Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
Very nice column by Dan in today's Globe on opening day, specifically his references to Pete Frates.
Rag and shit on Shaughnessy all you want around here, but it was a nice piece; if you don't get choked up reading the last paragraph, you need to check to see if you have a soul.
Rag and shit on Shaughnessy all you want around here, but it was a nice piece; if you don't get choked up reading the last paragraph, you need to check to see if you have a soul.
Dan's on a bit of a roll: nice piece today on the sadness and desperation that is being a Cleveland sports fan.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/20/cavaliers-are-cleveland-best-and-only-hope-for-title/msYnc9rGbHpZndaA1mnrNO/story.html
I only wish he'd written about how terrible it was as a casual observer watching Cleveland fans go from euphoric to apoplectic in about ten minutes watching CC collapse as Josh Beckett shut them down in Game 5 in 2007. It was like going back in time to watch Red Sox fans pre-2004.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/20/cavaliers-are-cleveland-best-and-only-hope-for-title/msYnc9rGbHpZndaA1mnrNO/story.html
I only wish he'd written about how terrible it was as a casual observer watching Cleveland fans go from euphoric to apoplectic in about ten minutes watching CC collapse as Josh Beckett shut them down in Game 5 in 2007. It was like going back in time to watch Red Sox fans pre-2004.
I agree he had the foundations of a good piece there, even with a bit of self-deprecation too, but of course he had to deride the Pats' SB win by describing it as the worst play call in sports history. Even when he's trying to do quality work, he can't help but be a jackass.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Dude, it wasn't a good play call. Pretty much everyone agrees on that, no?
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
To describe that play to a Boston audience as the worst play call in sports history is straight up trolling. Come on. That's some bullshit and we both know it.
He's an asshole even when he's trying to do quality work.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I don't agree. It was a very bad call and it's universally looked at as a bad call. And that's okay, I mean the Boston managers/coaches have made terrible calls in the last few decades and we should get some our way too. But Shaughnessy isn't the first (nor will he be the last) to say so.
There can be a lot of things to get angry about in a CHB column, but this is extremely minor. It doesn't diminish the Super Bowl win, Butler still made a terrific pick, the Pats still had to take the lead after being down by 10 in the fourth quarter. We all (including Shank) know this. He wasn't writing about the Pats' latest Super Bowl win, so boiling the game down to the takeaway that most sports fans have of the game isn't a crime.
That's what everyone does.
We're going to part ways on this, because IMO by casually dismissing it as the worst play call of all time (not remotely true) it totally ignores Butler's play and diminishes the championship. "They didn't win, you guys, the other team just gave it to you." And he's doing it in a column that should really have zero to do with the Pats. It's a long pattern for him of doing this stuff and it ruins even his better efforts.
And again, this column could have been really good. All he had to do was leave out the snark and his usual shitting on the hometown teams. He couldn't do it.
And again, this column could have been really good. All he had to do was leave out the snark and his usual shitting on the hometown teams. He couldn't do it.
Not going to link to it because it basically is a more negative obviously trolling version of the worry worts here. CHB decided he wanted to take out the 2013 was a fluke and this team should be viewed as perennial losers which is ignorant at least and epitome of asshole at best.
The idea of getting a pass for a championship season is just infuriating and dismissing it as lucky is further infuriating. The 2013 team dominated from start to finish. Were they expected to ? No. But that doesn't make it lucky or any less impressive. In the end saying it's time to worry on May 2nd is just not a rational way to follow a baseball season and for a writer who holds himself in such obnoxious esteem he knows that.
He may show occasional articles where he's good, but this submission was just a steaming dump. Good to know that in that garbage head's view 500 is indicative of a last place finish.
The idea of getting a pass for a championship season is just infuriating and dismissing it as lucky is further infuriating. The 2013 team dominated from start to finish. Were they expected to ? No. But that doesn't make it lucky or any less impressive. In the end saying it's time to worry on May 2nd is just not a rational way to follow a baseball season and for a writer who holds himself in such obnoxious esteem he knows that.
He may show occasional articles where he's good, but this submission was just a steaming dump. Good to know that in that garbage head's view 500 is indicative of a last place finish.
Perhaps he's using the 2013 season as a metaphor for his writing, occasionally a fluke of success, but mostly a steaming dump?jimbobim said:
I don't know, but imagine you saying to a Mets fan that they only came back in 86 because Schiraldi was a choker, Gedman whiffed on a spitter and Stapleton wasn't out there.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Their response would probably be, "yeah, and your point is?"
Humphrey said:
I don't think he's knocking C&F as much as he's knocking the Red Sox organization as a whole. It's kind of like when people say the Red Sox have won three championships in this century.
