Dantasy Land

Mirror, mirror, on the wall: Who’s the fairest weather fan of them all?

Answer: The CHB (like we didn't already know).

Just months after taking howitzer-sized shots at an injured Curt Schilling, all is forgotten in Dan’s fantasy (Dantasy?) land.

Today, after shutting down the Rangers in yesterday’s opener, he’s “Big Schill” and "superhero/ultimate warrior/Boston sports deity."

It's hard to believe that just last June 26, Sybil Shaughnessy, manic-depressive presciption clearly expired, was busy calling Schilling "the Big Blowhard."

Dan even eases up on his recounting of Schilling’s troubles last year, writing, "He struggled to win eight games last year on an ankle that looked like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone." That's a far cry from his jackass remark last Nov. 2 on the Dennis & Callahan show when he said, "Tell Curt to go ask the people who paid him $13 million to win eight games last year about that situation. Maybe they can explain it to him."

That's fair weather Dan for you.

Sybil watch: Opening day 2004: “Why can't it just be about the baseball? Even for one day." Opening day 2006: Larry Lucchino was “conspicuously absent” but [John] Henry “insisted” he wasn’t “locked in the basement back at Fenway” and calling the Rangers the team that “used to be owned by Schilling's favorite president.”

Opening Bray

The CHB's annual opening day extravaganza is a piece of fetid crap. Sorry: We here at the Watch try to be a bit more analytical than that, but just trying to sort through it is giving me a headache.

The banter runs from the trite to the absurd. For instance: "It is Opening Day 2006, all teams are 0-0 ..." he says, a compound error which would be remedied only if 1) the season hadn't started the night before, and 2) that game, which pitted Cleveland vs. Chicago, had been rained out. (It wasn't.)

"It all goes back to pitching and defense," he claims (wrongly), then moments later cavalierly says Boston "will score enough runs to win 95-100 games."

In comparing the Sox to the Yankees, he for some oddball reason singles out a pitcher, Mike Mussina, who threw 180 innings last year as someone who "could implode at any moment," as if that's not true of any pitcher.

And he says the loss of Damon, Mueller, et al has led "many experts to dismiss the Red Sox as a noncontender." Many? Really, Dan? That's a huge overstatement.

And then The King of All Hyperbole reminds fans "not to overreact if your team loses the first game." Per usual, he's conveniently forgetting his own public hissy fits. Let's go back to what he wrote after some recent Opening Day losses:

* 2003: Dan's ready to tar and feather Bill James after the bullpen blew Game 1 of the season, a loss he termed was a "calamity."
* 2002: Dan writes, "[Martinez] had almost nothing. He said he feels fine. He credited the Blue Jay hitters. But clearly he is not yet Pedro. Will he ever be again? It's the big question that plagues Red Sox Nation as fans chew on this painful loss and pray that it's not too late to salvage the season."

We'll be sure to revisit that one if this team starts the season 4-6.

There's something about the start of a season that sends Dan into emotional overload. At least he didn't predict Schilling would throw a no-no as he used to with Pedro.

The Duck Stops Here

Dan's April Fool's column was published a day late, it seems.

In a perverse bit of hypocrisy, The CHB today complains that steroids still dominate the discussion. “[T]he Red Sox season starts tomorrow afternoon … and we are talking about steroids. Now and again. Forever, it seems.

The thing is, if guys like Shaughnessy, the self-styled overseers of baseball, had investigated the issue and held anyone accountable over the past decade, we wouldn’t still be talking about it. But no, they relied on cheap jokes and innuendo because, guess what, actually researching the issue is hard work.

Dan’s hyperbole is out in full force. “[T]he integrity of the game has been irreparably harmed -- more so than at any time since the Black Sox scandal….” If that’s true, then why do more fans buy tickets or watch televised games each year than the last?

He invokes Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis for doing the right thing, omitting that the man “endowed with power to do just about anything to preserve the best interests of baseball” used those same powers to keep blacks out of the sport.

And he blames everyone else – Bug Selig, Major League Baseball and the Players Association (“the silent and too-often-overlooked coconspirator in this cesspool explosion”) – for not cluing him: “Why did he allow us to embrace what we now know to be the artificial home run chase (Popeye McGwire vs. Bluto Sosa) in 1998?” Dan ducks altogether the media’s complicity, without which none of this could have happened. All in all, a shameful display by a man who did nothing but heap praise on Bonds while he chased down the record (see, for example, his Oct. 18, 2002, column).

“We all know,” he writes. “Bonds is in the on-deck circle, ready to overtake Ruth. He did it with his own talent, plus some illegal help from his friends.”

But while the evidence is strong, Victor Conte’s pleas notwithstanding (and it’s possible that Conte was being truthy when he said he did not give steroids to Bonds – it may be that he gave them to Bonds’ trainer who in turn dispensed them to Barry), there is no evidence of the effect, if any, that steroids has on the performance of a major league baseball player. No controlled study has ever been done. Everything else, then, is speculation.

And buck passing.

Farmed Out

The CHB today makes the dubious assertion that Theo Epstein is "more powerful than any Boston GM since Dick O'Connell," a humorous bit of amnesia, considering that Dan Duqette is also prominently featured in the piece. Duquette, of course, was executive vice president and general manager under John Harrington, and for all intents and purposes completely ran the operation. Not even Theo can say that.

That's just nit one.

He digs himself in further by saying Theo is trying to build the farm system while also putting a playoff quality team on the field. Oddly, though, he offers as evidence Kevin Youkilis, "home-grown stud Jonathan Papelbon" and soon-to-be-ready Craig Hansen and Jon Lester. Perhaps the Sox can take credit for Papelbon, who has been in the farm system since 2003. But calling Hansen homegrown is a complete joke. He came from a major college program and is major league ready right now. And it completely ignores the talent that came out of the minors under Duquette, including Nomar Garciaparra and Trot Nixon. Moreover, The CHB is late to this development: at least one scouting service named the Red Sox minor league system the tops in the majors during the past year.

Nit no. 3: He writes, "In fact, only 24 of Boston's 53 draft picks last year were from a four-year college." Actually, according to the Globe's own Website, 27 came from four-year colleges. And six more came from the junior college ranks, which in many cases are designed to be baseball factories.

Nit. no. 4: "Development vs. acquisition is an age-old tug of war for the Sox." Right -- as it is for every team. But an acquisition model hasn't seemed to hurt the Yankees (you've heard of them, haven't you Dan?)

Finally, as only The CHB can do, there are plenty of shots fired at Messrs. Henry, and Lucchino for echoing Epstein's statements. Only Dan would find that much-needed unity and cohesiveness to be a problem.

Driving Nostalgia Lane

After a long break, he's back. But those hoping The CHB spent his week away researching something, anything, are sure to be disappointed with his revelation today that UCLA basketball has a long tradition.

And could the CHB make it through an entire column on tradition without mention of the Yankees, Canadiens and Celtics? Of course not: "They were the New York Yankees and Montreal Canadiens of college basketball. They were collegiate cousins to the Boston Celtics."

Good old Dan. Where we would be without him and his fanciful drives down nostalgia lane?

Name drop watch: "After last Saturday's regional final victory over John Calipari's Memphis team, [Bill] Walton sent me an e-mail ... ."

Off and On

It's a curious thing: The CHB writes several days in a row, then disappears for long stretches.

In the past two weeks, for example, he was off March 16-18, then issued (the best phrase for his mechanical, ho-hum style) four missives in a row (three on the World Baseball Classic),the last of which ran March 22, then hasn't published anything since.

One wonders why the Globe doesn't space his columns so as to avoid the slapdash inanity that spawned this blog.

One further wonders why the Globe doesn't simply can his sorry ass and hire someone who can juggle the apparently enormous task of 1) writing crisp, clear prose while 2) getting his facts straight.

And There It Is...

From today's Globe:

Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in Monday's Sports section erroneously said that no Cuban national team baseball player had defected since Jose Contreras in 2002. While Cuban baseball players have defected since 2002, Contreras was the last one to do so during an international tournament.

An Embarrassment of a Column

One of the beauties of Dan's Sybil-like mind is his ability to present two sides of an argument and, through tortured calculus, determine that they somehow support a single thesis.

Case in point: Today's column.

Per The CHB, the United States' loss was "shocking" and "it's going to be difficult to argue that Americans are still the best at the sport we invented." Yet in the next graf, he says the U.S. team "was hastily assembled, did not include all of our best players (one of America's pitchers, Al Leiter, retired Sunday), and entered the tournament in midwinter form while many of the other squads were in midseason shape." He writes

We did not put our best team on the field (Jeff Francoeur, Michael Barrett, Brian Schneider?). Because the tournament was held in March, we sent players into games before they were ready. And we were embarrassed -- losing to Canada, Korea, and Mexico.

If, as Dan argues, we sent Little Leaguers to compete against other nation's pros, wouldn't we be expected to lose? And if so, then why would a 2-1 loss to a pro team be grounds for bridge-jumping?

