Celtics *4

Dan writes about "your Celtics" again* today. He says historically Game 7s are supposed to be a great affair but that the fact that today's game 7 is even happening is an embarrassment to us all. The mighty Celtics are vulnerable and other teams watching will be emboldened by the success of the Hawks if the Celtics are fortunate enough to advance. (*This is a classic parenting line. When one of my kids does something bad, my wife says "Look at what YOUR daughter just did.")


This is the 4th Shaughnessy column of the past five which essentially says the same thing. The Celtics are worthy of criticism and I won't debate that (Note to OB: I dont care if Shaughnessy doesnt "root root root" for the home team.) What continues to grate on me is his journalistic laziness. This column, of and in itself, is fair enough. Yet, when it folllows three others that have attacked from the same angle, it is absolutely absurd that he can get away with it.

It is almost as if Shaughnessy takes these losses as a personal affront. Perhaps he is the one writing from Mom's basement? And yes, the Celtics are not playing well. But how about a modicum of credit for the Hawks? They have some excellent young talent that seems to be coming together at the right time. Given that, is it even conceivable that their record belies their talent to some degree? I agree wholeheartedly that the Celtics should never be in this position but giving the Hawks any credit no matter how well deserved would undermine Shaughnessy's premise and so he just can't do it.

Celtics Revisited

Dan's column is similar to yesterday's albeit minus the dated references. He says the Celtics need to make a statement tonight by winning on the road in Atlanta to erase the emerging doubts that they are too old to win the title.

In classic Shaughnessy "contradiction speak", he says,

It's always a mistake to read too much into an early playoff series.

and yet the whole column itself is Shaughnessy reading too much into an early playoff series. Idiot.

And my favorite line is this

Now we have the New Three and a championship-caliber team that has yet to
win a playoff series or a road playoff game.

Well, seeing how this is the first series that the "New Three" has played, of
course they have yet to win a playoff series.

Idiot.

How Many Dated/Irrelevant References Will There Be?

Dan is still somewhat upset by the Hawks winning two games in Atlanta, but last night's convincing win has placated him somewhat.

But what was more striking was the references. It starts with a 20 year-old SNL skit, followed by a Belichick reference, and includes a 35 year-old song. Way to stay relevant.

One Dinosaur Writes About Another Dinosaur

In circumstances that I am sure many of the readers wished were reversed, Dan writes a farewell from the Boston sports media to Bob Lobel.

And it is fitting that Shank, a master of the worn out phrase, favorably mentions Lobel's use of 'why can't we get players like that?' for "the millionth time."

It is a decent, if redundant, piece listing many of the well known highlights of Lobel's career, capturing his sense of whimsy. However, what is most interesting about the column is what it is lacking: any personal reflections. Dan offers nothing more than what we have seen watching Lobel over the decades.

Dan's Back and Boy Is He Pissed!

Dan rips into the Celtics today. He is upset at the older Celtics becoming unnerved by the younger Hawks and acting out. He makes space for three paragraphs on Paul Pierce's "menacing gesture" toward the Hawks' bench. It's a lot of talk for something Dan admittedly has little knowledge of.

Edit: Dan's colleague Bob Ryan tells everybody to relax. Thanks to Universal Hub for the link.

Shaughnessy and the Bruins

Shaughnessy logs two article about the Bruins in today's paper. The first is a game recap with the angle that the Bruins are forcing fans to take notice and make a place in their busy calendars for tracking the Bruins plight through the playoffs. The second takes a look at the re-birth of Phil Kessel after being benched for half the series but then scoring a big goal last night. This is a lot of work for Shank churning out two article in one evening and you have to wonder if he will have to take another week off after this series is over to catch his journalistic breath.

Shaughnessy columns are pretty straight forward. It should be noted, however, that this is Shaughnessy's fourth straight article about the Bruins and everyone of them contains some reference to the Red Sox. Why he feels the need to do this, I don't know. There is a particularly odd one:

This young man [Kessel] works inside a cone of silence. It's easier getting Bartolo Colon to talk.

What? Colon has been with the Red Sox for a month and Shaughnessy is already commenting on his silence with the media? Maybe he has to bring up Colon because he has long since given up hope that any other established Red Sox will talk to him?

Yet again, he gets in a gratuitous shot at Belichick:

When he [Kessel] does speak, he slips into cliché-riddled bits right out of the Bill Belichick media playbook.

Turn on ESPN and you will get cliche' after cliche' from one athlete to the next but Shank feels compelled to call out Belichick as the standard-bearer for cliche'-speak? Belichick is not worse than any other coach or player but Shaughnessy can never just let it seem to go.

Shaughnessy Article puts Sinden in Hot Water

Apparently, Harry Sinden's job is in jeopardy because of his comments in a column by our old friend Dan Shaughnessy. One wonders if it is this kind of thing that gives Shaughnessy a reputation in some circles as a cutting edge journalist? On some level, you have to give Shaughnessy credit for stirring the pot. On another level, you have to wonder if he was a pawn for Harry Sinden's agenda or yet again, if he took Sinden's quotes out of context.

Because the Boston Globe won't do it.

This was the opening of Dan's March 30, 2008 column (click on image):














Unfortunately, Humphrey Bogart died in January 1957, more than year before the Dodgers played their first home game in LA. (Thanks to a poster at bostonsportsmediawatch.net for pointing this out.)

And you might think that the Boston Globe would acknowledge this error, considering that the online edition was quickly changed.

Yet neither the online nor the print edition of the Boston Globe has acknowledged Shank's egregious mistake of having a dead man at a L.A. Dodgers game.

What has the fastidious corrections department of Morrissey Boulevard addressed in the last two weeks?

April 15-
Because of a reporting error, the name of Accelerated Marketing Partners was incorrectly spelled in a Boston Sunday Globe Real Estate story on home buyers.

April 13-
Because of a reporting error, a March 23 City Weekly article about the new Parkwayboston.com website incorrectly attributed a quote saying the site appeared to be designed by an eighth-grader. The comment was made by Tammy Schuetz Cook, from the blog Bostonfoodandwhine.

April 6-
Due to incorrect information from Jonathan Bekemeier, a Globe North story on Sunday March 30 about tax abatements in Malden stated that he had never applied for an abatement. Bekemeier has applied before.

April 3-
Because of a reporting error, an obituary in yesterday's Globe of advertising executive Joseph E. Gallagher gave incorrect cities and towns where he grew up and later lived. He grew up in North Adams and was a resident of Wellesley and Dover.

April 1-
Because of a reporting error, a Bette Davis quote from the film "Cabin in the Cotton" was inaccurate in a story in Sunday's Movies section. The line was, "I'd like to kiss you, but I just washed my hair."

So, the misquotation of an 70 year old film, errors in the childhood facts of a subject of an obituary, whether someone applied for a tax abatement, the incorrect attribution of a quotation from a blog, and the misspelling of a company seeking to promote itself in the Real Estate section are all worthy of correction, yet a year-old corpse watching the L.A. Dodgers requires no correction or clarification?

I have contacted the Globe to address this issue, but I have received no response and it has not addressed the error.

Therefore, I offer my own Globe Correction:

For the record

February, 31, Never

Correction: Because of a columnist's habitual laziness and ignorance, and a cowardly editorial attitude toward said columnist, a column that ran over two weeks ago was incorrect in stating that the corpse of Humphrey Bogart watched the L.A. Dodgers in the Coliseum. Bogart was comfortably interred at Forest Lawn Memorial Park.

Dan and Hockey, Part Deaux

Maybe you read Dan's column on Monday and thought that Dan hadn't been following hockey that much over the years. And then you look at today's paper and notice that Dan is again writing about hockey, maybe trying to redeem himself. Well you can forget that notion. With the very first two words of his column, Dan makes it clear he has nothing to say about the current team. Irrelevancy, thy name is Shank.

The topic of today's column is Harry Sinden, a man who has had little, if anything, to do with the on ice product for the last 18 months. A man who hasn't been the GM since 2000. The man who was complicit in Jeremy Jacobs cheapness and oversaw a criminally understaffed front office and scouting department.

As for the column, it a good interview with Sinden calling out players past and present that Dan wrote before the game and stuck in a few, brief references to last night's game. And as an extra special bonus feature, we get another Red Sox reference.

My point isn't that Harry Sinden doesn't have interesting things to say or that his opinion is irrelevant. But maybe we could get to read the opinions of someone who has been around the team a little bit more, somebody who wasn't in Florida with the owner watching Game 2 on Saturday night.

