SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox vs. Dodgers 2018 World Series Gameday Thread
|
Post by redsox3in10 on Oct 31, 2018 11:59:02 GMT -5
He treats the changes to the Red Sox over time as a sort of weird, ephemeral, almost mystical thing. They had a cloud hanging over them, but then everything changed because... reasons? Like I don't know how you give this oral history of the Red Sox and talk about how oh, it used to be like this, but then then it was like this, and act like all of that stuff just fell from the sky. Like no wonder you can't get over your "Red Sox Will Blow It Syndrome" when you don't seem to think at all about how changes in ownership and management drive the events on the field. Stuff like being one of the last teams to integrate, or then later being the first team to pair modern baseball analytics with a large payroll, that stuff is just all incidental to him apparently, doesn't rate a mention in this story. But those things are the story. "The Red Sox never used to win, but now they do, and I don't understand or accept that" is not a story about a baseball team, it's a story about the superstitions that are rolling around in Dan's head, which... who cares? Very well put. This is why I can't get over my dislike of Shaugnessey. He made up and sold a false curse (or, more accurately was the one who largely popularized, profiting handsomely), and never allowed for the fact that things changed for actual business reasons, rather than the banishing of an evil spirit. His negativity sells, so he keeps it proudly facing forward in his prose. Screw that guy.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 31, 2018 12:01:27 GMT -5
I’m one of the few who likes Shaughnessy. I don’t often agree with him, but the man can write and he writes some damn good stuff at times. It’s just hidden behind a lot of pessimistic stuff which is too bad because when he writes about stuff he’s passionate about he’s damn good. Here's the thing I don't like about Shaughnessy: He treats the changes to the Red Sox over time as a sort of weird, ephemeral, almost mystical thing. They had a cloud hanging over them, but then everything changed because... reasons? Like I don't know how you give this oral history of the Red Sox and talk about how oh, it used to be like this, but then then it was like this, and act like all of that stuff just fell from the sky. Like no wonder you can't get over your "Red Sox Will Blow It Syndrome" when you don't seem to think at all about how changes in ownership and management drive the events on the field. Stuff like being one of the last teams to integrate, or then later being the first team to pair modern baseball analytics with a large payroll, that stuff is just all incidental to him apparently, doesn't rate a mention in this story. But those things are the story. "The Red Sox never used to win, but now they do, and I don't understand or accept that" is not a story about a baseball team, it's a story about the superstitions that are rolling around in Dan's head, which... who cares? The generous read of Shaughnessy here is that he's channeling the fan's experience - we can't help but narrativize our experiences, and when the Red Sox come so close yet lose so many times, over such a long period of time, it can't help but feel like there is a kind of mystical power at work. And there is something to be said for having the ability to give expression to that experience. But ultimately you're right - it is absolutely a dereliction of duty for a reporter not to go deeper than that, to explain the changes in team philosophy that are behind the changes in their degree of success, and so on. It's just a very shallow approach compared to the excellent analysis that's out there these days.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2018 12:16:50 GMT -5
Here's the thing and people should be seeing this at this point in world history. The media creates reality. Shaughnessy and every writer/radio host like him has helped in creating the overly negative pessimistic fanbase which spills over to the players as well. Repeat something enough times and it becomes true. If the players are told thousands of times that they're going to blow it like Bill Buckner, it gets in their head and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy after awhile. Only players that have the mental fortitude to block that out and overcome it can win in that environment. Luckily, that's what we've had in the last 15 years, because it sure wasn't the media that helped breed positivity and success. The Red Sox have always had two opponents. The other team and the media.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Oct 31, 2018 12:20:01 GMT -5
It's always about him. He's literally a cancer. This goes way beyond Price. I felt him siding with the NFL against Brady was the lowest he's gone. I don't ever read him, but "literally a cancer" is both linguistically wrong and a metaphor I don't care for. He's a troll and I haven't read him for years. Growing up I'd read the Globe every day (former delivery boy 1991-95!), there was such a stark contrast between Shaughnessy and Gammons. Shaughnessy could really write but seemed to be in the business of writing just to show he was more clever than you for hating everything. Gammons, meanwhile, put together some cockamamie sentence structure but his humanity and enjoyment of baseball really would shine through. Just to be clear there is a definition that fits and that is the way in which I meant it. In my opinion he works against the home team. He sows division, gins up controversy, sides against the team. I get that he isn't an employee of the team but I have seen very few local sports writers like him. Dick Young comes to mind as one. People may recall Young's part in the dispute between Tom Seaver and the Mets management. He's the type of spots reporter who can't seem to get over the fact that quite a few athletes view reporters as an annoyance and once he gets that impression he gets way to personal. I don't expect local sports reporters to be supplicant but I don't like them siding against the team (deflategate), inventing nonsense (chicken and beer-gate) or relentlessly hammering David Price. can·cer /ˈkansər/ noun noun: cancer 3. a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil or destructive and hard to contain or eradicate. "racism is a cancer sweeping across Europe" synonyms: evil, blight, scourge, poison, canker, plague; archaicpestilence "the cancer of slavery spread across the continent"
