I like to embarrass myself by publicly putting my NCAA Tournament picks out there for the entire world to see prior to the tournament beginning (I guess putting my picks out there after the tourney begins would be a smarter idea). So I figured I would do it again this year. I'm a big college basketball fan, but I have never (except in high school) won an NCAA Tournament bracket and tend to be wrong in picks...except for one year when I was unemployed and I made picks for my girlfriend's office pool. I got 7 of the Elite 8 teams right and got 3 of the 4 Final Four teams correct. I guess the lesson is that I choke under the pressure of having money on picks I make and because it was her money for the office pool I made my picks without pressure of having to get them right. I'm a choker and wasteful with other people's money.
So here are my picks and reasoning for this year's NCAA Tournament games. My logic feels sound, my picks do not.
South
First Round (I refuse to call it "Second Round")
Kansas over Western Kentucky: I don't love Kansas but this just isn't happening for Western Kentucky.
North Carolina over Villanova: This really isn't a great matchup for the new look Tar Heels. They have gone small (and started their five best players, what a concept!) and now rely on the three-point shot more. Villanova guards the three-point shot well. In the end, I think Carolina is going to be able to score inside with James McAdoo.
VCU over Akron: This game gives me pause because I like Akron's ability to rebound and score, while VCU is small and over-rely on the three-point shot. VCU eats teams for lunch that don't have a strong point guard and Akron's point guard was arrested for drug trafficking (you can't make that up, enter your "he's an excellent distributor" joke here). I don't see who Akron has that will be able to beat VCU's "havoc" defense.
South Dakota State over Michigan: This is sort of a cop-out pick. Upsets happen. I don't know here else in this bracket outside of Florida-Northwestern State (which I think will be a close game) an upset will happen. These teams are quite similar. They have strong point guard play and generally don't rebound well. I think North Dakota State will be able to hit their three-point shots and rebound well enough against Morgan and McGary to get the upset. There's something about Michigan I don't trust.
UCLA over Minnesota: This is a game featuring two teams that are disasters. UCLA has talent and a ball-hog, while Minnesota has the talent and no leadership. For some reason, I trust UCLA to come out ready to play more than Minnesota. Plus, UCLA has Shabazz Muhammad.
Florida over Northwestern State: This game is going to be close in my opinion. Northwestern State will try to slow this game down where Florida isn't quite as strong in the halfcourt. In the end, I think Patric Young will be the difference in the middle and Florida's ability to get out of their halfcourt offense and run a little bit will carry them to the win.
San Diego State over Oklahoma: Another game between two disappointing teams. Oklahoma can't shoot the three-point shot and I'm a big believer that teams who can't score from the three-point line can't win NCAA Tournament games. Too much Tapley and Franklin carry SDSU to the win.
Georgetown over Florida Gulf Coast: Florida Gulf Coast has been tested this year. They beat Miami and lost to Duke (in the game where Duke went on a 31-0 run). In terms of defense, Georgetown is tougher than both Miami and Duke. FGCU isn't going to be intimidated, but Georgetown is the better team.
Second Round
UNC over Kansas: There is really no formula for beating Kansas, but teams have had success with them by spreading them out on defense and getting their offensive players in space. UNC is red-hot right now and I can see Jeff Withey getting in foul trouble against the smaller, but much quicker McAdoo. I'm very tempted to go with Kansas simply because of Ben McLemore, but Reggie Bullock is an underrated defender. It wouldn't shock me to see UNC put Bullock on McLemore and I think the smaller lineup takes down Kansas.
VCU over South Dakota State: South Dakota State has the benefit of playing a team that doesn't have much height like they do, but in a close game I see VCU winning. SDSU takes care of the basketball and that is crucial against VCU, so I won't rule out another upset, but I don't think it will happen and won't take credit for predicting one.
Florida over UCLA: This is the game where UCLA's inability to rebound and have Jordan Adams uninjured will come back to haunt them. Florida can rebound well and won't have a problem getting out and running against the Bruins. As long as Kenny Boynton doesn't start jacking up three-point shots without mercy I see the Gators being stronger than the Bruins inside and getting the win.
Georgetown over San Diego State: This is the game that should have been played last NCAA Tournament if San Diego State had gotten by N.C. State in the first round. I think Georgetown's defense can smother Franklin and will give the Aztecs fits on the offensive end. The score may be 53-41, but a win is a win.
Sweet Sixteen
VCU over UNC: Again, VCU eats up teams who don't have a strong point guard against their pressure. While Marcus Paige has made strides, he isn't quite there yet, and I think Carolina will struggle against the "havoc" defense of VCU. The problem for Carolina is they want to run and VCU won't allow them to run.
Florida over Georgetown: I've already mentioned Georgetown's ability to ugly-up a game and that initially seems like something that would give Florida problems. Tempo is the key and Florida will use it's ability to rebound and try to control the pace. In the end, I see Georgetown simply not being able to keep up with Florida on the offensive end and a Gators victory ensuing.
Elite Eight
Florida over VCU: I don't see anyone I trust for Florida to bring the ball up, but I think they have a combination of players with Boyton, Scottie Wilbekin, and Mike Rosario to handle some of the VCU pressure. They can also use Erik Murphy as a pivot in the middle of the court to break some of the pressure. I think VCU's lack of size and rebounding is going to punish them in a game against Patric Young and Florida makes it to the Final Four out of the South.
East
First Round
Indiana over LIU/JMU: I feel confident Indiana won't lose to either team.
N.C. State over Temple: I don't trust N.C. State at all, but they tend to play well when they really need to play well. The season is over if they lose in the NCAA Tournament, so I think NC State is the more talented team inside the paint. I think that's the difference in this game.
UNLV over California: I really like UNLV. Perhaps more than I should. I know Crabbe and Cobbs get can get hot and carry Cal, but they have a weakness in the front court, and UNLV has Khem Birch, Anthony Bennett, and Mike Moser. By the way, Mike Wilbon said on Monday he had never heard of Anthony Bennett. It's very shameful for him to say that. Bennett is awesome and Wilbon should know who he is.
Syracuse over Montana: My initial reaction is always to say Syracuse is going to lose in the first round. It's my gut instinct. While Montana can shoot well, they have nothing on the inside and Syracuse is going to be too talented to allow them to win this game.
Bucknell over Butler: I'm just down on Butler this year. I think they are overranked at a #6 seed and the fact they shoot well from three-point range is negated by the fact Bucknell defends the three-point shot well. I feel like Bucknell has the best player on the court and a Patriot League team will pull another first round upset.
Marquette over Davidson: This is a tempting upset pick, but I don't think it will happen. Davidson struggles when you get physical with them. If you let them run off screens and the game isn't officiated tightly they will struggle to get off shots. Marquette is a tough physical team and won't let Davidson hit open jump shots. I do look forward to this game though and hope I am wrong with my prediction.
Colorado over Illinois: If Illinois comes out hot then they will obviously win this game. The Fighting Illini can shoot themselves into or out of a game. Colorado is very good team defensive rebounding team, so if Paul and Richardson are off for the Illinois team they aren't winning this game by getting second-chance points. I am betting there will plenty of misses for Illinois.
Miami over Pacific: I like Miami for a couple of reasons. They fit the profile of teams I believe do well in the NCAA Tournament. They have strong point guard play, are a veteran team, have an X-factor (Kenny Kadji) and they can get hot from three-point range. If Reggie Johnson got his head in the game I can only imagine how good this Miami team could be.
Second Round
Indiana over N.C. State: I came close to picking this as an upset. Richard Howell can bang on the inside and give Cody Zeller issues on offense, while C.J. Leslie matches up well with Christian Watford. I quite simply don't trust N.C. State to show up two games in a row and I think there is no one on the Wolfpack roster who can guard Victor Oladipo.
UNLV over Syracuse: I told you I like UNLV, which means they will lose to Cal in the first round. Syracuse is sort of a streaky team and I think Anthony Marshall is going to be able to keep Michael Carter-Williams in check. Syracuse runs a zone and UNLV isn't afraid to shoot three-point shots. I see those three-point shots going down and I have absolutely no clue how Syracuse will guard Anthony Bennett inside or outside.
Marquette over Bucknell: I almost had the guts to make this pick. Bucknell likes to play a half-court game and I can see Marquette making this a fast game, as well as being very careful with the basketball. The Marquette guards can limit the turnovers and will prevent Bucknell from having a shot at the upset.
Miami over Colorado: Colorado is going to have problems handling Shane Larkin on the pick-and-roll. Most teams have a problem guarding him anyway and I don't think Colorado has the ability to prevent Larkin from getting in the lane. Plus, Miami can throw Gamble and Johnson at Roberson and try to limit his ability to score and rebound.
Sweet Sixteen
Indiana over UNLV: This is where I think UNLV's inexperience is going to cost them a win. Indiana is too experienced and too talented on offense and defense. They are the superior team and Christian Watford will at least make Anthony Bennett work on defense. This seems like an Indiana win due to their three-point shooting and experience.
Miami over Marquette: I like Vander Blue, but I have seen Durand Scott shut down great offensive players all year and I have no doubt he can do it again. This should be a good game, but the difference to me is Kenny Kadji. I don't think Marquette is going to be able to contain Shane Larkin and prevent Kadji from spotting up in the corner as he is prone to do. He's annoyingly effective. Actually, this entire Miami team is annoyingly effective.
Elite Eight
Miami over Indiana: This was a tough pick. I think the Hoosiers (obviously) have the advantage with Zeller in the middle, but I really like the matchup of Ferrell/Hulls/anybody else versus Shane Larkin for Miami. Indiana is athletic and I don't really know if Durand Scott can contain Victor Oladipo or slow him down, but I think Miami has the frontcourt depth to slow down Zeller and have the advantage on the wings. Miami is such an experienced team and I think in the end this game will boil down to the Hurricanes getting a stop when they need one.
West
First Round
Gonzaga over Southern: I don't know if anyone noticed, but when he was on camera celebrating the #1 seed one of the Gonzaga players smirked as if to say, "They ain't shit" on the Sunday Selection Show. I'd love to say he is wrong, but I don't think Gonzaga is losing this game.
Pittsburgh over Wichita State: Pittsburgh is ranked in the Top 20 of offensive and defensive efficiency by KenPom.com and though I do question whether they can score enough to have success in the tourney, I can see them getting past Wichita State in the first round. I think the experience of 10th year senior (okay, it just seems that way) Tray Woodall will be the difference in this game.
