Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I had this discussion with a very smart woman at a dinner party some years ago. She was from a family of newspaper publishers. And she was astounded to learn I was not rooting for the Red Sox while I was covering the Red Sox.
I don't expect him to root for the Sox, but I think it reasonable to expect that he love and have an intellectual curiosity about the sport he covers. Que sera...
The premise of the column is CHB explaining to a faction of the readership why he doesn't necessarily root for the teams he covers and how that dovetails with traditional journalistic standards.
CHB can have whatever opinion he wants. He's a terrible writer. TERRIBLE.
So every day he goes into work and writes a column, said column must have discerned every fanboy criticism of him and addressed it, lest the column be ... what, exactly?
Honestly, do you expect this veteran columnist to spend his remaining time on Earth and his column space arguing with you guys about what you think of him?... Is that how you go through your life?
he's the laziest writer I can imagine.
Marc's bb-ref page hasn't improved with age. A smooth Bergenesque career OPS+ of 33
I think his papermate Cafardo is lazier.
This is the part I'll disagree with and what makes him so frustrating to me. About 3-4 times a year Shank does a human interest story that he cares about and he kills it. I mean he absolutely knocks the thing out of the park.
Could you provide one of these, please? The only columns of his I've ever read have been terrible, but that may just be selection bias on my Repoz and other submitter's part.
This is an overbid. He wrote a column justifying one of two approaches -- yes, one he subscribes to, but that's what a columnist does. He tells you his views and opinions, so he's by definition CHOOSING to defend himself.
In the course of defending a certain position, he's under no obligation to defend other positions or other criticisms he hasn't put at issue.
Could you provide one of these, please? The only columns of his I've ever read have been terrible, but that may just be selection bias on my part.
Dan also took a pretty good shot at other writers whom he pretty much accuses of being Lackeys for the team and/or league. Which is why so few negative breaking stories over the years have come from the beat writers in Boston, they come from out of town writers or Boston writers who write for a different department than the sports department. Pete Abe and Nick are among the chief Lackeys.
If you didn't know who Haywood Sullivan was, and someone gave you the Lahman database and asked you to pick out which backup catcher only got a job through nepotism, it would be blind luck if you picked out Marc.
I'm sorry if this is harsh, but there is nepotism here, and it offends me. The Red Sox in 1979 blew a second-round pick on Marc Sullivan, the son of then-vice president Haywood Sullivan. After young Marckie hit .203 with 1 home run in 117 games in the Eastern League (1982), the Red Sox had the effrontery to dress him up in a major-league uniform and foist him off as a major-league player in two games late the same season. After he went back to the minors and hit .229 and .204, they decided he was ready to play for the major-league team. In 1985 and 1986, as a part-timer, Sullivan hit .174 and .193. In 1987 he opened the season as the Red Sox' regular catcher. We should all find our opportunities so abundant.
What I would like to know is, where the hell does Haywood Sullivan get off trying to make his precious little boy an exception to the rules that the rest of the baseball world obeys? The most basic rule of sports is that in the effort to win, you put the team goals ahead of your personal agenda. The public posture of every major league team is that they expect their players not to play for their own statistics . . . but to do what the good of the team demands. They would be appalled if a player stated publicly that he was playing for himself first and didn't care much whether the Sox won or lost. But Haywood Sullivan wants to add, "Of course, that doesn't apply to me."
And where is the watchdog? What does the press say? They tell us that Marc Sullivan is such a nice kid. Well, who the hell cares if he's a nice kid. Do you have any idea how many nice kids there are in AAA ball? It is not fair to those kids to tell them that Marc Sullivan is playing by a different set of rules than they are. It is not fair to Red Sox fans, and it's not fair to other players.
I call on Peter Ueberroth to intervene and end this disgraceful situation . . . he should tell Haywood to get Marc Sullivan's sorry ass out a Red Sox uniform by sundown.
Who broke the "beer and fried chicken" story? I thought was Cafardo?
I've never heard of a major league baseball player who didn't love the game and managed to stay with it for any length of time, I'd appreciate you pointing me in the direction of a few.
Didn't Fisk have to play the OF for a bit in '78?
Uh, no. The premise of the column is CHB explaining to a faction of the readership why he doesn't necessarily root for the teams he covers and how that dovetails with traditional journalistic standards. A personal quest for "respect" from the readership is nowhere to be found, explicitly or implicitly -- that's a purely self-congratulatory pose on the part of a small, self-flattering rump of the readership who, for utterly inexplicable reasons, deems itself able to bestow "respect" on traditional mainstream sportswriters.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.6339 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed