Ah you're right. I was going from memory but after some Googling the Hall changed the policy.Spelunker said:
Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
Guys....GUYS.
We're talking about something CHB wrote. This isn't supposed to happen, because if we don't ignore him he'll never go away. We can't let him win. And it's not like he made an interesting or thoughtful point, he was a snide asshole about it.
We're talking about something CHB wrote. This isn't supposed to happen, because if we don't ignore him he'll never go away. We can't let him win. And it's not like he made an interesting or thoughtful point, he was a snide asshole about it.
If we aren't supposed to talk about him, then the thread should be locked. Not that I am encouraging that result in that I think there are times when he writes something that merits discussion or mocking or both.
I brought this up and it was only to make the point that I think it's odd that he and Cafardo continue to make the Boggs number retirement a two man crusade in that I don't think many Sox fans give two craps about this issue.
I would cheer politely if I was in the house when Boggs' number got retired and I really don't care either way. I can see why they would do it but their failure to act does not seem like a burning injustice. Not retiring Pedro's number or Papi's down the road would indeed enrage me. Boggs? Meh.
I brought this up and it was only to make the point that I think it's odd that he and Cafardo continue to make the Boggs number retirement a two man crusade in that I don't think many Sox fans give two craps about this issue.
I would cheer politely if I was in the house when Boggs' number got retired and I really don't care either way. I can see why they would do it but their failure to act does not seem like a burning injustice. Not retiring Pedro's number or Papi's down the road would indeed enrage me. Boggs? Meh.
Ya think maybe this is why theyre advocating for it? Because hes one of the best players in team history and people don't give two craps about it/ him and react to the idea like this:TheoShmeo said:
BannedbyNYYFans.com said:
Oh, I totally agree and think that the Hall should hear a player out. But the idea that they would put a Rays cap on Boggs is kinda outlandish, isn't it?
The real fun stuff is finding out when the people in the league and the players and stuff don't even know how shit works.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I, for one, am not talking about Shaugnessey.
I do still remember Boggs fondly though--the man could hit. And it is still baseball, right?
I remember once a sports writer (maybe Bob Ryan) describing Dennis Rodman didn't have a "skill" for rebounding, he had "fetishes". Meaning, he would try to grab rebounds when a tip-in would have been better for the team. I feel similarly about Boggs. I could never shake the feeling he was more interested in hitting singles to to keep a high average. He didn't seem to take advantage of his skills to hit fo power when it would have helped the team.There is no Rev said:
That said, my memories could be faulty.
JayMags71 said:
He led the league in doubles twice and only hit fewer than 40 in a season twice in his 10 full seasons with the Sox. A .462 SLG as a Red Sox indicates he was more than a singles hitter as well...at least not in an Ichiro-style slap hitter sense.
Though the knock on him at the time (unfairly) was that he'd rather take a walk than put the ball in play and advance runners. Perhaps that's where the notion of he didn't hit for enough power came from?
I know you are doing your usual "finger wagging" posting.JohntheBaptist said:
What's your actual point? That Sox fans SHOULD be up in arms that Boggs has not had his number retired? That's nice that you feel that way.
But the fact remains that Sox fans are simply not fussed about this. Nick, Dan, you and whoever else can stand on your respective heads, lecture us about not hating on ex-Yankees, lecture us on not overreacting to some in the media, and the ambivalent sentiment on Boggs is highly unlikely to change. For whatever reason, there is simply not going to be a groundswell to get him up on that wall.
So yeah, I continue to find it odd that some in the media continue to bang a drum that very few are likely to hear. Not that they have to write what's popular but some causes are just lost. I think this is one of them.
Pedro? Ortiz? Those guys are a whole different story. Sox fans far and wide would be ripshit if the team did not retire their numbers (and I know they are with Pedro, happily). Your cite to my comment on them goes nowhere. I was drawing a contrast between them and Boggs and regardless of whatever point you were trying to make, they are simply in a wholly different place than Boggs in the hearts and minds of Boston fans. At least, that's how I see it.
Aren't causes with great merit but lukewarm support exactly the ones that media should be banging a drum for? People change their minds, see the light, on all sorts of things, from the trivial to the significant. In 1990, how many much support was there for Bert Blyleven in the HOF? Or gay marriage?TheoShmeo said:
First of all, grow the fuck up. If you cant take being disagreed with make more sense or stfu.TheoShmeo said:
Theyre advocating for it because they think the state of no one giving a shit about a player of that caliber being ignored is worth challenging or changing. I'm saying you sound like a jackass for pointing to the apathy as a reason they shouldnt be advocating. Its exactly why theyre advocating.