Wisconsin over Ole Miss: Anyone who has seen Marshall Henderson play know that he is quite the character and his ability to get hot and carry Ole Miss can not be understated. Unfortunately for him Wisconsin knows this. They will be sure to shut Henderson down and then ugly up this game for the win.
Kansas State over Boise State/LaSalle: I'm not in love with this Kansas State team and if I knew for sure who they were playing I may be more inclined to pick an upset here. Both Boise State and LaSalle have trouble defending the perimeter and Kansas State is great from the perimeter.
Belmont over Arizona: On paper this pick doesn't look like a very good pick. Arizona is tall and Belmont is very much not tall. The reason behind this pick boils down to Belmont having an experienced backcourt with Ian Clark and Kerron Johnson and Arizona struggling with turnovers. Arizona also doesn't defend the three-point shot well and Belmont is very efficient on offense. I am taking talented experience over taller and talented youth.
New Mexico over Harvard: I think New Mexico is underseeded, they are hot right now and I don't think Harvard is going to be able to pull off the upset. I have a lot of respect for Tommy Amaker though and it would be fun to see Harvard pull off the upset.
Iowa State over Notre Dame: Iowa State does not play defense. They don't even pretend to play defense. They are interested in scoring points, plus they are a much better home team. That doesn't bode well. Notre Dame can struggle to score and Iowa State tends to play well against bigger teams. I'm not sure this is an upset and I still haven't completely figured out how Iowa State will guard Jack Cooley, but maybe Iowa State plays enough defense to win.
Ohio State over Iona: Iona is an incredibly efficient basketball team. I almost picked them to win this game. The reason I did not is their best player is a point guard and Aaron Craft loves to take on the opposing team's point guard. He has had five days to figure out how to shut down Momo Jones and I have faith in him he can at least slow Jones down.
Second Round
Pittsburgh over Gonzaga: Yeah, I'm stupid. This is the second #1 seed I've had lose in the 2nd round. I like Gonzaga, but Pittsburgh has the big man (Steven Adams) to at least slow down Kelly Olynyk. Basically this game boils down to defense. I think Pittsburgh has the tough defensive ability that will allow their (relative) lack of explosiveness to not be an issue for them in this game. Pittsburgh doesn't seem to have weaknesses and I feel they are due for some good luck in the tournament.
Wisconsin over Kansas State: I didn't like Kansas State too much in the first round and I believe once they match up with Wisconsin's tough defense they are going to struggle to hit their three-point shots. Wisconsin also has the advantage in the ability to get offensive rebounds from Kansas State, who struggles at times on the defensive glass. I am going with the "boring" team.
New Mexico over Belmont: Tony Snell is another player I think America is really going to enjoy watching play and he is red hot right now. So far this year New Mexico has lost to South Dakota State, St. Louis, San Diego State, UNLV and Air Force. Outside of Air Force all of those teams have made the NCAA Tournament. Belmont's lack of height will bother them when going against Alex Kirk on the inside.
Ohio State over Iowa State: I said previously Iowa State doesn't defend, but Ohio State can defend. Ohio State only has one scorer in double figures, but they are getting more scoring from Craft recently. Iowa State will be undone by their inability to guard DeShaun Thomas or Sam Thompson and Ohio State wins this game.
Sweet Sixteen
Wisconsin over Pittsburgh: This has the potential to be a very defensive kind of game. I have a lot of faults, none of which are overrating Wisconsin's ability to play a game at their pace. Wisconsin does have a tendency to get knocked out early, but I am guessing the shooting of Sam Dekker and the ability of the Wisconsin big men to hit the three-point shot carries them past Pitt.
New Mexico over Ohio State: Ohio State doesn't exactly have a lot of scoring options. New Mexico is a team with strong guard play that can shoot the ball well. Craft can only guard either Snell or Kendall Williams for New Mexico and no disrespect to the other Ohio State guards but I think either Snell or Williams' scoring (whoever Craft doesn't guard) will be the difference in this game. New Mexico isn't an elite scoring team, but they will play good enough defense to make Ohio State play from behind.
Elite Eight
New Mexico over Wisconsin: I'm not sure I even trust Wisconsin to make it this far and I am not sure I trust New Mexico to consistently score to make it this far. New Mexico tends to struggle defensively against faster-paced teams, while Wisconsin isn't fast paced. I think the Lobos will be able to match the Badgers on the boards and then pull off a victory behind my new favorite player Tony Snell.
Midwest
First Round
Louisville over North Carolina A&T: Though I was impressed with A&T's defense in the First Four game, I just don't think they are going to be able to handle Louisville's pressure.
Colorado State over Missouri: I don't trust Missouri, mostly because I think Frank Haith isn't a great coach and the Tigers are kind of a soft team on the boards. They shouldn't be, but they are. Colorado State doesn't have a ton of height, but they have strong guard play just like Missouri does.
Oregon over Oklahoma State: Early in February I watched Oklahoma State play and told myself I probably would end up having them advance pretty far in the NCAA Tournament. Well, now I have them losing to a #12 seed. Oregon isn't a #12 seed though and they got screwed. Oregon is a balanced team (though they can't shoot) and I think they will beat Oklahoma State in a close game. I can't believe I am betting against Marcus Smart.
Saint Louis over New Mexico State: Saint Louis plays suffocating defense and New Mexico can have issues turning the ball over. I don't see why I would pick New Mexico State.
St. Mary's over Memphis: I hate being mean to Conference USA, but I'm not incredibly impressed by Memphis going perfect in the conference. Memphis doesn't get challenged because they don't have great teams in the conference. St. Mary's takes care of the ball and they aren't that overly reliant on Matthew Dellavedova in terms of scoring. I take St. Mary's for the upset.
Michigan State over Valparaiso: Tom Izzo makes it a habit of having his team prepared for the NCAA Tournament and Keith Appling and Gary Harris are too good and athletic to lose in the first round.
Creighton over Cincinnati: This is a tough pick. Cincinnati plays tough defense and Creighton plays no defense. Cincinnati can struggle scoring and Creighton has no trouble scoring. I will take Creighton's ability to make shots (because God knows if they miss them, they won't be able to get the offensive rebound) over Cincinnati's defense.
Duke over Albany: Albany has penetrating point guards and Duke can't guard penetrating point guards at all. Albany doesn't have much height and as long as Mason Plumlee doesn't have his head up his ass, Duke's advantage inside should open up three-point looks. And no, I am not at all confident Duke can win this game.
Second Round
Louisville over Colorado State: Larry Eustachy is a great coach. I just don't think his team is strong enough to beat Louisville when the game is played in Kentucky. Peyton Siva and Russ Smith are going to be able to negate the guard advantage Colorado State normally has and Louisville is simply a better team.
Oregon over Saint. Louis: I know, I know, Saint. Louis eats teams without strong ball handling alive and Oregon can't shoot. I think Dominic Artis and Oregon are going to have a plan to beat the Saint Louis defense and Saint Louis struggles when they are forced to score more than 60 points in a game. Oregon is not a team of great shooters so I can see Oregon shooting 19% in this game, but I'm betting they will take advantage of their strength inside.
Michigan State over St. Mary's: I don't trust Keith Appling too much, but I do trust Michigan State to have a plan in order to contain Matthew Dellavedova. He isn't the only good player on the St. Mary's team, but Michigan State can control the boards with Payne and Nix, while I don't think St. Mary's has an answer for Brendan Dawson.
Duke over Creighton: Doug McDermott is a difficult matchup for nearly any team. His versatility and ability to score in the post is what makes him so good. Duke won't be able to stop McDermott, but they have the length to give him problems and be physical with him. At the end of the day, Duke will feast on Creighton if the Blue Jays don't play good defense, which they usually don't.
Sweet Sixteen
Louisville over Oregon: Louisville has the guard play that will allow them to handle Dominic Artis and I have a feeling this is the kind of game where Russ Smith goes for 35 points. Louisville will have the guys to guard E.J. Singler and Louisville also has the shot blocking and rebounding to to prevent Oregon from offensive rebounding their misses.
Michigan State over Duke: Duke struggles against teams with fast point guards and big men who take up space in the middle. Look at their losses this year (Maryland twice, NC State, Miami), all of those teams have big men who are strong and can rebound as well as fast guards who can penetrate in the lane. Appling and Harris will tear up the Blue Devils porous defense and much of Mason Plumlee's success depends on him getting to the right spot in the paint and Nix/Payne will prevent that from happening.
Elite Eight
Louisville over Michigan State: Louisville is quite simply on a roll right now. In the point guard matchup of Peyton Siva versus Keith Appling I trust Siva much more. Appling seems to make a few plays per game that leave me scratching my head. If/When Louisville presses I think they can have success creating turnovers and towards the end of the year it looked like Kevin Ware and Virginia Tech-exile Montrezl Harrell started to figure it out a little bit. That's scary because Ware can shoot and Harrell can be an excellent rebounder.
Final Four
Miami over Florida: I told you Miami has the formula I look for in an NCAA title contender. These teams match up well. Both teams really don't have a traditional small forward, both teams have "stretch 4's" and both teams rebound the ball well. Like a broken record, the Gators lack of a point guard is going to really hurt them in this game. Miami loves to kick the ball out for open three-point shots on penetration and Shane Larkin makes good decisions with the ball. I see the Hurricanes advancing to the title game on the strength of their shooting and ability to shut Kenny Boynton down.
Louisville over New Mexico: As much as I like New Mexico and believe Tony Snell is going to have a breakout tournament, this is a game of strength versus strength and I like Louisville in that instance. New Mexico has the guard play to beat the Louisville pressure, but I don't know if they will have the poise that Louisville has shown in big situations so far this year. Dieng is going to be able to protect the rim and force New Mexico into shooting from the perimeter where Louisville also plays good perimeter defense.
Championship Game
Louisville over Miami: I would be very excited to see this game. Miami has the point guard play and length in the frontcourt to give Louisville issues. It would be fun to see Siva and Larkin play against each other. Scott could probably help to keep Russ Smith in check a little bit, but I do like Gorgui Dieng against Miami's interior players because Julian Gamble isn't really an offensive threat and Reggie Johnson is just fat. Louisville will make another appearance in the Final Four and this year behind the leadership of Peyton Siva and the shooting of Luke Hancock/Kevin Ware they will win it all.
