Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,557
Only Shank could pen an article after a 16-2 win that capped off a sweep titled "Why I'm Starting To Hate This Year's Red Sox".
Did you read it? I was morbidly interested in reading it due the title and he doesn't hate them all; he's actually frustrated with this team which I don't think is that far from my attitude towards this team too.

I think that the headline writer (who isn't Shank) was going for click bait.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Dead tree version headline is "Whiff of Worry is Overpowering". A bit better
So what happened there? Did Shank see the first title and request an edit? In fairness, the second title better fits the text.

I have some trouble with the premise of the article in that it reminds me of the "these guys are frauds" angle in 04 (though maybe that's a good thing). Meaning that the whole "these guys have front running personalities" thing is a little presumptuous for my tastes. But to the extent that he is saying that their inability to win close games is a bad indicator for the playoffs (if they get there), he's got a point.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
47,507
deep inside Guido territory
Did you read it? I was morbidly interested in reading it due the title and he doesn't hate them all; he's actually frustrated with this team which I don't think is that far from my attitude towards this team too.

I think that the headline writer (who isn't Shank) was going for click bait.
Yeah I read it. Just didn't think it was the time for that kind of toned article. But that's par for the course for him.
 

David Laurila

Barbara Walters' Illegitimate Son
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The article cites the Red Sox poor record when trailing after 7- and 8-innings, not bothering to mention that they are better than league average in both cases. There is also a claim that "October baseball games are 3-2 and 2-1," which is questionable given that last year's postseason had four one-run games and 22 that were decided by three-or-more runs. The writer also states that "Most of the rest of Boston's (remaining) games are against teams that still think they have a chance to win." Maybe they do, but starting a week from today the Red Sox play 16 straight games against teams that are under .500, and 20 of their last 46 are against teams under .500. Basically, this article is filled with misleading "facts."
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
31,600
Deep inside Muppet Labs
But to the extent that he is saying that their inability to win close games is a bad indicator for the playoffs (if they get there), he's got a point.
No, he doesn't, really.

His entire premise is that the Sox are frontrunners, beating up on bad teams but losing to good ones and losing close games. Let's take a look and compare:

He bitches that the Sox are 25-27 in 1- and 2- run games this year. The Sox are 13-14 in 1 run games and 12-13 in 2 run games.
BUT:

Toronto is 13-19 in 1 run games
Baltimore is 14-13
Cleveland is 15-15
Detroit is 20-13
Texas is 26-8

So the Sox are right in the middle of the pack in terms of 1 run games. Of course any basic research would show that generally, teams usually average around .500 in 1 run games. And that huge winning margins, like Detroit and Texas this year and like Baltimore a few years ago, are both prone to huge regression the following year AND no indication of ability to win in the playoffs (Baltimore having a crazy good record in 1 run games a couple of years year didn't get them out of the divisional round).

Blowouts however, are another story. Good teams generally have a very high winning percentage in blowouts:

Texas: 13-17
Cleveland: 27-13
Toronto: 22-10
Baltimore: 16-15
Boston: 21-9
Detroit: 16-14

Again, the Sox are right where they should be in blowouts for indications of a good team. And Texas and Detroit fans should be worried. Honestly, that article showed a vast misunderstanding of how baseball works.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
30,709
Southwestern CT
David is right in terms of a factual analysis, but (IMO) it's even worse that this. Shank is trying to frame this as some sort of "character issue," which is as tired as sports cliches get.

What makes this an even more egregious case of hackery is that he clearly wrote the article as a set-up that will allow him to claim prescience when the season ends:
  • Great finish, strong playoff run: "Gritty, scrappy kids and grizzled vets pull it together in the stretch drive and learn how to win."
  • Poor finish and miss playoffs or lose in 1 game WC playoff: "Despite talent, Sox lack intangibles necessary to win."
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Yep, my biggest problem with the article was the character aspect. As if blowing people out but losing close ones is an indication of a being weak minded or not having sufficient gumption to succeed in October.

It's nice to know based on the posts above that my inclination to throw the CHB a bone on the second point was wrong and that Shank was doubly wrong. The lesson? Think twice before concluding that Dan Shaughnessy is right about anything.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
So what happened there? Did Shank see the first title and request an edit? In fairness, the second title better fits the text.
Editors are usually responsible for writing headlines; the online and print versions may have different editors, as such things like column inches and layout still matter to the print edition.

