Great column about the 1963 NCAA tournament game between Loyola and Mississippi State and the racial controversy which surrounded it:
How a Pregame Handshake Helped Change America
How a Pregame Handshake Helped Change America
Joe Posnanski: Lord of Lists
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
Been six weeks since anyone linked a Poz story. That's telling. Anyway, here's one about Yankee Witchcraft:
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/05/yankees-school-of-witchcraft-and.html
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/05/yankees-school-of-witchcraft-and.html
terrynever said:
Poz has really dropped out of circulation for me. Ironically it's because he created such a good site in Sports On Earth. Poz used to be my first read on the ride into work. Now by the time I get through with this place and SOE I'm usually done.
I hope Poz is cashing some big checks because as far as readership/relevance I think he shot himself in the foot by changing jobs twice in a year.
Dehere said:
I agree with this 100%. Honestly, I had to go back through this thread to remember where he's writing. As great as Poz is (and there's no better) I don't have the time to chase him around the internet. A move every year or so, I can adjust to, but three moves in like 18 months? Sorry I have shit to do, man.
I agree that it's been poorly handled. Is NBC doing any promotion of his work? In addition, I used to follow him on Facebook and get links to new columns from there, but it was stopped without any link to a new page or an opportunity to 'like' Joe at NBC Sports, etc.
He blog is still one of the best out there and he pumps out a lot of content that isn't on the NBC site, I believe.
And, while completely unrelated, he did contribute to our SoSH Donation for the One Fund.
Joe is a good guy and a better writer. He took so much heat for his Joe Pa book, and never really atoned for that mess. He did himself another disservice by hopping around and never finding a home for himself.
He's hit a skid in his career, but he's just too talented to stay in a funk too long. He'll be back.
Joe is a good guy and a better writer. He took so much heat for his Joe Pa book, and never really atoned for that mess. He did himself another disservice by hopping around and never finding a home for himself.
He's hit a skid in his career, but he's just too talented to stay in a funk too long. He'll be back.
Nice profile today of Doc Emrick:
http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/51916667]Among Best Announcers, Emrick Still Rises Above[/url]
http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/51916667]Among Best Announcers, Emrick Still Rises Above[/url]
I thought this was pretty brutal, actually (passage about Campbell quoted above). First, he doesn't go into any detail about why it was essential for Campbell to stay on the ice -- couldn't go down 5-3, close game, the way substitutions and time outs work in hockey, etc. Second, saying he "stayed up until the whistle" is entirely wrong and really diminishes Campbell's feat -- he ultimately shuffled off to the bench while play was still ongoing, and then collapsed once he got to the bench. Third, he makes no mention of the fans chanting "Campbell." One of the few times I've seen JoePos badly underplay the emotion of a moment.
I thought this was pretty brutal, actually (passage about Campbell quoted above). First, he doesn't go into any detail about why it was essential for Campbell to stay on the ice -- couldn't go down 5-3, close game, the way substitutions and time outs work in hockey, etc. Second, saying he "stayed up until the whistle" is entirely wrong and really diminishes Campbell's feat -- he ultimately shuffled off to the bench while play was still ongoing, and then collapsed once he got to the bench. Third, he makes no mention of the fans chanting "Campbell." One of the few times I've seen JoePos badly underplay the emotion of a moment.
[/quote]
I think this is very wrong. The point wasn't "why its essential to stay on the ice", simply that hockey players do. As far as Joe making no mention of the chanting...did you read the concluding sentence?
I think this is very wrong. The point wasn't "why its essential to stay on the ice", simply that hockey players do. As far as Joe making no mention of the chanting...did you read the penultimate sentence?
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
"They are still cheering Campbell in Boston" is not "they were chanting his name while the play was ongoing." It doesn't at all capture the drama of the moment.
JimD said:
Before I posted, I watched the entire sequence on YouTube to be sure I was right that there was no whistle. Not too much to ask Joe to do the same if what he's doing is meant to be journalism.