Yet even while claiming Americans' were embarrassed by the outcome, he says that fans ignored it. In true Sybilish style, The CHB is saying that fans weren't even aware the games were going on, yet red-faced over the loss. A neat trick.

He concludes with typical Shaughnessy schmaltz: "[N]ow there's proof that the game belongs to the world." Perhaps he wasn't aware that the International Baseball Federation has more than 110 member countries. Or that 30% of major league players are not U.S. citizens. Strange, though; you think he would have noticed names like Ortiz, Martinez, Cabrera and Ramirez on the jerseys of the Red Sox players as they celebrated their 2004 World Series victory.

Dan's Coverage is AWOL

Reading The CHB's recap of the final of the World Baseball Classic, you might think the top stories were that no one cared ("While half of America slept, and the other half blissfully ignored the event") and the time the game ended (12:57 a.m. EST).

You would be wrong.

Dan's story, a passive account of what happened on the field, plus a couple of quotes, could have been written from Newton. He misses so many nuances of the contest that made it interesting. For example:

*The Cubans wore their red uniforms, which they consider to be lucky.
*Cuba starter Ormari Romero was pulled after just 23 pitches.
*Petco Park, host to the finals, was packed with fans from Japan and Cuba who cheered their teams with flags, horns and cowbells.
*The San Diego Symphony Orchestra played the national anthems of Japan, Cuba and the U.S.
*Hank Aaron threw the ceremonial first pitch, and was escorted to the third-base line, by Sadaharu Oh, Japan's all-time home run king.
*Oh apparently forgot what made him famous, because the Japanese he bunted like crazy. (Sometimes you win despite your manager.)

Instead, he takes shots at the U.S. team, calling its loss to Mexico "embarrassing" and a "stunning departure."

And the snide remark about America's lack of interest was uncalled for. Perhaps if the telecast of the game had started before 9 p.m. EST, maybe a few folks at home would have watched.

"I root for the story," The CHB has said. He missed a good one here.

Correction watch: I have heard that the Globe will run a correction to The CHB's remark yesterday that no Cuban player has defected since José Contreras in 2002.

'Defect'-ive

There are two prevailing stories in baseball this spring. There's the triple-story of Barry Bonds, the all-time homerun crown and steroids. Then there's the World Baseball Classic.

The CHB, who to date has acted the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest when it comes such timely stories as Jim Rice's winning personality and Keith Foulke's thoughts on Burger King employees, finally gets around to writing about the WBC.

Of course, he doesn't study the merits of the contest. Nor does he capture the excitement of it -- and those who saw Alex Rodriguez' shock and dismay after the United States lost to Mexico or Jason Varitek's soft-spoken gratitude for the honor of representing his country know what I mean.

Instead, he writes back-to-back columns about what a wonderful team the Cubans have. And in doing so he obliterates reality and common sense. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash.

Let's roll the tape.

Sunday: "No 25 guys/25 cabs for the Cuban national team. It's all for one, all the time," he wrote. As if a Cuban player would even be allowed in a cab.

Today: He describes what a great time the players are having: "It's obvious the players are having fun. They travel, eat, practice, and play as a unit."

As usual, Dan contradicts himself mid-story without even realizing it. Is it the fun that binds the players together, or is it the "security guards near their rooms in the team hotel and representatives from the Department of Homeland Security stand[ing] guard?" Or maybe it's the presence of Antonio Castro, Fidel's son, who just happens to be the team doctor "and often can be seen standing next to [Cuba's manager] during games."

Can those who are considered threats to defect be seriously described as "having fun"? Fun is what I had while out on St. Patrick's Day, and the last thing on my mind was hopping a boat to Havana. Per Article 216 of Cuba's Penal Code, the penalty for any attempt to leave the country without prior government approval is up to three years in prison.

Some don't get off so easy. Truth is, potential defectors face a life-and-death decision. In his childlike ignorance, The CHB apparently is unaware that on July 18, 1978, Cuban baseball star Pedro José Rodríguez was assassinated by Cuban agents while in Colombia for a exhibition series. He was thrown from the 5th floor window of his hotel room for attempting to defect.

Moreover, as Cuban law (Article 90 of Law No. 16, June 28, 1978) mandates, "The promotion of athletes to higher categories takes into account not only their athletic achievements, but also their social and political attitude." In short, you want to play, you gotta pray at the altar of Fidel.

What was that about the cabs, Dan?

Here's where Dan truly goes off the deep end. "Baseball truly is a religion in Cuba. ... Players pledge allegiance to Fidel and none has defected since José Contreras went AWOL in 2002 [SIC!]." Let's forego the pure MGH-bound craziness of that non sequiter and focus on the "none has defected since 2002" comment. That is, pure and simple, wrong.

In October 2003, Cuban baseball stars Maels Rodriguez and Yobal Dueñas defected, hoping to make it to major leagues, according to Baseball America.

And in a New York Times article on March 6, 2006, Jack Curry wrote: "Joe Kehoskie, an agent who has represented Cuban defectors since 1998, said he knew of several players who would like to defect. He estimated that more than 40 players, none as renowned as Contreras, have defected in the past three years."

So what happened in 2002? Cuba began negotiating with foreign teams for its best players. As economics professor Katherine Baird noted in her paper, Cuban Baseball: Ideology, Politics, and Market Forces, in 2002, two top Cuban players, Omar Linares and Germán Mesa, were sold to Japan teams. Notes Baird: "In all likelihood, the Cuban government received significantly more than 80 percent of Linares’ earnings. While it is less clear if the average Cuban player is exploited, those who are able to play overseas are clearly exploited by the Cuban goverment." There's something about being able to leave (mostly) on your own that sort of undermines the need to defect.

Ignorance is bliss, ain't it Dan?

Say what? watch: The CHB says the Cubans are "one victory away from being true champions of the world." Ooooookkkaaayyyy.

Selective memory watch: "Lazo made the lead look huge. No one-inning relief stint for him. The big righty threw 4 2/3 innings of relief, which we all know is not the American way." Is it me, or was Dan among those who screamed bloody murder three years ago at the closer-by-committee concept, under which extended high-leverage relief appearances would be acceptable? We need only turn to April 1, 2003, when he wrote: "Let's start with a memo to Bill James: Perhaps the seventh inning is not the most important inning to hold a lead."

Selective memory watch, redux: Do you think there's pressure to win? Dan did last year, when covering the Red Sox-White Sox playoff series last Oct. 8 he wrote of Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez, "There's little pressure in life after you've already stared down Fidel Castro."

Plagiarism watch: The NYT's Jack Curry, on March 6: Yulieski Gourriel, a 21-year-old infielder who carries himself with the swagger of Derek Jeter ... ."

Dan on March 19: "Gourriel -- the Derek Jeter of Cuba ... ."

Thank God they're a two-newspaper company: Curry again: "Kehoskie speculated that the young pitchers Danny Betancourt, who was dazzling in the Athens Olympics, and Frank Montieth were excluded from the Classic because they were viewed as threats to defect."

The CHB (quoting Velez): "If someone says that we have them under control because they might want to leave, they might want to run away, it's not true. You know very well that if you want to run away, if you want to go to another place, you can do that whenever you want. You can just leave the stadium, grab a cab, leave the hotel, and that's it. They don't want to do that." (Propaganda 1, The CHB 0.)

Return of the Monkeys

Terry Francona's contract extension gives The CHB all the reason he needs to trot out all his favorite comparisons. "Francona's success has elevated him above the sad status of unfortunate sons like Grady Little and Don Zimmer, but he's not considered a genius on a par with Coach Bill. Affable Tito still gets routinely hooted on sports talk radio, and there are a lot of Sox fans who maintain that Boston won its championship in spite of the man in the corner office."

Count The CHB as one of those "fans." Here’s his shot at the Sox manager from Sept. 26, 2004:

For almost six months, he was just harmless, never-say-bunt Tito. A player's boss in the tradition of Pete Carroll, Terry Francona told us he loved his guys and he took blame for anything they did wrong. He drove some fans crazy with game strategy and pitcher deployment (the usual stuff), but most of Red Sox Nation viewed him as a benign bystander in the 2004 quest for the grail. And then came Friday night when Francona morphed into Grady Lite.

Going a little farther back, here’s what he said Aug. 29, 2004:

Some of us think you put the players first too much. We fear you take too many bullets for the fellows. Not enough tough love. Certainly nothing public.

And June 3, 2004: "That's exactly what He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named said right up until the day the Red Sox sent him back to Pinehurst, N.C."

Back to today’s piece: "Until this week, it seemed the Sox were willing to let Francona start the 2006 season as a lame duck manager …” Not to those who have been paying attention. This approach is in line with the closed-mouth stance Sox management have taken since The CHB, et al, created the Epstein maelstrom.

“No details were released, but the Sox no doubt gave Francona a significant bump in salary.” Interesting that Dan thinks the Red Sox should openly comment on the salaries of their personnel. Just like the Globe does. Not.

