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.Wait, you are bitching because he wrote a wonderfully moving essay about the last living link to William Faulkner? A woman who obviously meant so much to Faulkner, Thompson and the city of Oxford.
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.The bro's killed the column's chance to be great.
What's up with the one named Carles, by the way? Cher, Madonna, Pitt, Clooney, Carles?
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.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.
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.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.
Fair enough, though I know some would argue that Thompson writes the same stories all the time - be it for E60 or for Grantland.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.
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.I agree. This article was a tough read but I think that was because he used the word "Bro" roughly 900 times during the article. It was getting to the point where Carles was entering "Family Guy" anti-humor territory. I get what Carles was trying to do, it still was incredibly annoying.
Chad Finn noticed that too...Simmons' new mailbag has a photo of Billy Bulger above a post about Whitey. D'oh!
Think I get how Whitey managed to hide out in California for so long -- out there, they don't know him from Billy:
They're trying to ride Grantland's coat-tails to some extra page views.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 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.They fixed it and noted the correction. Good for them. I'll be looking for my fruit basket in the mail this week.
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?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."
Was coming here to post the same thing. If you don't watch Louie, then you're missing out.
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.The piece on the NYC stadiums was terrific, though part my appreciation may just be schadenfreude
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.It's a good thing Bill Belichick is who he is, because if Al Davis or Daniel Snyder made the moves he's made, they'd end up becoming embarrassing trending topics on Twitter. After inexplicably cutting defensive end Ty Warren at the end of July, the Patriots went shopping for a defensive line that would have been football's best in 2005. The trade for Albert Haynesworth was one thing, but they've also brought in defensive ends Mark Anderson, Shaun Ellis, and Andre Carter, none of whom looked particularly effective last year.
The Ellis signing, in particular, is exactly the sort of thing that the Raiders would do: Go out and acquire a player because he had a great playoff game against you. While it's always hard to quantify the statistical impact of a 3-4 defensive end because his job is usually to simply occupy blockers, the Jets weren't willing to give Ellis much more than the veteran's minimum, even after their aborted approach for Nnamdi Asomugha. That's telling.
Carter had 11 sacks in 2009, but he struggled when the Redskins moved to a 3-4 last season. At 32, he could very well be finished. Anderson never developed after a 12-sack rookie season, and once offensive linemen figured out what he was doing to get those sacks, he never adjusted. He's also too small to serve as anything beyond a situational pass-rusher, which the Bears discovered before cutting him last season.
New England is reportedly making these moves as part of a switch to a 4-3 defensive alignment, which doesn't make much sense when you consider that its best defenders — nose tackle Vince Wilfork and linebacker Jerod Mayo — would be marginalized in the 4-3. The Patriots signed Wilfork to a five-year, $40 million deal in 2010, so it's strange that they're not building their defense around his strengths. He excels at holding up blockers at the line of scrimmage and isn't the sort of penetrating, one-gap force on the interior that the 4-3 usually demands.
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.he's unequivocally wrong about baseball stadiums. Camden Yards, AT&T Park, PNC Park, etc. unashamedly embrace the past and are absolutely successes.
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.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.
The writer tried way too hard and completely failed at being humorous.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.
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 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.
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'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.
Double headers are HARD!The Red Sox turned an old-fashioned triple play to top the Rays 3-1 in the first game of a doubleheader, but couldn't overcome Desmond Jennings' spectacular catch in night cap as they fell 6-2. The loss put the Sox a half-game behind New York in the AL East, but Red Sox fans remained confident, reminding friends, family, and each other that the 'Yankees suck.'
I disagreed with all of this. I think Grantland is starting to do a nice job balancing "timeless" features with the more timely blogs.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.)
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?While Lambert is actually perceptive and talented, the preview column Mr. Destructo eviscerated was pure trash, and yes, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Klosterman hired her because he has a crush on her. This non-transferable ability to draw male readers is pretty much null at Grantland, and she needs to put the paycheck down and GTFO.
Agreed. He also does a nice job on his podcast, although that damn theme song will have "Oh Sherry" in your head all day: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.
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.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.)
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.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.
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.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.