Jesus.
The whole point of the article is how he, as a hockey neophyte, is discovering the beauty of hockey and what the fuss is all about. He's praising Campbell's toughness, and the fact that such an effort is rewarded and recognized by hockey fans, despite the fact that it had no tangible impact on the game itself.
The exact details of Campbell's shift are immaterial. This is not a recap of Wednesdays game. He's lauding hockey, in its entirety, and uses Campbell as an example as to why. That's all.
The whole point of the article is how he, as a hockey neophyte, is discovering the beauty of hockey and what the fuss is all about. He's praising Campbell's toughness, and the fact that such an effort is rewarded and recognized by hockey fans, despite the fact that it had no tangible impact on the game itself.
The exact details of Campbell's shift are immaterial. This is not a recap of Wednesdays game. He's lauding hockey, in its entirety, and uses Campbell as an example as to why. That's all.
I liked the piece quite a bit, but the first published version had a different final line in this paragraph:
It actually said that the Bruins lost the game. I think it was a good first draft and I really like the idea behind the article and the overall tenor of it, but I think Poz fell asleep during OT. And that's OK, like the good doctor says above, this wasn't a game recap, it was about hockey in general and Joe's relationship with it. But still, getting the winning team right is a pretty big deal.
It actually said that the Bruins lost the game. I think it was a good first draft and I really like the idea behind the article and the overall tenor of it, but I think Poz fell asleep during OT. And that's OK, like the good doctor says above, this wasn't a game recap, it was about hockey in general and Joe's relationship with it. But still, getting the winning team right is a pretty big deal.
I also thought he did undersell the moment (and Soupy's PK value) a bit, but isn't that sort of the point? The whole thing is about not understanding hockey and starting to see the game within a game.
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/06/saying-goodbye-to-jeff-francoeur.html?m=1
Great post on Francoeur
Great post on Francoeur
He called us the best Red Sox chat board today:
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-at-bat-that-changed-chris-davis.html
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-at-bat-that-changed-chris-davis.html
I said it previously, but nice gestures merit repeating. Joe made a very generous donation to our Boston marathon fund.
He's the best sportswriter out there when he's on, too. Good stuff.
He's the best sportswriter out there when he's on, too. Good stuff.
Phil Plantier said:
Thank goodness he didn't pick one of the others!
Others???
Is the Remyreport board still out there?
NBC sports website sucks. It's ugly and slow and hard to find anything of interest there. Do they even have an archive of Posnanski's articles? Because if they do, I can't find it. Right now I'm looking at his Big Read story about Jimmie Johnson, which was the most recent article that came up when I searched the site for Posnanski. His new article about Braun did not come up at all. On the article page, when you click on the Big Read logo with Joe's photo, nothing happens. Why wouldn't that link to a page with all the previous Big Read articles on it? Joe's byline isn't a link to anything either-- seems like that might be a good place to click to find a link to all his articles, but nope.
If you scroll down the page, on the left is a box with links to some (or all? who knows?) of his articles, but you can only get to that box if you're already reading one of his articles. There's a link at the bottom of the page that says Click here to subscribe to Joe's stories but the link goes to an Invalid URL error page. Is that supposed to be a link to an RSS feed or something? Who knows?
I don't see a separate page with his archive that I can bookmark. Maybe it's just me being dense, but his articles should be easy to find and on a single page that I can bookmark. Reading about sports on the internet is already a time waster, I don't need to waste even more time searching it out. I can't imagine the typical NBC Sports visitor is much more savvy than I am about finding his stuff.
I've probably missed a lot of the stuff he's written there, because the only way I see any links to his pieces are when I see a link in various posts on his blog, or when someone bumps this thread and includes a link in their posts.
I wish he had stayed at SI, or Sports on Earth, both made it easier to find and read his stuff. He also isn't blogging much about stuff that interests me lately, mostly just Hall of Fame stuff and tennis this month, so I've read far less of what he's written than I did last year, despite him being my favorite sportswriter.
