chris ballard can relate to jeter, 7/18 s.i.

nicely done 'point after':

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1188159/index.htm

besides joe p.'s jeter piece already discussed by SportsJournalists.com nation, this issue most notably includes gary smith's latest effort on phillies catcher Carlo Ruiz. looking forward to reading this; i enjoy when gary, as a change-of-pace, takes on a subject as their season is on-going and thus more topical.

it's on my agenda tonight before 'louie' on fx. 8)

 

I loved this piece. Ballard continues to be fabulous.

 

Haven't read SI regularly in a year or two, but I maintained when they went to the post-Reilly back-page "rotation" that Ballard should have gotten the gig full-time.

 

Didn't like it. I thought he was scraping for ideas and came up really short.
Who gives a crap that he's 37?

But his earlier feature on Cal-Berkeley rower Jill Costello was excellent.

 

well, if you read this as 'ballard on ballard,' the you're right, it reeks of fail. some of us read it as 'ballard on jeter,' one 37-year-old still hoopin' it up in a rec league, giving us a personal perspective of what jeter, 37-year-old fading mlb star, and other aging athletes at a similar age, hold on and compete for as long as they can.

 

I liked it, too. Suffering from Jeter fatigue, I groaned when I saw the cover -- more Posnanski on Jeter? -- but Ballard found a way to write about 3,000 indirectly yet elegantly.

Ballard's pretty good on the back page. I think Phil Taylor is usually good, too. Posnanski is, in my opinion, inconsistent. I never read him much when he was at the KC Star, so I know him mostly through his blog posts on SI.com and what he's written for the magazine. He seems like a good guy and hard worker, but there's something about his style that often doesn't work for me.

 

No one gives a crap that Ballard is 37. However, every man who is near, at or past that age cares he will be/is/was 37, and they can all relate to the column, which is its strength.
I loved it.

 

At least Smith used the pitchers' names in his piece this time so I didn't have to keep trying to remember who Late Riser was and if Lee or Halladay was Loose Laser.

 

It's funny how writing really is all a matter of taste, because I find Phil Taylor to be remarkably inconsistent and Posnanski to be worth a read every time.

Ballard hasn't done a Point After for a while, but it was a good return. To be honest, though, I prefer Ballard in longer form. I thought, of the "rotation" members, Ballard was the one who was being wasted in the short slot, Roberts was the one who was being overexposed and Taylor was the one who fit best.

But it's all a matter of opinion. I could definitely see how others would enjoy Ballard's voice or Roberts' outspoken voice. Many weeks, I flip through Sports Illustrated wondering why they don't feature sharper opinion writing. And then I remember how much of that there is online and view SI as a great reprieve. Roberts was always strong and decisive, to me; she didn't quite fit the magazine as a back-page columnist.

Posnanski is perfect for the role, to me. His writing reflects his passion, and you get the impression he hasn't mailed in a single column for SI.

 

by the way, gary smith's piece on 'chooch' (ruiz) was excellent, of course. learned alot about a player i knew NOTHING about who finds himself the bmoc 'cause he's the catcher of the stars. we've heard/read about halladay, lee, cole, etc., ad nauseum since the 'dream rotation' was formed. reading a piece on their relatively anonymous catcher was the 'remember the gravedigger' approach breslin once schooled me on. 8)

a fine read. no surprise. : 8)

 

in the same issue, the story about the climbers caught in the storm was excellent.

 

Ballard's column was solid. Usually I like Smith but the Ruiz piece seemed about 2,000 words too long, and somewhat forced. The climbing story was good but it was hard to follow because there were so many people involved, and thus a ton of sources.