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

[JohntheBaptist]

I liked Ryan's take. I heard that and thought, "yeah, I'm definitely not really a 'sports' fan." Not that I'm not a good one, that I'm not a fan of "sport," really. And I'm not--I only watch and enjoy baseball, hockey and the occasional pro tennis (Wimbledon, really) and while I like soccer when it's on, I can't be bothered to chase it down outside the World Cup and Olympics. "Sports fan" means you appreciate and love experiencing all the best of human athletic competition. It'd be hard to say that was true if you hate soccer. If you like baseball, football, basketball and hockey, and that's it, you're probably more a fan of those sports than you are a fan of sports.
 
I think the easy route is to assume it's a point made to knock you down a peg if you don't like soccer, which it isn't. It's a point made to illustrate both the omnipresence of the sport elsewhere and to point out that that popularity happened for a reason, because it is, as a sport, elementally great. I like it as a way to point out that ignoring something that great and huge a part of the world culture of sports for reasons similar to the ones his former colleague is blathering about means you abdicate certain labels, just by definition. His point is, to the CHBs of the world--no, you're not justified in ignoring this because it isn't America-centric and "lol its stupid."
 
He's not saying you're wrong not to like it. He's saying not liking it doesn't say anything about soccer vis a vis sports (which is what CHB's trying to do here), it says something about you vis a vis sports.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I liked Ryan's take. I heard that and thought, "yeah, I'm definitely not really a 'sports' fan." Not that I'm not a good one, that I'm not a fan of "sport," really. And I'm not--I only watch and enjoy baseball, hockey and the occasional pro tennis (Wimbledon, really) and while I like soccer when it's on, I can't be bothered to chase it down outside the World Cup and Olympics. "Sports fan" means you appreciate and love experiencing all the best of human athletic competition. It'd be hard to say that was true if you hate soccer. If you like baseball, football, basketball and hockey, and that's it, you're probably more a fan of those sports than you are a fan of sports.
 
I think the easy route is to assume it's a point made to knock you down a peg if you don't like soccer, which it isn't. It's a point made to illustrate both the omnipresence of the sport elsewhere and to point out that that popularity happened for a reason, because it is, as a sport, elementally great. I like it as a way to point out that ignoring something that great and huge a part of the world culture of sports for reasons similar to the ones his former colleague is blathering about means you abdicate certain labels, just by definition. His point is, to the CHBs of the world--no, you're not justified in ignoring this because it isn't America-centric and "lol its stupid."
 
He's not saying you're wrong not to like it. He's saying not liking it doesn't say anything about soccer vis a vis sports (which is what CHB's trying to do here), it says something about you vis a vis sports.St

I don't see where you're getting that level of nuance from what Bob said.
 
I think he was making a value judgment: Soccer and particularly World Cup Soccer is so big in scope and such a part of the world's focus on sport that if you are not interested in it as part of the overall picture, you're not truly a sports fan.
 
Now, fine, I can see how you can make a case that he meant a fan of sport per se, instead of the sports that North Americans favor in the main.  I don't agree that it was parsing it so finely but for argument's sake, I can understand why you would say that.
 
But I don't define being a fan of sport as a fan of all, or even certain, particular sports.  I too don't care much about the olympics or soccer.  My focus is on hockey, baskeball, baseball and football, and only the professional variety in each sport.  I enjoy tennis in person, also.  To me, anyone who focuses a great amount of attention on any subset of the available options is a fan of sport.  Trying to pick out which ones count in order to pronounce one a fan of sport seems arbitrary to me.
 
Said differently, why should someone who likes the olympics, golf, tennis, world cup soccer and basketball be any more a fan of sport than someone who likes what you like or I like?  We all love sport; we just don't love the same subsets. 

 

[JohntheBaptist]

I don't see where you're getting that level of nuance from what Bob said.
 
I think he was making a value judgment: Soccer and particularly World Cup Soccer is so big in scope and such a part of the world's focus on sport that if you are not interested in it as part of the overall picture, you're not truly a sports fan.
 
Now, fine, I can see how you can make a case that he meant a fan of sport per se, instead of the sports that North Americans favor in the main.  I don't agree that it was parsing it so finely but for argument's sake, I can understand why you would say that.
 

