Now He Is Just Trying to Annoy Me

This was the sixth sentence of Dan's column today:

The game was played in front of the largest Fenway crowd (39,067) since World War II, lasted 5 hours 19 minutes, and ended at 12:48 this morning when Jered Weaver - making the first relief appearance of his career - got Alex Cora to ground to third base.

Dan goes on to recap the game, highlighting the Angels' struggles to bring in the many baserunners they had last night.

Tito

Shaughnessy writes this morning that Terry Francona has done a wonderful job with the Red Sox but does not get the credit he deserves. A laudatory piece which has a nice perspective but also contains a few annoying Shank-isms:

- He talks about Francona's reaction to an MLB release which refers to him as Coach Francona vice the "manager". Shaughnessy says that true baseballers hate when managers are referred to as coaches. That is all good but this is pretty funny in a column when Shaughnessy refers to baseball's playoffs as a "tournament"...what idiot refers to the baseball playoffs as a tournament?

- He can't resist a dig at Belichick when he says "Just because Francona doesn't intimidate people or try to portray himself as a genius, is that any reason to diminish what the man has done?" Give it a rest Shank

- He talks about Francona's handling of Manny and how hard it must have been on him...this just two months after he ripped Francona for enabling Manny's behavior.

Have a good Sunday

Daily Double

Dan offers up two tasty treats today...

Dream Matchup

Its a Given

Both are horrid...more thoughts to follow later tonight

(Update/Edit, 10 pm Saturday:

Just a few more thoughts. Shaughnessy's game recap was more awful regurgitated crap. He must have been really proud of himself for the clever Dock of the Bay reference because he used it again today just as he did on Friday. He goes on and on about how the Angels cant beat the Red Sox in October just as he did on Friday. He starts off listing all the different types of balls (long ball, hard ball, soft ball, wiffle ball) a wonderfully clever technique that, oh by the way, he used on Friday (Doc Ellis, Doc Medich, Doc Rivers, Dr Phil). Add oh yeah some idiot apparently told Dan that the first series is a best of three because he has declared that all the first round series are over.

As for the dream matchup article (He is rooting for Red Sox Dodgers), it is premature crap. Also dredges up some favorite pot shots at folks like Nomar
Closing out for now...have a good night

Dave M

Dr Dan

Dr Dan takes the stand. He also plays the role of judge and jury. He testifies that the Red Sox are in the Angels heads. It is a familiar claim from our expert, being dusted off after just one playoff game. Shaughnessy actually mostly plays it straight (outside of the Dr Phil and Lucy references) and it is not a bad column. But it is one of those columns where you read it and say "I knew this was coming from him." He has become so predictable. He loves to explore the mind games. He also loves to make these declaratives after a single game or event. Some will say he is being "out front" and others will say this is more knee-jerk reaction from CHB. At this point, I'd say its knee jerk. Let the series play out and write this type of column in the post mortem of the entire series and not just the first game

Give It A Rest

Dan manages to incorporate all his favorite topics in today's column: Manny Ramirez, how late a game ends, and lame, dated song references.

It all leaves you wondering what Boston sports fans did to have Shank writing the front page pieces for the playoffs. At least Dan didn't write 90% of the column before the game and shoehorn some mention of the game into the piece.

Pure, unadulterated crap

Beckett has been the Bob Gibson of his generation and pretty much won the World Series for the Red Sox all by himself in 2007.

Seriously, should anybody read a columnist who makes the above claim? Lester, Schilling, Lowell, and JD Drew had something to do with the Red Sox World Series victory. Dan manages a couple of irrelevant Manny shots also.

Dan also provides a full column for Manny bashing. And at the height of laziness, it is a recap of column written by another hack.

Dan doesn't limit his bashing to Manny. He has some space for you poor delusional fans. After quoting Manny about the Boston atmosphere ("The fans in Boston got your back no matter what, but I'm talking about the people who write all this bull because it means so much to them. If your happiness depends on Boston winning or losing, you have to get a life."), Dan turns it on the fans.

There certainly are people in Boston whose happiness is connected to the Sox' fortunes. But it's not the "people who write this bull." Trust me when I tell you that Sox wins and losses have zero bearing on my happiness.

Yes, Dan is superior to you. He has evolved to such a level that he no longer cares. I don't care about his conclusion. The Red Sox winning doesn't have an affect on my happiness. It is Dan's sneering, condescending attitude that is despicable.

And Dan leaves us with one last bit of misinformation:

There are stars everywhere and you can have a drink at the Ritz with Enrique Wilson without being dimed out by some crazed LA fan.

Ignore the fact that Ramirez lived at the Ritz at the time and wasn't drinking adult beverages. Otherwise, it is a great story.

And EYE-E-EYE Will Always Love You-oo-woo-oo

Treat a guy to dinner and he will write page one love letters to you.

Dan offers a profile of John Henry and hits all the hot topics: Manny, Theo and Lucchino, Fenway. It is a little creepy at times as Dan goes overboard in his love for Henry, but an interesting read.

One thing I want to scream about:

Seven years in charge of the Red Sox has taught Henry that sometimes the numbers do lie. Sometimes you have to believe in your GM when he says that a 5-foot-6-inch kid named Dustin Pedroia is going to be a .300 hitter in the big leagues.

THE NUMBERS SAID HE WAS GOING TO HIT .300 IN THE BIG LEAGUES. Pedroia hit .308/.392/.453 in the minors with more extra base hits than strikeouts. It was idiots like Shank who looked at Pedroia and dismissed him out of hand because he was short. Pedroia was the ultimate numbers over scouting decision. Dan doesn't have a shred of self awareness.

That's Not Rain on the Red Sox Parade

Old Man Shaughnessy has a lecture today for all you young whippersnappers, those of you who don't know what it was like to suffer like him.

It starts off celebratory:

Five playoffs in six years. Not bad. Not bad at all.

Then he feels the need to provide us with a math lesson, for those of you too dense to realize what has happened in sports over the last few decades.

There was a time (as late as 1968) when only one of 10 teams in each league qualified for postseason play. That's two of 20. Today, it's eight of 30 making the playoffs - not quite like the old NHL, which took 16 of 21, but it's considerably easier than it was in the old days.

Then he has to tell us what it really was like to suffer.

Those of us who grew up in the 1950s and '60s remember the hungry years.

And reminds us of one of the great sports cliches.

So we are careful not to be too casual about this.

Yes, Dan. We all need to be reminded that the Celtics can have the third worst record in the NBA, that the Patriots can go 5-11, and that the Red Sox can be a dysfunctional mess under stagnant ownership and a weak general manager.

So Dan has established his moral authority over us. Now it's time to look down his nose at the players.

Having said all that, does anybody else find these early-accomplishment celebrations a little overdone?

The Red Sox have baseball's fourth-highest payroll. They had seven players in this year's All-Star Game. Do they really need to cover the lockers with plastic wrap and spray one another with champagne because they have officially qualified as one of the final eight teams in this year's tournament?

But Dan Dan does a quick 180 degree turn, quoting Terry Francona:

"Just because we've had success in prior years, I don't see why this group shouldn't celebrate what they've accomplished. We know we have more baseball to play."

To recap:

- Five playoffs in six years is good
- But it isn't all that special because it is easier to get in the playoffs
- You don't know what it is like to suffer like I do
- Still, others team don't come close to doing what the Red Sox have done
- The players shouldn't celebrate because they should have won
- The players should celebrate because Tito said so

I think there is a medical diagnosis for this type of behavior.

UGH

Dan has a column about the rout in Foxborough yesterday. Not as smug as you would think, but some cliched digs. A reference to the CBS Scene (get over it, Dan) and a ludicrous claim:

It's been well-documented that Belichick's genius seemed to start around the same time Brady became his quarterback.

Dan is just about a decade off. Belichick was the man behind the defense that shut down the Jim Kelly led Bills.

