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

[Van Everyman]

In today's miserablefest, which includes some truly sad stuff about Dave Page, the former strength and conditioning coach, CHB ends on a level of cluelessness I never knew he had:

I saw David Cone in the press box Friday night. Cone is one of the great guys in baseball, but he was part of the 2001 Red Sox team that featured the biggest bunch of crybabies and nitwits of all time.

Cone rolled his eyes when we said hello.

“Where’s Carl Everett when you need him?’’ asked the affable Cone.

Indeed. Where have you gone, Jurassic Carl? Red Sox Nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

Does he seriously not know Cone is saying he wishes Carl were around to tell him to fuck off?

 

[ifmanis5]

Honest question- is Dan enjoying this season (and last) more than 2004 and 2007?
It's certainly easier for him to run his misery shtick this year, but being around this group of guys (and Valentine) after all these clusterfuck losses can't be pleasurable, right?

 

[Average Reds]

Honest question- is Dan enjoying this season (and last) more than 2004 and 2007?
It's certainly easier for him to run his misery shtick this year, but being around this group of guys (and Valentine) after all these clusterfuck losses can't be pleasurable, right?

Come on - that's not a serious question, is it?

I'm sure that at some level he enjoyed 2004 and 2007, but those kind of performances tend to marginalize writers like the CHB. But let's not kid ourselves - he lives for years like this. I mean, he may not be experiencing joy on a daily basis, especially when he has to deal with a bunch of snarling players/coaches, but this kind of season validates his pessimistic outlook as well as his general dickishness. Toss in the misfortune suffered by one of his least favorite former players (Schilling) and this may be the best year of Shaughnessy's life.

 

[Jordu]

Honest question- is Dan enjoying this season (and last) more than 2004 and 2007?
It's certainly easier for him to run his misery shtick this year, but being around this group of guys (and Valentine) after all these clusterfuck losses can't be pleasurable, right?

Expect a book. "The Curse of the Lucchino," or something equally cute. His agent is probably shopping the book proposal now.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

In today's miserablefest, which includes some truly sad stuff about Dave Page, the former strength and conditioning coach, CHB ends on a level of cluelessness I never knew he had:

I saw David Cone in the press box Friday night. Cone is one of the great guys in baseball, but he was part of the 2001 Red Sox team that featured the biggest bunch of crybabies and nitwits of all time.

Cone rolled his eyes when we said hello.

"Where's Carl Everett when you need him?" asked the affable Cone.

Indeed. Where have you gone, Jurassic Carl? Red Sox Nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

Does he seriously not know Cone is saying he wishes Carl were around to tell him to fuck off?

Hahahhaha thank you for posting that, I am really glad I didn't miss that one.

Cone was ridiculing him to his ugly face, and he's too dumb to get it. So he publishes it in his column, complete with the 10,0000th time he's used his lame-ass "turns its lonely eyes to you" reference that was played out in 1991.

CHB: dumb, lame, mean, clueless, hates the Red Sox, hates Red Sox fans, still totally mailing in his columns-- good to see nothing's changed since the last time I clicked on one of his articles many years ago.

 

[nattysez]

I hate to play devil's advocate, but I think CHB got it and masterfully responded. First. he subtly returns Cone's insult by saying what a good guy he is BUT mentioning that he was part of the "crybaby" 2001 Sox (without, you'll note, specifically saying that Cone was not at the time a nitwit or crybaby). Second, to those who don't remember the CHB incident, this is portrayed as David Cone saying that things are as bad as they were in 2001 (which is likely not what he meant). Finally, to those who do remember the CHB incident, CHB (1) calls Cone "affable" and a "great guy," to make it clear (whether it's true or not) that this was at worst a good-hearted dig by Cone and (2) essentially says "I'm still here subjecting you to my writing, where's Carl?"

 

[Doctor G]

Dan seems to think Cone rolled his eyes as a commentary on the team rather than as a commentary on the idiot saying hello.

 

[Van Everyman]

Which is to say, CHB is foolish enough to believe Cone thinks of him as a friend rather than the shit stirrer he is. Says it all, really.

