Thursday, June 28, 2007
Say something, anything, just say something
Dan takes on an easy target, Stoneham's decision to cut athletics, and manages to say nothing. He offers up a bunch of platitudes and quotations from those affected. But as how to fix things? Dan is silent. That's great. Really exploring the issue. I think everyone can agree that having high school sports is good. Tell me how to fix the problem.
Monday, June 25, 2007
A look at Beckett's Great Game
Today's column is about Josh Beckett and yesterday's pitching performance. A decent column, a few interesting quotes, and the highlights of the game.
Dan has a tendency to suffer from the same ills that he claims Boston fans to suffer from. He scolds fans not to worship professional athletes, but needs to be reminded that "Tom Brady is human". Today, Dan suffers from that lack of perspective that he charges Boston fans with. Dan promotes Beckett to start the All-Star Game ignoring Justin Verlander, Dan Haren, and Johan Santana; all who have a lower ERA and lower adjusted ERA. Beckett does have the lower DIPS ERA, but I doubt Dan was looking at that page on espn.com.
Dan has a tendency to suffer from the same ills that he claims Boston fans to suffer from. He scolds fans not to worship professional athletes, but needs to be reminded that "Tom Brady is human". Today, Dan suffers from that lack of perspective that he charges Boston fans with. Dan promotes Beckett to start the All-Star Game ignoring Justin Verlander, Dan Haren, and Johan Santana; all who have a lower ERA and lower adjusted ERA. Beckett does have the lower DIPS ERA, but I doubt Dan was looking at that page on espn.com.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Random Thoughts Again
In an "interesting twist" Shaughnessy does one of his random thoughts column but focuses specifically on the sights and sounds of the Padres and Red Sox at Petco Field (now known as the house that Larry Lucchino built).
He provides a few Shankisms:
- Yet another shot at Schilling and his blogging
- He tells us that Julio Lugo is slumping (but when he is going to acknowledge that he may have been wrong about the "over-matched" Dustin Pedroia?)
- 1980's cultural reference alert: Khalil Greene looks like Spicoli from Ridgemont high.
He does provide a few interesting points...talks about how much Mirabelli is hated in San Diego and talks about the bullpen design inequities (home vs. visitor) at Petco.
If you want some good press notes, mlb.com has a great new feature where they provide the latest press notes for each major league team. Great stuff, click here.
He provides a few Shankisms:
- Yet another shot at Schilling and his blogging
- He tells us that Julio Lugo is slumping (but when he is going to acknowledge that he may have been wrong about the "over-matched" Dustin Pedroia?)
- 1980's cultural reference alert: Khalil Greene looks like Spicoli from Ridgemont high.
He does provide a few interesting points...talks about how much Mirabelli is hated in San Diego and talks about the bullpen design inequities (home vs. visitor) at Petco.
If you want some good press notes, mlb.com has a great new feature where they provide the latest press notes for each major league team. Great stuff, click here.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
San Diego Connection
Shaughnessy today focuses on the connection between the San Diego Padres and Boston Red Sox. He provides a laundry list of ex-Padres management officials who are now affiliated with the Red Sox, most notably Theo Epstein. He also shrewdly points out that Ted Williams was from San Diego--a weak tie-in to the main thrust of his column
Precious little insight/analysis. What would have been interesting is analysis comparing the composition of the Red Sox and Padres teams to see if the common ground between the Sox and Padres extends from the front office to the field in terms of org philosphy. Lest I forget, Shank is not capable of such analysis (or if he is, he is too lazy to provide it)
Well, we do get some analysis - he calls the Mirabelli/Meredith/Bard trade one of the "worst deals the Sox ever made". Yep, it ranks up there....let's see....there is Jeff Bagwell, Sparky Lyle, and Cla Meredith.
There were a few potshots...one reference to the gorilla suit but surprisingly not one "Young Theo and the minions" and you would have figured this would have been a prime chance for that Shank Classic
Dan's by line is from San Diego and so we should be expecting a few more articles from the road.
Precious little insight/analysis. What would have been interesting is analysis comparing the composition of the Red Sox and Padres teams to see if the common ground between the Sox and Padres extends from the front office to the field in terms of org philosphy. Lest I forget, Shank is not capable of such analysis (or if he is, he is too lazy to provide it)
Well, we do get some analysis - he calls the Mirabelli/Meredith/Bard trade one of the "worst deals the Sox ever made". Yep, it ranks up there....let's see....there is Jeff Bagwell, Sparky Lyle, and Cla Meredith.
There were a few potshots...one reference to the gorilla suit but surprisingly not one "Young Theo and the minions" and you would have figured this would have been a prime chance for that Shank Classic
Dan's by line is from San Diego and so we should be expecting a few more articles from the road.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Why He's Hated: A DSW Flashback
In honor of the ongoing Boston Phoenix poll asking whether Dan Shaughnessy is the most hated person in Boston, we bring you this landmark post from Dec. 13, 2005:
"I always say I look at the bright side." (ESPN Outside the Lines, Oct. 22, 2000)
And yet ...