The Tuna

As the Miami Dolphins make their way to Foxborough today, Shaughnessy uses his space to discuss Bill Parcells and his latest reclamation project. For the first couple of paragraphs, it seems like Dan might play it straight and talk about Parcells and the Dolphins going forward but then it devolves into a somewhat angry look backward about Parcells, the Krafts, BB (the former HC of the NYJ), etc.

Since Parcells won't talk to him (or apparently to anyone in the media), Shaughnessy retraces well worn steps. One sentence up front immediately made me laugh:

He makes $4 million per year. He does whatever he wants and the owner leaves him alone. Pretty good work, if you can get it.

Revise the salary, change "owner" to "publisher" and Shaughnessy could be writing an autobiographical sketch.

Shaughnessy gets several digs in on the Krafts including a nasty little zinger where he asks if the Krafts are sitting on phone books when they watch the games. He also says it is conveniently ignored that it was James Orthwein who started the renaissance of the Patriots and not the Krafts. By whom?

After a string of a couple of nice articles here and there, Shaughnessy reverts to form....bitter and lazy but raking in a nice paycheck all the while. Pretty good work, if you can get it.

Holliston High

Shaughnessy writes about the heart-wrenching grief faced by the Holliston HIgh School football team after the very recent deaths of one of their players (who died after a scrimmage) and one of their honorary team members (a 10 year old who died of leukemia). It is a touching story and worth a read. Fortunately, he once against shows restraint and does not get on his soapbox. He will sometimes use stories like this to remind us about what's really important in life and how it puts the daily ups and downs of the Red Sox and Patriots into perspective. Thankfully he resists that temptation and it is worth a read as a result.

Sunshine and Bliss on Yawkey Way

Dan is getting the word out: Everybody in the Red Sox front office is getting along just fine.

Dan is just like a poodle on Lucchino's leash. He barks when Larry tells hims to and sits when told. No "Theo and his minions" or snide remarks about age and how Theo owes everything to Lucchino in this article. I guess Lucchino wants to make sure that this contract renewal goes smoother than the last one.

Cassel

Dan writes about Mat Cassel’s long standing role as second fiddle to a three-time Super Bowl winner and two separate Heisman trophy winners. It is a decent look at Cassel and the road that has led him to his first start in a meaningful game in a decade.

It’s really not a bad article overall, but I would take issue with a few points:

- For the umpteenth time this week, I have heard that Matt Cassel has not started since high school. Shaughnessy’s statement today is that “The last time he started a football game was Nov. 24, 1999, when he quarterbacked Chatsworth High to a 49-42 loss to Palisades Charter High School in the third round of the Los Angeles City Invitational playoffs.” This is not completely true – he has started some preseason games. Granted I get the point but he may want to couch his statements better.

- Dan perpetuates the whole shtick about Belichick’s unwavering faith in the system when he writes “The Patriots believe the system is bigger than any player and that is why Cassel is the QB rather than an experienced backup from the NFL scrap heap.” This is another oft-repeated claim and I don’t buy it. I do think it is true that they won’t transform their approach to a player who would not fit (Culpepper?) but I think Cassel has stuck with the team and is now the starter because he is talented. The fact that he knows the playbook after three years also goes a long way. It’s not like they pulled a high schooler off the streets because they believe he "fits the system"

- If Shaughnessy is going to write an article like this, a fresh perspective would be to interview his college coaches to get their perspective on his talent. Was there a significant difference between him and Palmer and Leinart? Or was it more slight? Would have been a good angle to explore

- Finally, he ends the column with a "string the quotes together" technique

Again, not a bad article but could have been better
(Edit: Corrected link, Thanks DB!)
(Edit 2: When I wrote this critique Friday, I said this column could have been better and this is what I had in mind:...Bob Hohler's piece is an excellent read this morning about Cassel)

A Good Effort

Dan writes an good piece today, with a novel concept and some pertinent points.

Dan weaves the obsessive Tom Brady coverage (i.e. breathless news reporters breaking the news that Brady walked into Gillette) into a discussion of the Rays-Red Sox. His best point was the about Curt Schilling:

Did you hear? Schill ripped into New York fans' treatment of the Brady injury and somehow got himself on the cover of the Daily News - talking about Brady and New York fans.

I don't agree with Dan about Schilling most of the time, but this time I have to. Why is somebody who threw his last pitch for the Red Sox eleven months ago talking about football and New York Jets fans? This guy doesn't know when to let go.

Sounds like somebody I know. Maybe Dan and Curt are too much alike to get along.

Dan, Telling Us What We Feel

Dan likes to portray New England fans as little more than infantile sycophants with a lack of perspective. He does it again today with these prominent early sentences:

New England sports fans are lost boys and lost girls. They have lost their leader and their mojo. They have lost their way.

Yes, Dan. A guy I have never met and who has no bearing on my life is my leader.

Dan recovers from his condescending tripe to give a nice recap of the events of the last 48 hours that changed the Patriots season. Of course, it had to come with gratuitous swipes at Patriot Place (and by extension, the Kraft family) and a Bruce Springsteen reference.

What Will He Write?

Whenever big news happens, I like to invite the readers to guess what Dan will write. So with a day to ponder it, what will Dan have to say about Brady's injury? What will be the oh so clever nickname? What curse will Dan dream up? Tell us in the comments section.

Boston College's Old Freshman

Shaughnessy writes about Chris Crane, Boston College's 5th year freshman who led the Eagles to a frustrating loss yesterday. For the past four years, Crane has pretty much stayed on the sidelines as Matt Ryan has led BC. Crane get his real first shot as a started and did not have a good game. The article offers a fair recap and it was a reasonable angle for Shaughnessy to take.

There is one true Shankism when he writes, "Coach Jags can say it's not just one guy, but we know better." How ironic it is that Shaughnessy rails against his readership so often but then he employs the "we" technique as if he and the world are in perfect harmony and he is our spokesman.

Thanks for the. . .

kick in the nuts, Dan.

Dan regales us with what life would be like if the Patriots had won Super Bowl XLII. A lot of indigestion and angry commuters this morning thanks the Miserable One.

However you feel about the topic, though, Dan did manage some good lines:

"Mercury Morris would be harder to find than Whitey Bulger."

"Seventeen Greater Boston television and radio stations would have paid for the rights to be the "official station of the World Champion Patriots.''"

"The Bruins would be very, very lonely."

A Littile Bit of This, A Little Bit of That

And you have yourself a column. Well, you do if your Dan Shaughnessy. Find a topic, preferably negative. Then write about it for a bit, padding your column with obvious information. When that well runs dry, further pad with quotations, ignoring any attempt to make it all flow. You just gotta fill those column inches.

The Sky is Falling

Well that didn't take long did it? For three days straight, Shaughnessy has been dancing on the grave of the Yankees. 24 hours and one loss later, the immortal Mr Sample Size of One concludes that the sky is in fact falling. Doesn't beat around the bush either for that is a direct quote

Never mind the Yankees are still a good team. Shank needed a story line. Never mind the Red Sox took 2 of 3. Shank needed a story line. Never mind Lester pitched great. Shank needed a story line. Never mind that Beckett's injury did not occur at Yankees Stadium and has been a concern for awhile now. Shank needed a story line.

Perhaps this is what a columnist is supposed to do. Make bold proclamations. It's "Good versus evil". The issues are black and white. My issue with Shaughnessy is that he turns on a dime and bounds from one extreme to another all in 24 hours. In some cases, it is warranted...consider the extremes of the Patriots last season pre and post Super Bowl. Yet, here we have one regular season loss and Shaughnessy spectacularly blows it out of proportion.

I suppose it is all relative however. I was blown away by the venom with which Jay Mariotti's colleagues wrote about him. As much as I think Shaughnessy is a lazy writer who shills for attention, he comes nowhere close to what we are reading from Chicago. God forbid he makes his way to Boston. Is there already a Jay Mariotti Watch?

This Gives Me Hope

"I was always impressed by his verbosity. He's a skilled writer. However, it's what he wrote about and how he framed his opinion that was absolutely disgraceful. His arrogance is galling. His attempts at being funny by injecting pop culture into his columns were embarrassing. He doesn't deserve to write in a sports town like Chicago."

