Grantland

[gmogmo]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6669046/father-day

"I was at the Final Four in Seattle when Tyus Edney of UCLA raced the length of the court, dribbling behind his back to bank a shot that beat Missouri by a point."

Ouch Jimmy...that moment certainly wasn't at the Final 4. I believe it was in the 2nd round of the tourney, and I was watching it in a decrepit hotel in Panama City, Florida on spring break.

 

[InstantKarmma]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6669046/father-day

"I was at the Final Four in Seattle when Tyus Edney of UCLA raced the length of the court, dribbling behind his back to bank a shot that beat Missouri by a point."

Ouch Jimmy...that moment certainly wasn't at the Final 4. I believe it was in the 2nd round of the tourney, and I was watching it in a decrepit hotel in Panama City, Florida on spring break.

Looks like it's been edited.

I was at the March Madness game in Boise when Tyus Edney of UCLA raced the length of the court, dribbling behind his back to bank a shot that beat Missouri by a point.

 

[JimBoSox9]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6669046/father-day

"I was at the Final Four in Seattle when Tyus Edney of UCLA raced the length of the court, dribbling behind his back to bank a shot that beat Missouri by a point."

Ouch Jimmy...that moment certainly wasn't at the Final 4. I believe it was in the 2nd round of the tourney, and I was watching it in a decrepit hotel in Panama City, Florida on spring break.

Way to rub it in, Bill. Mizzou has never made the Final Four.

 

[Toe Nash]

Looks like it's been edited.

I don't understand why they don't edit these pieces before putting them up. Besides Simmons confusing game 6 with game 7, he also said that Bourque won the Cup with Colorado in 1999 (it was 2001). They were fixed maybe an hour later (which is one of the beautiful things about the Web) but it would look way more professional if they actually fact-checked before putting an article up....it's not like they're that time-sensitive.

 

[Shelterdog]

I don't understand why they don't edit these pieces before putting them up. Besides Simmons confusing game 6 with game 7, he also said that Bourque won the Cup with Colorado in 1999 (it was 2001). They were fixed maybe an hour later (which is one of the beautiful things about the Web) but it would look way more professional if they actually fact-checked before putting an article up....it's not like they're that time-sensitive.

Careful editing and fact checking takes time and editors (which costs money). It's clearly not a priority.

 

[JimD]

Our IT department has classified Grantland as 'Social Networking' and blocked it.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

A couple interesting things about that Black and Gold article Simmons posted, which I definitely enjoyed:

1. Notable correction not only in that footnote, but also at the bottom of the page in italics, something Simmons has never done with corrections. This is a marked improvement and seems to indicate, like everything else about the new site, that there's a new editorial rigor being put forward. That's very encouraging.

2. Simmons uses the word "fucking" - "and yet, that fucking goalie is still staring at you, the weak link, the fresh fish, the one you know you can't trust." To my recollection, this has never happened before on ESPN. Can anyone remember the f word in one of his columns? Again, this seems to indicate a specific editorial decision to me, like he was trying the word on for size here, especially since I'm sure some of the other writers would chafe considerably at not being able to swear profusely (Ken Tremendous, I'm looking at you).

I don't think Simmons has ever shown a particular editorial vision before, so I would think that these kinds of decisions and thought processes are new to him, and I wonder what role Dan Fierman is really playing there. Is he the "adult" brought in to make sure Simmons knows what he's doing big-picture-wise?

 

[LTF]

The lack of fact-checking is inexcusable, particularly since the information is just a point-click away. The copy editing has been iffy at times, as well. Lots of missing words, inconsistencies (i.e., "Presentation Cup" first time around, then later "presentation Cup"). That being said, I've really enjoyed the content thus far. The story on the Stanley Cup was tremendous: great narrative, well researched, the schmaltz kept to a minimum (in the players' quotes breaking up the sections). Just a tremendous piece overall -- and this is coming from someone who's not much of a hockey fan.

Edit: Regarding Simmons using a naughty word ... Several other Grantland articles have already featured curse words, including earlier pieces from Bill.

