I'm a pretty rabid baseball fan, but I don't ever check game highlights online or on my 90's era cell phone. I can see his point though, I rarely read game recaps, often just browsing the box scores, but I might read them if there is something odd in the box score or I want more context.

MLB at-bat for the iPhone has changed the way I follow baseball quite a bit.

EDIT: But even in the days before the internet, I rarely sought out game recaps. I can usually get most of what I need from a box score.

If all you're getting from your sportswriter is a game recap, then he/she probably doesn't matter that much.
But good writers give you inside stories, interviews with players and coaches, comments from scouts, etc.
Try getting that from a box score...

I agree with the point. During my short time as a sportswriter, I always wanted the 'sidebar' story, as opposed to the game story. A. It is easier to write, and B. From a fan's perspective, it is newsworthy. If I went to the game, I saw the 'news', the sidebar tells me what happened regarding [something else].

I don't read recaps, but yes if my team won and something interesting happened, I hope to find an article about it, it's nearly as exciting as watching it life again. I mean the written word does a great job of putting a lot of emotional impact into something that is exciting and pacing it enough to enjoy over and over again. After another great Albert performance, I always want to read about it, or if they walk Albert and the guy behind him did something or just a guy like Schumaker hitting a homerun in the 8th inning to put us ahead in a game we were losing, it's like getting the replay on the sports shows, but you can control when you get the flow instead of waiting for the 28 minutes of Red Sox/Yankee highlights(and here is arod walking in the first inning, we'll show you all 7 pitches, and note how he sets the guy up for a fly ball in the fifth to move the runner from second to first. And now we'll show you Pedroia's positioning on the field and note that the ball was hit only two feet to his right and he made a nice play there. etc--here are the cardinal highlights, homerun by schumaker, Cardinals won 7-3, now lets get back to Kruk and his breakdown of Jeters trademark hop throw and how it proves he's the best defensive shortstop)

When I was young (teens and early 20's) I read baseball articles looking for insight into what was going to happen. I didn't care about life at home or cars players drove I wanted to know if they were healthy and working on anything that would give them an edge in the coming season.

I've since learned it is all noise and offers a faux-insight not related to reality.

I read baseball books to learn about history and I'll skim through blogs and this site to see what the watercoler topics are but I don't need read any of the local papers baseball sections.

I read multiple recaps every day in order to write my daily "And That Happened" featute which . . . kind of mocks the idea of game recaps. I'm not sure what that all means, but I feel that if I think about it too much I'll cease to exist or the world will fold in on itself or something.

If all you're getting from your sportswriter is a game recap, then he/she probably doesn't matter that much.

I don't know how its done with all papers, but in KC, they usually have a straightforward game recap that is pretty bare bones, then a "sidebar" article on the game, as mrams alludes to, that gives you more in-depth coverage and quotes from the coaches and players. I usually skip the former in favor of the latter.

If all you're getting from your sportswriter is a game recap, then he/she probably doesn't matter that much.
But good writers give you inside stories, interviews with players and coaches, comments from scouts, etc.
Try getting that from a box score...

I dunno. Inside stories are mostly yawners ("Britt Knucklehead has developed a knuckleball"), interviews are mostly conducted by Crash Davis rules. The one realm that separates wonderful writing from pedestrian writing is really the game story itself. One of the greatest pieces of baseball writing ever – Red Smith's account of the Bevens almost-no-hitter – is a game story (though it probably was a column, not the sole "recap" in the paper that day). Bill Conlin, back in the day, was a terrific writer of game stories: literate, wry, dramatic without getting turgid. He's a pontificating bore of a columnist, any more, but he earned the right to pontificate.

The problem with the contemporary game story is that editors have drained all the life out of them. They could be written by machines. (I know, I know, Ring Lardner probably said the same thing in 1915 :) mlb.com game stories are lifeless assembly-liine productions, even if pretty gifted writers are working on them.

If all you're getting from your sportswriter is a game recap, then he/she probably doesn't matter that much.
But good writers give you inside stories, interviews with players and coaches, comments from scouts, etc.
Try getting that from a box score...