If you scroll down the page, on the left is a box with links to some (or all? who knows?) of his articles, but you can only get to that box if you're already reading one of his articles. There's a link at the bottom of the page that says Click here to subscribe to Joe's stories but the link goes to an Invalid URL error page. Is that supposed to be a link to an RSS feed or something? Who knows?
I don't see a separate page with his archive that I can bookmark. Maybe it's just me being dense, but his articles should be easy to find and on a single page that I can bookmark. Reading about sports on the internet is already a time waster, I don't need to waste even more time searching it out. I can't imagine the typical NBC Sports visitor is much more savvy than I am about finding his stuff.
I've probably missed a lot of the stuff he's written there, because the only way I see any links to his pieces are when I see a link in various posts on his blog, or when someone bumps this thread and includes a link in their posts.
I wish he had stayed at SI, or Sports on Earth, both made it easier to find and read his stuff. He also isn't blogging much about stuff that interests me lately, mostly just Hall of Fame stuff and tennis this month, so I've read far less of what he's written than I did last year, despite him being my favorite sportswriter.
http://www.nbcsports.com/archive/author/joe-posnanski
There's a "Joe Posnanski" link in the "More" section of the yellow menu bar at the top of the page.
It is a little ridiculous that there isn't a link anywhere in the articles themselves.
There's a "Joe Posnanski" link in the "More" section of the yellow menu bar at the top of the page.
It is a little ridiculous that there isn't a link anywhere in the articles themselves.
Thanks for finding that for me. I highly doubt that I am the only out there who has had trouble finding Joe's articles.
I feel bad, but unfortunately Joe has simply fallen off my radar. I follow him on FB and if I see that he's posted something that I'm interested, I'll click the link. Otherwise he's made it a bit of a pain in the ass to follow him around.
And I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm a bit bummed out about it.
And I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm a bit bummed out about it.
When he delves into random baseball curiosities, like this new post on his personal blog, he's still great.
Some Baseball Stuff
Some Baseball Stuff
Interesting notes about the league hitting .184 against Kershaw and how that stacks up against some all-time great seasons (the league hit 1.84 against Gibson the year he had the 1.12 ERA). Left off his list (well, he mentions him, but not the number) is the fact that the league hit .167 against Pedro in 2000. That's insane.
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-new-browns.html
Thought this was one of his better posts in awhile because reminded me so much of how I felt as a kid (including having to listen to the Pats on the radio because of the blackout rule)
Thought this was one of his better posts in awhile because reminded me so much of how I felt as a kid (including having to listen to the Pats on the radio because of the blackout rule)
gmogmo said:
Absolutely fantastic piece. I don't think it's possible to be a sports fan and not relate to it.
That was incredible. Best thing I've read in weeks.
The section about Joe writing football previews was right out of my childhood. I used to do the exact same thing. As a kid in Pittsburgh I used to write Pitt football previews for fun back when Pitt had their great Dan Marino/Hugh Green teams and invariably I would know nothing about their opponents other than the roster printed in the newspaper, leading to stuff like: "The Temple QB is Jones. He's a senior and wears #12. Jones is going to struggle against the ferocious Panther defense."
The section about Joe writing football previews was right out of my childhood. I used to do the exact same thing. As a kid in Pittsburgh I used to write Pitt football previews for fun back when Pitt had their great Dan Marino/Hugh Green teams and invariably I would know nothing about their opponents other than the roster printed in the newspaper, leading to stuff like: "The Temple QB is Jones. He's a senior and wears #12. Jones is going to struggle against the ferocious Panther defense."
If Joe was Stats King ...
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.ca/2013/09/if-i-were-baseball-stats-king.html
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.ca/2013/09/if-i-were-baseball-stats-king.html
Why? Joe repeatedly says he loves Raines and a lot of the guys he lists ahead of them would get no argument from "ballwashers" but aren't eligible yet, have already fallen off the ballot, or have PED questions.sfip said:
Joe points this out: "of the players on the 2013 ballot, he is ranked seventh [by fWAR] if you include Bonds and Clemens, fifth if you do not."
