On @ZoandBertrand now until noon. Hardy and Keefe filling in today. We are playing some awful music and readying to talk about coin tosses
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 29, 2015Tuesday, December 29, 2015
He Means Anything Recorded After 1979
Is Shank Pretending To Be An NBA Scout?
I couldn't help but think that when I read this article:
It's not like Shank lacks the motivation to take a shot at coach Calipari. I'm just asking the question!
The latest case comes from a NBA scout who anonymously commented on several of Kentucky’s basketball players to Sportsnet New York’s Adam Zagoria in the wake of the Wildcats’ 75-73 win over Louisville Saturday, praising point guard Tyler Ulis, offering mixed comments on shooting guard Jamal Murray and calling big man Skal Labissiere a “fraud,” “a ‘Paper Tiger,'” and “a mock draft myth.”One word here certainly sticks out, doesn't it?
It's not like Shank lacks the motivation to take a shot at coach Calipari. I'm just asking the question!
Monday, December 28, 2015
Flipped Out
It's Dan's World...we just live in it.
Or so he wants us to think, given the lede to his column today:
Ahh, yes. The CHB knows football! He knows Cover 2 and the stack. He knows the nickel and the blind side and the short side. He knows the route tree and the "T." He even knows the Statue of Liberty (the play and the drink). He's brilliant, and we would do well to bask in his reflected glory.
Getting back to reality, the only thing Shank knows about football is that he can't play it. He certainly can't critique it. What he thinks passes for analysis is really just one part observation mixed with two parts whining.
For example, The CHB thinks he was the first (and only) fellow to notice that Patriots head coach Bill Belichick defers the ball when they win the coin flip (which they almost always do). To The CHB, this is arrogance (and perhaps, cheating). To the rest of us, this is common sense: when the hole parts and you can walk in for the score, you do so.
Next, confirming what we had guessed at before, Shank reports on what all the bloggers and tweeters have to say. We always assumed The CHB spent most of his day listening to talk radio and reading what others wrote, then lifting either the best lines, or, when he was feeling particularly lazy or hungover or both, the entire premise of the column.
He compounds his journalistic sins by alleging for the umpteenth time that the Patriots throw games in order to improve their playoff chances.
Finally, he closes with the most pathetic of puns: "Heads they win. Tails you lose." Stolen from Jim Rome? Or Ben Watanabe? Or Barstool Sports?
Arrogance is ripping off the same lame retread column and somehow thinking it makes you clever.
Or so he wants us to think, given the lede to his column today:
It amuses me that the football world is talking about coin flips, deferrals, arrogance, hubris, amazing luck, insulting the opposition, and the Patriots’ chances to win Super Bowl 50 in Santa Clara Feb. 7.
Welcome to my world. I’ve been writing about this stuff for years. Finally, everyone is paying attention.
Ahh, yes. The CHB knows football! He knows Cover 2 and the stack. He knows the nickel and the blind side and the short side. He knows the route tree and the "T." He even knows the Statue of Liberty (the play and the drink). He's brilliant, and we would do well to bask in his reflected glory.
Getting back to reality, the only thing Shank knows about football is that he can't play it. He certainly can't critique it. What he thinks passes for analysis is really just one part observation mixed with two parts whining.
For example, The CHB thinks he was the first (and only) fellow to notice that Patriots head coach Bill Belichick defers the ball when they win the coin flip (which they almost always do). To The CHB, this is arrogance (and perhaps, cheating). To the rest of us, this is common sense: when the hole parts and you can walk in for the score, you do so.
Next, confirming what we had guessed at before, Shank reports on what all the bloggers and tweeters have to say. We always assumed The CHB spent most of his day listening to talk radio and reading what others wrote, then lifting either the best lines, or, when he was feeling particularly lazy or hungover or both, the entire premise of the column.
He compounds his journalistic sins by alleging for the umpteenth time that the Patriots throw games in order to improve their playoff chances.
Finally, he closes with the most pathetic of puns: "Heads they win. Tails you lose." Stolen from Jim Rome? Or Ben Watanabe? Or Barstool Sports?
Arrogance is ripping off the same lame retread column and somehow thinking it makes you clever.
Sunday, December 27, 2015
...Or Did The Patriots Screw Up In Overtime?
If Shank does a column on this game, this call will be central to it:
UPDATE AT 4:31 PM - Just heard part of the press conference by coach Belichick. He stated unequivocally that they elected to kick.
The exchange that could help send the Jets to the playoffs... pic.twitter.com/5ErbnKUyfE
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) December 27, 2015UPDATE AT 4:31 PM - Just heard part of the press conference by coach Belichick. He stated unequivocally that they elected to kick.
Let The Second Guessing Begin!
Posted within seconds of the New York Jets beating the Patriots 26 - 20, Shank invents an excuse for being glaringly wrong on his prior afternoon tweets:
Never mind that Baltimore beat Pittsburgh fifteen or so minutes ago, but we gots to be sure!
Clearly Pats want Steelers out of the playoffs. This was all planned. Like Cassell throwing pass to Cheerleaders so they woud get Jags
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 27, 2015Never mind that Baltimore beat Pittsburgh fifteen or so minutes ago, but we gots to be sure!
You Were Saying?
Shank, the great prognosticator:
Pats being thoroughly dominated. Yet their victory feels inevitable
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 27, 2015You just know the Jets are going to give the Patriots this game
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 27, 2015Don't panic. Pats know exactly what they are doing. They worked on this on Friday
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 27, 2015Familiar Concept
Shot:
Jets lose toss. Get ball. Punt.
Pats double score now in place.
Nothing ever changes.
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 27, 2015@Dan_Shaughnessy "nothingever changes".... Like your takes
— Tom McNaughton (@tmcnaughton33) December 27, 2015Original Patriots Tweets, By Dan Shaughnessy
Check the coins, Shank!
Seriously, this astounding Patriot coin toss success needs Ted Wells.
I thought the Jets had a chance.
Not now.
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 27, 2015Your Stupid Shank Tweet Of The Day
Then again, the Patriots haven't won the coin toss yet!
Tomato Can Update:
Name top team Pats beat.
Pittsburgh? Jets?
Only Pats can get # 1 seed without beating anyone.
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 27, 2015Thursday, December 24, 2015
Shank Missed Out On A Writing Award
We fully expected Shank to make this list, but it wasn't to be:
The Worst American Sportswriting Of 2015There's always next year!
As we’ve noted before, sportswriting tends to follow what you might call the Anna Karenina Principle. The good stuff—the stuff that makes year-end lists like Longreads’s and Richard Deitsch’s—is all, on a certain level, the same, similarly structured long profile after similarly structured long profile, all in one way or another tracing the actual workings that animate the world of superficial appearances. The worst is ... not. Every truly bad article and every truly bad post is a unique, delicate flower, blossoming in this harsh world despite its lack of redeeming qualities. So please, read on and bask in the unrepeatable, indescribable, mind-numbing awfulness of 2015’s worst sportswriting.
Monday, December 21, 2015
Just How Dumb Is This Guy? - III
Alternative headline - The One Where Shank Finally Endorses Cheating!
Let's see if this blogger has this straight - it's not okay when this guy is alleged to have cheated, but it's perfectly fine to suggest throwing a shitload of basketball games in order to secure the services of...
We should consider the possibility of the Christmas blues setting in, right?
Let's see if this blogger has this straight - it's not okay when this guy is alleged to have cheated, but it's perfectly fine to suggest throwing a shitload of basketball games in order to secure the services of...
Newsflash: Karl Anthony Towns is a franchise player. Would happily lose every game to get a player like that.
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 22, 2015We should consider the possibility of the Christmas blues setting in, right?
