Joe Posnanski: Lord of Lists
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
You know, for all the constant bitching that we as sports fans do on the whole "How the hell (insert Steve Philips, Cafardo, et. al) continue to be employed at a high level...let's give it up to S.I. for recognizing JoePo for what he is...the Best in the Business...
QUOTE (PC Drunken Friar @ Jun 3 2010, 06:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3003306
let's give it up to S.I. for recognizing JoePo for what he is...the Best in the Business...
On the flip side, they still employ Jon Heyman.
let's give it up to S.I. for recognizing JoePo for what he is...the Best in the Business...
On the flip side, they still employ Jon Heyman.
What amazes me most about Joe's writing is that more than anyone, he captures the spirituality of baseball! Thanks to SocrManiac for putting in that link.
Damn he is good. Its a shame more people don't really know about Joe Pos. Like most of the middlebrow sports fans who might actually get what he writes but are too lazy to seek his stuff out.
QUOTE (DeJesus Built My Hotrod @ Jun 3 2010, 10:37 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3004023
Its a shame more people don't really know about Joe Pos. Like most of the middlebrow sports fans who might actually get what he writes but are too lazy to seek his stuff out.
Is this really still the case? He writes the lead piece in the print version of SI a good chunk of the time now.
Its a shame more people don't really know about Joe Pos. Like most of the middlebrow sports fans who might actually get what he writes but are too lazy to seek his stuff out.
Is this really still the case? He writes the lead piece in the print version of SI a good chunk of the time now.
It's amazing that Joe Pos has only 13,000 Twitter followers. Go fix that: http://www.twitter.com/jposnanski
ps - live Twitter chat with Joe going on now
ps - live Twitter chat with Joe going on now
QUOTE (SocrManiac @ Jun 3 2010, 11:48 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3002090
Joe's piece today made me feel a little better about the imperfect game. A little.
Link
Not a lot.
Wow, that was great. I don't get to read him enough so I appreciate that you linked the article.
Joe's piece today made me feel a little better about the imperfect game. A little.
Link
Not a lot.
Wow, that was great. I don't get to read him enough so I appreciate that you linked the article.
Catching up on some Joey Poz today. Came across his article, Nicest Guys in Baseball
Decent article, not a ton of surprises. However, something in the comment section caught my eye.
Check out comment #44.
Who here is the culprit?
Decent article, not a ton of surprises. However, something in the comment section caught my eye.
Check out comment #44.
Who here is the culprit?
Yet another great observation by Posnanski, this time in his blog entry from Wednesday.
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/06/16/the-...moneyball-died/
Joe happened to come across a story that was praising A's 1st baseman, Daric Barton, for finally realizing his potential, as evidence by his new-found ability to advance the runner:
".... Daric Barton, the team's first baseman, is leading the league in sacrifice bunts? For the Oakland A's? And he's doing it by moving runners from SECOND TO THIRD with NOBODY OUT? And EVERYBODY IS HAPPY ABOUT IT? (That's Barty," hitting coach Jim Skaalen said. "Team first, a professional in all areas"). What in the hell is going on over there in the Bay Area?Apparently, Barton has been sacrifice bunting on his own… nobody is asking him to do it. Nobody, not even the craziest bunting manager on earth, would ask him to bunt in the situations in which he's been bunting:
April 11: Sacrifice bunted in the first inning to move runner from second to third with nobody out…. Later, in the eighth, did exactly the same thing, bunting runner over to third with nobody out.
April 17: Fifth inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
April 30: First inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
May 15: First inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
May 23: Eighth inning, bunted runner from first to second with A's up 1-0.
May 25: First inning, bunted runner from first to second with nobody out.
May 28: First inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
June 11: First inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
Holy $#@$!%. Somebody tell that man to stop doing that immediately. Holy #@!$#@$. Seven of his league-leading nine sacrifice bunts were, just as he said, bunting a runner from second to third with nobody out. This isn't just a waste of an out, it's crumpling an out, stomping on it with disdain, and then purposely not putting it into the recycle bin. Why would you do this? There's no double play in order. A single might score the run. According to the Baseball Prospectus Run Matrix, bunting a runner from second to third reduces a team's run expectation level from 1.09 runs to .93 runs."
