LeBron was B.S.'ing Trevor Ariza. Ariza detected it, which is why he sidestepped the lure/myth of "playing with LeBron" for a REAL long-term plan in Houston.
My issue with fans in Cleveland and Miami is that your biggest stars -- LeBron and Dwyane Wade -- obviously don't want to play for you. Yet you continue to support them.
Maybe there's the "as long as they're on my team, I'll root for them." Which is fine, to a point. But nothing suggests these players have any loyalty to your team. So why support them?
If they really wanted to stay, they could simply re-sign -- tomorrow -- and lock in their careers with their current teams. Let their current teams build title contenders around them.
Instead, they are playing coy -- Wade went so far as to preemptively frame his leaving as the Heat's fault for not building a contender around him (they WON a title building around him...you'd think he would give them a little credit for that).
There is nothing enjoyable about basketball's two biggest stars playing out lame-duck years in cities they appear to have every intention of bailing on, come next summer.
I recognize that if fans turn on them now, the players are definitely gone. But that would be buying into the player-generated myth that they are considering sticking around to begin with.
I guess the only thing left for Cavs and Heat fans is to enjoy this one final year of watching brilliant players up close. There is some consolation in that -- better one last year than nothing.
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Monday, July 06, 2009
Sarah Palin's Full-Court Press
Via Deadspin's Craggs. So good I had to publish the image here, with full credit/awe, of course.
Agenda For Yahoo Sports Bloggers Summit
Apparently, the Yahoo Sports Bloggers are all convening on California this week -- not being a Y!SB mafia member, I only hear about these things offhand through Twitter.
I'm sure they will have much to discuss and celebrate: After all, as a group they put out one of the most well-produced, well-written and well-read products in sports media, online or off.
YSB's template -- as engineered by Jamie Mottram (who adapted the model he built at Fanhouse, which sort of makes him the Bill Parcells of the sports-blog universe) -- is a range of vertically oriented, single-sport blogs, managed and largely written by absolutely outstanding, best-in-their-sport editors. (Disclosure: Count many of these folks as my friends.)
This strategy allows for complete coverage of virtually every topic that fans may want to read about, regardless of team allegiance. (Intentionally, they leave deep team-by-team analysis to individual independent bloggers and partners like SB Nation.) This dovetails nicely with Yahoo's competitive advantage of driving tens of millions of readers through Yahoo's front door at Yahoo.com -- then directing it to the best of their own content. A compelling blog post that runs on Yahoo's front page can earn millions of page views in an hour.
This is not to discount the millions and millions coming through sports.yahoo.com (by many publically available metrics, the largest audience in online sports): Many from the Yahoo front page; many from folks coming for their fantasy leagues but staying for the quality sports content; many to Y! Sports directly, because Yahoo Sports' interface is clean, simple and effective; and many because they have learned that the blogs are so damn good.
(Yahoo Sports blogs have been so successful that I think they have eclipsed two other very strong areas of Yahoo's sports coverage: (1) Original reporting that regularly creates "national-discussion" storylines, and (2) traditional -- but no less high-quality -- "newspaper"-style columnists like Wetzel, Wojnaroski and Silver. Once you layer in the bloggers, then pound-for-pound, the relatively small group punches big at the highest weight class.)
Triumphalism aside, as the Y! Sports bloggers gather to talk, what should they REALLY be talking about? What should the agenda include?
(1) Social media. I love Y!S's simple yet wildly effective 4-legged stool of fantasy, blog network, original reporting and traditional columns. How can this group -- particularly the bloggers -- incorporate social media beyond tweeting links to their latest posts? How does "passed" media fit into the strategy, with the bloggers both as benefactors of and, yes, benefiting from the link economy?
(2) The Yahoo firehose. Obviously, a link on the front page of Yahoo is gold -- but every content department at Yahoo understands that. What can the bloggers learn about how that front-page process works to earn more links there for their work? (Equally, can bloggers work both from an absolute traffic count and an "effective" traffic count that discounts one-time placement surges to best think about growing their traffic? And, yes, they should be thinking about that.)
(3) Increasing blogger profiles. Again, the Y! Sports bloggers are among -- if not the best -- bloggers in their sport. They may be the best commentators in their sport, period -- in new or traditional media. Through p.r. outreach, grassroots bootstrapping or larger distribution deals, how can the group become bigger "names," both as individuals and to increase the profile of Y! Sports? Should this include investing time and resources in more "traditional" media like audio (creating their own podcasts, which some do) and/or online video?
(4) Revenue. I am not suggesting the bloggers participate in ad sales (although I would say that, generally, editorial folks have amazingly creative ideas about how editorial and advertising can work together to maintain editorial integrity and best serve the consumer, while creating value for the marketer -- there's no shame in a brainstorming meeting). I am suggesting that it behooves everyone to have even a basic understanding of the economics of both the Y! Sports business and Yahoo's business as a whole. Ignorance isn't integrity, and great writers won't lose their effectiveness if they understand how the business that pays their bills happens to work. (I guess what would really make sense is having a basic understanding of the business realities, and the metrics that drive them -- which the bloggers have substantial control over. Then, specifically, a tactical-level understanding of analytics: Where it comes from, why and how.)
(5) Bargain collectively. Whatever they're paying you -- and it is impossible to discount the correlation between great product and security of a full-time income stream -- it ain't enough. (Kidding. Sort of.)
Commenters: I'm sure most of you consume Y! Sports in some way -- fantasy, blogs, news headlines, front page of Yahoo, etc. If you do read Y! Sports blogs, what's your evaluation and where do you think they need to focus their efforts?
-- D.S.
I'm sure they will have much to discuss and celebrate: After all, as a group they put out one of the most well-produced, well-written and well-read products in sports media, online or off.
