1070 replies to this topic

[terrynever]

Nothing like the Hall of Fame ballot and an MVP debate to get Poz back on track. His most recent posts on these subjects have seen him getting back into form.

Baseball will bring Poz back from the brink. I imagine his publisher told him to finish the Paterno book as soon as possible to get it published while the iron is still hot. That's why he is underground. They probably gave him a big bonus to finish it sooner than his original deadline. And when he's done, it should be time for baseball season.

Edited by terrynever, 30 December 2011 - 03:01 PM.

[The Gray Eagle]

I hate that he is writing a Paterno book.

I had no interest in it before the scandal, and now that the scandal is out there, he is totally the wrong guy to be writing about it. It's like hiring Frank Capra make a hard-hitting investigative documentary about child molesters. He's probably got the skills at his craft to do it decently, but it's just not the right assignment for his talents. There are no heroes or anything close involved in this story, nothing at all amusing, no new way to look at things that would be interesting and enlightening, no conventional wisdom to examine, nothing that Posnanski is best at.

This book is now a job for an investigative reporter who will blow the lid off the scandal, not a job for an insightful sportswriter whose strength is seeing the best in people. Posnaski's a good journalist, he'll probably do a decent job, but it's a waste of his time and talents and no matter what he writes he'll get ripped by some people for not going after Paterno hard enough. It's all a waste and a mismatch, when he could be spending his time working on something that he would be great at.

[terrynever]

I hate that he is writing a Paterno book.

I had no interest in it before the scandal, and now that the scandal is out there, he is totally the wrong guy to be writing about it. It's like hiring Frank Capra make a hard-hitting investigative documentary about child molesters. He's probably got the skills at his craft to do it decently, but it's just not the right assignment for his talents. There are no heroes or anything close involved in this story, nothing at all amusing, no new way to look at things that would be interesting and enlightening, no conventional wisdom to examine, nothing that Posnanski is best at.

This book is now a job for an investigative reporter who will blow the lid off the scandal, not a job for an insightful sportswriter whose strength is seeing the best in people. Posnaski's a good journalist, he'll probably do a decent job, but it's a waste of his time and talents and no matter what he writes he'll get ripped by some people for not going after Paterno hard enough. It's all a waste and a mismatch, when he could be spending his time working on something that he would be great at.

Well, I have to disagree. Poz is a trained journalist and this might be the biggest challenge of his career. Journalists write all different kinds of stories in their careers. Just as great actors can play all kinds of roles, even comedy, a writer/reporter like Poz has to do more than just his usual shtick. It won't be easy, which is why he's not blogging on the side.

[The Gray Eagle]

Some great actors can play all kinds of roles; others are like John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart and are themselves in every role. It doesnt really matter though; I hate the idea of Joe spending all this time and effort on a story that is now totally different than the one he was planning on and is now a story that he probably wouldn't have wanted to get involved with in the first place. like I said, he's a fine journalist and will probably do a solid job and still get criticized anyway, all for a story that doesn't play to his strengths.

If you were looking for the perfect writer for the Penn State story you wouldn't pick Joe. I would a thousand times rather read him doing what he does best in a book about someone like Tim Thomas or maybe a book on the Browns or the Royals or pretty much anything other than an investigative real life crime story, which this now is. And if he doesn't take that angle he'll get destroyed, all for a story he probably wouldn't have written if it were offered to him for the first time today.

This whole thing could end up like Humphrey Bogart trying to play Hamlet because of the challenge of it. Not the right challenge. If he wanted to challenge himself by witing a novel or a screenplay or even his take on a political figure, I'd love to read it. But an investigative piece on a child molester is basically the last thing I'd want to read from him, other than maybe a romance novel.

[Seonachan]

Some great actors can play all kinds of roles; others are like John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart and are themselves in every role.

...

This whole thing could end up like Humphrey Bogart trying to play Hamlet because of the challenge of it.