Dan and Hockey

Two tastes that don't go great together.

Dan uses all his hockey knowledge for this one, with references to Booby Orr, Cam Neely, and Patrick Roy (the last as part of a horrible joke). Part a look at Canadien fans storming the Garden, part game recap, this piece was awful. The writing was stilted as Dan abruptly shifted back and forth among themes. Some quotations from Montreal fans would have been nice instead of the obligatory Red Sox references.

Beckett's Return to Dominance

Dan provides a Red Sox game recap (one of two in today's Globe) but with a particular focus on Josh Beckett's strong start.

Dan's starts off painting a dubious picture of doom and gloom:

Sometimes you need a stopper because you are in last place and a chunk of your fan base is already in a lather. Your DH is carrying a baby-grand on his back, your bullpen looks old and creaky, it takes four hits to push a run across the plate, and the guys are talking about REM instead of RBIs.

This is a typical Shaughnessy convention--he paints a negative picture (hyperbole and all) so as to establish a backdrop of bad news against which he can spin a positive story. It is not a bad convention per se but the above attempt rings hollow.

I also found the following sequence odd:

Two hours and 11 minutes after the stoppage, Papelbon returned and fanned A-Rod on three pitches to send the game to Neil Diamond and preserve the win for Beckett. Boston's great, goofy closer got the side in order in the ninth - two more strikeouts.

He talks about the strikeout of ARod in the 8th as preserving the win and sending the game to Neil Diamond only to then recognize that Papelbon also had to pitch the 9th. Shaughnessy is trying to be cute here so he can squeeze in a pop culture reference but his timing is very bad.

From there, Shaughnessy plays it straight although he wanders between game recap and the angle on Beckett. Not sure why the Globe had to send both Edes and Shaughnessy to this one - Shaughnessy's contribution is marginal at best.

Big Papi's Slump

Shaughnessy discusses the batting struggles of David Ortiz. He says Big Papi is struggling with injuries; he is struggling with umpires; and he is struggling with bad luck. He says Big Papi will snap out of it soon enough and all will be well.

He employs references to Murphy's Law, the Mendoza Line, Rob Lowe and Barry Manilow. He also dusts off the history books (Did you know that Ortiz used to platoon with Jeremy Giambi?)

This is your standard Shaughnessy fare...simple observations coupled with a litany of benign/mundane pop culture references. It is what it is....a snoozefest

Opening Day Ceremonies

Classic rock reference ("Tangerine trees and marmalade skies. Lugo in the sky with Neil Diamonds.")? Check

Dig at Schill? Check

Dan manages to sneak both those staple into his detailed recap of yesterday's ceremonies and game. A pretty good piece with some original humor. I am just glad he was there to capture all the nonsense and I could change the channel.

Have you heard...

the Red Sox were on a long trip to begin the season? Because if you haven't, Dan will tell you all about it. Again.

Some items about the changes at Fenway, which players were around the ballpark. And that is about it. Nothing on the first seven games of the season or what to look forward to this year. You know, stuff that would be interesting. But, of course, that would take some thought and effort.

Chicken Again?

Once more, Dan feels the need to tell us what an arduous undertaking it has been to cover the Red Sox as they have traveled to Japan and Los Angeles. This is the first sentence:

"Yesterday was odyssey day No. 12, the final day in southern California.

Shut the hell up. Nobody cares.

LA Coliseum, Part Deux

Dan picks up where he left off yesterday, dissecting the scene at the LA Coliseum where the Dodgers and Red Sox played an exhibition game before a crowd of 115K+. The article was very similar to yesterday--a discussion of the Coliseum history and the peculiarities of the playing field and the player's reaction to it. Yesterday was good, today is too much of a good thing.

As I read it, I do wonder if Shaughnessy should just start to make his transition to the lifestyle section of the Globe - perhaps he would fare better over there? If you look at his columns from the past week or so (What is it Dan, 6 countries and 45,000 miles?), the actual game of baseball is merely a sideshow or backdrop to his writings. He seems fascinated with all the trappings of baseball but he shows no inclination/passion for the game itself and in the end, it all rings a little hollow.

Playing at the LA Coliseum

I am more than happy to give credit where credit is due. Shaughnessy's article today on the LA Coliseum is excellent. The Sox and the Dodgers are playing an exhibition game there today and it will be the first game there since 1961. The column does nice a job of blending three story lines: 1) the hope that they can set an attendance record of 100K+; 2) the peculiarities of the playing field (200 feet to left field?) and 3) the history of the stadium. I enjoyed the read quite a bit.

If I am going to quibble, I could have done without the "It is what it is" Belichickian quote from Tim Wakefield. Also, Shaughnessy has been known to get his historical facts mixed up and upon a first read, I can't vouch that every fact he pitches is correct.

In the end, one of the stronger efforts from our friend Shank

Holy Crap - More Time Travel

For those of you who thought that Dan might finally break free from writing about the rigors and effects of time travel, think again. It's all there again and then some. Time travel has become Dan's most recent obsession, so much so that one has to wonder if it has bumped Curt Schilling down a peg on the CHB-obsession meter. (If I am counting right, there was only one dig at Schilling all week).

Should we really expect anything more than this from Dan? He did ride over and back on the airplane with these guys right? So you might think he would get a more penetrating perspective from some of the players on their thoughts on the trip but instead we are treated to a number of "We feel okay" standard stock quotes (Wakefield: "I'm ok"; Ortiz: "I felt ok"; Francona: "I feel ok") probably because none of the players care to talk to him.

Of course, we don't expect anything more than this from our friend Shank. Given that, let us count our blessings because:

- Shank didn't complain about the effects of time travel on his ability (or lack thereof) to write and meet deadline

- He didn't complain about the price of water in Japan

- He didn't complain about not receiving a $40K bonus about to travel to Japan

- He only got one shot in at Schilling (I apologize if I missed one or two - I have learned to ignore them over time)

I am sure all this writing and travel was very hard on Dan. Will be interesting to see if he has to take a week off to recover when they get back to Boston.

Time Zones and the Wonders of Intercontinental Travel

For the first quarter of Dan's column today, that is all he talks about. And if you have ever flown on a jet over a timeline, you will get the point before he even makes it.

The rest is another picked up pieces column from the trip. That's Dan for you. Boston Globe's top Sports columnist and he cannot be bothered to develop a single theme for his column.

A Look at Brandon Moss

Dan gives us a look at the player who went from great heights to the lowest depths over Boston's first two games. His first career home run was to tie the game in the ninth inning and the next day he went 0-3 with 3 K's.

Dan goes through the media guide and gives you Moss's history since being drafted in 2002. Thrown in a few quotations and an obvious "That's Life" reference and Dan has himself a column.

In Case You Weren't Paying Attention...

Daisuke Matsuzaka cost a lot of money. We should be thankful that we have Dan to remind us.

Dan has the game recap, and because of the time difference, Dan can actually write about the game instead of taking the lazy route and writing some generic piece before the game then shoehorning a couple of paragraphs about the game in the column.

Even with the extra time, Dan cannot avoid his usual tired subjects and odd references. Not only does he repeat the "$103 million man" bit, but there is a Grady Little reference out of nowhere (his reception would not be lukewarm, anyways), the use of the word "homies", and Dan brings General MacArthur into it. A terribly written piece, completely without flow and filled with one or two sentence paragraphs such as this one"

"Dustin Pedroia opened the season with a single up the middle on an 0-and-1 pitch, but the Sox failed to score.

Riveting.

A Trip Through the Recycling Bin

Dan is tired. You have to give him some slack. After not working for a week he has been asked to write two columns for the baseball preview that must have taken him 30, 45 minutes in the library. And he has been writing about this long trip the Red Sox are on.

How do we know it is a long trip? Dan tells us every chance he gets.
3/25
"Tokyo is the first stop on an 18-day, three-country, 16,000-mile road trip"

3/20
"The 18-day, three-country, 31,000-mile sojourn"
(I don't know what happened to those 15,000 miles either.)

And Dan isn't done recycling material.
3/25
"closer Jonathan Papelbon was clocked at 151 (kilometers per hour)."

3/23
"Papelbon topped out at 151 k.p.h."


3/25
"there have been no Mike Mussina-esque complaints"

3/22
"I know Mike Mussina is still trying to recover from his 2004 trip to Japan"

2/18
"there are guys in New York (hello, Mike Mussina) still complaining about the Yankees' trip to Japan in 2004."

The rest of the column is similar laziness. "Matsuzaka cost a lot of money", lots of bland pronouncements about repeating. Stuff that really gets the fan excited about the upcoming season.

