Fore!

Dan went back to Norton Monday and finished his coverage of the TPC.

It's an average column, with the occasional annoying material:

It was Stricker the Ball Striker,

Clever!

TPC Boston, a magnificent course that was crushed by the world’s best players over the last four days, has a par-5, 528-yard 18th hole, which is simply too easy for these guys. Imagine NBA players shooting from the NCAA 3-point line.

Should we believe (all) NBA guys find deep shots easy to make? Shaq?

Stricker looked a little bit like Bill Belichick talking about Tedy Bruschi. This is a Stricker trademark.

Shank mentioning Belichick in nearly every column is a Shank trademark.

The 42-year-old was born in Edgerton - a tiny town in the south central Cheeseland.

Wisconsin. Cheese. We get it, Shank...

Class Act?

Fresh from following Tiger's bathroom breaks in Norton, Shank chimes in on the Richard Seymour trade, and he doesn't like it.

This article is classic Shank. The quota of cheap shots has been met (Coach Belichick, starring as Flatline Bill, Robert & Jonathan Kraft, Curt Schiling, natch, and 'you Belichick toadies'), non-football references are made (1980's Celtics), and we are thankfully spared from lame song lyrics from the era when 8-track tapes ruled the land.

On to the highlights, as they were...

Nonetheless, it’s a shocker.

Surprising, maybe, but a shocker? A buddy and I were watching the ESPN announcement on this trade yesterday morning. The first thing he says: "it's doubtful the Pats were going to resign him next year, and at least we get a draft pick out of it. It's Oakland's draft pick, they suck, and Belichick will probably trade down and get two players out of it. It's a smart move."

Also, the average NFL career spans four years. You have 53 active roster spots, so on average you'll have about a fourth of your roster turn over every year. Yet Shank is shocked, shocked! at this trade? Do I detect some faux outrage here just to take shots at the Patriots? Nahhh, that would be too cynical...

More shocking that the retirements of Rodney Harrison and Tedy Bruschi.

Question for Bruce - is this the copy desk's fault?

Patriots fans, ever worshiping at the altar of Hoodie, are stuck with thousands of XXXL No. 93 jerseys.

This, from a scribe who once proclaimed "I write for the fans", now pisses on these same fans. Stay classy, Shank!

Is there any doubt that Bruschi retired because he was told he was going to be cut? Bruschi’s “decision’’ to step down enabled all parties to save facemask.

While that's plausible, I would think a columnist could, you know, make some phone calls and verify this? It's also plausible that Bruschi thought "it's been 13 years, I'm too old for this crap" and called it a career. This lack of inquiry simply allows Shank to take another shot at the Patriots.

The Patriots didn’t come across as thankless meanies, and the classy Bruschi got to leave on his own terms - looking downright senatorial (sorry, Curt).

You knew he was waiting to use that one all week, didn't you? And, somehow, I don't think it's the last one.

Woe is the pundit who questions any Coach Bill decision and, you have to admit, his track record is pretty good.

I wonder if Shank has ever considered the possibility that, on occasion, he has to admit this? This is also classic Shank - when things are good or positive, you'll see references to 'our Red Sox' or some such. When the spleen is being vented, it is now 'you', 'your' or some derivative.

So save some of your applause for Richard Seymour, you Belichick toadies. Seymour was a winner and a class act in our town for eight seasons, and the 2009 Patriots are going to miss him.

We can be thankful there's at least one class act around here, right?

Stinker

That's the only way to describe this execrable effort by Shank. Get the barf bags ready and jump right in.

NORTON - Tiger is just like you and me. He occasionally throws a club when he hits a bad shot and he uses a port-o-potty when there is no other option.

That’s right, ladies and gents, Eldrick T. Woods is one of us. If not for the 14 victories in majors, the hundreds of millions of dollars in winnings and endorsements, and his standing as the most famous athlete on the planet, Tiger would be just another guy hacking his way around TPC Boston in this weekend’s Deutsche Bank Championship. He shot a 1-under 70 yesterday and is seven strokes off the lead.