“Would he like to be here a long time?” In the ocean of idiotic logic that is Dan’s brain, this may be the dumbest question yet. Francona just signed a new contract. How many ways do you think he would possibly answer this question?

Most of the line of questioning followed Dan’s past interviews with Francona:
*Aug. 29, 2004: "But don't expect him to listen to nitwit radio. 'I think I have a pretty good perspective on that," he said. [R]eally I don't listen to it that much.' "

*July 19, 2005: "I don't wake up in the morning and run to the radio to see how I'm being perceived," Terry Francona said before last night's 3-1 loss to the Devil Rays. "I'd be in trouble if I did that."

*March 15, 2006: "I have no idea how I am perceived," Francona said. "That's the times we live in, and in a major market that's what sports radio has become -- who can out-smart-aleck each other -- and it doesn't interest me."

Finally, Dan can’t seem to mention Francona’s name without bringing up Grady Little or Don Zimmer, which he did today and in all the aforementioned columns. Obsessed much with the past, Dan-o?

Like we said yesterday, it's time to hire some new monkeys.

They Right (and Write) Themselves

It was Curt Schilling on Saturday, then Keith Foulke on Monday and today it's Matt Clement.

Three pitchers on the comeback trail in three columns: is this rehab week?

And like the former two pieces, Dan sticks to the script: A blow-by-blow of everything that went wrong for the player last year, a recount of his high points, and most of the column is just the pitcher's own words, with a few transitions from The CHB thrown in.

But while he seemed to be making up with Schilling, calling him "the big guy" -- a switch from "the Big Blowhard," as he did last year -- The CHB still can't get out of his own way. After belittling Foulke on multiple occasions for "insulting the fans," Shaughnessy uses the same language to describe Clement following last season's playoff loss, saying he "looked like a man who'd rather be working alongside Johnny from Burger King."

It appears the team of monkeys Dan hires to write his columns may be running out of steam.

Foulke Festival

Today's piece is a nice summary of Dan's shortcomings as a columnist and a human being.

His bizzaro world analysis: "[Jonathan Papelbon] was in Double A a year ago and he never has saved a game in the majors. He's a nice option for Francona, but Mike Timlin might be the safer choice." Hmmm ... does Bobby Jenks ring a bell? Or is last October too long ago? How about Francisco Rodriguez? Truth is, closers are cheap: if you don't have Mariano Rivera, just find the hot hand and ride him.

His total lack of compassion and humanity: "Along the way he insulted the fans, told us he doesn't like baseball, and appeared miserable just about all the time. He finished with 15 saves and a 5.91 ERA in 43 games. When the Sox were losing their second playoff game in Chicago, Foulke was watching the Bruins at the Garden. Now he comes to the balllpark, works early, and goes home to watch NASCAR while his teammates play in the games." We know, Dan, we know: You rehashed every reason why Foulke is a bad person on Feb. 20.

His Reagan-like math: "The Sox are committed to giving him a chance, but they can't let him torpedo the early part of their season if he's not right. It's too important ... ." I guess I missed that change in the rules that makes the first 30 games count more than the last 30. Don't you recall that on June 26, 2005, the Yankees were 37-37 and you had given them up for dead? All they did after that was go 58-30 to touch out the Sox for the division title.

Memory Lapse

The CHB, failing memory and all, returns to Ft. Myers, Florida, and reports that during spring training "Nobody complains about anything."

Say what? Ever heard of John Valentin, or David Wells, or Carl Everett, or, ... ?
Heck, ever heard of Dan Shaughnessy, who on Feb. 22 bitched about Manny Ramirez's absence?

All in all, it's just a rehash of his Feb. 24, 2006, column.

Little Insight

It's just two days after we were hit with the biggest story hands-down in baseball in months.

The questions abound:
* Did Barry Bonds use steroids or other performance enhancing chemicals?
* Did the authors/publishers time the book's publication in order to affect the upcoming baseball season?
* Is there proof that steroids or PECs actually make a difference in a player's on-the-field performance (insert Raffy joke here)?
* How should baseball react?
* How should fans react?

And so on.

And then there's this little event going on right now called the World Baseball Classic, which holds lots of promise even if the execution and timing aren't necessarily ideal.

So what does The CHB write about today? Grady Little and Terry Francona and their freewheeling (ha ha) days as roommates while coaching in the minor leagues 14 years ago.

Sample insight: "Did Francona learn from the man who preceded him in the corner office at Fenway? 'I'm sure I did,' said Francona. ... 'But I can't sit here and tell you one thing that he did different.' "

It's an incredible display of mindlessness. Even Jim Rice's non-election to the Hall of Fame merited more coverage from Dan. But remember, he "writes for the readers."

Dan's Stock is (Finally) on Bonds' Guilt

The CHB’s take on an upcoming book on Barry Bonds and his alleged steroid use is troubling. Troubling because The CHB wants to fire on Bonds but is struggling with his aim.

One reason is the sheer number of weasel words in the piece. He leads with “Sounds like they really have him this time,” and later writes, “Bonds has been able to stay ahead of the posse thus far.” The implication is that Bonds has cheated but has thus far not been caught.

But the piece is characterized by plenty of “out” phrases, such as “seems to” and the aforementioned “sounds like.” To wit: “It's increasingly clear that he was pumping a lot of stuff into his body.” Not “crystal” clear, but “increasingly.” How lawyerly.

Troubling because it deviates from his past statements demanding proof, as he wrote on March 3, 2004: “No one will ever be able to prove anything from the past, of course. It's like asking police to prove your blood alcohol level was over the legal limit when you drove home from your cousin's wedding in July of 1999.”

Troubling because as sure as he is now of the evidence, he failed all previous opportunities to indict Bonds. For instance, Dan’s comments on Oct. 18, 2002, on the eve of the Giants-Angels World Series, feted Bonds while failing to mention steroids:

Why does America hate Barry Bonds so much? Is it because he's too good? Is it because we constantly hear that his teammates can't stand him? Is it the phony, Carl Everett-esque point to the heavens when he crosses the plate after homering? Is it because he sounds so insincere? Are we threatened by the prospect of him passing hardball gods Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, and Hank Aaron on the all-time homer list? Bonds is the central figure of this World Series. It is difficult to come up with another player who's gotten more attention before the start of the event. We want to know how/if the Angels will pitch to him. We want to see if he can finally perform in the clutch. Despite his (relatively) strong showing in the first two rounds, Bonds will still be remembered as a postseason bust if he fails in this World Series. And so many are rooting against him. It should make for fascinating theater.

In the same piece, Dan even nominated Bonds’ father to throw out the first ball.

Dan ignores all that, however. Now, he says, Bonds is a fraud. So, it seems, is fair-weather Dan.

Color blind. “And now we seem to have hard evidence that Barry didn't make himself Popeye solely by pumping iron.” As The Chimp might say, Did Popeye have black arms?

Revision watch: On March 18, 2004, Dan wrote that Bud Selig would not have the ability or legal standing to change baseball’s rules governing (and penalizing) steroids. How wrong that turned out to be.

Also, on Feb. 25, 2005, Dan attacked Tony LaRussa: “He knew about Jose Canseco . . . and he said nothing? … His apparent involvement in the steroid coverup is alarming, given the way he has presented himself to us for all these years.” Then, on March 17, 2005, he let LaRussa off the hook. Nice turnabout.

Wrong Call on Homers

Updating a previous post, it is well-known that the Globe choses to publish only a few of the factual errors in Shaughnessy's columns.

Here's an example from Dec. 10, 2004. The CHB wrote: "[Kapler] was in the majors for six full seasons, saw the home run explosion, and the tapering off [sic!] of homers with the advent of limited drug testing."

In fact, at the time it was written, that latter comment was absolutely wrong.

MLB instituted steroid testing in 2004. That year, the number of homers per game rose. In 2004 it was 1.123 per game, up from 1.071 in 2003 and 1.043 in 2002. Moreover, the number of doubles -- another power indicator -- rose to 1.837 in 2004 from 1.816 in 2003 and 1.793 in 2002. (Other averages such as runs per game also went up.)

I don't have the final 2005 numbers handy, and in fact they are irrelevant to this point. The point is, it's just another example of Dan not bothering with the research -- at the time he wrote the column, ESPN.com had all the data on its MLB statistics page -- making stupid extrapolations and the Globe looking the other way.

(I should add that a few months later Gordon Edes once again quietly put things into proper perspective.)

Hang 10

Say it ain't so.

The CHB is headed South for 10 more days, he warns in his Sunday column. God save us all. Here's hoping he pulls over to pee at a South Carolina rest area.

Other than that, Sunday's column was more Baseball Notes than anything else. We are treated to anecdotes about the offspring of Mike Greenwell and coach Brad Mills, and shots at Pedro Martinez and Johnny Damon. Yawn.

And there's this: "We get to see Nomar Garciaparra playing first base when the Sox go to Vero Beach Thursday. Nomar has a good teacher. He's been getting lessons from Eddie Murray, who played more games at first base (2,413) than anyone else in the history of baseball."

