Who wrote the best piece on Linsanity?

[Alma]

OK, so this might take you a little bit of time to read through, but I think it'll be fun to examine. There's a mixture of opinion, feature writing and reporting in these pieces, but none of them are so long that they'd automatically blow the other out of the water.

So who did it best in the wake of the Knicks beating the Lakers and Minnesota? Include, in your vote, a bit of reasoning and/or critique for the pieces at hand.

I sure hope folks engage this one. It's a hot topic.

Gregg Doyel, CBS: http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/17241874

Rick Reilly, ESPN: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7574087/overlooking-jeremy-lin

Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo!: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_jeremy_lin_knicks_rockets_nba_021412

Jay Caspian Kang, Grantland: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7570431/jeremy-lin

Harvey Araton, NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/sports/basketball/the-knicks-jeremy-lin-keeps-his-cool-as-heads-spin-around-him.html?scp=8&sq=jeremy%20lin&st=cse

Jason Whitlock, Fox Sports: http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Unlike-Denver-Broncos-quarterback-Tim-Tebow-New-York-Knicks-point-guard-Jeremy-Lin-is-real-deal-021412

Mike Lupica, NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/jeremy-lin-saga-a-true-american-classic-asian-american-kid-harvard-brought-life-back-ny-knicks-madison-square-garden-article-1.1021601

Pablo S. Torre, Sports Illustrated: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1194909/index.htm

Bruce Arthur, National Post: http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/sports/blog.html?b=sports.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/the-jeremy-lin-story-is-real-magic

 

[imjustagirl]

I've only read the first two. But I can tell you it's not Reilly.

 

[Rumpleforeskin]

Whoever included the fewest plays on words with his last name. So, not Reilly.

 

[Boom_70]

My vote is for Whitlock column because he cut to core of issue. Lin has done what Amare and Carmelo have failed to do-make The Knicks a better basketball team.

 

[imjustagirl]

OK, from worst to best, in my opinion:

8. Reilly. This read like so much of what Reilly's worst stuff has become: filler to get to what he thinks are one-liners. Just painful to read, so superficial, and no meat to it whatsoever.

7. Kang. It was too long, and it was too "me"-centric for my tastes. I don't need Kang to tell me about him to tell me what he thinks of Lin.

6. Whitlock. Basic principle, but I just can't believe anything I read from him any more. He's the most opportunistic writer out there, and the entire part about "Oh, I had lunch with Dr. Harry Edwards and hip-hop culture is bad and Asian culture is good oh and by the way I'm not at all racist" was just too much. Also, this rang as hollow as anything in recent history: "Writing columns that discomfort the comfortable and defend the vulnerable is far more important to me than being outrageously popular and irreverent on Twitter."

5. Lupica. It was better than Reilly's, but it still could have been so much more. It was straight Lupica, which meant if you had handed that to me with no byline, I could have told you it was his. But the whole basis was a reach, a "sunshine in the sky, ain't America great" feel to me that reminded me of "Summer of '98." Not that I think Lin is on steroids (stop!) but just ... sometime it's not all about how amazing America is and ain't it wonderful how this can happen here. He DOES get points for the stuff from Amaker, which really were my favorite quotes I probably read in any of the pieces.

4. Araton. I'm just not a big fan of the NYT style. I like more punch to my copy (but not Reilly punch). It's good, it's serviceable, but it's dry. And I don't like dry. Also, I'm sure the cross-breeding with the Giants is great for NY, but I really couldn't care less what Justin Tuck thinks about Jeremy Lin.

3. Doyel. I really liked this, and it was the first piece I read. I still really like it, but much like Lupica, you could have handed this to me sans byline and I would have known exactly who wrote it. Unlike Lupica, I don't take that as a negative. This was exactly the piece Doyel needed to write, because he's the one who could carry it off. But his style isn't to use a ton of quotes, it's not to really delve into things ... it's to opine. And he does it well. He does do a good job of working stats and background into his pieces, so I liked that.

2. Torre. I LOVED the lede on this. I know the story's been told plenty of times, and I know it was discussed in different terms on the Jones thread. But I love a good situational lede. I just do. It draws me in, and I thought Torre did a good job of revisiting it at the end, bringing it full circle. I really enjoyed the whole piece, and it read much shorter than it really was. I thought it was very fluid, and very well-written, and informational without being dry. Loved it.