If you're like me, you were hoping that the final word in that quotation was Boston and Dan was leaving the city.

No, the people of Chicago are today the lucky ones, as Jay Mariotti is leaving the Sun-Times. And his old employer doesn't much care. A fellow writer ripped him and the newspaper published the gleeful reactions of its readers, which the above quotation is taken from. While reading the comments, remember those are the ones they could publish. Think of all the profanity laced, personal attacks that must have been held back. Maybe some Sun-Times editor will leak some of the funnier ones.

I am posting in part to remind people that Dan is part of a larger problem in sports media today. Lazy, vindictive columnists abound and Dan is not close to being the worst. Dan does some legwork (Mariotti apparently doesn't like to go into clubhouses to back up his tough guy talk), and for the most part avoids the most odious elements of sports media, like sportstalk radio and this month's ESPN insult to fans.

EDIT: I forgot to give credit to Boston Sports Media Watch and Deadspin for the links.

EDIT2: Here is another attack on Mariotti by one of his colleagues. Mariotti is, in the words of Lou Henson, the classic bully.

After some thought, I realize that the problem with my Marrioti-Shaughnessy comparison is that the latter is way too smart to leave a lifetime sinecure like a columnist's gig at the Boston Globe. Dan will be carried out of Morrissey Boulevard mumbling something about Red Auerbach, Grey Poupon, a curse, and Theo and his minions. Let's just hope he doesn't have the genes of my grandparents.

EDIT3: The 'I swore he was dead' Roger Ebert rises from the crypt to rip Jay.

Will anyone stand up to defend him?

It's depressing. Dan's sins pale in comparison to Mariotti's and it took years for Jay to be booted. How long will it take for Dan to leave?

Who are you talking about Dan?

It's all about efficiency in business today. And what business needs it more than newspapers?

It takes Dan only eight sentences to introduce a groan inducing pun:

Jack Nicholson was on hand to watch the blood drain out of the Yankees' season. Who says he can't handle the truth?

(I always chuckle when the notoriously thin-skinned Dan writes that line.)

I have to give it to Dan, though. He actually bothered to watch the game before he wrote his column. Maybe he finally learned something from Bob Ryan after all these years.

I Like Lists

And apparently Dan does, too. Dan flips through some histories of the Red Sox and gives us all the great Yankees-Red Sox moments at the Stadium.

Dan does his "work" in the opening, highlighted by a "Seinfeld" reference that was tired the day people started using it 14 years ago. There is a Clark Rockefeller reference to stay topical. It must have been killing Dan, sitting there on vacation, thinking "I have got this great Rockefeller quip. I hope that I am back writing before it becomes dated." Actually, upon reflection, I guess Dan wouldn't think like that.

Where is Dan?

Okay, it has been over two weeks since we've seen Dan grace the pages of the Boston Globe. What exactly is going on? Is Dan leaving? Is he miffed at the Globe's new hire? Is he on vacation? Or did the Globe just get smart and realize that the dude is long in the tooth and past his prime?
Post your theories here. Also anyone with inside info, we would love to hear what's going on.

The Big Scoop

Interesting piece today on several levels. Lets start at the end and work backwards. Shaughnesy has not written a piece in a week and yet he proudly acknowledges that he has been in California for a week "watching Manny take over the town". Apparently he has been so busy shopping for Manny dredlock wigs that he could not turn in a column. A wise use of Globe dollars?

Shaughnesy also makes a big revelation. The Boston Globe has learned that MLB is investigating Manny's final days with the Red Sox. This is a big scoop, right? Then why is this scoop buried halfway down the column? (By the way, is this a column or is it a hard hitting investigative report?) Is this scoop buried because the source is weak? And who at the Globe found this piece of info? Shaughnessy does not take credit for it as he employs the passive "the Globe has learned" technique. Is Shaughnessy being modest? Doubtful. Is he taking someone else's scoop? Likely. The vision of Shaughnessy burning up the phone lines doing investigative reporting is almost laughable. Maybe this big scoop is buried because Shaughnessy is embarrassed to be breaking the story because it's not his source?

Nevertheless, news of this investigation emboldens Shaughnessy. Is he taking columnistic license when he suggests that Ramirez' strikeout against Mariano Rivera several weeks ago was intentional? Or does he have some proof of this claim? Again, doubtful. (Objective Bruce's words from the other day ring in my ears: "Lesson Five: "Unsubstantiated rumors" ought not see the light of day without an examination of their source or veracity.")

No doubt, Manny's last days with the Red Sox have every sign of being sordid and there are many signs of unethical behavior. But there is a good discussion in the last thread about how people like Shaughnessy have totally neglected making the effort to examine Ramirez perspective. Is it the case that the duplicitousness of the Sox front office alienated Manny to the extent that he felt like he had to do what he did? This absolutely would not justify Ramirez' behavior but it would provide some meaningful context. Of course, Shaughnessy is either too lazy or too biased to pursue that angle. After all, he has wigs to model.

Dan goes LA LA

Before you go any further, check bruce's comment in the prior thread. It was a pre emptive post. bruce figured we would question the wisdom of the Globe sending Shaughnessy all the way cross coast to cover Manny's introductory press conference because deep down he recognizes it was a foolhearty decision.

Despite Bruce's claim to the contrary, Shaughnessy's covereage is not particularly spectacular. The Globe editors must have been reading this blog and they realized that Shaughnessy might lose his sanity since he would have no one to attack in Boston anymore. They unleashed him on LA where he could have one more slamfest taking on Manny, Nomar; Boras, and the lob ball press of LA.

Shaughnessy does not disappoint. It actually wasn't too bad of a column although I think there is much more to the claim that the Sox are masters at dissing players on their way out the door, a claim that Shaughnessy quickly dismisses because he himself feeds that monster.

I did enjoy his little musical reference at the end. Boston proved too much for the man. Gladys Knight is smiling somewhere. Now if Shaughnessy were only on the midnight train out of Beantown
(I apologize for not posting links. I have left Ma's basement and am blogging from a cell phone which is a bit tedious)

A Manny Stalking Blogger..could it be CHB?

Wow, Shaughnessy is apparently stalking Manny in LA and is posting blog entries about it... :) What is the world coming to? Is this a sign of the apocalypse?

Should be an interesting read Sat AM - will probably go on about how appropriate that Manny is in la la land and they will get what they deserve

The End of the Road

Shaughnessy reflects on the wacky and wonderful tenure of Manny Ramirez as a member of the Boston Red Sox. Lots of Shaughnessys on display

- "Blows with the Wind Shaughnessy " says we're going to miss Manny's silliness to include his goofy antics in left field...this, just days after Shaughnessy ripped his goofy antics in left field

- "Dont let the fact's get in the way Shaughnessy": Shaughnessy says Ramirez' antics in the early years, to include skipping a trip to the White House, were harmless. Ramirez did skip a White House trip in 2005 (as well as 2008) but 2005 was not exactly the early years of Ramirez' tenure with the Sox, was it?

- "Poor word choice" Shaughnessy: First Shaughnessy makes an adjective out of a noun. Says Ramirez has "savant hitting skill". Savant is a noun not an adjective. I also think his continued use of savant to describe Ramirez' skills is insulting. In my thinking, savant is synonymous with idiot savant and the implication is that Ramirez is a dim bulb who somehow magically lucked into his hitting prowess as a freak of nature. It is a subtle personality assassination. Did he ever describe Larry Bird as a savant? or Ted Williams?

- "Contradictory Dan" says in one paragraph that "the Sox should brace for early backlash from the sizable faction of Red Sox Nation that will always worship at the Altar of Manny." Fewer than five sentences later, he says, "In the end, Manny had few friends in his own clubhouse and much of the fan base had turned against him."