|
|
|
Post by patford on Oct 31, 2018 12:23:33 GMT -5
I don't ever read him, but "literally a cancer" is both linguistically wrong and a metaphor I don't care for. They literally updated the definition of the word because it was used incorrectly so frequently. It’s now recognized in the informal; Dictionaries have been changed. I was very annoyed when it happened and I blame it for all the worlds ills. The English language is very fluid. Definitions are added all the time. If they weren't we would still be speaking Old English.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,748
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 31, 2018 12:23:50 GMT -5
Here's the thing and people should be seeing this at this point in world history. The media creates reality. Shaughnessy and every writer/radio host like him has helped in creating the overly negative pessimistic fanbase which spills over to the players as well. Repeat something enough times and it becomes true. If the players are told thousands of times that they're going to blow it like Bill Buckner, it gets in their head and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy after awhile. Only players that have the mental fortitude to block that out and overcome it can win in that environment. Luckily, that's what we've had in the last 15 years, because it sure wasn't the media that helped breed positivity and success. The Red Sox have always had two opponents. The other team and the media. Totally agreed. I don’t know if there was ever a pitcher who had as good of a year as Price, yet had their writers talk about whether or not they should be moved to the pen after faring poorly in one specific stadium a few times. The Boston media has a way of creating villains just so they have something to get fans stirred up about.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2018 12:26:03 GMT -5
They literally updated the definition of the word because it was used incorrectly so frequently. It’s now recognized in the informal; Dictionaries have been changed. I was very annoyed when it happened and I blame it for all the worlds ills. The English language is very fluid. Definitions are added all the time. If they weren't we would still be speaking Old English. The English language gets dumber when you change the definition of words to mean the opposite of what they used to be. Seriously, if literal now means not actually literal, what does not literal mean? It's just like philbosoxfan said. Why does flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? The prefix "in" means "not". I don't know how anyone ever learns how to speak english as a second language.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Oct 31, 2018 12:27:18 GMT -5
BTW. I totally understand the feeling of ingrained built in pessimism when it comes to the Sox. However that does not account for publicly calling Tom Brady a liar when the "cold hard" facts which eventually came out tend to support Brady.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 31, 2018 12:37:05 GMT -5
The English language is very fluid. Definitions are added all the time. If they weren't we would still be speaking Old English. The English language gets dumber when you change the definition of words to mean the opposite of what they used to be. Seriously, if literal now means not actually literal, what does not literal mean? It's just like philbosoxfan said. Why does flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? The prefix "in" means "not". I don't know how anyone ever learns how to speak english as a second language. lol, I'm actually on the negative side there. I somehow got into the habit of using irregardless when regardless was the proper way (Ir and less are redundant). I've used that since high school and got corrected by educators on more than one occasion. The dictionary people must have noticed because now irregardless is a word.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 31, 2018 12:39:18 GMT -5
BTW. I totally understand the feeling of ingrained built in pessimism when it comes to the Sox. However that does not account for publicly calling Tom Brady a liar when the "cold hard" facts which eventually came out tend to support Brady. lol, most of America doesn't believe that.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 31, 2018 12:50:09 GMT -5
The English language is very fluid. Definitions are added all the time. If they weren't we would still be speaking Old English. The English language gets dumber when you change the definition of words to mean the opposite of what they used to be. Seriously, if literal now means not actually literal, what does not literal mean? It's just like philbosoxfan said. Why does flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? The prefix "in" means "not". I don't know how anyone ever learns how to speak english as a second language. If you buy the theory that etymology develops through metaphor (a number of linguists have argued this), then many terms are in transition between an older, typically more concrete "literal" meaning and new, typically more abstract, "literal" meaning. (E.g., the way 'spirit' evolved out of the word for 'breath.') The reference to the secondary definitions of 'cancer' above point to exactly this process happening. What I think is happening when people use 'literally' to mean 'not literally' is that they're using a word (in this case cancer) according to a newly developing sense that is ambiguous between literal and metaphorical use. In such a context, I think literally can best be interpreted as meaning "without exaggeration," as in "I'm not exaggerating - Shaughnessy really is a cancer on all that is good and holy in the world!" It's notable that 'literally' is usually used in the case of cliches like this one, where the new literal meaning is in the process of becoming a familiar use. Though having said all that, it annoys me too; I'm all for language evolving in ways that allow for new tones or expressions. (Ex.: 'because' used as a preposition or 'like' used as a particle.) But it's annoying when the new usage makes meaning more ambiguous. (Ex.: people more often than not misspell the past-tense of 'lead' as 'lead' rather than 'led' - probably on the 'read'/'read' model, but that's no excuse.) Using 'literally' in this way makes its meaning more ambiguous. Anyways, Go Sox!