YSB's template -- as engineered by Jamie Mottram (who adapted the model he built at Fanhouse, which sort of makes him the Bill Parcells of the sports-blog universe) -- is a range of vertically oriented, single-sport blogs, managed and largely written by absolutely outstanding, best-in-their-sport editors. (Disclosure: Count many of these folks as my friends.)
This strategy allows for complete coverage of virtually every topic that fans may want to read about, regardless of team allegiance. (Intentionally, they leave deep team-by-team analysis to individual independent bloggers and partners like SB Nation.) This dovetails nicely with Yahoo's competitive advantage of driving tens of millions of readers through Yahoo's front door at Yahoo.com -- then directing it to the best of their own content. A compelling blog post that runs on Yahoo's front page can earn millions of page views in an hour.
This is not to discount the millions and millions coming through sports.yahoo.com (by many publically available metrics, the largest audience in online sports): Many from the Yahoo front page; many from folks coming for their fantasy leagues but staying for the quality sports content; many to Y! Sports directly, because Yahoo Sports' interface is clean, simple and effective; and many because they have learned that the blogs are so damn good.
(Yahoo Sports blogs have been so successful that I think they have eclipsed two other very strong areas of Yahoo's sports coverage: (1) Original reporting that regularly creates "national-discussion" storylines, and (2) traditional -- but no less high-quality -- "newspaper"-style columnists like Wetzel, Wojnaroski and Silver. Once you layer in the bloggers, then pound-for-pound, the relatively small group punches big at the highest weight class.)
Triumphalism aside, as the Y! Sports bloggers gather to talk, what should they REALLY be talking about? What should the agenda include?
(1) Social media. I love Y!S's simple yet wildly effective 4-legged stool of fantasy, blog network, original reporting and traditional columns. How can this group -- particularly the bloggers -- incorporate social media beyond tweeting links to their latest posts? How does "passed" media fit into the strategy, with the bloggers both as benefactors of and, yes, benefiting from the link economy?
(2) The Yahoo firehose. Obviously, a link on the front page of Yahoo is gold -- but every content department at Yahoo understands that. What can the bloggers learn about how that front-page process works to earn more links there for their work? (Equally, can bloggers work both from an absolute traffic count and an "effective" traffic count that discounts one-time placement surges to best think about growing their traffic? And, yes, they should be thinking about that.)
(3) Increasing blogger profiles. Again, the Y! Sports bloggers are among -- if not the best -- bloggers in their sport. They may be the best commentators in their sport, period -- in new or traditional media. Through p.r. outreach, grassroots bootstrapping or larger distribution deals, how can the group become bigger "names," both as individuals and to increase the profile of Y! Sports? Should this include investing time and resources in more "traditional" media like audio (creating their own podcasts, which some do) and/or online video?
(4) Revenue. I am not suggesting the bloggers participate in ad sales (although I would say that, generally, editorial folks have amazingly creative ideas about how editorial and advertising can work together to maintain editorial integrity and best serve the consumer, while creating value for the marketer -- there's no shame in a brainstorming meeting). I am suggesting that it behooves everyone to have even a basic understanding of the economics of both the Y! Sports business and Yahoo's business as a whole. Ignorance isn't integrity, and great writers won't lose their effectiveness if they understand how the business that pays their bills happens to work. (I guess what would really make sense is having a basic understanding of the business realities, and the metrics that drive them -- which the bloggers have substantial control over. Then, specifically, a tactical-level understanding of analytics: Where it comes from, why and how.)
(5) Bargain collectively. Whatever they're paying you -- and it is impossible to discount the correlation between great product and security of a full-time income stream -- it ain't enough. (Kidding. Sort of.)
Commenters: I'm sure most of you consume Y! Sports in some way -- fantasy, blogs, news headlines, front page of Yahoo, etc. If you do read Y! Sports blogs, what's your evaluation and where do you think they need to focus their efforts?
-- D.S.
On Steve McNair
Steve McNair and I were born two days apart. We were in college at the same time. His career, family -- even retirement -- was something I tracked, if only because it was so easy to relate.
Like everyone else, I admired McNair for his toughness and his leadership in the NFL. It is hard not to imagine what his career had been like had he not played for just-win Jeff Fisher. (I don't want to also nick him for playing in a small market like Nashville, because great NFL careers usually transcend their market size.)
Maybe McNair would not have had the team success he had -- an NFL career really crystallized by that one-yard-short play in the Super Bowl -- without Fisher. But what if he played for a more wide-open offense? McNair was arguably the most physically gifted QB in NFL history.
I define that in a couple different ways: He had as good of an arm as anyone ever. He could run, when necessary -- again, he could have redefined the position if he had a coach with more imagination. And he was the toughest QB to ever play the position -- yes, including Favre. Especially Favre. McNair was the anti-Favre: He didn't need to advertise his toughness.
(Vince Young is a comparably skilled player, at least as it relates to physical talents -- McNair worked with Fisher a lot better than VY has, obviously. Here's the thing: McNair was a father-figure to Young; I cannot imagine how hard Young is taking this -- where Young goes from this moment will be the defining pivot of HIS career.)
But let's go back to Alcorn State, because when I was in college, I was as blown away by McNair as everyone else. That he was able to leap from 1-AA to the top of the NFL Draft says as much about his talent as anything. His senior season was ridiculous: 6,000 yards rushing and passing, with 53 TDs.
The greatest insult was that McNair finished third in Heisman voting, behind Rashan Salaam and Ki-Jana Carter -- no, really -- when he was clearly the most talented player in college football that year. We should hold this against sportswriters who vote for the Heisman for the rest of their careers. Those voters should still feel shamed by that vote.