 

[Ray Culp]

The lack of fact-checking is inexcusable, particularly since the information is just a point-click away. The copy editing has been iffy at times, as well. Lots of missing words, inconsistencies (i.e., "Presentation Cup" first time around, then later "presentation Cup"). That being said, I've really enjoyed the content thus far. The story on the Stanley Cup was tremendous: great narrative, well researched, the schmaltz kept to a minimum (in the players' quotes breaking up the sections). Just a tremendous piece overall -- and this is coming from someone who's not much of a hockey fan.

Edit: Regarding Simmons using a naughty word ... Several other Grantland articles have already featured curse words, including earlier pieces from Bill.

He made a specific statement in his original Grantland piece that the language restrictions would be intentionally relaxed.

 

[SaveBooFerriss]

2. Simmons uses the word "fucking" - "and yet, that fucking goalie is still staring at you, the weak link, the fresh fish, the one you know you can't trust." To my recollection, this has never happened before on ESPN. Can anyone remember the f word in one of his columns? Again, this seems to indicate a specific editorial decision to me, like he was trying the word on for size here, especially since I'm sure some of the other writers would chafe considerably at not being able to swear profusely (Ken Tremendous, I'm looking at you).

It seems that profanity is allowed on Grantland, but not ESPN.com. Not sure who made that decision, but I am fine with it(I'm pro-profanity?).

 

[The Social Chair]

Andy Greenwald's Green Lantern vs the Space Chicken blog post made me laugh out loud.

 

[mascho]

Read this piece by Jane Leavy. Read it right now.

 

[JBill]

[quote name='Trlicek's Whip' timestamp='1308320674' post='3594918']
Question for you: does Instapapering articles from Grantland preserve the footnotes/sidenotes? I've been printing the longer pieces out and they don't include the footnotes in a printer friendly version.
[/quote]
Nope, it doesn't, the footnote numbers don't even show up. This seems like a glaring problem, especially as some of these longer pieces have already been linked to on longreads. Hope it gets fixed soon.

The Jane Leavy piece Grantland just put up is...wow.

 

[Gravistar]

Read this piece by Jane Leavy. Read it right now.

Thanks. I nearly broke down at the end...the best thing Grantland's published, bar none.

 

[Bdanahy14]

Read this piece by Jane Leavy. Read it right now.

Wow, that was... fantastic.

If this is truly going to be a combination of regular contributors producing the quality they have been so far - along with a open forum for articles like this... then it is going to be revolutionary.

 

[thrawnqq]

Camped at Little Bennett with the cub scouts last weekend. Very nice article. thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Foulkey Reese]

Thanks. I nearly broke down at the end...the best thing Grantland's published, bar none.

That was really, really good.

 

[page 2 protege]

Thanks. I nearly broke down at the end...the best thing Grantland's published, bar none.

You're a bigger man than I. While the cricket piece was magnificent and gave me a basic understanding of the sport and potential interest, which I would imagine is the intent; this article on Grantland....was the most authentic and pure piece I have read.

 

[nattysez]

ESPN's new ombudsman's take: http://es.pn/k9oKze

Pretty good analysis, though it ignores the fact/editing errors we all seem to find unsettling.

Anyone have a take on the visitor numbers cited?

"Most ESPN fans aren't going to spend the time and energy to sift through all of the offerings. But some will. On its opening day, King reported, the Grantland homepage generated 790,000 page views, with the site totaling more than 3.3 million.

Those numbers dropped slightly -- over the first week, the site averaged 1.8 million daily views. Roughly one-third of those come directly to the site, and the rest come from ESPN.com referrals."

 

[PBDWake]

On that Ombudsman review, they saw...

Grantland is crafted for the "too-school-for-cool" crowd, with a dream team of writers, including Bill Simmons (the site is his brainchild), Chuck Klosterman, Dave Eggers and Malcolm Gladwell.

Is that supposed to be some lame attempt at an intellectual joke? Or is it just ass backwards?

 

[TSC]

It appears someone forgot to pay the bill to renew the web domain, as www.grantland.com now goes to the Network Solutions domain registration page.

Whoops.

 

[Three10toLeft]

I guess it would be understandable if this was some small start up blog or whatever. But this is under the ESPN umbrella and they still forgot to pay for the domain name?

What the fuck

 

[Scoots McBoots]

Came up fine for me this morning. DNS issue, perhaps?