"Imagine a 2-0 lead and Pedro Martinez hasn't even started yet? However, if you are old enough to remember 1986 or 1978, maybe you are not so certain." (Boston Globe, Oct. 26, 2004)
"Personally, I already miss the old Red Sox a little. ... They never again will be the cuddly team on a near century-long, quixotic quest. ... Buckner and Friends are off the hook. All of them." (Boston Globe, Oct. 29, 2004)
"In my mind there's no question that the O'Donnell group was the way to go." (to USA Today, Jan. 22, 2002)
"[T]he bag job of a major league franchise sale..." (on the Henry group, Boston Globe, March 27, 2005)
"[David Ortiz is] a giant sack of you-know-what ..." (on WWZN, Jan. 4, 2003; link unavailable)
"I don't care." (quoting Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive, to Marjory Eagan on 96.9 FM, when asked how he felt when the Sox recorded the final out of the World Series. Dan replied he had a perfect analogy, referring to Jones' glib response to Harrison Ford when the erstwhile "Han Solo" says he didn't kill his wife; Oct. 28, 2004)
"Why does this stuff always happen with the Red Sox? Why can't it just be about the baseball? Even for one day." (on Pedro Martinez leaving a game early, Boston Globe, April 6, 2004)
"It is therefore no surprise that [Dr. Charles] Steinberg took an interest in the young Theo Epstein. By 1992, he was the Orioles' director of public affairs, overseeing four departments. He'd reviewed 10,000 resumes and interviewed more than 1,000 young candidates when Epstein went to see him during spring break in 1992." (
And this post, from Dec. 12, 2005:
On Roger Clemens, Dec. 14, 1996:
But on this day of new beginnings and inestimable wealth, there was no glory, no grace in either
... Let the record show that The Rocket is 34 years old and went 40-39 over the last four (injury-filled) seasons while earning $20 million. Despite those numbers, he's now the highest-paid pitcher in baseball (
Dan, on Roger Clemens, following the Red Sox-Yankees playoff game/beanball war:
Which one would you rather have now, Sox fans? Roger Clemens -- who kept his composure and behaved like a professional Saturday night, winning the game for his team despite his obvious anger? Or Pedro, the baby who hits a guy after he blows a lead, then points at his head and at Yankee catcher Jorge Posada, threatening "you're next"?
Roger Clemens is the greatest pitcher in the history of baseball. The Red Sox should do whatever it'll take to bring him back home for the stretch run in 2005.
On Pedro Martinez, Aug. 26, 2003:
He's the greatest pitcher we've seen since Sandy Koufax. ... Too bad he got it in his head that we don't respect him. Too bad he wants to leave.
On Pedro, Feb. 21, 2004:
... the Dominican Diva ...
On Curt Schilling, Nov. 29, 2003:
Schilling is back with the Red Sox. Oh, happy day. Son of Tito can leave Schilling on the mound to pitch the eighth and ninth and no one will call for the manager to be fired.
The day he signed with
On Schilling, Nov. 9, 2005:
It's not a suggestion from Curt Schilling or any of his little late-night, on-line friends. ... It's just something that makes sense. ...
On Nomar Garciaparra, July 10, 2000:
In
On Nomar, June 10, 2004:
By any measure, Garciaparra is one of the most popular Sox players of all time. He's the fourth-leading hitter in franchise history, trailing only Ted Williams, Wade Boggs, and Tris Speaker. He has played hard for every inning of every game since he first got called up at the end of the 1996 season.
On Nomar, Aug. 1, 2004:
Thank the baseball god, he's gone. We no longer have to watch Nomar Garciaparra pretend that he cares about the fortunes of the Boston Red Sox.
Now that the Red Sox need a shortstop, will Dan next write about how they need to bring back Nomar? Stay tuned.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Ooh, My Favorite
That staple of lazy columnists everywhere, the "picked up pieces" column.
Dan starts off strong, telling us the Bruins let go of Nate Greenberg.... I don't know who he is either.
He follows up with a trivia question that I heard nine months ago on the Notre Dame broadcast. (Which four colleges have graduated both a president and a Super Bowl winning quarterback?)
He then proceeds to flip through the sports news from the past week offering vanilla commentary ("Anybody else tired of Kobe Bryant?" That's the extent of the comment on Kobe.) and unoriginal observations that you could have gotten from a million sites on the internet ("Look for the Celtics to trade that coveted No. 5 pick in the draft.").
String together 15 or so of these (none more than a five sentences, most just a sentence or two) and you've got yourself a column.
Dan starts off strong, telling us the Bruins let go of Nate Greenberg.... I don't know who he is either.
He follows up with a trivia question that I heard nine months ago on the Notre Dame broadcast. (Which four colleges have graduated both a president and a Super Bowl winning quarterback?)
He then proceeds to flip through the sports news from the past week offering vanilla commentary ("Anybody else tired of Kobe Bryant?" That's the extent of the comment on Kobe.) and unoriginal observations that you could have gotten from a million sites on the internet ("Look for the Celtics to trade that coveted No. 5 pick in the draft.").