Nice piece of trivia, but Dan's recall, well, sucks. Eddie Murray pulled absolute rocks at first. Here's a guy who made 19 errors one season, 18 another, and had six straight years of 10 or more errors. Nomar would be better off with Bill Murray as an instructor.

Hall watch: Interesting that Shaughnessy spends three columns on Jim Rice's Hall of Fame worthiness (even if they were for the most part the same work -- nearly verbatim -- he has been trotting out for years), yet it is left to Gordon Edes to make the case for an much bigger omission: Buck Weaver.

EDIT: That should be Buck O'Neil. It was the desk's fault.

Latest Effort on B's Rhymes with 'Rink'

If this keeps up, I'm going to start an "X isn't walking through that door" watch.

Like Dan himself, the now ancient Rick Pitino quote is long past retirement age. Yet no one seems to have told The CHB, who keeps trotting it out like a Suffolk Downs nag that's overdue for the glue wagon. It's probably hard-coded into Microsoft Word on his PC.

Today's incarnation: "Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Terry O'Reilly, Ray Bourque, and Joe Thornton aren't walking through that door. Cam Neely and Pie McKenzie aren't walking through that door, either."

It's just one more in a string of cliches and suckups. The Bruins are the
"team with the most loyal fans." Those same fans are "by far the most knowledgable [sic!] fan base in our town" -- good luck proving that -- and adds "you know a large number of men in the crowd are dads who talk about Orr when they watch the game with the new generation of hockey fans," as if we are to believe Dan ever leaves the press box.

Dan's weak attempt to peddle a feelgood Bruins story feels as contrived as O.J. Simpson's assertions that he's looking for Nicole's killer.

One need only recall his Jan. 16 piece, when he wrote

One thing is for sure: The Patriots' sudden, stunning defeat in Denver Saturday night is not a good thing for Mike O'Connell and the Bruins. While Tom Brady and Friends were bound for Super Bowl XL in Detroit, it was easy to ignore the train wreck on Causeway Street, but now the moribund Bruins and the southbound Celtics have our attention again -- at a time when they'd rather be hiding in the weeds.

Or his Nov. 22, 2005, piece, in which he called the B's

... a defenseless, last-place team in a town that's all too ready to relegate hockey to the status accorded the New England Revolution. Hockey -- the new professional soccer. Ugh.

Where were all those loyal fans when you wrote that?

As if Boston needed more proof of The CHB's blindness to his surroundings, he writes: "Close your eyes and you can tell what is going on simply by listening to the Garden crowd." It is a nice insight on how he does his job, though.

Bad Casting

Try as he might to cast Antoine Walker as the hero of last night's Heat-Celtics game, Dan's assertion that the former Celt's 13 points somehow made the difference falls way short of the rim.

There's this odd tenet of sportswriting that says that for the sake of drama, it's OK to ignore what actually happened on the court. And what happened was that Shaq bullied his way around floor for 16 (would have been more if he made a few free throws) and Dwayne Wade scored 24 points and Shandon Anderson rang up 15 in just 23 minutes. And without all that, Walker's late-game binge would have been meaningless. But never let the facts get in the way of a good tale.

And where would a good drama be without a villian? Dan writes:

'Toine said he wanted to stay in Boston after the nifty run he had in the spring of 2005, but said talks never got off the ground with Ainge. "For some reason, Danny didn't want me to come back," Walker said.

Let's consider that, shall we? For the season, Walker has been busting pine, while the immortal, undrafted Udonis Haslem starts ahead of him. He averages just shy of 27 minutes a game -- seventh on the team -- and is shooting just 43% -- far below the Celt's team average of 47%. For this performance, the Heat will pay him the bargain basement sum of $40 million through the 2010-2011 season. Still think Ainge was wrong not to keep him? Or perhaps Dan thinks the solution to the C's problems was another Mark Blount? By not rebutting Walker, that's the impression he leaves.

Wrong sport watch: Compares Walker's results during the first three quarters of last night's game to the 2005 edition of Sammy Sosa, all while failing to recognize that Walker's entire season has been a trainwreck.

Star watch: Of the Boston glitterati, is Bill Belichick really the glitterest? "The Celtics' sixth sellout of the season included Boston movers, shakers, fakers, and people who ride in limos," The CHB wrote. Yet of all those movers and shakers, the Pats coach is the only one mentioned by name. For some reason, Shaughnessy has a habit of turning Celtics coverage into Page 6, as he showed May 10, 2003, when his analysis of the Nets-Celtics playoff series could be summed as: "It was certainly a night to see and be seen at the New Garden. Governor Mitt Romney was there and got booed when his face was plastered on the big board. Patriots owner Bob Kraft took a front-row baseline seat."

Dan on …

Picked up pieces while waiting for The CHB’s wisdom to fell more trees.

Chauncey Billups: “… a wasted No. 3 pick …” Feb. 19, 1998

Pete Carroll: “… little more than a smarter, drug-free Butch Hobson …” Jan. 3, 1999, and “Papa Pete, the drug-free Daddy Butch Hobson of this southbound train …” Nov. 29, 1999

Dan Duquette: “What do the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Rangers, Indians, Padres, Expos and Reds have in common? All said goodbye to Greg Harris with no compensation. This means there must be a lot of baseball general managers like Dan Duquette – guys who don't know what they need to build a winner.” July 16, 1994 (The 38-year-old Harris won 2 more games in his major league career. The Red Sox won their division the next year.)

Donald Fehr: “an East German border guard in a previous life.” Dec. 22, 1994

Dave Gavitt: “… the Teflon CEO of the Celtics …. Because of his reputation, and his friendly personality, he hasn't been the target of many slings or arrows. It's time.” March 3, 1994

Terry Glenn: " Terry Oil Can Glenn."

Bob Kraft: “… an owner who is rapidly spinning out of control …” Feb. 4, 1997 and “ … a man with an ego bigger than the Citgo sign …” Nov. 19, 1998

Jose Offerman: “How do you say "junk" in French?”

Robert Parish: “[T]he Chief is full of baloney. His comments … reek of the same tired stuff he floated here any time he needed an excuse for why he wasn't Larry Bird.” Nov. 17, 1994

Rick Pitino: “We know never to believe anything the man says …” Boston Globe, Feb. 19, 1998.

Jim Rice: “Regarding a hometown candidate with borderline Hall numbers, it's easier to vote for Rice than to defend oneself against the standard charges of revenge and racism.” Jan. 9, 2002, and “He hasn't played in two years, but Jim Rice is still contemptible.” Dec. 18, 1991

The AL East race: “The team that gets off to the hot start usually wins the American League East …” April 26, 1987 (If only…)

Say Anything

Full squad training has begun, and not a moment too soon. For it's crystal clear that The CHB has nothing left in the tank, save the occasional random insult.

While the beat writers are busy earning their keep, it's clear that the New York Times shareholders aren't getting their money's worth underwriting the columnists' winter vacations.

"If you live for baseball, the first full squad spring workout is just about the best day of the season," he writes. But the positive tone is deceiving and short-lived, for in the very next sentence he compares Red Sox owner John W. Henry to "Curious George's Man in the Yellow Hat" (I'm not sure that that means, except the reference is likely a solid clue as to Dan's favorite book).

In the next graf, GM Theo Epstein is "boy wonder." Later, Dan wisecracks about tension between Epstein and Larry Lucchino, and Curt Schilling's leadership. (Rumor has it Schilling is instructing players not to speak with The CHB. We can only hope.)

In an inadvertently hilarious segment, Dan tries getting answers out of Henry and Lucchino, both of whom defer to Epstein. (If that's not evidence Sox management is on the same page, what is?) This is funny on two levels: 1) in trying to subtly note management's lack of candor, he makes himself look impotent and 2) as we all know, Theo's not talking, at least not to Shaughnessy. Dan didn't just burn that bridge, he nuked it.

For everyone else, this is a time of anticipation and excitement. Yet Dan can't leave the sarcasm in the clubhouse long enough to finish the piece. In a way, it's understandable: With no one talking to him (not counting a few anonymous quotes that he probably made up), it's going to be one long season in CHB-ville.

Overcooked

It's hard to believe Jim Rice has been retired since 1989, not when he's the subject of a column a month by The CHB. Funny how a guy who couldn't stand him when he was playing is now his biggest booster for post-career accolades. But that's what happens when you have a split personality.

So Globe readers are treated to the litany of "data" supporting Rice's candidacy, most of which are simply random trivia: how over 12 seasons he led the American League in everything except nose-picking, how he was the first player since Joe DiMaggio to reach 400 total bases in one year, how he is the only player in baseball history with three consecutive seasons of 35 homers and 200 hits.

And for the third straight time Dan contrasts Rice's megawatt charm to that of Kevin Millar's, who is apparently the only outgoing and jovial player in the history of Major League Baseball.