(I suppose that it is as much of a testament to his skill as anything that in the pre-Internet era, he was able to earn 3rd with a bunch of sportswriters who undoubtedly held his 1-AA status against him -- as much as they were blinded by Salaam's 2,000-yard season or Carter's status as a Penn State player.)
I will now cop to my own astounding mistake: For an upcoming book, I recently worked on a long analysis of Tim Tebow's place among all-time college QBs. I have no problem placing him near the top of the list now -- and at the very top, depending on what happens next season.
But I left Steve McNair out of my all-time Top 5, which was a huge mistake. I feel as bad about that as those Heisman voters should feel about their vote in '94. McNair was as good of a QB as ever played college football -- I wish we had gotten to see him play against top 1-A comp. Regardless, when the book comes out in a few weeks -- I only wrote the one essay, btw -- and I promote it, I will have to add an asterisk to everything, caveating my snub of McNair.
(I actually think that McNair isn't a bad comp for Tebow. Obviously, McNair had a much better -- and more accurate -- arm, but their size and toughness and leadership and results on the field and in the stats column are comparable, at least at the college level.)
We did get to see McNair play against the best in the world, in the NFL. And he was a winner there, too -- again, despite a system that converted his brilliance into convention, but translated into wins, which is all anyone should care about when it comes to McNair's record in the NFL. That, and the fact that he played through pain and injury as well as anyone ever.
As he was retired, his loss won't be felt as acutely as if he was still playing. But as he was recently retired, with a slew of thirtysomething and fortysomething fans controlling sports media and blogs, we all remember his college and pro career so vividly, it is stunning that he is gone.
-- D.S.
Like everyone else, I admired McNair for his toughness and his leadership in the NFL. It is hard not to imagine what his career had been like had he not played for just-win Jeff Fisher. (I don't want to also nick him for playing in a small market like Nashville, because great NFL careers usually transcend their market size.)
Maybe McNair would not have had the team success he had -- an NFL career really crystallized by that one-yard-short play in the Super Bowl -- without Fisher. But what if he played for a more wide-open offense? McNair was arguably the most physically gifted QB in NFL history.
I define that in a couple different ways: He had as good of an arm as anyone ever. He could run, when necessary -- again, he could have redefined the position if he had a coach with more imagination. And he was the toughest QB to ever play the position -- yes, including Favre. Especially Favre. McNair was the anti-Favre: He didn't need to advertise his toughness.
(Vince Young is a comparably skilled player, at least as it relates to physical talents -- McNair worked with Fisher a lot better than VY has, obviously. Here's the thing: McNair was a father-figure to Young; I cannot imagine how hard Young is taking this -- where Young goes from this moment will be the defining pivot of HIS career.)
But let's go back to Alcorn State, because when I was in college, I was as blown away by McNair as everyone else. That he was able to leap from 1-AA to the top of the NFL Draft says as much about his talent as anything. His senior season was ridiculous: 6,000 yards rushing and passing, with 53 TDs.
The greatest insult was that McNair finished third in Heisman voting, behind Rashan Salaam and Ki-Jana Carter -- no, really -- when he was clearly the most talented player in college football that year. We should hold this against sportswriters who vote for the Heisman for the rest of their careers. Those voters should still feel shamed by that vote.
(I suppose that it is as much of a testament to his skill as anything that in the pre-Internet era, he was able to earn 3rd with a bunch of sportswriters who undoubtedly held his 1-AA status against him -- as much as they were blinded by Salaam's 2,000-yard season or Carter's status as a Penn State player.)
I will now cop to my own astounding mistake: For an upcoming book, I recently worked on a long analysis of Tim Tebow's place among all-time college QBs. I have no problem placing him near the top of the list now -- and at the very top, depending on what happens next season.
But I left Steve McNair out of my all-time Top 5, which was a huge mistake. I feel as bad about that as those Heisman voters should feel about their vote in '94. McNair was as good of a QB as ever played college football -- I wish we had gotten to see him play against top 1-A comp. Regardless, when the book comes out in a few weeks -- I only wrote the one essay, btw -- and I promote it, I will have to add an asterisk to everything, caveating my snub of McNair.
(I actually think that McNair isn't a bad comp for Tebow. Obviously, McNair had a much better -- and more accurate -- arm, but their size and toughness and leadership and results on the field and in the stats column are comparable, at least at the college level.)
We did get to see McNair play against the best in the world, in the NFL. And he was a winner there, too -- again, despite a system that converted his brilliance into convention, but translated into wins, which is all anyone should care about when it comes to McNair's record in the NFL. That, and the fact that he played through pain and injury as well as anyone ever.
As he was retired, his loss won't be felt as acutely as if he was still playing. But as he was recently retired, with a slew of thirtysomething and fortysomething fans controlling sports media and blogs, we all remember his college and pro career so vividly, it is stunning that he is gone.
-- D.S.
Monday 07/06 A.M. Quickie:
MLB All-Stars, McNair, Federer, Sheed
There's a lot to like about the MLB All-Star teams, as I lead in today's SN column:
*Love Pujols as the leading vote-getter.
*Love Tim Wakefield making his first ASG at 42.
*Love King Felix making his first ASG at 23.
*Love Ben Zobrist making the AL roster.
There's a lot to be annoyed about:
*Josh Hamilton. I know a lot of voting is popularity, but fans have a great track record of voting in the deserving. Hamilton did not deserve to start the game this year.
*I know Aaron Hill is having a great season, but Ian Kinsler could have been the starting 2B. Now he's relegated to "Final Vote"; respect the people's wishes and vote him in.
*I know Mark Reynolds strikes out a lot. And I know Pablo Sandoval isn't a big name (but he is in fantasy circles!) But I had both on my NL starting ballot -- both are Final Vote guys.
