Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
To me it doesn't matter because of the subject matter and the context in which actual journalists were being actually threatened by actual supporters of an actual candidate who seemed happy to egg them on.
Ultimately Schilling is too dumb to succeed at anything, even in this favorable (to him) political climate. He will blame all the usual boogeymen, and then collect the most martyr points, which he can redeem for all the rope and ladders he wants.
As for Shaughnessy (that's why we're here, right), there's no doubt that he likes every opportunity he can to stick it to Schilling because he finds him loathsome. But he has in the past said he'd vote for him. So that suggests he's being genuine now, and not solely opportunistic.
To me - pretty much everything
Highest WHIP, lowest ERA+, Lowest K Rate, worst K/BB ratio, etc. 2607 K's & 1500 BB's??
to me the only reason he is in the HOF is the 300 wins - classic compiler
We're going pretty far off-topic here, but...
Glavine won 2 CYs and finished 2nd another two times and 3rd another two after that. Among modern day HOF starters, Nolan Ryan, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Hunter, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, and Phil Neikro all have a worse ERA+ than Glavine. He's not Pedro/Unit/Maddux, but he's a solid double in terms of HOF credentials.
His 2607K's put him 17th amongst Hall of Famers (behind Cy Young and ahead of Warren Spahn)
Yes, he has 1500 BBs but he's ahead of other first-ballot HoFers like Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton and Bob Feller and only three behind Randy Johnson.
His ERA+ is 118 and is tied with Bert Blyleven and is ahead of Dennis Eckersley, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry, Vic Willis, Jim Bunning, Fergie Jenkins, Phil Niekro and others. So it's not the lowest in the HoF.
And "Classic Compiler" is one of those terms that sounds bad, but if you think about it, it's not. Managers don't run pitchers out to the mound every fifth day because they're "nice guys". They put them out there because they give them a shot to win. I know and I understand that wins aren't a very good metric for determining a pitcher's value, but at the same time, it's not completely useless either. It's a good baseline to see determine just how good a player is.
You make it sound as if Tom Glavine is lucky to get into he HoF because of a handful of categories that he doesn't measure to highly in. That's not true.
Yes, he has 1500 BBs but he's ahead of other first-ballot HoFers like Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton and Bob Feller and only three behind Randy Johnson.
His ERA+ is 118 and is tied with Bert Blyleven and is ahead of Dennis Eckersley, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry, Vic Willis, Jim Bunning, Fergie Jenkins, Phil Niekro and others. So it's not the lowest in the HoF.
And "Classic Compiler" is one of those terms that sounds bad, but if you think about it, it's not. Managers don't run pitchers out to the mound every fifth day because they're "nice guys". They put them out there because they give them a shot to win. I know and I understand that wins aren't a very good metric for determining a pitcher's value, but at the same time, it's not completely useless either. It's a good baseline to see determine just how good a player is.
You make it sound as if Tom Glavine is lucky to get into he HoF because of a handful of categories that he doesn't measure to highly in. That's not true.
I guess more off topic but of the above list only Nolan Ryan should have been a HOF'er. Maybe Fergie, Niekro & Gaylord - all better than Glavine.
Catfish Hunter & Don Sutton should not have sniffed the Hall.
One of Glavine's CY was deserved (the first), the other was marginal and a few of the 2nds and 3rds were way undeserved. He should have finished way down the list. For whatever reason (playing on a good to excellent Braves team and being on TBS??) he was always looked at as better than he was.
Just because George 'High Pockets' Kelly and his career OPS+ of 109 and career Offensive WAR of 20.8 is in the HOF doesn't mean the next undeserving guy gets into the Hall.
Catfish Hunter & Don Sutton should not have sniffed the Hall.
One of Glavine's CY was deserved (the first), the other was marginal and a few of the 2nds and 3rds were way undeserved. He should have finished way down the list. For whatever reason (playing on a good to excellent Braves team and being on TBS??) he was always looked at as better than he was.
Just because George 'High Pockets' Kelly and his career OPS+ of 109 and career Offensive WAR of 20.8 is in the HOF doesn't mean the next undeserving guy gets into the Hall.
My question is why are you reading his takes on that? Nothing could be more predictable. I'm sure he's cued up another "tomato can" article on the Pats to run after this one.