I do think he should have his number retired but I cant think of a bigger waste of time personally than trying to convince you of that so we can stick with your awesome perception of how I'm thinking. Obviously Dan and I part ways there at least.
In 1987, Boggs hit 24 HR's. The most he ever hit either before or since with Boston was 8 (he hit 11 for the Yankees once). So some people always wondered why he couldn't hit more HR's; some journalists thought he should cut down on the walks and hit more homers. Nonsensical, but that's what some thought. But that some of that was also driven by Boggs open desire to bat 3rd as opposed to leadoff, despite his obvious value to the team as a leadoff hitter.Red(s)HawksFan said:
Boggs definitely benefited from the Monster. He got a lot of Wall doubles (7.9% of AB's at home were 2B's, vs. 4.8% on the road). Home OPS was 153 points higher than road.
What is this "only other" crap? Boggs' number IS retired. Just not by the Red Sox.moondog80 said:
Maybe it was the other thread, but we've been through this. If you can't see that as a uniquely peculiar (and absurd) situation, that clearly dodges the spirit of the question, I don't know what to tell you. But if it makes you feel better, you can add a qualifier that the player must have had a career WAR of at least 1.5 with said team.PC Drunken Friar said:
Well then stop stating it as a fact the Boggs and Gossage are the only two not to be retired.moondog80 said:
There are examples though, of players numbers being retired by a team other than the "right" team, like the Boggs example, where the "right" team never retired it. Steve Garvey, Winfield and Sutter a few examples. That's the precedent you should be looking for, and it is there. Not the narrative that Boggs and Gossage are the only ones without being retired.moondog80 said:
Classic pot calling the kettle black there, sunshine.JohntheBaptist said:
Being disagreed with is great. It leads to conversation and that's the point.
Your tack, with me and others, is to express disagreement as if those on the other side are immature little idiots who, alas, just can't see the big picture.
I get the point that the masses being apathetic about an issue doesn't mean that those in the media should never raise that issue. That's clearly true. On the other hand, in this case, Cafardo has been banging the drum for years, and at some point if an idea is getting no traction, it's time to give up the ghost. I think this is one of those times. That the CHB of all people is picking up the baton from NIcky adds an element of humor to the mix. As if these two opinion movers are going to stir the populace.
As I have said all along, I understand the argument for Boggs. It just doesn't move me and I don't see that changing for me or most Sox fans.
PC Drunken Friar said:
I'll push back a little on Winfield. Higher WAR with the Padres, plus he came up with them, which I think counts for something. Sutter, you're right, was better for the Cubs, but probably shouldn't be in the HOF anyway. He's a much lesser version of Gossage. Garvey, yes, it's silly that the Padres retired his number. But he's not in the HOF, nowhere near the player Boggs was. If that's the best case, that underscores my point.
Without getting bogged down (pun unintentional) in semantics, the challenge is to find a situation that closely parallels Boggs' number not being retired by the Red Sox. Modern player, slam dunk HOFer who produced the large majority of his value with one team, and said team does not retire his number. I cannot, and I believe there are none. The closest I could find are Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, and Dwight Evans. But HOF counts for a lot, and, fair or not, none of those guys are not in or ever really came close. And in those cases, the issue is they were falsely regarded as merely "good" players. Boggs, in spite of many not grasping the vale of his walks, sill got 91.9% of the HOF vote his first year. Everyone more or less agrees he was a great player. Yet here we are.
I won't link to the article because of not wanting to give him clicks, but I wish LL would take Shank to task for his stupid and assumptive questions more.
Some of the more infuriating ones from Shank
Some of us are comparing the Hanley-Pablo signings to the Gonzalez-Crawford acquisitions before 2011. You got away from that philosophy, now it feels like you’ve flipped back.
“I can understand why some people might make that comparison. It was never one that we attempted to duplicate.”
The better response- Well the comparison is completely ludicrous because Gonzo and Crawford were paid combined approx 300 million for 14 years while Hanley and Pablo are combined short of 200 million over 10 so no the comparison is lazy and not indicative of any philosophy.
Everybody loves the 2013 championship. What do you say to the notion that that season somehow created a false sense of who you are and what your philosophy is? Has that championship in any way hurt you since it happened?
I don’t think so. I think it was an extraordinary year. We recognized that at the time. I don’t think any bad habits or erroneous perceptions that grew out of it hamstring us these days. Baseball is a very difficult game to predict as many of you know. I am determined to believe in this team. I believe in the young players. I have faith in the manager and the general manager of this team and I have faith that we are going to finish stronger than we have performed to date.”