Still: We're talking MLB, and MLB All-Star selections remain the most interesting of any sports league's all-star results. And, as I have said for years, Final Vote is genius.
Meanwhile:
*Roger Federer. What I love is all the folks who said that last year's Federer-Nadal Wimbledon final was the best tennis match ever. Umm...what happens when the very next year, the Wimbledon final is just as good? (BTW: Federer GOAT, in case you still had doubts.)
*I'm not sold on Rasheed Wallace being the missing ingredient for the Celtics. I don't see him containing Dwight Howard, unless he can take him out to the 3-point line. I do like his veteran/championship experience, but it's not like the Celtics were short on that before.
*Love that Hedo Turkoglu pulled a Boozer by saying yes to the Blazers, then turned around and signed with the Raptors -- mainly because his wife likes Toronto more than Portland. Toronto is NBA exile (sorry, Skeets and Melas) and Hedo just went from in-mind to outta sight.
*Steve McNair. I remain incredibly troubled by his murder. More on this later, in its own post.
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
*Love Pujols as the leading vote-getter.
*Love Tim Wakefield making his first ASG at 42.
*Love King Felix making his first ASG at 23.
*Love Ben Zobrist making the AL roster.
There's a lot to be annoyed about:
*Josh Hamilton. I know a lot of voting is popularity, but fans have a great track record of voting in the deserving. Hamilton did not deserve to start the game this year.
*I know Aaron Hill is having a great season, but Ian Kinsler could have been the starting 2B. Now he's relegated to "Final Vote"; respect the people's wishes and vote him in.
*I know Mark Reynolds strikes out a lot. And I know Pablo Sandoval isn't a big name (but he is in fantasy circles!) But I had both on my NL starting ballot -- both are Final Vote guys.
Still: We're talking MLB, and MLB All-Star selections remain the most interesting of any sports league's all-star results. And, as I have said for years, Final Vote is genius.
Meanwhile:
*Roger Federer. What I love is all the folks who said that last year's Federer-Nadal Wimbledon final was the best tennis match ever. Umm...what happens when the very next year, the Wimbledon final is just as good? (BTW: Federer GOAT, in case you still had doubts.)
*I'm not sold on Rasheed Wallace being the missing ingredient for the Celtics. I don't see him containing Dwight Howard, unless he can take him out to the 3-point line. I do like his veteran/championship experience, but it's not like the Celtics were short on that before.
*Love that Hedo Turkoglu pulled a Boozer by saying yes to the Blazers, then turned around and signed with the Raptors -- mainly because his wife likes Toronto more than Portland. Toronto is NBA exile (sorry, Skeets and Melas) and Hedo just went from in-mind to outta sight.
*Steve McNair. I remain incredibly troubled by his murder. More on this later, in its own post.
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Saturday 07/04 (July 4) Quickie
Happy Fourth of July. To celebrate, yesterday I benched Shin-Soo Choo (4/5, 4 R, 2 HR, 7 RBI, 1 SB) for Manny (0/3, 0 R, 0 HR, 0 RBI, 0 SB) in a week where I'm in a back-and-forth fantasy matchup with AJ Daulerio. Choo's line alone would have given me a decisive advantage. Ugggghhhh. This is how my day began. I will now slowly and carefully close my computer and not open it back up until tomorrow. Have a safe and enjoyable holiday today.
-- D.S.
-- D.S.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Obama: Jordan > Kobe
And, of course, the President is right. It's kind of a ludicrous question, actually.
But consider, just in time for Independence Day, what kind of roll President Obama has been on this year, sports-wise, since he took office:
*Picked the Lakers over the Magic.
*Picked UNC to win the NCAA Tournament.
*Made his NCAA bracket-picking a national event.
*Hosted the Florida Gators at the White House.
*Beat UConn women in White House P-I-G.
*Made the White Sox trendy again.
*Made pick-up hoops the national pastime.
*Supported his biggest backer in Western Pennsylvania all the way to the Super Bowl.
(And I'm sure I'm forgetting something.)
Heading into this 4th of July, I am thankful for a country that elected, among other things, such a die-hard, just-like-you-and-me sports fan.
-- D.S.
But consider, just in time for Independence Day, what kind of roll President Obama has been on this year, sports-wise, since he took office:
*Picked the Lakers over the Magic.
*Picked UNC to win the NCAA Tournament.
*Made his NCAA bracket-picking a national event.
*Hosted the Florida Gators at the White House.
*Beat UConn women in White House P-I-G.
*Made the White Sox trendy again.
*Made pick-up hoops the national pastime.
*Supported his biggest backer in Western Pennsylvania all the way to the Super Bowl.
(And I'm sure I'm forgetting something.)
Heading into this 4th of July, I am thankful for a country that elected, among other things, such a die-hard, just-like-you-and-me sports fan.
-- D.S.
Friday 07/03 (Artest) Quickie
Who said the 2009 NBA Free Agency season was going to be lame?
The Lakers snagging Ron Artest is, of course, brilliant. The first thing I thought of was the Bulls signing Dennis Rodman -- but Artest isn't nearly the nut Rodman was, and he is a vastly superior player.
Bring it on, contenders: Artest can guard LeBron, Rashard Lewis, Paul Pierce, Hedo Turkoglu, Richard Jefferson, Carmelo Anthony.
Is Ron-Ron a fit in the Triangle offense? Who cares? Will he freak out in the glare of L.A.? All the better! Artest is the best kind of acquisition: Talented AND interesting.
Jordan kept Rodman in check and the '96 Bulls were one of the best teams ever. It is not an inappropriate analogue to think the same thing about Kobe and Ron-Ron, who are friends.
Imagine that: Artest with a ring -- and the last laugh.
