Rough one in the Times this morning...

[JoelHammond]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/sports/ncaabasketball/06ncaa.html?ref=sports

Among Duke titles, this one, the Blue Devils’ first since 2001, will resonate as one of its most improbable. The 1991 team had to slay a mighty and undefeated Nevada-Las Vegas team. But this edition lacks a sure-fire high first-round draft pick like Bobby Hurley, Grant Hill or Carlos Boozer of teams past.

Except Boozer was the 34th pick in the '02 draft.

 

[Tarheel316]

Yeah, that is kind of rough.

 

[JoelHammond]

Should have added that I don't envy the tight deadlines I'm sure those guys were under, etc. Stuff happens, just thought that was really odd.

 

[Azrael]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/sports/ncaabasketball/06ncaa.html?ref=sports

Among Duke titles, this one, the Blue Devils’ first since 2001, will resonate as one of its most improbable. The 1991 team had to slay a mighty and undefeated Nevada-Las Vegas team. But this edition lacks a sure-fire high first-round draft pick like Bobby Hurley, Grant Hill or Carlos Boozer of teams past.

Except Boozer was the 34th pick in the '02 draft.

34th is "high"?

 

[jojoblack]

Did I miss something? Didn't this team win the ACC title and get a No.1 seed in the tournament? What's so improbable -- even by Duke standards -- about it winning the national championship?

 

[JoelHammond]

Azrael: He was picked in the second round...

 

[Azrael]

Ahhhh. Thanks.

 

[Drip]

Ok, they made a mistake. Big deal. It happens.

 

[Kid Presentable]

I'd be more concerned with the over-written lede than that basic fact mistake

 

[playthrough]

Ok, they made a mistake. Big deal. It happens.

Would you rather we stop talking about mistakes on a SPORTS JOURNALISTS message board? Cripes.

That one's preventable, considering it was probably a talking point the writer had in mind well before the final buzzer. Not the worst mistake ever, obviously, but it was a mistake.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Did I miss something? Didn't this team win the ACC title and get a No.1 seed in the tournament? What's so improbable -- even by Duke standards -- about it winning the national championship?

The fact it was labeled as "improbable" is (IMO) way worse than the Carlos Boozer error.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

Ticky tack stuff for someone on a tight deadline. And while you can't call a No. 1 seed winning it all improbable, Duke wasn't highly respected, compared to the rest of the top seeds. In my bracket, one person, out of 44, had Duke winning it. Maybe one more had it in the finals.

 

[Drip]

Ok, they made a mistake. Big deal. It happens.

Would you rather we stop talking about mistakes on a SPORTS JOURNALISTS message board? Cripes.

That one's preventable, considering it was probably a talking point the writer had in mind well before the final buzzer. Not the worst mistake ever, obviously, but it was a mistake.

Obviously the reporter should've researched it better, no question. However, you don't know what kind of deadline restraint the guy was in. Should it had been caught? Yes. But I'm sure we've seen worse.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Caught? Unless you are an NBA fanatic, why would Carlos Boozer being listed as a first round pick raise a red flag?

 

[playthrough]

Ok, they made a mistake. Big deal. It happens.

Would you rather we stop talking about mistakes on a SPORTS JOURNALISTS message board? Cripes.

That one's preventable, considering it was probably a talking point the writer had in mind well before the final buzzer. Not the worst mistake ever, obviously, but it was a mistake.

Obviously the reporter should've researched it better, no question. However, you don't know what kind of deadline restraint the guy was in. Should it had been caught? Yes. But I'm sure we've seen worse.

We have seen worse. I said so. But I take offense to someone starting a thread about a mistake in a story and you posting "big deal, it happens." If that's your best contribution, take it to another thread.

 

[dooley_womack1]

And have a happy Improbable Story Day

 

[Drip]

Ok, they made a mistake. Big deal. It happens.

Would you rather we stop talking about mistakes on a SPORTS JOURNALISTS message board? Cripes.

That one's preventable, considering it was probably a talking point the writer had in mind well before the final buzzer. Not the worst mistake ever, obviously, but it was a mistake.

Obviously the reporter should've researched it better, no question. However, you don't know what kind of deadline restraint the guy was in. Should it had been caught? Yes. But I'm sure we've seen worse.

We have seen worse. I said so. But I take offense to someone starting a thread about a mistake in a story and you posting "big deal, it happens." If that's your best contribution, take it to another thread.

And I take offense that you find it easier to sit on your behind and criticize the mistake instead of analyzing how it might have been made. I think that would be more helpful to people, especially younger journalists.
Perhaps you should take your own snarky advice on this one.

 

[playthrough]

I did analyze it, briefly. In a game like that, you figure either team could win and you jot down some points early in your day to use deeper in the story. The writer had some Duke notes in mind but erred in grouping Boozer in a group of "high first-round draft picks."

As another poster said, that might be a tough pickup for a non-NBA fanatic. I didn't pause on it immediately, either. But it's an error to say a guy drafted in the second round was a "high first-round", which in the NBA equates to a lottery pick. A quick check would have found that.

So, your message to "younger journalists" is that it was no big deal, right?

 

[Drip]

I did analyze it, briefly. In a game like that, you figure either team could win and you jot down some points early in your day to use deeper in the story. The writer had some Duke notes in mind but erred in grouping Boozer in a group of "high first-round draft picks."

As another poster said, that might be a tough pickup for a non-NBA fanatic. I didn't pause on it immediately, either. But it's an error to say a guy drafted in the second round was a "high first-round", which in the NBA equates to a lottery pick. A quick check would have found that.

So, your message to "younger journalists" is that it was no big deal, right?

No. The tone of the early conversations sounded more like people all too happy to find mistakes the Times piece.

 

[playthrough]

I hope that's not true. But like many other supposed flagship publications (cough, SI, cough), the errors in the Times are becoming far too frequent and easily spotted. I read a story last week on Ben Hogan in the Times that made two references to "Bryon" Nelson. Ugh.