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 31, 2018 12:54:05 GMT -5
BTW. I totally understand the feeling of ingrained built in pessimism when it comes to the Sox. However that does not account for publicly calling Tom Brady a liar when the "cold hard" facts which eventually came out tend to support Brady. lol, most of America doesn't believe that. I don't give an eff what America believes. Do you, really? It's irrelevant in terms of facts. America hates the Pats and Brady because they win. I believe in science. I get a low tire pressure warning every winter because it's cold. Maybe you don't get that in the Phillipines. The rest of America that gets those warnings are just Pats haters looking for a reason, any reason, to call the Pats cheaters. Even ESPN and the NFL front offices, run by former Jets executives.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2018 13:03:05 GMT -5
No one has ever had an answer for me on this question. If the NFL actually cared about the air pressure of footballs, why don't NFL employees control the footballs at all times? Why wasn't making that change the response to "deflategate"? They don't give a damn. It was just a Jets fan that wanted to pick on Brady over something that is completely meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 31, 2018 13:04:48 GMT -5
lol, most of America doesn't believe that. I don't give an eff what America believes. Do you, really? It's irrelevant in terms of facts. America hates the Pats and Brady because they win. I believe in science. I get a low tire pressure warning every winter because it's cold. Maybe you don't get that in the Phillipines. The rest of America that gets those warnings are just Pats haters looking for a reason, any reason, to call the Pats cheaters. Even ESPN and the NFL front offices, run by former Jets executives. Yes and Brady accidentally crushed his cell phone with a hammer. I don't doubt that Brady is a talented athlete but let's face it, in terms of the fans, he's the Machado of football.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2018 13:08:10 GMT -5
I don't give an eff what America believes. Do you, really? It's irrelevant in terms of facts. America hates the Pats and Brady because they win. I believe in science. I get a low tire pressure warning every winter because it's cold. Maybe you don't get that in the Phillipines. The rest of America that gets those warnings are just Pats haters looking for a reason, any reason, to call the Pats cheaters. Even ESPN and the NFL front offices, run by former Jets executives. Yes and Brady accidentally crushed his cell phone with a hammer. I don't doubt that Brady is a talented athlete but let's face it, in terms of the fans, he's the Machado of football. It wasn't an accident. It was standard practice for he and every other celebrity. And you've got to be f'ing kidding me with the Machado comparison. Fans who think Brady is the same as Machado are the dumbest people alive.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Oct 31, 2018 13:20:16 GMT -5
lol, most of America doesn't believe that. I don't give an eff what America believes. Do you, really? It's irrelevant in terms of facts. America hates the Pats and Brady because they win. I believe in science. I get a low tire pressure warning every winter because it's cold. Maybe you don't get that in the Phillipines. The rest of America that gets those warnings are just Pats haters looking for a reason, any reason, to call the Pats cheaters. Even ESPN and the NFL front offices, run by former Jets executives. As I recall when it was all said and done it turned out some balls were at the limit. Some were a bit under and some were a bit over. Factor in going from warm to cold and no objective person could say the balls were purposefully under inflated. I have always felt Brady told the equipment guys he liked the balls as soft as possible. So if they were right on the cusp it stands to reason some might be a bit under or a bit over to begin with. Further all the ridiculous conspiracy theories about fumbles and Brady's effectiveness turned out to be nonsense as there is no indication at all that there were more fumbles or Brady was less effective after the NLF took over responsibility for inspecting the balls. I ride a bicycle frequently. Every time a cold front moves in there is a drop in tire pressure which is very obvious. Anyhow the point Re. Shaughnessy is he goes after a person's character. He tries to define them as bad people. He did it with Price. He did it with Lackey, Lester and Beckett. And he did it with Brady.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 31, 2018 13:36:19 GMT -5