 
That's his point--nowhere in the definition of "sports" does it bow or formulate around "what Americans like." There's no caveat in the definition. It is a value judgement. It really isn't that nuanced. What's so "fine" about the "parsing" you just credited him here?
 

Said differently, why should someone who likes the olympics, golf, tennis, world cup soccer and basketball be any more a fan of sport than someone who likes what you like or I like?  We all love sport; we just don't love the same subsets.
 

 
He's making the point that a subset that doesn't include soccer--particularly ones that include all the other American favorites--don't have great "sports fan" credentials. I took it to be aimed at people in the mold of Shaughnessy, who are interested in arguing tooth and nail that it isn't even worth considering, because everyone else in America hasn't caught on, which is because everyone else in America just doesn't like it. 
 
If I start talking to someone who "loves film," and they tell me they hate, let's say, Citizen Kane, one of two things then follows--I get a litany of excuses about why its not as good as everyone says it is, how boring it really is, etc. Or I hear someone give me a perspective on it I've never heard before, coming from some real dedicated thought that ends in them not liking it and me at least thinking about it in a new way. The former dwarfs the latter so much that I'm comfortable in my value judgement looking at "film" overall that someone who doesn't like Citizen Kane doesn't really love film, and then living with the exceptions to that rule. So yes, a value judgement, but one that's meant to illustrate the vitality of one part of the whole for those dead-set on denying it.
 
Do you think he means "you're not a good sports fan" like someone would mean "you're not a good Catholic [or whatever]?"

 

[TheoShmeo]

 
That's his point--nowhere in the definition of "sports" does it bow or formulate around "what Americans like." There's no caveat in the definition. It is a value judgement. It really isn't that nuanced. What's so "fine" about the "parsing" you just credited him here?
 
 
He's making the point that a subset that doesn't include soccer--particularly ones that include all the other American favorites--don't have great "sports fan" credentials. I took it to be aimed at people in the mold of Shaughnessy, who are interested in arguing tooth and nail that it isn't even worth considering, because everyone else in America hasn't caught on, which is because everyone else in America just doesn't like it. 
 
If I start talking to someone who "loves film," and they tell me they hate, let's say, Citizen Kane, one of two things then follows--I get a litany of excuses about why its not as good as everyone says it is, how boring it really is, etc. Or I hear someone give me a perspective on it I've never heard before, coming from some real dedicated thought that ends in them not liking it and me at least thinking about it in a new way. The former dwarfs the latter so much that I'm comfortable in my value judgement looking at "film" overall that someone who doesn't like Citizen Kane doesn't really love film, and then living with the exceptions to that rule. So yes, a value judgement, but one that's meant to illustrate the vitality of one part of the whole for those dead-set on denying it.
 
Do you think he means "you're not a good sports fan" like someone would mean "you're not a good Catholic [or whatever]?"

Yeah, I think his point is value laden and he is saying that if Americans don't like soccer, they're not good sports fans.  And I think that's ridiculous as there are good sports fans the world over who only like a subset of the sports that are played worldwide.

 

[AbbyNoho]

Someone not liking Citizen Kane can just mean they have poor taste, it doesn't mean they don't truly like other films. Your argument is akin to saying that the singular value of Citizen Kane as a film is so overwhelming massive that its value is greater than the collective of all other cinema ever conceived. That if films were somehow able to have a numerical value assigned to them, Citizen Kane would take up over 50% of the sum total of all films. 
 
That's basically what you and Ryan are saying, and beyond it being too extreme to believe, it also seems like a very silly way to even look at the issue. If a supposed expert says that Citizen Kane is a poor film with nothing to back it up, then you can question their expertise. But just what they are a fan of? There's way too much nuance there to quantify like you are attempting to do. 

 

[Traut]

While it's not surprising Dan is railing against soccer, it's wonderful to see him being called out for being lazy. Would the Globe tolerate this from their editorial or news staff?

 

[JohntheBaptist]

I never said I agreed with him, I said I liked his point, especially in contrast to Shaughnessy's. I could not possibly care less in reality about who is and isn't a sports fan or film fan or anything like that. If you hate CK but love film, that's immediately interesting to me, actually--it was a quick hypothetical, meaning to point out that often the substance of the opinion isn't as relevant as how you got there. Not liking that movie for the reasons I specifically mentioned falls outside the realm of taste for me, ymmv. I was just appreciating and trying to expand upon what I thought was his point. Also, analogies don't need to be point-by-point DNA twins to be effective in making a particular point, just FYI.