"But his body betrayed him in his mid-30s ... " Dan writes. As has been written elsewhere, it wasn't so much his body as his eyes and his vanity: It's been well documented by SI and others that Rice was too vain to wear glasses and complained that he didn't like contacts. Bummer, dude.

While the piece serves mostly to highlight Rice's double-barreled assault on respect and diction ("Gwynn didn't dominate nothing. Cal Ripken didn't dominate nothing. If you look at Bruce Sutter, Bruce Sutter ain't dominated nothing ..."), it should be noted that The CHB once again fails to acknowledge any reasons why Rice is being overlooked, except of course, his somewhat less-than-charming personality. At least Dan's consistent about something.

Error Prone

It was suggested earlier that Dan's contract must contain a clause prohibiting the Globe from running corrections to his column. As recent events have shown, that's not quite true. What the record also shows, however, is that the Globe does a lousy job of living up to its written objective to quickly identify and correct errors in print.

Here's a list of recent corrections to Dan's work. Some of these mistakes are downright embarrassing, e.g., not knowing Mark Mulder is lefthanded or mocking Ed Anzalone for "dressing up" as a fireman for Jets games (Anzalone is a fireman). (The date of the mistake is bolded, and the date of the correction notice is in parens at the end.)

Feb. 6, 2006 -- Correction: Because of an editing error, Terry Bradshaw was incorrectly included in a list of former Super Bowl MVPs who were introduced before this year's game in two stories in the Feb. 6 Sports section. (Correction published Feb. 15, 2006)

Feb. 3, 2006 -- Omission: Linebacker Dwayne Sabb was omitted from a list of University of New Hampshire players who have played in the Super Bowl in Dan Shaughnessy's column in the Feb. 3 Sports section. (Feb. 14, 2006)

June 13, 2005 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the name of Gary Alexander was incorrect in a column about Red Sox fans at Wrigley Field in the June 13 Sports section. (June 30, 2005)

June 11, 2005 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the birthplace for Chris Chelios of the Detroit Red Wings was incorrect in Dan Shaughnessy's column in Saturday's paper. Chelios was born in Chicago. (June 14, 2005)

May 30, 2004 -- Correction : Because of a reporting error, a column in the May 30 Sports section comparing Manny Ramirez with Joe DiMaggio gave an incorrect career batting average for Ramirez entering this season. Ramirez had a .317 average before 2004. (June 23, 2004)

Dec. 29, 2003 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the losing pitcher in Game 6 of the 2003 World Series was incorrect in Dan Shaughnessy's column in yesterday's Sports section. Andy Pettitte was the loser. Also, because of an editing error, the game in question was misidentified in some editions as Game 7. (Dec 30, 2003)

Nov. 3, 2003 -- Correction: Because of a reporter's error, Ron Perry's term as Holy Cross athletic director was incorrect in a story in Monday's Sports section. Perry was AD from 1972 to 1998. (Nov. 5, 2003)

Oct. 2, 2003 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the time when the Red Sox playoff game ended was incorrect in Red Sox stories yesterday on page one and in the sports section. The game ended at 2:45 a.m. EDT. (Oct. 3, 2003)

March 16, 2003 -- Correction: Clarification: In Sunday's editions, a story on Red Sox GM Theo Epstein stated that John F. Kennedy was America's youngest president. Kennedy, at 43, was the youngest man elected president, but Theodore Roosevelt, at 42, was the youngest ever to serve as president, moving up from vice president when William McKinley was assassinated in 1901. (March 18, 2003)

Oct. 10, 2001 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error and incorrect information provided to the Globe, there were three errors in Dan Shaughnessy's column yesterday. Roger Clemens is 39, his career ERA in postseason games is 3.59, and Oakland pitcher Mark Mulder is lefthanded. (Oct. 10, 2001)

Sept. 24, 2001 -- Clarification: It was mentioned in Dan Shaughnessy's Monday column that New York Jets fan Ed Anzalone "dresses up as a fireman" for the games; Anzalone, in fact, is a New York City firefighter.

Dec. 17, 2000 -- Clarification: Dan Shaughnessy's column on Sunday may have left the impression that Patriots owner Bob Kraft did not play football at Columbia University as stated in the team's media guide. Kraft played 150-pound and under (lightweight) football, which was formerly a varsity sport at Columbia. (Dec. 19, 2000)

April 12, 2000 -- Correction: Because of a reporting error, the retired numbers of Joe Cronin and Bobby Doerr were reversed in Dan Shaughnessy's column in Wednesday's paper. Cronin wore No. 4 and Doerr wore No. 1. (April 14, 2000)

Jan. 24, 1988 -- Because of a reporting error, incorrect telephone numbers were listed for the Hyde Park Lions Club in Dan Shaughnessy's baseball column in Sunday's Globe. The correct numbers are 364-3410 and 361-2118. (Jan. 26, 1988)

This is hardly exhaustive, of course. And it does not reflect countless other errors that the Globe has simply chosen not to publicly fix, such as his Dec. 6, 2005, contention that 18 players with career marks of 350 homers and a .290 or better average have made the Hall of Fame ballot, which he contradicted just one month later by claiming there were 17.

Honorable Mention

Ha ha ha. Ha ha, ha ha ha ha.

Manny is late to camp and the joke's on Shaughnessy.

In today's column The CHB grinds his teeth so hard over the absence of Manny Ramirez from spring training you can almost hear it through the page. He's trying to come up with a way to trash the hands-down best player to put on a Red Sox uniform since the turn of the century without looking like he's trashing him -- a feat he's just not capable of pulling off.

Why go after Manny? Easy: because 1) he doesn't accommodate Dan (who does?), 2) he doesn't share Dan's view of what's important (ditto), and 3) he is Latin American.

Amid all this, he finds the time to refer to Red Sox GM Theo Epstein as "Belichick" and "Duquette," references to the teamwide decision to no longer cater to The CHB.

And he reminds us yet again that he has Larry Lucchino's cellphone number (who doesn't?).

"So the Red Sox once again are forced to play by Manny Rules." Yes, Dan, and that's quite all right with us. Like I said, the joke's on you.

Blog watch: "Meanwhile, Curt Schilling and his little late-night friends no doubt will remind us that this is just another example of the Knights of the Keyboard making something out of nothing."

Don't think Dan (aka "objectivebruce") doesn't read this space daily? Ha ha ha.

All is Not Wells

David Wells won't talk to the media (or at least, he won't talk to the CHB).

Oh, and Dan thinks the Sox should keep him.

That's all for today, folks.

(Almost forgot: Jeff Horrigan wrote about this yesterday.)

Sybil Returns

I knew I should have looked into this when he wrote it.

On Feb. 7, in a column ostensibly about the Super Bowl, The CHB wrote: "Shaun Alexander's 95 yards on 20 carries earn him the Dominique Wilkins/Elvin Hayes/Wade Boggs Award for compiling a fairly impressive stat line while having no impact on the outcome."

My initial response was:

Not sure why he threw Boggs in there. As Bill James and others can attest, Boggs' was not only the most valuable Red Sox player for much of his tenure there, an argument could be made that for a stretch he was the most valuable player in the majors (see James' essay on this in the 1988 Baseball Abstract). The entire Red Sox philosophy during the (highly successful) Theo years has been built on the concept of OBP. Or maybe Dan has forgotten about that World Series title in 2004.

What I might have done, however, was look back just one year earlier, to Jan. 5, 2005, when Dan's opinion of Boggs was a bit more boffo: "He was anything but boring, a hitting machine who tortured the opposition ..." ... "His on-base percentage was off the charts. He scored runs." ... "He took hundreds of grounders every day and made himself a Gold Glove fielder."

Or I could have reviewed Dan's July 31, 2005, column, where he wrote:

We sometimes forgot to marvel at what [Boggs] was doing. Let's take 1987, for example. In that season, Boggs hit .363 while also hitting 24 homers. There were times it looked as if he were throwing the ball from the batter's box, aiming line shots over the shortstop's head and into left-center. He was a lefthanded batter with an inside-out swing made for Fenway Park. Lacking speed, quickness, and raw power, he had sensational vision and hand-eye coordination. Always on base, refusing to swing at the first pitch, rarely chasing a ball out of the strike zone, he was actually born too soon.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good smear.

Foulke Rocked

Nearly 1,700 words on Keith Foulke today. Let's break it down:

*111 on his appearance at a Bruins game last year;
*180 on his feelings toward blue collar work;
*115 on who deserves the ball from the last out of the 2004 World Series;
*107 on Foulke's magical 2004 season.
*64 on other AL closers (a graf that shows up in jarring fashion).

The rest of the piece is comprised of quotes from Foulke's media interview yesterday (the same that NESN and everyone else in town is airing), plus a few comments from Terry Francona.

Maybe it's the Ft. Myers sun. Steven Kranser turned in an almost identical piece for the Providence Journal today.

For sure, Sox fans want to know the health of their $7 million man. But they don't need to relive ancient history to get it. For a better take on the Sox's designated out man, check out Jeff Horrigan's piece today. It has all the same "new" info and then some, all in a tidy 687 words.

