1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No-hitters and Your Paper

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Dan Rydell, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. Editude

    Editude Active Member

    Out front here, downpage (we added a cover story to the mix). Minus the potshots, this has been an interesting discussion that, many years ago, would have been much more uniform. Knowing what your markets want has to play into it now, both online and in print, rather than reflexively putting a national-level achievement on Page 1.
  2. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    I was only addressing the "it's rare" argument. The "drama" is another argument entirely.

    OK then, by your argument a no-hitter that is broken up in with two out in the ninth inning because of a bad hop belongs on the front.

    It had drama.

    It had heartbreak.

    It had a pitcher going from forever belonging to an exclusive club to just another guy who threw a one-hitter . . . all because of a stroke of bad luck.

    But that story will make no one's front.

    Listen, I'm not arguing that no-hitters don't belong out there. I'm just saying don't treat them like Muhammad Ali dying. And don't do it as a reflex action. By all means, if you can move another story inside to get it on the front, do so. But there is rarely a need to "tear up your front" to get it out there.

    In the end, the better sports desks will weigh all the variables and make the best decision to serve their readers.
  3. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Hitting for the cycle is simply a statistical curiosity. A player who homers twice and doubles in a game has the same total bases as a player who hits a single, double, triple and homer.
  4. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    So is a no-hitter. It's a statistical curiosity . . . with a side order of drama.

    You can have 11 walks and pitch a no-hitter.

    You can have 3-4 pitchers combine for one.

    Some of the game's greatest pitchers never threw one. Some of the game's most mediocre pitchers did.

    The difference between a no-hitter and a one-hitter can be a pebble in the infield. Or a center fielder who simply didn't get a good jump on a ball.

    Yet the no-hitter is treated like the Golden Child. The one-hitter? Ah, just lead the roundup with it.
  5. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    The end!
  6. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    Yeah. It's a pretty quick decision. :)
  7. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member


    If a no-hitter can't go on the front, it should be referred....
  8. MertWindu

    MertWindu Active Member

    For the record, I was talking about the prep Scotus story, and about the sports front, not the main front. Just to clear that up.

    And BTE, I've got to disagree with you on a no-hitter being a statistical curiosity with drama as compared to hitting for the cycle. Yes, you can walk 11 and throw a no-hitter, but generally, a no-no is an example of dominance (and last night's most certainly was that). Hitting for the cycle is neat and all, but it's far more valuable to your team to go 3-for-4 with a homer and a double with, say, four RBI. They're just not in the same league, despite the fact that they're about as rare.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page