- "Inconsistent Shaughnessy"...In discussing the dismantling of the 2004 Red Sox, he says "One by one, those players left town and Manny was alone to carry the mantle of goofiness. He did it well and still put up the numbers." This a strange compliment, given that we are talking the 2005-2008 years--which includes 2006 in which Shaughnessy claims that Ramirez quit and 2007-2008 in which Shaughnessy recently remarked that Ramirez OPS had dropped considerably

- "One sided Dan" talks about the ungluing of Manny's tenure initiated by Manny's slapping of Youklis. If Varitek had done this to Youklis, he would have praised Varitek as a gamer and leader who doesn't put up with whining from his teammates. For Manny, it is lumped in there with the shoving of the traveling secretary

- I am not defending Ramirez here - I think he quit on the team. And I dont think the Red Sox are stupid enough to trade him unless the situation had become untenable. But I do think there is something to Ramirez' criticism of the Red Sox management...they use the press to paint the outgoing superstars as monsters (Nomar, Martinez and now Ramirez) and the press (Shaughnessy and Gammons) seem all too willing to oblige.

- Oh yeah there is "Cliche Dan"--Theo and the minions make an appearance today

It is the end of an era in more ways than one. With Schilling and Ramirez out of the picture Shaughnessy does not have an obvious whipping post for the first time in years. If JD Drew starts to fade, however, he might better watch out. Shank will lump him in with Keith Foulke and start firing away at his lack of passion for the game

Marching Orders

Dan's got them.

When it is time to trash a star Red Sox player, the call goes out to Shank. Who better to stick a knife in the back of a player the organization wants to be gone?

An important note: There are knee injuries that are not detectable by MRI.

Thoughts on Shank and Manny

Shaughnessy claims that Manny's latest madness is the final straw. "Manny has punched his ticket out of town," Shaughnessy breathlessly exclaims.

I'll state up front that I agree with Shaughnessy's conclusion. I doubt Ramirez will be back next year and who even knows about the rest of this year.? I do think Francona's actions are pretty revealing and signal the team's frustration.

That being said, Shaughnessy's woeful inability to craft a cogent and meaningful column continues to baffle. This story played out in the afternoon...Shaughnessy had quite a bit of time to write a meaningful piece and he delivers absolute garbage yet again. A few points:

- First, Steve Buckley pretty much writes the same column in the Herald although Buckley does scoop old Shank when he writes "Yet after taking himself out of the lineup, he stepped into the batting cage under the first base grandstand and proceeded to rake the ball. Until Manny pulled the curtain on me, I was standing there watching the Clown Prince."

- Dan's penchant for exaggeration is on display when he calls this the biggest game of the season. This statement coming just weeks after he declared the Yankees were dead and that the thrill from Yankees-Red Sox games were missing

- Dan calls Francona an enabler. That is a cheap shot. Francona deserves a lot of credit for keeping this team together. Shaughnessy's editors are more the enablers for allowing him to get away with the crap that he dishes on a regular basis

- Dan cant get any direct quotes from any Red Sox officials and so he quotes a fan (Bob Crane). Who elected Bob Crane President of Red Sox Nation?

- Dan repeats for the hundredth time (and the 101st for that matter) that Ramirez quit on the Sox in 2006. He still has yet to offer any good proof of that. In a recent column, he even couched his claim about 2006 just a little bit but now that Manny has pulled this latest business, Shaughnessy is emboldened yet again to unequivocally state (twice) that Ramirez quit in 2006 but still offers no proof.

- Dan loves to get the stat book out once a month as if to prove some point. Today, he says Manny's OPS is down the past two years. "By a lot." The fact that he is in the Top 5 of the league this year does not seem to matter much.

- I love how he fashions himself as the old school journalist ("When Theo Epstein saw this typist coming...") I know he must view himself as the hard-edged reporter...and he can't even begin to appreciate the fact of why Sox officials wont talk to him - it's not because they are scared of him (as he likely believes) but because of his history of doing hatchet jobs

This column would have been a lot more effective coming from someone like Ryan. Shaughnessy makes some valid points but given his MO of making everything personal, it's really difficult to sift the wheat from the considerable chaff.

Disclaimer: I am not a Ramirez apologist. Frankly, I dont care if he stays or goes. For that matter, I am not a Red Sox team apologist. Shaughnessy can criticize the team and player all he wants - just wish he would do it in a more meaningful cogent manner.

The Manny Acts of Shank

THis morning's dish certainly offers up a plateful, doesn't it? I have to complete a training run and will not be able to post until late morning but wanted to get an entry out there for people to comment on. Have you had enough of Manny? Dan thinks you have....Stay tuned

It All Comes Back to Manny

The Sox sweep the Mariners and are returning to Fenway to play the Yankees. The main topic for Dan? Manny and his knee.

Dan will never give Manny a break after the end to the 2006 season so a sore knee is Manny taking a day off for no reason.

Lame References Abound

"Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed . . ."

And we are off. Dan writes about Jed Lowrie and anoints him the shortstop of the future. Interesting that he would be so high on Lowrie a day after he had to admit he was wrong about Pedroia. Of course, Dustin had better minor league numbers while being younger and striking out much less. So if he was to be questioned, what about Lowrie?

It Took Long Enough

Dan offers up his mea culpa for his initial impression of Dustin Pedroia. But Dan does it in typical Shank fashion, going over the top with his ironic praise, comparing Pedroia to Pete Rose.

Dan's suspicion of Pedroia's talent has been well documented and now he takes it all back. Maybe he won't be so fast to dismiss a player with a record of success at every level just so he can attack Theo. And yes, there is a "minions" sighting in the column.

Wow

That is the sentiment left after reading today's Shank column. There are a variety of reasons for it.

First, after a three game sweep Dan isn't ready to panic. It is usually these tough losses that Dan gets all cynical and angry, lashing out at the manager, GM, and star players. Not today, except for a gratuitous shot at Manny for a late play in an 11-3 blowout when good guy Alex Cora let in four runs.

Then there is the obligatory "immortal" reference, this time for Erick Aybar. Dan loves to parade his ignorance with his use of the term, but maybe he should know who the starting shortstop is for the MLB team with the best record.

Finally, this column comes a day after Dan gleefully wrote that the Red Sox need not worry because the Angels can never beat the Red Sox in the playoffs. No mention of that claim today. Dan may want to think it over.

Reminiscing about the Back Yard

Shaughnessy has a nice column today about how he turned his backyard into a mini Fenway back in the 1990s for his kids to play wiffle ball...to include painting the fence with paint from the real Fenway. It is a nice piece that captures a slice of parenthood, growing up, looking back, and a genuine love for the game. Call me a sentimental sap but this is a nice read for a Sunday morning. (And this probably also explains why I pretty much enjoyed his book Senior Year)

I Wish I Had His Job

So Dan listens to sports talk radio all day and then goes to Fenway to watch the Red Sox. What a life!

The sports radio talk is all about the Captain and his epic slump and Dan has his take on it. Dan plays it straight, without really committing to any side. He does manage a shot at Schilling, though.

Recycled Crap

The Globe's technical staff must have been enjoying an extended 4th of July holiday today. Here is the secret - Shaughnessy is a figment of our imagination; he doesn't really exist. As we touched on last year, the Globe has a machine they use to churn out columns with the Shaughnessy by-line. They call it the "Crank a Shank" - it cranks out column after column replete with 1980s references; corny musical references; and bitter diatribes against certain people. About once a month, the "Crank a Shank" hiccups and if it is not re-booted properly, it kicks out the same garbage two days in a row.

Today was one of those days....compare yesterday and today's efforts...in both, Shaughnessy tells about Steinbrenner's birthday; overreacts to a Yankees loss; discusses the Yankees team meeting; makes light of ARod's marital problems; tells us that Yankee Stadium is on 161st street; and calls Darryl Rasner "immortal" (what the hell is up with that anyway--this is a favorite Shankism - call some no-name "immortal"--it's not funny, particularly two days in a row). Yes, the old "Crank a Shank" is a little buggy.

So the Yankees lose two games in a row and Shaughnessy says "The situation in New York is bad." Typical Shaughnessy hyperbole. (How much will his tone change now that the Yankees beat the Red Sox today?)

