Happy Dan

Dan gives us one of his stock columns today. This is the one in which he is exaggeratedly positive about everything. Red Sox are going great, the weather is great, the Patriots will go 16-0, something once thought bad for you will be found to be good, etc. I guess it's what he does when there is no player or team to beat up. And there is a Springsteen reference to boot. He can't be bothered to be original. Get ready for a whole summer of nothing from Dan.

Ho Hum

Dan strings together a few quotations and sticks in some play by play and his column is done.

Dan has Dustin Pedroia and Alex Rodriguez talking about the latter's hard slide to break up a double play on Tuesday. Nothing much there except another Schilling and his blog comment.

JAC - Just Another Column

A column about Julian Tavarez winds it way to being about Roger Clemens.

A boring affair except for the end when Dan does his best to whip fans into a frenzy about the possible return of Clemens and slip in a paragraph length reference to a near riot at a Rolling Stones concert 35 years ago.

Dan mentions that Clemens is slated to return to the Majors next Tuesday. Dan implies that Clemens would be on schedule to pitch the Sunday Night Game at Fenway and suggests that if he were not to pitch he would be ducking the Red Sox. Nice thought, except that the Yankees have an off day next Thursday, putting Clemens on schedule to pitch Monday, June 4. I know this is shocking, but Dan omitted a key piece of information in order solely to stir the pot.

Maybe he will call me next

After a long week spent unsuccessfully flogging his new book (#5303 on amazon.com with a bullet!) all the while finding time to watch himself on tv and allegedly make angry phonecalls to his detractors and their bosses, Dan returns.

And turns in possibly one of the worst columns I have ever been forced to read. I actually felt bad by the end.

They are just some headscratchers in this one. Dan mentions that only four other teams in MLB history have had a 10 1/2 game lead at this point. What are the four other teams? We don't find out.

He goes on to mention how this year is different from 1978 because "the Red Sox didn't have the pitching" and the Yankees "bear little resemblance to the blood-and-thunder rogues"(You can't sneak that Springsteen reference by me, Dan) of 1978.

If only this were true. The Red Sox pitching in 1978 was pretty good also. And this year's Yankees offense is much better than the 1978 edition. But I guess grit and tobacco juice are what make "blood-and-thunder rogues."

A couple of worn out references to Steinbrenner's past; "the immortal Tyler Clippard" (ever notice how Dan belittles any player he has never heard of? If he bothered to care, he would notice Clippard has had a very nice minor league career); and a 2003 reference without mention of Grady Little or Pedro Martinez.

And then it gets weird. Two paragraphs spent on Chazz Palmintiri, including this gem: "Chazz turned to the guy sitting to his right and whispered something like "Now, yous can't leave."" Great scene; lame, forced reference.

And he ties things up with this counterfactual statement "Imagine: a quality start for the Yankees. Very rare. In the spring of '07, there've been more Boston Pops brawls than Yankees pitching gems. Wrong. Off the top of my head: Philip Hughes no-hitter through 6 and Wang's near no-hitter.

It was a truly terrible column. Nothing there except some tired historical references, inaccurate statements, and warmed over game play-by-play. Oh, last time Dan said the Red Sox had the division won, the Yankees were a game back within a month, having picked up five games in that span.

Edit: Philip Hughes spelling and no-hitter through six

Links

For those of you checking back for OB and Dan's latest, I have some posts from over at Barstool Sports.

Here is a very clever take on how to write your own Shaughnessy column

Here is piece on how Dan attacks guys with character while ripping others for lacking it.

Here are some people over at BSMW offering their own take on a Shaughnessy column.

A Favorite Target

Sunday's column is an odd conglomeration. This is foreshadowed by the title "Decision for Schilling? No. Lots going on? Yes" So even the guy who writes the headline is struggling to succinctly distill Shaughnessy's message.

The message is that Schilling had a busy week off the field and a messy one on the field yesterday. To his credit, Shaughnessy does not blame yesterday's poor performance on the off-field stuff (specifically, the Roger Clemens "We don't need him quote" and the Bonds bashing)

Yet, this is another column with precious little insight. As he details Schilling's off-field activities, he adds nothing to the discussion. As he reviews Schilling's game yesterday, he describes a rough 6th inning in some detail but that is about it.

Of course, Shaughnessy does get his jabs in. He continues to mock Schilling for the "We don't need him" quote. He also gets a minor slam on Matsuzaka with a dig on the $51 million posting fee.

It's ironic though...these jabs come in a column in which Shank starts off by saying that the Red Sox have "...the best starting pitching this side of the 1971 Orioles". So Shank, please explain why the Red Sox need a 5 inning pitcher who gets special treatment and about $1 million/start? If the Red Sox made that signing, you would have had a field day ripping them for it.

Groan. . .

That is my immediate reaction upon reading the headline to today's column, "Pieces found along the trail." Let's see how bad it can get.

It is a tired format, one that demands a lot of effort either to avoid repeating items that have already flown around the web or to bring a new perspective on an event. And Dan does alright and manages to find some items that I had not picked up, although the wear of the effort shows in places.

Dan leads with an Roger-Evita comparison that ends with ""Don't Cry For Me, NESN Tina." Meh.

A little bit more about Roger, Yankees-Red Sox, and a few bits that he really has been holding on for a while. (Manny Ramirez being taken in the NFL Draft. Mildly amusing when it happened, not so funny 11 days later.)

A few things that struck me:

Spy magazine used to have a feature called "Logrolling." It highlighted authors who would swap glowing praise in blurbs on book jackets. Dan does his half today, praising the new books by Frank Deford and Tim Kurkjian. I am little dubious of the latter's book considering Kurkjian's recollection of the last 25 years of baseball has no PED's in it.

Dan has a bit comparing reactions to Red Sox-Yanks news in Boston and New York including this line "Clemens going to the Yankees was Page One, above the fold, in the Monday Globe. It was below the fold on the cover of the Times." Anyone who has ever read the Paper of Record would recognize the absurdity of citing the Times' treatment of a sports story as indicative of the pulse of New York. In fact, that the story made the front page at all would suggest the Times went overboard.

"Didn't we all like Alex Gonzalez and Mark Loretta a whole lot more than Julio Lugo and Dustin Pedroia? The keystone change at Fenway has done wonders for the career of Alex Cora." Not good timing as Pedroia went deep last night and is looking great. I don't know why I have to remind him, but Loretta stunk last year and barely got a job this year. Also, has anyone else noticed the season Gonzalez is having? He has 7 home runs already. He is hitting .300 with a SLG% over .550.

"You simply would not believe what a big deal it's been in Los Angeles since the Dodger Stadium parking fee was bumped from $10 to $15 this year. The Ripoff Bros. lots around Fenway get $35 without argument. I will never understand Dan's inability to grasp the basics of market economies. They charge $35 because people will pay $35. Pretty simple.

Stirring the Pot

Dan alternates between belittling Red Sox fans as out of touch "fanboys" and stirring the pot trying to whip fans into a frenzy over the Yankees. Thanks, but I will pass, Dan.

The Clemens signing gives Dan the opportunity to write breathless passages like this: "Clemens. At Fenway. In a New York uniform. Again. It's almost as if the Great Bambino himself announced he was making a comeback with the Bronx Bombers."

Or this one: "Some week here in the Hub. First we saw photos of uber-quarterback Tom Brady walking in the East Village wearing a Yankees cap and now the locally loathed Clemens is going back to the team Sox fans love to hate."

Spare us. Fans shouldn't be too upset by this move because Roger just isn't that good anymore. Dan mentioned the last time he faced the Red Sox was Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, but he failed to note what happened in the game. Dan also failed to mention that Roger averaged 6 innings per start in the National League. A pitcher who can only go 5 innings isn't great help for a team with a bad bullpen. Finally, over his last two seasons in the AL, Roger had about a 4.00 ERA. If you look at his game log from 2003, you will see Roger feasted on the bad offenses of the AL while routinely getting rocked by good lineups. So I say, bring him on.

Gratuitous Curt Schillling Dig Watch:
"Ever the blowhard, Schilling declared, "We don't need him" -- a comment of stupefying arrogance that is sure to come up a couple of million times between now and the end of the 2007 postseason."

What was the guy supposed to say? "Julian Tavarez sucks"? I like what Schilling said. Shows confidence in the team and the only people who will bring it up a million times are Dan and his lazy ilk.

Edit: 'Roger' for 'Dan' in paragraph 4

Crimson Softball...CHB Style

(Today’s guest blog entry is written by a Mr D.S/OB. of Groton)

It has been a rather lively debate this week for Ye Olde Blog Team. I figured I would try to calm the raging waters. After reading multiple entries from Juli la Chuli, I felt I was reading a twisted Kurt Vonnegut novel (look it up you idiots) and I needed a cathartic cleansing from sports.

