Blog Hiatus

Hi all. So after October 31st, I'm taking a break. Why? I've enjoyed blogging a lot, and I certainly have not come close to running out of story ideas. But I need to take some time off. I've accomplished my short-term blogging goals of being linked to by bigger web-sites, having interesting comments, and making some novel arguments in sports blog land. Now I need to decide if I want anything else from this experience. I can't see myself making a rational decision unless I take some time to think. Thus, farewell for at least a month.

Bloggolalia: Who is the Next King of Sports Links?

In response to SML's History of Sports Bloggging, one last post. Disclaimer: this is wild speculation, and I cheerfully admit I may be as ignorant as can be on all these topics. So no quitting your job to blog or anything because of this.

I wrote my history of what might have been already. But what's still left untapped? I wrote about some issues related to bigger firms here. So let me just ask. Can Deadspin be beaten? Will we have a new "King of Sports Links"? I would say, probably; very few things are triumphant for long on-line. (cough Mark Zuckerburg sell while you can cough). The short answer is, no matter how much money Gawker makes, it's still a lot less than ESPN, Yahoo, or Google make. Even if ESPN or Google writers had half the talent of Will and Rick, if you hired 8 people to run the site, the combination would be victorious. The only trick is to avoid that whole condescension thing that SML pointed out.

For the long answer, here's what I think. A blog should properly be seen as a cross between Google's Search Engine and Yahoo!'s Answers. It's a smart search engine that writes answers IN ANTICIPATION of readers questions. See, I could just type in words with my specific interests into Google's search engine...but then I have no one to tell me what links are best. Worse, I can't talk about the stories with anyone. Yahoo! Answers gives me someone to talk to and allows me to narrow my focus, but it takes time to get an answer. So what a blog author does is write stories around interests that people would search for and want to read, and then give them a place to discuss said interests. Basically, I have an expert doubling as a search engine; better than Google and Yahoo! Answers would be separately. To be successful, you need to be a lot like your readers, but have several intriguing quirky ways of being different.

However, the problem with Deadspin (or nearly any sports blog site) is that it's just written by one or two people trying to stay current with many, many readers. As writers age, in general, they tend to get more out of touch with the 18-35 sweet spot. Or, as their readers get used to their columns style, the reader gets bored by the repitition or picks at the flaws. Deadspin has shrewdly tried to fix the two writer problem by handing over columns to David Hirshey, Big Daddy Drew, AJ Daulerio, Weekend Editor (which now rotates to include more editors), and others. But I'm not so sure getting more writers is the answer. There has to be a better way of knowing what stories your readers care about. (For example, I could care less about ESPN).

So a blog that could collect the searches of its readers about sports AND then write links and columns based on those searches would trump Deadspin. Or, if one could get 20-30 readers to devote 10 hours of their time per week to digging up interesting stories (aka an army of interns) in return for a nominal fee, again, that would trump Deadspin. (I didn't think of it when I first wrote this, but that description fits Epic Carnival. However, the site might have a touch too many writers right now, and the comment section needs some work.) The key is better information and understanding about your readers. And right now, let's be honest, most of us are guessing. However, I have some severe scruples with the "turn your commenters into worker bees" movement. It's just not going to work, and I'll explain why in one word: "laziness". There.

Secondly, I think there's still room for improvement in the commenting game. Right now, people comment for free, and it gets really hard to know which comments are worth reading and aren't. But what if, instead, a site used a team of 15-20 writers on each column? I'm thinking like the Simpsons TV or Family Guy show writers, where the show itself doesn't fit together that smoothly at times but the individual lines are great because they were the best work out of 15-20 writers. Or, VH-1 review shows where they ask 20 people the same question and only 2 of them are used on-air. So, the blog author writes the 200-word column...and all the other writers write short, snarky pieces related to the column. Author picks 3 of them to run with his piece, and publishes it. Now you have funny X 4, and the best comment written in response gets to be the 5th author. So now you have competition, which gives you the online video-game angle.

Or, consider a better version of DU!AN, where only the best comments made while watching a game make it on-air in real time, and 4 authors live-chat simultaneously about the game via text, audio, or video. You're telling me that this wouldn't be better than many commentator teams? (copyright infringement issues aside). So you have beta testers killing the dumb comments while the good ones survive (ala Youtube, Digg, everyone else with their thumbs-up/thumbs-down routine). I still think there's more to be done with interactivity, and we're not there quite yet.

Thirdly, have you seen Deadspin's IT lately? Anyone remember how Friendster's terrible IT helped open the door for Myspace? While the average reader isn't concerned right now, they may be if live blogs keep failing, comments keep freezing, and posts fail to show up.

Fourthly, Deadspin is an amoeba. If you're a commenter and you're really funny and good, why should you stay at Deadspin? Why not start your own blog? So I think retaining long-term commenting talent is a problem, and commenting is a big draw to linking sites. Most of the commenters left amiacably and stayed on good terms with Deadspin. But one wonders if that will continue indefinitely.

Finally, what happens when sites start rejecting links? No, I'm serious. Linking makes you dependent on the site that linked to you. It ruins the exclusivity of you and your readers and admits another X number of strangers in from another site to run amuck in your site. Most of us welcome this. But I could see a time 2-3 years down the road where blogs form paying communities and don't want those communities disturbed. You pay for the exclusivity, rather than the content, perhaps; the blog author promises to write articles based on your suggestions and your interests. At that time, if everyone knows every site, then why would my readers want, say, SML's readers? If they wanted to read SML, they would be at SML already. etc. I could also see situations where columns are "exclusive" to one blog and can't be linked/embedded elsewhere. Now it becomes a content war; and Deadspin's specialty is not developing original content, but rather tweaking existing content.

Anyway, those are some scattered ideas. Yes, I'm testing your attention span. If you got here, BLINK!

A final point I thought about...what about Ballhype as the new link king? You know, by ranking us, Ballhype controls us, right? I think people underestimate the power of Ballhype to take a run at Deadspin. You know what it would take? Hire one or two writers to provide exclusive site-specific content, and otherwise just post the best links on the web as they do now. Bingo. Don't sleep on Ballhype as eventual blogger competition.

7 Random/Weird Facts About MCBias

So the boisterous Redhead demanded that I post 7 random or weird facts about myself on this blog before going on hiatus. Despite pointing out that Blogger 2007 is not LiveJournal circa 2003, this is a sports blog not a personal blog, and that facts about myself cause insomniacs to slumber, I decided to push this out before going on hiatus. But I'm not tagging anyone because I'm going on hiatus tomorrow; so I wouldn't get a chance to read them. Oh, and I know the list is kind of grouchy. I just couldn't figure out a way to disguise the good stuff without giving out too much personal info.

1. The last soccer game of my senior year of high school, I headed an own goal into our net that essentially cost us the game. My dad was videotaping the game, but thankfully was distracted at that moment. More amusingly, as part of a plan to capture the glories of my senior year, I had my dad videotape several sporting and academic events. I lost or messed up in every single event he videotaped...let's just say he will never be allowed to videotape me when I'm using power tools.
2. I once got a backstage pass to meet a rather famous singer from a female member of his band who I was also going to meet...and was about 2 minutes too late to be let in.
3. At one volleyball practice, I was hit in the right eye by a spike, and a few minutes later, I was hit in the left eye. I have never been hit in the eye before or since in volleyball.
4. I have worked at a place where a gunman shot someone. Thankfully I was absent the day he did it.
5. One day, my roommate and I were supposed to get up at 8:00 AM for church. We both managed to sleep in until 1:30 PM. Five and a half hours late, even though neither of us is the type to sleep in, and our alarm was apparently set on closer inspection. We're still not quite sure how that happened.
6. I've met people who got perfect scores on the ACT and the SAT (not the same person).
7. I'm an introvert who does surprisingly well at public speaking, thus merrily confusing people about my true personality.

Jesus Plays Sports: When Christian Athletes Fail

So with the Rockies and Paul Byrd both having fallen on hard times lately, I thought I should squeeze off a quick post about that. I hate it when people only talk about their causes or favorite players when times are good, thus I respond.

First, the Rockies were swept in the World Series. I wrote about this team's unique relationship to Christianity here. Quite honestly, I'm not surprised they lost in the World Series. You know, some might argue that had the Rockies won, they could have been this great testimony to fans about the power of Christ, etc. But rarely do things work out that neatly for Christians. Look at Kurt Warner's up-and-down career as an example. No blessing of God is guaranteed for being a Christian athlete.

Warning: Christian speculation ahead!
My personal bias, which I don't think Christians or non-Christians may agree with, is that God has a way of being coy about his role in the affairs of men. That way, only people who really are looking for him will notice. For me as a Christian, a few times my team won or lost games, and I thought "Wow, that was ALMOST miraculous the way we won or lost, it felt like something different was in the air, etc." But you can't prove it to be truly miraculous on pure statistics alone; unlikely, yes, but miraculous, no. So you're just left wondering if God may have intervened or if you're making too much of nothing. I think that although sometimes God is obvious, more often he makes himself known, then retreats. It then becomes a matter of faith as to whether you believe he really exists or not.

Second, Paul Byrd. There's a temptation to defend Paul Byrd as just trying to compensate for a medical condition in a way that was legal at the time. After all, often people complain that Christian athletes aren't tough or competitive enough. There's nothing uncompetitive about the man who got into a heated confrontation with Bob Wickman last year because he felt Bob cost him a W.

However, I keep thinking that Christians should hold a higher standard in the competitive arena. After all, on the Sermon on the Mount Jesus talks about "If someone forces you to go with them one mile, go with them two" and talks about thinking about adultery and saying harsh words to a brother as being a sin. Other muscle-building substances were illegal at the time Paul Byrd injected HGH. It seems that Paul Byrd obeyed the law of MLB but disobeyed the spirit of the law. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

However, I'm saddened because Paul Byrd's book was going to talk about his struggles with porn, despite being a married athlete. To think that athletes, known for being wealthy and supposedly having all these women at their disposal, have problems with porn would be a new perspective for a lot of people. I think it would start some badly-needed conversations about the lure of virtual reality (VR) in general (video games, porn, Internet communities, TV, etc.). Many, many Americans are getting addicted to VR at the cost of everyday relationships and experiences. It's a problem we need to seriously confront as a society and as individuals. Now, though, there's not much chance that book comes out.

Linkstigational: New (or new to me) Sports Blogs

I hate linking. It takes a long time, exposes the fact that even making links stretches my HTML ability, and most readers already have seen the content I link to. If you read and like my stuff, chances are you read the blogs I like as well, right? But when new blogs appear (or blogs I hadn't seen before), I will make an exception. There have been so many in this last month, I've actually had to split this column in two. First, some bigger names in new and improved roles; next time, some newer writers that you should read.

Cosellout is a fascinating read; the man is a fact-spewing cannon in defending the unpopular (Isiah Thomas) and re-evaluating popular sports folk (Rick Reilly, Steve Nash). Check out his Steve Nash post.

D-Wil is back at his home site, but is still as provocative and ornery as ever. I envy his ability to analyze media content rapidly and understand where arguments are weak and biased. For example, he points out that Keyshawn Johnson essentially betrayed and sold out Chad Johnson, his cousin, for a cheap 5-minute interview.

Matt Ufford is quietly writing a great NFL column over at the AOL Fanhouse this year. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen much mention of it on other blogs, and that's a shame. (Ahem, Fanhouse; your format makes it impossible to separate the fruit from the rind.) I was initially a little suspicious of its content given the pretentious-sounding "The Prelude" title, but it won me over quickly. Anytime a blogger can mention the Vicksburg Campaign and other great battles of war in a column, I want to read that column. Ignore the scurrilous rumors that my real reason for liking the Vicksburg Campaign is because the town name of "Holly Springs" sounds like the name of a pretty girl; they are 95% false. Ok, 80% false.

