What Makes This Piece Good, Vol. 1: Buster Olney on Mariano Rivera's cutter

ESPN or MLB.com seem to have an advantage with these stories in the broadband era. I don't need to read 2,000 words regarding Riveria's pitching mechanics. Illustrate why he's dominant through video and graphics.

 

Hopefully he interviewed more than made the story. The ability to know what not to use is just as important as knowing what to use.

The old rule of thumb was three sources per story.

 

Olney's become a multi media star and good for him but it's a shame
that he no longer does gamer's. I am just glad that I had the opportunity to
read his gamers through his Yankee years.

 

The beauty of the internet is that it allows for us to get both in one piece. That's why guys like Chris Brown of Smart Football and Grantland is so fun to read for me, because he tells you why an offensive scheme might work so well, then illustrates it with graphics and videos.

 

this piece is quite dated, i guess, but it's a good look at buster and also a good look at the passion involved in great journalism.

http://greatprojects.com/gp/notes-from-the-ballpark/

 

Thanks for the excellent link, Jim.

One final thought: Rivera isn't quoted in the piece. I would argue this doesn't hinder it, but in some respects, enhances it. But I may be wrong. In 2000, I suspect Rivera wasn't completely comfortable with his English yet. (He famously got daily interviewing lessons from teammate Tim Cooper, who would pretend to interview him as though he'd just won the World Series.) Would getting an interpreter (or a bilingual teammate) to help translate have done anything for this story? (Keep in mind, of course, that some Latin players find this insulting and insist on being interviewed in English.)

 

In the area of pitching breakdowns, I've liked what Shane Ryan has done this season. He examined Felix Hernandez today. He'd already gone through Cueto, Tanaka and Samardzjia this season. Ryan makes good use of Brooks Baseball pitch analytics, and the animated GIFs really make you see what he's talking about.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/pitchcraft-felix-hernandez-seattle-mariners/

 

Ten years later The Times took another run at what made Rivera special, this time in the magazine. The presentation is, of course, much different than Buster's earlier piece, but it's still all about the reporting. A lesson on what we can do with data, I think.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/06/29/magazine/rivera-pitches.html?ref=magazine

 

That was pretty good.

 

He actually is, although the way it reads it could be from any time from about 1998 on.

But although the article IS about Rivera, on the surface at least it's about the pitch, and so many of the most meaningful quotes are going to come from the guys who have to face it. In that respect, at least, you don't need Rivera to speak about it.

Having said that, I wouldn't necessarily recommend that a young scribe regularly approach a profile of an individual with the idea in mind not to quote that individual. It works here, but it certainly wouldn't in many, if not most, cases.

 

Very true. Not the ideal situation. And while I don't think this was the case with Mo and Buster, this does serve as a good example that when you are dealing with petulant stars and control-freak coaches, there is more than one way to get a good story.

 

What makes Olney's story great, to me, is the descriptiveness of the writing.

The anecdotes used and the simplicity and clarity of the explanations were terrific and make the story one that anyone -- not just, say, a sports writer, or a pitching coach or a saber-metrics or physics expert -- could read, understand and picture.

Couldn't you just imagine Klesko's teammates snickering at him in the dugout -- not in any real derision, but at the comical-ness of a player like him whiffing so badly and repeatedly. And didn't you smile, too? I could, and did.

That sort of easy, relatable writing continued throughout. From a player "protecting" his prized, better bats -- although I kind of wonder how he'd do with those "first-string" ones against Rivera -- from being broken by not using them, to another player who was thought to be finding a way to succeed against the cut fastball only to have him admit that, hey, I wasn't trying to do anything special, and that his hits were, basically, a matter of dumb luck, to another considering a walk to be a hit and being really happy with that outcome compared to what could happen, the writing is vivid and engaging.

And yet, this story is also actually an informative explainer.

Olney pulls it off without becoming too technical or being too in-depth or going too long, and that's a tough balancing act. In this respect, this story was a 10.

As for the sourcing, well, of course the story's well sourced, and that certainly helps add weight to what's written. But, I'd expect a story to be well-sourced if it's written by an experienced sports reporter and appearing in the New York Times.