Simmons on sports writing

Me, too. And there you are.

But you come in here and bluster when I engage him for the first time in weeks? Not your best look.

 

I am. I'm also going to watch closely at what happens the next time he starts his shit (or I start my shit), because I really hope you act upon it. Just for the enjoyment of all those posters.

 

I just want to say that Moddy's posts in his disciplinarian role come across so much better with that photo of Knight as an avatar.

 

People can probably tell from my posts here that I watch way too much TV. I also read way too much about TV, but in doing so I've lately been thinking about how I'd like to see more sports writers -- particularly on the local level -- approach coverage the way many TV critics are.

Take Alan Sepinwall. His reviews give in-depth analysis after he's taken some time to really digest what he's seen. He also does good interviews with key players after they've done the same.

So much of sports coverage now is instant analysis and reaction to quotes somebody says in the heat of the moment. A day later everything is focused on the next game. Seven days later, people on this board are still pouring over details from the previous Mad Men.

I read what TV critics are doing after a jam-packed Sunday of excellent shows and wonder why I can't get more of that after a weekend of football.

 

Not of the "He started it!!!!" nature, no.

Anyway, lost in all this is the fact I made some rather salient points before all the rock throwing started. It's worth discussing, the idea of knowing eyes are watching you work, and I do believe that we need to understand that games are merely a small part of what one is supposed to do as a beat reporter.

Alas.

 

As an example of this, check out Brian Cook's Michigan Blog (MGoBlog). Detailed post-game analysis. He even goes through and analyzes every play of the game. For instance:

http://mgoblog.com/content/upon-further-review-2011-offense-vs-michigan-state
http://mgoblog.com/content/upon-further-review-2011-defense-vs-michigan-state

 

You do get that during football season. Football has a natural cycle.
For the NFL, you get postgame coverage Sunday and Monday, some digestion, analysis and injury updates on Tuesday and Wednesday, then the preview cycle begins Thursday and Friday. Saturday and Sunday morning are the last-minute updates and more analysis of the upcoming games.
You can do that with football because it's similar to TV in that you have one "episode" per week. You can analyze and digest that entire episode for seven days while looking forward to the next one.
You see the same cycle, albeit shortened, during NBA, NHL and MLB playoff series when there's a day or two between games.

During the regular season for non-football sports, though, you don't have that luxury because there's so many damn games. If you write a story on June 10 about a game from June 4, you look like an idiot. It's no longer relevant.

 

I think Simmons has a good point. I mean, watch any press conference. Hardly anything comes out that's worthy, yet scribes are content because they got the quote. Even if the quote is meaningless, at least their story has a response from [insert big name star here], even if it adds absolutely nothing.

Simmons also makes a good point in that, half the time, the WRONG people are being talked to. Good gamers add perspective, and stars won't offer that. Of course they're going to watch what they say. We live in a world where the media wants honest quotes with depth, and then are the first ones to attack on the honesty if it makes for a sexy headline or lead story. The Simmons-Gladwell exchange brought up a good point in identifying Battier and Keyon Dooling. There are thoughtful, intelligent athletes out there. They're just not being talked to because writers are so busy making sure they got a piece of LeBron's or Kevin Durant's time.

There are just too many writers doing it wrong these days who have refused to adjust to the new era in sports journalism. It's like they're fine with their profession dying a slow, torturous death, as long as they stick to those goddarn principles the way the good ol' boys used to do it.

 

They're just not the same thing, Jake. You can reasonably praise (or criticize) Mad Men. I think it's a pose-snore peddling the occasional sexy peek-a-boo, but you can (and most do) create a narrative where it's downright sublime, saying Big Things About The World.

The Heat beat the Celtics Saturday night, and try as some people surely do, it's hard to pretend the Heat lost. Though Simmons is the most popular-postmodern of sportswriters (<i>really, Patrick Ewing was a millstone!</i>) even he's not so dumb as to start writing about, you know, the St. Louis Cardinals all the time. He writes about his meal ticket, the Sox, Lakers, LeBron, Yanks, Giants, Celts and Pats, which, I assure you, is the equivalent of writing about The Avengers, Adele and President Obama, it's so mainstream. And Moneyball has its limits as a sports phenomenon because, in the end, the Oakland As didn't win shit. The team that bought all the best players did.