So, once again, the Boston Globe, in the face of declining circulation, has the lazy hack write one of the most important sports columns of the year instead of the much more talented and hard working Bob Ryan. A giant FU to the readers. That is a great business model. As the Tracing Grimace would say, "How's that working out for you?"

A Couple of History Lessons and a Few Observations

Apparently, Dan spent his week off before the Tokyo trip pouring through baseball history books and writing up a couple of recaps for the Baseball Preview. The first is a look through baseball history at 'colorful' baseball managers. The second is a look through the Red Sox Media Guide basically listing Red Sox managers with a few of the obvious observations thrown in.

Today, Dan has his observations from a few days in Japan. They are pretty good, if written in a stilted manner. And as an added bonus, Dan's Larry Bird reference is actually funny:

"Tipping just isn't done in Tokyo. Waiters, cab drivers, and housekeepers expect to get stiffed. It's the anti-New York experience. Larry Bird would love the place."

The Sights and Sounds of Tokyo

Dan covers the game between the Red Sox and Hanshin Tigers. Actually, he doesn't cover the game...instead, he describes the music and critiques the pronunciation of the PA announcers. Says the Japanese are doing everything they can to make the Red Sox feel at home--from playing Sweet Caroline to Dirty Water. I liked his bit about Javier Lopez hitting 127 on the radar gun...127K that is.

It was a respectable article. Not sure what has gotten into Dan lately. His acerbic nature has laregely been MIA. He has had a few clunkers of late to be sure but he has had a few entertaining reads as well and I would classify today's input as relatively entertaining.

Happy Easter!

Jet Lags

Yesterday, Dan wrote about "the trip" and today, he writes about the aftermath of "the trip". Dan says the Red Sox are keeping mum and not complaining (except for one slip up by hometown hero Dice-K.) Fortunately, Dan follows their lead and doesn't complain either.

Oldies but Goodies alert: Dan injects references to Larry Bird and Elvis.

Otherwise, look away folks...not much to see here

Dave

Night Flights

After a week's hiatus, Dan is back and rested. Watch out--I imagine, we will get a steady of stream of Tokyo Dan over the next couple of weeks.

Tonight (or is it this morning?), Dan presents us a detailed-laden blow by blow account of the Sox flight to Japan. I have got to say I am torn over this one. On the one hand Dan provides a light-hearted look at the trip:

- He offers some pleasant enough anecdotes
- He spares us the bitching and moaning of the long trip
- He touches upon yesterday's near boycott without going to Jackie MacMullan extremes (She details yesterday's "extraordinary" events. I am sorry but that whole drama was incredibly self-serving on part of the Red Sox players. I am probably in the minority here but spare me this crap. Getting paid $40K on top of your salary to take a trip to Japan? )
- In general, it is an entertaining look.

On the flip side, does Dan not appreciate the irony of this column? He frequently rails against the hero worship of athletes, as personified by 50 year olds wearing Curt Schilling jerseys... Does he not realize that he is committing the journalistic equivalence of wearing a Schilling jersey? Columns like this (and he has done this before) feed the frenzy. We get that behind the scenes look - players gathering in the cockpit to see the Northern Lights...players clutching their favorite pillows, etc. While I find this interesting on some level, I frankly don't need to know all these details. And I am not suggesting that Dan is fawning over the players - he is not. Yet when he describes every nitty gritty detail, he is essentially stoking the flames of hero worship. (Not sure if I am articulating this point very well but hope you appreciate where I am coming from)

Finally, we have the strangely abrupt finish of this article with the Varitek pillow story. What is up with that? Is Dan the victim of bad editing? Or are we the victims (again) of his poor writing?
_

Celts and Durant; We Will Never Know

A pretty standard look back at what might have been. Dan notes that the Celtics' starting lineup would look a lot different if they had got the seond pick in the NBA Draft that everybody was expecting. Dan plays it straight, with none of his normal distractions.

The Height of Laziness

Dan's start to spring training wasn't very auspicious. And he followed with some real lazy efforts.

Today's might top them all for sheer laziness. He puts forth a premise (Lester facing off against Santana after the winter trade talks) and does absolutely nothing with it. To understand the level of Dan's laziness, you need to know only one thing: Dan used over one-third of his column to print a single, uninterrupted quotation from Theo Epstein.

I liked this bit, though:

"That's the way it is with a lot of fan/media topics. We get wound up in irony, coincidence, and ancillary issues while the people doing the job on the field rarely give it any thought."

No "we" Dan, just lazy sportswriters and sportsradio hosts who would prefer silly storylines and made up BS to actually analyzing what happens on the field.

A Look at Vero Beach

The Dodgers are moving out of Vero Beach, FL and Dan has a look back at the fabled spring training facility. Pretty nice article without typical Dan asides.

Expectations Management

Dan reminds Red Sox Nation to temper their expectations about the Sox this season. He says they are a good team and a deep team but points out that the season is a long grind and there are plenty of other good teams out there. He scoffs at the notion that the Red Sox are a dynasty--a notion that I believe is only perpetuated by his fellow sports writers?

Petty Dan re-emerges today. He aims his snarkiness at the nouveau Red Sox fans, the ones who joined the Nation in 2004; the ones who wear pink Red Sox caps; the ones who apparently did not know that the sport of baseball even existed prior to 2004. Why do these people bother him so?

Obvious Dan also reminds us that "Every team in major league ball averages at least one loss every three games." I wonder if he has been hanging around Bill James too long?

Contradictory Dan spends a column telling people that they are fools if they think this is the most awesome team ever but then he says,

The Sox are good, and if they'd acquired Johan Santana, they could have been the best Red Sox team of all time.

Santana is obviously a superb pitcher but this kind of comment smacks of everything he wails against in the rest of the column.

It is not a horrible column....but in my mind, there are the typical tired elements of Shaughnessy fare: State the obvious; criticize the expectations (ones that he feeds with one hand and slaps away with the other); ridicule the fans; state the obvious again; and finally contradict himself undermining the whole premise of his column.

Going Overboard

Dan has a piece on Jacoby Ellsbury. A balanced piece as Dan avoids all his typical whipping boys and he hits all the highlights of Ellsbury's bio. CHB nicely captures the expectations of Red Sox fans while warning all to temper their expectations.

The Son Also Rises

Dan has a mildly entertaining look at Hank Steinbrenner (son of George) stoking the fires of Star Wars. Dan says Hank will be good for keeping the rivalry heated. Dan even has a nice reach out to ESPN where he poses the question of whether the network is dominated by Sox fans?

Dan does get on his preachy "George Mitchell is on the masthead/the steroids report is tainted" soapbox but otherwise a decent enough effort.

Pasty Dan

Shaughnessy must have been feeling a little pasty. He has returned to Florida to work on his tan and write about pasty college students who stand enamored of their big league heroes. (Last year he called them pasty white so a little variety is good) Not a bad article. And it is always nice to have a reference to Schilling holding court with the media.

Boston Globe Reductions

Chris and others on this blog have been predicting that pink slips were forthcoming at the Globe. Unfortunately, that is the case. Dan Kennedy, a visitor to this blog, has broken the new on his blog, Media Nation. Details are here:

http://medianation.blogspot.com/2008/02/at-globe-dear-colleagues.html

OB posted the recent quarterly profit line from the Globe...I guess his point was that all is rosey. Not so according to the Boston Globe publisher who says, "As you all know, these are difficult times in the newspaper business." Some good commentary at Dan's site,

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Picked this up on BSMW

Our friend Shaughnessy has picked up an award for his outstanding column writing. Results are here:

http://apse.dallasnews.com/2008/judging/022608writingresults.html

Wonder if he struck a deal with the devil?

What the hell?

Seriously, what the hell is he thinking? Is it time for an exorcism?

The one omission in today's column....Suddenly it's clear, the devil took over the Boston Globe sports department some 20 years ago and left his spawn at the keyboard leaving us all to suffer.


Otherwise, I won't dignify this inane rubbish.

Whither Dan?

Where is Dan? Last spring when Shaughnessy shoowed up to spring training, he wrote articles for about 18 days in a row. I thought we would get more of the same when Dan started this spring. Dan wrote a few pieces but they have abruptly stopped. Why would they send him on a Florida assignment and then have sit there and contribute nothing? [Insert punchline here.] Did they pull him back to the mothership? Did they finally come to their senses?