Writers rarely have much to do with headlines. And given Shaughnessey's well-known tech aversion, I doubt he is comparing the online and print headlines; I also doubt he looks at his own published columns, either online or in the print edition.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Then what do you think he masturbates to?
Probably to his bank balance. Or to this thread. As I post in this thread about every six months, his job is to rile up the natives. He does it better than just about every "peer" he has in the business. I'm pretty sure the hate and vitriol this thread heaps on him has Shank breaking out the lube and the scented candles.

Yep, that makes every SJH post foreplay. Let that imagery nestle into your brain.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Editors are usually responsible for writing headlines; the online and print versions may have different editors, as such things like column inches and layout still matter to the print edition.

Writers rarely have much to do with headlines. And given Shaughnessey's well-known tech aversion, I doubt he is comparing the online and print headlines; I also doubt he looks at his own published columns, either online or in the print edition.
I thought Globe headlines were written by members of NoMaas?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
47,507
deep inside Guido territory
The article cites the Red Sox poor record when trailing after 7- and 8-innings, not bothering to mention that they are better than league average in both cases. There is also a claim that "October baseball games are 3-2 and 2-1," which is questionable given that last year's postseason had four one-run games and 22 that were decided by three-or-more runs. The writer also states that "Most of the rest of Boston's (remaining) games are against teams that still think they have a chance to win." Maybe they do, but starting a week from today the Red Sox play 16 straight games against teams that are under .500, and 20 of their last 46 are against teams under .500. Basically, this article is filled with misleading "facts."
To piggyback off your numbers, 13 of 36 2015 postseason games were decided by 1 and 2 runs.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Dan predictably gets on the "Brady should have denounced Trump" bandwagon this morning. I know that some share that view but is it really surprising that a guy who just went through the DG drama for a year and a half plus would not want to get involved with a non-football question which, if answered, would have created a mini-drama no matter which way he answered it? Involving a friend of his? When it was was posed in a way that involved his children? When he works for a coach who preaches giving bland answers and avoiding all distractions? When he himself is incredibly single minded during the football season?

I get it, Tom could have given a short answer along the lines that "I remain friends with Trump but there is no room for such speech." I just think it takes more imagination to think that Tom would have gone there under the circumstances and that this is another example of the CHB grabbing for low hanging fruit, several days late, to get a few more clicks. Not that anyone should be surprised by that.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
30,709
Southwestern CT
Brady is a football player. To criticize him for political opinions that he is not offering is the definition of assholic behavior. (See Shaughnessy, Dan.)

Would Shaughnessy prefer that Brady act like Curt Schilling?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Tom has never ever said anything about anything other than platitudes about his team and his opponent. I expected him to say nothing about Trump then, now, or in the future. I'm sure the hat in the locker was a joke of some sort that no one at that time thought would ever mean a thing.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,440
Bob Ryan's little morsels and tidbits from his desk drawer were actually entertaining back in the day when Ryan was in his prime.

It's clear Shank ran out of ammo: the Sox playoff exit and Brady's suspension are well in the rear view mirror, and the Bruins and Celtics are too early in their respective seasons to be on his radar screen. So he concocts faux outrage over Brady's refusal to answer a dumbass question, and adds a random tidbit about Brady not paying a practice player. Can you say useless drivel for $400?
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
And even if you don't mouseover, or have a browser that doesn't have that functionality, you can still see it's msn.com.

Well, I mean, you can. Maybe I shouldn't be using the royal "you" here, huh?
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,541
ct
Anyway to answer Papelbon's Pountine's question the article explains that the Curly Haired Boyfriend now refuses to vote for Schilling for the Hall of Fame after Schilling showed support for the reprehensible teeshirt advocating the killing of journalists. Plus CHB does not get any "clicks" if it's not on the Globe website.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Anyway to answer Papelbon's Pountine's question the article explains that the Curly Haired Boyfriend now refuses to vote for Schilling for the Hall of Fame after Schilling showed support for the reprehensible teeshirt advocating the killing of journalists. Plus CHB does not get any "clicks" if it's not on the Globe website.
Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?