So, Tiger's just like us, except for the fame and riches part!

But you’re still wondering about the trip to the port-o-potty, right?

Um, actually, I wasn't. I was kind of wondering about how Tiger played on Friday, but Dan proceeds, for whatever reason, to devote half the column to Tiger's use of a portable bathroom.

This column exemplifies nearly every criticism of Shank: lazy, contradictory, scattershot and stupid. It's all there, and less...

More Globe 10.0 With Bob & Shank

The Globe's dynamic duo discuss Josh Beckett and his recent struggles (you'll have to scroll down to the next clip, more as time passes; they don't embed video clips as separate URL's). I would think that these two would share notes beforehand, as Shank stumbled on a couple of fact-type things and was quickly corrected by Bob. I'm aware that Ryan's been on TV more often (ESPN's Sports Reporters, etc.) and for a longer time, but Dan doesn't look comfortable on the telly. Other than that, he's not a bad Ed McMahon to Ryan's Johnny Carson.

In another clip (further down the list), they discuss the second most important New England Patriot (besides Tom Terrific - I'm such a fanboy, ya know!). Shank is much better here in terms of looking comfortable and interacting with Ryan. Maybe he was having, if you'll pardon the expression, a bad hair day in the first clip?

Shank (and Ryan) On The Big Lug

Curious about their opinion on Curt's (various & changing) intentions about running for U.S. Senate? Wonder no more. I only detected one obvious cheap shot by Shank, at the very end of the clip, but both Bob & Dan were fair and reasonable in their opinions on the issue.

Multi Media Dan - II

Since I saw Dan the Man on the Sunday night TV sports show, I though it would be a good idea to include CHB sightings a bit more in radio and TV media, instead of focusing primarily on his Boston Globe columns. Otherwise I'm only posting once a month...

I just stumbled upon this appearance on WEEI's Dennis & Callahan's morning show when Meter & DeOssie were hosting that day, having missed the original broadcast.

This appearance (8/6/09) was a week after Dave M. went nuclear on Shank for claiming that Ortiz lied to us, and two days before Ortiz's press conference, when Shank's lying charge, at least for the moment, became less than airtight. I think Shank's words about Ortiz in the audio clip were chosen somewhat carefully, so is this some pre-emptive backpedaling on Shank's part?

A quick recap of covered topics:

It was a rough start with some uneasy jokes, but the topic soon turned to the Yankees / Sox series, then to David Ortiz and the revelation of him being on the steroid list. Shank noted that Ortiz has a great deal of goodwill from the fan base, but feels he should be defending himself sooner rather than later, and gave some examples of others accused of steroid use quicker to respond to those charges. A few more jokes around minute 11, then some Patriots talk from that point to the conclusion of the appearance. As with Shank's TV appearance on Sunday night, I was pleasantly surprised.

At least he's learning. I remember a Shank interview on WBCN from a few years ago when Hardy interviewed him in the mid-morning section, and Shank came across as a total dick. Then again, so was Hardy. It was like listening to a trainwreck. Some years later, some people still think he's a dick (the In A Gadda Da Vida extended clip is here, start at the 14:00 mark). But that's an improvement!

I wonder when Shank will be on the Dennis & Callahan show again, but when D & C are in the studio themselves? When hell freezes over?

UPDATE at 5:39 PM:

Is The Big Lug sounding more serious about a Senate run?

SECOND UPDATE at 6:00 PM:

Now he's saying slim to none on the probability of running. Almost makes Brett Favre look decisive by comparison...

Dan's Gonna Love This

Oh, my - a blogboy, a Shanque bête noir extrodinaire, is considering a run for the U.S. Senate:

Schilling expresses some interest in Kennedy seat

By GLEN JOHNSON (AP) – 2 hours ago

BOSTON — Curt Schilling, the former major league pitcher who won the allegiance of Bostonians by leading the Red Sox to the 2004 World Series, said Wednesday that he has "some interest" in running for the seat held for nearly 50 years by Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Schilling, a registered independent and longtime Republican supporter, wrote on his blog that while his family and video gaming company, 38 Studios, are high priorities, "I do have some interest in the possibility."