 

[bankshot1]

Dan missed a helluva game today..

 

[TheoShmeo]

While it's not surprising Dan is railing against soccer, it's wonderful to see him being called out for being lazy. Would the Globe tolerate this from their editorial or news staff?

Lazy, repetitive, unoriginal, effectively self-plagarizing.  It is glorious indeed. 
 
Van Everyman's link is blistering.  I forwarded it the CHB.  No response thus far.

 

[soxhop411]

 
you could not find anyone better ESPN?

 

[blueline]

His column today was the shankiest of shanks

 

[ifmanis5]

Yesterday's match was viewed by an average of over 16 million people and was the second highest rated soccer match ever with New York chiming in with a 15 rating. Those are huge numbers for cable. As a reference, last year's Red Sox/Cards WS Game 6 national rating on FOX was 11.3 with roughly 19 million viewers. I'm guessing Shank ignored those facts and will be too lazy to even know them. I refuse to read that POS link and give him page views.

 

[doldmoose34]

Gotta give CHB credit, as he shreds the whole Boston Olympic idea today

 

[Humphrey]

Gotta give CHB credit, as he shreds the whole Boston Olympic idea today

As much as I hate the guy and would love to shove this and everything else down his throat, I can't believe it's being seriously considered.   

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

He's mostly right, except for the fact the Olympics is the only way the MBTA modernizes.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

FWIW, I took Bob Ryan's point to be that people who dismiss other sports which conveniently are outside their cultural milieu to be rather ignorant. It happens everywhere, so it's not just an ugly American thing - think of all the British people you've wanted to punch who call football rugby for sissies or call baseball rounders. A real sports fan wouldn't have the time to follow every conceivable sport, but if you're flicking across the channels and the All-Ireland hurling final is on, surely you'd watch a bit of it to see what all the fuss is about. The World Cup is that example times a thousand.

 

[Buffalo Head]

Think of all the British people you've wanted to punch who call football rugby for sissies or call baseball rounders.

Pretty sure this has never happened to anyone ever.

 

[URI]

I've definitely heard the "football is rugby only you wear pads" with a sneer, but I've never wanted to assault anyone because of that.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

A few years ago I was in Barcelona and found an Irish Pub that was showing the Pats - Jets game.  They were showing some rugby match on one of the other televisions and there were a ton of Irish dudes in there watching rugby (they were in Barcelona for some soccer game I think).  One of them who noticed I was watching the NFL game tried to pick an argument with me about rugby vs. NFL football and it was exactly that (why do they need to wear pads in football?  rugby is the better game, more manly, etc.). 
 
He ended up being a pretty funny dude and we ended up drinking a bunch of beers together because I was good natured about it and actually was interested in learning a little about rugby.  But his goal when he came over to me at the bar was to get into an argument with an American about rugby vs. football.

 

[soxfaninyankeeland]

Shank's premise of being made to feel guilty for not liking soccer is pretty much the exact opposite of what I have seen and experienced. People like Shank want soccer-lovers to explain/defend why they like it, whereas the soccer-lovers don't really seem to give a shit about why the haters don't like it.

Edit-pretty sure that Barcelona pub is owned by a semi-relative.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Pretty sure this has never happened to anyone ever.

 
I've had probably 50 people say baseball is just rounders over the years, and other Americans I know in the UK have heard that one more than a few times as well. It's probably the closest equivalent I can imagine of people from another country smugly dismissing something the way that people who HATE soccer dismiss the game.

 

[SydneySox]

Its the constant thing i am told by the majority of people from here or Britain who don't already follow the sport. It is definitely an annoying thing that happens.

But no more annoying than Americans who mock cricket, or football. Which also is a thing.

People are people who mock foreign things. This is true no matter what country they are from.

 

[bankshot1]

Shank watched the boys from Brazil get rommeled by Germany, in Oak sq., with a bunch of foreigners, and now sees the light.
 
Funniest and probably most dishonest, CHB column ever.
 

I am sorry for the disgrace of Brazil, but I now love Futbol. I love it because I have seen it through the eyes of the owners, workers, friends, and customers of J & K Auto Body, just a few feet from Oak Square in Brighton.
 