Insults Spring Eternal

Spring training hasn't officially even started but The CHB has already thrown out the season's first insult.

Make that the first barrage.

The first -- "Curt Schilling tried to lose the biscuit belly while burning all the copies of February's GQ Magazine" -- was the most humorous, although unintentionally so. I say unintentionally because, while hefty, Schilling is hardly the one to make fun of, especially when 1) he shares clubhouse with David Wells (whom Dan calls the "portly portsider") and Trot Nixon; 2) the author has made regular pleas for porkmeister Roger Clemens to return; and 3) the author could stand to lose a few pounds himself (better switch to Lite this year, Dan). Never realized a pitcher's effectiveness and weight went so hand in hand. Doesn't he remember ex Sox (Red and White) pitcher Wilbur Wood? Or for that matter, Babe Ruth?

The CHB then mocks ownership -- expect a lot of that this year, now that he is officially persona non grata around the offices at Yawkey Way. "John Henry lost millions," Dan snidely notes, and "Tom Werner made a home movie begging Roger Clemens to return" (Dan begged too, but why let that get in the way of a public flogging?). He then refers to former favorite snitch Larry Lucchino as "Daddy Dearest." Break ups are hard, aren't they Dano?

And let's not leave out Dan's subtle racist digs: "Manny's agent might be calling to warn the Sox about visa problems." Wells asks repeatedly to be traded, but it's the wacky but harmless (nonwhite) Boston slugger who has replaced Pedro Martinez as Dan's favorite bullseye.

Joe Sullivan calls him "brave," but I have to think Joe either suffers from acute memory problems or he doesn't actually read Dan's material. Indeed, when it comes to doling out insults, Dan is as fair weather as they come. Time was, Ortiz was Dan's trash receptacle, until he started hitting everything in sight out of sight and became a fan favorite and thus untouchable. Nomar: same story; revered in print until the talk radio masses turned against him, only then did he become fair game for Dan. Pedro, Schilling, Manny ... the list goes on. How long until Josh Beckett gives up a walkoff to ARod then misses his next start and Dan sets his sights on him?

This is the worst of the lot. Referring to the team's decision to take a more guarded approach with the media (hard to blame them after the free-for-all of the offseason), The CHB writes: "Epstein indicated that the Sox wanted to be more Patriotlike. Ugh. Paranoia strikes deep."

Sheesh, you'd think 3 Super Bowl wins in four years would buy you a little more respect. Anywhere but the Globe.

Gretzky 2, CHB 0

I'm not saying that this is the end of the New Jersey based gambling ring issue for hockey, as Rick Tocchet's role (and possible punishment) has yet to be fully determined. But today's AP story seems to close the book on the involvement of Wayne Gretzky and wife, and according to authorities no book will be thrown at the Great One.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Wayne Gretzky will not face criminal charges in connection with a multimillion-dollar sports betting ring busted in New Jersey last week, and he is unlikely to be called to testify against others in the case, his lawyer said Thursday.

Attorney Ron Fujikawa said he received assurances from New Jersey authorities last week that the hockey great was not in any way a central figure in the criminal investigation. That's not surprising, Fujikawa said, because Gretzky did nothing illegal.

"He is not a person of interest," Fujikawa said Thursday. "We have received no indication he is somebody who will be called before a grand jury. We have received assurances that he is at most a fact witness."

A fact witness is someone interviewed informally by authorities, the lawyer said.

Gretzky's wife, Janet Jones, also is unlikely to face criminal charges in the case, her lawyer said Thursday. Jones wagered more than $100,000 through the ring, a person with knowledge of the investigation has told The Associated Press; her husband was not directly implicated.

The story goes on to note that wagering is not a crime in New Jersey (fans of Tony Soprano rejoice).

What this also means is The CHB's Tuesday insta-punditry was, as usual, just so much skate slop. What Dan called a "dreadful development for ... the legend of Wayne Gretzky" is turning out to be just another broken stick in the hockey game of life. Or something like that.

Imitations of Dan

Picked up pieces while waiting for the Globe to publish yet another correction to Dan's columns ...

Mrs. Wayne Gretzky, aka Janet Jones, wasn't part of a gambling ring; she was rehearsing for her role in the upcoming sequel to The Flamingo Kid.

Why is it that Jim Rice, who for 12 years swung a 36 oz. bat better than any man alive, needs a ticket to get into the Hall of Fame, while it rolls out the welcome mat for Peter Gammons, who can barely handle a 2 oz. pen?

What George Foreman was in the 90s, Jerome Bettis is today. Who will be the next scary black man to rehab his image -- Allen Iverson?


Hold off on the hate mail. I wanted to see how long it would take to imitate one of Dan's columns. In case you were wondering, about 15 seconds.

Two for the Road

From today's Globe:

Correction: Because of an editing error, Terry Bradshaw was incorrectly included in a list of former Super Bowl MVPs who were introduced before this year's game in two stories in the Feb. 6 Sports section.

An editing error?! Dan pontificates on something that never happened, and it's the copyeditor's fault. That will really score him points with the copydesk. Think he blamed the desk for stiffing his wife on flowers yesterday, too?

Anyway, at least the Globe finally admitted to The CHB's mistakes, even if "the bravest columnist" Joe Sullivan has ever seen lacks the guts to fess up.

One and Counting

From today's Globe:

Omission: Linebacker Dwayne Sabb was omitted from a list of University of New Hampshire players who have played in the Super Bowl in Dan Shaughnessy's column in the Feb. 3 Sports section.

One down, a lifetime to go.

Snow Job

Another column, another meatball.

Here's the lede from Dan's column today:

The game goes on. The NBA is like the Post Office and the Iditarod. It has no fear of a little snow. There can be parking bans, whiteout conditions, orange alerts, and/or projections of Doppler doom, but the games always are played as scheduled.

Not exactly. In January 2004, Memphis had two games postponed due to ice and snow. In December 2000, a game in Chicago was canceled because the visiting Nets' flight to Chicago was blocked by a snowstorm. On Jan. 26, 2000, a Knicks-Wizards game was snowed out. And that's just what a simple GoogleNews search came up with.

Hey Dan, there's this new invention called the Internet. Might want to try it some time.

____________

On Sunday, Dan looked at the commonplace of gambling in sports, and the look-the-other-way attitude of athletes and fans. It could have been a hard-hitting and, for a change, relevant piece. Instead, Dan crapped out. Reason: Overreliance on rumor and innuendo.

Two examples.

1. "On Tuesday, when details of the ring surfaced, Gretzky said, 'The reality is, I'm not involved, I wasn't involved, and I'm not going to be involved,' but two days later the Newark Star-Ledger reported that wiretaps had Gretzky on tape talking about the gambling ring and potential damage the news would cause his wife and himself."

Today came news from the AP that the wiretaps were conducted after Tocchet was arrested. (We should also note that The Great One's, ahem, bettor half has not been charged.)

2. "This was a problem when Michael Jordan was losing big at golf, and there's still suspicion that his first 'retirement' from the NBA was actually a suspension ordered by NBA commissioner David Stern (Stern always has denied the theory)."

Hey Mr. Science, something that has no substantiation whatsoever does not a theory make. Slander is more like it.

Is this the Globe, or the Enquirer? It's hard to tell sometimes. (Probably the copy desk's fault.) This is AM talk radio trash, not journalism.

There's no doubt gambling is a problem in society. A good reporter would want to know just how pervasive it is among athletes. But hey, this is Dan were talking about here.

Corrections Coming?

I know I've missed a couple of Dan's columns. Please pardon the delay in posts; I've been out of town on assignment and am just returning now.

According to a source at the Globe, Shaughnessy's (incorrect) statements that Isaiah Kacyvenski was homeless as a child and that two alumni of the University of New Hampshire have played in the Super Bowl, a correction will "probably" run Tuesday.Per the source, the Globe "received incorrect info."

Also, the source said that the Globe will run a correction on Dan's assertion that Terry Bradshaw received a huge ovation from the Super Bowl crowd.

However, according to the source, the Globe denies that Shaughnessy wrote that Matt Hasselbeck was the 1992 MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP. Here's the paragraph in question:

There was no trip to Disneyland for the 1992 MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP. There was no full-page newspaper advertisement showing Matt Hasselbeck with a milk mustache. And the only Roman numeral was X, as in Xaverian.

It begs the question, If not Hasselbeck, then to which MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP was The CHB referring?

Stop Him Before He Errs Again

Picked up pieces while waiting for the Boston Globe to run overdue corrections to errors in Dan's last several columns ...

In his column today, a collage of inane and occasionally nasty tidbits, The CHB manages to toss a couple of bombs Joe Montanta's way. Snidely referring to the three-time Super Bowl MVP as "Joe Cool," he writes "you didn't see Joe Montana strolling out with the other former MVPs in the pregame parade of champions." Why single him out? We didn't see Terry Bradshaw either. Oh wait, Dan did.

