Yeah I loved Dan's line that the judges agreed that Brady was involved in the Pats deflating the balls. Yep, that is EXACTLY what they ruled on!
Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
SJH, I venture that no one commenting here on Shank's column is surprised by anything he writes. Or Cafardo's baseball notes for that matter. Still, watching him puke all over himself and in turn, his readers, is strangely entertaining. I try not to rubber neck while driving but sometimes it's hard not to take a peek. I think of the CHB in the same way, sort of. I know it's going to be horrible but that doesn't stop me from stealing a quick read.
Ripping on Cafardo is funny and entertaining because in the long run he's just a harmless dummy who tries hard but fails at thinking.
Shank is a different animal entirely.
Shank is a different animal entirely.
We can agree to disagree about the CHB but please, one of Nicky's most enduring crappy qualities is that he's lazy. Tries hard? I don't see him doing that at anything other than calling his go to binkies.
No see, he's lazy but he thinks he's trying. He makes his calls every week after all! The fact that it's to the same group of scouts and ex-execs doesn't factor into his pea-sized brain, of course.
I feel the complete opposite way because I don't think that many people know just how bad Nick Cafardo is and they think that just because he's writing the Globe Baseball Notes that he's just as smart as Gammons or Whiteside or Edes. It's kind of like when I was a kid and I thought that Mike Greenwell was just as good as Williams, Yaz and Jim Rice because LEGACY.
With Shaughnessy pretty much everyone knows that he's bitter and full of shit. Most people (and I'm not talking about this board) take his stuff with a grain of salt -- nationally, Deadspin and Bill Simmons and FJM have made it known that Shank is a huckster. And locally, EEI (especially the Big Show after he left) did a pretty good job of hatcheting his reputation around town ("I'm contributing", balancing his checkbook, etc.). To me, Shaughnessy is pretty much a non-entity these days. Furthermore, since the Sox won (three times) what he writes doesn't bother me any more. Like at all. I read his stuff when I can and I have to admit, on some days he still has his fastball and he can write a pretty good piece. He throws out drivel like this, but I ignore it.
With Cafardo though, he never has that oasis of being able to fall back on something: whether it's his reporting or his writing, it's usually pretty terrible. And he fights (and worse yet sees himself as a champion) the fights that have already been won (Moneyball vs. scouting) or fights that are inane (shifts should be illegal!) all while standing on the high moral ground of hard work, grittiness, dirt doggedness and a light shade of racism. And the irony is, Cafardo is a lazy-ass reporter and writer who uses the same sources over and over again along with blind items and unsourced names.
Say what you want about Shaughnessy (and he's been on what I see as the wrong side of many arguments) but at least he a. has a POV (which is what Cafardo often lacks) and b. will rarely use unattributed quotes.
The one constant between the two is that they're both incredibly thin-skinned, but at least CHB isn't so damn serious about his image all the time and will occasionally take a poke at himself. Cafardo never does that.
I find myself more disappointed in CHB as a writer because I think he kills it a couple times a year and is (or was, he's been doing this for a long time and guys get stale) really talented. His troll side just wins over. The guy even used to submit good Baseball HOF ballots under the notion of "I talk to some guys I know who are experts and let them take the lead" before he went all crazy about steroids.
But you know, at least the guy has his work with the Celtics (which was pretty good from what I heard), his book on the Celtics, those 3-4 good columns a year, and the ability to occasionally come up with a good phrase. Boston baseball's Bastille Day about Game 7 in 2004 - Cafardo's never written anything as snappy and perfect at that.
Meanwhile, say what you want about CHB, he would never have reported as utterly atrocious a story as Pedro for Jeter. Anyone with two fucking brain cells would have known that there is no way that happened, because of when Loria bought the team, because Vlad didn't become a star until after Pedro left, etc. It's just such a hapless, piece of shit story that the Globe should be embarrassed they ran it.
But you know, at least the guy has his work with the Celtics (which was pretty good from what I heard), his book on the Celtics, those 3-4 good columns a year, and the ability to occasionally come up with a good phrase. Boston baseball's Bastille Day about Game 7 in 2004 - Cafardo's never written anything as snappy and perfect at that.
Meanwhile, say what you want about CHB, he would never have reported as utterly atrocious a story as Pedro for Jeter. Anyone with two fucking brain cells would have known that there is no way that happened, because of when Loria bought the team, because Vlad didn't become a star until after Pedro left, etc. It's just such a hapless, piece of shit story that the Globe should be embarrassed they ran it.
But that POV is being a hideous troll!