I submitted a piece today in the Big Daddy Globe about the Daughters of Jenny Allard, a.k.a., the Harvard women’s softball team. Hell, it’s a win-win proposition for us all. My stupid readers probably know nothing about this softball team and I can probably slap down anything I want and get away with it. Plus, you are not going to find this kind of insight on 38pitches.com, oh no sir. Do you think the old Blowhard knows who bats third for the Crimson? I don’t think so but I sure can tell you.

Besides, women’s softball is a good remedy for what ails professional baseball: $103 million moon-faced pitchers who can’t find the plate (I told you that was a stupid signing) and $18 million dollar savant outfielders who quit on their teams in the heat of a pennant race. Face it Blog Nation, I am what you really need—someone who can bring you back to what’s important in life – pure amateur athleticism at its finest. It boggles my mind that television networks pay billions for the rights to televise major league sports and we can’t even get an Ivy League women’s softball score on the ESPN ticker update.

As I watched the game yesterday with the high-brow Harvard alum, I couldn’t help but think about that old commercial. I ate my hot dog and I turned to someone and said “Could you please pass the Gray Poupon?” We all got a big kick out of that one—I’ve still got it, don’t I?.

The Crimson star is clearly Lauren Murphy, she of the 3 home run performance last week. It was Fred Lynn like (look it up). She is the greatest player I have ever seen. If young Theo and the Minions had half of a brain between them, they would sign Ms Murphy to replace the diminutive Dustin Pedroia at second base for the Sox. You Fanboy Bloggers who live in your Mom's basement: Don’t tell me I don’t do any analysis – Ms Murphy has a higher slugging percentage and OPS than the overmatched Pedroia. It is a slam dunk signing.

Ms Murphy is the kind of character we need to clean up the debauchery that has recently littered the Boston sports landscape (Randy Moss? Parents, I hope you are locking your doors at night). I can just picture it now. Ms Murphy will be in the dugout conjugating her Latin…“Sum, es, est, Summus, estis, sunt" (Look it up) and savant Manny will be sitting next to her conjugating his cornrows with a puzzled look, mumbling “Est? It is what it is”.

Oh, yes sir, this is just the kind of journalistic insight that the Boston public deserves. It is sure to boost Globe readership, which contrary to public opinion is not lagging at all. Even if circulation is suffering, who cares? I will always have the last laugh as I cash my $100K+ annual paycheck. Have a great day!

Randy Moss Hysteria, Day 2

Dan writes about the fan reaction to the Moss trade and his column. He concludes that the fans are cynical, win-at-all-costs, hypocrites.

Dan suggests that New England sports fans would welcome any athlete, regardless of his past history; It's all about the laundry.

He lists other controversial athletes fans might embrace. In Dan's typical modus operandi, he starts with the most outrageous suggestion, Pacman Jones. Moss has been arrested twice in twelve years, Jones has been investigated and/or arrested by police ten times in the last year or so. Included in those investigations, the use of his car by a convicted drug dealer, and his participation in a brutal battery of a stripper and the attempted murder of a bouncer. I don't think any fan base would so irrational as to embrace Jones, except for Oakland, of course.

The list continues with other athletes with issues, either in general or with Boston. I think in a lot of ways their comparisons with the Moss situation fail. Bonds would never work in Boston. He is attacking a sacred record while in the midst of convincing accusations of PED use. Others would never be embraced because of their role as the bad guys in Boston rivalries. (Ulf Samuelsson and Bill Laimbeer? Give fans some credit.) And others never rose to the same heights of antipathy, such as Alex Rodriguez.

Rooting for a sports team is largely irrational. Dan is correct in that regard. But I don't think his list of athletes is very fair to fans or captures the same questions that surround the Moss acquisition. He is no Pacman Jones or Barry Bonds and there is no long history of tormenting the Patriots.

What may be the best comparison is Dennis Johnson, which was brought up by Glenn Ordway this weekend. Dan addresses it and ultimately dismisses it. But it does seem to be the best comparison out there.

This Is A Huge Change From Their Usual Route

and not much of a departure for Dan.

Dan cites the acquisitions of Brandon Meriweather and Randy Moss as evidence of a seismic shift in the Patriot's Front Office's attitude towards player character. Enough so to drop Christian Peter's name and ask where was Myra Kraft.

The column focuses on Moss' troubles off the field and on. The former list of troubles includes three incidents, nothing in the last five years and two incidents over a decade old. Not apologizing for the guy, but pointing out the guy has not been in trouble off the field for a while.

As Dan points out, though, the real question is what you get on the field. He runs through the incidents, including the Lambeau Field 'mooning.' Only Dan and the priggish Joe Buck find this incident remotely troubling.

Dan has his opinion and points out all the reasons to be concerned. Pretty standard,nothing groundbreaking.

What is disappointing is Dan's characterization of Meriweather: "a gun-toting cheap-shot artist last seen stomping on a prone opponent during a disgraceful brawl." If Dan bothered to read his colleagues work, he would know that as Mike Reiss points out, Meriweather used his firearm in a legal fashion in order to protect himself and his property. Welcome to the Big Time, Brandon. You've been unfairly attacked by Dan Shaughnessy. You are in good company. (Also, think Dan has the guts to attack Richard Seymour for stomping on an opponent? Or, do you think Dan goes after only the rookies and marginal players?)

It sure would have been nice to beat the Yankees

Another throw away column from Shaughnessy today. Let's see if I can sum it up succinctly...

It sure would have been nice to beat the Yankees yesterday because the Yankees have a rich history in general and a long history in particular of beating up the long suffering Red Sox.

Thanks for that terrific insight, Dan.

*******

Different topic: For your Shaughnessy fans, Nick Cafardo points out that Shaughnessy has a new book out called Senior Year. It's a book of Dan's reflections on son Sam's senior year of high school and Sam's burgeoning baseball career.

Why don't we like thee? Let us count the ways

(Note: Saturday’s CHB column offered more of the same on Daisuke Matsuzaka and so I have chosen a different topic for today’s column)

An anonymous student posed the question of why the bloggers on this site have so much disdain for Dan Shaughnessy. I can’t speak for the others but I would imagine that our reasons overlap to a large extent. I am happy to offer my perspective and I am curious as to what others might say. Here are a few thoughts:

1) Shaughnessy is both a columnist and a reporter. As a columnist, he is given editorial license and is given liberty to inject his opinion. First and foremost, I believe he fails as a columnist. As a reporter, he should stick with the facts; however, I believe he often blurs the line when he “reports” and uses too much editorial license that other reporters would not get away with.

He fails as a columnist because he has misinterpreted the role. In my opinion, a columnist can take license but still has the responsibility to back it up with careful analysis and logic. All too often, Shaughnessy offers his opinion but does a woeful job in backing it up. That is why we get a constant barrage of statements like “Manny quit last year” or “Nomar wants out of town” but little or no proof is ever offered. Friday’s column about Matsuzaka is another example of his extreme laziness—he offers a position but there is simply no depth to the story at all. It is inane. He hides behind this editorial license as a shield from having to do hard work and ultimately to justify his positions.

When he does game reports, he should stick with the facts but it seems impossible for him to refrain from editorializing. In a recent game report, he took a pot shot at Schilling’s blogging. (Contrary to what Objective Bruce might think, the bloggers here are not Schilling “fanboys” – I personally do not idolize athletes in general or Schilling in particular.) At any rate, I don’t care for the pot shots when I am reading a game report. Unfortunately, Shaughnessy does not know when to stop.

2) Shaughnessy is vindictive. He seems to hold grudges against certain people and it further clouds his writing. If you read him long enough, his contempt of Theo Epstein is blatantly obvious as well as his dislike for Schilling and Ramirez to name a few. He has every right to criticize players and management but when it becomes so personal, it undermines any shred of credibility he might have. Frankly, I think we deserve better from a major newspaper writer.

3) Shaughnessy loves to inject himself into the story…the phone call to Schilling to stir up some of the bad blood between the two; the dinner with John Henry and the details of how he brought Henry one of his autographed books; the phone call to Jon Lester’s parents about cancer; the story of tasting Larry Bird’s wine. Some of this can be interesting and is okay—he has that discretion as a columnist . All too often, however it is over the top because there is the tendency to make it all about him.

4) Shaughnessy blows with the wind and he is an annoying revisionist. Most recent example is his take on the 2006 season. In April of last year, he said the Red Sox would finally win the division because they had great pitching and defense. Within the past month, he called the 2006 team a poorly constructed and flawed team. That’s all well and good but it’s a surprising statement when he had “bought in” to this flawed team a year earlier.