Speaking of poor vision, on Feb. 3 the CHB wrote that "[Dan] Kreider will become the third player in UNH history to play in a Super Bowl, joining former Wildcats linebackers Bruce Huther (Cowboys) and Scott Curtis (Broncos)."

Dan apparently forgot the immortal Dwyane Saab, who played for the New England Patriots (perhaps you've heard of them) in Super Bowl XXXI against Green Bay. According to this boxscore from USA Today, Saab was credited for a solo tackle and two assists.

Again, I can't take credit for catching this; that honor goes to Sheriff Sully and his crew for picking up on this. Great work.

Lean on me. Dan simply can't put away the references to other sports. It's a crutch, which owes to his lack of command of the subject. Here's today's wildly wrong comparison: "Shaun Alexander's 95 yards on 20 carries earn him the Dominique Wilkins/Elvin Hayes/Wade Boggs Award for compiling a fairly impressive stat line while having no impact on the outcome." Not sure why he threw Boggs in there. As Bill James and others can attest, Boggs' was not only the most valuable Red Sox player for much of his tenure there, an argument could be made that for a stretch he was the most valuable player in the majors (see James' essay on this in the 1988 Baseball Abstract). The entire Red Sox philosophy during the (highly successful) Theo years has been built on the concept of OBP. Or maybe Dan has forgotten about that World Series title in 2004.

Oh, and objectivebruce, where are you?

4th and Long in Detroit

Blogging late today; have been out of town since Saturday.

As several posters have noted, The CHB's recap of the Super Bowl was notable only for its utter lack of redeeming value. He did manage to spot an otherwise invisible Terry Bradshaw, however, claiming the absent Steeler "generated the loudest ovations." Someone please tell me this did not run on A1 of the Globe today.

Hope you enjoyed the Hockeytown Cafe, Dan. Be sure to have a drink on us before you leave town.

Error-prone. As noted, The CHB blew the Bradshaw bit. That wasn't his only goof this weekend, however. I'm not going to begin to take credit for knowing (or noticing) this, but Shaughnessy's Saturday column included the claim that Matt Hasselbeck was MVP of the state high school football championship game. (As sportswriter Jeff Sullivan points out, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association does not and never has named an MVP.)

Here's the sentence in question; you decide whether this is poor prose or an error of fact: "There was no trip to Disneyland for the 1992 MIAA Division 1-A Super Bowl MVP."

Dan not only needs an editor, he could use a fact-checker to boot. Recall that on Dec. 6 he wrote "Of the 17 players (who've been on the ballot) boasting at least 350 homers and a .290 average, all are in Cooperstown -- except for Rice and Dick Allen" only to state on Jan. 11: "Among 18 players who've been on the ballot with 350 homers and an average of .290, all are in the Hall except for Rice and Dick Allen."

No correction was run.

Wonder how objectivebruce will defend this.

On Cruise Control in Detroit

Is he live, or Memorex?

On Jan. 23, 2003, three days before the Super Bowl, Shaughnessy penned an essay on the ordeal of Tampa wide receiver Joe Jurevicius.

On Feb. 4, 2006, one day before the Super Bowl, Shaughnessy penned an essay on the ordeal of Seattle wide receiver Joe Jurevicius.

Analysis watch: "Jurevicius could be one of Seattle's top weapons in Super Bowl XL tomorrow night ... ." Or he couldn't be. Is this what Joe Sullivan meant when he said, "Dan is the most opinionated writer I know. He is the bravest columnist I've ever seen and is not afraid to take a stand"?

Quantity Beats Quality

Today Dan answers the question, Who in the hell is Dan Kreider?

Kreider, the Steelers fullback, is a University of New Hampshire alumnus (of course!), which is as good as reason as any to write a column about him.

This is the latest in a series, started Tuesday, on players with local ties whose teams will vie for the Lombardi Trophy this Sunday. And like his previous efforts, Dan tries to wow us with the hypertrivial (yesterday, it was that Lofa Tatupu played for King Philip Regional in the Hockomock League; today, we learn that the Maine-UNH matchup is called the Brice-Cowell Musket Bowl. Yowsa.).

It makes you want to stand up and shout, WHAT ABOUT THE GAME?

If you're not scoring at home, Dan's four for four this week: four columns, four yawns. I guess it's quantity over quality.

Sleep Deprived

I'm yawning a lot this morning and it's not due to lack of sleep.

If this is Thursday, this must be Dan's rundown of the players in the Super Bowl who have local connections. Did you know, for example, that Matt Hasselbeck played at Xaverian High School and Boston College and Isaiah Kacyvenski played at Harvard and "regularly dined at the Stockyard in Brighton"? Or that Lofa Tatupu played for King Philip Regional in the Hockomock League? Did you know there even is a Hockomock League?

Then he tells us that Dan Rooney is "the most beloved and respected owner in the NFL." Guess we missed that poll.

And since it's Black History Month, Shaughnessy adds that "the rule that requires organizations to interview minority candidates to fill head coaching positions is known as the Rooney Rule." Which is ironic, seeing as how Rooney has never interviewed a black for a head coaching position, something that somehow escapes The CHB's penetrating expose.

And what, praytell, does "Paul Allen ... can't help that he's a legitimate billionaire" mean?

I guess we can be thankful he's not writing on his daily 1-mile run or how Tom Brady is considering cutting his hair (yet).

Time to get some sleep. Sounds like The CHB needs some, too. That, plus an editor.

Super Dull

Sorry for the lack of a post yesterday. The CHB writes so much about Larry Bigbie these days that on those rare instances when he changes topic I sometimes miss it.

Then again, did I really miss anything?

Yesterday's column was a rambler (get it?) about Detroit, host city to the Super Bowl this year. Characteristically, Shaughnessy's first piece of the Super Bowl week is on the city itself. He also did that last year, and the year before, and well, you get the picture.

So Dan gives us a mini lesson on what Detroit is famous for: Henry Ford and the Pistons and Bob Seger and the Temptations and Rosa Parks and Stroh's Beer and Lionel Trains and one time at band camp ... it just goes on and on like this. I'm not making this up; that's the column!

Why Globe Sports Editor Joe Sullivan sends Shaughnessy to cover football, a sport he knows even less about than field hockey, is anyone's guess. But since Shaughnessy writes about everything but the game, I guess that's a moot point.

The biggest shock is that The CHB managed to raise the ghost of Mark Fidrych without mentioning that he pitched a few games for the Red Sox. I guess we should be glad for that.

On to today's lesson: Seahawks linebacker Isaiah Kacyvenski went to Harvard and has an alcoholic father. That he made it to the bigtime is heartwarming and all, kind of like a East Coast Rudy. That's about it, though. (And it reminds of his piece on Joe Jurevicius on Jan. 23, 2003, prior to the Bucs-Raiders Super Bowl.)

Reading him, you'd almost forget the biggest game of the football season takes place Sunday.

Dan-isms, Part 3

The King of Contradictions rides again.

"If you are a fan, you cannot be an objective reporter." -- to John Molori, Boston Sports Review, Jan. 30, 2006.

"I'm sick of him, you know?" -- on Pedro Martinez, Dan Shaughnessy's Two Cents on FM Talk 96.9 with Bob Lobel, August 2004.


--------

“[W]hat I hated about that piece, is that the guy won’t use his name. … If the guy would use his name, I'd have a lot more respect for the piece. It’s easy to go off when no one knows who they are.” -- At a forum at the John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation, March 30, 2004.

"I'm certainly not going to reveal a source." -- Responding to the Dirty Laundry column, on Dennis and Callahan's WEEI show, Nov. 2, 2005.

"This dynamic made Theo less than popular with some of his hard-working friends in baseball operations." -- On Theo Epstein, Jan. 20, 2006. (Note: No source provided.)

------

"Everyone knows Theo is better-suited for the position than Jim Beattie, Jim Bowden, Ben Cherington, Peter Woodfork, Craig Shipley, Jed Hoyer, Dan Duquette, or Lou Gorman."
(and)
"Theo Epstein can come back. It's not too late. The Red Sox are looking for a general manager and he's clearly the best man for the job." -- on Epstein, Boston Globe, Nov. 9, 2005.

"Again, I choose to believe that Epstein is smarter and more mature than that. Much smarter. And much more mature." -- Boston Globe, Nov. 1, 2005.

“[W]e ended up having a good chat. I thanked him for everything. My column had nothing to do with his resignation.” -- Discussing Theo Epstein, John Molori's Sports Blitz, Nov. 21, 2005.

"[T]here wasn't much honor or glory in Theo's comportment after he left Fenway in that gorilla suit Oct. 31. Rather, he undermined the credibility of the entire Boston front office ... He revealed himself to be every bit the cutthroat politician Lucchino is. He's been at best, immature and at worst, duplicitous." -- Boston Globe, Jan. 20, 2006.

-------

“[Y]ou need to have that trust of the fan that the game is not fixed.” – at the JFK Library forum, March 30, 2004.