What a great take. This is great stuff by a writer who gets it, and who uses the "new" stats to revisit old debates. Why is Joe Pos the exception and not the rule? Someone take this article and rub Nick Cafardo's nose in it. Please.
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/06/16/the-...moneyball-died/
Joe happened to come across a story that was praising A's 1st baseman, Daric Barton, for finally realizing his potential, as evidence by his new-found ability to advance the runner:
".... Daric Barton, the team's first baseman, is leading the league in sacrifice bunts? For the Oakland A's? And he's doing it by moving runners from SECOND TO THIRD with NOBODY OUT? And EVERYBODY IS HAPPY ABOUT IT? (That's Barty," hitting coach Jim Skaalen said. "Team first, a professional in all areas"). What in the hell is going on over there in the Bay Area?Apparently, Barton has been sacrifice bunting on his own… nobody is asking him to do it. Nobody, not even the craziest bunting manager on earth, would ask him to bunt in the situations in which he's been bunting:
April 11: Sacrifice bunted in the first inning to move runner from second to third with nobody out…. Later, in the eighth, did exactly the same thing, bunting runner over to third with nobody out.
April 17: Fifth inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
April 30: First inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
May 15: First inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
May 23: Eighth inning, bunted runner from first to second with A's up 1-0.
May 25: First inning, bunted runner from first to second with nobody out.
May 28: First inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
June 11: First inning, bunted runner from second to third with nobody out.
Holy $#@$!%. Somebody tell that man to stop doing that immediately. Holy #@!$#@$. Seven of his league-leading nine sacrifice bunts were, just as he said, bunting a runner from second to third with nobody out. This isn't just a waste of an out, it's crumpling an out, stomping on it with disdain, and then purposely not putting it into the recycle bin. Why would you do this? There's no double play in order. A single might score the run. According to the Baseball Prospectus Run Matrix, bunting a runner from second to third reduces a team's run expectation level from 1.09 runs to .93 runs."
What a great take. This is great stuff by a writer who gets it, and who uses the "new" stats to revisit old debates. Why is Joe Pos the exception and not the rule? Someone take this article and rub Nick Cafardo's nose in it. Please.
Darnell McDonald bunted Daniel Nava to third with no out in the 5th inning yesterday. I'm going to check the game thread to see if anyone commented
QUOTE (Lose Remerswaal @ Jun 18 2010, 12:15 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3032618
Darnell McDonald bunted Daniel Nava to third with no out in the 5th inning yesterday. I'm going to check the game thread to see if anyone commented
Darnell's a #9 hitter, a great bunter, and has plus speed. Barton bats #2, has a .390 OBP, and has all of 3 career stolen bases.
Darnell McDonald bunted Daniel Nava to third with no out in the 5th inning yesterday. I'm going to check the game thread to see if anyone commented
Darnell's a #9 hitter, a great bunter, and has plus speed. Barton bats #2, has a .390 OBP, and has all of 3 career stolen bases.
QUOTE (Rudi Fingers @ Jun 18 2010, 12:59 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3032693
Darnell's a #9 hitter, a great bunter, and has plus speed. Barton bats #2, has a .390 OBP, and has all of 3 career stolen bases.
That's not a defense.
There is no justification for bunting in that situation last night. None. That Scutaro lined one into the left field corner three pitches later just underlines the uselessness of the bunt.
Darnell's a #9 hitter, a great bunter, and has plus speed. Barton bats #2, has a .390 OBP, and has all of 3 career stolen bases.
That's not a defense.
There is no justification for bunting in that situation last night. None. That Scutaro lined one into the left field corner three pitches later just underlines the uselessness of the bunt.
QUOTE (Red(s)HawksFan @ Jun 18 2010, 01:05 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3032706
That's not a defense.