Skip the Middleman

Faced with threats of irrelevancy, one might expect Dan to work harder and produce work that provides a unique perspective for his readers. Instead, Dan either lashes out with vitriolic attacks or produces columns that are little more than transcripts of press conferences.

Today, in a tribute to his capitulation, Dan combines the vitriol with the laziness.

The column is ostensibly about John Henry, but Dan manages to twist it around to his white whale, Curt Schilling, leading with a couple of shots at Schilling and a Patriots/Matt Walsh reference. Just the type of stuff you would expect.

What is most striking about the column, though, is how unnecessary Dan is. You can skip the middleman and decide for yourself. Boston.com has a video of the Curt Schilling interview session, which the Boston Globe was not invited to. The reader can watch the video and make her mind up about Schilling's attitude. No longer does she need to rely on Dan's dubious characterization that Schilling is "mad at the ball club." Further, outside of the shots at Schilling, the column is just a straight rehash of Henry's statements. A transcript posted on a blog could easily take the place of most of Dan's column. It would probably be a whole lot cheaper for the struggling NY Times Empire, too.

A Welcome Change of Pace

After a boring transcription of a Theo press conference, a rambling, illogical mess, and an unwarranted, illogical personal attack, Dan loses the vitriol and works to craft an actual well thought out column.

Too bad that there isn't much to say about Josh Beckett that we already don't know. As Dan points out, Beckett doesn't provide many interesting quotations for the press to run with. The best quotation is provided by Theo Epstein, who said "It's OK for a pitcher to be a little bit of a [expletive] on the mound."

Schilling Obsession Kicks into High Gear

I wonder if Curt Schilling sleeps well at night? I wonder if in the middle of the night he wakes up and sees two beady little eyes in the corner and asks himself, "Is that a rat?" "Oh no, " he mutters to himself, "that's just Dan Shaughnessy."

Shaughnessy's hyper obsession of the Big Lug kicks into high gear this morning as he questions the breakdown of of Schilling's shoulder just months after Schilling signed an $8M contract. While Shaughnessy raises some legitimate questions, in its whole, it is a totally irresponsible and reckless piece of journalism. At its core, there is the hallmark of Shaughnessy: a failure to do a lick of research....Schilling won't talk to him; there is no insight offered by the team; there is no analysis offered by the medical community....but that doesn't stop Shaughnessy from putting this piece of garbage together. Shaughnessy just fills the gap by pontificating, speculating and ripping...

- He hints that Schilling knew his shoulder was hurt before he even signed the contract because he so readily grabbed the Sox lowball offer. This is a really cheap shot--just to casually question someone's ethics like that

- He complains that Schilling has been shaking hands with politicians and cutting ribbons at supermarkets but that he can't throw a ball across the infield.

- He suggests that Schilling hurt his shoulder after signing the contract by doing something non baseball related (blogging or reaching for a doughnut...oh that's a good one, Dan)

- Of course, Shaughnessy is critical of Schilling's methods for communicating to the public...between the blog and paid appearances on the radio.*

(*Is it not ironic that this comes one day after the NESN article in which Shaughnessy complains about the media exposure of the Red Sox but only to be feasting like a pig from the trough himself? Schilling is no more of a media whore than Shaughnessy is. Seriously, how nice it must be for Shaughnessy to moonlight like this--he should be focused on his primary job as columnist but he is too busy filling the airwaves himself. Maybe if he took time to research instead of finding new ways to collect a paycheck, we would not be treated to this crap day after day. )

Shaughnessy lays this whole bloody mess at the feet of Schilling. No blame for the Red Sox? After all, they are the ones who signed him to the contract knowing that his velocity was down; they did not insure his contract; they did a physical and pressed ahead anyway. They had to know it was a gamble and they pressed ahead anyway. There are two parties to a contract and because one side is Schilling, Shaughnessy puts his blinders on and fires away.

In the end, this was an amateurish hack job. In the ultimate irony....Shaughnessy, the media whore himself, is spread too thin with writing books and showing up on TV to be capable of writing a legitimate piece. I wonder if Shaughnessy wakes up in the middle of night and sees the beady eyes of a monster in the corner and thinks to himself "That must be the Big Lug" before he realizes that he is just looking in the mirror.

Red Sox: All Day and All Night

Dan writes in disbelief that the Red Sox sprint training workouts are being now aired on NESN. The only thing missing from today's column are shots at the grown men wearing Schilling jerseys and/or tuning in from Ma's basement. On the other hand, we are treated to a shot at Schilling's blog for the umpteenth time--Shaughnessy is forever fixated on the Big Lug and it is going to be a sad day when Schilling retires. Wouldn't it be nice if they rode into the sunset together?

Dan uses the column again as a vehicle to show how wildly popular the Red Sox have become but he suggests that the whole experience will be hollow. In my mind, it boils down to economics - supply and demand. NESN wouldn't do this unless they felt there was a demand for it. I am sure a lot of New Englanders (after a cold winter and continued talk of Spygate) will tune in to feast on the first signs of spring. After all, there is a magical element to spring training. If the numbers don't pan out, they won't do it anymore--it's really as simple as that.

Basically, standard Shaughnessy fare...Dan's article is replete with all the Shaughnessy classics - references to parades in Groton; the digs on Schilling and other wonderful cultural references. CHB elevates his hipness quotient by suggesting that the Sox are more popular than Hannah Montana. I liked that one.

Spring Break Training With Dan

If today's column is any measure, get ready for an impressive chronicle of the Red Sox spring training.

Dan basically uses two-thirds of his column to transcribe Theo Epstein's opening press conference. The rest if filler with gratuitous shots all around.

I liked this line the best:

"Theo has earned this good will. He was right about the Sox' prospects last year."

You wouldn't be referring to Dustin Pedroia, would you Dan?

Oh No!

Dan's take on the story that you cannot shake.

Fearless Dan concludes that both McNamee and Clemens lied, that both had bad performances. Bold stuff you won't get anywhere else.

And Dan manages to get this wrong:

"Pettitte's deposition shreds Clemens's story. Under oath, Pettitte told Congress that Clemens admitted using HGH. Twice. Pettitte said he relayed the conversations to his wife. Mrs. Pettitte recalls the conversations and said so in her affidavit.

Well, as Dan's colleagues over at the NYT reported Pettitte testified about a single conversation with Clemens, which Roger later disputed according to the affidavit.

Dan Just Doesn't Get it

Today, Dan engages in a discussion that thousands of New England sports fans have been doing all week...trying to rank the Patriots loss in the Super Bowl in the list of all-time worst moments in Boston sports history. He writes this column just a week after prematurely trying to place the Pat's season in the tops of all time list.

Dan ultimately concludes that despite the fan's vote which puts this at the top, he would actually put it behind the Sox infamous troika (1986, 1978, 2003) . His premise is that the Patriots have had inordinate success, already winning three Super Bowls this century. No big deal he claims....the Pats have had a great number of years. He does not seem capable of grasping of why Patriots fans are so disconsolate - you have a chance at perfection--a chance to do what no team has ever done...you lived through the ups and downs and the close calls where the Patriots had everything go their way...you get within two minutes of victory....and then poof, it is gone. The Patriots will win many more games in the future and we can hope for a few more Super Bowl victories but the opportunity for perfection like this? An infinitesimal chance. Not only that, the Patriots have almost come a punchline -- how many times will Patriots fans hear "You cheaters got what you deserved!"

Prior to 2004, the Red Sox were lovable losers--so as bad as their defeats were, you could lean on the sympathy from not only fellow Red Sox fans but from many others who could sympathize like long suffering Cubs fans. It's not this way with the Patriots - people seem to genuinely hate the Patriots and this loss gives them ammo--plenty of it to rub Pat's fans faces in it.

A few other points

- Full disclosure: This past week I myself did a rack and stack of the worst moments in Boston history in an email exchange with a friend and I ranked the 78 and 86 Sox ahead of this year's Patriots. I think this owes mostly to the fact that I was much younger when those occurred and thus much more nostalgic. (I also place the 76 Pats team loss to the Raiders near the top of my list)

- Of course Dan has to make reference to Schilling and the question of how ugly his dispute with the Red Sox will be. Guess he has not read the recent articles which claim that Schilling really seems to have come around to the Sox way of thinking

- Whoever patted Dan on the head and said "Good Boy" when Dan coined the phrase "Bill Belichick's History Boys" should be shot

A Super Special Picked Up Pieces

A Dan staple is back. It is hard to believe that he was holding back these tidbits. It has all his staples.

It All Comes Back to the Red Sox

No column about the Patriots can be complete without the requisite Red Sox references. Because sports fans in New England cannot understand anything without somehow relating it to Red Sox history.

