Grantland
- Thread starter Leather
- Start date
Yes, really. It even had some of the same beats as the piece about drinking granddads old bottle of bourbon. You're right, it was very well written, and yes it's sad that we've lost the last living link to Faulkner, but it feels like every damn thing Thompson's written has revolved around something or someone dying. No matter how good the writing is at some point it starts to become schtick.
That's Carles' schtick - both halves, actually. I'm guessing you're not a Hipster Runoff guy, but essentially the premise is to examine 'society at large' through the lens of the "bro" (or "alt" or "scene" or any given substrata) and things that are bro-approved. Entourage certainly qualifies.
It can be awkward, and it's certainly not for everybody. He's had a REALLY hard time finding his footing in the Grantland medium, which makes sense as the blog was freeform as fuck - but when he's "on" it's actually had some pretty biting critique.
I love Faulkner (Light in August is my favorite book), and thought the piece was poignant, but I think you're right regarding a larger point: too much of this type of writing makes every subsequent effort seem banal. It's like during the Olympics when each ski jump or floor routine is preceded by a John Tesh-scored vignette about lost parents, or burnt-out home towns. I think great sports writing is able to make any story interesting, but as there are so few great writers, there are more and more stories that are meant simply to disuss the inane, the tragic, or the unknown. Those types of stories have their place, but you can only read about so many one-legged marathoners and hearing-impaired weightlifters before the shine is off.
As for this piece in particular, I appreciated the insight into the end of Faulkner's line, but I didn't think the writing was particularly moving or interesting divorced of its subject. Also, I don't see how you can twice mention a wooden casket placed in the house of Faulkner's aged, dying niece and not make even a subtle allusion to As I Lay Dying.
I agree with all of this. His Grantland stuff has been awkward. He's really struggling to capture the magic of Hipster Runoff in long form writing.
Fair enough, though I know some would argue that Thompson writes the same stories all the time - be it for E60 or for Grantland.
I just like his writing, so I tend to seek it out and enjoy it no matter if it is similar to everything else he's written (even if I don't agree, maybe at Grantland, but not everywhere else).
It's not that I don't like Wright Thompson, it's that I can totally imagine him changing his name from Tim to Wright because it sounds more Southern Gothic.
His stuff on Grantland is really him at about a 3/10 too, it's really toned down from the blog that got him the gig, Hipster Runoff, which is the same sort of thing at about a 12/10. His writing is kind of a weird performance piece that media people seem to really enjoy even though it is completely unreadable.
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was speaking strictly about his work for Grantland.
Really I just want more talk about whiskey. Some reviews, primers, get all Michael Jackson about the subject.
I've yet to enjoy a single piece by Chris Jones. His article today was something about how the presentation Boras put together when Zito was a free agent, or how the contract was too big, ended up being the demise of Barry Zito. I'm still not really sure what his point was. He doesn't have any quotes or evidence post-contract that Zito is in a different state of mind.
There are a lot more good baseball writers out there - Jones is falling flat for me.
There are a lot more good baseball writers out there - Jones is falling flat for me.
Yep, the Jones article was pretty bad. No structure at all, and yet at the end of it all it still felt like a snippet. Terrible writing at a basic level.
I didn't really care for the Klosterman piece either. I could totally understand his point. It just struck me as overthinking the issue and making more out of it that it really was. Halls of Fame are kind of silly, but they matter to the public and athletes. Enshrinement debates create drama and can come to define the athletes. That makes sense. But the whole "they don't exist" angle was unnecessary and came across as trying to add depth to the story by polishing the surface. Additionally, using Roger Maris as an example of a borderline non Hall of Famer didn't do him any favors. I don't think any objective thinker considers Maris a Hall of Fame snub (let alone the best representative of a close-but-not-quite-Hall-worthy career) unless they think he merits enshrinement based on his 61-homer season alone.
I didn't really care for the Klosterman piece either. I could totally understand his point. It just struck me as overthinking the issue and making more out of it that it really was. Halls of Fame are kind of silly, but they matter to the public and athletes. Enshrinement debates create drama and can come to define the athletes. That makes sense. But the whole "they don't exist" angle was unnecessary and came across as trying to add depth to the story by polishing the surface. Additionally, using Roger Maris as an example of a borderline non Hall of Famer didn't do him any favors. I don't think any objective thinker considers Maris a Hall of Fame snub (let alone the best representative of a close-but-not-quite-Hall-worthy career) unless they think he merits enshrinement based on his 61-homer season alone.
Simmons' new mailbag has a photo of Billy Bulger above a post about Whitey. D'oh!
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6837774/the-glorious-return-mailbag
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6837774/the-glorious-return-mailbag
Why the hell is Deadspin so fucking obsessed with Grantland? I rarely go to Deadspin, but I recently stumbled into their Grantlandia corrections post, and damn, I understand wanting to point out errors and whatnot in Simmons articles, but it borders on the ridiculous when they publish every goddamn nitpick Deadspin's readers have with Grantland. Does anyone really give a shit that Simmons referred to "Voodoo Child (Slight Return) as "Voodoo Child" in an article about wrestling? Or every typo? Hell, Joe Posnanski has about a half-dozen typos in every article on his blog.
They're trying to ride Grantland's coat-tails to some extra page views.
They're also probably a bit peeved that he stole Katie Baker from them. As they should be -- she's an excellent writer, so much so that I enjoy her work even though most of the topics she writes about wouldn't normally pique my interest.
This is really nitpicky, but when he rehashes the time frame thing on Jerry Maguire running back to Rene Zellweger after Tidwell's big game, he's claiming that late night flights from Phoenix to LA don't exist, and that it's a 150 minute flight. Maybe they cut out those flights recently, but I lived out there back in the '90s and early '00s, and Southwest used to have flights running back & forth from Phoenix to LA every hour (for $29 each way at times, and they had the same kind of deals for quick hops to Vegas). And it's not a 150 minute flight. More like 50 & change.
Still, a better than average effort on the mailbag schtick.
Still, a better than average effort on the mailbag schtick.
They fixed it and noted the correction. Good for them. I'll be looking for my fruit basket in the mail this week.
After a less than impressive stretch, Grantland came back in a big way for me with Jonah Keri's piece on FIP and other pitching metrics. It's a really nice primer for what FIP is in its simplest terms and what a good FIP should look like. It also works in some anecdotal evidence about how FIP would have helped stop some terrible contracts in the past, and goes over some of the overperformers this year. It's nothing new for most people here, but it works on a lot of levels, and is a really nice gateway into some more advanced stats for people who might not have had any interest in them before.
They still haven't fixed that Durant hits four straight threes in that vid, not five. That's basic counting, or perhaps Simmons penchant for embellishing stuff that's already awesome and doesn't need embellishing.
Grantland is trying to appeal to everyone on everything. They have a WTT review by Hua Hsu (excellent piece I thought) next to that opus by Keri next to a blog-y fake Brady Quinn thing next to an insider-y review of Planet of the Apes opening weekend.
This works for me as I just sift through and read what I like and have already found some authors I enjoy and some I don't. But I wonder if this really broad approach is a turn off for some readers? Whether they come across something like the WTT review and think the site is too grandiose or pretentious, and then come across the fake Quinn blog and think it's too low brow for "Grantland."
Just curious whether they would be better off just picking a tone and style and sticking with it (and I don't even know what I mean by better off, if the numbers and profit are good enough then I guess their approach is working? But it's probably too early to tell.)
This works for me as I just sift through and read what I like and have already found some authors I enjoy and some I don't. But I wonder if this really broad approach is a turn off for some readers? Whether they come across something like the WTT review and think the site is too grandiose or pretentious, and then come across the fake Quinn blog and think it's too low brow for "Grantland."
Just curious whether they would be better off just picking a tone and style and sticking with it (and I don't even know what I mean by better off, if the numbers and profit are good enough then I guess their approach is working? But it's probably too early to tell.)
Chris Jones does not do well in his email back and forth with Jonah Keri (whether it's "real" or not is beside the point).
Worse than all the flowery nonsense (I'm okay with a little flowery, but this is over the top) is that he just doesn't seem to get it. At all. Chris says, "Ack, stats take out the romance! My story about the contract ruining Zito is better!"