(As for the Lakers letting Trevor Ariza go? We may look back and realize that his youth and length were a critical X-factor for the Lakers' title run. But more likely Artest is an upgrade and Odom can play the "long" defender role that Ariza did. Still: Does Artest or Odom trigger bad inbounds passes from the Nuggets that seal conference-finals wins for the Lakers?)
It makes it all the more intriguing that Arizamight WILL end up with Houston, which seems to match his versatility with the Rockets' innovative approach to personnel. I don't think he is as good as Artest, but Ariza is at least young, with lots of room for growth. But no matter how big my man-crush on Daryl Morey, perhaps it's time to put the Rockets into my "rebuilding" NBA, rather than my "contending" NBA. (No! Never!)
(The Rockets appear to have lost out on Marcin Gortat, who looks like he is going to the Mavericks.)
Rumors: AI to the Bulls? Rubio staying in Spain for 2 years? (Or at least until the T'wolves trade him to a team he would rather play for.)
Quick MLB Hits:
*CC Sabathia: Streak-stopper, and not in a good way.
*Joey Votto is so back.
*Mark Reynolds (22nd HR) affirms my ASG selection.
*Orioles just the tonic for the Angels
*Phils swept by Braves heading into weekender with rival Mets
*Fantasy Stud: Derrick Lee (2 HR, 7 RBI)
*Did the Rangers borrow money from MLB? -- TOTALLY UNDERRATED STORY
*Can I get Aroldis Chapman off my fantasy waiver wire yet?
*Aaack! Bees!
I'm not much of a tennis fan, but I will probably tune in for a little of Andy vs. Andy.
And, yes, Manny is back. 50 games goes by so quickly, doesn't it?
-- D.S.
The Lakers snagging Ron Artest is, of course, brilliant. The first thing I thought of was the Bulls signing Dennis Rodman -- but Artest isn't nearly the nut Rodman was, and he is a vastly superior player.
Bring it on, contenders: Artest can guard LeBron, Rashard Lewis, Paul Pierce, Hedo Turkoglu, Richard Jefferson, Carmelo Anthony.
Is Ron-Ron a fit in the Triangle offense? Who cares? Will he freak out in the glare of L.A.? All the better! Artest is the best kind of acquisition: Talented AND interesting.
Jordan kept Rodman in check and the '96 Bulls were one of the best teams ever. It is not an inappropriate analogue to think the same thing about Kobe and Ron-Ron, who are friends.
Imagine that: Artest with a ring -- and the last laugh.
(As for the Lakers letting Trevor Ariza go? We may look back and realize that his youth and length were a critical X-factor for the Lakers' title run. But more likely Artest is an upgrade and Odom can play the "long" defender role that Ariza did. Still: Does Artest or Odom trigger bad inbounds passes from the Nuggets that seal conference-finals wins for the Lakers?)
It makes it all the more intriguing that Ariza
(The Rockets appear to have lost out on Marcin Gortat, who looks like he is going to the Mavericks.)
Rumors: AI to the Bulls? Rubio staying in Spain for 2 years? (Or at least until the T'wolves trade him to a team he would rather play for.)
Quick MLB Hits:
*CC Sabathia: Streak-stopper, and not in a good way.
*Joey Votto is so back.
*Mark Reynolds (22nd HR) affirms my ASG selection.
*Orioles just the tonic for the Angels
*Phils swept by Braves heading into weekender with rival Mets
*Fantasy Stud: Derrick Lee (2 HR, 7 RBI)
*Did the Rangers borrow money from MLB? -- TOTALLY UNDERRATED STORY
*Can I get Aroldis Chapman off my fantasy waiver wire yet?
*Aaack! Bees!
I'm not much of a tennis fan, but I will probably tune in for a little of Andy vs. Andy.
And, yes, Manny is back. 50 games goes by so quickly, doesn't it?
-- D.S.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Varsity Letters: Tonight! Baseball Mania
UPDATE (AFTER THE FACT): I didn't see this until today, but as the founder of the Varsity Letters Reading Series, this endorsement from Joe Posnanski makes me very very happy.
You know you're not going anywhere this weekend -- it's a Fourth of July staycation. So if you live in NYC, here's a good plan for tonight: Why not jump on the F (or the A/C) and head to DUMBO for this month's Varsity Letters extravaganza -- including the Daily News reporters on Clemens, Selena Roberts on A-Rod and SL Price on Mike Coolbaugh. Plus: It's FREE. Complete details here.
-- D.S.
You know you're not going anywhere this weekend -- it's a Fourth of July staycation. So if you live in NYC, here's a good plan for tonight: Why not jump on the F (or the A/C) and head to DUMBO for this month's Varsity Letters extravaganza -- including the Daily News reporters on Clemens, Selena Roberts on A-Rod and SL Price on Mike Coolbaugh. Plus: It's FREE. Complete details here.
-- D.S.
Thursday 07/02 Quickie:
MLB All-Star Voting, Pistons Spend, July 4
Ben Zobrist.
I wouldn't exactly call him a "protest vote" on my MLB All-Star Ballot -- final day to vote is today and he (and my ASG ballot) leads today's SN column.
He is leading the AL in OPS (and Slugging). He is the surprise star of the rejuvenated Rays -- and it's no coincidence that the rejuvenation started when Zobrist finally started playing every day.
And, yes, I am voting him as a starter in the AL outfield because he has led my perennially woeful fantasy baseball team into playoff contention for the first time ever.
Zobrist was a pickup after the season started -- I'm not sure anyone actually drafted him. After all, he wasn't slated to get full-time at-bats. Even after his hot start, I followed him on the free-agent wire -- unclaimed -- because who wants a guy who won't play?
But the combination of his per-AB results and his amazing eligibility -- OF, SS, 2B -- was enough for me. I snagged him and he has been clocking the ball ever since, leading my team to its best fantasy year ever -- this despite having to sit Manny for the last 50 games, having Kazmir suck and having Joey Votto develop DL-landing depression after a terrific hot start.