Eddie Jurak said:
Will not click on this. That only shows a reason to keep CHB on the payroll. From that quote it seems like typical Shank. I'd be mad at the Boston sports scene too if it was the cause of my income being cut in half since all the teams have had success in the past decade. Maybe he can write about the curse of Tyler Seguin now and make a few bucks.
Picking on the Pats for -- horrors -- refusing to concede guilt (psst, maybe they have nothing to concede, you idiot), is the lowest of low hanging fruit.
It is no surprise that the CHB, the laziest of all Boston writers outside of Nicky Cafardo, has chosen this path.
It is no surprise that the CHB, the laziest of all Boston writers outside of Nicky Cafardo, has chosen this path.
From the CHB's series of rectal offerings this morning:
Not linking it as I don't want to be the cause of more clicks.
Does anyone other than the CHB, Lazy Nicky and maybe Boggs care about this issue? I mean, does anyone care even a little bit? Maybe people do but I have never met someone for whom it was a concern.
In fairness to the CHB, this was a funny line:
Not linking it as I don't want to be the cause of more clicks.
Does anyone other than the CHB, Lazy Nicky and maybe Boggs care about this issue? I mean, does anyone care even a little bit? Maybe people do but I have never met someone for whom it was a concern.
In fairness to the CHB, this was a funny line:
I figure the issue with Boggs is most likely that he's a first rate asshole, he left the team on acrimonious terms and went and rode on the backs of horses with the fucking Yankees. And that he's likely better known for being a Margo Adams sex addict and as the guy who drank 100 beers on a cross country flight than as an actual great ballplayer.
Plus he's got AWFUL hair plugs.
The Red Sox don't owe Boggs a damn thing IMO. This push to retire Boggs' number is just a reiteration of "let's retire Tony C's number!" that we heard forever.
Plus he's got AWFUL hair plugs.
The Red Sox don't owe Boggs a damn thing IMO. This push to retire Boggs' number is just a reiteration of "let's retire Tony C's number!" that we heard forever.
moondog80 said:
He was under-appreciated in his Red Sox time because his greatest skill (getting on base by any means) was under-appreciated. He left town and went to the Yankees of all places (and people conveniently forget that the Sox management made little effort to keep him). And he's reputed to be a bit of a self-absorbed dick.
It's not a wonder that the current Sox management doesn't think much of him.
Wade Boggs was undoubtedly a great ballplayer during his years in Boston, and his Cooperstown plaque was well deserved. And he was a fan favorite until he became a completely self absorbed jerk. I cannot really blame him for riding the horse; the Red Sox weren't willing to pay him, but the Yankees were.
Sure, it may seem arbitrary some times whose number gets retired. But this is hardly the injustice that Shank makes it out to be.
Sure, it may seem arbitrary some times whose number gets retired. But this is hardly the injustice that Shank makes it out to be.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Wow. Do you also believe that he "clogged the basepaths"?
Tony C was a feel-good story, Boggs a first ballot HOFer. Absurd comparison. And he went to the Yankees because the Red Sox didn't want him. Should he have been sad that they won the World Series while he was there? Does Pedro get a pass because the Mets never made it to the playoffs?
Of course I don't believe he clogged the basepaths. But there's no obligation here to retire Boggs' number IMO.
The Sox didn't want him because he hit .259 his last year here and his OPS+ had dropped to 97 and he was 34 years old and his personal life was in the newspapers every damn day and it appeared for all intents and purposes that he wanted out of here. Let's not pretend that the Sox kicked poor Wade to the curb even though he begged to stay. And honestly he really only had one more good season his entire career and that was in the strike-shorted year of 1994. The rest of his OPS+ were pretty average: 104, 119, 98, 102, 94, 94. His OPS as always was good but his other skills declined hard. He was in the decline phase of his career when he left, so let's not kill the Sox for moving on.
The Sox didn't want him because he hit .259 his last year here and his OPS+ had dropped to 97 and he was 34 years old and his personal life was in the newspapers every damn day and it appeared for all intents and purposes that he wanted out of here. Let's not pretend that the Sox kicked poor Wade to the curb even though he begged to stay. And honestly he really only had one more good season his entire career and that was in the strike-shorted year of 1994. The rest of his OPS+ were pretty average: 104, 119, 98, 102, 94, 94. His OPS as always was good but his other skills declined hard. He was in the decline phase of his career when he left, so let's not kill the Sox for moving on.
