Scoop as ball. Discuss.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/061130&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

This reminds me of a piece I almost read at the end of the Sports' tenure about life as Jeff Ruland's cell phone. Note to all you kids out there (channeling Steve Stone), don't try this at home or at work.

 

Life ... done changed. Funny.

Dude needs some editing, but he's not a bad writer.

 

It was okay, but too long.

Also, I forget who wrote it, but not too long ago Page 2 had a piece on Yankee Stadium being jealous of the soon-to-be-built New Yankee Stadium and angry with the organization. It was written from the voice of Yankee Stadium, exactly how Scoop wrote the ball piece. Scoop's pales in comparison to the Yankee Stadium piece, which had me laughing.

 

Didn't like it. Couldn't finish it.

 

Last year a part-timer here did a Q&A with one of the local HS gyms that was closing in lieu of a new one. It was short but effective and pretty good. I love the idea of giving life and voice to objects through writing. Even if it's not done at Pulitzer-caliber it's always interesting to see what kind of life and voice the writer gave said object.

 

These people claim that Scoop pilferred their idea. I think. I wouldn't click on one of Scoops' columns on a dare. I don't have a dog in this. But several people in the blogsphere seem to think Scoop pilferred something.


http://www.yaysports.com/nba/orange_roundie/
http://www.3manlift.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70&Itemid=43
http://www.thebiglead.com/

 

It looks like just another example of bloggers upset someone called them just a "web site" instead of "crediting" them. Give me a break.

 

I was reading through it, and was thinking "Wow. I'm actually liking one of Scoop's columns. It's a good concept that he can't possible botch." And then it just kept on going and going and going and going. If he had cut it down by half it would have been good.

 

Cousin Jeff - If someone came up with an idea that you're talking at length about, you wouldn't credit them by name?

 

No, not when the concept at hand is of the "orange roundie."

And he might have credited them by name originally, but his editors might have cut it out and replaced it with a generic term. In no way is this plagarism.

 

True, editors may have replaced.

 

I gotta tell you, this ^^^^^ sounds a bit defensive. As someone who routinely used to have his stuff (in my opinion, for potential lawyers) pilfered by the SJ Mercury News, it gets old. You know, like the graduate student who busts his ass and whose name isn't on the paper and who isn't even obliquely credited.

I'm not saying Scoop did or didn't borrow someone else's style for the ball piece. I haven't had a chance to check the relevant links which have been provided. Even if he has, he sure as hell isn't the first writer to do so. Not that I agree with the practice, but it's unfortunately quite common. Scoop certainly is not the creator of the practice, if in fact he employed it at all.

Overall, however, I liked Scoop's piece. It was long, but it was enjoyable and informative. Good job, sportsbr. . . I mean, Scoop! He's doing a very good job of staying within his wheelhouse,which is a more general, narrative style rather than a John Hollinger - esque minutiae approach or a Bill "I watch every game and every second of the NBA season" style. I like it. Those and similar guys can do predictions, etc.

But there's another, distinct market for what Scoop's doing this year with his NBA musings (same as there is a market for what he did in previous years). His past years' work on the NBA, I wasn't a big fan of. This year's stuff, I like quite a bit.