tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post4146315398681736614..comments2024-03-27T06:03:35.695-04:00Comments on Brodeur is a Fraud: Interesting Links, and Some Thoughts on Sports JournalismThe Contrarian Goaltenderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03433370306939690205noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-67880399959134832002009-04-23T13:50:00.000-04:002009-04-23T13:50:00.000-04:00Recently discovered your blog and have been slowly...Recently discovered your blog and have been slowly working through it. This post is, simply put, great. I completely share your view of mainstream journalists - so much of the supposed insight they provide is just hackneyed cliches that completely defy logic. I look forward to being a regular reader.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06480868353600848977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-50888561958067507652009-03-25T16:16:00.000-04:002009-03-25T16:16:00.000-04:00Don't forget Scott Burnside when you're ragging on...Don't forget Scott Burnside when you're ragging on journalists. This is a guy who on November 22, 2004 said "Patrick Roy is, and always will be, the greatest goaltender of all-time," and that in regard to his regular season records, "those are window dressing to the real heart of the matter -- Roy was the best money goaltender of all time."<BR/><BR/>Now, here we have Martin Brodeur, 11-14 in the playoffs since the article, and Burnside says after win #552: "I don't think there's any doubt... this establishes him as the finest goalie of all-time."<BR/><BR/>Ugh... some consistency please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-3521636506848205772009-03-25T12:23:00.000-04:002009-03-25T12:23:00.000-04:00Second, there is this old school journalism in spo...<I>Second, there is this old school journalism in sports that is focused purely on 'what' happened rather than 'why'.</I><BR/><BR/>This says it all, I think. And, in part, it's because most <I>fans</I> are more concerned with narratives and mythology than actual fact or insight. Saying "the team didn't want it enough" or "they really lacked leadership" seems to be more meaningful for a large segment of the hockey (sport?) watching fraternity. even though those are basically <A HREF="http://skepdic.com/barnum.html" REL="nofollow">Barnum statements</A>. "Analysis", for many, boils down to applying the "right" shop-worn bromide to describe results.Kent W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15679878875910837307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-21634311762645966902009-03-25T06:06:00.000-04:002009-03-25T06:06:00.000-04:00To me, journalists seem to be satisfied with simpl...<I>To me, journalists seem to be satisfied with simple explanations, and seem to have little interest to investigate further to see whether something is true.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, said tCG. As a (former?) journalism student, I've had my fair share of "rush my microwaved thoughts into print" moments that I'm not quite proud of. The hockey blogosphere surely has educated me on how antiquated some stats can be.jamestobrienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16607553979777452973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-45242323344611068402009-03-25T01:17:00.000-04:002009-03-25T01:17:00.000-04:00I agree with your comments on the national hockey ...I agree with your comments on the national hockey media. Being from Pittsburgh and a Pens fan, I used to participate in the online Q&A of the Pens' beat writers. Even though Pgh is an established hockey market, I just don't get the feeling that a) the beat writers really understand hockey or b) have the curiosity to learn.<BR/><BR/>First, I think it's hard to provide a good view of what's happening and why if you've never played the sport at any level. I'm sure the next generation of writers will have some experience with the sport.<BR/><BR/>Second, there is this old school journalism in sports that is focused purely on 'what' happened rather than 'why'. I suppose that makes sense in the days before the NHL network and constant online and TV highlights. It's no wonder that papers are losing their readership. There simply is no 'value add' in the writing. I know what happened...I watched the game. Tell me something I might not know or have noticed.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure any of this is laziness. I think it is just a lack of vision and intellectual curiosity.<BR/><BR/>One final point. I was writing about my dismay at MA Fleury's inability to handle the puck and the impact on shots given up and hits taken by the defensemen. Just mentioning this was like suggesting the Earth was not the center of the universe. This is even more surprising as the Pens had Barrasso who had to be one of the better puck handling goalies and generated a huge number of assists passing quickly to Lemieux, et al.<BR/><BR/>Great article!catz27https://www.blogger.com/profile/03600080503742288979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-44522621438155842482009-03-24T20:40:00.000-04:002009-03-24T20:40:00.000-04:00As a Leaf fans who has probably read most of what ...As a Leaf fans who has probably read most of what Cox has written over the course of his career at the Star, I think you're giving him too much credit.<BR/><BR/>The question of whether he <I>could</I> understand the analysis you do on this site is irrelevant. He wouldn't have any interest in doing so.<BR/><BR/>Cox is very much an old school media guy. He's paid his dues, he's worked hard, he's made it to the top of the ladder, and he'll be damned if he's going to have much interest in what some fan or blogger thinks.<BR/><BR/>He's been grudgingly dragged into the interactive world recently with his semi-blog and weekly mailbag. But in general, there are only two types of fans he's interested in engaging with: those that agree with him, and those that disagree in such an over-the-top cartoonish way that they're trivially easy to defeat. Somebody like you, who puts this much thought into their arguments, wouldn't fit into either category and so you don't exist.<BR/><BR/>Despite his years of service, I've never found Cox to be a guy who offers any particular insight into the sport. I don't doubt for a second that you know more about this topic than he does. Or, at the very least, that you've spent more time thinking about it, as opposed to just pontificating for whatever audience might be nearby.Down Goes Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10150805735008417848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-27029969396631585162009-03-24T19:13:00.000-04:002009-03-24T19:13:00.000-04:00I wanna be a sports journalist. Easiest job in the...I wanna be a sports journalist. Easiest job in the world! Case in point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148461224473220694.post-15390669166051678092009-03-24T18:58:00.000-04:002009-03-24T18:58:00.000-04:00Bang on. Sports journalists are the weakest of an...Bang on. Sports journalists are the weakest of any type of journalists. Can you imagine a business journalist being so shallow & disinterested in really understanding how the field (hockey) works, including investigating all the numbers?Statmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729540810567722429noreply@blogger.com