What Can You Say?

Dan has the recap of the awful turn of events. Not a very interesting take.

Blah, blah, blah

This morning's entry attempts to set the stage for today's big game. It almost sounds like it is written for the uninitiated...those people who woke up this morning and for the first time in a year decided to check the sports pages because they heard something about the local football team playing in a big game today. Nothing original , nothing insightful...We get such analysis and tidbits such as this:

"The Patriots are expected to put a lot of points on the board."

"Patriots fans expect New England to score early and often"

"The Patriots have a lot of players who have been here before."

"[Eli] Manning is the younger brother of Patriots nemesis Peyton Manning"

"The Patriots...attempt to become only the second team in NFL history to complete a season without a loss (the 1972 Miami Dolphins finished 17-0)"

Holy cow - what a waste of space! Absolutely nothing original. Compare this to Kevin Paul Dupont's article on Bill Belichick and ask yourself if Dan is capable of writing a piece like that?

Spygate Revisited (Bravo Dan)

Dan writes about the curious re-emergence of the spygate scandal. In a rare instance, I think I agree with every single point that Dan makes and he articulates a number of points that were percolating in my mind. Brings out some interesting stories about Sen Specter being a regular caller to sports radio call in shows. It is an excellent article in my humble opinion.

Later today, I need to go back to do a little research because I don't think Dan has always had this perspective on Spygate but again, I appreciate his perspective this AM.

DM

The Great Debate

As the Patriots' march into the history books enters its final steps, Dan opens the debate of "greatest story ever" of a New England area sports team/athlete. It is a meandering article that covers a lot of familiar ground. Yet, it is a thoughtful article in that Dan does not beat the reader over the head with his answer -- in which he narrows the debate between the 2004 Red Sox and the 2007 Patriots and then seems to imply that his answer would be the 2004 Sox.

He does wander though from point to point. (Attention deficit perhaps? Or just lazy writing?) Early in the article, Shaughnessy calls the area a baseball area first and foremost and points out that the Patriots were not even invented until 1960, casually dismissing the grip of the Pats on the locals. He contrasts this to Pittsburgh which is such a strong football town. But later he acknowledges that the Patriots have done many things to captivate the fans and almost (but not quite) puts the Pats on equal footing.

In the end, however, I think this article would have been better served next week in the aftermath of a victory or defeat. It's premature speculation.

More Dan

Dan has the Plaxico Burress comment and the Patriots' reaction.

An Insightful and Original Column

Reading back that headline makes me laugh.

A google news search of "media day" and "super bowl" returns over 1,400 hits, a lot of which highlight the bizarre going ons. Dan mentioned Media Day as a circus twice yesterday. What does the bravest columnist write about today? The craziness that is Media Day.

Dan slips in a cute little comment about the weather, also. Fans despise hearing sports media members bitch about their situation while getting to cover the Super Bowl. Dan knows that and slips in a few sly references to the cold weather ("I wonder if he/she is cold"). Cute, Dan. You could be up here covering the Bruins.

Chat Wrap (or A Look Back at Dan Doing the Least Amount of Work in Order to Justify His Week in Arizona)

pesky4prez__Guest_
Hey Dan! Enough about Brady's foot. Enough about Moss's legal issues. Enough about girlfriends in the crowd. What is the biggest "football" issue nobody is talking about? I think the Giant's secondary -or lack thereof - is what will decide the game. Agreed?

Dan_Shaughnessy
you may be right. we don't know what the biggest football issue will be -- could be the giants running game vs. the pats old cagey linebackers. but there will be a lot of nonsense in the two weeks in between games -- none more than today at media day

Those are the words of Boston's Bravest Columnist. Basically, "I don't know." He's a columnist, he is paid to have opinions and that is what he comes up with.


I have said this before, but I don't understand how people are smart enough to find their way into a boston.com chat and ask halfway decent football questions and yet cannot realize the futility of asking Dan anything other than what Tom Brady had for breakfast or what Belichick said at a press conference attending by scores of other media members.

You can post your favorite answers in the comments below.

Dan on Belichick

Dan comments on the "different" Belichick that is on display in Arizona.

It's a look at Belichick's press conferences this week in which he seems to be revealing a more playful attitude.

The highlight of the article, though, is Dan's mention of a NYT article from yesterday. A good read about Belichick's memories of his time working for the New York Giants.

Dan Writes About His Crush

Dan loves talking about Tom Brady. Dan plays it cute, though. He mocks the New York media coverage of Brady, but it shows through that Dan really is interested in knowing what Brady ate during his stay in New York. Dan, what did you tell us about holding up athletes as heroes?

Another History Lesson

Today, Dan writes about Belichick and Coughlin's time together on the staff of Bill Parcells' New York Giants. Parcells provides a few quotes, nothing very revealing. Both are serious minded and don't talk much.

If you look at it more closely, the relationship reveals itself to be less interesting. Belichick was the defensive coordinator and spent over ten years either working with or for Parcells. Coughlin was a wide receivers coach and spent three years with Parcells. I am sure much more will be made out of these three seasons in two men's 30+ year careers.

All He Needed Was A Litttle Time

Dan has a full day to write a story and it shows. This little piece comes with a point. Dan gives us the history of the Giants-Patriots rivalry, making an interesting connection between it and the Harvard-Yale rivalry.

The piece includes an interesting story about the opening night of Schaefer Stadium and the history of the Giants in New England.

Dan Has Got Something to Tell You

People accuse Dan of being lazy, holding grudges, and displaying faulty logic. But most recognize that Dan can write well, regardless of the underlying sentiment or point. Today's column made me rethink that belief.

The Globe Sports' featured columnist (I cannot believe it either) begins the column with a series of one-, two-, or three-sentence paragraphs. Dan uses the word "history" six times in the first half of his column. A terrible, boring read, repeating the same thought over and over. The Patriots are close to perfection and making history, we all know that Dan. One of the most momentous occasions in Boston sports' history is celebrated with this bland recap. Why does the Globe do this to us?

Picked up useless pieces of trivia

Dan's "Picked Up Pieces" are not typically founts of knowledge, but today's example of lazy journalism is particularly empty. When the third item is that the Fenway Coke Bottles will be moved before next season, there isn't a whole lot of meat on those bones.

Dan leads by stating that Pats fans should have rooted for the Colts to win last Sunday, stating "Wouldn't that be like beating Derek Jeter and Friends en route to the 2004 World Series win?" A lamer argument has never been made. You play the teams you play. All that matters is winning the Super Bowl.

After an item revealing Shank's subconscious xenophobia ("Those foreigners with their hard to pronounce names. How wacky!"), an item about two things nobody cares about (Boston Magazine and Charlie Jacobs), Dan states he found out why he is not going to Beijing to cover the Olympics. Is it because CHB shows no interest in any other sport than basketball and has no interest in learning about or appreciating any other sport? Of course not! That would mean Shank is much more self aware than he has ever shown himself to be. Rather its because Dan is too critical for the sensibilities of the Chinese government. Funny joke, Dan.

Dan goes on to finish up with his typical flotsam: a dig at sabermetrics; a lot of items about people you don't know or care about; and dated references.

I made it to the end of the piece because that's my job, that's what I do, but I challenge any of you to get past the fourth item. Good luck!!

Multiple Recaps

The Globe sent its press corps in full force to Foxboro last night...Dan writes what appears to be one of two game recaps...there is one by Gasper and there is Shank's. I think the editors got bored with Shaughnessy's because they go with his recount up through the first drive of the second half and then the article is mysteriously truncated with a classic Shank ending, "Bring on the [insert team name here]" I doubt they intended Shank to write a game recap and maybe once they realized what he was doing, they cut him off and decided to end it peacefully.

Nevertheless, we are treated to Shaughnessy classics...the aforementioned "Bring on the X"; a reference to the Red Sox; the use of "History Boys"; a use of "Mssrs", and a description of how the hoodie was worn.

Jim Rice, again

It has been an extra special Christmas season for Dan. He can repeatedly blather on about two topics, Roger and Roids; and Rice and the Hall of Fame.

Today it is a combination of the two.

I don't think Rice belongs in the HoF. Too many mediocre or stinker seasons ('80-'81; '87-'89), too short of a career, and an unimpressive defensive reputation. But Dan will say anything and throw out any stat to support Rice's campaign.

He was the dominant slugger of his time, a man capable of inducing an intentional walk when the bases were loaded. He amassed more than 400 total bases when he was MVP in 1978. He hit 35 homers with 200 hits in three straight seasons. He was more feared that Tony Perez, who is in the Hall of Fame.