 
The game was terrible, but that didn’t matter. What mattered was the notion that we were all there for the same thing: We were celebrating a world event.
In three hours, I heard toasts in Portuguese, Greek, Italian, Irish, Hebrew, and German. It was dazzling.

It seems Shanks column was fashioned, much like the pauper's soccer-ball of paper, from many crumpled pages of past anti-soccer columns. After a lifetime of hating soccer, for reasons that presumably are still there, he found a battlefield conversion in Oak sq.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

He seemed pretty genuine in his admiration on the radio this morning. While he said he'd probably never be a soccer fan, he can understand where people who love the game come from. And he said that he really enjoyed himself.
 
I don't know. That's probably as close to an "I was wrong" as anyone is going to get from the CHB.

 

[bankshot1]

Maybe he did see the light, helped by those who have futbol in their blood, and maybe this is his way of a saying he underestimated the appeal of the game. But all those reasons for him diminishing soccer, which he has more than shared with readers, surely did not disappear with his viewing perhaps the most 1-sided game in World Cup history. I'm just a little cynical of CHB's sudden soccer-pitch conversion.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

A HEEL TURN! The Iron Shiek is offering to shake hands with Hulk Hogan! WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT?!?!?! Tune in next week!!

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Maybe he did see the light, helped by those who have futbol in their blood, and maybe this is his way of a saying he underestimated the appeal of the game. But all those reasons for him diminishing soccer, which he has more than shared with readers, surely did not disappear with his viewing perhaps the most 1-sided game in World Cup history. I'm just a little cynical of CHB's sudden soccer-pitch conversion.

 
He's not a convert. He doesn't like the game, he respects and understands the game a little more than he did 24 hours ago but he's not all of a sudden a soccer krishna. At least that's what he said on the radio.

 

[Reverend]

In fairness, that would also have been a really good game to learn its appeal. Not because the end was in doubt, but because Germany executed their offense so precisely against a lost Brazilian side that it would allow the uninitiated to see the game and what is actually going on; the inability to see what is going on is the biggest problem some of my friends who admit they don't "get" soccer seem to have, and it can be ameliorated by a well played side (e.g. US v. Portugal).
 
This also suggests, of course, that Shaughnessey never bothered to watch a recording of a great game to see what he actually thought.

 

[bankshot1]

 
He's not a convert. He doesn't like the game, he respects and understands the game a little more than he did 24 hours ago but he's not all of a sudden a soccer krishna. At least that's what he said on the radio.

I can understand the average guy on Main St. not understanding nor appreciating soccer, for whatever reason. Most of us are "4-sport" type guys. But I have a harder time with a professional sports reporter, a guy who watches athletes for a living, who belittles soccer, and has done so for years, and on some pretty flimsy reasons.
 
Then after two scathing pieces on soccer and its fans (I like soccer but I'm not a fan) he decides to hangs out at John's garage in Oak Sq. with an international cast of characters, and now he loves "futbol". This suggests he never really watched a game that he was all too ready to kill with his idiotic criticisms.
 
I'm too much of a cynic. 

 

[Reverend]

I can understand the average guy on Main St. not understanding nor appreciating soccer, for whatever reason. Most of us are "4-sport" type guys. But I have a harder time with a professional sports reporter, a guy who watches athletes for a living, who belittles soccer, and has done so for years, and on some pretty flimsy reasons.
 
Then after two scathing pieces on soccer and its fans (I like soccer but I'm not a fan) he decides to hangs out at John's garage in Oak Sq. with an international cast of characters, and now he loves "futbol". This suggests he never really watched a game that he was all too ready to kill with his idiotic criticisms.
 
I'm too much of a cynic. 

 
Bingo.
 
Two Cups ago, Hamster and I wanted an excuse to go to a bar to watch a game when we should have been hanging out with the family. We sold The MomTM on going to a Portugal-Brazil bar (Brazil was playing) as a cool cultural event. The place was off the hook and she had an amazing time despite knowing nothing about the game.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I can understand the average guy on Main St. not understanding nor appreciating soccer, for whatever reason. Most of us are "4-sport" type guys. But I have a harder time with a professional sports reporter, a guy who watches athletes for a living, who belittles soccer, and has done so for years, and on some pretty flimsy reasons.
 