"That being said, to get to there, from where I am today, many, many things would have to align themselves for that to truly happen," he added.

Any other comment "would be speculation on top of speculation," Schilling said, adding, "My hope is that whatever happens, and whomever it happens to, this state makes the decision and chooses the best person — regardless of sex, race, religion or political affiliation — to help get this state back to the place it deserves to be."

Schilling refused to comment when his office was contacted by phone.

The 42-year-old lives in suburban Medfield and campaigned for President George W. Bush in 2004 and Sen. John McCain in 2008.

As a player, he won three World Series, in 2001 with the Arizona Diamondbacks and in 2004 and 2007 with the Red Sox. He became a Sox legend when he won Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series while blood from an injured ankle seeped through his sock. He retired in March.

He and his wife, Shonda, have four children ages 7 to 14.

Reaction among the Red Sox was decidedly jovial Wednesday.

"If he runs, good luck," said first baseman Kevin Youkilis. "I don't know if I'd want to do that job."

Team manager Terry Francona said Schilling should do whatever makes him happy but noted, "I don't think he'd want me as his campaign manager."

So far, no major Republicans have taken out nomination papers to be a candidate in the Jan. 19 special election. Former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and state Sen. Scott Brown are among those considering campaigns.

Democrats said to be considering a campaign include U.S. Reps. Stephen Lynch of Boston, Michael Capuano of Somerville and John Tierney of Salem, as well as Kennedy's nephew, former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II.

So far, only state Attorney General Martha Coakley has taken out papers for a Democratic campaign, though she has refused to make any follow-up comment.

Kennedy died last week at age 77 from a brain tumor. A special election to replace him is scheduled for Jan. 19, although the Massachusetts Legislature is considering a bill that would allow Gov. Deval Patrick to fill the seat on an interim basis during the campaign.

That bill is the subject of a hearing next week.

AP freelance writer Mark Didtler in St. Petersburg, Fla., contributed to this report.

Do you think Shank is, at this very moment, reworking his next column (well, if he can be bothered to write one this week, that is) to include some potshots / snide asides at 'the Big Lug'? Do I even have to ask?

One problem I see with this - I understand (from listening to WEEI earlier this week) that the former home of Drew Bledsoe, where the Big Lug currently resides, is still on the market. I don't see how you can square that with running for a U.S. Senate seat unless you take it off the market immediately and convince the wife and kids to go back on plans that are probably already made to book state.

Plus, he may have Joe Perry to deal with. If Al Franken can land a U.S. Senate seat, I suppose anything's possible.

Thoughts?

Great Moments In Editing History

Cruising one of my favorite sites, I came across the following sub headline:

The Rays dumped underachieving lefthander Scott Kazmir and the $22 million left on his contract to the Angels. They insist their not waving a white flag.

Heh...

Update at 1:29 PM:

Corrected sub headline:

The Rays dumped underachieving lefthander Scott Kazmir and the $22 million left on his contract to the Angels. They insist they're not waving a white flag.

Dan Shaughnessy Watch - we get results!

The Show Must Go On

Hello, everyone. I've asked the proprietor(s) of this site to grant me the priviledge to throw in my opinions about Dan in a more formal manner.

I'd like to lay a few cards on the table before doing so. For what it's worth, I used to blog here for a few years. In addition to my comments here for the past year or so, it is no secret, then, that I don't like the Boston Globe.

I know a few people that work there, and while I feel a little bad that they eventually will lose their jobs, I shed no tears for the Globe's demise. One might say I'm not inclined to extinguish them in certain manners if they were set on fire. They breathlessy support and otherwise advocate for liberal / left-wing causes, policies and people, a phenomenon that spreads well past the editorial pages, where it rightfully belongs. They kiss the asses of the likes of Kennedy and Kerry while taking huge dumps on Romney or anyone with the '- R' suffix. They adore government programs of all shapes and sizes and don't seem entirely thrilled with the private sector. That infusion of liberalism across the entire newspaper is what caused me to moderate my Globe intake many moons ago.