That statement says it all. He was feared, he had three very good seasons. But that is it. Jim Rice may have been the dominant slugger of the late '70s, but when do players get into the Hall based on three seasons? Mike Schmidt was the dominant slugger over Rice's career.

Dan tops it all off by stating that Rice "knows he was a better hitter than former teammates Perez and Wade Boggs."

Two things:
1) If Dan thinks that Rice was a better hitter than Boggs, he has lost all credibility regarding baseball analysis.
2) The argument "If player A is in the Hall, than Player B should be" is tremendously weak and would lead to absurd results. Every player needs to be considered individually and not against the worst selections in the Hall.

Dan ends with more Roger bashing. Yawn.

Roger Clemens, Take 3

With the publication of the Mitchell Report, Dan supported Roger. A few days later, Dan was disbelieving.

After last night's "60 Minutes" interview, Dan thinks Roger "looks dirty." Well, if he says so!

I didn't see it. And I don't get the overall criticism of his performance. He is doing what sportswriters always clamor for, an athlete stepping up and facing his accusers without hiding behind lawyers or written statements. Now that Roger does it, he looks guilty. You can spin it any way. If you believe Roger is guilty of the accusations, then you think he sounded or looked guilty.

TV Watching

Dan explores how a few of the Patriots will spend the weekend watching NFL playoff games.
Even by the low standards Dan has previously established, today's column is particularly bad.

This is one of these columns where you have got to wonder if Globe management and senior editors ask themselves, "Is this really the guy we give top billing to?" As a reader, I find myself constantly asking "How is it possible that a person be paid so handsomely for producing such mindless and condescending drivel?" Heck, I imagine that even Objective Bruce is sitting back thinking, "Not even I can defend this piece of garbage".

Shaughnessy criticizes Belichick for being evasive about his plans for watching this weekend's games after Belichick says yeah "I'll definitely watch it..." How is that evasive? Just because Coach Bill can't/won't describe where he is going to watch the game, Shaughnessy rips him. Shank, while it may be the case that you have loads of time to plan your game watching, does it occur to you that Belichick has a few more higher priorities than you and hasnt given much though to where he will watch the game? Can you blame Belichick for being a smart ass?

Shaughnessy concludes with one of his typical condescending, insult the reader lines when he says:

So there. This weekend you are just the same as Richard Seymour. You are glued to the TV, watching football. Your heroes are doing the same thing as you. If you are a Patriots fan, this should make you feel warm all over.

If you have read Shaughnessy long enough, you know he despises when adults worship professional athletes (his constant criticism of 40 year olds who wear Schilling jerseys). In this context, Shaughnessy's last line is just another in a long line of sarcastic jabs at his readers
--By the way, Dan, I am a Patriots fan and it does not make me feel warm all over when you tell me that professional football players watch professional football games on TV--is this some great revelation on your part?

What is really ironic is that once again Dan makes a jab at his readers for their hero worship and yet he writes a column that perpetuates a characterization of athletes as being a different breed -doesnt the fact that he feels compelled to describe the TV watching habits of pro athletes feed this hero worship fire?

Tomorrow's News Today

Dan trying his best to be funny.

You can be the judge.

Before you read it, try to think of all the Dan cliches that will be present. I don't think you will be disappointed

History!

Dan provides the game story from the Patriots record-setting, history-making win over the Giants. Why Dan gets to lead the coverage is puzzling but then again, I sort of expected it.

As of 0934, the online version of the story had at least three typos/missed words...that is really more the editor's fault than it is Dan's though. Will see if they clean that up.

Shaughnessy's recap is fair enough but it is filled with the classic Shaughnessy formula.

- Calls the Patriots "Bill Belichick's History Boys"

- Bruce Springsteen reference or was it a mafia reference? (He liked that Boss scored a touchdown before half and says always "Beware of Boss in the Meadowlands")...

- Got a good rip in on Moss for the excess celebrating after the first TD. I agree with Shaughnessy to a large extent - I despise showboating but is Shaughnessy reaching by blaming the ensuing Giant's TD kickoff return on Moss's penalty?

- A reference to the Grumpy Old Men (72 Dolphins) and no champagne for them. If the Patriots are fortunate enough to win the SB, I hope that puts to end all champagne references for eternity. (Heaven forbid we hear about the Sons of Belichick sipping champagne in 2037)

Dave M

Dan and the Hall of Fame

Dan presents his votes for Cooperstown. Jim Rice's bona fides are the focus of the article.

There has already been some debate on the subject in the previous comments section and baseballthinkfactory.org has many threads on the issue. My point of view is that Jim was a great slugger for a while, but he was not the dominant offensive force over an extended period that makes a player great. Combine that with an average defensive reputation, you get a very good player, not a Hall of Famer.

Dan mentions that the presence of McGwire on the ballot will affect voters' perception of Rice. I sure hope not as it would be more proof of the stupidity of baseball writers. If Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer now, he was one back in 1994. It shouldn't have changed because of what a bunch of players have done over the last 10 years.

Grumpy Old Men

As the Dolphins prepare to visit New England this weekend and as the Patriots prepare to eclipse the regular season perfect mark of 14-0, Shaughnessy dusts off the tired old tale of the grumpy/champagne-cork popping curmudgeons of the NFL's only perfect team, the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

The only freshness in an otherwise stale piece is the perspective of some of the ex-Dolphins on the Patriots (Seau and Evans) as they discuss how the streak is viewed in Miami. Also, he does discuss how Belichick has great respect for the 72 team and that he had dinner with Shula in the off-season.

In a typical Shaughnessy closing line convention, he concludes "But Belichick and the Patriots know that it's going to take 19-0 to overtake the '72 fish." Thanks for the insight.

Dan Brings It

Get Dan interested in something and he usually writes a decent column. Today is no exception.

Although, today is another in a string of Celtics column in which Dan devotes larges chunks of them to telling stories about Red. The stories are usually interesting, but they often come across as space fillers and a chance for Dan to show off how much he knows about the dearly departed.

Sometimes he doesn't know whether he's coming or going.

It took Dan less than a week to flip flop on his opinions regarding the Mitchell Report and, specifically, Roger Clemens.

12/14/07:

"There was much gum-flapping after the release of the report, and debate will rage forever. No one will be satisfied, but here in Boston and across Baseball America, we know the biggest loser of Dec. 13, 2007, was Roger Clemens.

The Rocket's résumé was flushed down the toilet yesterday when he was dimed out by a report that relies heavily on witnesses of questionable credibility. The report holds that Clemens was a steroid guy, starting in 1998 and continuing through two years with the Yankees (2000-01). The juicy disclosure might not hold up in court...

Clemens sounds like a man ready to fight. He didn't have an ounce of Mark McGwire in him when he issued his denial last night through his attorney....

Why name names? Why sign on to such an obviously incomplete report (Mitchell did not have subpoena powers and almost 100 percent of the ballplayers told him to take a hike)? Why put so much weight on the testimony of a former bat boy and a onetime trainer who cooperated under the threat of prison time?"

12/19/07:

"The walls were closing in. Roger Clemens had to do something. Going all McGwire on us wasn't going to get him out of this one.

Fraud. Cheat. Liar. Hypocrite. Juicer. Clemens in the last week emerged as the five-tool player of the Mitchell Report.

First he was dimed out by Brian McNamee, a former trainer who had nothing to gain and much to lose (prison time) by lying to George Mitchell....

It's more than Mark McGwire ever did, but it's hardly a threat to sue the pants off Mitchell and McNamee. We are left to wonder when, precisely, comes "the appropriate time" for Clemens to answer questions. Will that be when O.J. starts looking for the real killer?"

Why the flip-flop? Dan mentions a NYT article that states that McNamee faces criminal prosecution if he lied in his statements to Mitchell. However, the Report stated clearly that "[d]uring each of the interviews, the law enforcement officials warned him [Brian McNamee] that he faced criminal jeopardy if he made any false statements." [Page SR-21]

I guess Dan missed the widely known fact that McNamee participated as part of his plea deal.

Plugging Along

Dan has to write a column and this is what we get.

He starts inauspiciously by discussing the handshake and it is all downhill from there. A Roger Clemens reference and an "Animal House" reference make this classic Shank.

What Will Dan Write?

Everybody's favorite game:

What cliched, uninformative piece regarding the Mitchell Report will Shank come up with tomorrow?