Feel free to tell me how wrong my picks are. You are probably going to be right.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
12 comments Skip Bayless Talks about How the NCAA Tournament Sucks, but He'll Still Watch
It took five years (holy crap, is that correct?) but I have finally added a "trolling" label to this blog. Skip Bayless has decided to write about the NCAA Tournament and how it is exciting, but the talent level sucks compared to the NBA. It's standard Skip Bayless crap and he even manages to sneak in a knock (actually two) on LeBron James, because of course he did. If you really feel the need to read it (and I only read it out of duty to you, the readers...well, mostly I read it because I loathe myself), here is the link.
Meet Fred. He is about to win this year's ESPN Men's Tournament Challenge, beating about 7.15 million other brackets.
When asked how in the name of John Wooden he picked 20-loss Liberty to be the first No. 16 seed ever to upset a No.1 seed -- Duke! -- Fred will say, "John who?"
Then he'll explain: "I remembered the old line, 'Give me liberty or give me death,' so I said, 'Give me Liberty!' You know, the George Washington line."
Wow, I can't believe Skip Bayless is revealing to the public his secret to being a good troll---have no idea what you are talking about but state your claim loudly and with as little logical reasoning as possible and you too can get noticed! It seems since trolling is Skip Bayless's only real talent he would keep this close as if it were proprietary information.
"Whatever," Fred will say. "Look, I just got lucky with most of my picks. I didn't watch a single college basketball game this season until March Madness started."
It seems fictional Fred and Skip have something in common. Neither watch any college basketball but feel like they are expert enough to comment on the sport.
Welcome back to Madness. Absolute, divine Madness. March Madness. Or Badness.
March Badness! Get it? It's a play on words AND it shows that Skip Bayless thinks the NCAA Tournament and entire basketball season has been really boring. I'm not sure how Skip knows this college basketball season has been terrible considering he seems to have spent most of his time over the last six months debating the merits of Tim Tebow, criticizing LeBron James and looking at himself in the mirror. You can always trust the opinion of someone who claims to think Tebow is great and LeBron James has more to prove, that much I do know as true.
Prediction 1: The worst men's college basketball season I can remember
We won't fall for that one, Skip. We all know the only long or short-term memory you are capable of retaining is a constant loop of Tim Tebow running shirtless in the rain. So this is the worst men's college basketball season that you can remember because you can't remember anything other than the look of Tebow's pecs jiggling in the rain.
is about to launch the greatest NCAA tournament yet, with buzzer-beating elation and deflation exploding all over your bracket next Thursday and Friday.
Hence, the March Badness. How clever to call the tournament "March Badness" and then talk about how exciting the NCAA Tournament is.
Prediction 2: Especially this year, the more you know about college basketball, the worse you'll do in your pool.
I think it is fantastic that Skip Bayless is essentially championing being more successful by being more ignorant on the topic you are discussing. It fits Skip's personality and how he has become popular and infamous over the last decade. He's dumb on a given topic, but he has a really strong opinion on the topic. Be dumb, but give your opinion very strongly. That's pretty much the mantra of Skip's entire journalistic career.
Experts will be out-picked by dogs, cats and monkeys.
Not ironically if any of these dogs, cats or monkeys considered themselves enough of an expert to go on "First Take" then they will be debating a horses's ass.
This will happen more than ever this year because nobody's very good. And nobody watching will care.
It's good to see that Skip is copying the Bill Simmons "overuse of italics" type of writing. Also, there are teams that are very good, but the consensus seems to be there aren't great teams. Also also, I feel like I hear every single year there are no good college basketball teams.
More than ever, college basketball has become overcoached, under-reffed, evenly matched mediocrity with perfectly flawed rules and tournament format.
I'm not even close to being sure that Skip Bayless has a clue what he is talking about. Most college teams are overcoached because these teams consist of 18-22 year old kids. I'm trying to figure out what the hell Skip means by saying NCAA basketball has "perfectly flawed rules" since he, as usual, isn't specific at all when throwing random and unprovable observations like this. Skip doesn't need to be more specific because he's getting attention! Is it the three point line, the lack of consistency in the charge/block calls among officials, or the amount of physical play that is allowed that seems to vary from game-to-game? What are these perfectly flawed rules?
The open secret is that it doesn't matter to Skip. He just wants to say shit and hear you react.
Throw an overrated high seed with a panicky coach against an unknown, underrated low seed at some strange site with a strange shooting background at a strange first-round tipoff time with strange refs for a mere 40-minute game allowing only five fouls and featuring a 3-point line three feet shorter than the NBA's … you bet, you, Fred and Irene have just as good a chance picking the winner as Dickie V or Jay Bilas. Maybe better.
This just in, the NCAA Tournament is unpredictable! Thanks for noticing and commenting on this, Skip. You are the first to do so.
So yes, I trust some kid playing for LIU Brooklyn or Florida Gulf Coast to drop a walk-off bomb more than I do, say, three-time NBA MVP LeBron James.
And there we go. Just a little LeBron trolling for everyone. You didn't think Skip could make it through an entire column without one insult to LeBron James did you? This sentence doesn't even deserve a reply, other than a swift kick to the crotch of Skip while hundreds of people spit on him, but notice how obvious his trolling has become. It's pathetic. Skip couldn't name one player on LIU Brooklyn or Florida Gulf Coast, yet he claims to trust this unnamed player more than LeBron James to hit a game-winning shot.
Just watch. I know you will.
Yes, many will watch. Not because Skip Brainless tells us to, but because people find the NCAA Tournament interesting. I'm sure Skip thinks 100% of the NCAA Tournament viewership is a product of him writing this column. He dares us to watch the NCAA Tournament and then will smirk at the camera like the ego-driven dipshit he truly is and tell us how he said the NCAA Tournament would be exciting. Skip takes credit for everything. He motivated LeBron James to have the success he had last year and now the NCAA Tournament is thriving due to the words written and spoken by the lizard-skinned know-nothing troll sent by Satan to torture souls on Earth.
Who doesn't have a chance to win? Who cares that office pools are technically illegal -- unlicensed sports betting carrying a misdemeanor charge and up to one year in prison?
Nobody cares.
This column basically boils down to "It's hard to pick who is going to win the NCAA Tournament and people like gambling." The obviousness of this column is only being masked by the smarminess of Skip's writing. I will give Skip that, his personality does mask his overwhelming stupidity.
The FBI has better things to do than bust pools that build some of America's best intra-office camaraderie.
Yes, they are way too busy doing the music industry's business and busting people who download music and have the audacity to not-really-but-sort-of-kind-but-not-entirely cut into their massive profits while they squeeze out and take advantage of the artists they are claiming to fight so hard for.
Nobody cares that Gonzaga rose from No. 21 in the AP preseason ranking to No. 1 at regular season's end. Or that no player made a sensational case for player of the year.
One year it was between Adam Morrison and JJ Redick for Player of the Year. I think it's not so bad to have the Player of the Year award between guys like Cody Zeller, Ben McLemore, or Otto Porter. Again, I shouldn't expect much from Skip since we all know he started paying attention to college basketball five minutes before writing this column.
Nobody cares that no college player looks like a surefire NBA All-Star.
This is not really very relevant at all in terms of the excitement of the NCAA Tournament and I also think there is probably only 3-4 guys coming out of college every decade who are surefire NBA All-Stars. So it doesn't matter to me if college players don't look like surefire NBA All-Stars and Skip needs to go back to championing Tim Tebow for whatever he thinks Tebow can do successfully.
Or that UCLA, which had the No. 1 recruiting class, has only the No. 28 RPI (though freshman Shabazz Muhammad is finally starting to flash NBA talent).
This is not accurate. Muhammad has looked better towards the beginning of the season (in terms of statistics) than the end of the year. Either way, Muhammad has looked pretty good all year. I am not a huge fan of Muhammad, but he has flashed NBA talent pretty much all year.
For sure nobody cares I've slowly but surely become more of a fan of the NBA than college basketball -- which was all I was for a long time.
Yep, that's true. Nobody gives a shit if you like the NBA more than college basketball.
The first championship game I covered, in '79 in Salt Lake City, lifted the Final Four into Big Event status: Magic vs. Bird! I was there when a Carolina freshman named Michael Jordan beat Patrick Ewing's Georgetown … when Jim Valvano's NC State shocked Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler and Phi Slama Jama … when Villanova stunned Ewing's Georgetown … when Danny (Manning) and the Miracles, a No. 6 seed, upset Oklahoma.
Those were the nights, studded with stars bound for the NBA's Hall of Fame. At first it was Goliath vs. Goliath. Then David started beating Goliath. Now this year we could see another David vs. David, such as 2011's final pitting Connecticut (a No. 3 seed in the NCAA tournament but merely a No. 9 seed in the Big East tournament) versus Butler, a mid-major. Final score UConn, 53-41. Butler: 18.8 percent from the floor. Only one player from that game is starting in the NBA: Kemba Walker -- for Charlotte, the NBA's worst team.
So Skip just named almost a decade of NCAA Championship Games and then with a straight face tries to compare those players to those that played in the 2011 National Championship Game. His point stands, yes, college basketball is weaker in terms of how many college teams have a depth of star players (partly because of the NBA and the NBA's one-and-done rule), but it's not fair to compare a decade worth of games and say, "look at all those stars," while cherry-picking one game from less than two years ago as an example of what a crappy product college basketball is.
The Final Four as NBA showcase began to fade in 1995 when Kevin Garnett skipped college.
Yeah, well fuck you. I hate the idea college basketball is simply a showcase for the NBA. I know NBA fans feel that way, but it is not true. And yes, I know Skip is trolling by essentially calling college basketball's most popular weekend just a showcase for the NBA. The Final Four didn't start to fade in 1995 anyway. Skip is desperately trying to tie the one-and-done rule into college basketball's assumed demise.
Soon, Kobe and LeBron did, too.
Kobe went to the NBA the next year, but LeBron didn't go to the NBA "soon," after Kevin Garnett. He skipped college and went straight to the NBA eight years after Kevin Garnett did so. I do enjoy Skip's shameless attempt to blame/mention LeBron in this column one more time.
"College basketball is broken and it is LeBron James' fault! He was the problem and now he isn't working to find a solution!"
I can't wait for Skip to start screaming this argument.
Which is why many anti-NBA college fanatics I know or hear from via Twitter would just as soon have the best players leave college basketball alone and go straight to the pros. Give them J.J. Redick battling Adam Morrison for player of the year in 2006, Tyler Hansbrough dominating college basketball in '08 and '09, and Jimmer Fredette becoming the (Smiling) Face of College Basketball in '11. Never mind that none of those college idols went on to start, let alone star, in the NBA.
