Rick Reilly done writing ESPN column July 1

I agree, but I'd say the majority of non-Simmons columnists also could answer those questions, or at least bring equivalent local knowledge.

The guys who wear their aloofness about sports as a badge of honor are on the outs now. LeBatard does/did this too. But guys who stay in tune with the scene -- and especially guys who use their access to actually report -- are still valuable. That Slate piece seems to be sweeping them out with the lazy old guard, though.

 

I know, I know.

It just comes up a lot, and I don't want someone to take and run with the idea that someone needs to be Nate Silver, who is named in the piece, as well, to thrive with 2014's readership.

Levin may not have hit on the whole story, but I think he hits on something that is absolutely true: Reilly is still writing for a 1993 audience, when sports colummnists were usually more informed than fans, in no small part because they had access to information that fans did not, be it game notes or out-of-town publications.

 

I think so, too.

But I don't think that Rick Reilly, specifically, could.

I know Rick Telander, to give another example from that generation, could not. I heard a story, and I don't think it's apocryphal, in which he asked in the dead of the summer of 1998 what position Mark McGwire played.

 

Reilly has been a joke for years, but that doesn't negate that there was a time that he was a damned good columnist.

 

OK.

 

He's totally knocking off Simmons.

http://thebiglead.com/2014/03/13/march-media-madness-2014-the-writers-bracket/

 

Well, Rick better pull another one out of his bag -- and it better be a comeback.

 

http://youtu.be/yhQql-ZbZmg

 

I do not think Simmons could name three starters and the coach for WSU.

But I agree with your overall point.

 

That's the test of a good writer? If you can name the leaders in the Western Conference? Or the starters on Wichita State? Are you kidding? Do you think Jim Murray would have worried about that?

 

I think that Murray was a unique talent and could pull it off, largely because he was probably the funniest sportswriter ever.

I think that in today's market it is different because a reader has access to a lot of good writers. So now you need more than good writing skills. You need specific knowledge. I think, for example. that Barnwall and Lowe of Grantland turn out a better product than on the NFL and the NBA than any general columnist working. And look at the success of Peter King and his website. There have been a lot of guys at Sports Illustrated who have been better writers without King's impact.

 

But doesn't invoking Jim Murray, who hasn't put pen to paper since 1998, kind of reinforce my point? Reilly and others who try to compensate for their lack of knowledge and substance with one-liners and very generalized opinions have a hard time thriving today. That goes for news, too. Why in the world would anyone spend their breakfast with Maureen Dowd in 2014?

Is it necessary to know Wichita State's lineup to be successful nowadays? No, of course not. Nate Silver doesn't, I bet. But he has a specific area of expertise and - here's the key - his expertise is superior to that of the majority of his readers. Rick Reilly is funny. But Bill Simmons is funny AND he could probably talk extemporaneously on every NBA Finals game ever played.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees with what I'm saying. There remain more than one way to skin a cat. But one way that will just never work today is to half-ass it. You earn your credibility with today's reader. You don't gain it through your affiliation.

Damn this discussion makes me miss being a columnist.