Edited by Seonachan, 31 December 2011 - 11:40 AM.

[terrynever]

Some great actors can play all kinds of roles; others are like John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart and are themselves in every role. It doesnt really matter though; I hate the idea of Joe spending all this time and effort on a story that is now totally different than the one he was planning on and is now a story that he probably wouldn't have wanted to get involved with in the first place. like I said, he's a fine journalist and will probably do a solid job and still get criticized anyway, all for a story that doesn't play to his strengths.

If you were looking for the perfect writer for the Penn State story you wouldn't pick Joe. I would a thousand times rather read him doing what he does best in a book about someone like Tim Thomas or maybe a book on the Browns or the Royals or pretty much anything other than an investigative real life crime story, which this now is. And if he doesn't take that angle he'll get destroyed, all for a story he probably wouldn't have written if it were offered to him for the first time today.

This whole thing could end up like Humphrey Bogart trying to play Hamlet because of the challenge of it. Not the right challenge. If he wanted to challenge himself by witing a novel or a screenplay or even his take on a political figure, I'd love to read it. But an investigative piece on a child molester is basically the last thing I'd want to read from him, other than maybe a romance novel.

Really good post here. And I like the one just posted with John Wayne playing Genghis Khan. Funny Stuff. And Happy New Year to everyone.

[Dehere]

Joe's last two blog posts have been great, especially the one about early sabermetrician F.C. Lane. Fascinating reading for any SOSHer. He's also reopened the comments section.

He's writing like himself again. Based on nothing but this I wonder if he's found his footing with the book.

[Big Papa Smurph]

Joe Posnanski won the NSSA's 2011 National Sportswriter of the Year. http://nssafame.com/...in-to-nssa-hall

Also, not pertinent to the Joe Posnanski thread, but CHB also won the local version of this award for Massachusetts Sportswriter of the Year

[Toe Nash]

Rick Reilly's won this award 11 times. Posnanski wins it in a year during which he didn't really produce much work because he was working on a book (and who professed some interesting opinions on the subject of said book). Posnanski is the best sportswriter out there, surely, but I have a hard time putting a lot of stock in this.

[drleather2001]

I think Joe began his latest column with an idea and it just never got there.

He begins with the premise that the Pats are in trouble because they have a "lousy" defense. They he uses points allowed as the metric to determine what consists of a "lousy defense." Problem #1 is that the Patriots D is 15th in points allowed, which by definition is mediocre and not (IMO) "lousy." But ok. Maybe that's nitpicking.

Then he starts talking solely about dome teams, and how rare it used to be for a dome team to win the Superbowl. Then he says the Pats will probably win.

It was really uncharacteristically scatterbrained for him.

[Seabass177]

I liked the piece. I thought it was more meandering than his usual work, but it brought up some points that I thought were interesting, especially the bits about dome teams.

I get where he was going - teams with great offenses and lousy defenses rarely win Super Bowls. So he looked it up, found out the parts about dome teams, and the piece turned into that. He started writing one thing, it turned into another, and then he couldn't really tie up nicely. I'd rather he do that then scrap the whole thing, really. It could have used some fleshing out, but he cited some interesting facts and it made me think. I'll take that.

Also, I'm completely fine with him calling the Pats' defense lousy. They were much worse than that for most of this season.

[drleather2001]

I just wish he once ventured into trying to explain why that is.

It may seem obvious (teams don't like bad weather), but it's more complicated than that, I strongly suspect.

Also, the big thing for me was: the Pats aren't a dome team! In fact, they play extremely, unusually, well in bad weather!

Edited by drleather2001, 17 January 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[Seabass177]

I just wish he once ventured into trying to explain why that is.

It may seem obvious (teams don't like bad weather), but it's more complicated than that, I strongly suspect.

Also, the big thing for me was: the Pats aren't a dome team! In fact, they play extremely, unusually, well in bad weather!