 

[Shelterdog]

Came up fine for me this morning. DNS issue, perhaps?

Nope, the site has been done all morning. BRAINFART.

 

[rmurph3]

Simmons tweeted site will be down for a few hours.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Jeremy Jacobs must've fallen behind on the payments.

 

[Spelunker]

It's interesting: this can happen sometimes when it's not registered through Network Solutions, but actually to a reseller of NS, and that reseller fails to pay their bill (even if the end customer has paid the reseller). That's sort of backed up by the name server for the record being Network Solutions' pend/kill list:

Name Server: NS1.PENDINGRENEWALDELETION.COM

That said, the DNS record seems to be some other company, an Indonesian IT company, going back to 2007. It almost seems like ESPN tried to buy the domain from that company, but didn't fully complete the process before taking the site live.

 

[AardsmaToZupcic]

Bussiness Insider picked up on it to.

 

[PBDWake]

As amused as I'd like to be by this, Business Insider quotes this message:

Go there right now (2:48 EST) and you'll find a note from a company called Network Solutions: " grantland.com expired on 06/13/2008 and is pending renewal or deletion."

You can see it in their screen cap. I'm gonna go ahead and give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not simply them forgetting to renew.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Is the site really still down? This is mind-blowing.

 

[tims4wins]

Working fine for me

 

[Shelterdog]

Is the site really still down? This is mind-blowing.

grantland.com is down. you can access most of it through http://espn.go.com/espn/grantland/

 

[JBill]

Grantland.com is working for me, it wasn't yesterday.

 

[BrazilianSoxFan]

grantland.com is down. you can access most of it through http://espn.go.com/espn/grantland/

grantland.com works for me and worked all weekend.

 

[tims4wins]

Really not enjoying the Chris Jones "Beast" articles thus far. I was hopeful when it first started, but his articles don't flow particularly well, and I struggle to figure out what his main point is most of the time.

 

[PBDWake]

Really not enjoying the Chris Jones "Beast" articles thus far. I was hopeful when it first started, but his articles don't flow particularly well, and I struggle to figure out what his main point is most of the time.

Agreed, and maybe it's just me, but constantly referring it as the beast is silly to me. I can understand calling the Blog that, and whatever, but dropping it in like "Baltimore was in first place in the Beast" just doesn't work for me.

 

[shlincoln]

Is the site really still down? This is mind-blowing.

DNS propogation -- assuming the problem was with DNS -- is a fussy, not all at once thing.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Calling it the Beast when the article is about the Orioles just seems wrong, and it highlights what a silly premise the whole idea is.

Division strength is relative and changing, and besides, nobody whose team isn't the Red Sox or Yankees particularly cares about the AL East, nor the near-mythical status that's being ascribed to it.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Calling it the Beast when the article is about the Orioles just seems wrong, and it highlights what a silly premise the whole idea is.

The premise is forced and so do the articles appear to be. It's completely unclear why that 1999 clubhouse description is even included here. What does it have to do with Zach Britton? Was he just dying to use that little story and was determined to use it the first time he wrote about the Orioles? Just seemed completely wedged in there.

(Thanks for the link above that let me go around www.grantland.com - for whatever reason, that's still taking me to the network solutions page.)

 

[JimBoSox9]

The premise is forced and so do the articles appear to be. It's completely unclear why that 1999 clubhouse description is even included here. What does it have to do with Zach Britton? Was he just dying to use that little story and was determined to use it the first time he wrote about the Orioles? Just seemed completely wedged in there.

Did you read the last paragraph? The point of the article was that attitudes like Britton's are needed to change the losing culture. The 1999 reference was a juxtaposition of clubhouse cultures/attitudes. I don't really buy the premise (smacks of "not enough five-step handshakes" sans the racial component), but the point isn't particularly obscure.

 

[Marciano490]

Synopsis of Simmons' latest offering: Man enraged, inconsolable after watching a free television program.

 

[Fishercat]

Just read Simmons' summation of The Killing. Waste of time. Why not just get permission from Sepinwall to steal his article and then add your own footnotes and (incorrect) facts about the show? The thoughts aren't out of line, but he desperately needs an editor for more than tempering his thoughts on Mireille Enos' bosom.