In 1994 I used to buy the Globe, grab the sports section and throw away the rest of the paper. I believe it was 1995 when Shank was doing an interview with Wade Boggs (yes, he used to actually interview athletes!). I have searched for the transcript high and low a few times, unable to confirm the following, but here is the exchange:

Dan: "What newspapers do you read?"

Wade: "I listen to Rush Limbaugh."

Dan: "Yoooou listen to Rush Limbaugh?"

From that, I am convinced that Dan wanted Wade to tell him how freakin' wonderful the Boston Globe was. Wade didn't bite. I thought, if Shank hates Rush Limbaugh, then Rush must be cool. I've listened to Rush ever since, and I haven't bought the Globe since.

Since this time, the Boston Globe has slowly but surely lost it's shirt. The New York Times has seen it's 1.1 billion investment all but disappear after the 1993 purchase. A commenter on this board refused / failed to respond to my prediction that certain readership parameters would decline by a third. Good call on his part.

Here's the thing - why don't people pay to read the Globe anymore? It's three things. 1) an inability to attract advertising revenue, 2) it's free over the Internet, and 3) the product sucks, so why would you pay fo it? The only quibble is over the percentages assigned to each factor.

I'm not much of a Shank fan, either, but at least now you know why. I believe I was fair in my commentary of him over the past year or so as I acknowledge both good and bad articles he's written, so my intention here (if / when the question is asked, as has been in the past) is simply to carry the torch. For the Globe cheerleaders out there - think of it as public service; I'm just giving back to my community.

And now, with mike's most recent comment in the last thread, such things matter. It's fair for us to comment on what they write, and if they take issue with our commentary, that's fine, and should be welcome. That's the essence of the whole dead tree / internet debate, isn't it?

This is the type of article that Shank writes best, when he's not pissing on someone or trying his best to run them out of town.

I have to add this - I saw the Shankster on a local weekend sports show (a Sunday night 11:30+ show), and I was quite impressed. In tough markets, you need to diversify...

Hanging It Up

I have been going back and forth on this in my mind for awhile now but I have decided to hang it up. I have really enjoyed contributing to this site--its been a little over 2 and a half years now for me personally and the website is about to make its 4th anniversary overall.

When I first started posting, there was a comment from someone asking what we were hoping to accomplish with this website. For me personally, I wanted an outlet for my self and for others to share their frustration about Shaughnessy. Dan is a talented writer but I was frustrated with his seeming laziness, his personal vendettas, and his weak logic. Contrary to the opinion of some of those who commented, my agenda was never about protecting heroic athletes against Shaughnessy's biting criticism.

Deep down, I also harbored (a probably misguided) belief that Shaughnessy would happen upon this site and magically change his ways and become a good writer (again?). Let me assure you folks...Shaughnessy is not walking through that door. I actually had a nice 20 minute conversation with Shaughnessy recently. I did not discuss this site with him; I am not sure he knows about it; or if he would even make the connection between me and the site. Even if he is aware of site, he is not changing his ways. For better or worse, he is what he is.

In any event, I had sent him a critical e-mail questioning his ethics in light of his laziness/self-plagiarism for the spring training column and for accusing Ortiz of being a liar without accomplishing due diligence. He offered his rationale which I did not find altogether convincing but I at least respect his willingness to face the heat. He actually went to a lot of trouble to contact me, accommodating my schedule. Considering I questioned his ethics, he was pretty gracious about it all. We had a cordial discussion and agreed to disagree... but it was a civil discussion nonetheless. During our discussion, he made the point that much of the banter on the internet has become shrouded in anonymity and in this transformation of communication, we have lost a lot in terms of civility. I would like to think this site has always been conducted in a mostly civil way but I recognize that at times, I personally have resorted to some amount of petiness and I regret that. The intent is/was to provide constructive criticism. I think we always strived to be fair - giving Shaughnessy credit when he would write a good column but more than often not, it seemed to me that he was mailing it in--which I think is a shame.

But again, Shaughnessy is not going to change at this stage in his career. He has a carved a successful niche for himself and many view him as the voice of New England sports and that is a pretty good accomplishment so I imagine he is doing something right. He seems comfortable with himself and that is good. And from what little I know, he seems to be a compassionate Dad and there is a lot to be said for that.

If anyone is interested in carrying on, please drop me a line - just email me - my email address is in my profile. Other than that, I would like to thank the dedicated followers of this blog and for those who have taken the time to leave comments. I have always enjoyed the banter. I have no idea how many people follow this blog but I am grateful that people would actually take the time to stop by and leave a few words of wisdom. Yes, even thanks to Bruce. Your contrarian voice has been good for business. I dont think I have agreed you with much at all but at least I can give you credit for being able to laugh at yourself - an ability that I see peek through your posts from time to time.

Again, thanks to everyone. I am grateful.

(Edit 8:33, Tuesday): Also, in my haste, I forgot to add thanks to Chief, DBVader and the late Jerry Gutlon- thanks for being great teammates!)

Penny Wise, Penny Foolish

Dan offers a fair assessment of Brad Penny's woeful performance last night against the Yankees. Penny is not working out so well these days and Shaughnessy provides his two cents on the matter.

Update, 8:28: Dan also offers a nice tribute to Yaz as he turns 70. Wow, I feel old. Yaz was a favorite of mine growing up

More Pieces

Dan writes a picked up pieces column on the 32nd anniversary of Elvis Presley's death. Very consistent with others he has written. If you like this format, you will probably enjoy today's offering, replete with references to Jason Varitek's underoos. If you don't like the format, it is easy enough to chip away at.

I don't particularly mind the format but I find it interesting that Shaughnessy likes to play the moral authority on issues such as steroids, adultery, and conflicts of interest when he himself: uses material from old books and presents it as new material; when he accuses someone of being a liar but does not have all the facts; and acknowledges that he can't be bothered to collect the relevant facts even though it is his job.

Even when he makes a valid point, he surrounds it with his laziness. He questions the millions that Epstein has wasted on free agents (fair enough) but starts with "Not sure if Edgar Renteria and Matt Clement are still on the books...." Dan, would it kill you to find this stuff out?

My carping aside, its your typical Shaughnessy fare. Good for some and not so much for others

Out of Town

Sorry all - I was out of town and had limited access and so I missed a fine article by Shaughnessy. Hope to get back on track. In the mean time - Bruce - just left you a response on the previous post. Really appreciated your translation of me and so I felt compelled to respond in kind.

Home Again

Dan offers an innocuous look at the Red Sox' return home to Fenway and a win over the Tigers. I am still so disgusted by this past weekend's effort (of Shaughnessy not the Red Sox) and stunned that he still has a job that I care not to comment further.

Shameless Shank

I thought hit Shaughnessy hit a low water mark last fall when he declared the Red Sox playoff series over after the Red Sox won the first game. But then he hit a lower point this spring when he self-plagiarized a column about spring training from a book that he had co-written with another person. But this past week, he has sunk to a whole new level.

Shaughnessy accused David Ortiz of lying but he did not have all the facts and could not be bothered to collect them (see my diatribe in the previous post below). Today's contribution is just as bad. He issues no mea culpas—instead he offers a mammoth rationalization as to why he wrongly/prematurely accused someone of lying. It is downright disgusting. At the least, I credit him for admitting he was too lazy to collect the facts

Click here to read Shaughnessy’s rationalization:

- First, he makes the astounding claim that the reason that Ortiz seems to be getting a pass here is that people like him personally. Meanwhile, Clemens and Bonds are being vilified because people don’t like them personally. Seriously? If you didn’t have your head so far up your arse, you would realize there are worlds of differences between the cases of Bonds, Clemens, and Ortiz. There is no Game of Shadows for Ortiz is there? To this point, no one has come out publicly to say they injected Ortiz with steroids, have they? Give people credit, Dan—they are able to seek the evidence and make their own conclusions. Personality certainly is a factor but it is not the decisive factor that you claim. The cases are different but you are too dense to understand that.