There is no justification for bunting in that situation last night. None. That Scutaro lined one into the left field corner three pitches later just underlines the uselessness of the bunt.
Maybe the only defense is that with Tim Bogar as 3rd base coach, you want to minimize any send/hold decisions on the runner from 2nd on a hit of any kind.
That's not a defense.
There is no justification for bunting in that situation last night. None. That Scutaro lined one into the left field corner three pitches later just underlines the uselessness of the bunt.
Maybe the only defense is that with Tim Bogar as 3rd base coach, you want to minimize any send/hold decisions on the runner from 2nd on a hit of any kind.
QUOTE (Red(s)HawksFan @ Jun 18 2010, 01:05 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3032706
That's not a defense.
There is no justification for bunting in that situation last night. None. That Scutaro lined one into the left field corner three pitches later just underlines the uselessness of the bunt.
The score and the inning are also important considerations - the higher the marginal value of the first potential run, the more defensible the bunt becomes.
That's not a defense.
There is no justification for bunting in that situation last night. None. That Scutaro lined one into the left field corner three pitches later just underlines the uselessness of the bunt.
The score and the inning are also important considerations - the higher the marginal value of the first potential run, the more defensible the bunt becomes.
QUOTE (Bellhorn @ Jun 18 2010, 01:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3032734
The score and the inning are also important considerations - the higher the marginal value of the first potential run, the more defensible the bunt becomes.
5th inning, down by one. Neither make it any more defensible.
Sac bunting, especially moving a runner from second to third with no outs, should be reserved for the late innings only. I'd even go so far as to say only in the bottom of the final inning where the runner at 2nd represents the walk-off winning run would the bunt be justified...if the pitcher's at the plate.
The score and the inning are also important considerations - the higher the marginal value of the first potential run, the more defensible the bunt becomes.
5th inning, down by one. Neither make it any more defensible.
Sac bunting, especially moving a runner from second to third with no outs, should be reserved for the late innings only. I'd even go so far as to say only in the bottom of the final inning where the runner at 2nd represents the walk-off winning run would the bunt be justified...if the pitcher's at the plate.
QUOTE (Red(s)HawksFan @ Jun 18 2010, 01:58 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3032789
5th inning, down by one. Neither make it any more defensible.
Sac bunting, especially moving a runner from second to third with no outs, should be reserved for the late innings only. I'd even go so far as to say only in the bottom of the final inning where the runner at 2nd represents the walk-off winning run would the bunt be justified...if the pitcher's at the plate.
Doesn't that situation make it a little less (in)un-defensible? Particularly when you consider how Tito uses his pen in radically different ways depending upon the leverage of the situation, as early as the 6th inning. Down a run in the 6th, at home, Francona is far more reluctant to use his "A team," and far more likely to let his B relievers hang around if the Sox are down a run. It was odd, that last night with a 6-4 lead, Tito went with Richardson in the 7th to protect a 6-4 lead, (trying to get one out with lefty-lefty matchup vs Drew), but if the Sox had been down 4-3, the chances were much higher that Richardson would have been left in, even after the leadoff hit by Drew. Tito concedes a lot of these games, (which may be entirely correct when it comes to managing a bullpen over the course of a 162 game season.)
5th inning, down by one. Neither make it any more defensible.
Sac bunting, especially moving a runner from second to third with no outs, should be reserved for the late innings only. I'd even go so far as to say only in the bottom of the final inning where the runner at 2nd represents the walk-off winning run would the bunt be justified...if the pitcher's at the plate.
Doesn't that situation make it a little less (in)un-defensible? Particularly when you consider how Tito uses his pen in radically different ways depending upon the leverage of the situation, as early as the 6th inning. Down a run in the 6th, at home, Francona is far more reluctant to use his "A team," and far more likely to let his B relievers hang around if the Sox are down a run. It was odd, that last night with a 6-4 lead, Tito went with Richardson in the 7th to protect a 6-4 lead, (trying to get one out with lefty-lefty matchup vs Drew), but if the Sox had been down 4-3, the chances were much higher that Richardson would have been left in, even after the leadoff hit by Drew. Tito concedes a lot of these games, (which may be entirely correct when it comes to managing a bullpen over the course of a 162 game season.)