5) Shaughnessy thinks he speaks for all Red Sox fans as he says “We believe this” or “We don’t buy that” etc. . His one comment about Keith Fouke (something like “We all rejoiced when Foulke retired”) still annoys the crap out of me when I look back on it. Coco Crisp is the guy “we love to boo”. Shaughnessy does not represent me and I resent his use of “we” in such a consistent and pervasive way.

6) Shaughnessy loves to comment that “Only in Boston would you see this” as if Boston has an unrealistic fixation on sports. The irony is that Shaughnessy is the one that often fans the flames. His reporting of Matsuzaka this spring is a classic example. On the one hand, he mocks the press coverage that the story has received. On the other hand, he has contributed column after meaningless column about Matsuzaka.

7) Invoking DBVader’s classic line, “Dan hates you and thinks you are stupid.” He likes to tell us what and how to think. He likes to remind us that we take too sports seriously so he feels the occasional responsibility to get on his preachy pulpit and repeat stories about heroic firefighters that really belong in the metro section. I really don’t appreciate the preachiness.

8) Shaughnessy often get his facts wrong. See any number of the Chief’s posts to this end. It is sad.

9) Shaughnessy trots out the same old tired phrases again and again. “Sons of Tito”; “Theo and the minions”; “Mo likes the Foxy Lady”, etc. It’s not fresh and in fact it’s very stale.

I have a few more points but this column is already too long but I hope it gives you a sense of things. It is funny how many people come to this site and remark, “Wow, I can’t believe I’m not the only one who dislikes Shaughnessy so much.” The reason is simple, with Shaughnessy, there are many things not to like.

Throw Away Column

Perhaps Dan's obsession with Daisuke Matsuzaka is not waning after all. Today's column takes one simple idea (Matsuzaka likes to throw on his off days) and pounds it into the ground in an endless and ultimately painful barrage of "playful" anecdotes. Matsuzaka likes to throw with the neighborhood kids; he likes to toss peanuts to the crowd; he like to toss it around with the college team, etc.

There are approximately 11 such anecdotes and unfortunately, the idea is worn after the second one. This is one of the most painfully tedious columns from Shaughnessy I've ever read. Precious little other insight is offered.

There is, however, one very comical line up front which actually had me laugh out loud.

"I was in New York a day early to get extra rest for tonight's big game with the Yankees."

The idea of Shaughnessy arriving early to catch some extra rest so he can be on top of his journalistic game made me smile.

Evil Empire, Evil Dan

Evil Dan is on display today. What's really twisted is that ostensibly, the article is an upbeat one as he discusses how the Red Sox are getting some critical early season wins against the Yankees. Yet, Evil Dan lurks behind every graf spewing venom and deceit coupled with his typical gratuitous shots.

Right off the bat, Dan diminishes the Sox victories by recapping the Yankees assorted injuries. Matsui and Posada are out; Damon has a bad back; Sheffield is in Detroit. Oh, come on, I don't think anyone feels sympathy pains for the Yankees lineup. If there are any excuses to be made, it is with the Yankees pitching staff; they have had their share of injuries. Yet, the 2006 Red Sox, a favorite whipping post of Shaughnessy, had their share of pitching misfortunes and yet Shank has declared 2006 as the year that Manny quit.

Speaking of 2006, last year's 5 game sweep is once again trotted out as the weekend that inspired Manny to quit. As has been pointed out on this site, Manny did not quit that particular weekend. He went 8 for 11 with 2 HRs. According to Shank, that sweep also apparently revealed major flaws in the design of the 2006 Red Sox team which forced Red Sox ownership into a spending spree. As also has been pointed out on this site, Shaughnessy lauded the composition of the 2006 team earlier in 2006.

Shaughnessy includes this joke of a line:

No more crying about the Yankee payroll -- not when you charge the highest prices in baseball, not when you regularly raid the rosters of the A's, Marlins, and Diamondbacks of the world.

Who on the Red Sox roster was raided from the A's? The Red Sox got Beckett and Lowell from the Marlins at a rather steep price in a trade that Shaughnessy has previously used to take pot shots at Theo and the gorilla suit. The Red Sox got Schilling in a trade from Arizona but I would hardly call that a roster raid.

Shaughnessy's obsession with Daisuke Matsuzaka seems to be waning although we get two brief references. Shank calls Matsuzaka the $103M man and I wonder if these references will become increasingly snide if Matsuzaka's record remains average so Dan can set himself up to say "I told you so--what a waste of money". Dan later calls Okajima a "stable pony" for Matsuzaka and I have got to think there are more apt metaphors.

Sox-Yanks Friday Night

(Editorial Note: I apologize - it is late in the day ad I am now just posting. When Chief graciously gave editing and posting rights to DBVader and me a few months back we agreed that DB would take Monday-Thursdays and I would get the weekend shift. This usually works out great for me but I have been on the road the past few weekends and I am not always successful in getting internet access. Db and I take pride in posting promptly and we will continue to do our best in the days and weeks to come.)

Shaughnessy turns in a game recap from Friday night's Sox-Yankees instant classic and provides a fair recap of the fun evening. I am sure he had the daggers drawn when it appeared the Sox would lose late in the game and he was probably forced to start from scratch when the Sox came back in the 8th inning.

Neverthless, there are some odd statements and Shankisms:

- Quote "On a night when the Red Sox honored the greatest team ever to represent this region (the 1957-86 Celtics)...."

Comment: Huh? The 1957 - 86 Celtics were not "a team"--they were many teams . Many of the teams during this era were awesome and some were not so great. Just an odd way of putting it.

- Quote: "Schilling, who needs an editor more than he needs a pitching coach..."

Comment: Okay, Dan, we get it--you don't like Schilling's blog.

- Quote: "Coco Crisp. The man we love to boo."

Comment: One of Dan's favorite techniques...its what I call the "Joe The Fan" technique. By using "we" , Dan presumes to speak for all Sox fans. Unfortunately, he often misses the mark (like when he said a few months ago that we all "rejoiced" when Keith Foulke retired). I know Crisp is getting some boos but I think Shaughnessy overdoes it with the above assessment.

I need to sign off for now.

Dave M

Dan Shows a Little Effort

And brings you into the ballpark with the column for Daisuke Matsuzaka's first start at Fenway. (The headline for which could also describe the last decade of Dan's career.)

It was a pretty good effort, offering some interesting detail about Daisuke's day and actually providing an in depth description of the game, which is rare because Dan usually spends the game writing his column instead of watching.

It wasn't a clean slate, however. He once again felt obligated to refer to Matsuzaka as the "$103 million Red Sox rookie." I wish sports reporters would get over the fascination with player salaries. It's unbecoming and irrelevant.

Then there is this analogy that doesn't hold up: "This was Japanese baseball's version of Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain". First, basketball matchups aren't anything like the batter vs. pitcher matchup. He has all of baseball history to reference and he feels the need to go back 40+ years for two basketball players? Second, professional basketball in the 1960's wasn't nearly the sensation that baseball is in Japan. How about something from the 80's or 90's when Americans were actually watching basketball?

And Dan's lame joke for the evening is attributed to someone else, but he cannot avoid it still falling flat: "It was, in the words of one reporter, the million cameramen march." It's close, but maybe next time his cultural references can be from the last decade. Baby steps.

Huh?

See below for the Home Opening Game column

Chris in the comments points to an odd editorial by the Globe staff. My understanding is that although editorials are credited to the staff, each editorial is written by an individual, most often one on the editorial staff, but occasionally by other writers. While the subject of the column, story lines to watch for this Red Sox season, suggests Dan's fingerprints, the writing style is not his.

Instead, the editorial seems to be written by someone who recently graduated with an M.A. in English, who has little historical knowledge of baseball. The writer starts off by claiming that among the things to look forward to this season is a "cornucopia of soap opera story lines." Stop right there. This writer is NOT a baseball fan. He/she is some overeducated wannabe writer who thinks that because literary types like John Updike and Roger Angell wrote about baseball, then he/she should also mine that vein. Instead of writing about the game, which they know noting about, they seek out off the field stories.

The writer goes on to cinch the case that he/she knows nothing about baseball, particularly its literary past. I like to keep posts short but this writer's ignorance has to be pointed out.

"Anyone who has taken the time to browse pitcher Curt Schilling's blog will realize that the loquacious right-hander aspires to be both Don Quixote and Cervantes at the same time, Raskolnikov and Dostoyevsky, Hamlet and Shakespeare. Flying back from Texas Sunday night after hurling seven dominant innings against the flummoxed Rangers, the erstwhile cheerleader for President Bush typed out a pitch-by-pitch analysis of his performance."