 

[ForKeeps]

On today's Baseball Show, re: Adrian Gonzalez

"He's striking out a lot more this year than he ever has"

Adrian Gonzalez's K% is currently 15.4, the lowest of his career.

 

[Stu Nahan]

On today's Baseball Show, re: Adrian Gonzalez

"He's striking out a lot more this year than he ever has"

Adrian Gonzalez's K% is currently 15.4, the lowest of his career.

If the hosts did their homework, they could have called him on his bullshit. That's on them. No one actually expects fair, fact based analysis from a hack like Shank.

 

[ForKeeps]

That is a good point though, and I meant that as a comment on the media in general even though I singled out Shaughnessy.

 

[Humphrey]

Yesterday's article:

"we expect to see them in the Super Bowl"

His use of "we" pisses me off as much as anything else about his columns. If the team or player doesn't do what "we" thought he/they would, then there will be a follow up column using "we" again.

 

[shawnrbu]

The look of disgust on Shaughnessy's face when Sean McAdam was discussing WAR on The Baseball Show on CSN was absolutely priceless. Try to catch the replay at approximately 4:55 A.M. to check out his reaction.

 

[Jackson]

The look of disgust on Shaughnessy's face when Sean McAdam was discussing WAR on The Baseball Show on CSN was absolutely priceless. Try to catch the replay at approximately 4:55 A.M. to check out his reaction.

Saw it. Spectacular. I used to think Shank just hated the local teams. He does not. He hates their fans.

 

[Humphrey]

He basically dared write another "Boston has...City X has..." column today, albeit a slightly different format. How to be original, Dan.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPf2nvBHmRs&feature=plcp

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Pretty good takedown of Shank on EEI dot com.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Good for Minihane. I heard CHB spewing his shit on CSNNE the other day explaining that the real problem in sports is "Bloggers in their mom's basement inciting hatred!" He's not just stupid anymore, he's tired, out of touch, and completely unoriginal at this point.

 

[Blacken]

Minihane is fucking terrible too, though.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

He's a sub-par Felger clone.

 

[Jackson]

He's a sub-par Felger clone.

Disagree strongly. I like Minihane (hate his politics) and I think he's fair and honest. The furthest thing in the world from "I'll lie to ge attention" Vulgar.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

Did your phone autocorrect Felger to Vulgar? (Hopefully)

 

[Jackson]

Did your phone autocorrect Felger to Vulgar? (Hopefully)

Not sure what you mean. In fact, I have no idea.

 

[TheoShmeo]

It's good to see that the CHB didn't disappoint when talking about the process of interviewing the four candidates who didn't get the job. Who didn't see that coming?

The only fair criticism of this move is the dog-and-pony show of bringing Tim Wallach, Brad Ausmus, Tony Pena, and DeMarlo Hale to town when the Sox knew they wanted Farrell all along. They were required to interview a minority candidate (baseball’s Rooney Rule) and Messrs. Pena and Hale fulfill that mission, but it’s unfortunate that four worthy men had to be used in such fashion.

They all probably knew what they were getting into, but it can’t be fun spending a day with Boston’s baseball ops commandos when you know the first and only choice was Farrell. Maybe the Sox needed the leverage with Toronto. Whatever. Wallach, Ausmus, Pena, and Hale are grown-ups and they will recover. Maybe they’ll benefit from the experience.

http://www.bostonglo...5rTO/story.html

Let's see:

1. The Sox primary obligation is to themselves. That's not license to treat people like crap but their first duty is to do whatever benefits the team. All businesses act that way, or at least all good ones.

2. It wasn't a certainty that the Jays would do a deal. It was probably very likely but having no fallback option would have forced Toronto to be more aggressive in its demands. Did anyone want to see Clay Buchholz go to the Jays?

3. One of the four COULD have blown them away. My guess is that Ausmus made it more of a race than the Red Sox anticipated from the start, though that's obviously based only on putting together the snippets.

4. Baseball does, in fact, require them to interview a minority candidate. The Sox didn't invent that requirement.

5. Having their name in the mix for a manager's job is indeed beneficial as it puts them in the manager's job conversation. And going through the process is good practice for the next time. No one wants to get that practice but it's beneficial nonetheless. In fairness to the Bitch, he does allude to that at the end of the second paragraph.

