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.