I think the conclusion he came to, but didn't explicitly state, was this: we don't know what's going to happen. The only teams that have done what the Pats are attempting to do were dome teams. The Pats aren't. There's no real precedent, and with the way offenses have exploded this year, nobody can really say what's going to happen. It's not a riveting conclusion, but I think it's accurate.

Ultimately, this could have been one of his 6,000 word posts if he'd wanted to dig really, really deep into it. I suspect he simply didn't feel like doing that. And I think that's OK.

[drleather2001]

I'm not trying to be snarky, and obviously your views vary.

However, to me, whenever a writer (especially one the calibre of Joe Posnanski) has a front page column devoted to an angle on who might win an upcoming championship game, and the conclusion amounts to "I don't know what's going to happen!" it's a disappointment.

Edited by drleather2001, 17 January 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[Toe Nash]

I'm not trying to be snarky, and obviously your views vary.

However, to me, whenever a writer (especially one the calibre of Joe Posnanski) has a front page column devoted to an angle on who might win an upcoming championship game, and the conclusion amounts to "I don't know what's going to happen!" it's a disappointment.

But it's not a front page column. It's his most recent post on his personal blog, which we read because we usually love to read what he has to say about whatever he wants to write about.

If it was the feature article in Sports Illustrated, you have more right to complain about it. but I suspect he'd put more effort into it in that case.

[drleather2001]

It was the feature column on CNNSI.com today from about 8 AM until noon, complete with a giant picture of Tom Brady.

[Toe Nash]

Fair enough. I saw it on his blog and assumed it was just posted there. I agree then.

[Dehere]

Whenever I see that Joe has posted something about the NFL I lower my expectations. The guy is a virtuoso baseball writer and a master at telling stories but he rarely has anything very insightful to say about football or basketball.

Reading Poz on football is like watching Kate Upton model raincoats. Yeah, I'm going to check it out but I'm not going to expect to be blown away and I know the talent can be put to much better use.

[canderson]

A short piece about Paterno was just posted.

http://sportsillustr...erno/index.html

[JBill]

A short piece about Paterno was just posted.

http://sportsillustr...erno/index.html

I asked Paterno at one point in that last month if he hoped that people would come to see and measure his full life rather than a single, hazy event involving an alleged child molester.

A single, hazy event? I think we know how Pos is going to write that book now.

[Brianish]

Yeah, I just... wow. I mean, I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but even the phrasing is telling. "[A] single event"? As if one instance of willfully overlooking a potential child molester is better than two, three, or a thousand in any way that matters.

Step back and take inventory of your priorities, Joe.

[PBDWake]

It's a very familiar refrain I've heard since JoePa died, only magnified to be even worse than that. You go to PTI and other ESPN shows, SI, Fox Sports, really any sports network covering Joe Paterno's death, and the question is inevitably asked "How much do we weigh the last 10 weeks against a lifetime of good?". Well, that's a stupidly framed question, because it implies that 10 weeks is the period of time in which Joe Paterno was doing wrong. When phrased like that, you look like an asshole for saying anything significant, even if you're right. The correct question is "How much do we hold 10 years of hiding molestation accusations against a lifetime of doing good deeds?". He may not have actively covered up Sandusky every day for 10 years, but every day of silence was another day a pedophile was on the streets.

[Average Reds]

It's a very familiar refrain I've heard since JoePa died, only magnified to be even worse than that. You go to PTI and other ESPN shows, SI, Fox Sports, really any sports network covering Joe Paterno's death, and the question is inevitably asked "How much do we weigh the last 10 weeks against a lifetime of good?". Well, that's a stupidly framed question, because it implies that 10 weeks is the period of time in which Joe Paterno was doing wrong. When phrased like that, you look like an asshole for saying anything significant, even if you're right. The correct question is "How much do we hold 10 years of hiding molestation accusations against a lifetime of doing good deeds?". He may not have actively covered up Sandusky every day for 10 years, but every day of silence was another day a pedophile was on the streets.

