New SI - Santana

As a long-time subscriber, I think SI has gotten better -- with the occasional three-yard loss -- over the last several months, going back to before Reilly's departure and continuing since then. I'll agree that Roberts has been a bit disappointing as a columnist. But I've liked Price in that spot, though, and Ballard, too. Even the occasional back-pagers by McCallum and King (when Favre was named Sportsman of the Year, as heretical as that position might be around here) have been good. The features, in general, have been pretty good recently. I thought their NFL coverage was much better (without Silver, and with guys like Jenkins, Hack, Trotter and Layden) this past season. I think Jenkins is an excellent addition. And then there are still guys like Verducci, McCallum and Farber who crank out thoughtful, interesting, well-written pieces on their beats. (I don't even like hockey, but I read Farber's stuff. The Juneau story, which someone mentioned earlier, is worth a read.)

The stuff at the front of the magazine is pretty awful, with the exception of the opening essay, which should, in my opinion, be assigned permanently to Hoffer. (That blogger's piece in this week's issue was atrocious, but I think in the hands of someone like Hoffer -- who would have used a lighter touch of wit, rather than overloading it with snark -- it could have been excellent. By the way, since when are you allowed to write a story in SI under a byline like "Junior"? Embarrassing.) And yes, there are still more copy-editing errors than there should be. But once you get past those things -- and here's hoping SI comes to its senses and fixes/ditches most of them -- the content in the actual magazine is pretty good. I get the sense that SI is fighting conflicting urges -- should it be like ESPN, or the New Yorker? -- and has made some encouraging steps away from ESPN. It has a chance, I think, to become an excellent magazine again.

 

Agreed. Any idea on who the anonymous tour pro is they have breakdown the majors? Not sure how much of it is ghostwritten, but I always love that guy's thoughts and honest assessments.

 

If I were in charge, I'd move Dan Patrick to the back page and move Selena -- if she turns into the regular backpage columnist -- up front. Nothing wrong with what Selena writes, it's just a little too heavy for the back page. I'm reserving judgment on Patrick's column until he gets about 6 months under his belt.

My only advice to them would be to stretch. Ballard's dunking piece was creative. The pigeon story was nice. Price's Majerus profile was among SI's best stories in a long time. This magazine still has the potential to be tons better than ESPN The Mag, which I think is getting worse by the month.

 

What is this Dan Patrick column you're referring to? I don't know what to call that crap he's been throwing onto his page, but it certainly isn't a column. I wouldn't move him to the back page, I'd move him right out of the magazine. He adds absolutely nothing.

 

Santana had a sad end to his prominence when he was stuck with Zenk in that dreadful STRIKE FORCE!! duo.

 

Did anyone else look closely at the crowd reaction in the Superman Dunk photo? (Call me strange but I can't help but study everyone of those for about 15 minutes.)

What is with the little dude next to Jason Kidd? He looks like he's about to cry. On one hand I thought it was a boy but he has a big head. Not sassing, just curious.

And do the SI photo editors go through every crowd reaction shot to make sure no one is clearly flicking off the camera or has an obscene shirt on?

 

Unless you've been mainlining triple cheesburgers at the new gig, you're a flyweight compared to Rick.

And I'll probably be in the minority here, and please feel free to follow with comments about how I couldn't carry Verducci's jock, but I continue to be underwhelmed by his coverage of Clemens. There were some good anedotes in this week's story, but again, how can he go into first-person without admitting he was as hoodwinked as anyone?

And, again, Verducci seems to be making excuses for his friend with the glowing description of how Clemens never left the high school jock phase. Most anyone who has come across Clemens would agree with that, but would not use it as a complement. Clemens is an overgrown bully who blames everyone but himself for his shortcomings, yet again, Verducci explains this away by saying it's an extension of what made him a great pitcher, as if it's a positive trait to display these characteristics in front of Congress.

Verducci's final graph was especially telling: Clemens does not remember because he believes none of it happened. Rocket is sure of it.

I'm beginning to think Verducci is the same way.

 

whitebrained, i wonder if that photo of howard was altered some. i've looked at it several times and something about howard just doesnt seem right.

 

I haven't received the print edition yet, but Kidd's son's head has been the target of many, many mean jokes over the years - Google, if you wish, "Jason Kidd's son's head" - so I would guess the boy was Jason Kidd's son.