And so I voted Zobrist -- I know full well that he won't make the starting lineup. But I am eagerly anticipating his spot on the reserves, the most unlikely All-Star of the season, for sure.
Don't forget to vote, and I'll be cranking up my annual "Extra Man" campaign next week once we find out who the contenders are. I think in the age of Twitter, it will be particularly interesting, because teams have become very savvy about marketing campaigns for "Extra Man."
Meanwhile:
*Pistons sign Gordon and Villanueva. The Pistons are the new Knicks -- unwilling to admit that they can't compete with the East elite but unwilling to actually start rebuilding.
So instead they commit nearly $100 million to younger versions of players they just lost -- AI and Sheed. Problem: Gordon needs shots -- what about Rip and the development of Stuckey? Villanueva is a little more solid -- seems like every team wants their "new 4" -- the 6-10 forwards like Rashard Lewis who can step out and shoot 3s. Who knew Matt Bullard would become an NBA archetype?
Lots more NBA Free Agency stuff that might pop this weekend: Will Artest sign with the Cavs? Will Hedo sign with the Blazers? Will Ariza bolt -- and what does that mean for the Lakers?
Complete column here. More to come later today and all weekend long.
-- D.S.
I wouldn't exactly call him a "protest vote" on my MLB All-Star Ballot -- final day to vote is today and he (and my ASG ballot) leads today's SN column.
He is leading the AL in OPS (and Slugging). He is the surprise star of the rejuvenated Rays -- and it's no coincidence that the rejuvenation started when Zobrist finally started playing every day.
And, yes, I am voting him as a starter in the AL outfield because he has led my perennially woeful fantasy baseball team into playoff contention for the first time ever.
Zobrist was a pickup after the season started -- I'm not sure anyone actually drafted him. After all, he wasn't slated to get full-time at-bats. Even after his hot start, I followed him on the free-agent wire -- unclaimed -- because who wants a guy who won't play?
But the combination of his per-AB results and his amazing eligibility -- OF, SS, 2B -- was enough for me. I snagged him and he has been clocking the ball ever since, leading my team to its best fantasy year ever -- this despite having to sit Manny for the last 50 games, having Kazmir suck and having Joey Votto develop DL-landing depression after a terrific hot start.
And so I voted Zobrist -- I know full well that he won't make the starting lineup. But I am eagerly anticipating his spot on the reserves, the most unlikely All-Star of the season, for sure.
Don't forget to vote, and I'll be cranking up my annual "Extra Man" campaign next week once we find out who the contenders are. I think in the age of Twitter, it will be particularly interesting, because teams have become very savvy about marketing campaigns for "Extra Man."
Meanwhile:
*Pistons sign Gordon and Villanueva. The Pistons are the new Knicks -- unwilling to admit that they can't compete with the East elite but unwilling to actually start rebuilding.
So instead they commit nearly $100 million to younger versions of players they just lost -- AI and Sheed. Problem: Gordon needs shots -- what about Rip and the development of Stuckey? Villanueva is a little more solid -- seems like every team wants their "new 4" -- the 6-10 forwards like Rashard Lewis who can step out and shoot 3s. Who knew Matt Bullard would become an NBA archetype?
Lots more NBA Free Agency stuff that might pop this weekend: Will Artest sign with the Cavs? Will Hedo sign with the Blazers? Will Ariza bolt -- and what does that mean for the Lakers?
Complete column here. More to come later today and all weekend long.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
About the Orioles' Comeback Over Boston
I grew up going to Orioles games, and so I am sympathetic to Baltimore fans. Obviously, you know how I feel about the Red Sox. (Although you know I love Theo! And Jed Hoyer! And Youk!)
You could sense the national feeling of schadenfreude over the Orioles' epic comeback over the Red Sox last night.
Look: We all know that Boston is going to the playoffs. By all rights, they should be the favorite to win the World Series. So can't we have just one moment to give a Nelson Muntz-style: "HA-ha!"
Red Sox fans will rightly snoot that this was just a single game, a single loss. (FJM's Ken T. had a great tweet, about how this merely represents a -1 hit to Boston's season-total run differential.)
But I suspect that this was Orioles fans' version of a championship. The team is in last. There are some nice young parts, but they're not competing this season -- or probably a few after that.
(And the AL East is sizing up as so obliteratingly nasty -- not just this season, but for the foreseeable future -- that you wonder if the O's can ever compete, no matter how good they get.)
Every fan of a last-place team deserves SOMETHING -- some kind of consolation prize -- that even minimally offsets what is otherwise a terrible season.
(Even Lions fans got the consolation prize of the ignominy of "all-time" history. 0-16 was a better ending than 1-15. 0-16 is epic. 1-15 just sucks.)
This was Orioles fans' moment. (The tragic part is that given Boston's lead, I'll bet most O's fans turned off the game before the comeback began, only to wake up to the results.)
Red Sox fans have no reason to be defensive -- just take the mockery; you get the last laugh when you win the division, the AL pennant, the World Series. This will be a blip, if not forgotten.
But for Orioles fans, it is a season-maker.
-- D.S.
You could sense the national feeling of schadenfreude over the Orioles' epic comeback over the Red Sox last night.
Look: We all know that Boston is going to the playoffs. By all rights, they should be the favorite to win the World Series. So can't we have just one moment to give a Nelson Muntz-style: "HA-ha!"
Red Sox fans will rightly snoot that this was just a single game, a single loss. (FJM's Ken T. had a great tweet, about how this merely represents a -1 hit to Boston's season-total run differential.)
But I suspect that this was Orioles fans' version of a championship. The team is in last. There are some nice young parts, but they're not competing this season -- or probably a few after that.