As a native Pennsylvanian with more than a passing familiarity with Penn State, I've had literally dozens fo conversations like this recently.

At a certain level, the core point being made by the Paterno apologists is undeniably correct - Paterno did tremendous things for PSU and was, for most of his life, a shining example of the best of college athletics.

The problem with using this argument as a bulwark against the recent revelations is the utter lack of proportionality. Because at the end of the day, college sports is simply a collection of games. And the fact is that Penn State created an athletic bureaucracy to support Paterno and the team that was so impenetrable that it enabled a monster like Jerry Sandusky to operate in secret for years; and so powerful that it reflexively covered up his actions after they were discovered. And no amount of good can compensate for this kind of evil.

For reasons that remain mysterious, this is a hard truth that is difficult for some people - including Posnanski - to grasp.

Edited by Average Reds, 25 January 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[Toe Nash]

A single, hazy event? I think we know how Pos is going to write that book now.

Yeah, disappointing. He doesn't seem to have changed his opinion very much. And the book is due out in September.

[weeba]

Deadspin picked up on it too

http://deadspin.com/...out-joe-paterno

[maufman]

Posnanski had unrivaled access to Paterno during his final days. His account of those days depicts a man who died with a heart full of gratitude, tinged with far less bitterness than his partisans might expect, and tempered with far less regret than many of us might have hoped. That account is a small but unique contribution to the broader story of the Sandusky scandal, and I'm glad it was told, irrespective of my feelings about Paterno.

In this brief account, I think we get a glimpse of what Poz's forthcoming book will look like. The account makes Poz's point of view known, but does it in a way that doesn't make the piece inaccessible to someone (like me, for example) who doesn't share that view. I think Poz thinks this approach is going to let him tell a story something like the one he set out to tell, but without getting savaged by critics (leaving aside those who will brook no mention of any good thing Paterno may have done in his life). I think Poz is very, very wrong. He's going to lose a lot of fans and a lot of respect -- all for a book that may be better than the crappy Father's Day gift book he set out to write, but will nonetheless be in the discount rack in a couple years.

Don't do it, Poz.

Edited by maufman, 25 January 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[Dehere]

I did find it interesting that the Paterno quote that ends the piece refers simply to "the victims." Not the accusers or the alleged victims or the so-called victims. Just the victims. Seems to suggest that Paterno died believing that Sandusky is guilty.

My hope for Poz's book is fading. Maybe the scandal has just taken him too far out of his comfort zone.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Posnanski had unrivaled access to Paterno during his final days. His account of those days depicts a man who died with a heart full of gratitude, tinged with far less bitterness than his partisans might expect, and tempered with far less regret than many of us might have hoped. That account is a small but unique contribution to the broader story of the Sandusky scandal, and I'm glad it was told, irrespective of my feelings about Paterno.

I may not be saying this well, but to me it seems natural that if Paterno didn't see fit to act in the last ten years, he wouldn't see the need to be broken up about what had happened. If I had to guess, I'd presume that Paterno was just not equipped to conceptualize the idea of a grown man sexually abusing little boys, so he just dismissed all of that from his consciousness.

Like others, I had respected Pos up until now. It seems to me that he has lost his objectivity - I hope it isn't the money - because if I had the access to Paterno that he had, I'd ask Paterno - and try to figure out otherwise - what happened to the relationship between Paterno and Sandusky around 1998? That's the one thing no one has been able to explain, and Pos was in a unique position to at least get one side of the story.

I wonder what happens if Sandusky has a change of heart and that change of heart involves dumping on JoePa. . . .