String together 15 or so of these (none more than a five sentences, most just a sentence or two) and you've got yourself a column.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Senior Year by Dan Shaughnessy: A Book Review
(Since today is Father's Day, I am going to review Shaughnessy's book about father and sons. There is not much remarkable to comment about in today's game recap.)
I decided to pick up Shaughnessy's new book, Senior Year: A Father, A Son, and High School Baseball. I wasn't quite sure what to expect. Regardless, I ended up being pleasantly surprised--and I must admit I really enjoyed reading it. Shaughnessy definitely does not come off as the cantankerous curmudgeon that he does in many of his columns.
Shaughnessy chronicles his son Sam's senior year in high school. Sam is a pretty good baseball player at Newton North and Shaughnessy discusses the ups and downs of high school athletics, high school life in general, and the relationship between father and son. Shaughnessy juxtaposes Sam's high school experiences with his own school experience from the late 60's and early 70's.
The book strikes me as a very honest one on several levels. Sam is a talented player, receiving a baseball scholarship to Boston College. Yet Shaughnessy is realistic about Sam's talents and quite readily lays out both his strengths (a good batting eye) and weaknesses (a weak arm). Shaughnessy is also very honest about Sam's personality in general...he's not the perfect kid. He has temper tantrums on the field and comes across at times as a spoiled brat. Yet, Shaughnessy is not the hyper critical parent either - it is quite evident that he is a pretty devoted father to Sam and his two daughters.
The honesty extends to his recounting of his own high school days. Shaughnessy was an athlete, albeit an average one. He was constantly rejected by the girls so much so that he asked his own daughters never to turn down anyone who asked them to a dance. He has good memories of growing up in Groton but does not wax poetic about the "good ole days". The contrast that he paints between his past and Sam's present is effective because he draws out and details many of societal changes of the past 35+ years.
Shaughnessy also refuses to paint himself as the ideal father. While he clearly is a devoted father, he seems to struggle with today's permissiveness--constantly questioning himself about whether he is too lax with Sam, thus explaining why Sam can come across at times as a self-centered brat. Shaughnessy does seem to work very had at providing a good environment for his children and a warm environment for their friends--opening their home up to any and all of the kid's friends. The racism that some would suggest to manifest itself in Shaughnessy's columns is not present here. As one example, for 12 years, the Shaughnessy family has opened their home to a young black man from the inner city who travels from the tougher parts of Boston to suburbia in the hopes of getting a better education (the Metco program). Shaughnessy does not offer this to beat his own chest but rather it's just one of the storylines that he weaves in as a matter of course.
Shaughnessy does not go into much depth about his life as a sportswriter and he only tangentially discusses the Red Sox. Of course, he couldn't refrain from taking on his favorite targets--he briefly discusses the big blowhard, Schilling; he implies Manny Ramirez has very little work ethic; and he discusses his contempt of 40 year olds who wear jerseys with the names of pro athletes sewn on the back. It is very subtle but I did definitely get the impression that Shaughnessy takes his work for granted. He complains a bit about the travel and he mentions in passing that his management worked out a favorable schedule for him to write this book but he just doesn't seem to realize that he has life pretty good. And I think it adds some credence to the constant attack in this blog that he has the tendency to mail it in more often than not when it comes to his columns in the Globe.
A little arrogance does creep up here and there. He tells one story of a controversial play in one of Sam's high school games--the game was stopped and Shaughnessy actually called a retired major league umpire (Marty Springstead I believe) from a cell phone in the middle of the game to get a ruling. I thought that was a little over the top.
At any rate, Shaughnessy has a very effective writing style. The book was a fun read - an insightful look at middle class life of the 1970s compared to upper middle class life of today. As a father myself (albeit about 12 years younger than Shaughnessy), I found myself identifying with much he had to say about parenting and parenting philosophies. As I have mentioned to a couple of my co-bloggers on this site, I find myself somewhat conflicted now - I really expected to read this book expecting to cement my general contempt for CHB but that was definitely not the case - he comes across as a likable and honest guy--a stark contrast to much of the bitterness and sarcasm that we see in many of his columns.
Pick up the book (and if you dont want to lay out the bucks for it, check for it at your local library) and you might be pleasantly surprised.I decided to pick up Shaughnessy's new book, Senior Year: A Father, A Son, and High School Baseball. I wasn't quite sure what to expect. Regardless, I ended up being pleasantly surprised--and I must admit I really enjoyed reading it. Shaughnessy definitely does not come off as the cantankerous curmudgeon that he does in many of his columns.
Shaughnessy chronicles his son Sam's senior year in high school. Sam is a pretty good baseball player at Newton North and Shaughnessy discusses the ups and downs of high school athletics, high school life in general, and the relationship between father and son. Shaughnessy juxtaposes Sam's high school experiences with his own school experience from the late 60's and early 70's.
