan includes a mention of the Patriots in a column about the Red Sox and vice versa. The streak is now at least two days after Dan wrote this about Theo in yesterday's piece:

"[H]e's become downright Belichickian in his quest for success.

Edit The last five Shank pieces posted at DSW have a reference to the other team.

Shank on Theo

Shank has an interview with Theo Epstein on the eve of the opening of the playoffs.

Surprise, the second sentence refers to how young he is. Other than that, no minion talk or other Shank staples. He does again refer to the JD Drew dea("In a particularly curious deal, they signed free agent outfielder J.D. Drew to a five-year, $70 million contract."). I am still waiting for the proof that the Red Sox had some deal with Boras before Drew opted out or that the Drew deal was quid pro quo for Matsuzaka signing.

An Awful, Awful Piece

Dan is able to make it about halfway through today's column with the semblance of a point, but he runs out of steam and is reduced to tossing off empty trivia and bad jokes that he must have been storing up for ages.

"This TV special was played at Paul Brown Stadium on the one-year anniversary of the Patriots' 38-13 victory at the same site in 2006."

After every writer and radio host has mentioned the prior game during the last week Dan sees fit to remind us. He also reminds that it was the one year anniversary of the game played in 2006. Not 2005 or 1995 but 2006. Thanks for clearing that up.

Dan then engages in the same type of idolizing of Belichick ("The timing of the release signified another brilliant move by Belichick.") that Dan claims is indicative of the coach's arrogance.

He follows up with some factual errors:
"Brown is the man who invented the draw play, the facemask, and the Cleveland Browns. Belichick has invented linebackers as tight ends (Mike Vrabel caught another touchdown pass last night), videotaping opposing coaches' signals, and injury-report manipulation."

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good character assassination.

Throw in some jokes about the Bengals' troubles with the law and an unwarranted jab at an entire city ("This represents good times for Cincinnati, the only American city where "Mensa" is a four-letter word.") and you got yourself what Dan passes off as a column these days.

(If you guessed the first Red Sox reference would be in the third sentence, you win a prize.)