That column is a study in aggressive aggressive and passive aggressive. The only surprise was that he didn't mention Liverpool for the 978th time.

 

[wutang112878]

It's good to see that the CHB didn't disappoint when talking about the process of interviewing the four candidates who didn't get the job. Who didn't see that coming?

I agree in theory with CHB that sometimes the 'interview a minority' rule can sort of be abused and candidates are used, that certainly happens. I forget who the hire was, but I remember there was an NFL coach who was all but hired and the team was having trouble getting a minority candidate to come in for an interview because everyone knew the team had already made their decision.

But in this case with the RedSox his critique isnt valid because:

2. It wasn't a certainty that the Jays would do a deal. It was probably very likely but having no fallback option would have forced Toronto to be more aggressive in its demands. Did anyone want to see Clay Buchholz go to the Jays?

Maybe its just my opinion, but while I thought Farrell was always their choice, I always thought it was maybe a 50/50 chance that they could work out a deal with Toronto to get him.

 

[shlincoln]

I forget who the hire was, but I remember there was an NFL coach who was all but hired and the team was having trouble getting a minority candidate to come in for an interview because everyone knew the team had already made their decision.

Lions when they hired Mariucci I believe.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Same old tiresome shot at Bill James in the column.

 

[TheoShmeo]

From today's Globe offering from the Curly Haired Bitch:

But the takeaway moment of opening night was the Big Chill from Garnett. It was a cold moment, almost Red Sox-ian.

And it made you wonder . . . why does it always end badly in Boston?

That made me wonder...why do I ever click on Dan's columns? Do I never learn?

KG's treatment of Ray was easily explainable by KG's pre-game and in-game intensity. Scal recently said on a Simmons podcast that KG's own teammates don't chat with him after T-60 before every game. The CHB likely knows this.

And even if KG was blowing off Ray for choosing to go to the Celts' biggest current rival, that has NOTHING to do with what the Bitch is alluding to: Bad Red Sox endings.

I guess it's never too early to start shilling, albeit indirectly, for Terry and Dan's book.

 

[TheoShmeo]

From today's Globe:

My skull almost imploded when I read stat geek reaction to the Gold Glove Awards. The sun-starved number crunchers go ballistic when anyone renders an opinion that contradicts data manufactured by Bill James and his minions. In his well-crafted “Keeping Score” column, the New York Times’ Benjamin Hoffman wrote, “the coaches and managers, charged with identifying the best fielders at each position got things mostly right this season.’’ But fanboys are not happy with the selection of Adam Jones over Mike Trout as the American League’s best center fielder. According to the vaunted “Fielding Bible Awards” Trout was statistically far superior. He had more DRS (defensive runs saved). Hoffman concluded, “Now Trout will have to wait and see if traditional thinking will also keep him from the MVP.’’ Wow. Apparently, stupid ballplayers and managers — the people actually on the field — are as clueless as lodge-member baseball writers to still think RBIs are meaningful. Will they never understand defensive metrics and Wins Above Replacement?

The willful ignorance is staggering. Not surprising. But still staggering.

I thought this was stupid too.

When David Stern announced his retirement (slated for 2014) he was credited with presiding over a 28-year period that produced “eight different NBA champions.’’ Excuse me? That’s an embarrassing stat, not one of which to be proud. The NBA lacks competitive balance like no other league. It’s the same powers every year. Take a look at the preseason odds of winning the championship for all NBA teams. Fourteen teams were 100-1 shots (or worse).

Why exactly is parity a goal?

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Why exactly is parity a goal?

Because that's how the NFL spins its league, any given Sunday blah, blah, blah. And to be honest, Shaugnessy is right: parity is good for a league. See how much the pennant races this September energized baseball.

For the NBA there are handful of teams that will make a run: LA, Miami, Boston, OKC, Indiana (maybe), Chicago (maybe) and one or two other teams. It's not even that just the teams in the lower standings have no shot, it's the middle-rung teams too. Like it or not, look at the teams from the MLB and NFL who have made it to the Series/Super Bowl in the last few years: Detroit Tigers, St. Louis Cardinals, Colorado Rockies, NY Giants, Arizona Cardinals (I'm doing this off my head, so I have missed a few teams). What are the NBA equivilents to them? It's the same group of teams, year after year after year.

