Something I’m curious about. For those of you out there who enjoy Dan Shaughnessy, and I know you are out there, presumably you’re drawn to his style of ripping down athletes and teams and taking shots and carrying grudges.

How do you feel when he writes columns which go to a hyperbolic level in the other direction, such as the ones from the last two days? Yesterday’s Jackie Bradley Jr. lovefest, and today’s At this rate, will the Red Sox ever lose? which starts out like this:

They may never lose.

They may never trail.

Worst to first. Two games into the season, this is the theme of the 2013 Red Sox.

And is it possible for Jackie Bradley Jr. to be the Face of the Franchise after only two games in the big leagues?

I personally find these types of columns even more annoying than the ripfests, as these columns are incredibly patronizing and mocking a fan mentality that does not exist.

What do you think?

Published by Bruce Allen

Automattician.

12 thoughts on “Question For Dan Shaughnessy Fans (Yes, They Do Exist)”

  1. It’s hard to enjoy writing that’s such transparent satire. I can’t understand what Dan’s trying to do in columns like this, other than mock the fans by taking their reactions to a really stupid extreme. And this improves our understanding of the team and the sport…how?

    Thing is, I really enjoy Shaughnessy on the radio. He has a mellow voice, he knows his sports, and he comes across as pretty likeable. But then he writes things that insult the intelligence, merely in the effort to provoke a reaction. He’s almost like the anti-Felger: nice guy on the air, but deliberately takes an antagonistic tone in print. Though Felger’s schtick is based more on tonality; Shaugnessy knowingly writes BS, in the effort to be a funhouse mirror of Boston fans. I’ve never liked it, and don’t think I ever will.

    Like

  2. I think it’s fairly innocuous. I can’t say that I especially enjoy it, but it doesn’t bother me to any great extent, either. If anything, I suppose I find it more playful than I do patronizing. It’s an easy hook, getting someone to take a flight of fancy imagining an undefeated baseball team, and taking the argument to an extreme, from the outset, makes it easier to delve into less-positive specifics later on, I suppose.

    Like

    1. You have devoted far more time and thought into this Defense of Dan than he put into his lazy column.

      Like

  3. Truthfully, I can’t understand why anyone would read his columns or listen to him on the radio.
    Why do it to yourself?

    Like

    1. That’s another way to say “he was born lazy”. Rankling is easy. It takes no ability or effort.

      Like

  6. Dan stopped being relevant on the night of October 27,2004.
    He has been floundering for a new schtick ever since. He’s lost.

    Like

  7. Bruce I thought the same thing. Very patronizing. I thought he would wait until 3-0 to write the 162 win column.

    Like

  8. It will be interesting to see how the universes of BSMW visitors and Dan Shaughnessy fans overlap. I’m decidedly not in the latter camp.

    Like

  9. I don’t understand why Dan still has a job. Before newspapers on line, there was no way to determine which articles got read. In the age of measuring computer clicks on certain columns it would seem obvious hardly anyone reads CHB.

    Like

  10. Dan rode the coattails of the other truly decent sports writers at the Globe years ago and good for him. He made the mistake, as many have, of exposing himself to the video and audio media and proved once again that most people can do one thing and should stick to that. His musings are irrelevant to me, since I don’t read him, but I do get a kick out of the sketch of his face that accompanies his items in the paper. It reminds of the photos in the obits showing someone in their 20’s when they passed at age 91. Creepy. Give him a break. He’s provided for his family, kept his nose clean, and hasn’t hurt anyone. That’s more than most of us can say.

    Like

Comments are closed.