I get hating Schilling. It's not uncommon. But I would call that shirt simply "not funny" or "juvenile". Whatever anyone thinks of Schilling, that the CHB is not going to vote for Schilling over that issue is nothing but opportunism. Even Dan knows that it was nothing more than a boorish attempt at humor.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
30,709
Southwestern CT
Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?

I get hating Schilling. It's not uncommon. But I would call that shirt simply "not funny" or "juvenile". Whatever anyone thinks of Schilling, that the CHB is not going to vote for Schilling over that issue is nothing but opportunism. Even Dan knows that it was nothing more than a boorish attempt at humor.
What's interesting here is that your (quite justifiable) hatred of CHB has blinded you to the obvious flaws of the analogy you are making.

The proper analogy would be a case where you are a lawyer defending a specific client that you disliked intensely (and who was incredibly difficult to defend on ethical grounds) but you continued to represent him because it was your professional responsibility. Then that client decided to add to your anxiety by going on a public anti-lawyer rant. At some point, you might very well say "You know what? He has a right to a lawyer, but he doesn't have a right to me. Screw this guy." And so you stop defending him.

I do agree that CHB is being opportunistic here. That doesn't mean he's wrong.
 
Last edited:

Vandalman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
951
SE Mass
Minihane and Callahan have been killing him over this article. They wonder why Shank has not publicly condemned Bill Conlin, a fellow sportswriter and Spink Award winner who resigned from a Philly paper in 2011 following charges of child molestation.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,557
Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?
It's a bit more than that, and you know it. For the last year we've had a Presidential nominee (and now PE) who has constantly demonized the media in a number of different ways. This rhetoric has spread to his followers who have made it very difficult (to say the least) for reporters to do their jobs whilst covering said PE during his speeches. In an era where people are getting motivated to "do something" about what the PE is insinuating are enemies, it's not exactly in great taste to suggest the lynching of people*.

* And I know that humor is completely subjective, but the idea of killing journalists (or anyone, really) is funny how? When ISIS or al Qaeda behead journalists or kills them, it's a horror show (and it is) and these guys want to roll into any country it happens and flatten the Earth. But when Billy Bob Pepe suggests it, it's all in good fun? Fuck that.

Let's extend this even further, if the PE says that "lawyers are a deceitful people. Worst of the worst. It's true. Sad group of people really, always lying. Taking your money. I've known a lot of lawyers and don't like any of them." and his followers pick up on that and start showing up to court making your life tougher, maybe harassing you, saying you deserve to die simply for doing your job, then maybe you'll see what a "joke" this is.

Minihane and Callahan have been killing him over this article. They wonder why Shank has not publicly condemned Bill Conlin, a fellow sportswriter and Spink Award winner who resigned from a Philly paper in 2011 following charges of child molestation.
Shaugnessy didn't get a. chance to vote for Conlin for the Spink Award and b. received said award after the child molestation charges were brought on him. I'm not sure what this has to do with Schilling.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
18,979
Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?

I get hating Schilling. It's not uncommon. But I would call that shirt simply "not funny" or "juvenile". Whatever anyone thinks of Schilling, that the CHB is not going to vote for Schilling over that issue is nothing but opportunism. Even Dan knows that it was nothing more than a boorish attempt at humor.
My guess is that Schilling and the Schillingwaffte think Shakespeare was some kind of pussy, so they'd never quote him. But context matters.

If the quote is being spewed by a foul-mouthed ignoramus who leads a pack of hyenas that has, in fact, threatened lawyers with physical harm day in and day out over several months and has in fact made such threats a centerpiece of their political campaign, then yeah, you should get your panties in a bunch. Not to mention the racist overtones of lynching as a means of killing.

I don't think you "get" hating Schilling at all.
 

shawnrbu

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
29,475
The Land of Fist Pumps
K&C wonder why Dan did not demand Conlin be removed from the exhibit in the Hall before he accepted the Spink award. I would have applauded Shaughnessy if he came out and said, "Look, thanks for the award, but can we scrub Conlin's name from the list of honorees due to his despicable behavior?"
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,460
Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?

I get hating Schilling. It's not uncommon. But I would call that shirt simply "not funny" or "juvenile". Whatever anyone thinks of Schilling, that the CHB is not going to vote for Schilling over that issue is nothing but opportunism. Even Dan knows that it was nothing more than a boorish attempt at humor.
He sort of implies that he's, at the very least, uncertain of this.