Which again, is irrelevant in terms of how exciting college basketball is. Kevin Durant also dominated college basketball for one year, Kyrie Irving played pretty well for one year, Tim Duncan, Blake Griffin, and Anthony Davis all dominated college basketball and then played well in the NBA. Any discussion of the NCAA Tournament or the Final Four should in no way be focused on how many of the players go from college and make a big impact in the NBA.
They don't care that college basketball belongs more to egomaniacal coaches, kings of their college-town kingdoms, and that the NBA is more of a players' game.
We also don't care about you, Skip. Don't forget that. You are the rash on the ass of the sports world. Just because we scratch you from time-to-time doesn't mean we like having you around.
Or that the NBA's playoff format -- best of seven, 48 minutes per game with six fouls and a 3-point line 23 feet, 9 inches from the basket, a man's distance -- is the far more conclusive method of identifying the better team.
This is pretty much an opinion. I enjoy larger sample sizes, but I think there is something to be said for three weeks of win-or-go-home games as opposed to two months of playoff games. Skip is always trying to pass his opinion off as fact. Most of the players who play college basketball aren't men yet, so perhaps they don't shoot from "a man's distance" of 23 feet 9 inches for that reason.
I shudder every March when I absently flip from a routine NBA game to a March Madness barn burner. The drop-off in skill, strength and athleticism is stunning.
BREAKING NEWS: Professional athletes are better at their given sport when compared to amateurs.
I do get how Skip Bayless feels. It's much like when I am watching any other sports channel and I accidentally flip to ESPN and hear Skip talk on "First Take." The drop-off in knowledge, ability to persuade an audience, and not to be a trolling horse's ass is stunning as well. To think Skip has had other morons like Rob Parker to debate against and slowly numb the viewer to the stupidity being spewed blows my mind. Imagine if Skip's moronic talking points were surrounded by coherent and well-thought out arguments and reasoning? Then we could really see Skip for who he is, instead of having part of his stupidity masked by other stupidity.
Yet I must admit I rarely flip back to the NBA game.
Most likely because in that split second where the channel has changed and the television has gone to black Skip sees his own reflection in the television and he becomes distracted by how impressed with himself he is.
Every year I rail on "First Take" about how the NCAA gets away with awarding automatic bids to the winners of conference tournaments designed mostly to generate revenue. Hence, Liberty finished 6-10 in the (Not So) Big South, got hot, won its tournament and stole an NCAA bid from a far more deserving at-large "bubble" team from a power conference.
And every year no one at ESPN is smart enough to call Skip on this bullshit. Liberty didn't steal an NCAA bid from any other school in a power conference. The only way Liberty stole a bid from a bubble team is if there were another team in the Big South who would earn an NCAA bid regardless of whether they won the Big South Tournament. There wasn't. The Big South only was going to have one bid no matter who won the tourney, so Liberty never stole that bid from a more "deserving" team in the Big South. Liberty winning the Big South had no effect on the bubble teams because there was no team in the Big South outside of the automatic qualifying team who had earned an NCAA Tournament bid. What can I say? Thinking isn't Skip's thing.
This year's Madness will be madder than ever, for all the wrong reasons.
I have read this entire column and I am still not sure why the NCAA Tournament will be madder than ever for the wrong reasons. I am sure it is LeBron James fault.
Okay, well I am back to ignoring Skip Bayless and taking away the relevancy he so desperately craves.
Meet Fred. He is about to win this year's ESPN Men's Tournament Challenge, beating about 7.15 million other brackets.
When asked how in the name of John Wooden he picked 20-loss Liberty to be the first No. 16 seed ever to upset a No.1 seed -- Duke! -- Fred will say, "John who?"
Then he'll explain: "I remembered the old line, 'Give me liberty or give me death,' so I said, 'Give me Liberty!' You know, the George Washington line."
Wow, I can't believe Skip Bayless is revealing to the public his secret to being a good troll---have no idea what you are talking about but state your claim loudly and with as little logical reasoning as possible and you too can get noticed! It seems since trolling is Skip Bayless's only real talent he would keep this close as if it were proprietary information.
"Whatever," Fred will say. "Look, I just got lucky with most of my picks. I didn't watch a single college basketball game this season until March Madness started."
It seems fictional Fred and Skip have something in common. Neither watch any college basketball but feel like they are expert enough to comment on the sport.
Welcome back to Madness. Absolute, divine Madness. March Madness. Or Badness.
March Badness! Get it? It's a play on words AND it shows that Skip Bayless thinks the NCAA Tournament and entire basketball season has been really boring. I'm not sure how Skip knows this college basketball season has been terrible considering he seems to have spent most of his time over the last six months debating the merits of Tim Tebow, criticizing LeBron James and looking at himself in the mirror. You can always trust the opinion of someone who claims to think Tebow is great and LeBron James has more to prove, that much I do know as true.
Prediction 1: The worst men's college basketball season I can remember
We won't fall for that one, Skip. We all know the only long or short-term memory you are capable of retaining is a constant loop of Tim Tebow running shirtless in the rain. So this is the worst men's college basketball season that you can remember because you can't remember anything other than the look of Tebow's pecs jiggling in the rain.
is about to launch the greatest NCAA tournament yet, with buzzer-beating elation and deflation exploding all over your bracket next Thursday and Friday.
Hence, the March Badness. How clever to call the tournament "March Badness" and then talk about how exciting the NCAA Tournament is.
Prediction 2: Especially this year, the more you know about college basketball, the worse you'll do in your pool.
I think it is fantastic that Skip Bayless is essentially championing being more successful by being more ignorant on the topic you are discussing. It fits Skip's personality and how he has become popular and infamous over the last decade. He's dumb on a given topic, but he has a really strong opinion on the topic. Be dumb, but give your opinion very strongly. That's pretty much the mantra of Skip's entire journalistic career.
Experts will be out-picked by dogs, cats and monkeys.
Not ironically if any of these dogs, cats or monkeys considered themselves enough of an expert to go on "First Take" then they will be debating a horses's ass.
This will happen more than ever this year because nobody's very good. And nobody watching will care.
It's good to see that Skip is copying the Bill Simmons "overuse of italics" type of writing. Also, there are teams that are very good, but the consensus seems to be there aren't great teams. Also also, I feel like I hear every single year there are no good college basketball teams.
More than ever, college basketball has become overcoached, under-reffed, evenly matched mediocrity with perfectly flawed rules and tournament format.
I'm not even close to being sure that Skip Bayless has a clue what he is talking about. Most college teams are overcoached because these teams consist of 18-22 year old kids. I'm trying to figure out what the hell Skip means by saying NCAA basketball has "perfectly flawed rules" since he, as usual, isn't specific at all when throwing random and unprovable observations like this. Skip doesn't need to be more specific because he's getting attention! Is it the three point line, the lack of consistency in the charge/block calls among officials, or the amount of physical play that is allowed that seems to vary from game-to-game? What are these perfectly flawed rules?
The open secret is that it doesn't matter to Skip. He just wants to say shit and hear you react.
Throw an overrated high seed with a panicky coach against an unknown, underrated low seed at some strange site with a strange shooting background at a strange first-round tipoff time with strange refs for a mere 40-minute game allowing only five fouls and featuring a 3-point line three feet shorter than the NBA's … you bet, you, Fred and Irene have just as good a chance picking the winner as Dickie V or Jay Bilas. Maybe better.
This just in, the NCAA Tournament is unpredictable! Thanks for noticing and commenting on this, Skip. You are the first to do so.
So yes, I trust some kid playing for LIU Brooklyn or Florida Gulf Coast to drop a walk-off bomb more than I do, say, three-time NBA MVP LeBron James.
And there we go. Just a little LeBron trolling for everyone. You didn't think Skip could make it through an entire column without one insult to LeBron James did you? This sentence doesn't even deserve a reply, other than a swift kick to the crotch of Skip while hundreds of people spit on him, but notice how obvious his trolling has become. It's pathetic. Skip couldn't name one player on LIU Brooklyn or Florida Gulf Coast, yet he claims to trust this unnamed player more than LeBron James to hit a game-winning shot.
Just watch. I know you will.
Yes, many will watch. Not because Skip Brainless tells us to, but because people find the NCAA Tournament interesting. I'm sure Skip thinks 100% of the NCAA Tournament viewership is a product of him writing this column. He dares us to watch the NCAA Tournament and then will smirk at the camera like the ego-driven dipshit he truly is and tell us how he said the NCAA Tournament would be exciting. Skip takes credit for everything. He motivated LeBron James to have the success he had last year and now the NCAA Tournament is thriving due to the words written and spoken by the lizard-skinned know-nothing troll sent by Satan to torture souls on Earth.
Who doesn't have a chance to win? Who cares that office pools are technically illegal -- unlicensed sports betting carrying a misdemeanor charge and up to one year in prison?
Nobody cares.
This column basically boils down to "It's hard to pick who is going to win the NCAA Tournament and people like gambling." The obviousness of this column is only being masked by the smarminess of Skip's writing. I will give Skip that, his personality does mask his overwhelming stupidity.
The FBI has better things to do than bust pools that build some of America's best intra-office camaraderie.
Yes, they are way too busy doing the music industry's business and busting people who download music and have the audacity to not-really-but-sort-of-kind-but-not-entirely cut into their massive profits while they squeeze out and take advantage of the artists they are claiming to fight so hard for.
Nobody cares that Gonzaga rose from No. 21 in the AP preseason ranking to No. 1 at regular season's end. Or that no player made a sensational case for player of the year.
One year it was between Adam Morrison and JJ Redick for Player of the Year. I think it's not so bad to have the Player of the Year award between guys like Cody Zeller, Ben McLemore, or Otto Porter. Again, I shouldn't expect much from Skip since we all know he started paying attention to college basketball five minutes before writing this column.
Nobody cares that no college player looks like a surefire NBA All-Star.
This is not really very relevant at all in terms of the excitement of the NCAA Tournament and I also think there is probably only 3-4 guys coming out of college every decade who are surefire NBA All-Stars. So it doesn't matter to me if college players don't look like surefire NBA All-Stars and Skip needs to go back to championing Tim Tebow for whatever he thinks Tebow can do successfully.
Or that UCLA, which had the No. 1 recruiting class, has only the No. 28 RPI (though freshman Shabazz Muhammad is finally starting to flash NBA talent).