 

[weeba]

Granted, that finale sucked.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Did you read the last paragraph? The point of the article was that attitudes like Britton's are needed to change the losing culture. The 1999 reference was a juxtaposition of clubhouse cultures/attitudes. I don't really buy the premise (smacks of "not enough five-step handshakes" sans the racial component), but the point isn't particularly obscure.

Yeah, I get what he's trying to set up, and that would make sense if the story was from 2009, but it was from 1999. None of those players has been with the Orioles for years, and yet they've kept losing. Has the clubhouse been poisonous this whole time? Further, they STILL SUCK. So, thank goodness Zach Britton isn't playing in 1999 or ... well ... he wouldn't be the "straight-up dude" Jones encountered, I guess. He'd be an ogre. Like mean old Tito Francona. And thank god the clubhouse now is great or ... well ... they'd be even suckier than they are, I guess.

Look at that last paragraph you're referring to:

Success isn't like that. It's harder to dissect. Sometimes, even looking back at how a good run began, no grand theory emerges, no great explanation. Sometimes, it's just because someone like Zach Britton happened to come along, and he decided that he was going to believe.

What success? They're the third worst team in the American League. So, okay, he's predicting that success is just around the corner, maybe. Okay, well, then when is it because someone like Zach Britton came along and decided he was going to believe? Not 1999, I guess, but also not this year either, and not in a single instance that Jones actually points to. At least make a Schilling-why-not-us reference or something, for christ's sake.

So, this whole thing makes sense if you've got a juxtaposition of clubhouses and a juxtaposition of results, but you don't. Or it makes sense if there's some history of positive thinking like Britton's making teams play better, and so Jones is getting on the bandwagon now, but Jones doesn't offer any of that up. Rather, you've got two teams that are just about equally bad, but one is likeable and one is not. But great story about how mean everyone was in 1999.

(ps., I could maybe hop on this bandwagon if Jones had made an argument about the clubhouse and the fact that the Orioles underperformed their pythag by six wins...)

 

[JBill]

Synopsis of Simmons' latest offering: Man enraged, inconsolable after watching a free television program.

You might want to stay off the internet today, nothing but everyone destroying the season finale.

 

[nattysez]

Fantastic effort by Simmons on The Killing. I really didn't think he had an article like this in him. Perfectly captured the mood of many, many people who made the mistake of sticking with this show for a full season. Grantland has completely reinvigorated him.

 

[Marciano490]

You might want to stay off the internet today, nothing but everyone destroying the season finale.

I get that people are upset about it, and the concept and execution deserve to be panned. I was just suprised at his tone. It sounded like AMC broke into his house and forced him to watch the show while skinning his dog.

I was disappointed in the finale, but it was a free show, and I watched it of my own free will, it's hard to get too pissed off about something like that.

 

[JBill]

I get that people are upset about it, and the concept and execution deserve to be panned. I was just suprised at his tone. It sounded like AMC broke into his house and forced him to watch the show while skinning his dog.

I was disappointed in the finale, but it was a free show, and I watched it of my own free will, it's hard to get too pissed off about something like that.

You should read Sepinwall's review, he definitely sounds like AMC killed his dog. I bailed on the show early, but it does seem like a large chunk of the audience is legitimately pissed (check out the SoSH thread).

 

[Marciano490]

You should read Sepinwall's review, he sounds like AMC killed his dog. I bailed on the show early, but it does seem like a large chunk of the audience is legitimately pissed (check out the SoSH thread).

Thanks. I'll check it out. In addition to not thinking a television series gone bad is that big of a deal, The Killing is different from The Sopranos and Seinfeld in that: 1) audiences had much more invested in those shows; and 2) the writers/producers of those shows had shown themselves capable of carrying on a long-term series, whereas these writers/producers only showed they could recycle a Danish series and create 2-3 good episodes.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

The premise is forced and so do the articles appear to be. It's completely unclear why that 1999 clubhouse description is even included here. What does it have to do with Zach Britton? Was he just dying to use that little story and was determined to use it the first time he wrote about the Orioles? Just seemed completely wedged in there.

I thought the exact same thing, along with "who hurt you?" It doesn't help that the writer straddles a writing style between long-form journalism and first-draft blogginess.