Finally, this Stop Mike Lupica fellow actually believes a link from MC Bias is worthwhile. Yet another blogger believes I have multiple readers. Wow, bloggers are gullible. Head on over there to keep up the charade, especially those of you of the left-handed persuasion. Watch the GI Joe cartoons and mock him for forgetting Bill Russell on his famous NBA left-handers list, ok?

Media Mayhem: Simmons, Banks, Leitch, Reilly

Lots of stories going around about sports writers lately, so I decided to do a rare post about sports writers.

I am ready to start a Paypal fund to collect enough money so Bill Simmons can move back to Boston. Not being in Boston anymore, he isn't surrounded by Boston folk. Thus, he gets his Boston fan talk fix by writing about it to us. His writing is more about his fond memories of Boston than anything else. If he would go back to Boston, I believe he would become a little more well-rounded in his columns. But let's be honest about Simmons' writing. Bill Simmons gets worse and worse as the year goes on, hitting bottom around January, until he can write about the NBA again. He's a great NBA writer, and only an average NFL writer. That's forgiveable; it's very hard to be good at writing on all leagues. But it still is hard to read him this time of year.

Don Banks may be my favorite NFL sports writer (Michael Silver also would be in the discussion). But I couldn't believe this line in his column about Boston sports fandom:

I've lived other places -- the Tampa Bay area, the Twin Cities, and the Baltimore-Washington area -- and nowhere matches the year-round intensity and passion for sports and its local pro teams that Boston exhibits.

What?! That means nothing; of course Boston is more fanatical about sports than those cities. How well do the Tampa Bay Devil Rays or other Florida baseball/football teams draw? The Twins were nearly contracted by MLB, and Minneapolis may be one of the few places in the country where intellectual and artistic events are revered just as much as sports events by the average citizen. And Baltimore-Washington folk are too busy getting their politics on to pay faithful attention to all of their sports teams. I understand the point Don is trying to make (he recently moved to Boston and thus compares it with past cities), but those cities are poor sports towns, period. Not a good comparison.

Bloggers have been quick to praise Shanoff's idea that Leitch take over the back page of SI. Look at the Ballhype votes and links. However, look deeper at the comment section of Shanoff's post here. None of Dan's readers like the idea! And neither do I. Leitch is very talented, but I don't know if his style works for the last page of a magazine. What Will does best is write provocatively to inspire comments and thoughts. I could see him doing an excellent job with the first page of SI. But the last page? You don't stretch folks there. Instead, you tickle their egos and massage their biases so they buy your magazine again. Some time later I'll talk about how a magazine should be laid out.

Rick Reilly is not going to be the same at ESPN. Cosellout made some good points in his Reilly article. Reilly isn't the ex-high-school jock; he's the ex-nerd who married the head cheerleader, built an impressive resume at SI...and now both of those aspects are gone. SI was the perfect place for Reilly with its witty and laid-back style. ESPN is the opposite of Reilly, with its ex-frat boy feel at times. While Reilly may aspire to that style, I don't see that in him. It'll be interesting to see how his style may or may not change due to the location change.

World Series Quick Post

Sadly I was right about the Indians having Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde tendencies. CC and Fausto reverted to last year's form, Grady resisted the awaiting Derek Jeter mantle Fox so badly wanted to place around his shoulders, and Travis was all donkey.

This is a tough one for me; originally I had the Red Sox winning the Series. But this setup of Red Sox vs. Rockies sounds a lot like Yankees vs. Marlins in 2003. When teams with very young, homegrown line-ups reach the World Series, they tend to be very successful. Additionally, expansion teams are 3-0 in the last decade in the World Series. Also, the Rockies are a better regular-season fielding team according to MLB.com's stats and at least as good of a regular-season hitting team.

True, the Rockies starting pitching isn't as good when viewed over the regular season stats...but the Red Sox are relying on an elderly Curt Schilling, a overtaxed Daisuke who finished the season poorly, AND a first-time play-off starter in Jon Lester. Plus, the Rockies get Aaron Cook back for Game 4; that will be an emotional lift. And don't be so sure that Papelbon's good closing will continue. If Garko hits that ball a little harder in Game 7, it's 5-5.

For the record: Rockies in 6.