First of all, the analogies fail. Rather than explaining the situation they are the writer's attempt to display how knowledgable he/she is. Schilling is neither an author nor a fictional character. He is a highly thoughtful baseball player writing about himself. His blog is nothing more than the publication of the thoughts he goes through after every start. In fact, the subject is nothing new. Bill Lee and Jim Bouton have already offered insight into a pitcher's mind. What is new is the technology. Further, the author seems to imply that there is some inviolable line between the roles of athletes and journalists, that the former can never presume to write for the public, which is the sole province of learned journalists. BS. (Also note the irrelevant inclusion of Schilling's political leanings.)

The writer goes on to claim that if Schilling fails this season, the blog somehow will become a distraction to the team. This seems more like fancy than actual belief. In my brief reading of the blog, Schilling has never made any derogatory remarks towards teammates and reserves all criticism for himself. How this will create a distraction for a team that already seems to keep Schilling at a distance is not stated.

There are more head scratching concerns offered up that I wish I had the space to go into. They all seem to be from the head of Dan, but written by someone else. Very odd.

Fixed for the awful misspelling of "Jim Bouton."

Fast Start at Fenway...

and a boring column in the Globe Sports section. Dan didn't have much to work with considering the game was uneventful. The column ended up reading more like a weather report interspersed with bad jokes and odd references.

There were at least seven separate references to the cold weather. Anyone who has lived through more than two New England springs would have guessed it was going to be cold, and anyone who was near Boston yesterday realized it was cold. But we have Dan to remind us.

Bad Joke

Regarding the temporary seating on the right field roof, Dan wrote "and ticket-holders reportedly each get a personal Sherpa guide. There is, however, no truth to the rumor that the Sox may post a Fuji Film sign on the back of the new section and invite fans to ‘‘climb Mt. Fuji.’’ Sad thing is Dan probably was working on that joke for a week.


Odd References

"Manny got the usual Lindbergh treatment"

I consider myself pretty literate with a good knowledge of history and I cannot make sense of this reference.

"[B]ut yesterday [Weaver] threw 47 pitches in a dreadful first as the Sox batted around. Crisp hit a two-run double in the interminable frame."

That is some clunky writing for a top columnist.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......

Things were different in the old days. On the day the Red Sox are celebrating the Impossible Dream Season, Dan writes how things were different before that spectacular run. And he manages to make it terribly boring. A few quotations from Yaz and a couple of attendance totals. A tepid effort at best. Nothing to inspire the fans before the latest Home Opener.

Even when writing about the past, Dan manages to reference his favorite present day targets. Did you know Manny Ramirez makes $20 million per year? Did you know there is a media frenzy surrounding Daisuke Matsuzaka? (Can we end the 'Dice-K' nickname? Not only does it promote silly Bermanisms, but it's stupid. It is how his name is pronounced, it can't be a nickname. It would be like calling Alex Rodriguez 'Al-X.')

Dan ends the column asking Yaz about the new Japanese starter. Why? WHY?! Why does every Red Sox column have to somehow relate to Matsuzaka. Opening Day and today, Dan manages to make it about a player who is not going to play. There is nothing left to say but that the contradiction in Dan's attitude has been noted before.

A Stroll Through the Globe Archives, Part Two

Dave M. recently gave us all some examples of Dan's use of tired phrases. Some others popped up in a recent column. So...

LET'S CHECK THEM OUT!

One of the most common phrases is "sons of (Boston area coach)" to refer to a local team. Readers are aware that Dan abuses this phrase, but the results are worse than one would think.

A search of the Boston Globe online archive for "'Dan Shaughnessy' 'Sons of'" returns 171 articles. The number is somewhat inflated by duplicate listings and unrelated uses, but a brief glance at the results are stunning. Dan has been using this stupid phrase for over 25 years. (It started in 1981 with a "sons of Weaver" reference.) Dan seemed to overdose on the expression in the mid-90's and since then his use of the term has been more judicious. But every once in a while he will backslide, like the bender he went on in October of 2003, using the phrase "Sons of Grady Little" four times in 17 days.

Dan's frequent Clive Rush references are tiresome not so much for their frequency (about 20 times in the last 20 years), but their irrelevance. Most readers under the age of 40 have no idea who Clive Rush was. Yet Dan consistently reminds us Rush was almost electrocuted by a microphone at a press conference 38 years ago. Maybe I am missing something, but the story isn't as interesting as Dan seems to think it is.


What Other People Are Saying
From a link on Boston Sports Media Watch, I found the firejoemorgan.com post on Dan's Opening Day game column. The site has some other posts regarding recent Dan atrocities.

From an ad on firejoemorgan.com, I found another site devoted to Dan, thechb.com. It's new and it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

I found this take on the Curt blogs column through Seth Mnookin's post on the subject. (Yes, I only posted the link because it favorably mentions DSW.)

Not a Bad Daisuke Performance

This is the day that Shaughnessy has been waiting for..."Dice-K's" season opener. I clicked on this morning's link with an absolute sense of dread, wondering what cliche's Dan would trot out today. Of course, he got a few classics in ("Dominican Diva" and more references to Dice-K tinis and ice cream) , but by and large, it was a nice recap.

As we've hit on here in the past, we contend that Shaughnessy mails it in more often than not. His columns often lack meaningful analysis. Whenever he does provide some analysis, it is refreshing. I think he does an eloquent job today of discussing pitch counts, velocity, variety, and control and how Matzusaka weaved it all together yesterday to produce a great outing.

Shaughnessy also describes the hype surrounding the outing but he refrains from taking the tired "Only a Boston team/player could generate this level of hysteria" angle. That was refreshing.

The Dominican Diva reference (the seventh in recent years but who's counting?) is the one thing that stuck out as a gratuitous Shankism.

Perhaps this is the genius of the CHB? Set the bar so low in general such that when you write a column which has any substance, it comes across as particularly strong (when in fact, it's really just an average piece by any other standard).

Blame It On Theo

Argh! More crap…Shaughnessy has become so predictable, it is laughable. The Sox lost their season opener and Dan spews the inevitable drivel and takes the expected pot shots at his favorite targets:

- Multiple references to Schilling’s blogging. (Curt pitched as if he had “carpal tunnel syndrome” but darn the luck, no in game blogging)

- Calls Julio Lugo the “Bill James-mandated shortstop”

- Mocking reference to Theo and the Minions huddling over the computers this winter to put together $150M+ team that looked so anemic

The asinine aspect of this column is that Shaughnessy goes to lengths to explicitly say that a season is not won or lost based on a single game and yet he intimates based on a single game that 1) Julio Lugo is money poorly spent; 2) Gil Meche was perhaps a good signing by the Royals after all; 3) Varitek and Crisp are headed for poor seasons. He spells out a few other negatives as well…Okajima gave up a homer….and he points out the Red Sox’ swoon last year began with a sweep at the hand of the Royals. Damnit, Shank, this is one ballgame—enough already. (But hey Shank, why no mention of the overmatched Pedroia? He had two hits today.)

The other thing that really torques me is his relentless criticism of Epstein’s and James’ reliance on statistics. What would you have them rely on Shank? Just because you spew your columns with little thought and even less analysis, does that make it the right way to run a baseball team? I think not. You may think you turn out good work relying on your gut instinct but you would be wrong. Instead of castigating Epstein and James, why not do a little more analysis of your own and make your writing stronger? It wont happen though—you are too lazy to be bothered with quantitative and ultimately meaningful analysis.

(Edit: Okay, I need to pull back on one criticism...Shaughnessy has a separate and generally upbeat sidebar about Pedroia's performance. Yet CHB still gets this zinger in "He is a poster boy for Theo Epstein and his crew of baseball stat men". DBVader pegged it right yesterday when he pointed out that CHB's dislike of Pedroia is driven by his petty jealousy of Theo Epstein.)

It's Not Baseball, It's a Celebrity Event

Dan chose to celebrate the greatest day in the baseball season by ....

A. Discussing the hope and joy that surrounds the return of baseball;

B. Outlining some of the great things to look forward to this season;

C. Rehashing the hype that surrounds a player who will not play today filled in with random observations and dated references.


While A and B would have been enjoyable to the reader, each would have required effort on Dan's part to craft an original and coherent column. Instead, Dan decided to write a piece on the obvious and, in an attempt to make it relevant to the day, added some throwaway material.

Once again, Dan tells us Daisuke Matsuzaka is a big deal. Once again, I feel the need to tell Dan that his readers get it. Pretty much half the column rehashes the posting fee, the number of Japanese reporters, and fans coming to see him. And if this column doesn't sate your appetite for the obvious, just wait until Wednesday when we get to do it all over again.