The book strikes me as a very honest one on several levels. Sam is a talented player, receiving a baseball scholarship to Boston College. Yet Shaughnessy is realistic about Sam's talents and quite readily lays out both his strengths (a good batting eye) and weaknesses (a weak arm). Shaughnessy is also very honest about Sam's personality in general...he's not the perfect kid. He has temper tantrums on the field and comes across at times as a spoiled brat. Yet, Shaughnessy is not the hyper critical parent either - it is quite evident that he is a pretty devoted father to Sam and his two daughters.
The honesty extends to his recounting of his own high school days. Shaughnessy was an athlete, albeit an average one. He was constantly rejected by the girls so much so that he asked his own daughters never to turn down anyone who asked them to a dance. He has good memories of growing up in Groton but does not wax poetic about the "good ole days". The contrast that he paints between his past and Sam's present is effective because he draws out and details many of societal changes of the past 35+ years.
Shaughnessy also refuses to paint himself as the ideal father. While he clearly is a devoted father, he seems to struggle with today's permissiveness--constantly questioning himself about whether he is too lax with Sam, thus explaining why Sam can come across at times as a self-centered brat. Shaughnessy does seem to work very had at providing a good environment for his children and a warm environment for their friends--opening their home up to any and all of the kid's friends. The racism that some would suggest to manifest itself in Shaughnessy's columns is not present here. As one example, for 12 years, the Shaughnessy family has opened their home to a young black man from the inner city who travels from the tougher parts of Boston to suburbia in the hopes of getting a better education (the Metco program). Shaughnessy does not offer this to beat his own chest but rather it's just one of the storylines that he weaves in as a matter of course.
Shaughnessy does not go into much depth about his life as a sportswriter and he only tangentially discusses the Red Sox. Of course, he couldn't refrain from taking on his favorite targets--he briefly discusses the big blowhard, Schilling; he implies Manny Ramirez has very little work ethic; and he discusses his contempt of 40 year olds who wear jerseys with the names of pro athletes sewn on the back. It is very subtle but I did definitely get the impression that Shaughnessy takes his work for granted. He complains a bit about the travel and he mentions in passing that his management worked out a favorable schedule for him to write this book but he just doesn't seem to realize that he has life pretty good. And I think it adds some credence to the constant attack in this blog that he has the tendency to mail it in more often than not when it comes to his columns in the Globe.
A little arrogance does creep up here and there. He tells one story of a controversial play in one of Sam's high school games--the game was stopped and Shaughnessy actually called a retired major league umpire (Marty Springstead I believe) from a cell phone in the middle of the game to get a ruling. I thought that was a little over the top.
At any rate, Shaughnessy has a very effective writing style. The book was a fun read - an insightful look at middle class life of the 1970s compared to upper middle class life of today. As a father myself (albeit about 12 years younger than Shaughnessy), I found myself identifying with much he had to say about parenting and parenting philosophies. As I have mentioned to a couple of my co-bloggers on this site, I find myself somewhat conflicted now - I really expected to read this book expecting to cement my general contempt for CHB but that was definitely not the case - he comes across as a likable and honest guy--a stark contrast to much of the bitterness and sarcasm that we see in many of his columns.
Larry Whiteside: Rest In Peace
Shaughnessy offers a nice tribute to Larry Whiteside, the retired Globe columnist who passed away yesterday.
Shaughnessy usually does a very nice job with retrospective columns - he has a nice way of retelling stories and Shaughnessy gives you a pretty good glimpse of Larry Whiteside.
There are many readers of the blog who would argue that Shaughnessy is a racist but as you read through some of his stuff like this piece on Whiteside or like his new book (which I just finished reading and will post a review this weekend), you get a different side of Shaughnessy
At any rate, I was sad to hear of the passing of Larry Whiteside and I appreciate Shaughnessy's tribute today.
Requiem in Pacem
Shaughnessy usually does a very nice job with retrospective columns - he has a nice way of retelling stories and Shaughnessy gives you a pretty good glimpse of Larry Whiteside.
There are many readers of the blog who would argue that Shaughnessy is a racist but as you read through some of his stuff like this piece on Whiteside or like his new book (which I just finished reading and will post a review this weekend), you get a different side of Shaughnessy
At any rate, I was sad to hear of the passing of Larry Whiteside and I appreciate Shaughnessy's tribute today.
Requiem in Pacem
Friday, June 15, 2007
Predictable Bonds Story
Last night, DBVader's post gave us a chance to predict what Shaughnessy would say about Barry Bond's visit to Fenway this weekend. I figured that CHB would be so entranced with the Red Sox' vanishing lead that he would have no time for a Bonds' angle. I was wrong. Of course, I should have figured as much - Shaughnessy probably wrote this story as soon as he saw that the Giants were coming to town on the Sox schedule.
The column is very predictable--Shaughnessy rips Bonds left and right. He comes up with a half dozen ways to crack jokes about Bonds head and body size. He rips the other steroid suspects as well from Giambi to Sosa and McGwire in between. There are lots of references to the proud Red Sox tradition which stand in contrast to Bonds' joyless pursuit. And he concludes by saying Red Sox fans will let Bonds have it this weekend.