QUOTE (Red(s)HawksFan @ Jun 18 2010, 01:58 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3032789
5th inning, down by one. Neither make it any more defensible.
Well, it makes it more defensible than it would have been in the 1st inning with the score tied. Or the 8th inning down by 3. My point was that it's a very important variable to be considered in evaluating a bunt decision, and that Posnanski is slightly remiss in not including this in his list of Barton's attempts. (I still agree with his point re Barton, and appreciate the fact that he has taken an intelligent look at this issue.)
QUOTE
Sac bunting, especially moving a runner from second to third with no outs, should be reserved for the late innings only. I'd even go so far as to say only in the bottom of the final inning where the runner at 2nd represents the walk-off winning run would the bunt be justified...if the pitcher's at the plate.
This is much too simplistic. You haven't really provided much of a thought process to support your opinion, so I don't really know how to go about convincing you of this. Try doing some thought experiments with various game situations and various discrepancies of hitter strength, and you'll see that a straight trade of an out for a one-base advance breaks even considerably more often than you suggest. In addition, there's a considerable hidden benefit of keeping the defense honest by occasionally bunting even when such a base/out trade would not be desirable, as detailed in The Book.
5th inning, down by one. Neither make it any more defensible.
Well, it makes it more defensible than it would have been in the 1st inning with the score tied. Or the 8th inning down by 3. My point was that it's a very important variable to be considered in evaluating a bunt decision, and that Posnanski is slightly remiss in not including this in his list of Barton's attempts. (I still agree with his point re Barton, and appreciate the fact that he has taken an intelligent look at this issue.)
QUOTE
Sac bunting, especially moving a runner from second to third with no outs, should be reserved for the late innings only. I'd even go so far as to say only in the bottom of the final inning where the runner at 2nd represents the walk-off winning run would the bunt be justified...if the pitcher's at the plate.
This is much too simplistic. You haven't really provided much of a thought process to support your opinion, so I don't really know how to go about convincing you of this. Try doing some thought experiments with various game situations and various discrepancies of hitter strength, and you'll see that a straight trade of an out for a one-base advance breaks even considerably more often than you suggest. In addition, there's a considerable hidden benefit of keeping the defense honest by occasionally bunting even when such a base/out trade would not be desirable, as detailed in The Book.
Joe has a wonderful piece on the tennis match -- a tribute to "human stubbornness" here
QUOTE
Every so often in sports — and in life, for that matter — we get a glimpse at the power of human stubbornness. People climb Everest and swim across channels and run across continents. Walt Disney mortgaged his house and spent more than three years making “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” when even his wife was supposedly trying to talk him out of it. It is said that Michelangelo complained ceaselessly during the four years or so it took him to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel … but he still finished the thing. Bruce Springsteen spent 14 painful months recording and producing “Born To Run,” and then believed it to be so terrible that he pleaded with the record company not to release it when it was finished.
These, of course, are the success stories. There are plenty of others, many more remarkable. But, of course, for every success story there are a thousand noble failures, ten thousand extraordinary efforts that fell short, a million hopeless and fruitless lunges for something forever beyond out reach. These are the people who fascinate me beyond words, the people who keep fighting and fighting for something that will never happen.
… and I woke up jet-lagged and thinking about Nicholas Mahut.
QUOTE
Every so often in sports — and in life, for that matter — we get a glimpse at the power of human stubbornness. People climb Everest and swim across channels and run across continents. Walt Disney mortgaged his house and spent more than three years making “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” when even his wife was supposedly trying to talk him out of it. It is said that Michelangelo complained ceaselessly during the four years or so it took him to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel … but he still finished the thing. Bruce Springsteen spent 14 painful months recording and producing “Born To Run,” and then believed it to be so terrible that he pleaded with the record company not to release it when it was finished.