1. Wojnarowski. An admittance: Had you given me the list of authors, I would have guessed I'd like Woj's piece best before I even read them. There's something about his style and his writing I like, even though I don't read much of it because I really couldn't care less about the NBA in general. And just as I loved Torre's lede, I loved this one too. It was an even more original situational lede, and I thought it worked really well. It kind of melded Doyel's take in with some other stuff, with quotes and takes to back up what Doyel wrote.

The thing that impressed me, really, was that these eight people found different angles. It wasn't all "Wow, where'd this kid come from?" We got where he came from, what he did, how he got here, what he's doing now, and why it matters. It was more than I expected.

 

[Alma]

I added a ninth, Bruce Arthur. It will be in the running.

 

[imjustagirl]

I added a ninth, Bruce Arthur. It will be in the running.

Meh. I liked it, and I thought it was interesting, but it was ... tortured. So overwritten, so much schlock.

Somewhere in the vast and sudden storm that has gathered around Jeremy Lin — an electrical hurricane that whipped out of a clear blue sky, so powerful that at this point nearly everybody has heard about the incredible weather out East — there is a human story, a story about luck, a story about faith, and above all, basketball. Used to be, Jeremy Lin was a footnote to just about everybody. Now, he contains multitudes.

Really? That's your lede? Meh.

 

[Alma]

I added a ninth, Bruce Arthur. It will be in the running.

Meh. I liked it, and I thought it was interesting, but it was ... tortured. So overwritten, so much schlock.

Oh, I dunno. I'm guessing, you see the shot Lin made in person, after he'd done everything else in the last week, how the crowd flipped one way and then the other within an hour, I can see getting caught up in it.

The lede is not terrific, though, I agree. Storm isn't the way I'd go with it.

I did not vote for it, but I'd put it in the top half.

 

[Alma]

OK, from worst to best, in my opinion:

8. Reilly. This read like so much of what Reilly's worst stuff has become: filler to get to what he thinks are one-liners. Just painful to read, so superficial, and no meat to it whatsoever.

7. Kang. It was too long, and it was too "me"-centric for my tastes. I don't need Kang to tell me about him to tell me what he thinks of Lin.

6. Whitlock. Basic principle, but I just can't believe anything I read from him any more. He's the most opportunistic writer out there, and the entire part about "Oh, I had lunch with Dr. Harry Edwards and hip-hop culture is bad and Asian culture is good oh and by the way I'm not at all racist" was just too much. Also, this rang as hollow as anything in recent history: "Writing columns that discomfort the comfortable and defend the vulnerable is far more important to me than being outrageously popular and irreverent on Twitter."

5. Lupica. It was better than Reilly's, but it still could have been so much more. It was straight Lupica, which meant if you had handed that to me with no byline, I could have told you it was his. But the whole basis was a reach, a "sunshine in the sky, ain't America great" feel to me that reminded me of "Summer of '98." Not that I think Lin is on steroids (stop!) but just ... sometime it's not all about how amazing America is and ain't it wonderful how this can happen here. He DOES get points for the stuff from Amaker, which really were my favorite quotes I probably read in any of the pieces.

4. Araton. I'm just not a big fan of the NYT style. I like more punch to my copy (but not Reilly punch). It's good, it's serviceable, but it's dry. And I don't like dry. Also, I'm sure the cross-breeding with the Giants is great for NY, but I really couldn't care less what Justin Tuck thinks about Jeremy Lin.

3. Doyel. I really liked this, and it was the first piece I read. I still really like it, but much like Lupica, you could have handed this to me sans byline and I would have known exactly who wrote it. Unlike Lupica, I don't take that as a negative. This was exactly the piece Doyel needed to write, because he's the one who could carry it off. But his style isn't to use a ton of quotes, it's not to really delve into things ... it's to opine. And he does it well. He does do a good job of working stats and background into his pieces, so I liked that.

2. Torre. I LOVED the lede on this. I know the story's been told plenty of times, and I know it was discussed in different terms on the Jones thread. But I love a good situational lede. I just do. It draws me in, and I thought Torre did a good job of revisiting it at the end, bringing it full circle. I really enjoyed the whole piece, and it read much shorter than it really was. I thought it was very fluid, and very well-written, and informational without being dry. Loved it.