- Shaughnessy does admit to being too lazy although he is probably too stupid to realize he has made this stunning admission. He says

“Seriously, if Donald Fehr, Gene Orza, or Weiner had gone public with their questions about the legitimacy of the (2003) positive results back in February, there would have been less rush to jump on Ortiz when his name came out July 30.”

Did you even bother to ask any of them yourself Dan? Did you even try to get any of the facts right? Isn't that your responsibility before you claim someone is a liar?

Then he quotes Weiner:

"We thought we were pretty darn vocal,’’ Weiner said. “We wrote a long and publicly-released letter to congressmen Waxman and Davis. Maybe we made a mistake of thinking people would read a letter sent to congressmen.’’

and says:

Right. Most of us routinely inspect all correspondence between the Players Association and Congress. Sorry we missed this one.

Sorry you missed this one? Take your sarcasm and shove it. You shouldn’t have missed this one. It is your responsibility as a journalist to do due diligence before you make the accusation that someone has lied. And you didn’t do it. How dare you?

Oh and here is my favorite
“We’re trained to be cynical of accused cheaters who claim innocence.”

Wow, what journalism school did you go to? I thought you were trained to do research to prove your assertions? I thought you were trained to take each individual case and examine it on its own merits? What you seem to be saying is that you have lumped everyone together in one big pot and it is okay to accuse them all of lying because everyone seems to be lying?

Then you have the nerve to end your little piece of trash by suggesting that there were holes in the Ortiz and Wiener’s accounts? Maybe so….but nothing in comparison to the gaping holes in your credibility and ethics. Astonishing

In my nearly three years of working on this site, I have never been this utterly disgusted. Truly, a new low for Shaughnessy. A new low for the Globe. And a new low for journalism.

Shaughnessy Proves The Point

As I mentioned in my earlier post, today’s press conference with Ortiz was very interesting. Contrary to what Objective Bruce may try to lead you to believe, I am not here to criticize Shaughnessy because I am a “fanboy blogger” engaged in the hero worship of athletes. As I mentioned in a previous comment thread, I just retired from the military after 20 years and I know some of our country’s true heroes personally and they are not the ones who play professional sports. And I can assure you I am not doing a little happy dance because David Ortiz has been vindicated. I do think he has been partially vindicated but I very well acknowledge that subsequent information may come to light that could cast Ortiz in a totally different and negative light. Time will tell. But, for me, it is not about Ortiz. It is about Shaughnessy.

I have chosen to dedicate time to this blog because I continue to be dumbfounded how Dan Shaughnessy can be such a widely acclaimed journalist. I (and my wonderful cohorts) have tried to repeatedly point out (and I hope to some degree we have been successful) that he is a lazy, vindictive reactionist. So, yes, today's press conference makes me quite happy because it proves my point vividly and dramatically.

In case you have not been following, last week Dan Shaughnessy quickly ripped into Ortiz after Ortiz’s name was leaked to be on “the list” of steroid users. Shaughnessy declared “David Ortiz lied to you. It seems safe to say that his entire Red Sox career is a lie.” Never mind that Shaughnessy never talked to Ortiz. Never mind that Shaughnessy did not know what Ortiz tested positive for. Never mind that Shaughnessy did not know there was a question of the validity of the test. Never mind that Ortiz did not know he even tested positive for anything. These things did not matter because Shaughnessy was in such a rush to punch out a column. There was no time for fact checking; there was no time for corroboration; there was nothing anyone would expect of a professional journalist. No, this was yellow journalism at its finest This was Shaughnessy…. ever ready to bury a hatchet in someone, any proof be damned

It was offered in one of the comments here that John Powers’ column proved that Ortiz was lying. No, that was not the case. Here is what Powers said: “MLBPA executive director Donald Fehr told House committee chairman Henry Waxman in a letter last summer that the players were not explicitly informed that they had tested positive, but only that they were on a list of players the government had seized, as part of an investigation into an illegal steroids operation.”