Keri says: "I'm not taking the romance out. I'm just saying you're wrong."
Jones says: "Ack, but oh how I love storytelling. You're making it so I can't!"
Keri says: "Not really. I'm saying you should tells stories that are true. The one you told is false. And I explained why."
Jones says: "Ack, it's really kind of like having faith in God. I can't explain why storytelling is better. It just is!"
Keri says: "No, seriously, I don't have a problem with great storytelling. I just have a problem with you making up a story just because you want that story to be true."
Jones says: "Ah, the longtime back and forth between science and art - it'll never end!"
Keri says: "You're just not very smart, dude."
I really don't see why stats vs. gut needs to be set up as a binary opposition. If you can use stats to help make a case, why wouldn't you? And if you had a long-time baseball guy weigh in with a gut feeling, why wouldn't you consider that, too? It's not one vs. the other, it's one in addition to the other. All the stats folks are arguing is: Why don't we use these stats, too?
Worse than all the flowery nonsense (I'm okay with a little flowery, but this is over the top) is that he just doesn't seem to get it. At all. Chris says, "Ack, stats take out the romance! My story about the contract ruining Zito is better!"
Keri says: "I'm not taking the romance out. I'm just saying you're wrong."
Jones says: "Ack, but oh how I love storytelling. You're making it so I can't!"
Keri says: "Not really. I'm saying you should tells stories that are true. The one you told is false. And I explained why."
Jones says: "Ack, it's really kind of like having faith in God. I can't explain why storytelling is better. It just is!"
Keri says: "No, seriously, I don't have a problem with great storytelling. I just have a problem with you making up a story just because you want that story to be true."
Jones says: "Ah, the longtime back and forth between science and art - it'll never end!"
Keri says: "You're just not very smart, dude."
I really don't see why stats vs. gut needs to be set up as a binary opposition. If you can use stats to help make a case, why wouldn't you? And if you had a long-time baseball guy weigh in with a gut feeling, why wouldn't you consider that, too? It's not one vs. the other, it's one in addition to the other. All the stats folks are arguing is: Why don't we use these stats, too?
I was going to post something along these lines. They ran the Keri piece on the same day that Jones analyzed Barry Zito, and the two stats he used the most were ERA and wins. Anyone who is into sabermetrics probably already knows Jonah's stuff, and his piece, while a good intro, was nothing new. But are people who don't get sabermetrics even going to read past the first paragraph?
Combined with the abrupt ends of many articles and the wide-reaching subjects and styles I just don't know what Grantland is trying to do. It really just seems like a bunch of writers cobbled together doing whatever they feel like. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you don't know what to expect going into a site I tend to not waste my time on it, and just read the stuff by the authors I already like. Is that what they want?
Klosterman saying what (I hope) everyone is thinking: http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/32345/louies-brilliant-second-season
The piece on the NYC stadiums was terrific, though part my appreciation may just be schadenfreude
Was coming here to post the same thing. If you don't watch Louie, then you're missing out.
And if you don't like the show, then you're a dimwit.
My girlfriends likes the show--and it's really not in her genre--and she has no idea why. She doesn't laugh during the show, gets uncomfortable fairly frequently, but when the shows over, she likes it. She might not be able to explain it, but she likes it. The show is fucking awesome.
It was very good, though I rolled my eyes at the platitudes to the guy who designed the new Soldier Field. I feel pretty confident in saying a lot of people in Chicago do not like what he did to the old stadium, and he's unequivocally wrong about baseball stadiums. Camden Yards, AT&T Park, PNC Park, etc. unashamedly embrace the past and are absolutely successes. The problem with some of the lesser new stadiums, and CitiField and Yankee Stadium definitely count among them, is usually a lack of focus and an embrace of gimmicks.
Just looking at CitiField and Yankee Stadium...there's so much going on in them visually. CitiField has an absurd number of levels, stands, notches in the field for a stadium built in a parking lot. Yankee Stadium looks like the 70s stadium grafted on top of the old one with a healthy dose of fuck you to the proletariat who sit in its top levels. How many other stadiums have bleachers that are actually segregated from the field? Both stadiums should have followed a simple consistent plan, architecturally, and toned down the efforts chasing hedge fund managers. Both teams - as well as the Giants/Jets - were absolutely fucking shameless, which in a country in dire economic straits is the height of tackiness.