[Bergs]

[JimD]

In this brief account, I think we get a glimpse of what Poz's forthcoming book will look like. The account makes Poz's point of view known, but does it in a way that doesn't make the piece inaccessible to someone (like me, for example) who doesn't share that view. I think Poz thinks this approach is going to let him tell a story something like the one he set out to tell, but without getting savaged by critics (leaving aside those who will brook no mention of any good thing Paterno may have done in his life). I think Poz is very, very wrong. He's going to lose a lot of fans and a lot of respect -- all for a book that may be better than the crappy Father's Day gift book he set out to write, but will nonetheless be in the discount rack in a couple years.

Don't do it, Poz.

Eh, I don't see it. Unless Pos writes a puff piece that gets absolutely savaged by critics, I don't see him losing respect or readers.

[RingoOSU]

He already has, though.

[pedros hairstylist]

As a native Pennsylvanian with more than a passing familiarity with Penn State, I've had literally dozens fo conversations like this recently.

At a certain level, the core point being made by the Paterno apologists is undeniably correct - Paterno did tremendous things for PSU and was, for most of his life, a shining example of the best of college athletics.

The problem with using this argument as a bulwark against the recent revelations is the utter lack of proportionality. Because at the end of the day, college sports is simply a collection of games. And the fact is that Penn State created an athletic bureaucracy to support Paterno and the team that was so impenetrable that it enabled a monster like Jerry Sandusky to operate in secret for years; and so powerful that it reflexively covered up his actions after they were discovered. And no amount of good can compensate for this kind of evil.

For reasons that remain mysterious, this is a hard truth that is difficult for some people - including Posnanski - to grasp.

OK, but you realize that's the "Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time" argument?

[Average Reds]

OK, but you realize that's the "Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time" argument?

Did you not read the paragraph that immediately follows? Or are you intent on trashing people even when they agree with you?

Edited by Average Reds, 26 January 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[pedros hairstylist]

Sorry, I didn't read the next paragraph closely. My apologies for thinking you were on the JoPa/JoePos side of the coin.

But no, I wasn't comparing you to a fascist dictator. I was comparing that line of argument to one used to justify the bad things that bad people did. Even fascist dictators do things that are sometimes positive.

Edited by pedros hairstylist, 26 January 2012 - 01:36 PM.

[RingoOSU]

Like college football coaches, it's because it's part of the job description.

[maufman]

Sorry, I didn't read the next paragraph closely. My apologies for thinking you were on the JoPa/JoePos side of the coin.

But no, I wasn't comparing you to a fascist dictator. I was comparing that line of argument to one used to justify the bad things that bad people did. Even fascist dictators do things that are sometimes positive.

But doesn't that miss the entire point of why this is such a gripping story? I mean, I'm sure Barry Switzer and Jackie Sherrill did nice things for people over the years, but if we found out one of them failed to stop the serial pedophilia of one of his assistants, it wouldn't have gotten one-hundredth of the attention the Penn State story has gotten. It is precisely because of Paterno's longstanding reputation for honor and doing things the right way that we are still talking about this story nearly three months after it broke, even though we don't much more now than we did then. It's the stuff Greek tragedies were made of.

There's a great book in here somewhere. It won't be written by a muckraker. It won't be written by a sentimentalist like Joe Posnanski either. That's too bad, because Poz's writing talent and serendipitious access to some of the principals would lend themselves to the task, were he so inclined.

Edit: Typos

Edited by maufman, 26 January 2012 - 03:43 PM.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Posnanski is lying to himself, terribly, or he's an idiot. I don't think he's the latter, so it can only be the former.

A single, hazy event? Is he really telling himself this is about that one moment in time when JoPa didn't follow up enough? That's just insane. It's not even about "I should have done more." It's about 10 years of doing nothing. 10 years! Nothing!

He didn't see Sandusky around at all in that time? Of course he did. He didn't see Sandusky in the presence of young people in that time? Of course he did. At no time did a little light go off in his head like, "hey, I seem to remember something about someone telling me he saw that guy pounding a little boy in the ass?" Of course it did. Or, actually, it didn't, because he knew about it all along and so he didn't find it all that remarkable! He had to have known, at least since McQueary told him. He's completely complicit in all of it.