It's a bit boring.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Because that's how the NFL spins its league, any given Sunday blah, blah, blah. And to be honest, Shaugnessy is right: parity is good for a league. See how much the pennant races this September energized baseball.

For the NBA there are handful of teams that will make a run: LA, Miami, Boston, OKC, Indiana (maybe), Chicago (maybe) and one or two other teams. It's not even that just the teams in the lower standings have no shot, it's the middle-rung teams too. Like it or not, look at the teams from the MLB and NFL who have made it to the Series/Super Bowl in the last few years: Detroit Tigers, St. Louis Cardinals, Colorado Rockies, NY Giants, Arizona Cardinals (I'm doing this off my head, so I have missed a few teams). What are the NBA equivilents to them? It's the same group of teams, year after year after year.

It's a bit boring.

I hear you. At the same time, there is a salary cap in the NBA. It's not like baseball where teams can spend their way to titles or at least the playoffs. Not that that always works, as we know.

I guess my point is that I don't see it as a failng that certain teams have been well run, attractive to players and able to stay competitive for years.

But I'm a Celtics fan more than I'm an NBA fan. I'm most interested when the Cs are in the running and I like having the Lakers and Heat as foils.

 

[Koufax]

Back to the first quote -- the coaches and managers spend little time scouting the other teams, and when they concern themselves with the opposing position players, it is their hitting, not their fielding, that they pay the most attention to. So yeah, the stat-heads who approach the full range of MLB players and apply objective analysis are likely to be in a better position to evaluate the results. And Dan is way, way wrong on this.

 

[lexrageorge]

In the 1950's, there were 6 NBA different champions. Since then, by decade (with comparison to MLB and NFL):

1960's: 2 (Baseball: 7; NFL: 2*)
1970's: 8 (Baseball: 5; NFL: 6)
1980's: 4 (Baseball: 10; NFL: 7)
1990's: 4 (Baseball: 6**; NFL: 6)
2000's: 5 (Baseball: 8; NFL: 8)
2010's: 3 (Baseball: 2; NFL: 3)

* - Out of 3 seasons of Super Bowl play
** - Out of 9 World Series

Different Champions since 1980:
NBA: 9 (7 multiple title winners)
MLB: 17 (9 multiple)
NFL: 15 (9 multiple)

Shank has a point, but it's hardly something to "blame" the commissioner for. Bottom line is that when you have a starting lineup of only 5 players, dynasties happen. There's really not much Stern or anyone else can do about it, other than making Michael Jordan take a couple of years off for gambling. There are reasons to not like Stern, but this is not one of them.

 

[wutang112878]

I hear you. At the same time, there is a salary cap in the NBA. It's not like baseball where teams can spend their way to titles or at least the playoffs. Not that that always works, as we know.

I guess my point is that I don't see it as a failng that certain teams have been well run, attractive to players and able to stay competitive for years.

The thing with the NBA is cap or no cap, there isnt competitive balance. Take a team like the Bucks, no one wants to go there in free agency or trade, and players have way too much leverage in dictating where they go, so their only option to contend is to find an enough elite players in the draft and retain the players after the rookie deals because its so rare that guys contend within their first 4 years in the league.

Part of the problem is that its just the way basketball works because its really your best 3 players that determine if you can or cannot contend. But the issue the league hasnt addressed, is that generally those caliber of players have way too much say in where they go. Like say Howard or Carmelo their respective teams couldnt really trade them for an adequate package until the players agreed to their destination, and 'bad market' teams [like the Bucks or the Raptors for example] really have no chance at acquiring those players even if teams in those markets run their teams pretty well. Its this last part that Stern has never fixed and thats why I think the competitive balance issue is kind of valid.

 

[lexrageorge]

The thing with the NBA is cap or no cap, there isnt competitive balance. Take a team like the Bucks, no one wants to go there in free agency or trade, and players have way too much leverage in dictating where they go, so their only option to contend is to find an enough elite players in the draft and retain the players after the rookie deals because its so rare that guys contend within their first 4 years in the league.