Just How Dumb Is This Guy? - II
It looks like Shank just gave us a new theme:
First point - Odell Beckham Jr. is being suspended for one game for multiple penalties in yesterday's game as well as taking a run at Panthers cornerback Josh Norman. Beckham has appealed this decision. Tom Brady was accused of complicity in allegedly deflating footballs before last year's AFC championship game with the Colts and faced a four game suspension, which was appealed, denied by the same man who ruled on the original suspension, then adjuicated in a Federal courtroom, where Judge Berman basically pulled down Roger Goodell's pants and exposed the massive deficiencies in both the examination of evidence and due process procedures inherent in the original ruling and the appeal process.
Second point - is Shank seriously suggesting a one game suspension for an attempt to injure Josh Norman is worthy of a Federal judge's intervention?
This blogger will go with Shank's historical propensity for trolling & stirring the pot; for him to suggest otherwise simply shows a staggering lack of perspective or a room temperature IQ.
Wonder if Odell can get Berman to overturn suspension?
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 22, 2015First point - Odell Beckham Jr. is being suspended for one game for multiple penalties in yesterday's game as well as taking a run at Panthers cornerback Josh Norman. Beckham has appealed this decision. Tom Brady was accused of complicity in allegedly deflating footballs before last year's AFC championship game with the Colts and faced a four game suspension, which was appealed, denied by the same man who ruled on the original suspension, then adjuicated in a Federal courtroom, where Judge Berman basically pulled down Roger Goodell's pants and exposed the massive deficiencies in both the examination of evidence and due process procedures inherent in the original ruling and the appeal process.
Second point - is Shank seriously suggesting a one game suspension for an attempt to injure Josh Norman is worthy of a Federal judge's intervention?
This blogger will go with Shank's historical propensity for trolling & stirring the pot; for him to suggest otherwise simply shows a staggering lack of perspective or a room temperature IQ.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
That's Original
Shank must be hung over if it took him this long into the game to uncork this inanity:
A tweet in response, keeping with the Christmas spirit:
UPDATE, AT 4:53 PM: Kirk Minihane appreciates Shank's pop culture arrival into more recent times:
Remember the Titans
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 20, 2015A tweet in response, keeping with the Christmas spirit:
@Dan_Shaughnessy Please drop dead
— TrollSkipBayless(@TrollSkipBayles) December 20, 2015UPDATE, AT 4:53 PM: Kirk Minihane appreciates Shank's pop culture arrival into more recent times:
You kidding? I'm impressed. That movie came out this century. https://t.co/fRhxNeQnz4
— Kirk Minihane (@kirkmin) December 20, 2015Just How Dumb Is This Guy?
Ignore for a moment the endless juvenile nature of the subject matter at hand:
Aren't alleged professional writers obliged to be somewhat precise with words? The odds of winning a lottery are in the millions to one range, but it is not impossible to win a lottery. Conversely, winning coin tosses at a 75% rate translates to 4 to 1 odds, which makes this situation improbable, but not a 'statistical impossibility'. It's self-evident numbers are not Shank's strong suit.
Pats win more than 75 percent of coin tosses. Statistical impossibility
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 20, 2015Aren't alleged professional writers obliged to be somewhat precise with words? The odds of winning a lottery are in the millions to one range, but it is not impossible to win a lottery. Conversely, winning coin tosses at a 75% rate translates to 4 to 1 odds, which makes this situation improbable, but not a 'statistical impossibility'. It's self-evident numbers are not Shank's strong suit.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Hall No, Shank Won't Go!
The CHB today whines about how the Hall of Fame was "more fun when it was all about baseball. Comparing Player A to Player B."
Our question: When did it stop being about that?
If anything, comparing what actually happened on, you know, the field, is more than ever about what took place between the white lines, since understanding the effects -- if any -- of what took place outside them isn't possible. But since Shank is stuck in the gravity of his own id, there's no other way to took at it.
On with the nitpicking!
On the subject of new candidate Trevor Hoffman, Shank says "saves are overrated, especially in the era in which Hoffman pitched." Give him Goose Gossage and Rollie Fingers, he says.
Except he didn't vote for Gossage, but he did for one-inning marvel Dennis Eckersley.
As for saves, if they were overrated then, they have always been overrated, since getting five or six outs really isn't that much harder than getting three. It'd be great to know whether Shank voted for Rollie Fingers in the 1981 MVP race, given he pitched all of 78 innings that year. Given who finished runner-up, I'll bet he did.
That said, saves are overrated, which makes some of the other arguments The CHB attempts even more nonsensical. Such as: "woe is [he who] values things like wins." He promptly insists he won't vote for Mike Mussina despite his 270 wins because "he always pitched for good teams."
Except that he didn't. I looked it up.
Mussina pitched for the Orioles for 10 seasons, from 1991 - 2000. During that time, Moose went 147-81 (a 65% winning percentage). The Orioles as a team were 926-812 (53%). Perhaps Shank stopped to consider that maybe the reason the O's were good was because they had Mussina? As for "always good teams," consider that in those 10 seasons, the O's finished below .500 five times. Nice try, though!
Moreover, his entire premise is a clear admission that wins are a byproduct of something far bigger than just "I pitched good." None of that kept him from voting for Jack Morris, a far inferior pitcher to Mussina, of course.
Moving on. Shank says he's not going to vote for players who he "thinks" cheated, yet he voted for Paul Molitor, who was a drug user.
He calls Alan Trammell a "PED backlash vote," which is downright comical given that Trammell was better than at least a dozen other shortstops who are in the Hall.
Here's the best part (isn't it always?): When he resorts to name-calling. Per usual, it's a shot at those who understand math (the "Bill James Blog Boys"); those guys who actually studied in class and went on to make some serious coin while also doing on the side what The CHB does for a living -- and doing it better than he ever could have dreamed.
Finally, the gist of the column was written in 2009:
2009: "It is one of the great privileges of being a baseball writer.
2015: "It’s still the greatest honor of membership in the vaunted Baseball Writers’ Association of America."
2009: "[Voting] has become a tremendous pain in the posterior."
2015: "Voting for the Hall of Fame ... was more fun when it was all about baseball."
The names may change, but the words remain the same.
Our question: When did it stop being about that?
If anything, comparing what actually happened on, you know, the field, is more than ever about what took place between the white lines, since understanding the effects -- if any -- of what took place outside them isn't possible. But since Shank is stuck in the gravity of his own id, there's no other way to took at it.
On with the nitpicking!
On the subject of new candidate Trevor Hoffman, Shank says "saves are overrated, especially in the era in which Hoffman pitched." Give him Goose Gossage and Rollie Fingers, he says.
Except he didn't vote for Gossage, but he did for one-inning marvel Dennis Eckersley.
As for saves, if they were overrated then, they have always been overrated, since getting five or six outs really isn't that much harder than getting three. It'd be great to know whether Shank voted for Rollie Fingers in the 1981 MVP race, given he pitched all of 78 innings that year. Given who finished runner-up, I'll bet he did.
That said, saves are overrated, which makes some of the other arguments The CHB attempts even more nonsensical. Such as: "woe is [he who] values things like wins." He promptly insists he won't vote for Mike Mussina despite his 270 wins because "he always pitched for good teams."
Except that he didn't. I looked it up.
Mussina pitched for the Orioles for 10 seasons, from 1991 - 2000. During that time, Moose went 147-81 (a 65% winning percentage). The Orioles as a team were 926-812 (53%). Perhaps Shank stopped to consider that maybe the reason the O's were good was because they had Mussina? As for "always good teams," consider that in those 10 seasons, the O's finished below .500 five times. Nice try, though!