I'd read Dan more than once a decade if he surprised me once in a while.
I'd read Dan more than once a decade if he surprised me once in a while.
Big thanks to Dan for gamely cranking out another of his patented House Of Horrors columns. Brave of him to cut through the BS and point out Brady's problems in Denver. CHB, historian, storyteller, hero.
Edit: It's a fair question, but I don't read him.
I'll only look at a headline if I have a physical paper and even less with a browser.
For this example, I saw the Globe Tweet out the headline and couldn't believe that he would actually bother to write yet another of these uselessly negative history lessons (with himself as the 'I told ya so' hero). But he did. I think this is about the second or third column from him I've bothered to click on in about as many years and it was out of extreme incredulosity. If that's a word.
I know, I should know better but for no good reason I took the bait. And it was as bad as I thought.
Edit2: The preview type of pieces are really Dan at his worst. At least in his recap columns he has to respond to what just actually happened and sort of be a reporter. But the previews are kind of a Free Range pass and he almost always goes negative or useless filler. Brady and BB have been on a historically great run through the league for almost 20 years but if you read Dan all you would think is they can't win at Denver and that Ernie Adams is a criminal.
Last edited:
What was so bad about it though? I mean, he just wrote that Tom Brady has a tough time in Denver, mainly because Tom Brady DOES have a tough time in Denver. Even after yesterday's win, Brady has won 30% of his games in the Mile High City. This is like a real legitimate fact. I don't know, that seems like a pretty big deal to me. And it's kind of newsworthy and Shaughnessy wasn't the only person talking about this yesterday. Most people were kind of dreading this game, I think.
Shank started the piece comparing Brady to Larry Bird. If you've read anything that Shaughnessy has written in the last 40 years, the only two people that he worships more than Larry Bird are Ted Williams and Red Auerbach. And both of those guys are dead. If Shaughnessy's house was burning down with Larry and Dan's wife in the building and he could only save one, he'd be the widow Shaughnessy. That's how much he likes Larry Bird. So this wasn't some negative, drive-by hit on someone like Jeff Stone or Manny Ramirez, it's a piece that pretty much lays out that even super heroes have their kryptonite.
Put it this way, let's assume that Joe Sullivan assigns Shaughnessy his columns every week (this is definitely not the case, but let's assume for a second it is). Oh yeah, you're Joe Sullivan. You know that the Pats have the AFC in the bag and Denver is nowhere near the team it was last year. This is a big game in name only, the Pats should win this one pretty easily. What would you have Dan Shaughnessy write about? What is the color that you want him to provide your readers?
The "problem" (for lack of a better word) is that despite describing playing in Denver like walking on the sun in a gasoline suit, today the Broncos are, like everyone else, a tomato can.
If I was Joe, I'd throw the column back at Dan and say... 1) This is roughly the 20th Boston team A can't win at Stadium B you've written and yet 2) They're all the same laundry lists with no particular purpose other than 3) You're the know-it-all protagonist and our Boston Team A can't get it done when it really matters. Stop taking something that may actually be interesting into yet another negative wheel-spinning exercise. You mentioned the Ben Watson play, maybe talk to him or Champ Bailey and give me something I didn't know? How about a fresh take other than the Pats can only beat Tomato Cans? With Dan, it's either everything is great or everything is terrible. It's so hacky and it's all he's ever written in 100 years.
EDIT: Didn't see what Joe wrote before me but yes, he's so right.
Last edited:
You're probably right, this particular column was a typical "Boston Team A can't win in Stadium B" but the thing is, especially compared to the rest of the NFL, the Patriots have a hard time winning in Denver. Like I said, they are losing 70% of the time that they step off the plane in Denver. Dan Shaughnessy did not make that stat up nor is he being negative. We can both agree that this is a legitimate, true fact, right?
The Ben Watson play happened 11 years ago though, as a single game it doesn't have any real bearing on what happened yesterday. I think that Brady may have been the only one who played in that game who is still with the same team, I may be wrong on that though. I'm not trying to be a dick, but that would be a terrible story for yesterday's Pats/Broncos game. (And it still would be read as a negative one, BTW.)
Question: did Shaughnessy call the Broncos tomato cans in yesterday's piece? I don't recall seeing that at all.