Joe's main argument is that Raines is not one of the best 3-5 player he'd vote for, but he'd still vote for him under the current rules. This doesn't seem very controversial. It's actually kind of a pointless post from Posnanski.
Jonah Keri, who Posnanski points out as the world's biggest Raines fan, already commented and said Raines wouldn't be in his top 3.
Poz has been prolific this week. Here is his take on the Ellsbury signing, with his conclusion:
Meanwhile, he has started a project where he is ranking his 100 greatest players of all time (in the lead-up to the HoF vote) and apparently writing a piece on each of them. Here is his introduction to the series. He has already posted four pieces, starting at No. 100 with Curt Schilling. This kind of stuff is, I think, Posnanski at his best. He takes a player, digs around a bit until he finds something curious, and writes about it in a wonderful way.
Meanwhile, he has started a project where he is ranking his 100 greatest players of all time (in the lead-up to the HoF vote) and apparently writing a piece on each of them. Here is his introduction to the series. He has already posted four pieces, starting at No. 100 with Curt Schilling. This kind of stuff is, I think, Posnanski at his best. He takes a player, digs around a bit until he finds something curious, and writes about it in a wonderful way.
In the Schilling article he discusses the Schilling/Anderson for Boddicker trade and calls it a flop and compares it to the Bagwell deal. I've never really thought of it along those lines. Schilling was dealt 2 more times before he turned his career around, and yeah we all know what Anderson did, but I just never saw that deal as a flop.
DrewDawg said:
Because it's not. The Sox made the playoffs in 88 and 90 in large part due to Boddicker's contributions, as he immediately became their number 2 starter.
I agree, his take is a little harsh, and I wonder if he really bothered to consider Boddicker's performance or the context of the trade.
The Sox desperately needed a #2/#3 pitcher in '88 to wrap up the AL East (which they did), and to replace Hurst moving forward, which Boddicker did reasonably well in 1989 and did very well in 1990, winning 17 games with an ERA+ of 122, helping the Sox win the AL East again. Had he been on the 1991 squad, the Sox probably would have won the East yet again.
Boddicker was good pitcher, it's just too bad they didn't hang onto him for one more year.
Now, in hindsight, was it a bad trade? Sure. But it's not an unforgivably bad one. Boddicker was useful and led to two ALCS appearances.
EDIT: There's no question that most teams, faced with a similar situation now (trade two decent mid-level AA prospects for 2.5 years of a roughly 110 ERA+, 29 year old, starter in order to make the playoffs), they'd do it.
The Sox desperately needed a #2/#3 pitcher in '88 to wrap up the AL East (which they did), and to replace Hurst moving forward, which Boddicker did reasonably well in 1989 and did very well in 1990, winning 17 games with an ERA+ of 122, helping the Sox win the AL East again. Had he been on the 1991 squad, the Sox probably would have won the East yet again.
Boddicker was good pitcher, it's just too bad they didn't hang onto him for one more year.
Now, in hindsight, was it a bad trade? Sure. But it's not an unforgivably bad one. Boddicker was useful and led to two ALCS appearances.
EDIT: There's no question that most teams, faced with a similar situation now (trade two decent mid-level AA prospects for 2.5 years of a roughly 110 ERA+, 29 year old, starter in order to make the playoffs), they'd do it.
DrewDawg said:
Agreed. Bagwell for Andersen was a flop because they only got about 5 weeks worth of service out of Andersen while Bagwell went on to a Hall of Fame career. Boddicker was a big addition to the Morgan Magic rotation, then helped anchor (w/Clemens) another division winning rotation in 1990. The Sox got what they wanted out of that deal.