Then after two scathing pieces on soccer and its fans (I like soccer but I'm not a fan) he decides to hangs out at John's garage in Oak Sq. with an international cast of characters, and now he loves "futbol". This suggests he never really watched a game that he was all too ready to kill with his idiotic criticisms.
 
I'm too much of a cynic. 

 
I know what the piece says, but Shaughnessy admitted on the radio today that he doesn't love soccer. I'm not sure why he wrote that, but he said as much on the Toucher and Rich Morning show this morning when they asked him if he was going to watch the game today or the final on Sunday. He said, "no." He went on to say that while he doesn't love soccer, he respects the game a bit more and had a lot of fun yesterday watching the game at the garage. Fred said something to the effect of, "Well your story in the paper sounds that you like it a bunch." To which Shank chuckled and said he understands the hooplah a little bit more.
 
And of course he never watched the game, he's admitted to it in the past. That was a given.

 

[bankshot1]

I thought Dan's "I love futbol" was just another Shaughnessey snarkism, mostly meant to annoy. if CHB has gained even a small amount of respect for a game that most of the planet considers its national pastime, that's great, and maybe over time, or enough vistits to John's Garage in Oak Sq., he may learn to like the sport. But barring that, he should STFU about it in the future, or let  those who understand and respect the game, write about it, because his last two attempts were little more than xenophobic hatchet jobs on a great sport.

 

[joe dokes]

Shaughnessy has spilled so much ink simply trolling . . . .  saying shit he may or may not believe simply to get a rise out of perceived targets ... that he has no credibility.  My guess: he caught piles of shit from someone who matters at the Glob when he finally got outed for re-writing the same (almost exact) anti-soccer rant for the 10th time.  He had no choice but to go watch that game.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

Like Scott Templeton dispatched to interview homeless people in season 5 of The Wire.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Shaughnessy has spilled so much ink simply trolling . . . .  saying shit he may or may not believe simply to get a rise out of perceived targets ... that he has no credibility.  My guess: he caught piles of shit from someone who matters at the Glob when he finally got outed for re-writing the same (almost exact) anti-soccer rant for the 10th time.  He had no choice but to go watch that game.

 
This.  Some other columnists might get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something like this.  Shaughnessy, however, doesn't.  I'm not even a fan of the sport but if I were I wouldn't want his charity respect.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

This.  Some other columnists might get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something like this.  Shaughnessy, however, doesn't.  I'm not even a fan of the sport but if I were I wouldn't want his charity respect.
 

 
This is very odd. And I'm not singling you out Wiggum, but who gives a shit whether Dan Shaughnessy, Bob Ryan or Peter King like (or respect) soccer, baseball or competitive hide-and-go seek? If you like soccer and the CHB doesn't, does that make watching the game worse? Are you going to sit around on Sunday and say, "This World Cup Final is pretty awesome, but it would be awesomer if Dan Shaughnessy was into it too."
 
By now you know his opinion on the game, don't click on the links, shut off the radio or TV when he comes on. This isn't 1978 and he's not the only voice in the wilderness.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Personally when I find a good columnist whose writing and opinion I respect, I do care what they think about things.  Not in the sense that their opinions would materially affect my life or enjoyment of something I already like, but more so that it might challenge my beliefs or assumptions about something.
 
With Shaughnessy, I don't read his columns and I don't care what he thinks about anything.  If this were baseball or football and Dan previously wrote many columns shitting on the sport and their fans, and then all of a sudden he watched one game and did a 180 on the whole thing, I would not believe he was sincere, and therefore would rather he fuck off than write anything positive about the sport.  I don't really give a shit either way, but for me he's long since lost the right to try to convince me that he's anything other than a troll.

 

[kenneycb]

IIRC Fred's theory yesterday was that this was all premeditated in which he'd write a couple of columns saying how he hated the game and then would watch one and say he was a convert.  Basically a long con of his readers.

 

[pappymojo]

My take away is that Shank is a drunk and enjoys being around people.  Finding a better understanding of why soccer fans like soccer is just a side effect of not being stuck with his own miserable level of suck as his only company.  I get it.  I would be miserable if I were him too.  A diversion of liquor and laughter would be most welcome, no matter how fleeting. 