Surprise, there is absolutely nothing new here. Nothing I have not heard a thousand times before either on sports talk radio or sports pages. No revelations. No new angles. It is truly Shaughnessy at his very finest. He had to get this stock column out of the way and I imagine we will be treated to a "sky is falling" column before the weekend is done.
(Please excuse this short entry- am running a bit late this AM to work)
The column is very predictable--Shaughnessy rips Bonds left and right. He comes up with a half dozen ways to crack jokes about Bonds head and body size. He rips the other steroid suspects as well from Giambi to Sosa and McGwire in between. There are lots of references to the proud Red Sox tradition which stand in contrast to Bonds' joyless pursuit. And he concludes by saying Red Sox fans will let Bonds have it this weekend.
Surprise, there is absolutely nothing new here. Nothing I have not heard a thousand times before either on sports talk radio or sports pages. No revelations. No new angles. It is truly Shaughnessy at his very finest. He had to get this stock column out of the way and I imagine we will be treated to a "sky is falling" column before the weekend is done.
(Please excuse this short entry- am running a bit late this AM to work)
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Guess the Shaughnessy Angle
I know it is late, but I want the posters to tell us how Shank will attack Bonds. You have only a few hours left.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Some Links to Pass the Time
I need to be working, but thought I would waste time posting some links.
Dan is #6 in Boston Sports Media Watch's 2007 Mid-Year Power Rankings just behind Gerry Callahan and just ahead of the Chili Guy. (I made that last part up.)
I don't get it. We talk about his columns, but only because they suck. Not since Theo left has Dan had any impact on the coverage of sports in this town. Dan is on TV a lot (I presume he watches himself later on Tivo), but his opinions are worthless. He has repeatedly shown that he cannot offer any observations into the sports he covers.
If I see this sign in person, I will kick it in. Quote Shaughnessy, go ahead. Quote him about Pedroia and how Mark Loretta should be back making $2.5 million after hitting .285/.345/.361. Quote his numerous factual mistakes.
If you are feeling frustrated after reading all this, take your frustrations out with this game. 113,944 meters is the record to beat.
Dan is #6 in Boston Sports Media Watch's 2007 Mid-Year Power Rankings just behind Gerry Callahan and just ahead of the Chili Guy. (I made that last part up.)
I don't get it. We talk about his columns, but only because they suck. Not since Theo left has Dan had any impact on the coverage of sports in this town. Dan is on TV a lot (I presume he watches himself later on Tivo), but his opinions are worthless. He has repeatedly shown that he cannot offer any observations into the sports he covers.
If I see this sign in person, I will kick it in. Quote Shaughnessy, go ahead. Quote him about Pedroia and how Mark Loretta should be back making $2.5 million after hitting .285/.345/.361. Quote his numerous factual mistakes.
If you are feeling frustrated after reading all this, take your frustrations out with this game. 113,944 meters is the record to beat.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Dirty A-Rod?
With the Yankees coming to town, Shaughnessy focuses on the "Pinstripe piñata" aka A-Rod. Specifically, he discusses whether A-Rod was guilty of a dirty play earlier this week as he yelled at the Toronto infield as they were about to catch a pop up.
Outside of yet another gratuitous shot at Schilling (enough already!), I thought Shaughnessy did a good job with this article to even include the aforementioned piñata nickname. He actually did some leg work and interviewed a whole host of former players and got a rather wide variety of opinions of whether A-Rod was being clever or bush. I particularly like the quote he pulls out from Red Auerbach at the end
My only critique is that Shaughnessy tries to parallel A-Rod's particular play with a host of other similar types of plays without acknowledging there are shades of gray along the spectrum. I would suggest, for example, there is a difference between players talking to each other on the basketball court (an example from his Auerbach reference) and what A-Rod tried to do. Shaughnessy does not make the effort to tease out those nuances so as to make a suggestion as to where the line between dirty and acceptable is.
Otherwise, a pretty enjoyable read if you ask me
Outside of yet another gratuitous shot at Schilling (enough already!), I thought Shaughnessy did a good job with this article to even include the aforementioned piñata nickname. He actually did some leg work and interviewed a whole host of former players and got a rather wide variety of opinions of whether A-Rod was being clever or bush. I particularly like the quote he pulls out from Red Auerbach at the end
Whenever there is pressure to win on any coach or team you will find men deviating from what is considered the way of good sportsmanship. It is up to the player himself to decide what is 'dirty' and what is 'tricky.' "
My only critique is that Shaughnessy tries to parallel A-Rod's particular play with a host of other similar types of plays without acknowledging there are shades of gray along the spectrum. I would suggest, for example, there is a difference between players talking to each other on the basketball court (an example from his Auerbach reference) and what A-Rod tried to do. Shaughnessy does not make the effort to tease out those nuances so as to make a suggestion as to where the line between dirty and acceptable is.