The Red Sox were certainly justified in not resigning him. His first 3 seasons with the Yankees were pretty decent, not average, but also nowhere near what he was with Boston. But he also shouldn't be blamed for going to a team that was willing to pay him, even if it was the Yankees and later the Rays.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I'm not killing the Sox at all for letting him move on. They were right. I'm just not penalizing Boggs for going to the Yankees. It's juvenile to think he should have taken the rivalry into account.
Outside of a special case like OJ, is there a living, first ballot, slam dunk HOFer in any sport who built virtually all of his resume with one team that is less appreciated by said team's fan base?
lexrageorge said:
I'm not blaming him for getting a contract. But I'm in the camp that says "who cares?" when it comes to his number. It's been almost 25 years, time for everyone to get over it. I don't need the bitter, fossilized likes of Shank and Cafardo telling me what a terrible organization the Sox are for not honoring some binky of theirs.
It's hard to quantify this or know what a fan base actually thinks in general, but my take is that Boggs is quite appreciated for what he was in Boston. Which was a GREAT hitter and a third baseman who transformed himself from below average to damned good.
And he might even belong up there with Yaz, Williams and the rest. I don't think he does but I get the argument. I just think that there is literally no one up in arms about this other than two writers trying to get clicks without putting forth a stich of effort.
And he might even belong up there with Yaz, Williams and the rest. I don't think he does but I get the argument. I just think that there is literally no one up in arms about this other than two writers trying to get clicks without putting forth a stich of effort.
I think a lot of people buy into the crap that he only cared about his numbers, to the detriment of the team.TheoShmeo said:
Near as I can tell, the only other living HOFer whose number is not retired is Goose Gossage -- a relief pitcher who was a bit of a nomad, and who is most associated with a team that already has a million retired numbers.
Wade Boggs: .328/.415/.443/.858 w/ OPS+ of 131.TheoShmeo said:
Yaz: .285/.379/.462/.841 w/ OPS+ of 130
Rice: .298/.352/.502/.854 w/ OPS+ of 128
Splinter: .344/.482/.634/1.116 w/ OPS+ of 190
Fisk: .269/.341/.457/.797 w/ OPS+ of 117
First, Boggs is not even in the same neighborhood as Ted Williams. I think we all knew that, but the numbers do show how great a gap exists between the two players.
Yaz remains the team's all time leader in games played with 3308, which is nearly twice the 1625 games that Boggs played for the team. Rice was 3rd (currently 4th) on the team's all time HR list at the time his number was retired, and is also 4th in the team's all time games played ranking. Fisk, rightly or wrongly, was much more highly regarded among fans upon his departure, and still has one of the team's most memorable home runs of all time to his credit. As for Doerr and Cronin, different era. And I refuse to dignify with a response any arguments against Johnny Pesky's number being retired.
Dwight Evans (2nd in games played, 5th in HR's, 3rd in 2B's, best RF in team history) and Papi (when it's time) have a better argument than Wade Boggs.
All those media reports that Boggs accepted payment from Tampa to wear a Rays cap in Cooperstown probably didn't help. I know Boggs denied the reports later on, but would anybody be shocked if it was true? Shit, the man was in Swamp Shark.
lexrageorge said:
I would advise against using stats to argue that Jim Rice was more deserving than Wade Boggs. You will lose. Boggs' WAR with the Red Sox was 71.6 (3rd all time, behind only Ted and Yaz), Rice's was 47.4 (10th all time, and he'll soon drop to 11th when Pedroia passes him with 1.4 more points, maybe even 12th if Ortiz gets 2.6 more). And as you point out, Boggs had fewer GP than Rice, which means he accumulated 51% more WAR in 22% fewer games.
The only way to argue Rice was better is if "being a NESN analyst" counts as a category.
Again, there is absolutely zero precedent for a guy of Boggs' stature to not have his number retired.
Sure, if you want to use WAR as the end all to be all when deciding which players numbers should be retired. I was trying to point out that it's not. In both OPS and OPS+, which are more objective than WAR, Rice and Boggs are close. I certainly would not trust any defensive WAR calculations from those days, although I'll grant you that Boggs was a much better fielder at his more difficult position than Rice was. Rice had a much longer career with the team, and is among the team's leaders in many counting stats.moondog80 said:
EDIT: I'm not convinced that the situation is truly unprecedented. But I will say that there are reasons why Boggs number is not retired, and those reasons are certainly valid.
I think what says all that needs to be said about the organization's view on any number is what they do with it once the player renowned for it leaves the team. Boggs' number has been on the back of a dozen other players since he left. Dewey's number was worn by a couple different players before some guy named Manny wore it, and then someone else wore it after him (speaking to Manny's standing with management). Tony C's #25 has been worn by a bunch of people. Meanwhile, no one wore #14 after Rice did. No one's worn 21 since Clemens left, ditto for #45 and Pedro, #33 and Tek, #49 and Wakefield (though the last two have only been retired for a few years). I think that says it all.