Read this:

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A Penn State assistant football coach testified Friday that in 2002 he saw Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy and that he reported it, in graphic detail, to Coach Joe Paterno and two senior Penn State University officials.

“I described it was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on,” the assistant coach, Mike McQueary, testified of the suspected assault by Sandusky, a longtime top assistant to Paterno. “There’s no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry in the showers, and that it was severe sexual acts, and that it was wrong and over the line.”

It's not about one act. It's about a lifetime of inaction. There's gobs of blame to go around in State College, but as that absolute moron yelled out at the event yesterday, JoPa WAS Penn State, and so he bears so much more responsibility and blame. Who cares how much good he did?

Edited by MyDaughterLovesTomGordon, 26 January 2012 - 03:29 PM.

[Average Reds]

Sorry, I didn't read the next paragraph closely. My apologies for thinking you were on the JoPa/JoePos side of the coin.

I appreciate the apology, but I can't help but feel that you made up your mind about what my post was going to say the moment you read that I grew up Pennsylvania.

Trust me when I tell you that I am as frustrated as you are by the willful blindness that continues to define this case.

[LeftyTG]

But doesn't that miss the entire point of why this is such a gripping story? I mean, I'm sure Barry Switzer and Jackie Sherrill did nice things for people over the years, but if we found out one of them failed to stop the serial pedophilia of one of his assistants, it wouldn't have gotten one-hundredth of the attention the Penn State story has gotten. It is precisely because of Paterno's longstanding reputation for honor and doing things the right way that we are still talking about this story nearly three months after it broke, even though we don't much more now than we did then. It's the stuff Greek tragedies were made of.

There's a great book in here somewhere. It won't be written by a muckraker. It won't be written by a sentimentalist like Joe Posnanski either. That's too bad, because Poz's writing talent and serendipitious access to some of the principals would lend themselves to the task, were he so inclined.

Edit: Typos

I agree with this, which is why I also find it fascinating that Paterno also gets a free pass on the ethical slide the program was on since PSU started losing a lot of games in the early 2000's, which led to an ESPN Outside the Lines piece. Even if you take away all the child abuse stuff, there is a lot of evidence that Paterno wasn't as squeaky clean as his admirers delude themselves into thinking. In particular, there was a lot of discussion about how PSU football trumped local law enforcement, which is interesting to read in light of the child abuse allegations.

I found this quote, from an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about the Outside the Lines investigation, quite telling

To those who have followed Paterno closely in recent years, his response also was expected.
"I think you've done an awful lot of probing which bothers me that you might be on a witch hunt," he said

http://www.post-gaze.../900389-194.stm

Also, here's a link to the Outside the Lines piece:
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=3504915

[BucketOBalls]

JoPa WAS Penn State, and so he bears so much more responsibility and blame. Who cares how much good he did?

It's actually kinda weird they the way this has polarized to either vilification or excusing his actions. It doesn't seem possible to have an opinion in between. It was a team failure by Penn State. Paterno was the most visible, so he deservedly gets the blame.

The sad part is that any investigation seemed to vanished in favor of blaming Paterno. While deserved, that shouldn't stop it from being found out how such actions slipped through the cracks of an entire organization.

[pedros hairstylist]

I appreciate the apology, but I can't help but feel that you made up your mind about what my post was going to say the moment you read that I grew up Pennsylvania.

Trust me when I tell you that I am as frustrated as you are by the willful blindness that continues to define this case.

Honestly I had no idea where you were from ... there have been a handful of "Joe and his legacy are being treated unfairly!!!" people in this thread, not to mention the insane false idol worshipping going on on ESPN's wall-to-wall coverage of his death, so I thought you were one of them based on that paragraph.

You message boarders all look alike to me.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

The sad part is that any investigation seemed to vanished in favor of blaming Paterno. While deserved, that shouldn't stop it from being found out how such actions slipped through the cracks of an entire organization.

