Selena Roberts back page debut for SI (new column on Pg. 2)

And then at the end she throws off some line about how really it's all a "crapshoot" anyway. People always say that, but it's simply not true. Teams invest tons of money and time trying to minimize the chances of making the wrong pick. Of course it's still going to happen. Decisions, not results, right poker players?

This idea that player evaluation, whether it's in college recruiting or pro scouting, is a random guessing game needs to freaking be retired already. It's so tired.

 

It's not a random guessing game, but it's still a guessing game. For all the time and money that teams spend researching these players, they still turn out to be dead wrong about lots of guys. I didn't have any problem with Selena calling it a crapshoot, it's just that she took a long, boring road to make that point, if that's even the point she was trying to make.

 

I just don't think she supported it very well. I guess that was supposed to be the revelation at the end - if this guy is giving out advice, it must be a crapshoot! But I didn't feel that point throughout. I guess I prefer columnists who make their point at the beginning and then support it, not the other way around. Bob Kravitz is the best at this. He'll have a lede that basically says exactly what he thinks. And I'll think, "OK, he hasn't left himself anywhere to go from here." And then he does.

 

Probably not a good sign when a group of journalists are having this much trouble figuring out what the point of your column was. Just sayin'.

 

It's obvious that she threw that "crapshoot" line in there at the end to refer back to her lede, where she wrote about how the guy once shoveled elephant shit at the circus.

Oh, how clever. Who care's if it's not true?

She's definitely for the tweedy crowd. I can't read her stuff.

 

By the way, thought S.L. Price's piece this week on Johnny Tapia was more like you'd expect for the back page of Sports Illustrated. Was very solid.

 

I went into this piece expecting to hate it simply because I loved Rick Reilly's work. And you know what? I hated it. I've read it three times (admittedly fast) and I'm still not sure what the point is, other than the author knows big words and draws interesting parallels. But the point, in 2008? Still not sure. Schools salivate over wins? You're kidding me. And for those who say something along the lines of "I can't hold a jock to her," that's garbage. If you write a 30-inch piece and nobody knows what you're talking about, that's not good journalism. Big words don't make good copy.

 

I couldn't agree more. It was well done. Very good.

As for Roberts, I keep giving her chance after chance. But I have yet to read a piece written by her that "got me," that made me want to finish for that matter.

I simply cannot get through her pieces. She veers off in several different directions. And it's like she's writing with a thesaurus at her side, spending $5 a word when, sometimes, five cents is worth more than enough.

 

So when she finally nails one -- and it's only a matter of time before she does -- will she be God's gift again? Or will we factor the mounting number of whiffs into her average? Nice to be known and paid only for your home runs.

 

you mean wilco fans?

 

I don't know if the link is up yet, but Chris Ballard had a pretty solid column this week. Nothing earth-shattering or anything that is going to pull on the heartstrings, but it did have a Reilly feel. Basically it was based on Josh Howard admitting he smoked pot and the column was more or less a list of unspoken truths in sports that Ballard wishes athletes were open about. Again, not saying this is earth-shattering, but it was a good read with a few good lines. After reading some of the other back page entries, it was nice to get through one without having to re-read sentences and wonder what the hell the point was at the end.

 

I agree and disagree, Boobie. Yes, Ballard did have a few good lines, but to me, the column kind of read like poor man's Reilly.