Even worse, Dan is actually a good writer, he just chooses to be a click-bait self-hating manipulator. Nick doesn't have those chops, he just turned into a lazy hack who calls the same five people for info. Which is worse? I guess that's a another thread with poll results. I'd vote that Dan is the worse contributor to the area's public discourse but many now are on to his act. Nick is mostly a harmless joke.
But you know that he's a troll AND most of his readership know that too, so when he does troll it falls on mostly deaf ears. Getting mad about Danny Shaughnessy is kind of passè now, it's like getting pissed that Billy Joel wrote another stupid song or that Jim Belushi is starring in another hacky three-camera sitcom. From their previous output the collective conscious knows that these guys generally suck. Who really pays attention to these guys anymore?
Cafardo is an under-the-radar bowl of suck. Like Bonger said, that Pedro and Vlad Guerrero for Jeter rumor was total bullshit, but Cafardo printed it anyway. And I can guarantee you that in a few years it's going to be taken as a gospel truth.
Like I said even when Shaughnessy trolls he does it with a clever turn of phrase* or some sort of reason that reminds you that hey, this guy is a decent writer. Whether that last part makes your angrier or not, YMMV, but for some reason it makes me want to read him more. I don't need the entire sports section to be an echo chamber and every once in awhile he does bring up a decent point from the other side that I may have not considered.
* The one thing that I do hate about Shaughnessy is that sometimes he just won't let go of something and will type it over and over and over and over again.
But you know that he's a troll AND most of his readership know that too, so when he does troll it falls on mostly deaf ears. Getting mad about Danny Shaughnessy is kind of passè now, it's like getting pissed that Billy Joel wrote another stupid song or that Jim Belushi is starring in another hacky three-camera sitcom. From their previous output the collective conscious knows that these guys generally suck. Who really pays attention to these guys anymore?
Cafardo is an under-the-radar bowl of suck. Like Bonger said, that Pedro and Vlad Guerrero for Jeter rumor was total bullshit, but Cafardo printed it anyway. And I can guarantee you that in a few years it's going to be taken as a gospel truth. In other words people know that Shaughnessy is full of crap, but not many know about Cafardo. Therefore his opinion is held in higher esteem and people treat him like an expert, when in truth, he's a dipshit with the dexterity to type quickly.
Like I said even when Shaughnessy trolls he does it with a clever turn of phrase* or some sort of reason that reminds you that hey, this guy is a decent writer. Whether that last part makes your angrier or not, YMMV, but for some reason it makes me want to read him more. I don't need the entire sports section to be an echo chamber and every once in awhile he does bring up a decent point from the other side that I may have not considered.
* The one thing that I do hate about Shaughnessy is that sometimes he just won't let go of something and will type it over and over and over and over again.
True, because he's actually a good writer who threw his talent away to become a clown.
I think of what he could have been if he used his talent for productive purposes and contrast that to the troll he became. Then again, he'll be a part of the BBHOF soon enough so maybe it worked out for him?*
Nick was also once a person who broke stories and tried hard at the Pat Ledger but he's also been mailing it in forever so I think his reputation will also be well known as someone not be be taken seriously. That Pedro trade article will also be forgotten and/or written off as "consider the source" at some point in the future, we're just not there yet.
*No.
What happens to some sportswriters is that eventually they come to hate sports, the people who play them, and the fans. Writing about sports becomes a grindingly tedious job.
Most of them leave the beat or leave the business. But if they've got a great gig like CHB, they stay in the job because they can't make as much money anywhere else.
We've been fortunate in this town to have had a run of sportswriters at the Globe who never lost their love of sports: Gammons, Ryan, Edes, and the all-time champ Boston sports columnist, Leigh Montville.
Shaughnessy was a good reporter and writer when he was young, but he stayed too long at the fair. He's been a bitter old hack for a long time.
Most of them leave the beat or leave the business. But if they've got a great gig like CHB, they stay in the job because they can't make as much money anywhere else.
We've been fortunate in this town to have had a run of sportswriters at the Globe who never lost their love of sports: Gammons, Ryan, Edes, and the all-time champ Boston sports columnist, Leigh Montville.
Shaughnessy was a good reporter and writer when he was young, but he stayed too long at the fair. He's been a bitter old hack for a long time.
The idea things haven't worked out for Shank is... hilarious. He's rich off a best-selling book. He's one of the few remaining local newspaper columnists with a national profile. He is going to be inducted into a HALL OF FAME.
Whatever he writes is nearly guaranteed to piss off a large number of "fans" in his home market, driving conversation, and setting the agenda. He is, by any measure, fantastically successful at his job of "columnist". He is the Boston sports answer to Howard Stern:
This thread, this enduring monument to his greatness, is all the proof anyone needs that it has "worked out" for Shank. He's fucking fabulous at what he does. He's so good we can't quit him. Shank is a Hall of Fame columnist. We hate him. Because we are supposed to hate him. He's the Ric Flair (i.e. a "heel") of sports journalism. WOOOO!
Listening to Dale and Holley go on about Shank's column was entertaining. Holley read the following line from the last paragraph:
In any event, I hereby appeal the ruling that claims that Shank is a "good writer".
I assume by "this" and "it's" he means the appeal hearing. If so, he is indeed correct. But then, in the very next line:
That not only contradicts what the majority stated in their ruling, but it also contradicts Shank's previous sentence. Unless he is claiming that the Patriots and Brady are guilty of violating labor law. The conclusion on WEEI was that Shank has a personal vendetta against the Krafts, and has had one for quite some time.
In any event, I hereby appeal the ruling that claims that Shank is a "good writer".
As pointed out by BSMW, Dan sure loves to plagiarize himself:
Article on LeBron from 6/1/2015
There's little doubt in my mind that he printed out his article from last year and used it to write his article in today's paper.
Article on LeBron from 6/1/2015
Article on LeBron from today
There's little doubt in my mind that he printed out his article from last year and used it to write his article in today's paper.
I thought that that interview was really well-done. It kind of humanized Shaughnessy a little bit, which may or may not be good. YMMV.
He used "we" when talking about Holy Cross athletics. BURN HIM.
It's funny he talks about the existence of The National getting him his break into becoming a Globe columnist. I liked The National a lot, bought it all the time in college.
He's full of shit, though, on this:
What's in the column is how I feel at the time. It's not to get clicks or trolling. I love how trolling has become, "I disagree with you, therefore you're trolling." It's anything that's not my opinion. I don't even know what trolling is except if you say something that's different.
This is 100% bullshit. He's lying. Trolling is not writing an unpopular opinion and he knows it.
Advanced stats "make [his] skull implode." He's still a fucking Luddite at heart.
It's funny he talks about the existence of The National getting him his break into becoming a Globe columnist. I liked The National a lot, bought it all the time in college.
He's full of shit, though, on this:
What's in the column is how I feel at the time. It's not to get clicks or trolling. I love how trolling has become, "I disagree with you, therefore you're trolling." It's anything that's not my opinion. I don't even know what trolling is except if you say something that's different.
This is 100% bullshit. He's lying. Trolling is not writing an unpopular opinion and he knows it.
Advanced stats "make [his] skull implode." He's still a fucking Luddite at heart.
Last edited:
I thought that piece was objectively awesome.
The stuff about Earl Weaver was great, about not being guys' "friends" was really interesting. He showed a lot of awareness about all the stuff that's happened with Ortiz and the various other athletes he's tangled with over the years. He also *gets* Boston in a way a lot of writers don't. And all the nickname shit was priceless.
When he's not pissing me off, I like him.
The stuff about Earl Weaver was great, about not being guys' "friends" was really interesting. He showed a lot of awareness about all the stuff that's happened with Ortiz and the various other athletes he's tangled with over the years. He also *gets* Boston in a way a lot of writers don't. And all the nickname shit was priceless.
When he's not pissing me off, I like him.
If you want to double down on the humanizing thing, and can stomach Kirk Minihane, the CHB interview on the Enough About Me podcast also had that affect. For what it's worth.
Not everyone has to like advanced stats to enjoy or talk about baseball. I mean, it's not his bag and I think that's okay. Baseball, and all sports for that matter, are big enough where you can have folks who swear by the numbers, those who don't and those who fall somewhere in the middle. I don't think he's as bad with his anti-stats biases as his colleague Cafardo is.
Of course he is. How many snide little shots does he take at Bill James in his columns?
"Advanced stats" to Shank means anything more than wins or batting average or homers.
"Advanced stats" to Shank means anything more than wins or batting average or homers.
I mentioned this in the Cafardo thread but it's amazing to me that he got in and Boswell still hasn't. Maybe I overrate him, but he's pretty much second to prime Gammons for me.
Roger Angell is in a different category maybe? His body of work is amazing, he has been writing about baseball since 1962, and contributing to the New Yorker since 1944 (!!!). The Vin Scully of baseball writers?
It's ok not to like Shaughnessy's brand of column but comparing his impact on the award to that of an accused child molester is a bit much.
Gammons has been tweeting some pretty cool stuff about Dan the last few days.
Gammons has been tweeting some pretty cool stuff about Dan the last few days.