(And the AL East is sizing up as so obliteratingly nasty -- not just this season, but for the foreseeable future -- that you wonder if the O's can ever compete, no matter how good they get.)
Every fan of a last-place team deserves SOMETHING -- some kind of consolation prize -- that even minimally offsets what is otherwise a terrible season.
(Even Lions fans got the consolation prize of the ignominy of "all-time" history. 0-16 was a better ending than 1-15. 0-16 is epic. 1-15 just sucks.)
This was Orioles fans' moment. (The tragic part is that given Boston's lead, I'll bet most O's fans turned off the game before the comeback began, only to wake up to the results.)
Red Sox fans have no reason to be defensive -- just take the mockery; you get the last laugh when you win the division, the AL pennant, the World Series. This will be a blip, if not forgotten.
But for Orioles fans, it is a season-maker.
-- D.S.
Wednesday 07/01 Quickie:
NBA Free Agency, Orioles, Stephenson
I led today's SN column with NBA Free Agency, because at 12:01 a.m. this morning, that's what I was thinking about.
But not 2009 NBA Free Agency, but the countdown that officially began to 12:01 a.m. on July 1... 2010, what I argue will be the biggest single day in NBA history.
(No, really: Make an argument for any other single day as being bigger. Not even the day of Jordan's first unretirement, which I would argue is the reigning champ, right up until 7/01/10.)
Carlos Boozer is staying put. Hedo Turkoglu could be headed West to the Blazers. Jason Kidd might be going to the Knicks. I have no idea where David Lee will end up, but as one of my Top 5 favorite players in the league right now, I sort of care. And he'll make a big impact. (The real question there is whether the Thunder sign Lee, sign Millsap or sign neither.)
But the meta storyline of NBA Free Agency is this: It's a terrible year to be a free agent, not just because everyone is hording cash for 2010, but because no one wants to spend cash, period, and the combination of the current economy and the FA forecast in 2010 gives them an excuse not to spend it.
Meanwhile, this is a point I make in the column, and I expect to hammer it for the next 364 days: There can only be 2 or 3 "winners" (ie, signing LeBron, Wade, Bosh) next summer; everyone else will have a ton of cap room and a mess of good-not-transcendent free agents to pick from, along with a decision:
Do they spend to try to compete now, or do they maintain the "rebuilding" thing. Problem: Everyone has kept saying "Just wait for 2010!" At that point, fans will want action; no more excuses for not spending -- or competing for a title, at least among the middling teams who aren't quite legit contenders and aren't quite bottom-feeders.
Complete column here. More later -- I mean, did you drop by yesterday at all? Apparently, "more" means "a lot more."
-- D.S.
But not 2009 NBA Free Agency, but the countdown that officially began to 12:01 a.m. on July 1... 2010, what I argue will be the biggest single day in NBA history.
(No, really: Make an argument for any other single day as being bigger. Not even the day of Jordan's first unretirement, which I would argue is the reigning champ, right up until 7/01/10.)
Carlos Boozer is staying put. Hedo Turkoglu could be headed West to the Blazers. Jason Kidd might be going to the Knicks. I have no idea where David Lee will end up, but as one of my Top 5 favorite players in the league right now, I sort of care. And he'll make a big impact. (The real question there is whether the Thunder sign Lee, sign Millsap or sign neither.)
But the meta storyline of NBA Free Agency is this: It's a terrible year to be a free agent, not just because everyone is hording cash for 2010, but because no one wants to spend cash, period, and the combination of the current economy and the FA forecast in 2010 gives them an excuse not to spend it.
Meanwhile, this is a point I make in the column, and I expect to hammer it for the next 364 days: There can only be 2 or 3 "winners" (ie, signing LeBron, Wade, Bosh) next summer; everyone else will have a ton of cap room and a mess of good-not-transcendent free agents to pick from, along with a decision:
Do they spend to try to compete now, or do they maintain the "rebuilding" thing. Problem: Everyone has kept saying "Just wait for 2010!" At that point, fans will want action; no more excuses for not spending -- or competing for a title, at least among the middling teams who aren't quite legit contenders and aren't quite bottom-feeders.
Complete column here. More later -- I mean, did you drop by yesterday at all? Apparently, "more" means "a lot more."
-- D.S.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tweet of the Day: Best Front Office in Sports
from ESPN SportsNation producer Kevin Wildes, who asked what the top front-office in sports is.
His proposed Top 5 included: Cavs, Red Sox, Patriots, Steelers, Red Wings.
I immediately responded "no way" for the Cavs, who not only lucked into LeBron via ping-pong balls, but failed to figure out they needed someone to stop Rashard Lewis.
My nominee was current man-crush Daryl Morey and the Rockets, but I quickly changed my mind seeing Jonah Keri's nomination of the Spurs. Of course: The Spurs front office rules.
If I had to pick a Top 3, it would be in this order: (1) Patriots (because the NFL is so much more competitive than the other big sports, but I'd like to see how they'll do without Scott Pioli); (2) Red Sox; (3) Spurs. I'd like to give a shout-out to Andrew Friedman and the Rays, too.
I would also like to point out that if you consider college football and college basketball programs to be damn-near-professional, then a contender for "best front office" is Florida football, no question. They run that team modeled after the Patriots, and it shows.
-- D.S.
His proposed Top 5 included: Cavs, Red Sox, Patriots, Steelers, Red Wings.
I immediately responded "no way" for the Cavs, who not only lucked into LeBron via ping-pong balls, but failed to figure out they needed someone to stop Rashard Lewis.
My nominee was current man-crush Daryl Morey and the Rockets, but I quickly changed my mind seeing Jonah Keri's nomination of the Spurs. Of course: The Spurs front office rules.