I don't know, I thought it was a pretty mild column centered around the simple fact that the best quarterback in NFL history and the best coach in NFL history have a difficult time winning at Mile High Stadium. This is Colonel Egan going after Ted Williams here, like I said Shaughnessy spent five paragraphs (roughly 1/3 of the column) comparing Tom Brady to Larry Bird. If that's what passes for negativity around these parts, I think that we need to get a little tougher.
He called them tomato cans today. Yesterday, they were the 7 blocks of Kryptonite.
I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about yesterday's story.
Edit: I just read his piece today. You're right, what a savage beat down of the Patriots.
If you took Shaughnessy's name off this column and read it, I guarantee you wouldn't have a problem with it. I get it. There are a lot of people (sometimes it's Dan Shaughnessy) who don't like the Patriots. This isn't one of those times. Jumping at shadows, calling everyone an "enemy" when they don't write PR puff pieces and thinking that everyone against you is lame.
Last edited:
Then he needs to get a ghostwriter to handle his ledes. He's the one who said Yesterday's Unbeatables were today's Tomato Cans, not me.
A note about Shaughnessy.
In a row of three urinals, if you are going at urinal #3, and both 1 and 2 are open - he will pee next to you in urinal #2.
In a row of three urinals, if you are going at urinal #3, and both 1 and 2 are open - he will pee next to you in urinal #2.
Direct experience.
He was getting lunch at the Stockyard the same time I was attending my office Christmas party.
Well, at least he allows for the possibility that the Patriots being good is part of what makes all of these other teams terrible. Every compliment in that column is the the backhanded kind. "It's not your fault that everyone you play sucks". I'll grant you that aside from the toady/fanboy/spreadsheet references, it's more subtle than usual but that's about it.
Made the mistake of clicking on Shank's column about the Falcons and 'Noisegate' - not surprisingly, it was full of backhanded slaps at the Krafts, the Patriots and their fans. We are in the midst of a historic run of success and the excitement of the upcoming game and this is what he feels the need to do. Such a small man.
He truly cannot let either of the "gates" go. This latest article was plain and simple trolling, and his unabashed hatred of the Krafts was made obvious to all.
He doesn't hate the Krafts. He just hates happiness and seeks to crush it in all others.
I didn't click the article because I've read it before. I read it every time CHB writes. He probably bashed the Patriots for not coming out and admitting wrong doing for the deflated balls. Also probably ran down the teams competition. But still thought they would beat Atlanta because the league isn't good. Kind of the same stance Felger takes.
Go away Shank. We know you lost a ton of money when the Sox finally won but come on...
Go away Shank. We know you lost a ton of money when the Sox finally won but come on...
He does hate the Krafts. He was apparently barred from attending some Pats function a while ago (the reasons why escape me at the moment) and has nursed that grudge ever since.
Shank can get fucked. He wants to troll, whatever. But repudiating science is a bit much.
Felger said last week about Shank, "He's just doing his job ..."
The bolded point above nails the problem.
It's easy to write when times are bad; low hanging fruit abound.
It's really difficult when times are good. Constructive criticism requires knowledge, perspective and doing your homework.
None of these negative guys in the media is up to the task. Shank always has been out of his depth -- on every sport. Felger -- you would never, ever know he covered the Pats for 10 years, more or less, as a beat writer.
I haven't read anything this clown has written in quite a while, but I assume that this week he went with his standard trolling operating procedure for this situation: the Patriots should totally destroy the Falcons.
That way if they do win by a lot, he can boast about how he predicted it and how it's not a surprise and he knew ahead of time that the Falcons were frauds.
But if the Patriots lose or the game is close, then he can call the Patriots failures who didn't live up to expectations. They barely even beat the horrible Falcons! Sad!
Or did he actually try a new trolling strategy this time? Is even he finally getting bored from typing the same old routines every time? Who knows? Who cares?
That way if they do win by a lot, he can boast about how he predicted it and how it's not a surprise and he knew ahead of time that the Falcons were frauds.
But if the Patriots lose or the game is close, then he can call the Patriots failures who didn't live up to expectations. They barely even beat the horrible Falcons! Sad!
Or did he actually try a new trolling strategy this time? Is even he finally getting bored from typing the same old routines every time? Who knows? Who cares?