1. Wojnarowski. An admittance: Had you given me the list of authors, I would have guessed I'd like Woj's piece best before I even read them. There's something about his style and his writing I like, even though I don't read much of it because I really couldn't care less about the NBA in general. And just as I loved Torre's lede, I loved this one too. It was an even more original situational lede, and I thought it worked really well. It kind of melded Doyel's take in with some other stuff, with quotes and takes to back up what Doyel wrote.

The thing that impressed me, really, was that these eight people found different angles. It wasn't all "Wow, where'd this kid come from?" We got where he came from, what he did, how he got here, what he's doing now, and why it matters. It was more than I expected.

BTW, this is awesome.

 

[dooley_womack1]

She could be one of the could-be columnists under-40[/crossthread]

 

[Stitch]

Anyone who uses the term Linsanity should be eliminated.

 

[imjustagirl]

I am under 40! Yay!

And Alma, I'm not saying you wouldn't be caught up in it. But to me, overwriting is always the antithesis of that. Caught up in it means you're going stream of consciousness, writing what you feel. Nothing about that felt pure, or of the moment. It felt like he knew it was big so he TRIED TO MAKE IT REALLY BIG.

 

[Versatile]

I don't give Rick Reilly clicks. I read the other eight columns. In the order of Alma's list:

Gregg Doyel: He's one of my favorite columnists working today, but this one missed. I would have flipped this column on its head. The Calhoun comment would have made a terrific lead for a column that makes the exact same point. I hate question leads, and I hate when columnists load a column with questions. Doyel could have asked one of the people he calls out. He works for CBS. The access wouldn't have been much of a problem. There's a lot of good ideas here. Doyel always has good ideas. But it bothered me that he didn't work any of them out. He didn't even really attempt to work any of them out.

Adrian Wojnarowski: He's another of my favorite columnists working today. (I'm not just saying that; he and Doyel are among my 10 favorites.) I thought he mostly delivered on this one. He took swipes at those trying to take credit and those being given credit. His column didn't take us anywhere, but it explained the path as well as anything I've read on Lin. It mixed the right amount of lyrical writing with Wojnarowski's trademark edge, all while remaining clear and consise. This column was fewer than 800 words, and it said a whole lot. My biggest criticism as I was reading was that leading with Morey seemed unnatural, but he turned it around well and got a nice cap on the piece.

Jay Caspian Kang: Grantland's lack of competent editing is really tragic, as it shows itself in almost every story. Kang is the emblematic Grantlander, a writer with clear talent who has never been reined in at all, paints with broad strokes and operates in his own frame of reference, a Bill Simmons hallmark. The difference is, many of Simmons' readers have absorbed every word he's written for years. All of that said, this was the best piece I've read by Kang. The section where he broke down Lin's actual abilities was surprisingly digestable without being oversimplified. Then I got to the first subhead. Running journal? God, I hate running journals. It's just in-game notes, typed. It's lazy and often leads to incoherence. "The Knicks fans start chanting Jer-e-my, Jer-e-my." And here, I thought they just were chanting Jeremy. It's interesting he mentions Pablo S. Torre in a veiled way. I thought the column should have ended after that paragraph, for sure.

Harvey Araton: I'm getting redundant here, but Harvey Araton is another one of my 10 favorite sports columnists in the country. This might be the worst thing I've read by him in years. I didn't like his lead or lead quote at all. I didn't like the Justin Tuck quote or the Giants references. I hated the "new hit reality show" line and the Tea Party mention. Araton is at his best, normally, when he's writing about the NBA. Read his columns on the lockout. He's really terrific, the best the Times has to offer, in my opinion. I'm not sure if this was written on deadline, which would provide an excuse. I don't think it was. Almost the entire column focuses on the Lakers game, but it ran Sunday, after the Timberwolves game. I thought Araton went skin-deep on a story in which any writer can go skin-deep. There was nothing to see here, which is tremendously disappointing considering the writer and the newspaper we're discussing.

Jason Whitlock: He's not one of my 10 favorite columnists, though I like his points of view on many issues. His writing has conveyed his bloated sense of self-importance for years, and this column was particularly self-aggrandizing. Maybe some readers thought Whitlock needed to address his racist tweet before he dug into a column on Lin, but I'm sure many of the readers coming from MSN.com hadn't even heard about his tweet. Some -- gasp -- may not have even heard of Jason Whitlock. In breaking down the media narrative about Tebow, he took some liberalities. But he also made a few good points that needed to be made. But when it came time to discuss Amar'e Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony, he really skimped on real arguments and starting throwing out catchphrases, which bothered me. His analysis of actual basketball was poor and poorly argued. And his writing is always lazy, but that's his thing.