I also dont particularly care for Shaughnessy's double standard. He rails against Manny and the Red and says the Red Sox are enabler of Ramirez' bad behavior. And yet, ARod's alleged extramarital affair is nothing but a silly throw-away punch line. Adultery and assault are two different crimes but why does Shaughnessy assume a self-righteous attitude on one and a casual dismissive attitude about the other? I for one, am much concerned about infidelity and broken homes and their impact on today's society and a star like Arod cheating on his wife doesn't set a very good example, does it? You can argue that it is a personal matter and perhaps it is - but Shaughnessy should then simply not discuss it. Given that he can't let it go, he is guilty of a serious double standard by making it a joke.

I hope the Globe editors enjoyed their extra long week. With any luck, someone will re-boot the "Crank a Shank" machine today so we can get something fresh Sunday AM.

More babbling from the Village Idiot

On its face, this is an innocuous column. Shaughnessy says Joe Girardi took his team to the woodshed after last night's embarrassing loss to the Red Sox. Upon deeper reflection, this is another piece of crap from your churn it out/mail it in front page columnist of the Boston Globe.

- Shaughnessy is amazing in his ability to take one event and jump to all sorts of conclusions. After last night's loss, Shaughnessy amazingly concludes that coming to Yankee Stadium is no longer threatening. He concludes that it is a strong possibility there will be no post season baseball in Yankee Stadium. Alright, Shank, if you want to make these comments after the Red Sox sweep the Yankees and each game is a dominating shutout, that is one thing. But, after one game and the Sox are just 4 games up over the Yankees in the loss column? You're an idiot.

- Apparently, Shaughnessy thinks going 4-3 is a bad thing. He says

Game 1 of this four-game set was a walk in the ballpark for a Boston team that had lost five straight games and eight of 12

If they have lost five straight and 8 of 12, that means they were 4-3 in the games preceding the 5 losses...and this is bad because? (Extrapolating 4-3 to an entire season translates to 92 wins which is not too shabby)


- Shaughnessy wont let the Manny incident die. I am not a Manny apologist but I agree with Mike to a large extent in that the Red Sox don't necessarily owe anyone an explanation. Plus, we dont really know what actions they took, do we? For all we know, this was the final straw. Maybe Theo and the brain trust have decided they will let him go after the season and for now, they want to let the season play out. I don't know. And I don't think Shaughnessy really knows either. To continually call them "enablers" without knowing is problematic and reflective of his lazy and vindictive journalism.


Happy 4th of July to our faithful readers. Enjoy the day!

Dan Gets Angry

With the news that Manny pushed the Red Sox traveling secretary to the ground on Saturday, we were certain that Dan would take the opportunity to get his panties in a bunch and unload on Manny.

And that is what he did. It is the same old crap from Dan, like it's from a script. Start with a Jimmie Foxx comparison and then proceed with the rip job.

- He quit in 2006 (forgetting the monster series he had against the Yankees). Dan writes "That one's difficult to prove, of course, but everyone who was there believes it. Including the manager." Dan finally admits he has been talking out of his ass the last two years.

- Manny rededicated himself last winter. Very clever. Imply that he was slacking off before that year even though he had one of the most productive stretches in the history of baseball.

- "Refusing to pinch hit, and insisting on a day off when the club needs you, are also crimes against baseball." This quotation is even cuter. He doesn't say that Manny committed those crimes (the evidence is unclear), but he leaves the reader with that impression.

Picked Up Pieces

Shaughnessy returns to a format that he has not invoked in months - it is a picked up pieces special. All in all, I wouldn't call it overly interesting....but at least it was not as objectionable as past picked up pieces columsn save yet another shot at Curt Schilling....

Shaughnessy says

Shawn Chacon must have been channeling his inner Curt Schilling when he grabbed Astros general manager Ed Wade and threw him to the floor last week. When Schilling and Wade worked in Philadelphia, it was Wade who said, "Curt's a horse every fifth day. The other four days, he's a horse's ass."

Come on what the hell does this mean? Has Schilling ever physically attacked his general manager? How does Shaughnessy make the leap from Wade calling Schilling a horse's ass to Chacon "channeling his inner Schilling" when he physically accosted his employer? Shaughnessy saw a venue for getting yet another shot in at Schilling and it is unjustified. If there is a horse's ass in the room, it is Shaughnessy.

Danny The Genius

Shaughnessy uses last night's draft to reflect on how Danny Ainge transformed the Celtics -- a transformation that was founded in large part on last year's draft. Says Danny proved all his critics wrong; made some really smart moves; and delivered a championship. It is a very nice tribute to Ainge and Shaughnessy readily eats some crow.

Update

Today on Dale & Holley, Theo mentioned that Curt underwent a full physical and MRI. Can we now stop feeling sorry for the poor Red Sox who were swindled by the scheming Curt Schilling?

Schilling's Response

Apparently Dan may have stretched the truth in order to take another poke at Schilling. The Red Sox did know that Curt in the Car was going under the knife before the WEEI interview.

Not As Bad As I Thought, But Still Bad

As commentators have pointed out, the Shilling injury piece was inevitable. It was mostly laudatory, but Dan did go out of his way, eschewing facts and reason, to bash Curt.

- "An increasingly hilarious 38pitches.com." Huh? Why Dan? It must be great to just throw a line out there and not have to back it up.

- "I hate to offend the fragile psyches of Schill-o-phants, blog-boys, and others who worship at the altar of Curt, but there are a few indelicate points that might be made about all this."

Ah yes, the only people who would defend Curt are sycophants and "bloggers", the most evil group of people ever constituted.

The only indelicate point is the contract that Schilling signed. Dan suggests that Curt wasn't fully forthcoming about the health of his shoulder/arm. Does he have any proof? Of course not! It's the typical millionaires vs. billionaires dispute, but I have a hard time believing that a business worth close to a billion dollars didn't fully investigate the health of a player to be signed.

So, the Red Sox took a risk in signing Schilling and it didn't work out. Now we are supposed to feel bad for the Red Sox? Dan must have gone through some impressive mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion. It wouldn't have anything to do with those dinners with Powder and the inside scoops from Lucchino, would it?

No link because I refuse to make it easy for people to read Shank.

Blessed, Yet Cursed at the Same Time

As Dan points out, these are special times to be a sports fan in Boston. Then, why in God's name are we stuck with this lazy and arrogant bum? Don't click on the article, don't ever again click on his articles. Ignore him. Tell his editor (jsullivan@globe.com) what you think of Shank's condescending and spiteful attitude.


That being said, this column wasn't bad.

Your Front Page Columnist

He sucks.

The piece is meandering and pointless. There is no passion or excitement. It is a tepid recap with Shank mostly talking about the past. (I think he had a bet to see how many times he could get Auerbach's name into the column.) And of course there is the irrelevant Belichick reference.

Read Bob Ryan instead.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Lately I have been lamenting the fact that Dan has been mailing it in with formulaic game recaps and recycled columns.

Well he certainly made up for it with today's piece.

Maybe the most obnoxious piece since Shank's lame attack on 38pitches.com. One joke ("The Celts are sure to win tonight. Just like {insert crushing Boston sports upset here}.") repeated to fill up the column. No insight or new information, just the Danny Downer act that CHB loves so much.

Just Read Bob Ryan

Why bother with Dan? If you want something more than a bland recap of the game with silly references, read Bob Ryan.

Savor this One

Dan looks at the 22 year drought since the Celtics' last championship. Says the 1986 Celtics were one of the best teams ever but it has been down hill ever since Len Bias died. He then goes through the familiar list of all the heinous things that have happened in the past 22 years--from the deaths of Bias and Lewis to the coaching debacles of Carr and Pittino and the bad lottery luck with no Duncan and no Durant or Oden.

He hints the good ole days are back and should be savored -- and there are no guarantees the Celts will be back in this position next year.

This is your typical Shaughnessy Sunday fare. No stunning insights - just one of his stock "keep it in perspective" columns with the typical laundry list of items that he is apt to throw out from time to time.