The Rays retired his #12...their only retired number other than the league wide retiring of 42. That could have something to do with the Red Sox's reluctance to bend their rules for Boggs as they did for Fisk and Pesky.
Edit: What I mean by pointing that out is that it's not like Boggs isn't recognized somewhere around the league. Given various circumstances, there seems to be no need for urgency to get #26 up on the facade.
moondog80 said:
The Rays retired his #12...their only retired number other than the league wide retiring of 42. That could have something to do with the Red Sox's reluctance to bend their rules for Boggs as they did for Fisk and Pesky.
Edit: What I mean by pointing that out is that it's not like Boggs isn't recognized somewhere around the league. Given various circumstances, there seems to be no need for urgency to get #26 up on the facade.
moondog80 said:
Every other Hall of Famer that spent significant time with the Red Sox and doesn't have his number retired by then? Jimmie Foxx comes to mind immediately.
The thing is, one of the choices the organization has made is to retire numbers for players that are Hall of Famers and finished their career within the organization. They've made two exceptions to that: Fisk and Pesky. Both, however, took jobs with the organization after retirement from playing. Pesky, of course, was with the team for over 50 years.
Then there are the guys who seem to be held in higher regard by the team than Boggs is who are either in or on their way to the HOF (Rice, Pedro) or may never get there (Dewey, Tiant, Wake, Tek, etc). They all have in the past or are currently working for the team. They're in Ft Myers for spring training and they show their face at Fenway on more than just special occasions. They have maintained and in some ways increased their ties to the club.
Boggs has never done that that I'm aware of. Outside of the 100th Fenway anniversary and maybe when the honored the '86 team, has Boggs been seen at Fenway at all in the last 10 years or so? I think this whole retired number/revered place in the Red Sox pantheon thing is a two-way street. Boggs may be getting about as much as he's giving.
The comparison I made was living HOFers, from any team, which I don't think is a trivial distinction. There are very few fans who have a connection with Jimmie Foxx, who played just over 6 years with the Red Sox and accumulated less than half the WAR. Expand it to "post WWII HOFers" and I still think you won't find many who are not retired.Red(s)HawksFan said:
Yeah, that was a nice "job" that Fisk took with the team. I believe the want ad read "candidate will be eligible for the HOF and agree to go in wearing a Red Sox cap instead of a White Sox one".
But I do think you've nailed it. Boggs has interests outside of baseball and isn't concerned with kissing up to the current administration.
As someone who would be in favor of Boggs' number being retired, this is an excellent counter-argument. "Hes a jerk who played with the Yankees and had his name in the tabloids and because Dan Shaughnessy is advocating for it" is not. Some of you really just abandon all rationality when it comes to the I hate the Boston media schtick.Red(s)HawksFan said:
I could be wrong but I believe there was some unwritten leeway on this (they accepted input) and the Boggs fiasco got them to actually enforce the rule.There is no Rev said:
Actually Dave Winfield was the first real test case for this. Winfield could have had either Padres or Yankees but he made a million bucks by going with the Padres. In Boggs' case, when he signed with the Rays, it was in his contract that he'd go in with a Rays cap. Most players now have it in their contract as to which cap is in Cooperstown. Players choose, the Hall has no leverage now.JohntheBaptist said:
There is no Rev said:
It's always been up to the Hall of Fame. However, players were granted a huge say as to which hat they would wear. ifmanis is correct that Winfield's selection of SD was one of the first cases where something looked suspect - especially after rumors surfaced that he was being paid to choose the Padre logo. In fact, the Hall actually called him and asked for a reason behind the choice. He explained that he came up as a Padre and always felt most comfortable there - mostly due to his friendship with teammate and former childhood hero, Willie McCovey.
Similar rumors arose a few years later that part of the reason Tampa signed Boggs was his agreement to select their hat for induction. The theory being he could convince Cooperstown because it was his hometown. Obviously the Hall of Fame squashed that idea.
My point was simply Wade pushing for a Tampa hat over a Boston probably doesn't do him any favors.
Edit - ifmanis, I just googled for about five minutes...I think you're wrong. It's still up to Cooperstown, not the player. Their contract would have no bearing over the Hall's choice.
It is Cooperstown, Boggs was the reason why they did this because of the aforementioned clause in his Rays' contract. The HoF felt he was "selling his immortality".
That's basically the opposite of how it works. Boggs (supposedly) had that clause. There HOF clarified their criteria street that to state that they'd go with the most important historical team for the player.ifmanis5 said:
Boggs' plaque is wearing a Sox hat.
