Change-UpMay 09, 2010
A Passage to Remember
By Patrick Sullivan

In today's Boston Sunday Globe, Dan Shaughnessy wrote a paragraph that reveals just about all you need to know about his character, his intellect and his baseball acumen. Concerning that last point, his baseball acumen, you'll recall he believes Jack Morris to have been a better pitcher than Curt Schilling.

I don't have any further comment.

It looks like those sun-deprived stat geeks eating pudding in their basement (the same nitwits who insist that homers and RBIs are overrated) outsmarted themselves in assessing this unit. Marco Scutaro is not better than Alex Gonzalez (not to rub it in, but Gonzo has 10 homers already for the Blue Jays). The Cameron-Ellsbury combo hasn’t gotten out of the trainer’s room, and Beltre is emerging as an Edgar Renteria or Rasheed Wallace, take your pick.


I swear I don't recall Shaughnessy being so bitter when I was reading the Globe as a kid. Maybe I just didn't realize it then. The first stuff I really remember him going off on is Carl Everett and it seems like it has been nonstop since then.

It's a good thing Shaughnessy doesn't write material for shock value. Why pudding?

Shaughnessy has always been a bomb thrower who has not quite been able to fill the shoes of his fellow BC & Globe alum, Will McDounagh, but strangely I agree with him on this one (maybe because I am 67 & am old, old school)

I never understood how the hell adding a 31 year old good glove 3b was gonna make up for losing Jason Bay.

Smoke and mirrors about uzr and lazy eye just seemed like something better to say then 'we had to pay too much cuz a lot of players DONT like boston'.

I find it strange that Shaughnessy (repeatedly, I believe) describes "stat geeks" as sun-deprived. I mean, check him out:

I'm not trying to make some ad hominem attack here, but I do get a "people in glass houses" sort of vibe.

The Red Sox problems this season have zero to do with any misguided roster priorities. Their offense has been fine--it is the pitching and defense that has been the problem. To the point, Adrian Beltre has far out-hit Jason Bay.

The thing that makes his argument here pointless is that his solution to the problem is either wishful thinking or makes the team worse at preventing runs (and he admits that run prevention is the main problem that needs to be fixed).

In the piece he admits that the Red Sox offense is among the top of the league in most areas and not the problem so far, and he correctly points out that run prevention has been the team's major weakness so far.

But then he takes shots against Scutaro, Beltre, Cameron, moving Ellsbury to LF, and sticking with catchers with negative defensive value behind the plate as the main incorrect decisions that Theo made in the winter.

He says Alex Gonzalez would have been better than Scutaro at SS. He wants Ellsbury in CF. He offers no specific solution for LF, although it is obvious he wanted Jason Bay back (and this is where his argument fails, as Bay would not improve run prevention over most other LF choices since Bay is not a good defender). He criticizes Theo for not signing Teixeira. Ok, so I guess he wanted Teixeira at 1B and Youk at 3B instead of Beltre? Hey that's nice and all, but the fact of the matter is that Teixeira was not available this winter. So he fails to provide what 3B solution he would have preferred over Beltre given that Teixeira was not available this offseason. Would he have really wanted to give a 4-year deal to Figgins instead of a one-year deal to Beltre? He doesn't address what the "correct" choice would have been for 3B this offseason instead of Beltre. And finally he says the team's catchers are the main defensive weakness. So what would he have done? Have V-Mart at DH and sign someone like Barajas? Or Pudge? He doesn't provide have any alternative.

So Theo goes with V-Mart at C, Scutaro at SS, Beltre at 3B, Cameron at CF, and Ellsbury at LF.

Dan wants (?) at Catcher, Gonzalez at SS, (?) at 3B, Ellsbury at CF, and probably Bay at LF.

Now remember that Dan admits that run prevention is the main problem and that the offense has been fine. So how exactly is his preferred choice of players better defensively than Theo's choices?

"Would he have really wanted to give a 4-year deal to Figgins instead of a one-year deal to Beltre?"

CHB is the type of writer who doesn't care about the length of a deal until its already gone bad. 'Who cares if Figgins will be half the player in yeas 3&4 of the deal, he's good now!'. But don't worry, CHB would be more than happy to rip Theo's decision as soon as the Figgins deal turns sour.

He's a clown, like 90% of sports writers and on-air "personalities". His job is to entertain you, and instead of a seltzer bottle and a squeaky nose, he just tries to get people to pay attention to him by saying ridiculous things. Personally, I think the seltzer's a better gag, but that's just me.

Wow. If Alex Gonzalez was hurt and Cameron/Ellsbury were healthy, would Theo suddenly be a sooooooper geeeeeeenyus? CHB has got to stop using product, it's seeping into his brain.