These, of course, are the success stories. There are plenty of others, many more remarkable. But, of course, for every success story there are a thousand noble failures, ten thousand extraordinary efforts that fell short, a million hopeless and fruitless lunges for something forever beyond out reach. These are the people who fascinate me beyond words, the people who keep fighting and fighting for something that will never happen.
… and I woke up jet-lagged and thinking about Nicholas Mahut.
I guess we're quicker to point out and debate things that suck more than things that are awesome, but Joe's take Steinbrenner is a beautiful work.
Joe's work during the World Cup was exemplary – I had at best a passing interest in the tournament, and yet I still went to his website after every major match eager to see what he had to say.
In addition to writing a dozen soccer columns during the WC, he penned six baseball columns, three LeBron columns and a few other pieces. His output puts a certain ESPN columnist to shame.
In addition to writing a dozen soccer columns during the WC, he penned six baseball columns, three LeBron columns and a few other pieces. His output puts a certain ESPN columnist to shame.
QUOTE (JimD @ Jul 14 2010, 01:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3074438
In addition to writing a dozen soccer columns during the WC, he penned six baseball columns, three LeBron columns and a few other pieces. His output puts a certain ESPN columnist to shame.
*nodding sadly*
In addition to writing a dozen soccer columns during the WC, he penned six baseball columns, three LeBron columns and a few other pieces. His output puts a certain ESPN columnist to shame.
*nodding sadly*
QUOTE (JimD @ Jul 14 2010, 01:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3074438
Joe's work during the World Cup was exemplary – I had at best a passing interest in the tournament, and yet I still went to his website after every major match eager to see what he had to say.
In addition to writing a dozen soccer columns during the WC, he penned six baseball columns, three LeBron columns and a few other pieces. His output puts a certain ESPN columnist to shame.
Don't get me wrong, I love Posnanski's work - I think he's the best sports writer out there right now. But reading his stuff on soccer, he really displays his ignorance of the sport and most of the stuff I found to be somewhat painful to read given his usual level of quality. His final WC column, The Glory of Spain, was a notable exception though.
Joe's work during the World Cup was exemplary – I had at best a passing interest in the tournament, and yet I still went to his website after every major match eager to see what he had to say.
In addition to writing a dozen soccer columns during the WC, he penned six baseball columns, three LeBron columns and a few other pieces. His output puts a certain ESPN columnist to shame.
Don't get me wrong, I love Posnanski's work - I think he's the best sports writer out there right now. But reading his stuff on soccer, he really displays his ignorance of the sport and most of the stuff I found to be somewhat painful to read given his usual level of quality. His final WC column, The Glory of Spain, was a notable exception though.
I'm not much of a soccer fan, so I couldn't tell - I will say as a casual fan, I really enjoyed those columns.
Another great effort from Joe P., this time on the Mitch Albom winning the Red Smith Award controversy. Lot of different articles from good writers on the topic but Joe takes a very honest perspective on a guy he doesn't like at all:
http://joeposnanski....e-atomic-albom/
http://joeposnanski....e-atomic-albom/
Albom must be a colossal douche for high-level peers to light him up like that. His ethical lapse was enormous, but these guys are publicly lynching him. Even Poz keeps reminding you that he agrees with everyone else, first and foremost.
Joe Pos, on The Hall of Fame
I love Joe's take on the Hall of Fame and the comparisons of who got in and who should have gotten in. The money shot comment.
I love Joe's take on the Hall of Fame and the comparisons of who got in and who should have gotten in. The money shot comment.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Posnanski on Cleveland post-Lebron
poignant, but not his best work. The Chagrin conceit didn't really work for me, seemed a little forced by the 10th reference.
poignant, but not his best work. The Chagrin conceit didn't really work for me, seemed a little forced by the 10th reference.
I agree on the Chagrin story, the one put up today on Rafer Johnson is probably Joe at his best though. I never saw him compete and don't particularly care for Track and Field but I was riveted.
Recent essays on Stan Musial and signs of life in Kansas City Royals prospects were pretty great.