 

[Bleedred]

Bob Ryan has written a couple of Sunday columns extolling the virtues of world cup soccer and basically calling those who reflexively shit on it as ignorant.   He never called out Shaughnessy by name, but it seemed directed squarely at him and his ilk.  I haven't read Shaugnhessy for 3 years now and I'm better for it.  

 

[nattysez]

What a line by Finn today regarding CHB's column:

"Rather than going into Fire Joe Morgan mode then spending the rest of this lovely Sunday proactively updating my resume, I'll instead fulfill the stereotype of the non-reactionary media member or fan."

 

[bankshot1]

Brother Finn skillfully gutted and filleted CHB.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Dan Shaughnessy ... Hall of Fame Frick Award finalist.
 
The mind reels at the thought of the acceptance speech

 

[TheoShmeo]

So today Dan mocks us for not being spoiled little Yankee fan like bitches.

 

At this hour, your Boston Red Sox enjoy a friendlier environment than almost any of the 30 teams in baseball. The Sox have a chance to finish in last place for the second time in three years, win a playoff game in only one of six seasons, and still be perceived by their fans as “perennial contenders.’’ The Sox can play nine games under .500 for the first 95 games and still have a Nation of believers thinking they can win the division, or compete for the phony second wild card. Sox owners can pare payroll ($72.5 million scheduled to come off the books for next year), stay well below the coveted luxury tax threshold, and listen to regional applause while fans pay the highest ticket prices in baseball. The Sox can get folks to buy into the notion that it’s foolish to compete in the open market for the services of their best pitcher. Sox tickets and merchandise are hotter than they were at this time last summer and Pat Moscaritolo, president of a Boston tourist group, says, “For the past 10 years that I’ve been tracking visitor spending and the economic impact of the Red Sox, it’s almost unaffected by the team’s performance.’’
 
The Sox were positively surging with five wins in six games against terrible/mediocre teams (aggregate 21 games under .500) as they prepped for the Royals Saturday night. The KC-Boston matchup is a good one, since it sometimes sounds like the Sox want to be a middle-market team. Like the Royals of recent decades (29 years since making the playoffs), the Sox now sell the fans on “watching the kids.” Don’t people realize that EVERY team has a farm system stocked with young players who’d love to play in front of sellout crowds in the moribund final months of a season? It amazes me how soft this baseball market has become. In 1978 fans and media crushed the Sox for a 99-win season that concluded with eight consecutive pressure-packed victories. The Boston manager was unmercifully booed on Opening Day the following year. Now everything is awesome because the Boston ballpark is a tourist destination and fans fall in love with the hype of every young player coming through the system. Swell. When did we become St. Louis?
 

Please don't click on this link: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/07/19/picked-pieces-from-world-sports/syFA8AcQGWTeKppkQMJrPL/story.html
 
Of course, if Sox fans weren't showing up or were doing whatever else Dan implies we should be doing, we'd be reading about how the Sox won three titles since 2004, the fans conveniently ignore that and we are just insufferable brats.

 

[Reverend]

That passage by Dan Shaughnessey's could be translated into an argument for beating your kids every time something goes wrong.

 

[blueline]

"The Sox have a chance to finish in last place for the second time in three years, win a playoff game in only one of six seasons, and still be perceived by their fans as 'perennial contenders.'"
 
​Phenomenal that someone could write this sentence. 

 

[Red Right Ankle]

That passage by Dan Shaughnessey's could be translated into an argument for beating your kids every time something goes wrong.

At Shaughnessey's house, it probably is.

 

[ifmanis5]

He's such a dick. Being St. Louis would be so terrible; literally the winningest NL franchise ever. Fuck you, HOF bitch.

 

[dcmissle]

He's such a dick. Being St. Louis would be so terrible; literally the winningest NL franchise ever. Fuck you, HOF bitch.

And he has two sidekicks on Boston sports radio.

When the Red Sox won in "04, Gammons hailed the achievement for several reasons, not the least of which was that Boston could finally exhale and become "normal" like St Louis. First rate and psychologically healthy. And so we are.

 

[ifmanis5]

When the Red Sox won in "04, Gammons hailed the achievement for several reasons, not the least of which was that Boston could finally exhale and become "normal" like St Louis. First rate and psychologically healthy. And so we are.

Good point.