Better Answer- Dan the 2013 ring was exceptional.We dominated baseball that year. The notion it created a "false sense or a fluke" as you derisively call it from time to time is detached.
It feels like you don’t any longer have the old-fashioned baseball guys like Bill Lajoie and Craig Shipley, who were here when Theo was here. It feels now like it’s more stat guys and young geniuses.
“I don’t think that’s so. We have a lot of experienced scouts in our organization. I can see that the people you might see around the office are more the young, analytical guys, but we have people all over the country who are traditional observational scouts.”
Better Answer- I really don't get you worshipping at Theo's alter. You want to talk about disasters ? Lets talk about having a gaping hole at 1b because we had to package an all star Gonzo away to extricate ourselves from massive commitments CC that Theo green lighted/suggested and then later blamed others for.
Some will love that Dan asks the "tough" questions, but I think he so loves that persona that he fails to get any meaningful information.
Some of the more infuriating ones from Shank
Some of us are comparing the Hanley-Pablo signings to the Gonzalez-Crawford acquisitions before 2011. You got away from that philosophy, now it feels like you’ve flipped back.
“I can understand why some people might make that comparison. It was never one that we attempted to duplicate.”
The better response- Well the comparison is completely ludicrous because Gonzo and Crawford were paid combined approx 300 million for 14 years while Hanley and Pablo are combined short of 200 million over 10 so no the comparison is lazy and not indicative of any philosophy.
Everybody loves the 2013 championship. What do you say to the notion that that season somehow created a false sense of who you are and what your philosophy is? Has that championship in any way hurt you since it happened?
I don’t think so. I think it was an extraordinary year. We recognized that at the time. I don’t think any bad habits or erroneous perceptions that grew out of it hamstring us these days. Baseball is a very difficult game to predict as many of you know. I am determined to believe in this team. I believe in the young players. I have faith in the manager and the general manager of this team and I have faith that we are going to finish stronger than we have performed to date.”
Better Answer- Dan the 2013 ring was exceptional.We dominated baseball that year. The notion it created a "false sense or a fluke" as you derisively call it from time to time is detached.
It feels like you don’t any longer have the old-fashioned baseball guys like Bill Lajoie and Craig Shipley, who were here when Theo was here. It feels now like it’s more stat guys and young geniuses.
“I don’t think that’s so. We have a lot of experienced scouts in our organization. I can see that the people you might see around the office are more the young, analytical guys, but we have people all over the country who are traditional observational scouts.”
Better Answer- I really don't get you worshipping at Theo's alter. You want to talk about disasters ? Lets talk about having a gaping hole at 1b because we had to package an all star Gonzo away to extricate ourselves from massive commitments CC that Theo green lighted/suggested and then later blamed others for.
Some will love that Dan asks the "tough" questions, but I think he so loves that persona that he fails to get any meaningful information.
jimbobim said:
Worth noting that Theo doesn't have such a guy in Chicago, where he has near-total control, suggesting that he wasn't the reason those guys were in place in Boston. Far, far more likely (and consistent with reporting) that ownership forced those guys on Theo and that ultimately Theo didn't want to have to deal with them.
jimbobim said:
The reason LL didn't answer the way you suggest is that it would have been completely illogical.
First, LL can't take credit for all the rings and shift the blame to Theo for the bad decisions. Either LL is the great "baseball man" CHB wrote about in 2004 who plays a big role in the organization's decisions or is he isn't. Your suggestion that Theo was solely responsible for green-lighting AGon's signing doesn't really make any sense given LL's insistence on the team's group decision-making and his own very important role with the team.
Second, arguing that the money on Crawford and AGon was ill-spent, but the money on Hanley and Panda was a great idea -- especially when one considers the whole "Hanley not having a position" issue -- requires a detachment from reality. Further, I really don't see how you can argue that those deals were not a clear departure from the "no huge-money, long-terms deals" philosophy the team allegedly adopted post Punto trade.
Finally, and I'm happy to wait until the end of this season to do this if you insist, but you cannot argue that 2013 wasn't a fluke when it was preceded by a last-place finish and is then followed by consecutive last-place finishes. For how many years does Cherington need to drive the team into the ground before you're satisfied that 2013 may have been an aberration?