"His tweet supporting the lynching of journalists was the last straw for this voter. Curt later claimed he was joking. Swell."
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
My guess is that Schilling and the Schillingwaffte think Shakespeare was some kind of pussy, so they'd never quote him. But context matters.

If the quote is being spewed by a foul-mouthed ignoramus who leads a pack of hyenas that has, in fact, threatened lawyers with physical harm day in and day out over several months and has in fact made such threats a centerpiece of their political campaign, then yeah, you should get your panties in a bunch. Not to mention the racist overtones of lynching as a means of killing.

I don't think you "get" hating Schilling at all.
Four people quoted my post on this and many of the points that were made were thoughtful and reasonable, even while I'm not entirely convinced by all of them.

The bolded sentence, though, is baseless and out of left field. Hell, all one has to do is read SoSH and think about the posts to "get" hating Schilling.

And JMOH, your points resonate but go back and read my post. I specifically wrote that it was not funny (and juvenile).

Back to the CHB, I actually liked his column today about Dombrowski and specifically liked this turn of phrase:

The trade is proof that Dombrowski is exactly what we thought he would be. The book on Dombro is that he’s about winning now. He’s not in that Ben Cherington school of holding on to prospects until they become suspects. He’s not afraid of what Moncada and Kopech are going to be. He wants what Sale can do for the Red Sox now. This may be why so many veterans of Boston’s baseball ops department have departed, but count me in on this logic.
It ignores Xander, Mookie, JBJ and other prospects he held onto until they were stars or potential starts, but I still enjoyed the wickedness of it.
 

shaggydog2000

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
7,867
It's a bit more than that, and you know it. For the last year we've had a Presidential nominee (and now PE) who has constantly demonized the media in a number of different ways. This rhetoric has spread to his followers who have made it very difficult (to say the least) for reporters to do their jobs whilst covering said PE during his speeches. In an era where people are getting motivated to "do something" about what the PE is insinuating are enemies, it's not exactly in great taste to suggest the lynching of people*.

* And I know that humor is completely subjective, but the idea of killing journalists (or anyone, really) is funny how? When ISIS or al Qaeda behead journalists or kills them, it's a horror show (and it is) and these guys want to roll into any country it happens and flatten the Earth. But when Billy Bob Pepe suggests it, it's all in good fun? Fuck that.

Let's extend this even further, if the PE says that "lawyers are a deceitful people. Worst of the worst. It's true. Sad group of people really, always lying. Taking your money. I've known a lot of lawyers and don't like any of them." and his followers pick up on that and start showing up to court making your life tougher, maybe harassing you, saying you deserve to die simply for doing your job, then maybe you'll see what a "joke" this is.
The relevant quote here, which is actually "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" is from Henry the VI part 2, is said by a guy named "Dick the Butcher", and is meant to make fun of the bragging of another character (Jack Kade), who is detailing what he will do once he is King, and is meant o make fun of that guy's absurd proposals. It is yet another case of people not understanding that some of the most famous Shakespeare quotes were originally intended as satire. In particular, Polonius in Hamlet is meant to be a self-important idiot who gives stupid platitudes as unsolicited advice. He is a buffoon. To thine own self be true. Neither a borrower nor a lender be. Brevity is the soul of wit. Clothes make the man. Though this be madness, yet there is method in't. These are meant to be ridiculous and meaningless statements. But they are repeated as deep thoughts from Shakespeare. So, in summary, don't repeat something Shakespeare wrote as deep unless you've actually read the play and know what it is supposed to mean.

Also, Shaugnessy is a self-important dick on the level of Polonius, and we should just ignore his moral grandstanding about a guy who was a great pitcher of his era but didn't get along with the CHB. He's just looking for an excuse to not vote for somebody, and to prove how superior he is.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
So, in summary, don't repeat something Shakespeare wrote as deep unless you've actually read the play and know what it is supposed to mean.

Also, Shaugnessy is a self-important dick on the level of Polonius, and we should just ignore his moral grandstanding about a guy who was a great pitcher of his era but didn't get along with the CHB. He's just looking for an excuse to not vote for somebody, and to prove how superior he is.
Meh on your Shakespeare thoughts. Some quotes and lines, wherever from, get enough over time outside of their original context that they carry a separate meaning, at least for some. Not that the lawyer line, when used in the way that I suggested, offends me in any way. Quite the opposite; I think it's funny. Many lawyers have mugs that say just that on their desks at work. But regardless of the source or how funny one finds it, I think many people in our era employ that line or buy things with it on it as a nod to the general sense that we have too many lawyers and they cause enough mischief to make the sentiment resonate, albeit in jest.