My quick guess: Lots of Roger references, something about why did Gagne stop, and a bunch of references along the lines of "the immortal Paxton Crawford."

More .....

Dan leads with "We wrote this story back in..."

If there were ever a more fitting lead to a Shank column, well I never saw it.

Actually, Dan rehashes a tired subject with a a good reference. The comparison with the Muhammad Ali-Ernie Terrell fight was interesting and illuminating.

Stuck On Repeat

Dan, always known to work a well until it is bone dry, goes back to the perfect season angle, which he wrote about ... the day before.

And it is equally as boring with equally bad references.

As monkeesfan pointed out, Dan writes about this off the field crap because he cannot put the work into describing and analyzing what goes on the field. He probably spends the game thinking of Seinfeld references and waiting for the press conference to get all the quotations to fill out his space.

No Guarantees

Dan writes about the guarantee foolishness from the Pittsburgh Steelers. The column itself is okay....nothing remarkable. Shaughnessy takes no shots at Coach Hoodie which is a nice change of pace. Shaughnessy is guilty of his typical hyperbole when he claims that if the Steelers win, Anthony Smith will become the boldest young gun since Joe Namath made his famous guarantee for Super Bowl III. Are you kidding me? The comparisons here are incredibly weak: Let's see, we have one team's star quarterback (Namath) versus a little known defender? A Super Bowl game versus a regular season game? A game in which the Jets were given little hope versus a game in which the Steelers are widely perceived as having an excellent chance of winning. An era where guarantees were not everyday pedestrian fodder versus an era where guarantees seem to be made every month (Hello Gilbert Arenas and the Washington Wizards). There is a huge difference between Namath and Smith.

I have a bigger issue with all the attention this story has received nationally and am surprised by the legs that it has had. What does a guarantee mean anyway? Is Smith going to give back his salary if they don't win? For that matter, did Gilbert Arenas really take a hit in the reputation department when the Wizards lost to the Celtics despite his guarantee? Do the Patriots really derive that much motivation from the words of a second year DB (and as Shaughnessy points out, the kid really kind of meandered into this statement--it wasnt the boldest proclamation in the world)

Here is my guarantee - Sunday's game will be a good one. Let it play out on the field and enough of this foolishness.

Charm City

The Patriots pull off a win more reminiscent of the 2003 season than this season and Dan has the recap.

Nice column, not much too add. I am just waiting for Dan to dump all over any (non)trade the Red Sox make.

Brighton's Championship Season

Today, Shaughnessy has a piece on Brigton's high school football championship season. They have gone from 0-9 three years ago to 12-0 this year. All the while, they have had to deal with the indignities of playing Division 4 high school to include the most recent slight of their game not being played at Gillette; all of the other state title games were played at Gillette.

Shaughnessy typically does a good job with these articles. When he has the opportunity to paint a sympathetic tale of a team or person overcoming adversity and obstacles, he is effective. He does a good job of painting the picture (for instance, detailing the long commutes of some of the players) and he taps into quotes from the players who best represent the team's spirit. This article is typical of a good Shaughnessy feel good story.

Shaughnessy will run sometimes afoul in these kinds of articles when 1) he gets overly preachy; 2) he starts drawing analogies with the local professional sports teams; or 3) he starts railing against the injustice of the "system". He refrains today and we are left with a pleasant read.

Edit Add: On a separate but related topic, last week Shaughnessy wrote about the Tri-County league--he blasted the rules that incentivized running up the score in the first half. I did a little statistical comparison between the 2006 and 2007 seasons to see if the numbers backed up this story. Took the game scores of the top 3 finishers in the league for 06 and 07. For these team's wins, the average margin of victory was 21 points in 2006 and 18 points in 2007. I then looked specificially at blowouts which I defined by a margin of victory of 20 points or greater. In 2006, the first half score contributed to 60% of the final margin of blowouts. In 2007, the first half
contributed to 76% of the final margin of blowouts. What does this suggest? Yes, in 2007, there was a larger run-up of scores in the first half...but overall "sportsmanship" really did not take a hit so to speak since the overall margin actually decreased. This is the kind of thing that would make Shaughnessy better--do the research to back up the emotional claims. Makes for a stronger story although I think Shank would also find that the stats would sometimes get in the way of a good story he is trying to spin--God forbid!

The Knicks Stink

Shaughnessy directs his criticism at a new target - the New York Knicks. He says they are a joke of an organization and I have to agree that he is right although this is not a startling relevation. It is amazing to me that Thomas still has a job. And thank goodness Dolan is not the owner of the Red Sox. I am shocked that Shaughnessy did not bring up Isiah Thomas' (in)famous line about Larry Bird..where Thomas claimed that if Bird was black that he would be just another good player.

You know it is easy to carp away at Shaughnessy's style. Perhaps I need to channel Belichick and realize that "It is what it is". Nevertheless, Shank does some things over and over again and you have to wonder if he has any new tricks up his sleeve...yet, it is obvious he doesn't. Some of these annoyances include:

- Multiple Red Sox and Patriots references to benchmark the success of the Celtics (the win against the Knicks was Belichickian) -- he cant resist bringing in the other local teams

- A backhanded compliment of Theo (Danny Ainge is almost as smart as Epstein)

- A continued lack of appreciation of basic economics. Calls the NFL Network "hideous". I realize many were angry about not being able to see the game last night but as an economist, I see this as a simple case of economic forces actively at work. Shaughnessy calling the NFL Network hideous is very much a childish/ignorant reaction in my humble opinion

High Scool Football

For the past couple of days, Dan has been taking on high school sports. Today's article focuses on the complex tie breaking rules in the Dual County League in which Lincoln-Sudbury, Acton-Boxboro and Wayland finished in a three-way tie but only Wayland advances because of a perverse tie-breaking system which gives incentive to running up the score in the first half. Not living in the local area, I am admittedly removed from the ins and outs of local high school football but I tend to agree that the system as Dan describes it needs to be changed. That being said, what were league officials thinking in the first place when they approved such a rule set in the first place?

If you haven't read the article but I give you the hint above that these high rules give incentive to run up the score, can you guess which point of reference Shaughnessy will introduce? You betcha - let's take a few swipes at Belichick and the Patriots. Shaughnessy does not disappoint here. By the way, I think Shaughnessy is convinced that Belichick originated and is almost the exclusive user of the phrase "It is what it is" ...I dont know Shank but I hear that phrase used all the time.

Finally, Shaughnessy brings up a reference to game theory..it is an odd reference in that he says "if you have memorized...game theory...." (then you might be able to understand the tiebreaker system). My point: You dont memorize game theory, you comprehend it.

An Open Letter to Objective Bruce

Dear Objective Bruce

You are always welcome to post comments on this webpage. You definitely bring a different point of view and we appreciate that. Yet, you sometimes make points which are either flawed logically or are otherwise erroneous. In so doing, you often make disparaging comments about this page’s bloggers. We often call you on these points but you inevitably fail to respond. Let’s look at two recent examples:

1. DBVader has repeatedly called on you to admit your error regarding a recent column in which you claimed a reference did not exist but DB showed definitively that it did. He has asked you about this repeatedly and you have not responded.
2. On this past Sunday’s blog entry, I claimed that Shaughnessy was being hypocritical in criticizing Schiling’s Cy Young contract clause while at the same time Shaughnessy pushed the work of his fellow Globe writers. You claimed that this was a poor comparison and you called me naïve and you called my agenda silly.

Specifically, you said:

How incredibly naive.

No, Schilling isn't going to share his million dollar bonus with a sportswriter who throws him a vote. But with a million on the table, can it be said that Schilling won't be friendly toward a sportswriter who could give him a vote? Doesn't giving a sportswriter the opportunity to single-handedly increase someone's income by a million dollars also give that sports writer greater access and give the player an incentive for giving information to that writer -- and not just information about the team but, oh say maybe information about what happened in a close-door clubhouse meeting?

The conflict of interest could not be more clear. It is truly naive if you can't see the difference between placing a reporter in a position where he can make someone that he covers a million dollars richer and praising a book by a colleague.

Now, I started to break your statement down in the blog response section but since you generally don’t respond to those, let’s do some detailed analysis of the absolute absurdity of your comment above and let’s do it on the front page.

You question the wisdom of giving a sportswriter the opportunity to single-handedly increase someone’s income by a million dollars. First of all, I would suggest that this goes on all of the time but it is not in such a direct form. I am certain that athletes give certain reporters access that they don’t give to others. What is the payoff? Favorable coverage of course. Favorable coverage translates into improved public relations perceptions of that player which means things such as more lucrative endorsements which means lots of dollars. I imagine certain players are absolute masters of this. Can you refute this Bruce?