Moreover, his entire premise is a clear admission that wins are a byproduct of something far bigger than just "I pitched good." None of that kept him from voting for Jack Morris, a far inferior pitcher to Mussina, of course.
Moving on. Shank says he's not going to vote for players who he "thinks" cheated, yet he voted for Paul Molitor, who was a drug user.
He calls Alan Trammell a "PED backlash vote," which is downright comical given that Trammell was better than at least a dozen other shortstops who are in the Hall.
Here's the best part (isn't it always?): When he resorts to name-calling. Per usual, it's a shot at those who understand math (the "Bill James Blog Boys"); those guys who actually studied in class and went on to make some serious coin while also doing on the side what The CHB does for a living -- and doing it better than he ever could have dreamed.
Finally, the gist of the column was written in 2009:
2009: "It is one of the great privileges of being a baseball writer.
2015: "It’s still the greatest honor of membership in the vaunted Baseball Writers’ Association of America."
2009: "[Voting] has become a tremendous pain in the posterior."
2015: "Voting for the Hall of Fame ... was more fun when it was all about baseball."
The names may change, but the words remain the same.
Shank's Part-Time Job - Scaring Children
Willl be hanging out with Globe Santa Sunday at Copley Mall (waterfall site) from 11-12:30.
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 19, 2015Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Always Tape Machine Recording
Had the displeasure to listen to Shank's weekly appearance on 'Zo and Bertrand at 11:00 this morning. What did he talk about during the first half hour, you ask? John Calipari. In other words, he rehashed his Sunday night column.
Not an original thought in his mind. Absolutely pathetic.
Not an original thought in his mind. Absolutely pathetic.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Clearing A Very Low Bar
Bumped into Ted Johnson in Houston press box. He said, "I'm on the radio in Houston now. We are 'The Felger and Mazz' of Houston.''
— Dan Shaughnessy (@Dan_Shaughnessy) December 14, 2015Cal Up in Arms Over UMass Award
This is classic.
The CHB continues blasting the decision by UMass Amherst to honor former men's basketball coach John Calipari and no one cares!
This is not the first time Shank has whined about the pending feting. He made essentially the same argument back in March.
But it's better this time because when The CHB queries UMass president Marty Meehan about the move, the "sports buff and a Massachusetts lifer" completely shoots him down:
Everyone (except, apparently, Shaughnessy) knew Coach Cal was cheating long before the NCAA blew its whistle, and Dapper Dan would have known too, had he not been so busy losing bets and scamming the IRS.
Do you think The CHB feels remorse for asking Tom Werner for a job for his daughter, as has been rumored for years?
Do you believe the Elf on the Shelf is real?
The CHB continues blasting the decision by UMass Amherst to honor former men's basketball coach John Calipari and no one cares!
This is not the first time Shank has whined about the pending feting. He made essentially the same argument back in March.
But it's better this time because when The CHB queries UMass president Marty Meehan about the move, the "sports buff and a Massachusetts lifer" completely shoots him down:
In the four months I’ve been on the job as president of the system, I haven’t got one complaint about this from the Amherst campus,’’ said Meehan. “The Amherst campus, the faculty, the dean, the students, they’re not shy. Calipari is very involved with UMass. He’s raised significant money for UMass. He’s contributed to UMass. And we’re a university that needs to get more people to come back and do that.This is why the joke in j-school is that "dumb sportswriter" is redundant: The CHB has his skirt all tied up in knots over something that no one cared about 20 years ago and is even less (if possible) newsworthy today. It's just sports! It's a kid's game!
Everyone (except, apparently, Shaughnessy) knew Coach Cal was cheating long before the NCAA blew its whistle, and Dapper Dan would have known too, had he not been so busy losing bets and scamming the IRS.
Do you think The CHB feels remorse for asking Tom Werner for a job for his daughter, as has been rumored for years?
Do you believe the Elf on the Shelf is real?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)