Of course this cow quit on Dan and he needed something else to fill the minimum page count. Let the dated and tired references fly! "The Red Sox are the baseball Beatles. They are Elvis.; "the Sons of Terry Francona, "it probably won't be long before there's a new Dice-K dance craze on par with the Twist of the 1960s and the Macarena of the 1990s. How long before everybody's doing the Gyro?"

Dan avoids it long enough, but at the end of the column he realizes that he has to tie all this all in to the day. He gives us about 100 words on the upcoming season. And he isn't telling you anything a bright twelve-year who follows the team doesn't already know. Glad to know that those weeks in Spring Training weren't wasted.

Note
After Dan described Schilling's blog as a sycophantic wasteland filled with losers last week, Dan writes that it is "exhaustive" and states that Schilling's reputation "needs no embellishment here." Very cute, Dan.

Pedroia Watch
Dustin Pedroia is a suspect/prospect

Don't wait on Dan telling us why this is so, or why Pedroia is different than any of the other prospects who break in every year. I suspect Dan's reasons have more to do with the front office liking Pedroia than anything on the field.

Everybody is just happy for a free meal

Apparently, a bunch of writers had lunch with Daisuke Matsuzaka, Hideki Okajima, and their translators. Tony Massarotti has the lineup of reporters looking for a free lunch at a country club.

Here is what some of them had to say:

Rob Bradford;

Sean McAdam;

Michael Silverman;

Ian Browne of mlb.com;

Jeff Goldberg weighs in;

and Dan-O

They all go over the same quotations and a worrisome(?) moment when Matsuzaka bumped his elbow. Never has more ink, blah, blah.

Dan did offer a unique sartorial critique. Always bringing the fastball. And he manages to mention the $103 million arm. After that Gil Meche contract, Matsuzaka's signing is just silly.

The Sky is Falling, Day Two

Today's reason Red Sox fans should forget about the next six months is Coco Crisp. Apparently, Dan is not familiar with the concept of small sample size. After thirteen meaningless spring training games, Dan is ready to consign Crisp to the scrapheap. (He should get a pass for last season. He never recovered from the broken finger, which had to be surgically repaired.) Dan does note that prior to the injury Crisp was progressing nicely, but in total the tone is over the top and the worry is misplaced. Not matter what happens, Crisp will not become Dwayne Hosey, a journeyman minor leaguer who made his MLB debut at 28. (Dan, it doesn't help accusations of racism when your simple mind can make comparisons only between players of the same race.) And I'd worry more about the the two guys batting before Crisp in the lineup.

Another thing to note is Dan attacks Crisp for stating he doesn't care what the fans think. Normally, that attitude would be a good thing, but in Dan's twisted world if an athlete doesn't cower at the thought of playing in Boston before the world's most demanding fans and their proxies, the reporters, you disrespect the fans (mostly the reporters, though). If Dan were in New York, he would be ripping A-Rod for caring too much. You cannot win with this guy.

Pedroia Watch
Then there's Dustin Pedroia. Any chance the kid is in over his head?

Get it, he's short! Maybe someone can answer me. Has there ever been a rookie in the majors before? Because Dan's attitude seems to suggest that Pedroia's situation is unique in the history of baseball.

Whenever you read or hear Shaughnessy attack Pedroia remember these numbers:

.308/.392/.454

Those are his minor league career BA/OBP/SLG. And he is only 23 this year.

Edits for clarity

Stirring the Pot, Take 15,487

As Dave M has pointed out, Dan has an amazing ability to comment on media hype at the same time that he participates in the frenzy without realizing the contradiction.

Today's column is a perfect example. After recapping Matsuzaka's rough start, Dan writes "The result of all this will be a five-day frenzy of Dice-K speculation on two continents. Is he hurt? Is he frustrated? Is he a diva? Is he physically and mentally prepared for his first big league start next Friday in Kansas City?

Only in Boston. Only here could there be a crisis after a guy throws a five-inning no-hitter."

As much as he can try to hide it, Dan wants the irrational hype and frenzy. He lives for discussions about whether a player is "mentally" ready or a "diva" because these types of discussions are inherently unprovable and you can have any half ass opinion on the subjects. That is much easier than discussing what goes on the field like whether a pitcher's motion changed or whether he was throwing a different set of pitches.

Further on, Dan's xenophobia pops up. He offers that Matsuzaka's publicist delivered a "head-scratching statement", presumably because there were a few words and phrases that were awkward to the American ear. Anybody who has taken more than a semester of a foreign language will understand that there are words or phrases that do not accurately translate. There is nothing head-scratching about it.

We Are Not Alone

I thought readers of this site would appreciate links to what other basement dwellers are writing about Dan's latest.

Curt in his big basement in Medfield gives his response.

firejoemorgan.com points out the huge discrepancy between Dan's attempt at humor and the actual questions at 38pitches.

The posters at BaseballThinkFactory, no fans of Schilling, weigh in against Dan's latest attack.

I am going to spend the rest of the night composing a well worded but nasty email to Shank and his boss. Feel free to provide your own emails in the comments.

Dan needed three weeks to write this

huge steaming pile?

One sarcastic joke repeated six times. Dan will never be confused with Mark Twain.

Dan ends with this 'question': "What do you say to those media morons who contend that you are a self-important blowhard with an ill-informed opinion about everything and an insatiable need to be worshipped by sheep-like fans and late-night blog boys who live in Ma's basement?"

This is rich. Dan devotes almost all the column to spew tired generalizations and lame jokes and finishes by using 'media morons' ironically. My head hurts.

I don't read 38pitches. I have too many other things I am interested in and there is too much MPMPOOPPMRPOP talk, or whatever it is. But after briefly browsing the Q&A's, Dan's characterization is wildly offbase. All Dan's column does is further show the alienation between Dan and his subjects and audience.

Just know this: If you are interested in how Curt's changeup is going along, or any other aspect of Curt's pitching, you are a sycophantic, loser who lives in your Mom's basement. To be more successful, be like Dan. Give up any particular interest in the little things that make baseball great and just worry about which player to irrationally bash in order to coverup your increasing irrelevancy.

I hope Jim Rome is looking for a full time co-host.

The Long Regional Nightmare is Over

Dan has returned to write for the Globe after some time away from the pages, including a week spent putting up with Jim Rome's ranting. (An authentic Chicago Blitz pennant for anyone who can satisfactorily explain how Jim Rome continues to have a job discussing sports. If it weren't for sycophantic interviews, stupid emails, and two-second pauses, the guy wouldn't have a show.)

Contrary to rumblings on the internet, a freshly tanned Dan is not returning to Boston after failing to land the role of Beaker in the touring company of the Muppet Show.

Whatever the reason for the return, Dan blessed us with a couple of "blog posts" on Extra Bases yesterday afternoon. In the first, Dan mentions that the first pitch of the game was between the "key players in the infamous Sox-Marlins deal when Theo Epstein was gone in November of 2005." There is so much in there for Dan to feast on. He must have thanked the Fat #3 in the Sky for this random occurrence. At least we were spared any "Curse of Hanley Ramirez" mention. Dan is probably leaving that for Daniel Shaughnessy III to write about.

Dan ends the second post with this typical gem: "Bill James was in the press box, reviewing his creation of the 2007 Red Sox." Either Dan believes this and is an idiot who has failed to comprehend any report about James' role in the Front Office, or it is an attempt to ridicule "Young Theo" for using statistics more advanced than batting average. Either way, it is another example of Dan's inability to offer any analysis that advances the discussion.

Where is Dan?

It's funny. I often wish Dan would just go away but now that he has just written 3 times in the past 22 days, I find myself missing the old curly-haired lug. In late Feb and early March, he had written two weeks of stories in a row and maybe that (coupled with his St Patrick's Day parade appearance) just tuckered the man out.

It's time to put an end to this fruitless crusade

I was giddy for a moment after reading the above title to today's column. Alas, Dan is not leaving the Globe.

Instead, he is talking about the Holy Cross Men's Basketball team. Nothing like some Patriot League talk to get you fired up for March Madness. Maybe HC in the Tournament can be the catalyst for a truce between Dan and Bill Simmons. Those two are the only people I can figure would care for this column.

Completely Random Reference Watch:
"Fifty-four years. That's before Robert Parish was born..."

"...led the Crusaders past the Deacons five days after Jim Rice was born in Anderson, S.C."

He's Alive

Dan writes about the last game for Savio Prep's boys basketball team. A nice story showing that Dan can still write. As further proof, you can read Dan's letter to Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch about Alan Greenberg. (About halfway down the page.)

He Can't Resist

Dan writes the game story and the Notebook today. He plays it straight overall, but two notes show Dan's true colors.