The list of notable area sports figures that have been involved in a spat with Shanks is pretty much infinite. I think it is more contrived than personal, but who knows. He certainly loves to revel in them and keep them going. Because yeah, he is a giant troll that hates joy.
What he hates is sports. He has for years, but the gig pays handsomely and he can write a column in half an hour.
I'm not clicking either, but my guess is that he's just trying to be funny by riffing on "Curly Haired Boyfriend."
I get the dead tree Globe every day and Dan has a front page article "Comeback Champs Totally Flipped the Script", but man would I pay a whole lot of money to find the article he wrote before that and shove it down his throat, cuz you just know it featured the words "choke" and "deflated".
So you're angry at a person for a column that they DIDN'T write? And that you've never read? Way to celebrate the Pats victory!
If you actually took the time to read it, it's a nice piece. He says that Super Bowl LI was the best game ever in Boston sports, Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time and Belichick is the greatest coach of all time.
Enjoy the Shank fanfic though.
I will say that when the Pats won their first Super Bowl, his article seemed to be a hasty rewrite of something he wrote assuming they were going to lose. Remember it was 2001 before the Pats or Sox had won anything, and the article was a laundry list of those teams' collective failures over the years. Even had "too many men on the ice" thrown in there as well.
Let me ask you this, Celtics fans. You saw them dismantle Minnesota Wednesday, right? Al Horford almost had a triple-double, and the Celtics bolted to a 117-104 win over the 28-39 Wolves. Swell. But which roster (including future draft picks) would you rather have for the next five years?
Give me the Wolves. The Celtics don’t have anyone — nor will they have anyone — with the upside of Karl-Anthony Towns and Andrew Wiggins. It’s not even close.
The Celtics are going to win more than 50 games and are only two games behind the Cavaliers in the East, but their ceiling is significantly lower than that of the T-Wolves. It would be much more fun to build around Towns and Wiggins than around Isaiah Thomas, Marcus Smart, Jaylen Brown, and Danny Ainge’s raft of draft picks.
This guy used to be an NBA beat writer? Covered great teams and this is the way he thinks?
Give me the Wolves. The Celtics don’t have anyone — nor will they have anyone — with the upside of Karl-Anthony Towns and Andrew Wiggins. It’s not even close.
The Celtics are going to win more than 50 games and are only two games behind the Cavaliers in the East, but their ceiling is significantly lower than that of the T-Wolves. It would be much more fun to build around Towns and Wiggins than around Isaiah Thomas, Marcus Smart, Jaylen Brown, and Danny Ainge’s raft of draft picks.
This guy used to be an NBA beat writer? Covered great teams and this is the way he thinks?
The NBA is a lot different from when he was a beat writer. I'm not sure I classify that as trolling unless you have bad opinions of KAT and Wiggins. I'm not going to give him the click to read full context, but in that absolute, he's probably right. *Possibly Brown has the upside of Wiggins, but no one compares to Towns and everyone else is pretty much AT there upside. Nothing to see here, but reasonable minds Dan differ.
Edit: I'll revisit to note his comment on full roster and future draft picks. Draft picks are an absolute crap shot, though they are swell and the C's look good there. It could be a bonanza or it could be bench fodder. Overall roster, yes, Celtics. But this is now a star driven league and the wolves have the hand on that, pending future moves.
Edit: I'll revisit to note his comment on full roster and future draft picks. Draft picks are an absolute crap shot, though they are swell and the C's look good there. It could be a bonanza or it could be bench fodder. Overall roster, yes, Celtics. But this is now a star driven league and the wolves have the hand on that, pending future moves.
Tangentially related, what I think is the great miss with Shank is that when he feels like doing so he is a terrific writer. He was the guy who wrote many of the great front-page stories on the 2004 Sox, and he has done a number of similar great Pats articles. He had a great (painful) piece in 2003, and also one about the early Belichick struggles. It's not just that I like reading positive stuff, it's that I enjoy quality writing.
The problem with his day-to-day columns is that he's neither trying to write well or be intellectually engaging he's just a troll. And he can be much better than that, as he periodically shows.
Last edited:
I agree, the man lost his gimmick. When Boston became city of champions, he didn't know what to do.