OzSox said:
Poz is absolutely killing it on his blog right now. He's top 100 project is basically the best sports book of 2013, but he's giving it away for free in daily installments. He's posting so much good stuff lately that it's actually hard to keep up.
I agree, I am loving this. And you can tell that he is absolutely loving writing it, which is really cool.Dehere said:
I have to admit that due to his website jumping, the Paterno stuff and overall exhaustion of his writing, I stopped reading a lot of Joe Posnanski in the last two or three years. I didn't dislike him or anything (I would read things that sounded interesting, not simply everything that he wrote), nor did I think that his writing stunk (he's a fabulous writer); it just happens to me every now and again that I get tired of writers that I read a lot.
However, after that malaise wears off I begin reading them again and I am glad that I have started reading JoePos again. His blog has been awesome this last four or five months, especially with his Top 100 Baseball Players of all time series. I know that we've talked about it, but I think that if you've missed a few entries or just wanted to read them again, go check it out now.
However, after that malaise wears off I begin reading them again and I am glad that I have started reading JoePos again. His blog has been awesome this last four or five months, especially with his Top 100 Baseball Players of all time series. I know that we've talked about it, but I think that if you've missed a few entries or just wanted to read them again, go check it out now.
This was a great read. I love that he comes out and backs up his votes and makes sense... and his thoughts on Mussina/Morris are excellent.DrewDawg said:
The paragraphs on Clemens/Bonds sum up pretty much exactly how I feel. Yes, they used steroids and I am sure it helped them both to compete for extended periods, but I honestly believe that those two were probably the best pitcher/hitter at least of our generation (if not all time), and steroids just do not allow you to do some of the things these guys did, Bonds especially. I may be mistaken, but steroids do not help with being able to lay off of pitches just barely out o the strike zone (I swear that Bonds had the best strike zone control of anyone I have ever seen...unfortunately, BP only has PitchFX data back to 2007, so I will have a hard time backing this up with statistics), and while I agree that they likely helped his home run numbers, he seemed to hit the ball like a rocket every single time he swung the bat... that hand-eye coordination was spectacular. I suppose I understand why BBWAA members don't vote for them, but I disagree with their reasoning.
I also think that this year's ballot demonstrates even more the absurdity of nobody getting voted in last year (and really the process as a whole). A guy like Maddux should receive 100% of the vote. 355-227 record, lifetime ERA+ of 132 (including two straight years above 250, as a starting pitcher... I mean WTF), four straight CY Young Awards (two unanimously), and the list goes on. And yet somebody will keep him off their ballot for exactly the reason Joe mentions, somebody else they want to vote for next year (hooray for Jack Morris!) might fall off the ballot if they don't vote for him, so they take their vote away from a "sure thing" inductee. Just absurd. The rules were made in 1939, when there were 16 teams and filling a ballot with 10 was probably difficult at times. Teams (and players) have nearly doubled since then, so why can't they expand the ballot to 15? I just don't get it.
LogansDad said:
According to Fangraphs, the average ballot typically has between 5-7 players on it. So while some would benefit from having more votes to cast, it doesn't seem like it's a majority thing. Even with this year's loaded crop, the average was only 6.60.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-hall-of-fame-mess-how-did-we-get-here/
Cross post from the H of F thread, Pos breaks down the voting, including public vs. private voting.
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/hall-of-fame-recap/
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/hall-of-fame-recap/
How do you like his Hall of Fame articles? I personally think it's some of his best writing in years. Although he is a good writer overall, it is very easy to tell that his heart and soul is in baseball. The time and effort he put into each piece clearly shows.Dehere said:
I've loved his HoF stuff, and I feel like he has his fastball back - I don't really read anything other than his blog anymore, but that's the way it used to be and I'm fine with it.
Even the farmers' dating service ad piece he did recently felt like his old silly self.
He's back in my rotation after being out for more than a year.
Even the farmers' dating service ad piece he did recently felt like his old silly self.
He's back in my rotation after being out for more than a year.