"Does anyone seriously think the Patriots went all out to win against the Dolphins? Does anyone think they should have? It's a fact of sporting life that pointless late season games are manytimes played with marked loss of enthusiasm, especially by teams 'saving' themselves for the playoffs." -- "objectivebruce" (aka The CHB), Jan. 29, 2006.

This Sun Wannabe is a Real, er, Moon

Classic Shaughnessy today. His make-believe fight for the little man is really a front for shots at Red Sox management.

Let's start at the top:

It was an announcement that barely got anyone's attention. A couple of weeks back, the Red Sox and NESN declared the end of their Friday night relationship with Channel 38, committing all locally televised Red Sox games to pay cable.

Could it be that the reason it flew under the radar was because the Boston Globe's lead sports columnist was too busy whining about Larry Bigbie to notice? (Note: He offered essentially the same approach when writing on Bill Mueller's departure in December.)

Then he writes: "It's unfortunate. It's also elitist, classist, and probably greedy, too. The Sox are putting all their games on NESN because it means more money for the organization." Funny, just a few weeks ago the Globe was conducting an online poll asking whether readers would be willing to pay for Web content -- including Shaughnessy's. Why? "More money for the organization," perhaps? Where's the column on that?

Heck, a historian like Dan should know that over time teams (read: businesses) do all they can to separate fans from their wallets. Time was, baseball allowed fans to watch live games for free. Then they built bleachers in order to generate -- what was it again? -- more revenue. And not long ago fans could bring their own food and drinks to games. No more (a few stadiums excepted). A better argument would be to ask why the Atlanta Braves and Chicago White Sox, for two, can sell gameday tickets for under $10 and still compete with the high revenue squads. (Hint: A park that holds more than 34,000 people would be a start.)

And maybe he missed the decade-long legal wrangling between the Tribune Co., which owns the Cubs, and nearby landlords who let fans watch games at Wrigley from their rooftops. The Cubs went so far as to erect giant sheets to keep the would-be Peeping Fans in check -- until they ponied up millions for the viewing rights, that is.

One would think that if Dan were truly outraged by whether Joe Six-pack gets his games for free, he would offer to do something about it. He could take a page from Baltimore Sun columnist Dan Rodricks, who in an effort to reduce that city's out-of-control homicide rate wrote an open column inviting drug dealers and gang members to call him for help in finding a way out of their criminal lives. He could have used his mighty pen to command the city's wealthy to help subsidize cable for those 5% who don't have it. He could even have offered to donate the first $30. And maybe he could enlist those poor kids the Globe dispatches to city neighborhoods to hawk subscriptions to take up collections for those put out by the Sox's money-grab.

But, as we noted at the top, The CHB's true agenda lies somewhere else, as this line makes clear: "It's a little lame for Werner to pin this whole thing on McGrail. The move is simply too big for the NESN president to make alone. This goes all the way to the top: John W. Henry."

That would be Red Sox chairman John Henry, the same man who has been feeding scoops to Globe reporter Chris Snow while shunning the man who thinks he is the sun around which Red Sox Nation revolves.

That's the real story.

Scoop Shaughnessy

In the past 30 days The CHB has brought up what he feels are two major stories: 1) the Patriots' laydown to the Dolphins on the last game of the regular season and 2) the canceling of an agreed-upon deal between the Red Sox and Rockies by Theo Epstein and his subsequent passing the buck to upper management (read: Larry Lucchino).

We know The CHB feels these are the most important stories going because he's brought each up -- in caustic tones -- at least three times.

We wonder why, however, with such earth-shattering "scoops" at his fingertips, Dan doesn't follow through on either story? While any real reporter would be rubbing their PC-gnarled hands with glee over a tanked football game, Mr. "I write for the readers" tosses out his insinuations (sans proof, of course) and just walks away. Think about all the fun it would conjure up, with all those gamblers who lost having quite the axe to grind -- and in the head of a certain Patriots head coach, no less.

Reminds me of the old Perry Mason shows where the courtroom naturally falls for any old hypothesis the cunning lawyer offers up. Dan seems to think that whatever he spews, the readers will naturally eat up. In the real world, though, we generally like our innuendos a little more in-the-end, if you know what I mean. In other words, if it's Brangelina vs. Bigbie, Brangelina wins every time.

Dan, here's your chance: Put up, or shut up.

'The Curse of the Lucchino'

Let's consider how many player transactions the Red Sox make in a typical season, shall we? OK!

In 2005, the Sox conducted roughly 150 transactions (trades, free agent signings, waiver moves, DL moves, etc.) That's nearly one per game. And it's reasonable to believe that for every move they made, there were probably several others considered.

Given all that action, there's little reason to get hung up on a trade involving a minor league catcher and a fourth outfielder, especially when said trade never came off. Except, of course, if you have little reason.

Last week, the Red Sox announced Theo Epstein would return to its management ranks. Now, all those who believe that the presence of Epstein makes the Sox stronger raise your hands. I don't see yours up, Dan. I wonder why.

Perhaps it's because Dan is out on a shaky limb after first not having the sense to leave a non-story alone and then following that with repeated trashings of Theo over the past three months.

Now, with Epstein back in the fold, surely the Globe's lead columnist can put it all into perspective for us. Or not.

Step back for a second there and listen to what the man is saying -- or not saying. The Bigbie deal -- in which the Rockies obtained Bigbie from the Orioles, with the intention of sending him to the Sox for Adam Stern and Kelly Shoppach -- involved territorial rights between Epstein and Lucchino. The early, popular version was that Lucchino killed Theo's deal. It was later reported that ownership volunteered to take the hit on a deal Theo no longer wanted to make.

Let's put aside for the moment that Mr. Hysterical is the only -- repeat -- only person in this galaxy or any other who cares about Larry Bigbie (and that includes Bigbie's mom). Makes one wonder whether Dan is Bigbie's own CHB, if you know what I mean. That last line of that quote is equally peculiar. As Dan was the one who in his Dirty Laundry column tattled on Theo, why not own up to it, instead of sidestepping it as if it came from "that other paper?" Plenty of stomach, but no guts, Dan.

More laughs. Dan calls the Red Sox paranoid: "Not sure precisely when the new ownership group morphed into the Nixon White House, but expect managed news from Yawkey Way from this point forward." Hello kettle, you're looking might black today!

OK, so only about 10 million words have been spoken regarding this whole issue. And that makes it oh-so-easy for the media to look up something one of the parties said weeks or months ago and, upon finding any slight discrepancy, drive a truck through it. Well, turnabout is fair play, Sybil.

Buried in Dan's column is this little line: "We know the fans want [the media] to move on, pretend none of this ever happened." I guess Dan forgets that on Nov. 2 he told Dennis and Callahan, "I write for the readers."

Today's column rebukes that: "It was a story," writes The CHB. "It is a story. It will always be a story." Great. The Curse of the Lucchino, coming soon to a Barnes & Noble near you.

Wouldn't it be fun if the Globe staff dedicated so many pieces to its own internal personnel matters?

There's a word for such behavior: hypocrisy.

Two for Tuesday

The Charlotte, er New Orleans, er Oklahoma City Hornets played in Boston last night. I guess that merits a column about how they have yet to play a real "home" game this season.

Also today, a snide brief on how the Red Sox will opt for a statement versus holding a press conference discussing the return of Theo Epstein. The brief (253 words) begins "More strangeness from Fenway?" and concludes "As of late last night, Henry, Lucchino, and Tom Werner had not returned calls from the Globe." Gee, I can't imagine why, with all the venom spit their way of late, they wouldn't want to jump back in the snake pit.

Larry Bird watch: "Larry Bird once went for 60 in New Orleans." (We assume he means points, not Buds.)

Snow Job

Dan's trashing of Theo Epstein isn't 48 hours old and already his fellow Globe writers are taking shots at his Friday column.

Recall that on Friday the CHB described a Boston front office steeped in chaos and confusion. Of course, issuing blanket statements with no supporting evidence is a Shaughnessy hallmark. Wonder what he thinks of Chris Snow's excellent rebuttal today, for which he interviewed several parties including uber-agent Scott Boras, Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi and San Diego GM Kevin Towers and found them all singing the praises of Boston management over the past three months.

Say what? On Friday Dan claimed an "an inside look at how it works over at Fenway these days." Yet several paragraphs later, he allows that "For the record, this 17 percent cartel correspondent has not spoken with Lucchino, Epstein, or Dr. Charles Steinberg since before Christmas." I guess that's Dan's way of saying his column is his work, and not a plant by one of the Sox officers. What's startling, though, is the admission by the Globe's lead sports columnist to being out of the loop with most of the key Sox officials. That's nothing to be proud of.

Big Mac attack. On Saturday, Jackie MacMullen called for Esptein to publicly explain his actions over the past three months. I'm sure that Ms. MacMullen would do and has done the same every time she changed or considered changing jobs. Epstein is an employee of a private company, not an elected official. His relationship with his employer is none of our business.