This is not accurate. Muhammad has looked better towards the beginning of the season (in terms of statistics) than the end of the year. Either way, Muhammad has looked pretty good all year. I am not a huge fan of Muhammad, but he has flashed NBA talent pretty much all year.
For sure nobody cares I've slowly but surely become more of a fan of the NBA than college basketball -- which was all I was for a long time.
Yep, that's true. Nobody gives a shit if you like the NBA more than college basketball.
The first championship game I covered, in '79 in Salt Lake City, lifted the Final Four into Big Event status: Magic vs. Bird! I was there when a Carolina freshman named Michael Jordan beat Patrick Ewing's Georgetown … when Jim Valvano's NC State shocked Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler and Phi Slama Jama … when Villanova stunned Ewing's Georgetown … when Danny (Manning) and the Miracles, a No. 6 seed, upset Oklahoma.
Those were the nights, studded with stars bound for the NBA's Hall of Fame. At first it was Goliath vs. Goliath. Then David started beating Goliath. Now this year we could see another David vs. David, such as 2011's final pitting Connecticut (a No. 3 seed in the NCAA tournament but merely a No. 9 seed in the Big East tournament) versus Butler, a mid-major. Final score UConn, 53-41. Butler: 18.8 percent from the floor. Only one player from that game is starting in the NBA: Kemba Walker -- for Charlotte, the NBA's worst team.
So Skip just named almost a decade of NCAA Championship Games and then with a straight face tries to compare those players to those that played in the 2011 National Championship Game. His point stands, yes, college basketball is weaker in terms of how many college teams have a depth of star players (partly because of the NBA and the NBA's one-and-done rule), but it's not fair to compare a decade worth of games and say, "look at all those stars," while cherry-picking one game from less than two years ago as an example of what a crappy product college basketball is.
The Final Four as NBA showcase began to fade in 1995 when Kevin Garnett skipped college.
Yeah, well fuck you. I hate the idea college basketball is simply a showcase for the NBA. I know NBA fans feel that way, but it is not true. And yes, I know Skip is trolling by essentially calling college basketball's most popular weekend just a showcase for the NBA. The Final Four didn't start to fade in 1995 anyway. Skip is desperately trying to tie the one-and-done rule into college basketball's assumed demise.
Soon, Kobe and LeBron did, too.
Kobe went to the NBA the next year, but LeBron didn't go to the NBA "soon," after Kevin Garnett. He skipped college and went straight to the NBA eight years after Kevin Garnett did so. I do enjoy Skip's shameless attempt to blame/mention LeBron in this column one more time.
"College basketball is broken and it is LeBron James' fault! He was the problem and now he isn't working to find a solution!"
I can't wait for Skip to start screaming this argument.
Which is why many anti-NBA college fanatics I know or hear from via Twitter would just as soon have the best players leave college basketball alone and go straight to the pros. Give them J.J. Redick battling Adam Morrison for player of the year in 2006, Tyler Hansbrough dominating college basketball in '08 and '09, and Jimmer Fredette becoming the (Smiling) Face of College Basketball in '11. Never mind that none of those college idols went on to start, let alone star, in the NBA.
Which again, is irrelevant in terms of how exciting college basketball is. Kevin Durant also dominated college basketball for one year, Kyrie Irving played pretty well for one year, Tim Duncan, Blake Griffin, and Anthony Davis all dominated college basketball and then played well in the NBA. Any discussion of the NCAA Tournament or the Final Four should in no way be focused on how many of the players go from college and make a big impact in the NBA.
They don't care that college basketball belongs more to egomaniacal coaches, kings of their college-town kingdoms, and that the NBA is more of a players' game.
We also don't care about you, Skip. Don't forget that. You are the rash on the ass of the sports world. Just because we scratch you from time-to-time doesn't mean we like having you around.
Or that the NBA's playoff format -- best of seven, 48 minutes per game with six fouls and a 3-point line 23 feet, 9 inches from the basket, a man's distance -- is the far more conclusive method of identifying the better team.
This is pretty much an opinion. I enjoy larger sample sizes, but I think there is something to be said for three weeks of win-or-go-home games as opposed to two months of playoff games. Skip is always trying to pass his opinion off as fact. Most of the players who play college basketball aren't men yet, so perhaps they don't shoot from "a man's distance" of 23 feet 9 inches for that reason.
I shudder every March when I absently flip from a routine NBA game to a March Madness barn burner. The drop-off in skill, strength and athleticism is stunning.
BREAKING NEWS: Professional athletes are better at their given sport when compared to amateurs.
I do get how Skip Bayless feels. It's much like when I am watching any other sports channel and I accidentally flip to ESPN and hear Skip talk on "First Take." The drop-off in knowledge, ability to persuade an audience, and not to be a trolling horse's ass is stunning as well. To think Skip has had other morons like Rob Parker to debate against and slowly numb the viewer to the stupidity being spewed blows my mind. Imagine if Skip's moronic talking points were surrounded by coherent and well-thought out arguments and reasoning? Then we could really see Skip for who he is, instead of having part of his stupidity masked by other stupidity.
Yet I must admit I rarely flip back to the NBA game.
Most likely because in that split second where the channel has changed and the television has gone to black Skip sees his own reflection in the television and he becomes distracted by how impressed with himself he is.
Every year I rail on "First Take" about how the NCAA gets away with awarding automatic bids to the winners of conference tournaments designed mostly to generate revenue. Hence, Liberty finished 6-10 in the (Not So) Big South, got hot, won its tournament and stole an NCAA bid from a far more deserving at-large "bubble" team from a power conference.
And every year no one at ESPN is smart enough to call Skip on this bullshit. Liberty didn't steal an NCAA bid from any other school in a power conference. The only way Liberty stole a bid from a bubble team is if there were another team in the Big South who would earn an NCAA bid regardless of whether they won the Big South Tournament. There wasn't. The Big South only was going to have one bid no matter who won the tourney, so Liberty never stole that bid from a more "deserving" team in the Big South. Liberty winning the Big South had no effect on the bubble teams because there was no team in the Big South outside of the automatic qualifying team who had earned an NCAA Tournament bid. What can I say? Thinking isn't Skip's thing.
This year's Madness will be madder than ever, for all the wrong reasons.
I have read this entire column and I am still not sure why the NCAA Tournament will be madder than ever for the wrong reasons. I am sure it is LeBron James fault.
Okay, well I am back to ignoring Skip Bayless and taking away the relevancy he so desperately craves.
Monday, March 18, 2013
6 comments Jerry Green Puns it Up, Goes to War on WAR: Part 2
Many of you may remember this column from October 2012. In that column Jerry Green advocated for Miguel Cabrera to be named American League MVP over Mike Trout, mostly because Jerry Green doesn't like the use of advanced statistics and advanced statistics were used by many to support Trout's argument for American League MVP. Jerry Green has written a sequel to this masterpiece where he again uses a bad pun in the title and continues to blindly and ignorantly argue against the use of advanced statistics. I say Jerry Green ignorantly argues against the use of advanced statistics because I feel like he doesn't completely understand how these statistics can be used to evaluate a player. He doesn't understand mostly because he doesn't want to understand. For Jerry Green to accept advanced statistics as being useful would be admitting there are parts of baseball he doesn't understand and would make him feel like less of an expert. It's a fear of being left behind that causes many of these baseball writers to have such disgust for advanced statistics. The train is moving though, so they better get on or get left behind.
He had all the five tools that make ballplayers excel, to reach stardom and above. Five tools in a single package are rare and precious. The five tools apply to Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds (in the before segment, not the after), Roberto Clemente, Ken Griffey Jr., Henry Aaron, perhaps Ty Cobb.
That weekend in Anaheim, Trout led off the first ballgame with a double, then the second and, again, the third with home runs. He ran the bases with the wind at his tail. He saved a ballgame by climbing above the fence to steal a home run from Prince Fielder.
He had all the five tools that make ballplayers excel, to reach stardom and above. Five tools in a single package are rare and precious. The five tools apply to Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds (in the before segment, not the after), Roberto Clemente, Ken Griffey Jr., Henry Aaron, perhaps Ty Cobb.
That weekend in Anaheim, Trout led off the first ballgame with a double, then the second and, again, the third with home runs. He ran the bases with the wind at his tail. He saved a ballgame by climbing above the fence to steal a home run from Prince Fielder.
Friday, March 15, 2013
2 comments Not Shockingly, Dan Shaughnessy Hates Everything the Red Sox Do, Did or Ever Will Do
It's that time of the year. The grass is freshly cut, the pitching mound and base paths are well groomed, every MLB team thinks they have a shot to win the World Series, and Dan Shaughnessy takes a preseason crap all over the Red Sox because he is a hateful, spiteful, bad excuse for a sportswriter. Dan is a great example of how far the Boston media has fallen over the last 10 years. There used to be quite a few great sportswriters in the Boston area (and I'm not the first to point this out obviously) and it seems great writing has taken a back seat to trolling for pageviews. Dan is writing some preseason columns about the Red Sox and none of them have been particularly insightful. I have two articles by Dan today. One is about Stephen Drew, a person who is just like his brother J.D. Drew, who sucks because he didn't care and wasn't emotional enough, and the other article is about how this Boston Red Sox team is kind of boring. Much like when Bill Simmons wrote about the "boring" 2010 Red Sox team, what Dan Shaughnessy means when he says "boring" is that these Red Sox aren't expected to compete for a World Series title. What's further irritating is that Dan just spent an offseason thrashing the Red Sox for signing expensive free agents that didn't pan out over the last couple of seasons. Now he's complaining the Red Sox aren't signing exciting (i.e. expensive) enough players. I would never expect consistency from Dan, but I wish he wasn't so shameless in his inconsistency.
I'll start with the article on Stephen Drew and how he is exactly like J.D. Drew, because they are brothers, and because comparing them makes for an easy column to write. And please remember The Boston Globe has put Dan Shaughnessy behind a pay wall which seems crazy to me. Is there anyone who would pay to read Dan's columns?
Stephen Drew is the new Red Sox shortstop. And the most important thing you need to know is that he is not J.D.
Stephen Drew isn't J.D. Drew. This is the most important thing you need to know about him. This is analysis.
Vince DiMaggio had to live with, “I’m not Joe,’’ just as Billy Bulger has to live with, “I’m not Whitey.” Stephen Drew comes to Fenway Park this year with the added burden of reminding us, “I’m not J.D.’’
Not that J.D. was all bad . . .