Here's the thing I don't like about Shaughnessy: He treats the changes to the Red Sox over time as a sort of weird, ephemeral, almost mystical thing. They had a cloud hanging over them, but then everything changed because... reasons? Like I don't know how you give this oral history of the Red Sox and talk about how oh, it used to be like this, but then then it was like this, and act like all of that stuff just fell from the sky. Like no wonder you can't get over your "Red Sox Will Blow It Syndrome" when you don't seem to think at all about how changes in ownership and management drive the events on the field. Stuff like being one of the last teams to integrate, or then later being the first team to pair modern baseball analytics with a large payroll, that stuff is just all incidental to him apparently, doesn't rate a mention in this story. But those things are the story. "The Red Sox never used to win, but now they do, and I don't understand or accept that" is not a story about a baseball team, it's a story about the superstitions that are rolling around in Dan's head, which... who cares? The generous read of Shaughnessy here is that he's channeling the fan's experience - we can't help but narrativize our experiences, and when the Red Sox come so close yet lose so many times, over such a long period of time, it can't help but feel like there is a kind of mystical power at work. And there is something to be said for having the ability to give expression to that experience. But ultimately you're right - it is absolutely a dereliction of duty for a reporter not to go deeper than that, to explain the changes in team philosophy that are behind the changes in their degree of success, and so on. It's just a very shallow approach compared to the excellent analysis that's out there these days. Maybe that's the part that bothers me, because as others have pointed out, Shaughnessy is a good writer and he's good at writing about those sort of soft factors, intangibles, fan experiences/perception stuff. And I think those things should be written about an explored. It just suffers for not being grounded to any kind of reality whatsoever. Shaughnessy is the perfect case of someone who's good enough to be worth criticizing.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 31, 2018 13:48:01 GMT -5
I'm not really sure how Deflategate became a thing on this thread, but, uh, please move it to off-topic or something if you'd like to continue that line of discussion.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,920
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 31, 2018 14:05:17 GMT -5
The English language is very fluid. Definitions are added all the time. If they weren't we would still be speaking Old English. The English language gets dumber when you change the definition of words to mean the opposite of what they used to be. Seriously, if literal now means not actually literal, what does not literal mean? It's just like philbosoxfan said. Why does flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? The prefix "in" means "not". I don't know how anyone ever learns how to speak english as a second language. That's a sophisticated opinion.
("Sophisticated" was originally a pejorative. It more or less meant "putting on airs," a phony version of what we now call "sophisticated" admiringly.)
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,243
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Oct 31, 2018 14:06:57 GMT -5
Now all I want for the season is Ohtani getting the AL ROY with unanimous vote because: a - He is amazing b - I want to see MFY twitter melt once again 'cause it's a beautiful thing to witness lol
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,920
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 31, 2018 14:20:14 GMT -5
The generous read of Shaughnessy here is that he's channeling the fan's experience - we can't help but narrativize our experiences, and when the Red Sox come so close yet lose so many times, over such a long period of time, it can't help but feel like there is a kind of mystical power at work. And there is something to be said for having the ability to give expression to that experience. But ultimately you're right - it is absolutely a dereliction of duty for a reporter not to go deeper than that, to explain the changes in team philosophy that are behind the changes in their degree of success, and so on. It's just a very shallow approach compared to the excellent analysis that's out there these days. Maybe that's the part that bothers me, because as others have pointed out, Shaughnessy is a good writer and he's good at writing about those sort of soft factors, intangibles, fan experiences/perception stuff. And I think those things should be written about an explored. It just suffers for not being grounded to any kind of reality whatsoever. Shaughnessy is the perfect case of someone who's good enough to be worth criticizing. I used to hate Shaugnessy, but he's actually taught himself some basic sabermetrics (way more than Cafardo) and is, more importantly, open to a good argument. He's also a sometimes terrific writer who, as we've noted, excels at capturing the fan experience.