Ortiz acknowledged there was some meeting on this issue but that it was confusing. After listening to the union rep explain all the inconsistencies and after re-reading the above from Powers, I would be confused too.

Shaughnessy may eventually prove to be right about Ortiz. But that doesn’t matter. At the time he accused Ortiz of being a liar, he did not have the information to make the accusation. He did not seek the full story because he is lazy. He was ready to prematurely attack because he is vindictive. If anyone lied to us, it was Shaughnessy. If anything is tainted, it is his ethics. He is the one who should be suspended for a year. And he is not the only one – Massarotti and Ryan and many others also piled on. It was disgraceful and shameful.

Fascinating Press Conference

I am watching the Ortiz-Wiener press conference...it is fascinating and it confirms that Shaughnessy and many of the other "journalists" are lazy. They make sweeping statements of guilt and yet they did not have all the facts. Wiener's statement of facts is compelling.

Let's see if Shaughnessy issues a mea culpa

Game recap

Dan lays out a straightforward game recap and an honest (negative but not overly so) perspective of recent Red Sox recent collapses in the wake of the Red Sox crushing but nonetheless thrilling loss to the Yankees in 15 innings last night.

This being said, Shaughnessy does not offer much beyond what Amalie Benjamin's game recap offers....besides reminding us for the 300th time of the year that Manny (Act 1) quit and the year Theo stood still at the trading deadline.

Dan also offers an interesting line when he says, "It was mildly reminiscent of a magical event at Candlestick Park in 1963. That was the night 42-year-old Warren Spahn and prime-time Juan Marichal locked up for 16 innings of shutout ball. " He says that as if he were there throwing the word "mildly" in for good measure...which I sort of doubt that he was.

Dan is sure to be covering the Ortiz press conference today and that will make for interesting fodder in all sorts of ways. I hold out hope that Ortiz will provide an honest approach in which people will look back in years to come and say "That is way this issue should have been handled" but I dont think that will happen...CHB must be over the top waiting for this one...and I fear for years we will be hearing "Ah yes, 2009...the year of Massacre II and the year Ortiz lied"

Stay tuned my friends

Chicken Little, Swiss Miss

Chicken Little? Shaughnessy takes one loss to the Yankees and is ready to close the door on the Red Sox playoff chances (“Suddenly, the thought crosses the mind that the Red Sox might not even make the playoffs.”)

Little Swiss Miss? I swear you can set a watch by this guy. This piece was so bloody predictable (and consequently so is this blog entry), that it is past comical.

That being said, I really cant argue with Chicken Little’s basic premise. Definitely lots of warning signs about the Red Sox. I just wish for once he would deviate from the mad libs cookbook approach to writing.

And maybe he is trying….but sadly, even his attempts fall apart…He tries to go Bill Simmons on us and suggest that Earl Weaver’s “reverse lock” theory is in play. He says the theory is that when a team has no chance to win, said team will prevail because of that.” What? Is he suggesting the theory held last night because the Yankees had lost 8 in a row to the Sox and thus had no chance of winning? Let’s see, the Yankees have been playing well and the Sox? Not so much. The Yankees are at home and the Red Sox trot out Smoltz who stinks? Does not seem to me that the basic assumptions underlying the reverse lock theory are in play.

Throw in an obscure reference (Fred Wenz? I admit I had to look it up – pitched for the Sox and Phillies in 68-70 timeframe) and a shot at Ortiz for not talking to the press (eventhough he has scheduled a press conference for tomorrow) and you have another putrid entry from the region’s best sportswriter.

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.