I've always had a thing for Stan Musial, who was the favorite player of my father, and it's really crazy how much he's under-rated in general. (My grandfather's favorite was George Sisler, but he became a Cardinals fan also, and printed tickets for the Cardinals in the 20s and 30s.) And I kind of took an interest in the Royals from the 1980s because they were rivals of the Yankees, had George Brett (who I loved as a player), and had Bill James writing about them so often. Posnansky really expresses so well what it must be like to be a Royals fan these days. I can't imagine watching guys like Guillen, Podsednik and Farnsworth cycling through.
This guy is a really great writer. Sports Illustrated seems to having a little renaissance, it seems to me, because Verducci and a few others are pretty good as well, if not Posnansky-class writers.
I've always had a thing for Stan Musial, who was the favorite player of my father, and it's really crazy how much he's under-rated in general. (My grandfather's favorite was George Sisler, but he became a Cardinals fan also, and printed tickets for the Cardinals in the 20s and 30s.) And I kind of took an interest in the Royals from the 1980s because they were rivals of the Yankees, had George Brett (who I loved as a player), and had Bill James writing about them so often. Posnansky really expresses so well what it must be like to be a Royals fan these days. I can't imagine watching guys like Guillen, Podsednik and Farnsworth cycling through.
This guy is a really great writer. Sports Illustrated seems to having a little renaissance, it seems to me, because Verducci and a few others are pretty good as well, if not Posnansky-class writers.
I want to bump this thread partially because "Our Errors" is frequently a justified bitchfest. If Simmons et al demonstrate anything, it's that sportswriters do burn out, and, like athletes, often hang on after their bats can no longer catch up and all that's left is a bitter cursing or an indifferent shrug. And, being modern Americans, we tend to salivate over the fall as much as we cheer the rise. I want to bump this thread mostly because, as usual, Posnanski gives reason to cheer.
We can''t know how long Joe Pos will keep hitting to all fields, but it's a joy to watch:
Jeter vs. Rivera
We can''t know how long Joe Pos will keep hitting to all fields, but it's a joy to watch:
Jeter vs. Rivera
What an amazing article. Think about what Joe Pos did there...he got (at least some of) his readers, most of whom are not Yankee fans, invested in an argument about who is the most important Yankee since 1996. And he succeeded with flying pin-striped colors.
I voted Mo btw but Joe makes a great case...
I voted Mo btw but Joe makes a great case...
It's ironic that the case for Mo is built on his intangibles while the tangible counting stats clearly favor Capt. Intangibles.
Josh Hamilton
He has a new one on Josh Hamilton. However, the interesting part is how he uses it to talk about advanced statistics and a bunch of stuff.
He has a new one on Josh Hamilton. However, the interesting part is how he uses it to talk about advanced statistics and a bunch of stuff.
Just read the article and came here to bump this thread if no one had. Should have known I'd be late to the party. Joe Pos keeps amazing me; he's not just my favorite sports writers -- he's one of my favorite living journalists in any media.
It's a tough case, but I think I have to take Mo because of the legendary unpredictability of relief pitching performance. Closers just don't dominate like he has, for as long as he as, and as consistently as he has. They don't. No amount of money or front-office savvy can guarantee that. Even Joe Torre couldn't kill his arm.
Just doing the obligatory JoPo bump, because he's the bee's knees.
Here's a nice reminder to all of us mourning Sox fans that things could be way, way worse. I like it when Posnanski writes about the Royals because he seems to turn off his analytical register and allow the fan out for awhile. The simple fact that a man who consumes so much sports still has this palpable a fandom is pretty dope.
Here's a more traditional Posnanski post, which was previously linked in the Ichiro HOF thread. Posnanski brings his rare brand of silent thunder- combining insightful analyses, accessible use of statistics, effortless prose, and an obvious yet fresh angle (about Ichiro and Ryan's simultaneously inflated and deserved value).