But I 100% agree with you that he phoned this one in. I was disappointed. The fan experience that defines the Sox transformation goes like:
Dick Williams is great ----
Darrell Johnson falls out of trees all year and lands on his feet Don Zimmer's a gerbil who will get the FO to give away for nothing any player who calls him that John McNamara is the stupidest manager in MLB history ---
Terry Francona is brilliant John Farrell's a nice guy who's way not good in the long run Alex Cora's beyond brilliant
You don't have to go into the ownership embracing analytics. That's for the insiders. The average fan knew we shouldn't have pinch-hit for Willoughby. The average fan knew that Bill Lee was a better choice to pitch against the Yankees than Bobby Sprowl. The average fan knew that Don Baylor should have pinch-hit for Bill Buckner against Jesse Orosco (an inning before the same fans knew that Stapleton should have been in for defense).
In contrast, we've seen Curtis Leskanic pitching key innings, and most recently a literally figurative parade of brilliant, counter-intuitive but correct decisions by Cora.
There's been a stupid to smart transformation within the FO but the version in the manager's office has been written ten times as large. How can you miss that?
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,386
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 31, 2018 14:39:23 GMT -5
The English language is very fluid. Definitions are added all the time. If they weren't we would still be speaking Old English. The English language gets dumber when you change the definition of words to mean the opposite of what they used to be. Seriously, if literal now means not actually literal, what does not literal mean? It's just like philbosoxfan said. Why does flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? The prefix "in" means "not". I don't know how anyone ever learns how to speak english as a second language. Now, in fairness, "inflammable" comes directly from the Latin. So blame the Romans if you must. And that has been an English word for 400 years. But-- English is tough.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 31, 2018 14:40:58 GMT -5
I'm not really sure how Deflategate became a thing on this thread, but, uh, please move it to off-topic or something if you'd like to continue that line of discussion. That was my fault. But seriously, it is reasonable for deflategate to come up in almost any conversation. But I am moving on . . . . really.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 31, 2018 14:57:21 GMT -5
The English language gets dumber when you change the definition of words to mean the opposite of what they used to be. Seriously, if literal now means not actually literal, what does not literal mean? It's just like philbosoxfan said. Why does flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? The prefix "in" means "not". I don't know how anyone ever learns how to speak english as a second language. Now, in fairness, "inflammable" comes directly from the Latin. So blame the Romans if you must. And that has been an English word for 400 years. But-- English is tough. That’s a much better explanation than I ever got from the teachers I argued with about it. I still think that should be fixed because it makes no sense that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. It’s like if the words inexpensive and expensive meant the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 31, 2018 16:16:31 GMT -5
He treats the changes to the Red Sox over time as a sort of weird, ephemeral, almost mystical thing. They had a cloud hanging over them, but then everything changed because... reasons? Like I don't know how you give this oral history of the Red Sox and talk about how oh, it used to be like this, but then then it was like this, and act like all of that stuff just fell from the sky. Like no wonder you can't get over your "Red Sox Will Blow It Syndrome" when you don't seem to think at all about how changes in ownership and management drive the events on the field. Stuff like being one of the last teams to integrate, or then later being the first team to pair modern baseball analytics with a large payroll, that stuff is just all incidental to him apparently, doesn't rate a mention in this story. But those things are the story. "The Red Sox never used to win, but now they do, and I don't understand or accept that" is not a story about a baseball team, it's a story about the superstitions that are rolling around in Dan's head, which... who cares? Very well put. This is why I can't get over my dislike of Shaugnessey. He made up and sold a false curse (or, more accurately was the one who largely popularized, profiting handsomely), and never allowed for the fact that things changed for actual business reasons, rather than the banishing of an evil spirit. His negativity sells, so he keeps it proudly facing forward in his prose. Screw that guy. My problem with Shaugnessey - one of them - is that he chews through metaphors and cliches like some people chew through popcorn. For me it isn't good writing. It's repetitive, overwrought, and just plain boring. Often it appears designed to build support for what is at best a questionable narrative. That's before we get to the lack of any coherent historical or organizational depth, as fth lays out.
|
|
|