Happy Dan

Dan was a little bitter after the Celtics had a chance to go up 3-0 and you could see the seeds of doubt creeping in to include the digs on Garnett. Today, he is Happy Dan calling last night's game one of the greatest (if not the greatest) comebacks in the team's history.

Dan must have had to work really hard last night--sure he went into "The sky is falling" mode after the first quarter and then had to throw everything out the window and start over again when the Celtics came back. Poor guy.

Getting More from Dan Would Be the Ticket

Dan cares for Mother Earth. I can tell because he is a devoted recycler.

Two weeks ago it was "It's Drive Time for Garnett."

Today it's "Getting More From Garnett Would Be the Ticket"

The Secret Formula

Sorry for the delay in posting, but I had to go back and check if the Globe had reprinted Monday's column by mistake. Dan must use some Mad Libs like template to write these things. Rip at Schilling? Check. Obligatory game trivia, including celebrity roll, shoehorned into the middle of the column? Check.

The column isn't a bad recap of the game, but the columns are depressingly formulaic. Instead, read Bob Ryan.

Red and Dan's Conversation: What Really Took Place

An anonymous commenter asked if perhaps a security camera caught this magical exchange between Red and Dan. As it happens, there was a camera and we were able to get our hands on it. Here is how the conversation really went:

CHB: “Hiya Red, how ya doing?”

Red: Oh jeez, not you again

CHB: What do you mean “Not you again”? I thought we were buddies. Don’t you remember those cigars you gave me when my daughter was born?

Red: Oh hell, not that cigar story again. Why the hell do you feel the need to tell everyone about those damn cigars? Don’t you realize those things were stale? If I hadn’t seen you that night, I would have tossed them in the trash can.

CHB: Really, I thought we had a strong connection back in the 80’s….those were the good ole days.

Red: Hey, let me tell you a story. Back in the 1960s, Russell would invite Chamberlain over to dinner for a big game. It would soften Wilt up – make them feel like they were buds. Russell had no interest in friendship—he was trying to take advantage of the situation and made Wilt lose his edge. The Big Guy learned that trick from me. I was only trying to buddy up with you so you would give me good press. See how well it worked? 25 years later and you are still talking about those damn cigars.

CHB: Man, I really remember it differently. Thought we had a strong connection there. Boy, those 80’s were the good ole days.

Red: You know Dan…I have moved on with my life….maybe you should consider moving on as well.

CHB: You know, Red, I just love the 60s and 80s. That Larry Bird sure was a great player wasn’t he?

Red: Yes, Dan he was. But remember that point I just told you about moving on with your life? That Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce, they are pretty good too you know. Did you happen to catch the game the other night?

CHB: Yeah, yeah, I was there. Can you believe that blowhard Schilling was there in a Celtics jersey no less ? I figured you would be rolling over in your grave if you saw that windbag there.

Red: I kind of like that Big Schill guy. Ever read his blog? It is pretty good.

CHB: Oh no, you read blogs?

Red: Yep, there is even one that tracks your writing. It’s pretty good too. What have you got against blogs anyway?

CHB: They get in the way and they are not relevant.

Red: Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black? You know, it is kind of funny. You were talking earlier about our “connection”. Here is a good connection for you. I sit around here all day doing nothing and pigeons crap on me. You sit around all day doing nothing and bloggers crap on you..

CHB: Very funny, Red.

Red: So you know, Dan, I still read your columns from time to time. I don’t know why—kind of like when people stop to see a car wreck. Just wondering if you got any lame 1970 music lyric references up your sleeve. The ones you come up with are sort of pathetically funny.

CHB: Funny you should mention it Red, I have been working on one. Remember Don McLean’s Miss American Pie?

Red: Yep, sure do, that was a classic.

CHB: I adopted the words to talk about the day Larry Bird retired. How does this sound?

And the three men I admire most

The Father, Red, and Johnny Most

They took the last train for the coast

The day that Bird retired

Red: You really are a sad little man, aren’t you Dan?

CHB: Hey, I thought that was pretty good.

Red: Dan, why don’t you just leave now? I think I preferred it when I was by myself when the pigeons were crapping on me

CHB: Okay, well I need to see if I can catch a taxi to the airport. You know, this is not like the good ole days when I could catch a ride to the airport with Scott Wedman and Jerry Sichting. The Globe won’t allow it now.

Red: Okay Dan, whatever. Good night.

CHB: Okay Red, thanks for the chat. Those 80s sure were the good ole days werent they Red? Anyways, I will be at the gym before you Red.

Red: I'm dead, Dan.

CHB: Oops, sorry about that Red. Good bye.

Oh God, No!

That was my reaction upon seeing the headline to this column.

Dan writing about Red Auerbach had to be expected. Since Red's death, Dan had honored him by tossing Red trivia into all sorts of columns, relevancy be damned. Now we have a whole column devoted to the legend of Red.

And the column is pretty good. It's original, has a consistent point of view, all the things you hope for in a column.

The Seasons Change, Dan Stays the Same

You have to feel for Dan. With the game all but over midway through the fourth quarter, Dan probably was on cruise control. But with the Lakers' furious comeback, Dan was forced to do some work, however little it was.

Dan's game columns have taken on a depressing familiarity. About halfway through the column, Dan shoehorns some trivia from the game, including the celebrity attendance roll. Wilt Chamberlain could have risen from the dead to play for the Lakers and Dan would need to fill space with celebrity sightings and passive-aggressive shots at Curt Schilling. Don't want those bon mots to go to waste, regardless of when they were written.

Then the column concludes with an uninspired game recap, filled with statistics.



"Boorrring!"

The Waltons

Shaughnessy has an excellent look at the Walton family. Bill Walton thinks the Celtics will win but is rooting for his son Luke to get a championship. It really is a very nice perspective of how fondly and passionately Bill Walton considered his life in Boston in the mid 1980s. Makes you wonder why he ever moved. Shaughnessy does a very good job with pieces like this and this is one of his better efforts.

Chris Called it

Dan writes about last night's game and focuses on Paul Pierce's heroic return to the game after suffering an injury. Said it was mildly reminiscent of Larry Bird's return in a 1991 playoff game. Chris called it here.

Dan also has a piece in which he bookmarks memorable events in his life against years in which the Lakers and Celtics played in series. I did not find it to be bad but rather self-indulgent and boring. He has a snide comment about how it would be against Globe policy now for him to receive cigars from Red Auerbach - why he can't comprehend that it is not a good idea to fraternize with the people you cover is beyond me.

A Look at Paul Pierce

Dan has an in-depth look at Paul Pierce. It is not a column, so there isn't much there. It reviews the struggles and development of Paul Pierce over ten tumultuous years for him and the Celtics franchise and Dan manages to tie it together nicely at the end.

I Thought the Internet Was Evil?

Dan appears live and in living color on boston.com's Celtic Blog.

Here is Dan talking about the history of the matchup:


A few things of note:

-I guess those Rolling Stones and Bruce Springsteen references take time.

-He picks the Celtics. Let's see how that holds up in the next 24 hours.

-"I'll be at the gym before you"? Huh?



This is Dan talking about the 2-3-2 Finals setup:


- LARRY BIRD REFERENCE!!!!!!

So it's okay for Dan to talk to the masses via the internet, but if Curt Schilling ever deigns to talk to the fans through the medium, it is an affront to all that is good and holy.

Lakers v. Celtics

(My regrets for being a day late in posting--it was a busy Saturday)

Dan writes about the Celtics series-clinching win in Game 6 over the Lakers. Every day is Thanksgiving, he tells us. (I think Christmas may have been the more apt metaphor).

Decent article with three comments from Ma's basement

- Shaughnessy says, "The Celtics led, 24-21, after one, a quarter dominated by a couple of former University of Connecticut Huskies." but he only discusses the effort of one (Allen) and not the other (Hamilton). I am willing to bet he may be the victim of bad editing on that one.

- Strange quote from Kevin Garnett. Talks about how he loved to watch the Celtics play the Lakers on Sunday afternoons with the "fire going". Garnett is from South Carolina--hard to imagine fires going in June in South Carolina.

