Who wrote the best piece on Linsanity?

Dizzy. Where is the exit door for this thread? Theme is an obvious cuddle up to Journalistic celebrity every bit as much Lin is being fed into the Fargo wood chipper that trickles down a snow of J money chips. Who cares about this list of selfserved fricksticks?

 

Alma is notorius around here for cuddling up to big-name journalists.

 

My thoughts, in order of how I posted them:

Doyel: I got the rhythms of the column just fine, and he pounds home the question enough times to successfully indict without having to unpack all the ideas. It's a little repetitive, and, perhaps it's just a pet peeve, but I would have liked to see Doyel kick that "what were they seeing?" into "Who were they seeing?" at some point. Doyel nibbles more here than I thought he would. More a jab than his usual big punch. I get the sense he wasn't quite ready on this topic. Not like he was on LeBron, Boatwright, Penn State or Tebow. When Doyel is dialed in, he doesn't rely as much on language tricks as he did here.

Reilly: The quips ruin it. Absolutely ruin it. For one that works, three are Chris Berman. He didn't need them, either. The Rex Walters quotes are good, especially the second one.

Woj: Like the lede, the angle, the quotes, and sharp inside-basketball opinions like this:

"Of course now, owner Joe Lacob is blaming the old coach, Keith Smart, for failing to play him as a backup last season. Lacob is playing the “”I-knew-it-all-along” game, and it’s downright embarrassing."

and

"The Knicks were no geniuses for claiming Lin off waivers, just desperate. New York coach Mike D’Antoni had nowhere else to turn, and nothing but more games to lose."

I like how the column/analysis isn't going allow some GM/coach to take credit for discovering the kid.

Kang: It's good, and it's pretty hard to argue it's not. Am I a little surprised that Kang suddenly writes the basketball sections with a little Bill Simmons clarity? Yes. Because this piece actually appears to have been slightly edited by someone.

Yes, it's an "I" piece. But Kang explains part of why it will be, pokes a little fun at his "thinkpiece." It delves into the player's skills, his weakness as a "black hole," how he fits the New York stereotype, how he changes the team chemistry. It's too long and I got bored in the Lakers/Knicks stretch. But overall, it's one of the best of this bunch.

Araton: Boring. Too blandly analytical. The lede ends with a possessive? And Carmelo Anthony? After that game? Weird. Araton was trying too hard here to project three weeks out instead of reacting.

Whitlock: As usual, his best material is halfway through, and he simply gives up on the ending with some bizarre declaration of purpose. A lot of Whitlock's stuff is like this. He chooses to make a point, not an argument. He gets to the point, makes it, and wraps up as quickly as possible after that. At any rate, minor stuff, really.

Lupica: Tommy Amaker can just write the column next time. What a day. In this place, of this time, with these people, in the town of the country they call: America.

Torre: In a small space allotted, excellent. Good details, smart use of short quotes, and the back half flows as well as the first. There are some advantages here - more space, a bit more time - but Torre balanced subtle observation, good sourcing and strong analysis.

Arthur: For pure writing, you have to like it. It's overwrought, it's a bit cute with the series of "ands" on the final shot, and the kicker is dream factory stuff. Still, in the moment, when you know Lin might be through Toronto just once and have it feel like it did Tuesday night, you write big and hope people relive it the next day. For the setting and the way the game ended, I found it appropriate.

 

Alma, did we just agree on pretty much everything?

Also, I didn't know Loopy had an account here.

 

We have an excellent contender for Worst Piece on Linsanity:

http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/sensationalized-media-frenzy-surrounding-knicks-lin-lacks-perspective-restraint/

 

David Brooks in the Times today is a worst contender as well. Said Lin was an anomaly in sports due to his religious faith.

 

Why, because it's true?

 

What, exactly, is wrong with this?

 

I usually find Brooks interesting, but that column was really weird. To say sports and religious faith are mutually exclusive seems a bit extreme.

 

The YMCA was shocked to hear it.

 

The column might be the best explanation for why Notre Dame football has fallen off the map.