Otherwise, a pretty enjoyable read if you ask me
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Happy Dan
Dan gives us one of his stock columns today. This is the one in which he is exaggeratedly positive about everything. Red Sox are going great, the weather is great, the Patriots will go 16-0, something once thought bad for you will be found to be good, etc. I guess it's what he does when there is no player or team to beat up. And there is a Springsteen reference to boot. He can't be bothered to be original. Get ready for a whole summer of nothing from Dan.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
JAC - Just Another Column
A column about Julian Tavarez winds it way to being about Roger Clemens.
A boring affair except for the end when Dan does his best to whip fans into a frenzy about the possible return of Clemens and slip in a paragraph length reference to a near riot at a Rolling Stones concert 35 years ago.
Dan mentions that Clemens is slated to return to the Majors next Tuesday. Dan implies that Clemens would be on schedule to pitch the Sunday Night Game at Fenway and suggests that if he were not to pitch he would be ducking the Red Sox. Nice thought, except that the Yankees have an off day next Thursday, putting Clemens on schedule to pitch Monday, June 4. I know this is shocking, but Dan omitted a key piece of information in order solely to stir the pot.
A boring affair except for the end when Dan does his best to whip fans into a frenzy about the possible return of Clemens and slip in a paragraph length reference to a near riot at a Rolling Stones concert 35 years ago.
Dan mentions that Clemens is slated to return to the Majors next Tuesday. Dan implies that Clemens would be on schedule to pitch the Sunday Night Game at Fenway and suggests that if he were not to pitch he would be ducking the Red Sox. Nice thought, except that the Yankees have an off day next Thursday, putting Clemens on schedule to pitch Monday, June 4. I know this is shocking, but Dan omitted a key piece of information in order solely to stir the pot.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Maybe he will call me next
After a long week spent unsuccessfully flogging his new book (#5303 on amazon.com with a bullet!) all the while finding time to watch himself on tv and allegedly make angry phonecalls to his detractors and their bosses, Dan returns.
And turns in possibly one of the worst columns I have ever been forced to read. I actually felt bad by the end.
They are just some headscratchers in this one. Dan mentions that only four other teams in MLB history have had a 10 1/2 game lead at this point. What are the four other teams? We don't find out.
He goes on to mention how this year is different from 1978 because "the Red Sox didn't have the pitching" and the Yankees "bear little resemblance to the blood-and-thunder rogues"(You can't sneak that Springsteen reference by me, Dan) of 1978.
If only this were true. The Red Sox pitching in 1978 was pretty good also. And this year's Yankees offense is much better than the 1978 edition. But I guess grit and tobacco juice are what make "blood-and-thunder rogues."
A couple of worn out references to Steinbrenner's past; "the immortal Tyler Clippard" (ever notice how Dan belittles any player he has never heard of? If he bothered to care, he would notice Clippard has had a very nice minor league career); and a 2003 reference without mention of Grady Little or Pedro Martinez.
And then it gets weird. Two paragraphs spent on Chazz Palmintiri, including this gem: "Chazz turned to the guy sitting to his right and whispered something like "Now, yous can't leave."" Great scene; lame, forced reference.
And he ties things up with this counterfactual statement "Imagine: a quality start for the Yankees. Very rare. In the spring of '07, there've been more Boston Pops brawls than Yankees pitching gems. Wrong. Off the top of my head: Philip Hughes no-hitter through 6 and Wang's near no-hitter.
It was a truly terrible column. Nothing there except some tired historical references, inaccurate statements, and warmed over game play-by-play. Oh, last time Dan said the Red Sox had the division won, the Yankees were a game back within a month, having picked up five games in that span.
Edit: Philip Hughes spelling and no-hitter through six
And turns in possibly one of the worst columns I have ever been forced to read. I actually felt bad by the end.
They are just some headscratchers in this one. Dan mentions that only four other teams in MLB history have had a 10 1/2 game lead at this point. What are the four other teams? We don't find out.
He goes on to mention how this year is different from 1978 because "the Red Sox didn't have the pitching" and the Yankees "bear little resemblance to the blood-and-thunder rogues"(You can't sneak that Springsteen reference by me, Dan) of 1978.
If only this were true. The Red Sox pitching in 1978 was pretty good also. And this year's Yankees offense is much better than the 1978 edition. But I guess grit and tobacco juice are what make "blood-and-thunder rogues."
A couple of worn out references to Steinbrenner's past; "the immortal Tyler Clippard" (ever notice how Dan belittles any player he has never heard of? If he bothered to care, he would notice Clippard has had a very nice minor league career); and a 2003 reference without mention of Grady Little or Pedro Martinez.
And then it gets weird. Two paragraphs spent on Chazz Palmintiri, including this gem: "Chazz turned to the guy sitting to his right and whispered something like "Now, yous can't leave."" Great scene; lame, forced reference.
And he ties things up with this counterfactual statement "Imagine: a quality start for the Yankees. Very rare. In the spring of '07, there've been more Boston Pops brawls than Yankees pitching gems. Wrong. Off the top of my head: Philip Hughes no-hitter through 6 and Wang's near no-hitter.