Here's a nice reminder to all of us mourning Sox fans that things could be way, way worse. I like it when Posnanski writes about the Royals because he seems to turn off his analytical register and allow the fan out for awhile. The simple fact that a man who consumes so much sports still has this palpable a fandom is pretty dope.
Here's a more traditional Posnanski post, which was previously linked in the Ichiro HOF thread. Posnanski brings his rare brand of silent thunder- combining insightful analyses, accessible use of statistics, effortless prose, and an obvious yet fresh angle (about Ichiro and Ryan's simultaneously inflated and deserved value).
That was indeed fun.
I would put Verne's "yes sir!" on Nicklaus' putt at the Masters ahead of his call on Tiger's chip at the Masters, but that's just my 2 cents.
I learned that Joe Buck's "We'll see you later tonight!" in 2004 was a riff off of his dad's "We'll see you tomorrow night!" from 1991. I didn't know about the 1991 call. Nice moment for Joe to honor his dad, in a way, but it mars what I thought was the spontaneity of the 2004 call.
Loved the list - I would've liked to have seen Ian Darke's call of Donovan's goal somewhere on there (near the bottom would've been fine) but I recognize that there's some bias in that. Still...
"Dempsey, denied again - and Donovan has scored! Oh, can you believe this!? Goal, goal USA! Suddenly through! Oh, it's incredible! You could not write a script like this!" So good. He's completely in sync with the action and his emotion is pitch perfect with the way Americans were feeling, regardless of the fact that he's English and the goal suddenly made England's path much more difficult. Only downside is when he gives Harkes a chance to comment on it a few moments later and he can't get any words out, so Darke has to summarize what just happened (and does a great job, of course).
"Dempsey, denied again - and Donovan has scored! Oh, can you believe this!? Goal, goal USA! Suddenly through! Oh, it's incredible! You could not write a script like this!" So good. He's completely in sync with the action and his emotion is pitch perfect with the way Americans were feeling, regardless of the fact that he's English and the goal suddenly made England's path much more difficult. Only downside is when he gives Harkes a chance to comment on it a few moments later and he can't get any words out, so Darke has to summarize what just happened (and does a great job, of course).
Wow, just wow. That's right up there with Kid Bids Hub Adieu.
This sentence from the column could apply to the writer also:
This sentence from the column could apply to the writer also:
What's amazing to me is that I've been reading Poz's blog long enough that the Lee post didn't even register with me as a particularly great piece by his standards. He cranks out posts of this quality all the time.
He's playing in a different league than everybody else who writes about sports for a living.
He's playing in a different league than everybody else who writes about sports for a living.
I had to cut a hole in my monitor so I could make love to this
Ya know, I was lucky enough to be exposed relatively early on to Pos before he was a national writer due to going to college in Missouri. The link he threw up going back to a 2003 column about Tony Pena got me thinking about how his run of sustained excellence goes back longer than I consciously recognized. Sportswriters, like comedians, have a limited shelf life - there's too much "back in my day" built into sports for writers to stay cutting-edge forever. When I think about sportswriters who I have considered "must-read" in my life, Pos has held that status longer than any of them.
There's always a lot of talk in here about Pos being the best in the biz right now. To wit I reply, it's time to wonder if that isn't going far enough.
Joe Posnanski - best of all time?
Ya know, I was lucky enough to be exposed relatively early on to Pos before he was a national writer due to going to college in Missouri. The link he threw up going back to a 2003 column about Tony Pena got me thinking about how his run of sustained excellence goes back longer than I consciously recognized. Sportswriters, like comedians, have a limited shelf life - there's too much "back in my day" built into sports for writers to stay cutting-edge forever. When I think about sportswriters who I have considered "must-read" in my life, Pos has held that status longer than any of them.
There's always a lot of talk in here about Pos being the best in the biz right now. To wit I reply, it's time to wonder if that isn't going far enough.
Joe Posnanski - best of all time?
I dunno about that, but I would certainly be OK calling him sportswriting's Pedro Martinez as of now. He might not have the long track record (though he still certainly could do it), but for when he's been writing, I can't think of anyone even close.