First is this note: "Among those in the Sox media guide with bios longer than Theo Epstein's: Dr. Charles Steinberg and Larry Cancro."

If Dan was more interested in facts than stirring the pot, he would realize that Steinberg and Cancro have longer bios because they are decades older than Theo. Cancro has been with the Red Sox for over 20 years.

The second irrelevant note is: "Roger Dean Stadium here in Jupiter is where Grady Little managed his first game with the Red Sox in 2002."

Hey Curly Haired Cursemonger. The Red Sox won in 2004. Sorry it took your meal ticket away, but fans have moved on and do not care about meaningless trivia.

For Crying Out Loud

Wow! It's like the perfect union....Shaughnessy invokes a Larry Bird comparison to set the stage for his column about Daisuke's Matsuzaka's spring training game debut. This is the third in a series - we have already been treated to stories about Matsuzaka's arrival to camp; his first live batting practice; and his first game with college umpires. Next will be his first game with MLB umpires and then of course we will be treated to his first regular season game. Has Shaughnessy created this media monster? No. Yet he continues to contribute to it in a way to make it so painstakingly miserable

I wish Shaughnessy would make up his freaking mind. On the one hand, he is obviously consumed by the mania because he keeps writing and writing. Yet, I get the image of Shaughnessy 17 years ago holding young Sam's dirty diaper with an outstretched arm and then tightly pinching his nose with the other. He obviously thinks the attention is laughable... He compares two events that he truly holds sacred (landing on the moon and Larry Bird's first game as a Celtic) to this event where deep down you know he is truly waiting for the Daisuke phenomenon to fail so he can hang it like an albatross across the necks of Theo and the minions. Only then will Shank find true happiness in this signing.

At some point, Shaughnessy may be forced to recognize the brilliance of it all. Part of the Red Sox business case for signing Matsuzaka was the international interest (and hence business revenue) it would generate. So far, so good. Shaughnessy would probably choke on a gyro ball sandwich (with a little gray poupon of course) however, before acknowledging any brilliance on the part of young Theo.

One final comment - Shaughnessy does use the column to make a Planet Manny reference but it is more after thought than anything. A small blessing in disguise, I suppose.

College vs. MLB

Shaughnessy provides a look ("Mismatch made in heaven") at the vast chasm that exists between the talent and skill level of college baseball players versus major leaguers. The story is prompted as the Sox faced the "pasty-white" Northeastern University team. By and large, it's not a bad article and provides some good insight.

The acerbic Shaughnessy pokes through a little bit. In addition to the unneeded "pasty white" comment:

- He latches onto a quote from Brendan Donnelly who says that college players going against major leaguers is like Dustin Pedroia going up against Shaquille O'Neal. Shaughnessy liked that comparison and refers to it later in the article. (But he really makes no disparaging comments about Pedroia)

- He gets in yet another subtle dig in at the Daisuke phenomenon when he says Daisuke Matsuzaka may be the greatest pitcher who ever lived. Just let it go Dan.

- And oh yes, another reference to the gyroball. It is at least the second time in the past 10 days where Shaughnessy ends a column with a little quip about the mystical gyroball pitch, this time wondering if the Boston College players will see it tonight. Just let it go Dan.

Shaughnessy's consecutive days writing streak continues--coming up on two straight weeks. Some blog responders might suggest he is fighting for his job.

Mighty Morphin' Storyline

Dan is the news reporting guy today. In the game story, Dan switches from 'Schilling is fat' to 'Schilling was fat and is upset the Red Sox did not extend his contract.' A seamless transition of storylines by Dan.

In the Notes, Dan has the rest of the game story. In what I hope is not a sign of things to come, Dan brings up Alex Gonzalez's name after Julio Lugo commits an error. It will be much easier to note Lugo's errors than the times he got on base when Gonzalez would have hit a weak grounder to the left side of the infield, thus distorting any simple Lugo-Gonzalez observations.

Dan refuses to let go of the Manny Car Show talk as Dan dedicates the second 'note' to the topic. It's over, Dan. It wasn't much of a story to begin with, and it is no longer a story after Manny reported. Move on.

Manny's in Camp

and Dan is writing about it.

It is not a column, so Dan plays it straight for the most part.

One thing to note. In the middle of the story, Dan writes about a fan's encounter with Manny:

""Oh my God, I touched him!," said a man who was wearing a Curt Schilling jersey and appeared to be more than 50 years old."

How excited do you think Dan got when he witnessed this scene?

Dan's New Favorite Red Sox

And I might have to agree after Brendan Donnelly told Dan this:

"Last year's over. I could ask the same thing about Boston last year. That's over. If you want to stir the [expletive] pot that way . . . You want to stir the pot? I'll [expletive] stir it with you."

Schilling must have given Donnelly a quick lesson on The Way of the Shank.

In all, a pretty informative column. It would be tough to write a bad one with the quotations Donnelly offers up. Just let the tape recorder roll.

Dan ends with this:

"Great mix of ability and attitude. This guy is going to be a good fit in Boston."

Good to hear.

One thing though. Dan needs to look at the statistics a little more skeptically. Dan writes "Donnelly was 6-0 with a 3.94 ERA last year, but the Sox were able to get him in exchange for lefty pitching prospect Phil Seibel." First, W-L is meaningless for relievers. Second, there are severe limitations to the value of ERA for relievers. Besides, outside of Boston, a 3.94 ERA for a reliever is not very good, regardless. Finally, Donnelly's K/9IP has been going down while his walk and HR rates have been going up. That is not a good sign for a 35 year-old pitcher.

Schilling Speaks Out on CHB

I picked up this link from Boston Sports Media...Schilling (Gehrig38) speaks very candidly about Shaughnessy on the SOSH boards. Some great quotes:

On the part where Shaughnessy says from a distance, it appeared that Schilling and John Henry were having a heated discussion:

Now we'll just have to let hacks and idiots like CHB stir up something that does not exist.

Some other lines

One of the lines CHB failed to put into the article he wrote a few weeks back was me, on the phone, calling him an asshole. He knows as sure as he's reading this right now that I think he's a giant sphincter.

Writers like him, and there are others I can assure you, are the reason athletes come to despise members of the media. They aren't all like that but it's just hard to figure out who's who sometimes.

They can hate the fact that I talk on EEI, or write in these forums, hell he's done it for 4 years, but it's still going to happen and at the end of the day he's still going to be the most misinformed guy in this group when it comes to the Sox and their fans.

More Matsuzaka

Today, Shaughnessy gives us a blow-by-blow description of Daisuke Matsuzaka's first live batting practice. An interesting enough read absent any fat attacks on Schilling and no-show reports on Manny Ramirez.

Two things strike me...

- Shaughnessy has mocked and criticized all of the attention received by Matsuzaka's and yet he flames the fire with a detailed story about live batting practice. (I suppose I should not be too harsh, however, because if Shaughnessy had not covered it, someone else would have)

- Again, Shaughnessy paints the picture that this spectacle is a unique one-of-the-kind phenomenon in the history of sports media coverage (more layups on an 8 foot goal?). Francona quickly puts the damper on that thought process when he is asked if "he'd ever seen anything like it."

"Yes," he said. "I had Michael Jordan. And this guy can't dunk, so I've seen it." (Francona managed Jordan in the Arizona Fall League in 1994.)

(Imagine that Shank: A media circus and a Boston area team/player wasn't even involved...unthinkable)

I apologize for not writing about yesterday's column on Josh Beckett. Shaughnessy wrote how Beckett could be the forgotten man in the Red Sox pitching rotation. It was an uninspired piece. When I read an article like this, I would like to see insight as to how or why Beckett will be able to put last year's relatively poor season behind him. Outside of Shaughnessy stating that Beckett is not making excuses for last year, there is little insight.

But we were treated to some nice swipes at Curt Schilling....Shaughnessy is wholly fixated on Schilling and I am sure Schilling will be the target of Shaughnessy's annual "Let's drive this guy out of town" campaign. Previous year recipients of this campaign include Nomar, Manny, and Carl Everett to name a few.

I sure hope Shank gets a day off soon--it must be tough toiling away in the sun.

What is your favorite Shankism?

(Preface: I apologize for the lack of hypertext links throughout, dave m)

Last summer, I was amused to read a bit from one of the readers of Boston Sports Media. He researched the number of times Shaughnessy had used a line about grey poupon mustard in his column. For example, on May 4, 2006, Shaughnessy wrote:

Whatever happened to peanuts, Cracker Jacks, and Fenway Franks? You won't hear ''Kill the ump!" or ''Yankees suck!" in the EMC Club. It goes something more like, ''Pardon me, could you pass the Grey Poupon?"