I 100 percent agree with this. I know it's an extreme position, but I didn't think they should allow Penn State's season to continue until it was clear who knew what and when. Blah, blah, about hurting the football players for stuff they didn't do, but how do we even know that certain football players didn't know what was going on? As crazy as it seems considering the attention the story got, I think a lot of potential complicity has basically been swept under the rug. We don't know what we don't know.

It happened in the team showers! Think how comfortable Sandusky had to have been and how little fear of reprisal he must have had. It blows my mind.

[BucketOBalls]

SI has him covering the Superbowl and you can kinda tell he's out of his zone a bit, like this bit on Coughlin, where he basicly just grabs a bunch of quotes from various people and weaves them into a narrative.

I can't decide if this is intentional or not, but it's funny either way.

Special teams coach Larry Izzo (on the Giants way): “Do your job.”

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Anyone who questions whether Joe Pos' has lost his fastball as a result of the Penn State scandal need only read the three pieces on the top page of his SI site:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/

The 3K hits piece is fascinating, his column on Gary Carter is extremely well done (and completely different than all the other obits that have been published over the past few days) and his take on Wake's retirement is great. These aren't sentimental works - just Posnanski's unique way of looking at athletes and their accomplishments.

If you haven't already, take a gander. They are worth your time...

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 18 February 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[SydneySox]

He's back!

http://joeposnanski....ment-of-spring/

This is a great article. It captures a lot of what makes a site like SoSH fun.

See? All we needed was baseball season to kick off.

[nattysez]

He's back!

http://joeposnanski....ment-of-spring/

This is a great article. It captures a lot of what makes a site like SoSH fun.

See? All we needed was baseball season to kick off.

He also seems to be coming out of his shell on Twitter. He's tweeting a bit more every day. Happy to see it.

[dirtynine]

Posnanski's "Worst Sequels" piece sounds like he's been locked in the bathroom with a bunch of old Simmons columns.

[My default position is that Godfather III never happened. But a few weeks ago, through an odd and fortunate series of events, I ended up having lunch with Joe Mantegna, who might be the single best guy in the world.

Producer: "OK, great news, we're going to do Caddyshack II. But we do have some challenges. We can't get Bill Murray or Rodney Dangerfield or Ted Knight, and Chevy Chase is only willing to be in the movie for like 29 seconds. That's a pretty big void. Who out there is big enough to make up for that kind of loss of talent?"

Casting director: "Jackie Mason."

Producer: "Perfect."

Considering I can't even stomach this stuff from its originator anymore, I was not a big fan of this one. At least Pos didn't map each sequel to a sporting event.

[johnmd20]

Considering I can't even stomach this stuff from its originator anymore, I was not a big fan of this one. At least Pos didn't map each sequel to a sporting event.

I think you're being pretty harsh, it was a simple column about bad sequels and his Star Wars stuff was funny. And I was glad Saw 3D made the list because that movie was impossibly bad. Say what you want about Saw, but the sequels in general were actually entertaining. Saw 3D wasn't anything but bad from beginning to end.

[drleather2001]

Yea, I enjoy Pos' culture pieces precisely because they are level-headed and don't assume an air of self-importance ("my opinion is the only one that matters!") that Simmons' typically do.

I don't feel like he's trying to impress me with his hepness or pseudo-irreverance like Simmons tries to do. Nor does he pass off his opinions like they are entirely original.

I guess my point is: Posnanski has a very warm delivery to his columns, like he's making small talk on a car ride. Simmons comes off like the drunk guy at the bar who's yelling in your ear from 2 feet away.

[The Belly Itcher]

I guess my point is: Posnanski has a very warm delivery to his columns, like he's making small talk on a car ride. Simmons comes off like the drunk guy at the bar who's yelling in your ear from 2 feet away.

Well said!