I don't like Shank but I didn't have any issues with that interview. Sure, he phrases questions in a somewhat provocative way, but those are questions I'd think a lot of the customer base is asking. Do the Hanley/Panda signings mean that moved away from their 2013 philosophy? Do they have the right people in the FO, given the series of high profile moves that don't look like they're working out? Is Lucchino distracted by all his other activities? Is Farrell here to stay, given that this is the third season out of four where things are going terribly? And so on. Heck, a lot of these questions are being debated all over this board. I was actually happy somebody got to ask such questions to the brass in a pretty direct way. Outside of the Henry vote of confidence snippet interview, I haven't seen a recent interview from the Sox along those lines. And I must say Lucchino actually handles the questions deftly.
Jimbobim, it's okay to be happy with a fluke. It really takes nothing away from what happened that year. Because look at the results of the last five years logically and ask: What season looks to be the anomaly to you?
2011: mammoth Sept collapse, missed playoffs
2012: last place
2013: World Series winners
2014: last place
2015: last place (so far)
As far as Shank's questions, what do you want him to ask LL? Why is Fenway America's best ballpark? Sox are just playing possum, right? Baseball is a lot of fun, huh?
Newsflash: the Sox suck, nothing Shaughnessy or Abraham or McAds or Edes or anyone is going to ask is going to be Chris Farley Show questions. Why would you want that?
2011: mammoth Sept collapse, missed playoffs
2012: last place
2013: World Series winners
2014: last place
2015: last place (so far)
As far as Shank's questions, what do you want him to ask LL? Why is Fenway America's best ballpark? Sox are just playing possum, right? Baseball is a lot of fun, huh?
Newsflash: the Sox suck, nothing Shaughnessy or Abraham or McAds or Edes or anyone is going to ask is going to be Chris Farley Show questions. Why would you want that?
I don't like the CHB much but I thought his questions were fine and that Larry's answers were also fine. Nothing remarkable on either end of that article in my view.
Dan's continued focus on LL's role seems odd in that he hasn't brought anything to the table other than "Larry doesn't seem as present," but that's a side point.
Dan's continued focus on LL's role seems odd in that he hasn't brought anything to the table other than "Larry doesn't seem as present," but that's a side point.
If you read the CHB's column about cleaning his office, did you have a reaction much different than "boring, self-absorbed, lazy...."?
I saw a tweet about Shank cleaning out his office, and was devastated to learn that he hadn't, in fact, been fired.
Shaughnessy revealed on radio today that he found a letter he wrote to the Red Sox to apply for a Public Relations job. Talk about a funny butterfly effect thought experiment.
TheoShmeo said:
No. I actually thought that it was a pretty interesting column. For me, it's actually a relatable problem. I have a hard time throwing anything away (anyone want 20 years of Sports Illustrateds?) and what he was describing are all thoughts that ran through my head as I talked myself out of throwing them away.
This was a fine story for a July day when the Red Sox weren't playing.
Unless you want him to invent a controversy. That might be fun.
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 1h1 hour ago
Pleased to report that Dan Shaughnessy is one of three finalists for the prestigious Spink Award.
Pleased to report that Dan Shaughnessy is one of three finalists for the prestigious Spink Award.
Looks like he came in third.
http://baseballhall.org/discover/j-g-taylor-spink/tom-gage-wins-spink-award
http://baseballhall.org/discover/j-g-taylor-spink/tom-gage-wins-spink-award
You know, it would be great if the players could vote on which writers could get into the Hall of Fame.
Jeff Passan of Yahoo said it was the worst kept secret in baseball. I wouldn't be crediting Shank for breaking the story.CoolPapaBellhorn said:
Peter Gammons @pgammo 53s53 seconds ago
Filling out my Spink ballot for Dan Shaughnessy made me really proud, and recalled a 5-3 Holy Cross-Syracuse football game. Groton Strong!
Filling out my Spink ballot for Dan Shaughnessy made me really proud, and recalled a 5-3 Holy Cross-Syracuse football game. Groton Strong!
Has Shank posted his goodbye Big Papi story yet? I can't even look. I'm guessing a passing PED snark will be in there somewhere.
For those of you who playing the "Dan mentions tomato cans" drinking game, start chugging:
Dan Shaughnessy @Dan_Shaughnessy Nov 22
Rules say 6 AFC teams make playoffs. But any way you look at it, it's the Patriots and five tomato cans. Easiest path to Super Bowl ever.
Dan Shaughnessy @Dan_Shaughnessy Nov 22Rules say 6 AFC teams make playoffs. But any way you look at it, it's the Patriots and five tomato cans. Easiest path to Super Bowl ever.