On April 27, 1992, he wrote:

Now they don't talk back. All- Star Reggie Lewis throws down a dunk, then says, ''Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?'' I don't know about you, but I miss the trash-talking days of yore.

In sum total, the self-plagiarizing Shank has used the grey poupon line an astonishing13 times….5/4/06, 10/14/03, 8/16/02, 5/21/99, 1/12/98, 8/20/97, 1/24/96, 5/8/95, 11/20/94, 8/14/93, 6/19/93, 2/25/93, 4/27/92

On February 18, 2007, Shank took a familiar stab at Manny Ramirez portraying Manny as a clueless dunce. He wrote:

Can't wait for that Manny Moment when he sees Daisuke Matsuzaka for the first time and asks teammates, "Hey, who is that Japanese guy and why is he wearing Johnny Damon's number?"

On December 14, 2006, CHB wrote in an advice column to Matsuzaka::

Do not be surprised or insulted when a Spanish-speaking player wearing No. 24 greets you at spring training with, "Hey, who are you? When did we get you? Were you in Pawtucket last year? I love playing in Pawtucket."

As for other familiar refrains from Shank land, here are some recaps:

“Daddy Globe”/”Daddy Times”: 11/16/06, 8/24/06, 6/18/06, 5/4/06, 4/11/06, 12/16/05, 4/18/05, 10/31/04, 10/31/03, 1/30/03

“Diva” or “Dominican Diva”: 2/18/05, 2/11/05, 9/17/03, 8/26/03, 8/21/03, 8/7/03

“Young Theo”: 12/10/06, 11/16/06, 8/20/06, 2/19/06, 11/9/05, 9/23/05, 3/27/05, 1/5/05, 10/28/03, 7/30/03, 4/12/03, 3/5/03, 2/18/03, 1/17/03, 12/16/02, 11/26/02 (Bob Ryan has used it once over this time span)

Elvis References: 2/18/07, 2/16/07, 1/14/07, 4/26/06, 2/19/06, 11/13/05, 5/11/05, 11/23/03, 5/21/03, 3/5/03, 1/28/03, 12/16/02, 1/31/02, 8/24/01, 8/16/00, 11/11/99, 11/13/83

“Daddy Butch”: Too many to list

Theo and the Minions: 2/18/07; 11/16/06; 11/9/06; 8/19/06; 4/5/06; 11/29/05; 10/30/05; 6/26/05; 1/5/05; 10/28/03 (“seemheads” not minions); 12/16/02 (Theo and his “posse”)

“Blowhard” (Curt Schilling reference): 2/23/07, 2/18/07; 2/2/07, 6/26/05 plus a host of other disparaging remarks about Schilling

“Fanboy” or “Blogger”: 2/18/07; 12/1/06; 8/27/06; 12/30/05; 12/21/05; 7/29/05


I am sure we are missing a few references. Do you have a favorite Shank-ism? List it here and we will see how many we can find.

The Blowhard

Wow, the Blowhard has been busy this week--6 columns in a row! It has shocked me that we have gone since Sunday without much mention of either Manny or Curt, although Dan got a nice dig in on Schilling yesterday, comparing him to John Candy. I am really surprised CHB has not made any references to Manny and the car show although I'm sure we will get that soon enough

Today's column centers on the Red Sox and Schilling breaking off contract talks for next year. Shaughnessy gives the minute-by-minute unfolding of the morning and he breathlessly reports:

"Shortly after Hoyer told Henry what Schilling said on the radio, the owner engaged in a one-on-one discussion with Schilling. From a distance, the exchange seemed less than amicable."

After reading that, I feel like tuning into General Hospital to get a dose of reality. I despise this type of reporting. "From a distance" and "seemed"? Typical Shaughnessy--he likes to stoke the fire with school-girl speculation.

John Candy (yesterday) and Serena Williams (today) comparisons aside, Shaughnessy does echo what I have heard consistently from elsewhere that Schilling looks very much overweight. The Red Sox are making a business decision based on Schilling's condition and age and it is a perfectly logical one. Shaughnessy spells that out just fine.

If Schilling does not return next year, there has got to be a part of Shaughnessy that will be very depressed. The Globe sports page will be a lesser place without references to Blowhards, fan-boy bloggers, and Curt's late night little friends. These things helped fill the void after the depressing departure of "the curse"...but all good things must come to an end.

Typical Dan

Today is Dan's first passive-aggressive rip job on JD Drew. Nothing much there. Dan continues to claim that the signing was corrupt and he gets in a couple of subtle digs at Curt Schilling's weight.

A couple of points of clarification:

Dan writes that Drew has been ripped by Tony La Russa and Schilling. He has been, but they ripped him for totally different issues. La Russa questioned his motivation and Schilling attacked him for refusing to sign with the Phillies.

Dan writes that the NY Times claimed the Dodgers were considering tampering charges. One columnist made the claim, and some have questioned its validity. Further, Boston wasn't the only team seeking to sign Drew. If you look back on rotoworld.com, the Angels and Cubs (among others) were interested in Drew. It wasn't the bag job Dan wants you to think it was. But if it can dirty Theo, Dan will write it.

Dan Talks to His BFF

Dan gets an interview with Red Sox owner John Henry today. They go through a couple of non-issues:

-New business partner Jack Roush's comments about Toyota in NASCAR

-ticket prices (Dan is correct to note that the Red Sox could charge more for their tickets, but citing the fact that Fenway has the highest average ticket prices is misleading. Fenway is among the smallest stadiums in the Majors. The Red Sox do not have the thousands of cheap seats that the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, and Astros sell.)

-Schilling's contract status

-Lugo over Gonzalez at SS

-the apparently "corrupt" Drew signing (Stop trying to stir things up. Carlos Lee signed for $100/6 years; Gary Matthews Jr. signed for $50/5 years. Other than Murray Chass, nobody claims that there was anything corrupt.)

-and whether the Lucchino-Epstein split hurt the team in '06 (I am certain that Dan wanted the answer to be 'yes.')

A Whole Lot of Nothing

Dan's view on Tom Brady's pending fatherhood. He takes a whole column to say that it isn't a big deal. Some people will care and others will not. Dan likes to defend himself by stating that he is paid for his opinions. I hope it isn't much. This column was bland and middle of the road, tough to find any opinion in it.

Not much else to note. I really don't care for the topic.

A few items:

-"modeling watches we can't afford."
Spare us the "I'm a common man" bit. You have written a bunch of books, including this piece of crap that did fairly well, and its follow up. (Read the reviews; they are hilarious.)

-Dan offers up another strained analogy:"A football field is 100 yards by 53 1/3 yards. When you are dropping back to pass and the blitzing linebacker is in your face mask, you can throw the ball out of bounds and start over.

Off the playing field, in 2007, nothing is out of bounds.".

-"What this does remind us is that Brady -- like all of us -- is human."
But Dan, just last week you told us to "get real a bit" and not idolize players. And all the time you were idolizing Tom Brady.

-Dan notes that "nothing is out of bounds" and that it is simply part of celebrity culture. But he's wrong. There is something he can do: Don't write columns about it.

Digging Through the Recycling Bin

Not much today. Dan just talks about the pitchers' fielding drills, nothing you couldn't have read in Rob Bradford's blog yesterday.

It is a rambling mess (This sentence appears out of nowhere: "Pitchers' fielding practice, a favorite activity of the departed Joe Kerrigan, took on a whole new meaning during last year's World Series when Tigers hurlers committed five errors in five games against the Cardinals.") and contains his typically facile sarcasm ("Red Sox pitchers and catchers went through their first grueling (9:30 a.m. to 11:12 a.m.) workout of the 2007 season yesterday."), which is rich considering it comes from a man who "jogs" for only a mile each day.

There are people who claim that CHB is a good writer. But his repetitive use of sarcasm exposes him as a poor columnist. Sarcasm is easy, something anybody can do, and it wears thin very quickly if it isn't clever. Dan's attempts most often aren't. Rather, they are obvious and simple. A better (or more industrious?) writer would avoid the constant sarcasm that Shank pumps out.

Oh, Dan notes there are a lot of Japanese media members. Tomorrow, Dan tells us water is wet. (See how easy it is?)

Crap Sandwich

I have varying theories about how Shaughnessy puts together his column. One theory has him sitting in front of his keyboard—one hand mindlessly typing and spewing out clichéd thoughts while the other hand is dipped in a bag of Cheetos as he intently watches Rosie on The View. Another perspective has Shank backed in a corner by mobsters cowering for his life. He somehow manages to lay his hands on a machine gun and he furiously fires hoping that he will hit his mark and yet he always seems to miss. A final theory is that “Big Daddy Globe” retired Shank five years ago in a purge and they replaced with him a computer program that uses a random generator to produce columns. They have pre-programmed certain thoughts (“Manny quit”) and catch-phrases (“Theo and his minions”) which appear and re-appear. (Note: I think they better fire that computer programmer).