- Manufactured Nickname Alert: Shaughnessy loves to dole out the nicknames - hoping something will stick perhaps so he can launch his next book with a catchy name. In this case, we have an in incomplete sentence tied with it. He discusses the Celtics return to greatness. "With the New Three."

Standard fare otherwise - not bad, not great. I am grateful he spared us from calling it "David Stern's dream matchup" because that one is wearing a little thin on me.

I don't get paid enough for this crap

We all knew that Dan would be happy after a Celts' win, as he has been alternating between joy and agony for the length of the series.

What stunned me about this column was it's sheer stupidity. A reader will know what lays in store by the third sentence:

"We didn't even have courtside fan Bill Belichick tossing a red beanbag to challenge an official's call."

What else?

He misuses the talk radio term "Long time. First Time."

He starts listing things.

And this paragraph is placed awkwardly between one regarding the temperature in the building and one about the game:

The stars came out for Boston's big game. Belichick was seated next to the Pistons' bench and had a chance to visit with Tedy Bruschi and Vince Wilfork along the baseline. You didn't have to look far to see John Havlicek, Penny Marshall, and Ellen Pompeo.

Hey Dan, just because you wrote the paragraph during or before the game, doesn't mean you have to shoehorn it into the final column.

The final few paragraphs are just a mishmash of statistics and restatements of what he wrote earlier.

Crunch Time for Garnett

Dan has Kevin Garnett with something left to prove in the Playoffs.

A good straightforward piece supported by examples of times where the Celtics needed Garnett to step up.

Dan in 2008

What do you think of Dan? Let the readers of Boston Sports Media Watch know in the Dan Shaughnessy Approval Ratings.

Cancel Your Plans for a Finals Party

Today Dan tells us that we should be worried about the Pistons if they decide to play.

Dave M. called it.

A Look Ahead

Dan takes a look at the Finals matchup that everyone is hoping for.

I think Dan hopes for the Celtics-Lakers rematch because he can trot out all his tired references and they won't seem so dated or inapt.

Shaughnessy's Commentary on Today's Athlete

Thanks to Objective Bruce for pointing out a second piece from Shaughnessy this AM - a commentary about how today's athletes have a different relationship with reporters than 20 or years ago. Our friend OB said the commentary "is an excellent look at the level of access and familiarity of journalists to and with players."

When I first read it, I thought it was intriguing on one level but problematic on several other levels. I then read the column by Pat Jordan which inspired Shaughnessy's effort and it reenforced my belief of what a shallow writer Shaughnessy has become. And I conclude that the column is problematic on pretty much all levels.

Shaughnessy quickly acknowledges that his commentary was inspired by Jordan's article and another article by Mitch Albom. If you have the time, read Jordan's piece and then read Shaughnessy. First off, Shaughnessy is nothing but a copy cat here -- there s no original thought. He jumps on Jordan's bandwagon and simply says "Hey, I feel the same way too." but his analysis is not nearly as sound as Jordan's. Whereas Shaughnessy bemoans the lack of access, he offers no insight as to why this has occurred. Jordan does and does it reasonably well.

In either case, does it not occur to Shaughnessy and Jordan that there is a line between a journalist and the people they cover? Both appear to have crossed it. Jordan admits that Seaver wanted to be portrayed in a certain light...is it possible that Jordan was a pawn as Seaver invited him in and treated him warmly? Shaughnessy meanwhile longs for the days when athletes and reporters rode to the airport together for road trips. It is subtle and perhaps not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but can a reporter really maintain objectivity when he has these buddy-buddy relationships? (Thanks to Mike B1 for hammering this point home)

On another level, I think Shaughnessy is guilty of waxing too poetic about the good ole days. Is it really that much different now? We still get stories about Dustin Pedroia and his card games with Francona. Shaughnessy talks about player's nicknames from the 80's but I am sure he could reel through the nicknames on this team as well. On his Japan trip, Shaughnessy also gave some personal glimpses into the different players as they prepared for the long road trip. Really not much different than the kinds of examples he gives from those good ole days.

On yet another level, Shaughnessy is hypocritical. In his past work, he comes across very hard against the fans who engage in hero worship of these athletes. He is sharply critical of men who wear jerseys with player's names on them. Yet he concludes this little piece with "ultimately, it erodes the connection between sports fans and their heroes." So why does he care so much about feeding this hero worship with one hand and ripping it apart with another? It is
silly.

Finally Shaughnessy does come across as a bitter and even jealous. He talks about his colleague Marc Spears who has more access than others and speculates that this is because he was a former player himself. He also hints that Spears works hard at it. Can Shaughnessy fathom the possibility that it is not the publicists to blame and that it may be case of a generational and/or racial divide? Shaughnessy can't be bothered with thinking about this because as usual, his analysis is weak. As a result, his commentary does come across as whiney on yet another level.

So Objective Bruce, I disagree that this commentary was excellent. I can call it copy cat; I can call it hypocrtitical; I can call it shallow; I can call it illustrative of an ethical breach; and I can say it is borne from jealousy but I can't call it excellent. Sorry.

Maybe we can move on? Please!

Dan writes about the Celtics' decisive victory over the Pistons in Game 3 of their playoff series last night. Dan says the Celtics had their game faces on and played crisp basketball in winning their first playoff game on the road.

One thing he mentions that makes you realize how ridiculously drawn out the playoffs are is that the Celtics have not won at home since April 14--it has been a long long time. This also helps you realize about how long Shaughnessy has harped on this home-road story line - it has been a long, long time. It will be nice to finally move on. No telling what he will grab on to next.

As a game recap, Dan's account is pretty good. Where Dan always seems to falter in my opinion is when he editorializes. He says things like "There's certainly great temptation to overstate Boston's decisive win last night." in a story in which he does just that -- hinting now that the Celtics have won game 3 that their path to the finals is clear.

He also continues his rants about the peripheral -- in Cleveland, he hated the "diff board" and in Detroit, he hates the noise and pyrotechnics. Although I tend to agree with him that things like these are grating, it is not as if it is a new occurrence--NBA arenas have been packaging games like this for years (and I believe Stern has recently stated he would like to take it down a notch or two)

Bottom line: It is a decent enough read just with your typical Shaughnessy stock room side commentary.

The Detroit Connection

Today Shaughnessy examines the connection between Boston and Detroit sports teams, examining the team vs team history of the Bruins v. Red Wings; Red Sox v. Tigers; and Celtics v. Pistons. (Sorry, not much there with respect to Patriots v. Lions)

If you like walks down memory lane then this one is for you. Some nice little nuggets to include discussions on how much Larry Bird hated Bill Laiimbeer.

I am not about to say this column was great but it is a pleasant enough read. Shaughnessy typically does a good job with historical retrospectives (except for when he has dead people showing up for baseball games)

Home Loss

Shaughnessy discusses the Celtics’ first playoff loss at home. He says the rules have changed and if the Celtics want to advance, they will have to finally win one on the road.
Today’s effort was predictable. Worse than that, however, it was filled with inane and idiotic commentary.

He says, “The Detroit Pistons, ladies and gents, are not the Atlanta Hawks, nor are they the Cleveland Cavaliers.” The implication being that they are a much better team than the Hawks and Cavaliers, apparently forgetting the Cavaliers bumped the Pistons from the playoffs just a year ago?

He says, “….the playoffs have officially started for the Celtics.” You know, this kind of statement would be appropriate if the Celtics had won their first two series in 4 or 5 games. Given, however, that the Celtics were taken to the seventh game in the first round by a team with a regular season losing record, I think it is safe to say the playoffs “officially” started for the Celtics much longer ago.

He talks about all the good things that have happened to Boston sports teams this weekend—Celtics previous wins and the Red Sox’ sweeps and he tops off the list of things to make us happy with this: “Bill Parcell’s best player is AWOL, “Dancing with the Stars.” This is a forced-cultural reference for the-sake of appearing “hip”. Jason Taylor has been on that show for weeks now—it’s a non story and given the respective state of the Patriots and Dolphins, I don’t think a single Patriots fan has derived pleasure from this whole Dancing with the Stars story. The Dolphins are not particularly relevant.