Mike Lupica: Loopy has two writing tones: god-maker and world-destroyer. That's fine, but it needs to be understood by anyone reading him. The problem here is that he loaded up on quotes that didn't mean much of anything except to further the god-making initiative, and he failed to provide any insight into Lin whatsoever. Here's what I got from this column: Loopy knows people at Harvard, and Harvard people know Jeremy Lin, and Loopy clearly doesn't know Jeremy Lin, so Loopy lets the Harvard people talk about Jeremy Lin. This column is so skin-deep it makes Araton's piece look like a back-of-the-issue Sports Illustrated profile.

Pablo S. Torre: I really don't like comparing this to the other pieces because it's not a column and because it's for a magazine, which means there's an entirely different and superior editing process that it made its way through and it had different intentions than the other pieces, which were all parts of Lin story packages. This was meant to stand alone. Anyway, the lead is absolutely terrific. Torre had a leg up in that he had written about Lin probably as extensively as anyone in the industry prior to Feb. 3. There was some overwriting, mostly just in wasted words, to which the best Sports Illustrated scribes rarely fall victim. But it was very, very well written and structured for its purposes. I loved the detail about the clips of Tyson Chandler running off screens and the interview with Dan McGeary. The kicker was excellent. There was the proper amount of basketball analysis. Torre did a very, very good job. I liked this much more than his puff piece on Harvard basketball almost two years ago.

Bruce Arthur: He probably is not one of my 10 favorite columists, but he's in the top 20. But Arthur has a tendency to overwrite. I'm sure it was an immense feeling being there for Tuesday's game, and he was trying to convey that while writing on deadline. It's understandble. But there were a lot of loose phrases and words and even sentences in this column, particularly in the first two paragraphs. Things got considerably smoother after that, and I particularly liked the line about the Latrell Sprewell poster. What a fun, telling detail. This kid isn't perfect, Loopy. The column was what you'd hope your columnist would write on deadline. But he needs to learn how to spell "center."

I liked Torre's piece the most. But, on a curve based on deadline and editing, I thought Wojnarowski's was the best. Arthur's probably falls third. And Kang, particularly on that curve where he gains all sorts of points for lack of editing, had the fourth-best column. I thought he had a lot of moments of success and might have even had the best piece with a hard line editor, who ideally would have cut the main column by several hundred words and removed the running diary entirely. I didn't like the other columns, frankly.

 

[Versatile]

IJAG, I'll see your 700 words and raise you 500.

And Alma, I'd love to know which column you voted for and why.

Anyone who uses the term Linsanity should be eliminated.

I disagree (obviously, based on my choices). The portmanteau has become ubiquitous. It means something to people at this point. It's a brief way to describe the hype surrounding Jeremy Lin. Making up your own puns on Lin's name in a column would be hacky, perhaps unless you happen to be Jim Murray.

For the record: Gregg Doyel, Jason Whitlock and Mike Lupica were the only writers not to use the portmanteau in their listed columns.

 

[Boom_70]

Lupica columns are one cliche after another. He has been using the same theme forever:

"But as much as this is a basketball story, a New York story, a story about an Asian-American kid who has come from the end of the bench to become this kind of sudden star, the best part of it is that it is an American story."

Plug in the sport ... a baseball story, a New York story, a story about a kid from Puerto Rico who moved to Washington Heights when he was one.

 

[Boom_70]

Really Mike Vaccaro should be added to the poll. His string of Lin columns has consistently been right on target. What Vaccaro is able to bring to table is a vast knowledge of NY Knick history that allows him to put this Linn run in proper historical perspective.

Toronto game column:
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/garden_falls_in_love_with_surprising_B8jQDfKqOSL3YtQW4mPtHN

Laker game column

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/garden_falls_in_love_with_surprising_B8jQDfKqOSL3YtQW4mPtHN

 

[3OctaveFart]

More than half these guys don't get clicks from me.

 

[TigerVols]

The best one is not even on the list:

http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201202/jeremy-lin-nba-new-york-knicks-harvard-taiwan

 

[Stitch]

When will Linsanity turn into what Vinsanity became?

 

[Alma]

The best one is not even on the list:

http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201202/jeremy-lin-nba-new-york-knicks-harvard-taiwan

I tried to take stuff from the last 24-48 hours, post-Lakers.