Bruce, you talk about players giving reporters insight into the team behind closed doors. You imply this is a bad thing. Please complete this sentence, Bruce: “This is bad because….”

In my line of thinking, it is bad if 1) if the reporter does not provide a fair assessment of that player –in other words, he gives him an unjustified free pass or 2) if the reporter blatantly does something like provide an unjustified Cy Young vote to a player who clearly does not deserve it. We already discussed the fact that 1) probably happens to some degree—whether it is a deliberate act by the reporter or if the reporter does not even realize that he or she is being a pawn. I would sincerely hope that a reporter would not be so weak as to be manipulated like this—but I guess I would not be surprised either. After all,I do recall Shaughnessy's review of Larry Bird’s new line of wine a while back – Bruce, do you think that little column increased sales of Bird’s wines? What's the difference here, Bruce?

The second case (casting an unjustified Cy Young vote as a form of payback) is much more blatant – and because it is so blatant, it would play out in the court of public opinion. The reporter would likely be revealed and censured – his integrity would be under attack. Why risk this? The player would also come off incredibly poorly—would it really be worth it to the player being portrayed as manipulative to cash in on a contract clause that has marginal impact on his salary? At any rate, things have a way of self corrrecting when they are made public like this – it is the power of the market of public opinion.

What is Shaughnessy’s solution? “Let’s take the vote away from the writers.” That is pure brilliance. Does Shaughnessy really have such little faith in his fellow sportswriters to think they need to be saved from their collective incompetence? Look around Bruce…people all around the world are in positions of power – in these positions of power , they are often in a position to be bribed. By logical extension, Shaughnessy would have you believe that the solution to this would be to remove them from their positions of power. I can hear it now, “Sorry Congressman, we need to remove you from your position because you might get bribed.” If this were the solution, would anything in the world get done? Shaughnessy’s solution is absurd to its very core and it is also a slap in the face of his fellow sportswriters.

Switching gears here, let’s look at the old cronyism in the sportswriting profession in which someone like Shaughnessy endorses the work of his fellow employees at the Globe. I am perhaps guilty of hyperbole in suggesting that these guys are sharing royalties but I am trying to make a point. What if instead, there is a tacit agreement between the writers “I will give you a favorable push if you return the favor down the road.” This is intellectually dishonest especially when it is the case that a particular writer’s work doesn’t merit a push. I, as a reader, may be deceived because a given columnist (who I thought I trusted) did not provide an intellectually honest opinion about a fellow journalist because he is engaging in tit for tat endorsements. I would suggest this is just as bad as the abuses that can play out in the athlete/sportswriter relationship discussed earlier. Why doesn’t Shaughnessy suggest the ban of these endorsements? Because he's too busy doing it and does not realize the utter hypocrisy of it all.

Our agenda is not silly. Shaughnessy is paid big dollars to write for a major newspaper. His work is often fundamentally flawed and we have every right to call him on that. The readers of the Boston Globe deserve much better than Dan Shaughnessy’s mindless drivel.

Did Shaughnessy take over Bob Ryan's blog?

I think Shank is jealous of bloggers and he staged a covert operation to take over Bob Ryan's blog...see this post about Schilling

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/bob_ryan_blog/


Sounds a lot like this recent blast from the past from Shank himself

Ryan even calls him a big lug and blowhard.

Hypocrisy and other nonsense

Today, Shank meets his quarterly requirement to have a picked up pieces column—

With the Celtics doing well and with a roster of what seem to be “good guys”, I was wondering what angle Shank would take with the Celts to spew sarcasm…would it be a litany of “thanksdad” references? Rick Pitino hits? Or how about even Jesus Shuttlesworth mentions? Well, today, he uses one of his favorite techniques,,,,the “Let’s make travel dates for the XXX [insert league] finals” line…of course, this is dripping with sarcasm and a poke at the Celts euphoria since the Celts are but five games into the season.

Shaughnessy slams the provision in Schilling’s contract that gives him a $1 million bonus if he gets a single Cy Young vote. He claims that it will be easy for there to be collusion between Schilling and any particular sportswriter. He concludes that the BBWA should give up the vote because of the “blatant conflict” with clauses such as this. I guess this is to protect the sanctity of the sportswriting fraternity? Frankly, I don’t get the logic here. What is the conflict? It’s not like Schilling is going to share the money with the sportswriter, is he? That is not going to happen. If anything, I can see a NY based writer giving Schiling a vote to drive up the Sox payroll. If so, I think that would be pretty clever. In which case, I think economic market forces takes care of this issue – the Sox will realize the foolishness of such a clause and would not include it in future contracts. Problem solved.

So, while Shank gets on his high horse about “blatant conflicts”, he happily shills for a book by fellow Globe writer Neil Swidey-- a “tome” about Charlestown High School basketball. Hmmm, is there a conflict here Shank? You guys sharing royalties? Maybe it’s time for sportswriters to give up using their columns to push the work of fellow sportswriters? You are such a hypocrite.

More on conflicts, Shank rails against the fact that George Mitchell is heading the steroids probe while still being on the board of the Red Sox. This is a fair criticism except for the timing. Shank, Mitchell has been doing this probe for what, over a year now? And you are just now making this connection? Why are you just mentioning this now? My guess is that Shank is simply setting himself up for when the report comes out in January…if there are no Red Sox named, he can say “See I told you so.”

There are a few more annoyances in this disgraceful column. Read for yourself if you can stand it.

Why is everybody always picking on me?

Make games | Share | Play free online games | User Generated Games @ Pictogame

Sucking Lemon

"One thing we know they agree on is Schilling: thanks for the clutch work, big fella, now don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Speak for yourself CHB.

With the announcement that Schilling would be back another year, Dan has to suck on a lemon.

But Dan is happy to have his ignorance of the front office's inner workings exposed to be able to write about Schilling for another year.

"Love him or hate him, things are a lot more interesting and fun with the Big Blowhard around. Without Schill, we'd miss the blog, the nonstop promotion of his new company, the hard-hitting interviews/infomercials on WEEI, the butting into everyone else's business, the retraction of statements made about other people, and the eight or nine wins he's brought to the table in two of the last three seasons."

Because that is all that it is about. Picking on somebody you do not like for personal reasons. The sport is only secondary.

Also, notice the use of misleading statistics at the end. Dan overlooks the 200+ IP in 2006, doesn't mention that Dan was coming off of a severe injury in 2005, and ignores the fact that Schilling doesn't get paid in 2008 unless he hits the IP incentives. Facts are not Dan's strong point; invective is.

There are also some "cover his ass" bits, where Dan assumes certain things about the front office in order to make the signing more congruous with Dan's earlier statements. The Red Sox were "stunned by this development" and "played hardball and won." None of the accounts of the negotiations suggest either of these claims are true, but if they make Shank feel better.

Dan is trying hard

Day Two for Dan swearing off random mentions of the Red Sox in Patriots columns.

Otherwise, a piece about Belichick downplaying the significance of the game with a very special paragraph that contains a an obscure phrase ("take the apple") and a groan inducing pun.

Now on to the Pats

Now that the Sox season is over, Shaughnessy takes his worn out shtick to the Patriots.

Shaughnessy doesn't disappoint--this column comes replete with Celtics references and the dissing of Belichick's wardrobe (multiple hoodie references of course) and Belichick's favorite lines (It is what it is).

Of course, there is not a lot of insight. Key highlights

- Compares Brady/Manning to Russell/Chamberlain. But now that Manning has a SB and three straight wins over the Pats and Brady is putting up gaudy numbers, Russell has become Chamberlain and Chamerlain has become Russell. This is typical Shaughnessy hyperbole - Brady still has 3 SB wins, Shank and Manning only has 1

- Says that the image of the Pats has been forever altered by "spygate". They are no longer the darlings of high school coaches everywhere. Shank loves this storyline and he will continue to perpetuate it for many years.

- The Patriots are bad sports - they are on a mission to run up the score on everyone

All in all, we have classic Shank -- has he made any points that you havent heard multiple times elsewhere? His one "interesting" insight (Brady has become Chamerlain) is a stretch. Just for once, I would love for him to take a contrarian view and then back it up with strong facts. Just doesn't happen.

The one missing element - no Red Sox references - what gives?

Dan's Take

This is Dan's view on the Red Sox World Series win.

Again, Bob Ryan is second fiddle. I cannot imagine why Shank is the Number #1 writer on this staff.