"Not that J.D. was all bad...," is followed by Dan Shaughnessy passive-aggressively bashing J.D. Drew over the next 200 words using the typical lazy reasoning.
J.D. came to the Red Sox in 2007 and played five seasons at Fenway. He usually made it on the field for about 135 games a year (140, 109, 137, 139, and 81), hitting around .270 with 18 homers and 66 RBIs. But fans never warmed to Drew.
He also hit .264/.370/.455 over this stretch. He wasn't quite as bad as fans give him credit for being.
There was the appearance that he didn’t care. He seemed to sit with a lot of little injuries. He never got into an argument with umpires and never threw his helmet or kicked dirt.
Because the best way for a baseball player to show he cares is to act like a child and get thrown out of a baseball game. Really, there's no other way to show you care.
but my favorite J.D. story involved the night he got rung up on a borderline check swing in Tampa while facing David Price. The punchout killed the Sox’ World Series bid in 2008. J.D. didn’t argue.
Maybe he should have argued, but it's irrelevant for Drew to argue because it would not have changed the call. I understand the idea of saying J.D. Drew didn't seem to care, but in evaluating his performance with the Red Sox whether he argued with the umpire is irrelevant.
When we saw him the following spring, he said he never checked the replay. Truly amazing.
Not really amazing. Many athletes won't look at a replay from the season before and will try to forget about a bad play they made to end their team's season. This happens quite often.
Stephen Drew is eight years younger than J.D. He will be paid $9.5 million this season after a year in which he hit .223 with 7 homers and 28 RBIs in 79 games for Oakland and Arizona — a year in which he was slow getting on the field because of a gruesome broken ankle sustained in the middle of the 2011 season when he played for the Diamondbacks.
Yikes. Overpaid. Underperformer. Too often on the shelf. Are you sure it’s not J.D.?
How do we know Stephen Drew is overpaid and underperformed if the season hasn't begun? Maybe Drew underperformed and was overpaid last year, but that's not what Dan is referring to. He's talking about how how much Drew is paid this year, so we don't know if he is overpaid and underperforming for the 2013 season yet.
Three boys. Three first-round picks. Three big leaguers. Three Scott Boras clients. Two Red Sox starters.
Yeah, but none of the Drew brothers cared enough to show emotion so they can all three go straight to hell.
The Drews grew up in Hahira, Ga., a town of fewer than 2,500 people. There’s an annual banjo-picking festival in Hahira.
That's because everyone who lives in Hahira is a hick who probably has had sex with his/her mother/father/brother/sister at some point. It was incredibly important that Dan Shaughnessy point out the Drew's hometown has an annual banjo-picking festival in order to show just how "small town" Hahira, Georgia truly is.
Dad Drew built yachts for a boat company for 26 years. Mom Drew’s family were farmers (tobacco, peanuts, corn, soybeans), and J.D. remembers driving a tractor when he was 9 years old.
I bet J.D. Drew drove the tractor expressionless and didn't even get off the tractor to argue when one of the cows got in the way of the tractor. J.D. Drew probably just got off the tractor and slowly walked back to the house when one of the cows got in the way of the tractor.
Young Stephen remembers playing baseball.
Oh yeah, that's right. This article is supposed to be about Stephen Drew. I almost forgot.
“For me it was great, because J.D. was a really good role model to look up to,’’ said the Sox shortstop. “He had a lot of talent.
But he had no emotion! Bill Simmons and Dan Shaughnessy know how important it is for a baseball player to throw a temper tantrum and start throwing shit after he strikes out on a close call.
“I could relate to him. I understood what was going on. A lot of people didn’t understand. It’s kind of tough. He’s getting criticized and you know what the actual truth is going on.
The truth is that J.D. Drew is a robot. Don't treat him any differently, world! He's just like you and me. He's a robot farmer from a small town in Georgia who rides a tractor, knows how to play the banjo, but can't feel human emotions. Learn him, don't judge him.
“That, and go out and work hard. That’s what you see. J.D. was quiet. I’m a little more talkative. But we just go about our business kind of the same way. We both like to have fun.’’
In an effort to show off his interviewing prowess, after Stephen Drew has talked for a lengthy amount of time about how he and his brothers grew up and there are quite a few more pertinent follow up questions, Dan Shaughnessy comes back with this question,
Does J.D. ever get mad?
THAT is what Dan Shaughnessy chooses to ask when interviewing Stephen Drew? Drew has touched on his family life growing up, how he relates to his brother, how his brother's experiences in baseball have affected him, and how he is different from J.D. Then Shaughnessy stupidly asks, "Does J.D. ever get mad?" Rookie sideline reporters ask better questions at halftime of a Division II college basketball game.
“Yeah, he gets mad,’’ said Stephen. “Everybody gets mad. But he is very good at being deceptive on that.
He shouldn't be deceptive. He should throw a fit at the plate. That way if J.D. Drew threw a hissy-fit at the plate while arguing a strike call, then Dan Shaughnessy could criticize him for being immature and underachieving. Dan always has a plan. He wants baseball players to screw up so he can destroy them in his column. J.D. Drew never did something immature so Dan couldn't blast him for being immature. It was very frustrating for Dan.
None of the Drew brothers has ever been ejected from a game.
“There’s more to life than just baseball,’’ said Stephen. “That’s how we look at it.’’
Translation in Dan Shaughnessy's dictionary: They don't care enough to get ejected from a game.
This was a pretty bad column on Stephen Drew. I don't feel like I learned anything new about him and most of the column consisted of Dan Shaughnessy trying to figure out why J.D. Drew wasn't more emotional and whether Stephen Drew would seem as emotionally disconnected from playing baseball as J.D. Drew seemed. I'm sure Dan thinks he did a great job for the readers of his column. He was passive-aggressive in his questions and also managed to convey very little new knowledge to his readers.
In the next article, Dan talks about how the 2013 Red Sox are just a boring team. Dan bitched about the Red Sox last year because they weren't well put together and didn't win games, but for some reason he forgot to mention how he thought the Red Sox were interesting last year and that was a positive. If he is going to complain the 2013 Red Sox are boring shouldn't he have mentioned how exciting the 2012 team was instead of ripping them at every available opportunity?
The air is warm and fresh. Everybody is in a good mood. Players in the clubhouse are especially relaxed. No one is looking for snitches or rolling their eyes at the mention of the new manager.
There's no drama! How boring is this?
No sign of the ESPN bus. Sox workouts were not featured on live television. There was no daily presence from members of the New York newspapers.
This must be what it feels like covering the Pittsburgh Pirates in Bradenton every spring.
Except for the fact the Pirates have Andrew McCutchen and the Red Sox don't.
Surly, entitled ballplayers have been replaced by stand-up guys. Churl has yielded to character. Larry Lucchino actually said the $170 million Red Sox are a team of “scrappy underdogs.’’
How dare he classify in his team in the way he sees fit. Only Dan Shaughnessy can correctly characterize these bunch of losers.
But here’s the reality, people: The 2013 Red Sox might be really bad. Worse, they might be really boring.
If anyone wants to know the state of the Boston media now, they can look no further than this statement. In the opinion of Dan Shaughnessy it is better for the Red Sox to be bad than it is for them to be boring. It's not about winning games or trying to put a good team on the field for the future, but it is about not being boring. Being entertaining trumps winning. I can think of some other "boring" teams. Teams like the San Francisco Giants, St. Louis Cardinals, and the Texas Rangers are pretty "boring" teams. I guess all of their success over the past couple of years means absolutely very little because they weren't exciting and didn't have daily clubhouse drama to keep up with.
Just don't be boring, that's all Dan Shaughnessy asks. Who cares if the Red Sox win games? Though, of course, not winning games goes hand-in-hand with being "boring." Much like Bill Simmons does, Dan Shaughnessy views a non-competitive (for the World Series) Red Sox team as boring. There's no fun in following a team that isn't a contender every year.
Two weeks and too many hours in the Sox clubhouse left me with a couple of impressions.
Unfortunately these many hours in the Red Sox clubhouse didn't leave the clubhouse with an impression of Shaughnessy's face on any lockers from being shoved face-first into said lockers.
The Sox are a lot more likeable.
But boring. And remember, being boring is worse than being a bad team. The Red Sox have trotted out all sorts of different types of teams over the last decade and few of them have been good enough for Dan Shaughnessy.
Jacoby Ellsbury seems to understand the amusement we have with a player who is marking his final days at Fenway like some guy in Shawshank scratching lines on the wall of his cell.
Dan Shaughnessy is calling a non-competitive (for the World Series) Red Sox team "boring," he bitches when the Red Sox spend money on free agents that don't pan out but also complains when the Red Sox don't spend money on players, and he is making "Shawshank" references...so is Bill Simmons turning into Dan Shaughnessy or has Dan Shaughnessy turned into Bill Simmons? I guess since everyone seems to hate Dan he should probably do all that he can to try to become more popular. Writing like Bill Simmons may be his key to not being hated by everyone. Good luck with that Dan, people will still hate you.
But with one (spring training) game down and seven months to go, it’s apparent that the Sox have more questions than any other team in the American League East. It is difficult to pick them anywhere but last.
If, in fact, things go perfectly, the Red Sox actually could contend for a playoff spot. This is 2013, and five out of 15 make it in each league and it’s almost impossible to play yourself out of contention before August.
So the Red Sox may finish last or they may make the playoffs. It seems like Dan Shaughnessy has every angle covered for however this Red Sox season turns out. If the Red Sox sucks, he knew it would happen, while if the Red Sox make the playoffs, then he knew they had the chance to make the playoffs. It's a tribute to Shaughnessy's lack of writing skill that he can play both sides of this issue and still come off as clueless.
I am going the other way this morning.
Unless the Red Sox make the playoffs, in which case Dan will say he knew the Red Sox could contend for a playoff spot.
Lester is supposed to be the ace, but he is coming back from a 9-14 season in which he gave up more hits than he had innings pitched. Next up is Clay Buchholz, who always looks good but gets hurt a lot; he strained a hamstring in the very first workout of 2013.
That's because Buchholz is a wimp. He's even a boring wimp, which makes his getting injured all that much worse.
Then comes veteran Ryan Dempster, who was cannon fodder when he moved to the American League last year.
Dempster was very good when he played for the Cubs. I realize the Cubs are in the inferior National League and Dempster has played his entire career in the National League, but he was very good the previous three seasons prior to last year. Maybe Dempster sucks, but maybe he makes the Red Sox a more exciting team, which is the ultimate goal of course.