Part of the problem is that its just the way basketball works because its really your best 3 players that determine if you can or cannot contend. But the issue the league hasnt addressed, is that generally those caliber of players have way too much say in where they go. Like say Howard or Carmelo their respective teams couldnt really trade them for an adequate package until the players agreed to their destination, and 'bad market' teams [like the Bucks or the Raptors for example] really have no chance at acquiring those players even if teams in those markets run their teams pretty well. Its this last part that Stern has never fixed and thats why I think the competitive balance issue is kind of valid.

I think you're understating how difficult the problem is to fix. Free agency is a reality, and any changes such as longer term rookie contracts have to be agreed to via collective bargaining. The latest CBA did make some progress here; teams can pay their own Bird-right free agents more than other teams, even via sign-and-trade. And there are other restrictions that will address this, some of which don't go into affect until next season. The impact of these changes will take a couple of years as well.

Of course, Stern could always arbitrarily stop trades claiming they aren't in the best interest of an NBA-managed franchise (oops, been there, done that).

 

[Dustin the Wind]

Whenever CHB comes to mind for me, this scene pops in my head. Around 50 seconds is the CHB/Millar interaction, where, again maybe it's just me, he seems to be arguing with Millar and rooting against the Red Sox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n8Rh40ciRlU

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I think you're understating how difficult the problem is to fix. Free agency is a reality, and any changes such as longer term rookie contracts have to be agreed to via collective bargaining. The latest CBA did make some progress here; teams can pay their own Bird-right free agents more than other teams, even via sign-and-trade. And there are other restrictions that will address this, some of which don't go into affect until next season. The impact of these changes will take a couple of years as well.

I think that you're right, this is difficult to fix but there has to be some sort of repair for this, right? If in the last 30 years only 26% of your franchises have won championships, what does that do the other 74% of your league (and I know that expansion has skewed this number some)? At some point wouldn't a Sacramento King fan say in the last 30 years my team has had a reasonable shot at the NBA Finals two times. Same with a Portland Trailblazers fan or a Hawks fan or a Hornets fan or a Bucks fan or a Timberwolves fan. There are escalating versions of this if you're a Suns, Knicks, Nets and other teams that are perenial also-rans. If you're David Stern, don't you think that at some point fans in these cities will get fed up and watch something else?

And unless you draft a once-a-decade star who doesn't want to go to a warm, big-market team (like San Antonio or OKC [nee Seattle] did) you're esenitally a feeder for those teams. Orlando got rooked twice (with Shaq and Howard) despite seemingly having it all (warm weather, no state income tax) what hope do the Toronto Raptors have? Or the Detroit Pistons? Or the Denver Nuggets? Or even the Celtics once the memory of Pierce and Garnett fade into the distance. Remember how bad it sucked watching basketball in the post-Bird era? That's what it's going to be like in a few years.

I don't know, the NBA is cool and I watch it, but I'm not sure that David Stern is the commissioner genius that everyone likes to think that he is.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

You guys didn't mention his gleeful wish that the Pats make the SB again this year...so they'll have the chance to be the first team to lose five super bowls.

I hope he dies of hemorrhoids.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Back to the first quote -- the coaches and managers spend little time scouting the other teams, and when they concern themselves with the opposing position players, it is their hitting, not their fielding, that they pay the most attention to. So yeah, the stat-heads who approach the full range of MLB players and apply objective analysis are likely to be in a better position to evaluate the results. And Dan is way, way wrong on this.

Dan must've missed the year that Raffy Palmeiro won a GG....as a DH.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Plus another shot at Bob Kraft. Goodness.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

You guys didn't mention his gleeful wish that the Pats make the SB again this year...so they'll have the chance to be the first team to lose five super bowls.

I hope he dies of hemorrhoids.

He HAS to be messing with us on that one. I mean.

 

[Dustin the Wind]

You guys didn't mention his gleeful wish that the Pats make the SB again this year...so they'll have the chance to be the first team to lose five super bowls.

I hope he dies of hemorrhoids.

This.

"Can you please do me a favor and die of aids?" - Louis C.K

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

It absolutely slays me that the Globe has put CHB behind their paywall. "He's so edgy! Why isn't the money rolling in?"