It was a truly terrible column. Nothing there except some tired historical references, inaccurate statements, and warmed over game play-by-play. Oh, last time Dan said the Red Sox had the division won, the Yankees were a game back within a month, having picked up five games in that span.
Edit: Philip Hughes spelling and no-hitter through six
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Links
For those of you checking back for OB and Dan's latest, I have some posts from over at Barstool Sports.
Here is a very clever take on how to write your own Shaughnessy column
Here is piece on how Dan attacks guys with character while ripping others for lacking it.
Here are some people over at BSMW offering their own take on a Shaughnessy column.
Here is a very clever take on how to write your own Shaughnessy column
Here is piece on how Dan attacks guys with character while ripping others for lacking it.
Here are some people over at BSMW offering their own take on a Shaughnessy column.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
A Favorite Target
Sunday's column is an odd conglomeration. This is foreshadowed by the title "Decision for Schilling? No. Lots going on? Yes" So even the guy who writes the headline is struggling to succinctly distill Shaughnessy's message.
The message is that Schilling had a busy week off the field and a messy one on the field yesterday. To his credit, Shaughnessy does not blame yesterday's poor performance on the off-field stuff (specifically, the Roger Clemens "We don't need him quote" and the Bonds bashing)
Yet, this is another column with precious little insight. As he details Schilling's off-field activities, he adds nothing to the discussion. As he reviews Schilling's game yesterday, he describes a rough 6th inning in some detail but that is about it.
Of course, Shaughnessy does get his jabs in. He continues to mock Schilling for the "We don't need him" quote. He also gets a minor slam on Matsuzaka with a dig on the $51 million posting fee.
It's ironic though...these jabs come in a column in which Shank starts off by saying that the Red Sox have "...the best starting pitching this side of the 1971 Orioles". So Shank, please explain why the Red Sox need a 5 inning pitcher who gets special treatment and about $1 million/start? If the Red Sox made that signing, you would have had a field day ripping them for it.
The message is that Schilling had a busy week off the field and a messy one on the field yesterday. To his credit, Shaughnessy does not blame yesterday's poor performance on the off-field stuff (specifically, the Roger Clemens "We don't need him quote" and the Bonds bashing)
Yet, this is another column with precious little insight. As he details Schilling's off-field activities, he adds nothing to the discussion. As he reviews Schilling's game yesterday, he describes a rough 6th inning in some detail but that is about it.
Of course, Shaughnessy does get his jabs in. He continues to mock Schilling for the "We don't need him" quote. He also gets a minor slam on Matsuzaka with a dig on the $51 million posting fee.
It's ironic though...these jabs come in a column in which Shank starts off by saying that the Red Sox have "...the best starting pitching this side of the 1971 Orioles". So Shank, please explain why the Red Sox need a 5 inning pitcher who gets special treatment and about $1 million/start? If the Red Sox made that signing, you would have had a field day ripping them for it.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Groan. . .
That is my immediate reaction upon reading the headline to today's column, "Pieces found along the trail." Let's see how bad it can get.
It is a tired format, one that demands a lot of effort either to avoid repeating items that have already flown around the web or to bring a new perspective on an event. And Dan does alright and manages to find some items that I had not picked up, although the wear of the effort shows in places.
Dan leads with an Roger-Evita comparison that ends with ""Don't Cry For Me, NESN Tina." Meh.
A little bit more about Roger, Yankees-Red Sox, and a few bits that he really has been holding on for a while. (Manny Ramirez being taken in the NFL Draft. Mildly amusing when it happened, not so funny 11 days later.)
A few things that struck me:
Spy magazine used to have a feature called "Logrolling." It highlighted authors who would swap glowing praise in blurbs on book jackets. Dan does his half today, praising the new books by Frank Deford and Tim Kurkjian. I am little dubious of the latter's book considering Kurkjian's recollection of the last 25 years of baseball has no PED's in it.
Dan has a bit comparing reactions to Red Sox-Yanks news in Boston and New York including this line "Clemens going to the Yankees was Page One, above the fold, in the Monday Globe. It was below the fold on the cover of the Times." Anyone who has ever read the Paper of Record would recognize the absurdity of citing the Times' treatment of a sports story as indicative of the pulse of New York. In fact, that the story made the front page at all would suggest the Times went overboard.
"Didn't we all like Alex Gonzalez and Mark Loretta a whole lot more than Julio Lugo and Dustin Pedroia? The keystone change at Fenway has done wonders for the career of Alex Cora." Not good timing as Pedroia went deep last night and is looking great. I don't know why I have to remind him, but Loretta stunk last year and barely got a job this year. Also, has anyone else noticed the season Gonzalez is having? He has 7 home runs already. He is hitting .300 with a SLG% over .550.
"You simply would not believe what a big deal it's been in Los Angeles since the Dodger Stadium parking fee was bumped from $10 to $15 this year. The Ripoff Bros. lots around Fenway get $35 without argument. I will never understand Dan's inability to grasp the basics of market economies. They charge $35 because people will pay $35. Pretty simple.