If any of these guys gets hurt (very likely) or don’t work out, the Sox turn to . . . Franklin Morales? . . . the maniacal Alfredo Aceves?
What an excellent and well-thought out criticism of the Red Sox pitching depth. They don't have quality 6th or 7th starters in the organization. This puts them in the same league as nearly every other MLB team who doesn't have a reliable 6th or 7th starter anywhere in the organization. Good looking out Shaughnessy, you've just criticized the 2013 Red Sox team for not having the same luxury few other MLB teams have. What's his next criticism? The Red Sox don't have any All-Star outfielders hanging out on the bench for when (if) Jacoby Ellsbury gets injured?
The bullpen looks strong. Let’s give Ben Cherington some props on the relief corps. Joel Hanrahan looks like a real closer and the Sox were smart to cut their losses with Mark “Schiraldi Eyes” Melancon.
I have a feeling calling a pitcher "Schiraldi Eyes" isn't exactly going to catch on. Of course Dan has to compare one Boston relief pitcher to another because no other relief pitchers outside of Boston have ever looked like disasters in the closer role.
Behind the plate, the Sox have depth, but not enough prime-time quality.
I don't believe a catcher not having enough "prime-time quality" really means anything at all. The Red Sox catchers aren't shooting a television show, so prime-time quality doesn't matter.
There is a connection between the ineffectiveness of Sox starters and the insertion of Jarrod Saltalamacchia into the starting catching role in 2011. Salty has good power, but there is a big hole in his swing (.222 with 139 strikeouts last year).
What? So because Saltalamacchia strikes out a lot the Red Sox pitchers did not pitch very well last year? I'm not sure what Salty's offensive issues had to do with the Red Sox pitchers struggling.
David Ross looks like a solid backup who’ll get plenty of playing time.
Thanks Dan, you should charge at least $5 for in-depth analysis like this.
We know the Sox are set at second base (Dustin Pedroia) and third base (Will Middlebrooks), but I worry that Middlebrooks will be asked to do too much to protect David Ortiz.
I'm not entirely sure one player "protecting" another player is a real thing. Either way, if Middlebrooks is going to end up being the type of player the Red Sox think he will be then he is going to need to hit in the middle of the order behind Ortiz (or another power hitter) at some point. It may as well be this year.
It might be too much for a kid with only a half-year of big league at-bats.
If a guy can hit major league pitching then he can hit major league pitching. I think Mike Trout, Bryce Harper and various other young players have proven this over the last few seasons.
Victorino looks like a guy whose best days are behind him. Better hope he’s not Kevin Stevens or Joseph Addai.
And of course Shaughnessy has to compare Victorino to two notable busts that were signed by teams from in and around Boston to troll Boston-area fans as well as make sure he stays negative as often as possible. I'm pretty sure Victorino isn't comparable to Kevin Stevens or Joseph Addai, but we all know Dan is secretly hoping Victorino ends up being a complete bust so he can rub it in the face of Red Sox fans.
Finally, it’s tough to feel good about Ortiz. He turns 38 this year, and is coming off an Achilles’ tendon injury — an injury he sustained running the bases in front of an Adrian Gonzalez home run last July.
Adrian Gonzalez actually hit a home run for the Red Sox last year? From what Dan has told us I thought Adrian Gonzalez never hit a home run for the Red Sox and was lucky to not strike out at every at-bat.
Ortiz doesn’t have contract incentive (he finally got his two-year deal, a lifetime achievement award from the Sox),
So does this opinion mean that Dan thought the Red Sox should not have re-signed David Ortiz? Of course not. If the Red Sox had not re-signed Ortiz then Dan would have criticized them for giving up on a Red Sox hero when he could still play at a high level. Dan just likes to bitch and complain. So no matter what the Red Sox did in regard to re-signing David Ortiz or not re-signing him, Dan Shaughnessy would bitch about it. The Red Sox re-sign Ortiz? Well, now he has no incentive and won't be motivated to play. The Red Sox don't re-sign Ortiz? The Red Sox have given up a Red Sox player who could anchor the middle of the lineup.
and he is concerned that the Sox did little to find him lineup protection.
Fortunately, there may not be such a thing. So that's good news.
Sorry. The juice glass is half-empty today.
Just today? The glass is half-empty for Dan everyday.
These guys could be really bad.
Or, as Dan said in this very column, they could make the playoffs. Dan has himself covered to be right either way.
For $170 million, a little more prime-time talent would have been nice.
Yes, but the Red Sox shed salary and are trying to rebuild the team through the farm system and with smart free agent signings. They can't shed their previous salary commitments and then immediately compete all in one year. Of course, asking Dan Shaughnessy to have perspective or take an honest look at what the Red Sox are trying to put together in the future is folly. He's a troll and that's all he knows how to do. Go negative, go negative, troll a little, then go even more negative. That's the formula for making a living from people hating you.
I'll start with the article on Stephen Drew and how he is exactly like J.D. Drew, because they are brothers, and because comparing them makes for an easy column to write. And please remember The Boston Globe has put Dan Shaughnessy behind a pay wall which seems crazy to me. Is there anyone who would pay to read Dan's columns?
Stephen Drew is the new Red Sox shortstop. And the most important thing you need to know is that he is not J.D.
Stephen Drew isn't J.D. Drew. This is the most important thing you need to know about him. This is analysis.
Vince DiMaggio had to live with, “I’m not Joe,’’ just as Billy Bulger has to live with, “I’m not Whitey.” Stephen Drew comes to Fenway Park this year with the added burden of reminding us, “I’m not J.D.’’
Not that J.D. was all bad . . .
"Not that J.D. was all bad...," is followed by Dan Shaughnessy passive-aggressively bashing J.D. Drew over the next 200 words using the typical lazy reasoning.
J.D. came to the Red Sox in 2007 and played five seasons at Fenway. He usually made it on the field for about 135 games a year (140, 109, 137, 139, and 81), hitting around .270 with 18 homers and 66 RBIs. But fans never warmed to Drew.
He also hit .264/.370/.455 over this stretch. He wasn't quite as bad as fans give him credit for being.
There was the appearance that he didn’t care. He seemed to sit with a lot of little injuries. He never got into an argument with umpires and never threw his helmet or kicked dirt.
Because the best way for a baseball player to show he cares is to act like a child and get thrown out of a baseball game. Really, there's no other way to show you care.
but my favorite J.D. story involved the night he got rung up on a borderline check swing in Tampa while facing David Price. The punchout killed the Sox’ World Series bid in 2008. J.D. didn’t argue.
Maybe he should have argued, but it's irrelevant for Drew to argue because it would not have changed the call. I understand the idea of saying J.D. Drew didn't seem to care, but in evaluating his performance with the Red Sox whether he argued with the umpire is irrelevant.
When we saw him the following spring, he said he never checked the replay. Truly amazing.
Not really amazing. Many athletes won't look at a replay from the season before and will try to forget about a bad play they made to end their team's season. This happens quite often.
Stephen Drew is eight years younger than J.D. He will be paid $9.5 million this season after a year in which he hit .223 with 7 homers and 28 RBIs in 79 games for Oakland and Arizona — a year in which he was slow getting on the field because of a gruesome broken ankle sustained in the middle of the 2011 season when he played for the Diamondbacks.
Yikes. Overpaid. Underperformer. Too often on the shelf. Are you sure it’s not J.D.?
How do we know Stephen Drew is overpaid and underperformed if the season hasn't begun? Maybe Drew underperformed and was overpaid last year, but that's not what Dan is referring to. He's talking about how how much Drew is paid this year, so we don't know if he is overpaid and underperforming for the 2013 season yet.
Three boys. Three first-round picks. Three big leaguers. Three Scott Boras clients. Two Red Sox starters.
Yeah, but none of the Drew brothers cared enough to show emotion so they can all three go straight to hell.
The Drews grew up in Hahira, Ga., a town of fewer than 2,500 people. There’s an annual banjo-picking festival in Hahira.
That's because everyone who lives in Hahira is a hick who probably has had sex with his/her mother/father/brother/sister at some point. It was incredibly important that Dan Shaughnessy point out the Drew's hometown has an annual banjo-picking festival in order to show just how "small town" Hahira, Georgia truly is.
Dad Drew built yachts for a boat company for 26 years. Mom Drew’s family were farmers (tobacco, peanuts, corn, soybeans), and J.D. remembers driving a tractor when he was 9 years old.
I bet J.D. Drew drove the tractor expressionless and didn't even get off the tractor to argue when one of the cows got in the way of the tractor. J.D. Drew probably just got off the tractor and slowly walked back to the house when one of the cows got in the way of the tractor.
Young Stephen remembers playing baseball.
Oh yeah, that's right. This article is supposed to be about Stephen Drew. I almost forgot.
“For me it was great, because J.D. was a really good role model to look up to,’’ said the Sox shortstop. “He had a lot of talent.
But he had no emotion! Bill Simmons and Dan Shaughnessy know how important it is for a baseball player to throw a temper tantrum and start throwing shit after he strikes out on a close call.
“I could relate to him. I understood what was going on. A lot of people didn’t understand. It’s kind of tough. He’s getting criticized and you know what the actual truth is going on.
The truth is that J.D. Drew is a robot. Don't treat him any differently, world! He's just like you and me. He's a robot farmer from a small town in Georgia who rides a tractor, knows how to play the banjo, but can't feel human emotions. Learn him, don't judge him.
“That, and go out and work hard. That’s what you see. J.D. was quiet. I’m a little more talkative. But we just go about our business kind of the same way. We both like to have fun.’’
In an effort to show off his interviewing prowess, after Stephen Drew has talked for a lengthy amount of time about how he and his brothers grew up and there are quite a few more pertinent follow up questions, Dan Shaughnessy comes back with this question,
Does J.D. ever get mad?
THAT is what Dan Shaughnessy chooses to ask when interviewing Stephen Drew? Drew has touched on his family life growing up, how he relates to his brother, how his brother's experiences in baseball have affected him, and how he is different from J.D. Then Shaughnessy stupidly asks, "Does J.D. ever get mad?" Rookie sideline reporters ask better questions at halftime of a Division II college basketball game.
“Yeah, he gets mad,’’ said Stephen. “Everybody gets mad. But he is very good at being deceptive on that.