Thomas Boswell is the James Boswell of modern baseball. It's disgraceful that DS got in before him.
BSMW has a nice writeup on this, but he's not in the Hall. He won the Spink award, but he's not in the Hall. He has no plaque. He won't be in any of the wings. And now he shares company with award-winners like child-molesting Bill Conlin, who also won the award.
This thing is about 40000 times less prestigious than his fellow media members are making out.
Aside from the Pulitzer, which none of these dum-dums are getting, this is probably the highest recognition that a baseball writer can get.
Comparing Shank to Conlin is a little much, no? All Shaughnessy did was write a couple shitty columns about a team you root for. Slow your roll a little bit. Jesus.
My point was that he's not in the Hall of Fame and no one should ever refer to him as a Hall of Famer. He got a circle-jerk award from other miserable assholes who are all part of the same little clique.
A huge portion of the BBWAA is made up of old, cranky writers who pretty much hate everything about the game over the last 25 years and routinely make ridiculous voting decisions when it comes to the HoF. I can't think of a better candidate than Shanks for such an award.
Exactly. Jackie was on EEI this morning and she put it best. She does not consider herself a member of the basketball hall of fame. She received an award. However we all know CHB will consider himself a hall of famer and his humility perfectly sums up why we all hate the CHB.
I also agree with her comparing him to Vesey. Both are miserable ass hats.
Can you post relevant paragraphs? I thought we had a long-standing site policy of not generating clicks for Dan?
It's worth a click. Here's the open for people here who are apparently as cynical as they accuse Shaughnessy of being:
It's really worth a click.
I mean, the Globe isn't going to fire Dan Shaughnessy if he doesn't bring in x amount of clicks per story.
I enjoyed that, and I am generally in the "never give CHB clicks" camp. The piece is a Simmons-esque running diary of the weekend with plenty of good anecdotes and a nice amount of self-awareness. Atypical, to say the least.
That was an excellent article. This comment sums it up for me.
"Great storyteller when he chooses. A complete troll far too often."
"Great storyteller when he chooses. A complete troll far too often."
LOved the story about Boggs quoting all his stats.....some things just never change
Just when you were getting me to like him a little bit he writes a "WAH, why won't Brady talk to us and the fans, he owes it to us..." column. As the insane Ron Borges once said "if you're born round you don't end up square" (sic). Or maybe that was Mike Sando, who knows.
Shank identified exactly ONE thing in that article that I would be interested in hearing Tom address: Whether and how much he will be aiding Jimmy.
Now make no mistake, I would be shocked if Tom does not help the kid. As Shank points out, it's in Tom's interests to do so in that the Pats need to win some games while he's in there in order for Tom and his team to be well positioned for the playoffs. Still, despite BB's classic reaction to the moronic question about Week 5 in the event Jimmy is playing lights out, any QB might have some trepidation about aiding the guy who would like to take his job permanently. As a result, I wouldn't mind reading Tom's reaction to that. Not that I would be expecting anything earth shattering or off script.
But (a) there are ways other than through Tom for us to learn about that topic and (b) just about everything else Tom would discuss is not very interesting. I think we can stipulate that he is frustrated by the preposterous 4 game break, will work his ass of in training camp regardless, will prepare diligently during his vacation, can't wait for Week 5 and will not once again assert his innocence. And he's not going to call Roger Goodell what he is. Or otherwise say anything that we don't already know.
So, yeah, I can see why it would frustrate Dan not to hear from Tom and make the job of the reporter/columnist easier. But for me, at least, Tom staying quiet is of little moment.
Now make no mistake, I would be shocked if Tom does not help the kid. As Shank points out, it's in Tom's interests to do so in that the Pats need to win some games while he's in there in order for Tom and his team to be well positioned for the playoffs. Still, despite BB's classic reaction to the moronic question about Week 5 in the event Jimmy is playing lights out, any QB might have some trepidation about aiding the guy who would like to take his job permanently. As a result, I wouldn't mind reading Tom's reaction to that. Not that I would be expecting anything earth shattering or off script.
But (a) there are ways other than through Tom for us to learn about that topic and (b) just about everything else Tom would discuss is not very interesting. I think we can stipulate that he is frustrated by the preposterous 4 game break, will work his ass of in training camp regardless, will prepare diligently during his vacation, can't wait for Week 5 and will not once again assert his innocence. And he's not going to call Roger Goodell what he is. Or otherwise say anything that we don't already know.
So, yeah, I can see why it would frustrate Dan not to hear from Tom and make the job of the reporter/columnist easier. But for me, at least, Tom staying quiet is of little moment.