As to the CHB, violent agreement.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,557
Also, Shaugnessy is a self-important dick on the level of Polonius, and we should just ignore his moral grandstanding about a guy who was a great pitcher of his era but didn't get along with the CHB. He's just looking for an excuse to not vote for somebody, and to prove how superior he is.
Two things:

1. Shaughnessy voted for Schilling last year and he would have voted for him again this year, but things changed.
2. I may be splitting hairs here, but I'm not sure if I'd categorize Schilling as "a great pitcher of his era". I mean, this last era was stacked with truly great pitchers and I don't think that Schilling is one of them. Is he better than:

Pedro Martinez
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Tom Glavine
John Smoltz
Roger Clemens

He's probably in the middle of the next tier of really good starters that are border-line Hall of Famers:

Mike Mussina
Roy Halladay
Andy Pettitte
Kevin Brown
CC Sabathia
David Cone

This isn't Shaughnessy punting on a slam dunk candidate because he doesn't like his Twitter feed.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
18,979
I think many people in our era employ that line or buy things with it on it as a nod to the general sense that we have too many lawyers and they cause enough mischief to make the sentiment resonate, albeit in jest.
Until someone capitalizes on taking it literally. Suggesting, even allegedly in jest, that journalists be hanged, in the midst of a campaign where one candidate gave tacit approval to threats of physical harm to journalists (not to mention demonizing minorities for whom lynching is a touchy subject), is fucked-up-dom of the highest proportions. Schilling is simply too stupid to realize that the people who think his retweeted memes are the Rosetta stone are also too stupid to understand satire. Instead, it is the very audience that takes it literally. And when a reporter does get beaten, I'm sure Curt will offer his prayers (while high-fiving himself in the mirror), and feign ignorance at how something like this could happen.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Until someone capitalizes on taking it literally. Suggesting, even allegedly in jest, that journalists be hanged, in the midst of a campaign where one candidate gave tacit approval to threats of physical harm to journalists (not to mention demonizing minorities for whom lynching is a touchy subject), is fucked-up-dom of the highest proportions. Schilling is simply too stupid to realize that the people who think his retweeted memes are the Rosetta stone are also too stupid to understand satire. Instead, it is the very audience that takes it literally. And when a reporter does get beaten, I'm sure Curt will offer his prayers (while high-fiving himself in the mirror), and feign ignorance at how something like this could happen.
While I do get the Schilling Hate, I also think the notion that Schilling would be high fiving anyone over the death of a journalist is over the top. Schilling Hate gone mad.

But we can agree to disagree.

And the "albeit in jest" phrase was referring to the sentiment about lawyers being killed first, not journalists being lynched.

Let's get back to the life and times of the CHB.
 
Last edited:

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,460
Until someone capitalizes on taking it literally. Suggesting, even allegedly in jest, that journalists be hanged, in the midst of a campaign where one candidate gave tacit approval to threats of physical harm to journalists (not to mention demonizing minorities for whom lynching is a touchy subject), is fucked-up-dom of the highest proportions. Schilling is simply too stupid to realize that the people who think his retweeted memes are the Rosetta stone are also too stupid to understand satire. Instead, it is the very audience that takes it literally. And when a reporter does get beaten, I'm sure Curt will offer his prayers (while high-fiving himself in the mirror), and feign ignorance at how something like this could happen.
Do you think it wasn't in jest?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
18,979
Do you think it wasn't in jest?
I dont know. He has spoken of journalists as traitors. He pulled down the post.
And I have no idea what the t-shirt wearer was thinking.

Ultimately, in jest or not doesn't matter. The point stands.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
45,789
Rotten Apple
I'd say it matters a great deal. If it was in jest, that's bad. If it's serious, that's bad to the 100th power.
This is typical of current Right Wing Radio Guy (and also PEOTUS) shtick. He'll stay stuff to be "outrageous" and get attention but if you call him on it he'll just say 'I was just kidding! Can't you take a joke? The problem is you!"
So, where does he actually stand on it? Likely in jest, but also sorry/not sorry.