 

[yecul]

He's lazy. Instead of countering a point he insults it. Instead of putting out new ideas or content he uses the same themes over and over. Same old same old. He can't make it on his own thoughts, so he has to take the lowest common denomenator route like a sports talk radio host. Take the stance that is going to generate a response. You're a stupid poopy head!

I do like the sun-starved quip. You know, from the pale unathletic red headed guy

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

He's lazy. Instead of countering a point he insults it. Instead of putting out new ideas or content he uses the same themes over and over. Same old same old. He can't make it on his own thoughts, so he has to take the lowest common denomenator route like a sports talk radio host. Take the stance that is going to generate a response. You're a stupid poopy head!

I do like the sun-starved quip. You know, from the pale unathletic red headed guy

Hey! Dan Shaughnessy runs one mile every single day. Take back your unathleticism comment, sir.

 

[ifmanis5]

Dan should be called Unfrozen Caveman Writer. Information, facts and statistics confuse and frighten him.

Which is odd since one of his all-time favorite baseball people is Earl Weaver who was the first guy in MLB to formally track and process this information. I guess index cards are much more manly than computers, which are confusing and frightening.

 

[yecul]

And regardless, what's so controversial about preferring Trout? That's not some unusual out of of the box suggestion that only a computer could possibly split out. He was a huge story and had lots of highlight reel catches. What's the supposed beef, that the statheads thought he was vastly better? I bet there were lots of scouts and whatnot who would agree.

It's always so weak when you try to spin everything around to fit into a couple little boxes. Try something new. I know it's a lost cause, but someone so bankrupt is always interesting to me.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Dan's on a roll. Today he writes a column that essentially writes itself and that Greg Bedard has already written.

"Pats had a great need. Talib may be the missing piece. But don't let me hear any more of this stuff about the Pats being different regarding character."

Yawn.

And if writing a "been there/read that" column wasn't bad enough, he finishes off with a totally gratuitous shot at the Krafts:

Attempts to reach the Krafts were unsuccessful. Maybe we’ll talk about it in their luxury box at Sunday’s game.

What's the point, Danno? Are we supposed to resent Kraft because he sits in a luxury box? A little class warfare on Election Day?

I know that Dan's MO is to grab the lowest hanging fruit and I almost understand it when he picks on Henry for the umpteenth time about owning a soccer team. I mean, that could impact the Red Sox. Henry may have less time or interest in them, and less resources for them, in light of his other ownership. But where Kraft sits is the reddest of herrings, and it's not as if other owners sit in the upper deck with the regular old folk.

 

[JimD]

I know that Dan's MO is to grab the lowest hanging fruit and I almost understand it when he picks on Henry for the umpteenth time about owning a soccer team. I mean, that could impact the Red Sox. Henry may have less time or interest in them, and less resources for them, in light of his other ownership. But where Kraft sits is the reddest of herrings, and it's not as if other owners sit in the upper deck with the regular old folk.

Bashing on the Henry group about Liverpool is nonsense. The majority of owners of professional sports teams have other interests as well - the self-made ones wouldn't be millionaires and billionaires if they were incapable of managing complex operations and successfully delegating to trusted employees.

Writers like CHB are contemptible because they are smart enough to know this, yet are cynical enough to peddle this nonsense. Thanks to the Internet, we are no longer slaves to our morning newspaper and local talk radio stations and can easily find excellent reporters and columnists who know that they are writing for a smart audience.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Bashing on the Henry group about Liverpool is nonsense. The majority of owners of professional sports teams have other interests as well - the self-made ones wouldn't be millionaires and billionaires if they were incapable of managing complex operations and successfully delegating to trusted employees.

Writers like CHB are contemptible because they are smart enough to know this, yet are cynical enough to peddle this nonsense. Thanks to the Internet, we are no longer slaves to our morning newspaper and local talk radio stations and can easily find excellent reporters and columnists who know that they are writing for a smart audience.

I agree. My point was that even giving the CHB the benefit of the doubt re his Liverpool obsession, this latest attack is beyond crazy. Outside interests COULD impact Henry; where Kraft sits is utterly irrelevant.