He says, “The Celtics ran out to an early 6-point lead, but who can trust any kind of lead in these playoffs after what the Lakers did to the Spurs at Staples Center Wednesday?” What a complete and idiotic statement. To compare a blown 6 point first half lead to a blown 20 point second half lead is ridiculous. If Belichick were to make a statement like this in a post game press conference, Shaughnessy would skewer him for saying nothing. The irony is that Shaughnessy spews out cliché-ridden statements like this all the time.

How he continues to get away with mailing it in like this continues to amaze me.

Ray Allen Watch

Dan does his best Debbie Downer impression after a big win with a look at the struggles of Ray Allen.

I think it happened like this. With a late start Dan needed/wanted to have most of his column written so he chose a general topic from over the course of the playoffs. And Allen's troubles worked perfect for Dan's needs. If Allen has an off night, then no trouble. If Allen goes off, he re-writes the article as Allen overcoming his struggles to help the Celtics. The quotations from Monday, the Rip Hamilton angle all work regardless of the outcome. You got to be pretty smart to be a lazy as Dan.

A Very Special Win

Dan has the details from a special night at Fenway Park. It is a good read, worth the time for some of the details about Lester and his path to baseball history.

Huh?

Paul Pierce has the greatest playoff game of his career in Game Seven to advance to the Eastern Conference Finals and Dan writes about LeBron James?

Pierce must have brushed past Dan once in the locker room. Or maybe Dan knows more about James because of the greater national attention.

Bad Joke Alert: This nugget was stashed away in the middle of the column:

Those fears were realized with a couple of minutes left in yesterday's game when the King (if he travels in a road game against the Grizzlies, do they say he's walkin' in Memphis?)

Edit: Apparently, Bob Ryan was assigned the Paul Pierce angle for the Globe.

Dan Can't Make Up His Mind

Dan does a Why the Celts/Cavs will win today's game. I apologize in advance _ short post today as I am running a race and got to go. I would suggest you run too--far away from this one.

Will try to post later


Dave M

Another Celtics Road Loss

Shaughnessy dissects the Celtics latest road loss, a 74-69 defeat at the hands of the Cavaliers in Game 6 of their playoff series. Shaughnessy points out that the Celtics were victims of poor officiating (that call on Pierce was horrid) but that they were also outhustled. Although I have grown a little weary of Shaughnessy's constant harping on the road losses, he's right in that this does not give the Celtics a warm feeling about their playoff hopes.

Although his piece is relatively straightforward, Shaughnessy does include this one asinine line:

"The NBA should be concerned about the home-road disparity. Why even bother to play the games when we all know ahead of time which team is going to win?"

There is a Shaughnessy tendency to draw conclusions on small sample sizes. We are talking about one round of games and Shaughnessy decides to throw up his hands in exasperation and suggest there is an NBA-wide problem. One round does not an alarming trend make. Either there is a long standing pattern that has existed well before this series (and Shaughnessy should have done the homework to investigate this since he has done nothing but talk about home-road disparities for the past 2 plus weeks...but he won't because he is too lazy or busy primping for his TV appearances) or this is a statistical aberration. Either way, Shaughnessy apparently lacks the analytical capacity to figure it out.

Also, Shaughnessy dusts off a favorite old line but does so with a new twist:

Last July, he wrote
"Even Tim Donaghy thinks the Patriots are a lock."

Today, he writes, "Neither Charles Barkley nor Tim Donaghy would bet on the Celtics to beat the Pistons four times at home in the next round."

Ha, ha...that's a good one. Got to love the Barkley injection there to freshen it up a bit.

A Challenger to Dan's Title

I am going to lobby for this blog to be renamed Tony Massarotti Watch. His column today was the nastiest, most ignorant piece I have ever read. It tops even Shank's 38pitches parody.

With his giant poke in the readers' eyes, Tony Mazz has taken the title for Nastiest Boston Sports Columnist (Single Column). Dan, of course, retains the title for Nastiest Boston Sport Columnist (Career).

Note: No link because I refuse to facilitate the Boston Herald getting any clicks. I suggest you find a copy on the T to read.

Extra Special Goodiness

What did we do to be so lucky? A Cameragate reference and a shot at blogs in the first two sentences! (Do you think Dan was watching Buzz Bissinger blow up on CostasNow thinking to himself "Now that is an excellent, well reasoned argument!"?)

The rest of the piece is mostly game recap with quotations thrown in. Dan manages to capture the feel of watching the game, with Celtic's fan initial fear being replaced by awe in the third quarter.

Road Woes Continue, Dan Beats Same Horse

Dan has a recap of another disappointing road loss for the Celtics. He plays it straight and even has a quotation from the Commish.

"You don't write funny."

Dan takes a lighthearted look at what Celtics management will do to make the players think they are playing in Boston tonight.

Wait, is 'lighthearted' the term people use when they want to say 'painfully unfunny', but don't want to appear mean? Either way, that is what I meant. By the end of the piece he is simply reeling off names of people who nobody reading would care about.

Update: Apparently Dan got a few facts wrong. Massachusetts Liberal provides the corrections.

Via Universal Hub

Cavalier Attitude

Dan writes about the Celtics' continued road woes in light of a troubling 108-84 loss to the Cavaliers. It is a fair column which poses legitimate concerns. The Celtics will have a tough time competing with the elite if they keep putting up stinkers like this. Can't argue that. It was almost refreshing in that Dan doesnt make reference to a dozen other teams from the NFL, MLB, NHL, MLS, ABA, WHL, etc

King James

LeBron James has another bad night and Shaughnessy writes about it...again. With Shaughnessy and the Celtics lately, it feels like we are in summer rerun season. That being said, it is a fair enough look at James' struggles in the past two games; however, I would like to address two points.

- James has two bad games in a row and Shaughnessy feels compelled to make reference to bad showings by star athletes in big venues. Pick a sport....In lazy Shaughnessy form, he ticks off a Ted Williams reference (1946 WS); a Phil Mickelson reference (2006 US Open) and an Alex Rodriguez reference (pick a series)--anything that rolls off the top of his head. For goodness sake, why can't he dig just a little deeper and keep it within the sport? All he has to do...pick any three NBA superstars; dig through the record books--did any of them have two games like this? Was it contained to two games? How did they eventually break out of their slump? How did their teams respond? Why is this so difficult? Because he is flat out lazy. What is really odd is that he has a very detailed break out by quarter of James shot sequences--and perhaps he thinks that gives the appearance that he followed the game closely. But anybody can use a game stat sheet to do that -- you would think an award winning journalist could put a little more effort into it

- Getting back to the ARod thing, Shaughnessy made a comment in his column the other day that drew my ire but I did not write about it but after thinking about it, I will surface it. When the Celtics were struggling against the Hawks, Shaughnessy started to hang the ARod label on Garnett. (i.e., great player when it doesn't count). You know if he had made that point at any time during the season based on Garnett's time with Timberwolves and a long term look at Garnett's playoff history, that would be fair enough (assuming he could back it up). But to make that point 4 or 5 games into Garnett's first playoff series when we really do not have a proper perspective of him in a Celtics uniform during the playoffs was bush. That is a label that you could start hanging on Garnett if the Celtics were to lose 2 or 3 playoff series over a few year span. But Shaughnessy ever prone to hyperbolic knee-jerk reactions played that card. (Side note to OB: I don't care if he roots for the home team or its players--I really dont. Just get sick of the crap that he spews)

Game One

Dan has a look at LeBron James's off night in Game One of the Eastern Conference Semi-finals.

A decent piece with some good quotations from James. Nothing spectacular.

And Exhale

Dan is relieved that the Celtics avoided any place in the "local Hall of Shame." While the Celtics made clear that they were better than the Hawks, there still are questions until "they can win a game without Gino."

Repetitive use of statistic alert: Once again Dan reminds us that the Hawks were 12-33 (including playoffs) on the road.

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.