Football has a little bit more leeway architecturally but I am wary of lionizing a stadium like the one in Phoenix. Yeah, it looks cool, but I still feel like it's a stadium built for money that doesn't seem terribly intimate (admittedly, I've never been there). One thing I love about old stadiums is the intimacy. Forget Fenway, even in a stadium like Candlestick, almost any seat in the upper deck is a great seat for football. I had a seat on the 40 yard line that would probably cost me a thousand bucks at the Meadowlands, if not more. I think delivering a strongly consistent stadium with an emphasis on good seats for all comes before any quibbles about design.
Personally, I felt Shea was the only one that had to go. I've never been to the Meadowlands but a lot of people have told me there was virtually nothing wrong with the old one.
Agreed, and I thought the writing was a little weak in spots too. "It's like you let [amateur] design it while on [a drug]" was a recurring trope that didn't play too well. RBA was an obvious omission - as well as the other new MLS parks (Livestrong, Dicks in Colorado, etc.). And finally, I think the writer never answered his own question - and that is that stadium design is based on economics. Middlebrow, pseudo-retro taste, at this moment in time in America, helps gets stadiums approved and built with taxpayer money. That's just not an issue in China, where nobody cares and the government and/or rich folks can railroad stuff through.
Barnwell calls New England an offseason loser
Similar arguments can be made about pretty much everyone they brought in.
And if Barnwell had watched the first half of last night's game, he would have seen that Mark Anderson was bringing it off the edge.
We'll all know soon enough if the Pats offseason was a good one or not... and Barnwell may just be writing something negative since not many others are... but I think he's gonna look extremely foolish over the next few months.
While he makes one or two ok points, overall he is way off base here. There was a VERY explicable reason why they cut Ty Warren - they didn't think he was 100% committed after the last two offseasons. The Ellis thing is not like the Raiders at all - the Raiders would have given him a 5 year deal. The Pats are committed to Ellis for one year.
Similar arguments can be made about pretty much everyone they brought in.
And if Barnwell had watched the first half of last night's game, he would have seen that Mark Anderson was bringing it off the edge.
We'll all know soon enough if the Pats offseason was a good one or not... and Barnwell may just be writing something negative since not many others are... but I think he's gonna look extremely foolish over the next few months.
I agree with you that they are great places to watch ballgames, but I also understand why an architect would abhor the entire retro ballpark movement, including AT&T Park and PNC, as beautiful as they are. Architecture is art and great art should always look forward, not backwards.
New Yankee Stadium feels a lot like Celebration, Florida to me. You know you're in a real town with real residents, but it feels like a movie set. New Yankee Stadium feel like an elaborately staged baseball stadium. It looks like the old place (aside from the corporate bombardment) but has no soul.
The old Meadowlands was functional, they just wanted to get PSL money, corporate money and luxury suite money. The design is perfectly alligned with those goals.
Well, depends on the architect, no? I'm no expert on modern architecture, but Robert A.M. Stern and other post modernists of his ilk are probably pretty cool with retro parks.
I can see why some people don't like them, but they're probably the same kind of people who defend brutalism.
I'm just a little annoyed by Peter Richmond's headline. He's lamenting that the 3 stadiums in New York mean that "Americans can't build arenas anymore" in Big type, but then buried in the article he mentions his fondness for University of Phoenix Stadium. So, either Americans can't build stadiums post-2006, or Arizona doesn't count as America (ok, I might give him that one). I'm not one to dump on NYC, other than its sports franchises I am in fact quite fond of the city. But this "well my NY ____ sucks so all of America's ____ sucks" attitude is just putrid.
He has a point, and it is not merely limited to the new piles in NY, that there are some really bad stadiums/arenas in the US. TD Garden looks terrible from the outside, for example. But there are some quite impressive, modern structures as well. I may not personally like it, but I gotta give credit to Cowboys stadium as a feat of modern engineering and architecture.