He shouldn't be deceptive. He should throw a fit at the plate. That way if J.D. Drew threw a hissy-fit at the plate while arguing a strike call, then Dan Shaughnessy could criticize him for being immature and underachieving. Dan always has a plan. He wants baseball players to screw up so he can destroy them in his column. J.D. Drew never did something immature so Dan couldn't blast him for being immature. It was very frustrating for Dan.
None of the Drew brothers has ever been ejected from a game.
“There’s more to life than just baseball,’’ said Stephen. “That’s how we look at it.’’
Translation in Dan Shaughnessy's dictionary: They don't care enough to get ejected from a game.
This was a pretty bad column on Stephen Drew. I don't feel like I learned anything new about him and most of the column consisted of Dan Shaughnessy trying to figure out why J.D. Drew wasn't more emotional and whether Stephen Drew would seem as emotionally disconnected from playing baseball as J.D. Drew seemed. I'm sure Dan thinks he did a great job for the readers of his column. He was passive-aggressive in his questions and also managed to convey very little new knowledge to his readers.
In the next article, Dan talks about how the 2013 Red Sox are just a boring team. Dan bitched about the Red Sox last year because they weren't well put together and didn't win games, but for some reason he forgot to mention how he thought the Red Sox were interesting last year and that was a positive. If he is going to complain the 2013 Red Sox are boring shouldn't he have mentioned how exciting the 2012 team was instead of ripping them at every available opportunity?
The air is warm and fresh. Everybody is in a good mood. Players in the clubhouse are especially relaxed. No one is looking for snitches or rolling their eyes at the mention of the new manager.
There's no drama! How boring is this?
No sign of the ESPN bus. Sox workouts were not featured on live television. There was no daily presence from members of the New York newspapers.
This must be what it feels like covering the Pittsburgh Pirates in Bradenton every spring.
Except for the fact the Pirates have Andrew McCutchen and the Red Sox don't.
Surly, entitled ballplayers have been replaced by stand-up guys. Churl has yielded to character. Larry Lucchino actually said the $170 million Red Sox are a team of “scrappy underdogs.’’
How dare he classify in his team in the way he sees fit. Only Dan Shaughnessy can correctly characterize these bunch of losers.
But here’s the reality, people: The 2013 Red Sox might be really bad. Worse, they might be really boring.
If anyone wants to know the state of the Boston media now, they can look no further than this statement. In the opinion of Dan Shaughnessy it is better for the Red Sox to be bad than it is for them to be boring. It's not about winning games or trying to put a good team on the field for the future, but it is about not being boring. Being entertaining trumps winning. I can think of some other "boring" teams. Teams like the San Francisco Giants, St. Louis Cardinals, and the Texas Rangers are pretty "boring" teams. I guess all of their success over the past couple of years means absolutely very little because they weren't exciting and didn't have daily clubhouse drama to keep up with.
Just don't be boring, that's all Dan Shaughnessy asks. Who cares if the Red Sox win games? Though, of course, not winning games goes hand-in-hand with being "boring." Much like Bill Simmons does, Dan Shaughnessy views a non-competitive (for the World Series) Red Sox team as boring. There's no fun in following a team that isn't a contender every year.
Two weeks and too many hours in the Sox clubhouse left me with a couple of impressions.
Unfortunately these many hours in the Red Sox clubhouse didn't leave the clubhouse with an impression of Shaughnessy's face on any lockers from being shoved face-first into said lockers.
The Sox are a lot more likeable.
But boring. And remember, being boring is worse than being a bad team. The Red Sox have trotted out all sorts of different types of teams over the last decade and few of them have been good enough for Dan Shaughnessy.
Jacoby Ellsbury seems to understand the amusement we have with a player who is marking his final days at Fenway like some guy in Shawshank scratching lines on the wall of his cell.
Dan Shaughnessy is calling a non-competitive (for the World Series) Red Sox team "boring," he bitches when the Red Sox spend money on free agents that don't pan out but also complains when the Red Sox don't spend money on players, and he is making "Shawshank" references...so is Bill Simmons turning into Dan Shaughnessy or has Dan Shaughnessy turned into Bill Simmons? I guess since everyone seems to hate Dan he should probably do all that he can to try to become more popular. Writing like Bill Simmons may be his key to not being hated by everyone. Good luck with that Dan, people will still hate you.
But with one (spring training) game down and seven months to go, it’s apparent that the Sox have more questions than any other team in the American League East. It is difficult to pick them anywhere but last.
If, in fact, things go perfectly, the Red Sox actually could contend for a playoff spot. This is 2013, and five out of 15 make it in each league and it’s almost impossible to play yourself out of contention before August.
So the Red Sox may finish last or they may make the playoffs. It seems like Dan Shaughnessy has every angle covered for however this Red Sox season turns out. If the Red Sox sucks, he knew it would happen, while if the Red Sox make the playoffs, then he knew they had the chance to make the playoffs. It's a tribute to Shaughnessy's lack of writing skill that he can play both sides of this issue and still come off as clueless.
I am going the other way this morning.
Unless the Red Sox make the playoffs, in which case Dan will say he knew the Red Sox could contend for a playoff spot.
Lester is supposed to be the ace, but he is coming back from a 9-14 season in which he gave up more hits than he had innings pitched. Next up is Clay Buchholz, who always looks good but gets hurt a lot; he strained a hamstring in the very first workout of 2013.
That's because Buchholz is a wimp. He's even a boring wimp, which makes his getting injured all that much worse.
Then comes veteran Ryan Dempster, who was cannon fodder when he moved to the American League last year.
Dempster was very good when he played for the Cubs. I realize the Cubs are in the inferior National League and Dempster has played his entire career in the National League, but he was very good the previous three seasons prior to last year. Maybe Dempster sucks, but maybe he makes the Red Sox a more exciting team, which is the ultimate goal of course.
If any of these guys gets hurt (very likely) or don’t work out, the Sox turn to . . . Franklin Morales? . . . the maniacal Alfredo Aceves?
What an excellent and well-thought out criticism of the Red Sox pitching depth. They don't have quality 6th or 7th starters in the organization. This puts them in the same league as nearly every other MLB team who doesn't have a reliable 6th or 7th starter anywhere in the organization. Good looking out Shaughnessy, you've just criticized the 2013 Red Sox team for not having the same luxury few other MLB teams have. What's his next criticism? The Red Sox don't have any All-Star outfielders hanging out on the bench for when (if) Jacoby Ellsbury gets injured?
The bullpen looks strong. Let’s give Ben Cherington some props on the relief corps. Joel Hanrahan looks like a real closer and the Sox were smart to cut their losses with Mark “Schiraldi Eyes” Melancon.
I have a feeling calling a pitcher "Schiraldi Eyes" isn't exactly going to catch on. Of course Dan has to compare one Boston relief pitcher to another because no other relief pitchers outside of Boston have ever looked like disasters in the closer role.
Behind the plate, the Sox have depth, but not enough prime-time quality.
I don't believe a catcher not having enough "prime-time quality" really means anything at all. The Red Sox catchers aren't shooting a television show, so prime-time quality doesn't matter.
There is a connection between the ineffectiveness of Sox starters and the insertion of Jarrod Saltalamacchia into the starting catching role in 2011. Salty has good power, but there is a big hole in his swing (.222 with 139 strikeouts last year).
What? So because Saltalamacchia strikes out a lot the Red Sox pitchers did not pitch very well last year? I'm not sure what Salty's offensive issues had to do with the Red Sox pitchers struggling.
David Ross looks like a solid backup who’ll get plenty of playing time.
Thanks Dan, you should charge at least $5 for in-depth analysis like this.
We know the Sox are set at second base (Dustin Pedroia) and third base (Will Middlebrooks), but I worry that Middlebrooks will be asked to do too much to protect David Ortiz.
I'm not entirely sure one player "protecting" another player is a real thing. Either way, if Middlebrooks is going to end up being the type of player the Red Sox think he will be then he is going to need to hit in the middle of the order behind Ortiz (or another power hitter) at some point. It may as well be this year.
It might be too much for a kid with only a half-year of big league at-bats.
If a guy can hit major league pitching then he can hit major league pitching. I think Mike Trout, Bryce Harper and various other young players have proven this over the last few seasons.
Victorino looks like a guy whose best days are behind him. Better hope he’s not Kevin Stevens or Joseph Addai.
And of course Shaughnessy has to compare Victorino to two notable busts that were signed by teams from in and around Boston to troll Boston-area fans as well as make sure he stays negative as often as possible. I'm pretty sure Victorino isn't comparable to Kevin Stevens or Joseph Addai, but we all know Dan is secretly hoping Victorino ends up being a complete bust so he can rub it in the face of Red Sox fans.
Finally, it’s tough to feel good about Ortiz. He turns 38 this year, and is coming off an Achilles’ tendon injury — an injury he sustained running the bases in front of an Adrian Gonzalez home run last July.
Adrian Gonzalez actually hit a home run for the Red Sox last year? From what Dan has told us I thought Adrian Gonzalez never hit a home run for the Red Sox and was lucky to not strike out at every at-bat.
Ortiz doesn’t have contract incentive (he finally got his two-year deal, a lifetime achievement award from the Sox),
So does this opinion mean that Dan thought the Red Sox should not have re-signed David Ortiz? Of course not. If the Red Sox had not re-signed Ortiz then Dan would have criticized them for giving up on a Red Sox hero when he could still play at a high level. Dan just likes to bitch and complain. So no matter what the Red Sox did in regard to re-signing David Ortiz or not re-signing him, Dan Shaughnessy would bitch about it. The Red Sox re-sign Ortiz? Well, now he has no incentive and won't be motivated to play. The Red Sox don't re-sign Ortiz? The Red Sox have given up a Red Sox player who could anchor the middle of the lineup.
and he is concerned that the Sox did little to find him lineup protection.
Fortunately, there may not be such a thing. So that's good news.
Sorry. The juice glass is half-empty today.
Just today? The glass is half-empty for Dan everyday.
These guys could be really bad.
Or, as Dan said in this very column, they could make the playoffs. Dan has himself covered to be right either way.
For $170 million, a little more prime-time talent would have been nice.
Yes, but the Red Sox shed salary and are trying to rebuild the team through the farm system and with smart free agent signings. They can't shed their previous salary commitments and then immediately compete all in one year. Of course, asking Dan Shaughnessy to have perspective or take an honest look at what the Red Sox are trying to put together in the future is folly. He's a troll and that's all he knows how to do. Go negative, go negative, troll a little, then go even more negative. That's the formula for making a living from people hating you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)