I dunno. Inside stories are mostly yawners ("Britt Knucklehead has developed a knuckleball"), interviews are mostly conducted by Crash Davis rules. The one realm that separates wonderful writing from pedestrian writing is really the game story itself. One of the greatest pieces of baseball writing ever – Red Smith's account of the Bevens almost-no-hitter – is a game story (though it probably was a column, not the sole "recap" in the paper that day). Bill Conlin, back in the day, was a terrific writer of game stories: literate, wry, dramatic without getting turgid. He's a pontificating bore of a columnist, any more, but he earned the right to pontificate.

The problem with the contemporary game story is that editors have drained all the life out of them. They could be written by machines. (I know, I know, Ring Lardner probably said the same thing in 1915 :) mlb.com game stories are lifeless assembly-liine productions, even if pretty gifted writers are working on them.

You're absolutely right about all of this. The problem is that writing on deadline is a lost art among sportswriters, which is compounded by the fact that fewer and fewer people have the attention span to appreciate good writing when they see it. I'm sure that there are others I'm not familiar with, but the last truly great game story writer that I can remember was Thomas Boswell in the 70's, when he was the Post's beat reporter covering the Orioles. His game accounts rivaled anything I ever read in anthologies of the so-called Golden Era of sportswriting in the 20's. For the last 25 years he's become just one more predictable pontificator whose opinions you can see coming a mile down the road, but when he actually had to get off his butt and write on deadline in order to draw a paycheck, he was as good as there ever was.

At some point the recaps no longer resembled the game I had seen the night before.

At some point the recaps no longer resembled the game I had seen the night before.

yep, seems to me that the recaps are often a person looking at the play by play on game day and the box score and making comments about the game. I've seen too many where the pitcher was hit hard all night long and the ball would be hit right at someone, and they talk about how great of a performance he had by tossing a 4 hitter 2 walk night over 7 innings even though there was not a moment during the game I thought he was dominate.(and of course the opposite happens, where a guy allows 7 weak ass hits, and the recap talks about how he got lucky and spread the hits out over the game---or something like that)

Inside stories are mostly yawners ("Britt Knucklehead has developed a knuckleball"), interviews are mostly conducted by Crash Davis rules.

I think a lot of this has to do with the lack of baseball understanding (and interest) that a lot of writers have. When they ask generic questions, they're going to get generic answers. A sportswriter who is closely following a baseball game and who has a sound understanding of the complexities of the game, can ask more direct questions that will actually engage the player/manager.

If you ask Pitcher A how he's going to get Albert Pujols out, he's going to pummel you with cliches. However, if you ask that same pitcher about his specific pitches, what "success" he's had previously against AP, and most importantly- if you can ask him for the thought process that went into what happened in tonight's specific at bat- you can get some really good information. This won't work in every case of course and nobody is going to be giving away "trade secrets" but I'm convinced that a writer who has a sound knowledge of the game, a passion for that game, and a desire to communicate more information than the generic provides great value to readers (this is true even if the players don't give him much.) For myself, I just don't run into too many guys who have that skill set.

"even though there was not a moment during the game I thought he was dominate."

Dominant, or dominating. Not dominate.

Dominant, or dominating. Not dominate.

think's' gramma polece.

I think a lot of this has to do with the lack of baseball understanding (and interest) that a lot of writers have. When they ask generic questions, they're going to get generic answers. A sportswriter who is closely following a baseball game and who has a sound understanding of the complexities of the game, can ask more direct questions that will actually engage the player/manager.

If you ask Pitcher A how he's going to get Albert Pujols out, he's going to pummel you with cliches. However, if you ask that same pitcher about his specific pitches, what "success" he's had previously against AP, and most importantly- if you can ask him for the thought process that went into what happened in tonight's specific at bat- you can get some really good information. This won't work in every case of course and nobody is going to be giving away "trade secrets" but I'm convinced that a writer who has a sound knowledge of the game, a passion for that game, and a desire to communicate more information than the generic provides great value to readers (this is true even if the players don't give him much.) For myself, I just don't run into too many guys who have that skill set.

