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.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.
Based on what, exactly?FWIW Tom Glavine doesn't deserve to be in the top group and maybe barely in the bottom group
To me - pretty much everythingBased on what, exactly?
We're going pretty far off-topic here, but...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
Honest question: why do you read him?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.Honest question: why do you read him?
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.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.
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?
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.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?
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?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.
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.
DENVER — It must be December in the AFC. Chestnuts are roasting on open fires and Tomato Cans are falling down in front of the sons of Bill Belichick.
I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about yesterday's story.He called them tomato cans today. Yesterday, they were the 7 blocks of Kryptonite.
Enjoy this as long as it lasts, people. You are not likely to see it ever again in professional sports.
And the beneficiaries of this abject ineptitude are your New England Patriots — a team that never, ever takes a year off.
"New England led, 10-3 at halftime. It felt like 73-0."
"The list of inept offenses the Patriots have faced this year staggers the mind. It’s not New England’s fault, and a 12-2 record is ever-enviable, but it would be nice to know if the Patriots’ amazing ability to keep teams off the scoreboard is owed to tremendous defense or merely stupifyingly bad offense by a succession of weaklings. I keep worrying that New England could be stunned by a good offense in the playoffs. Then again, maybe not. Maybe nobody can score on the Patriots because they are really good."
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.Seven Super Bowls. Six straight AFC title games. Eight straight division championships.
Enjoy. These are the good old days.
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.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.
Is that speaking from experience or just a supposition? Curious.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.
Direct experience.Is that speaking from experience or just a supposition? Curious.
He doesn't hate the Krafts. He just hates happiness and seeks to crush it in all others.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 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.He doesn't hate the Krafts. He just hates happiness and seeks to crush it in all others.
Felger said last week about Shank, "He's just doing his job ..."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.
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.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.
What he hates is sports. He has for years, but the gig pays handsomely and he can write a column in half an hour.He doesn't hate the Krafts. He just hates happiness and seeks to crush it in all others.
I'm not clicking either, but my guess is that he's just trying to be funny by riffing on "Curly Haired Boyfriend."I'm not clicking on it but is Dan really calling Goodell a ginger-haired liar?
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!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".
http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2017/02/06/patriots-super-bowl-loss-boston-globe-front-pageI read it. I just wonder what he wrote first.
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.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 agree, the man lost his gimmick. When Boston became city of champions, he didn't know what to do.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.