He has a point, and it is not merely limited to the new piles in NY, that there are some really bad stadiums/arenas in the US. TD Garden looks terrible from the outside, for example. But there are some quite impressive, modern structures as well. I may not personally like it, but I gotta give credit to Cowboys stadium as a feat of modern engineering and architecture.
He also mentions the Soldier Field renovation of 2003 as an architectural feat, which I'm inclined to agree with. The article ought to be a critique of the ubiquity of Populus and their cookie-cutter designs.
I thought that the piece on Jani Lane was really good too. It made me feel bad about making fun of him after he died.
I'm really impressed with Jonah Keri. Not only is he informative, but I think he's the best pure writer on the site. He does a great job of using advanced metrics, explaining them, but not beating you over the head with them or making you feel benighted for not comprehending or crediting them.
This blog post was linked to on deadspin. I pretty much agree with most of what Joiner says (except for the part about Jonah Keri who I think is great.)
http://bryanjoiner.com/2011/08/17/garbageland/
http://bryanjoiner.com/2011/08/17/garbageland/
I disagreed with all of this. I think Grantland is starting to do a nice job balancing "timeless" features with the more timely blogs.
Lambert (like Carles) has struggled to find her voice at Grantland, but this guy's inescapable conclusion is basically just sexism. The same criticism of Lambert can be directed at Carles. Which editor had the crush on him?
The thing that annoys me most about Grantland is that I'm just not able to keep up. To me, that is a good thing.
Which has made this thread so great - I actually wish they had instilled a "like" option or something. I understand people will like different writers for different reasons, but even here - when someone says an article is good... 95% of the time I agree.
I evened enjoyed Carles Spotify post... and I've had a hard time with Carles to date.
Thoughts on "The Reducer"? I'm excited...outside of Everton, I really have a hard time following the rest of the league as well as I'd like. I try to read as much as possible from other sources, but I'm glad they will be doing that.
Which has made this thread so great - I actually wish they had instilled a "like" option or something. I understand people will like different writers for different reasons, but even here - when someone says an article is good... 95% of the time I agree.
I evened enjoyed Carles Spotify post... and I've had a hard time with Carles to date.
Thoughts on "The Reducer"? I'm excited...outside of Everton, I really have a hard time following the rest of the league as well as I'd like. I try to read as much as possible from other sources, but I'm glad they will be doing that.
Agreed. He also does a nice job on his podcast, although that damn theme song will have "Oh Sherry" in your head all day:
Jonah Keri is on the line, hold on, hollllllllld on!
So that guy doesn't like Keri, didn't like Whitehead's poker pieces, and doesn't like Klosterman writing about music. Those are some of the high points of the site for me, so I 100% agree, he should definitely not be reading Grantland.
Not surprised Deadspin linked to this. They are getting a little sad with their Grantland obsession.
Edit: "Fixing Grantland would be so, so easy. Bill Simmons needs to be fired or step aside." He should be fired from the site he created, that has his vision, two months into the site's existence? That is taking Simmons hate to a new level.
Loved the Sabonis article. I don't think any player's had the type of skills he had. He could hang out on the perimeter but he could also kick your ass in the paint.
The Micheal Ray Richardson article was quite good also. Bill's mailbags kind of stick out like a sophomoric sore thumb among some talented folks who clearly are breaking a sweat.
Yeah, seconding the Sabonis/Richardson pieces both being good reads. I'm also appreciating the Reducer--I suspect I am precisely the intended audience for it, being a guy who likes Premier League in the abstract, but who is really bad about keeping up with it on the day to day. And yes, nearly everything Klosterman, and most of what Jonah Keri and Katie Baker, have produced has been very well done.
The truth is, for all the hate Deadspin directs at Grantland, thus far I'd say Grantland has a higher batting average on pieces I enjoy than Deadspin has had in years.
The truth is, for all the hate Deadspin directs at Grantland, thus far I'd say Grantland has a higher batting average on pieces I enjoy than Deadspin has had in years.
Bill touted his mega photo essay today on twitter. Clicked the link to find a 16 PART PIECE?!?!?!? Immediately navigated away. It's too bad Simmons never got to work with a real editor in his early years.
You can click "full" at the bottom so it's not in 16 pieces. It's so large because the photos take up so much space. It only took me about 10 minutes to read, if that.