It is a tired format, one that demands a lot of effort either to avoid repeating items that have already flown around the web or to bring a new perspective on an event. And Dan does alright and manages to find some items that I had not picked up, although the wear of the effort shows in places.
Dan leads with an Roger-Evita comparison that ends with ""Don't Cry For Me, NESN Tina." Meh.
A little bit more about Roger, Yankees-Red Sox, and a few bits that he really has been holding on for a while. (Manny Ramirez being taken in the NFL Draft. Mildly amusing when it happened, not so funny 11 days later.)
A few things that struck me:
Spy magazine used to have a feature called "Logrolling." It highlighted authors who would swap glowing praise in blurbs on book jackets. Dan does his half today, praising the new books by Frank Deford and Tim Kurkjian. I am little dubious of the latter's book considering Kurkjian's recollection of the last 25 years of baseball has no PED's in it.
Dan has a bit comparing reactions to Red Sox-Yanks news in Boston and New York including this line "Clemens going to the Yankees was Page One, above the fold, in the Monday Globe. It was below the fold on the cover of the Times." Anyone who has ever read the Paper of Record would recognize the absurdity of citing the Times' treatment of a sports story as indicative of the pulse of New York. In fact, that the story made the front page at all would suggest the Times went overboard.
"Didn't we all like Alex Gonzalez and Mark Loretta a whole lot more than Julio Lugo and Dustin Pedroia? The keystone change at Fenway has done wonders for the career of Alex Cora." Not good timing as Pedroia went deep last night and is looking great. I don't know why I have to remind him, but Loretta stunk last year and barely got a job this year. Also, has anyone else noticed the season Gonzalez is having? He has 7 home runs already. He is hitting .300 with a SLG% over .550.
"You simply would not believe what a big deal it's been in Los Angeles since the Dodger Stadium parking fee was bumped from $10 to $15 this year. The Ripoff Bros. lots around Fenway get $35 without argument. I will never understand Dan's inability to grasp the basics of market economies. They charge $35 because people will pay $35. Pretty simple.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Stirring the Pot
Dan alternates between belittling Red Sox fans as out of touch "fanboys" and stirring the pot trying to whip fans into a frenzy over the Yankees. Thanks, but I will pass, Dan.
The Clemens signing gives Dan the opportunity to write breathless passages like this: "Clemens. At Fenway. In a New York uniform. Again. It's almost as if the Great Bambino himself announced he was making a comeback with the Bronx Bombers."
Or this one: "Some week here in the Hub. First we saw photos of uber-quarterback Tom Brady walking in the East Village wearing a Yankees cap and now the locally loathed Clemens is going back to the team Sox fans love to hate."
Spare us. Fans shouldn't be too upset by this move because Roger just isn't that good anymore. Dan mentioned the last time he faced the Red Sox was Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, but he failed to note what happened in the game. Dan also failed to mention that Roger averaged 6 innings per start in the National League. A pitcher who can only go 5 innings isn't great help for a team with a bad bullpen. Finally, over his last two seasons in the AL, Roger had about a 4.00 ERA. If you look at his game log from 2003, you will see Roger feasted on the bad offenses of the AL while routinely getting rocked by good lineups. So I say, bring him on.
Gratuitous Curt Schillling Dig Watch:
"Ever the blowhard, Schilling declared, "We don't need him" -- a comment of stupefying arrogance that is sure to come up a couple of million times between now and the end of the 2007 postseason."
What was the guy supposed to say? "Julian Tavarez sucks"? I like what Schilling said. Shows confidence in the team and the only people who will bring it up a million times are Dan and his lazy ilk.
Edit: 'Roger' for 'Dan' in paragraph 4
The Clemens signing gives Dan the opportunity to write breathless passages like this: "Clemens. At Fenway. In a New York uniform. Again. It's almost as if the Great Bambino himself announced he was making a comeback with the Bronx Bombers."
Or this one: "Some week here in the Hub. First we saw photos of uber-quarterback Tom Brady walking in the East Village wearing a Yankees cap and now the locally loathed Clemens is going back to the team Sox fans love to hate."
Spare us. Fans shouldn't be too upset by this move because Roger just isn't that good anymore. Dan mentioned the last time he faced the Red Sox was Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, but he failed to note what happened in the game. Dan also failed to mention that Roger averaged 6 innings per start in the National League. A pitcher who can only go 5 innings isn't great help for a team with a bad bullpen. Finally, over his last two seasons in the AL, Roger had about a 4.00 ERA. If you look at his game log from 2003, you will see Roger feasted on the bad offenses of the AL while routinely getting rocked by good lineups. So I say, bring him on.
Gratuitous Curt Schillling Dig Watch:
"Ever the blowhard, Schilling declared, "We don't need him" -- a comment of stupefying arrogance that is sure to come up a couple of million times between now and the end of the 2007 postseason."
What was the guy supposed to say? "Julian Tavarez sucks"? I like what Schilling said. Shows confidence in the team and the only people who will bring it up a million times are Dan and his lazy ilk.
Edit: 'Roger' for 'Dan' in paragraph 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)