That's a very good observation. And even though they don't all have the same degree of intelligence and insight, some of the best reporters are often former players, the ones who can be totally honest without submitting to the sort of faux outrageousness that the dumb jock types like Kruk seem compelled to engage in. Jim Palmer's particularly good in this respect, and when he starts discoursing on the finer points of pitch selection it's hard to imagine that he even needs anyone to prompt him.

This today from the excellent Derrick Goold:

"The changeup that Hawksworth throws is your textbook circle-change, yet he holds it with a two-seam grip. During conversations this spring with Adam Wainwright, Hawksworth and his pal discussed how he could adapt that to his advantage. Hawksworth said by throwing a two-seam fastball — instead of shifting his fingers to the four-seam grip — he was able to give the batter the same look with the fastball that he had with the changeup. There was no giveaway hitch in his delivery or placement of his hand, he explained."

Merely one example of something useful that the uncredentialed--to coin a word--cannot provide.

Good link, Dayn. I didn't know of Derrick Goold before, but if all sports reporters were as good as this column indicates Goold is, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I also like the way he links to pretty much every other worthwhile baseball site in existence, with a few notable exceptions like BTF (ouch!) and the best website for stadiums past and present, Clem's Baseball.

I've seen too many where the pitcher was hit hard all night long and the ball would be hit right at someone, and they talk about how great of a performance he had by tossing a 4 hitter 2 walk night over 7 innings

That's been going on a long time. I still remember a game from 25 years ago, Mike Torrez had been horrifically bad, more than one columnist wrote that he was one start away from losing his rotation spot...
He the had an 8 inning 1 run outing, the next day every columnist was writing about his veteran saavy, how he showed he could still be effective...

I watched the whole game, cursing every time a line drive was hit right at someone (I wanted him out of the rotation)- he was terrible- he only gave up a run, but stranded about 12 guys, he had like 2 lineout double plays (Not GDPS, bullets that were caught, one in the OF, runner doubled off), several time with men on, flyballs were caught at the wall (this was Shea in the early 80s, plus early in the game they kept mentioning how the wind was blowing in...). giving up only 1 run was clearly a fluke , but no one seemed to mention all the hard hit outs the next day.

Good link, Dayn. I didn't know of Derrick Goold before, but if all sports reporters were as good as this column indicates Goold is, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I also like the way he links to pretty much every other worthwhile baseball site in existence, with a few notable exceptions like BTF (ouch!) and the best website for stadiums past and present, Clem's Baseball.

Goold is about as good as you can ask for as a beat writer. (I thought he did link BTF though, guess not) When I signed up for Twitter(because of previous threads) he was one of the first guys I grabbed.

I watched the whole game, cursing every time a line drive was hit right at someone (I wanted him out of the rotation)- he was terrible- he only gave up a run, but stranded about 12 guys, he had like 2 lineout double plays (Not GDPS, bullets that were caught, one in the OF, runner doubled off), several time with men on, flyballs were caught at the wall (this was Shea in the early 80s, plus early in the game they kept mentioning how the wind was blowing in...). giving up only 1 run was clearly a fluke , but no one seemed to mention all the hard hit outs the next day.

yep always bothered me, heck last year on this site I mentioned that a Cardinal pitcher outpitched another teams pitcher and didn't get the result, and a guy who didn't watch the game took me to task because the numbers indicated that the Cardinal guy was less effective. (more hits, same number of runs, fewer strikeouts, same number of walks I believe) but if you don't see the game, unless one was a poor performance and one was a great performance, you can't say with certainty which guy was the better pitcher that day, just who had the better results. Over the course of the season I have no problem with saying it evens out, but over one game there just isn't enough opportunities for it to even out.

Huh, I'd never heard of Goold, either, but he does seem good. I like this one: A User's Guide to Pujols' Elbow.

If you're a Cardinal fan, then Goold's 10@10 is essential daily reading.

JPWF13, was it this game?

If you didn't look that up, that's a damn good memory. Looks like you only had to suffer through 2 more games (and only 1 start) with him as a Met though.

And it looks like Torrez got 2 GIDPs (one on a bunt), 1 DP on a potential sac fly (runner cut down at home), and another runner cut down at home on a double to RF.

JPWF13, was it this game?

Could be, I just don't remember

The more I think about it I think he left the game because he was hit by a line drive (in the face/cheek area)