I like the computer program theory for today’s effort—the random generator was in overdrive. The main theme for today is that Manny quit last year and Shank breathlessly awaits for Manny’s appearance at spring training. More on this in a minute but I would like to quickly recap the worn out Shank-isms that Dan trots out today….

We have the tired refrain that Florida sucks (Fort Myers is a “godforsaken town”); there is a reference to “Elvis Matsuzaka”; Shank calls Schilling the “Big Blowhard”; we get a "Theo and his minions" reference; I always love mentions of “fanboy bloggers” and we are treated to one of those today. Another tired technique is Shank’s attempt to paint Ramirez as the clueless wonder….Shaughnessy writes…”Can’t wait for that Manny Moment when he sees Daisuke Matsuzaka for the first time and asks teammates. “Hey, who is that Japanese guy and why is he wearing Johnny Damon’s number?”

One of Shaughnessy’s other classic techniques is where he subtly lays claim as the voice of “Red Sox Nation” by using “We”. He says “We have rejoiced in the retirement of Keith Foulke”; “We won’t sleep until the Sox make a decision on [Schilling’s contract]; and “We don’t care if he talks.” He also loves to tell his readership what they should believe. He says, “…please don’t be a stooge and attempt to perpetuate the farcical theory that Manny was too wounded to play last summer.” (By the way, who rejoiced in the retirement of Keith Foulke anyway? Shaughnessy hated him because he wasn’t passionate enough about baseball. Yet Shank hates us because we are too passionate about sports.)

As for the main theme, for the umpteenth time, Shank claims that Manny quit on the team last year during the infamous Yankees series. To be honest, I don’t really know if Manny quit. But Shaughnessy offers no tangible proof. He simply asks that we take it on faith that he is right. I don’t think many (if any) Red Sox players talk to him so I have a hard time believing that Shank's voice somehow represents what Manny’s teammates truly believe behind the scenes.

Bemoaning the Beast

In the spirit of Shank himself, let me begin by stating the obvious. Dan Shaughnessy is a columnist. Columnists, unlike traditional reporters, are given much latitude. They can speculate; they can use humor; they can inject personal opinion. When you read a column, the expectation is that you will be treated to a unique insight or be told a story that you have not heard multiple times elsewhere. Let me end this paragraph by stating the obvious. Dan Shaughnessy fails as a columnist.

Today, we are treated to yet another look at Daisuke Matsuzaka. Shaughnessy bemoans the beast that is the press attention being given to Matsuzaka. Let’s see, where do I start? First of all, the Matsuzaka coming out party has already been mocked ad nauseum. See, for example, Gerry Callahan’s mocking column from earlier in the week. In a bit of irony, Shank says “it’s a little embarrassing the way we’re reacting to the introduction of the Japanese hurler.” Shaughnessy, aren’t you perpetuating the very beast by writing this column? Shaughnessy asks “Are we not staid old Boston?” Come on Shank, do you really believe that characterization of Boston? Aren’t you the same guy who got on the pulpit the other day to remind us that we are too focused on sports stars and that we need to remember the true heroes? Is all of this attention really a big surprise to you? Give me a break.

A few other thoughts:

- Shank loves Gerry Callahan’s characterization of the press. Shank himself wishes he could have come up with Callahan’s “Million Cameraman March” to describe the press contingent. I am sorry but I don’t think that line is particularly funny—at least not funny enough to wish it were your own. (I like Jeff Horrigan's rattlesnake similie instead)

- I, for one, despise the whole “Dice-K” nickname. Reminds me too much of the horrid comedian Dice Clay. Shank perpetuates that god awful nickname four times today.

- Once again, Shank spurts out the line that it cost the Red Sox $51 million just to talk to Matsuzaka. That’s not really true—the $51 million should be considered a part of the overall signing package. If they had not signed him, they would not have been on the hook for the money in which case they would have talked with him for $0.

Shank ends his column with the familiar platitude that it doesn’t matter what words are spoken by the player or the press during all this hoopla; what matters is what happens on the field. Thanks, Shank, for your grand insight.

Pedroia Watch

Dan is nothing if not repetitive. He finds a joke or reference and beats it into the ground. He finds something he doesn't like and continually harps on it. Since the beginning of the new year, Dan has laid down a steady beat questioning Dustin Pedroia.

To start off, a brief statistical background of Pedroia.

Some of the highlights:
He will be only 23 this season;
His career minor league numbers are .308/.392/.454
In his minor league career, he has 121 XBH, 125 BB, and only 77 K.

A sampling of what people say about him:
John Sickels rates him the #7 Red Sox prospect and gives him a B;
SoxProspects.com rates him the #4 Sox Prospect and gives him a B;
Baseball America rates him the #6 Red Sox Prospect;
si.com rates him the #68 Prospect in MLB.

A couple of notes from scouts:
Ken Rosenthal writes that "some scouts believe he simply can't play."
Nick Cafardo relays one scout's advice for Pedroia to spray the ball and work on his footwork.

A few statistical projections:
ZiPS - .274/.347/.394
Marcel Projections - .257/.328/.414
Chone Projections - .283/.356/.416
(all three projections can be found at fangraphs.com)

Those are the statistics and what some people who follow the minors very closely have to say.

Here is what Dan has been saying:
At the beginning of November, Pedroia is Dan's second picked up piece:
"Why do I get the feeling that Dustin Pedroia, through no fault of his own, is destined to become the line in the sand in Fort Myers next spring? Theo Epstein and the minions love the little guy. Longtime scouts, people who wear baseball uniforms, and most fans are not convinced. This will be interesting."

He continues the Theo v. scouts theme a month later:
"...Theo/minion Poster Boys, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis..."

In a February boston.com chat:
"still not sold on pedroia at 2b". . . "obviously they didn't want to pay loretta. org loves pedroia. lot of questions about him, though"

In this February column, Dan includes Pedroia in a list of things we will talk about, but shouldn't take too seriously:
"We'll question Dustin Pedroia's ability to get the job done at second base"

In a column towards the end of March, Dan includes Pedroia in a list of questions in the lineup:Then there's Dustin Pedroia. Any chance the kid is in over his head? (Did you notice the clever short joke?)

In the Page One, Opening Day column, Dan offers this bit of insight on the upcoming season, "Dustin Pedroia is a suspect/prospect" We are still waiting for an explanation as to why this particular prospect is suspect.

After Opening Day, Dan writes a sidebar on Pedroia's day. He is short and he "is a poster boy for Theo Epstein and his crew of baseball stat men, and there is organizational split on Pedroia's ability to make an impact."

Mark "They didn't want to pay" Loretta hit .285/.345/.361 last season. (All three are below his career numbers and at or near his full season lows.)

Your thoughts and mine in the comments section throughout the season as Dan keeps the beat steady.

Edit - 3/28/07
Edit - 4/2/07
Edit - 4/3/07

Dan Hates You and Thinks You Are Stupid

Dan today reminds us of local news story you might have missed, a Boston firefighter who rescued three young children from a burning house this Saturday. A remarkable feat of heroism, and Dan gives a brief recap.

Dan uses this opportunity to remind us dimwitted readers that sports stars are not heroes, that heroes are people like firefighter Andrew Lee. Thanks Dan. This statement must be one of the biggest cliches in sportswriting. Weren't we reminded of this by Dan's colleagues after 9/11? And doesn't some local columnist always trot out this angle after every example of heroism by police or firefighter?

Its not that these heroes shouldn't be praised, but we don't need to be reminded that the real heroes are not on the field. We get it. And most well adjusted, semi-bright 16-year olds have figured it out. At some point in our lives we realize that there are more important things than sports and we are disabused of any notion that sports stars are infallible or worthy of any special respect. It doesn't mean we can't still enjoy following our favorite teams and players.

But Dan thinks that a passion for sports is evidence of a warped personality and a lack of perspective; or in Dan's lexicon, you are a "fanboy."

A fan's passion for sports does not preclude other interests or a full and rich life. Indeed, it adds to it. It is what we have in common. But in Dan's world, if you don't have a detached, cynical take on things, you are a childlike idiot.

Another thing Dan should take note of. As a group, firefighters are some of the most passionate fans I have come across. He should go to a Sox-Yankees game, either in the Bronx or Fenway, and see how many of the out-of-towners are firefighters. They come by the busload. But, I guess they don't have the proper perspective.

Pedroia Watch: Dan takes this opportunity to question again whether Pedroia can play second. We will keep track of Pedroia references as it seems this is Dan's drum for the 2007 season.