If I had to pick a Top 3, it would be in this order: (1) Patriots (because the NFL is so much more competitive than the other big sports, but I'd like to see how they'll do without Scott Pioli); (2) Red Sox; (3) Spurs. I'd like to give a shout-out to Andrew Friedman and the Rays, too.
I would also like to point out that if you consider college football and college basketball programs to be damn-near-professional, then a contender for "best front office" is Florida football, no question. They run that team modeled after the Patriots, and it shows.
-- D.S.
Xavier Henry: Why Not Try D-League?
Great post by Dash at Deadspin about the Henry Brothers at Kansas. Xavier, the can't-miss star, seems uninterested in college for anything than the minimum before he can turn pro.
He doesn't want to go to Europe because he thinks its too far off the radar (yeah, because Jennings' Top 10 draft status and shoe deal really suffered) but he doesn't want to go to class.
Here is what his solution should be, and it's so simple: Go to the D-League.
(1) Be the trendsetter, the first top prep to go to the NBA's minor league. Being the prep to go to Europe is totally played out now that Jennings has done it after h.s. (and Jeremy Tyler did it before h.s. was even over). Chance to stake out new marketing ground.
(2) Sign the shoe endorsement deal today, along with any other marketing deals he can get. He doesn't even really need the money; the shoe deal would be about the marketing support.
(3) The D-League would be incented to put Henry in a position to succeed: Make him the team's star, develop his game for the NBA and help, not hurt, his draft stock.
(4) As for visibility, I could imagine that the novelty of Henry's year in the D-League would make it an appealing play for ESPN or TNT to produce a game or two.
The big thing is this: Why should he (or Bill Self or fans) "suffer" through his cynical single year at Kansas when he really just wants to be a pro? If he wants to be a pro, go pro: The D-League is right there, available to him.
-- D.S.
He doesn't want to go to Europe because he thinks its too far off the radar (yeah, because Jennings' Top 10 draft status and shoe deal really suffered) but he doesn't want to go to class.
Here is what his solution should be, and it's so simple: Go to the D-League.
(1) Be the trendsetter, the first top prep to go to the NBA's minor league. Being the prep to go to Europe is totally played out now that Jennings has done it after h.s. (and Jeremy Tyler did it before h.s. was even over). Chance to stake out new marketing ground.
(2) Sign the shoe endorsement deal today, along with any other marketing deals he can get. He doesn't even really need the money; the shoe deal would be about the marketing support.
(3) The D-League would be incented to put Henry in a position to succeed: Make him the team's star, develop his game for the NBA and help, not hurt, his draft stock.
(4) As for visibility, I could imagine that the novelty of Henry's year in the D-League would make it an appealing play for ESPN or TNT to produce a game or two.
The big thing is this: Why should he (or Bill Self or fans) "suffer" through his cynical single year at Kansas when he really just wants to be a pro? If he wants to be a pro, go pro: The D-League is right there, available to him.
-- D.S.
Freemium Case Study, Cont'd: Rivals
Great tweet response from a reader about a terrific case study for successful deployment of a "freemium" strategy (in online sports media, no less) being Rivals.com. Let's examine...
How did Rivals pull it off? I'd argue three main reasons:
(1) Partly, it was the same reason that the Wall Street Journal pulled it off -- they launched with a strategy to make subscribing part of the service, right from the start.
(2) Partly, it was because they trafficked in, what was then, very exclusive information. It's the same reason finance and political newsletters still find a paying audience.
(3) Partly, it was because of the incredible message board communities -- incredible, in part, because the subscription fee was a hurdle to keep out the trolls and leave it to serious fans.
Hard to replicate now:
(1) Sites that might charge aren't launching; they are established (as free destinations);
(2) Info/intel -- even recruiting -- is simply too commoditized; you could not start Rivals or Scout in 2009 and expect folks to pay a subscriber fee;
(3) Great message boards are VERY hard to develop. They take years and dedication, which was all more available pre-Web 2.0.
When Yahoo bought Rivals, I was curious to see if they would eliminate the subscription fee and make all that juicy recruiting content widely (and freely) available, to try to increase their market share of overall unique users. They didn't, to their credit (I think -- hard to calculate the opportunity cost). Obviously, Yahoo Sports is doing just fine, audience-wise, without Rivals being free.
-- D.S.
How did Rivals pull it off? I'd argue three main reasons:
(1) Partly, it was the same reason that the Wall Street Journal pulled it off -- they launched with a strategy to make subscribing part of the service, right from the start.
(2) Partly, it was because they trafficked in, what was then, very exclusive information. It's the same reason finance and political newsletters still find a paying audience.
(3) Partly, it was because of the incredible message board communities -- incredible, in part, because the subscription fee was a hurdle to keep out the trolls and leave it to serious fans.
Hard to replicate now:
(1) Sites that might charge aren't launching; they are established (as free destinations);
(2) Info/intel -- even recruiting -- is simply too commoditized; you could not start Rivals or Scout in 2009 and expect folks to pay a subscriber fee;
(3) Great message boards are VERY hard to develop. They take years and dedication, which was all more available pre-Web 2.0.
When Yahoo bought Rivals, I was curious to see if they would eliminate the subscription fee and make all that juicy recruiting content widely (and freely) available, to try to increase their market share of overall unique users. They didn't, to their credit (I think -- hard to calculate the opportunity cost). Obviously, Yahoo Sports is doing just fine, audience-wise, without Rivals being free.
-- D.S.
Free vs. Premium: ESPN.com Case Study
Lot of discussion recently about free content online versus charging for it -- ad-supported models versus subscription fees. Obviously, the answer is some combination of the two.
Here is a thought experiment, using one of the more powerful brands/products in online media:
What if ESPN.com put everything original they did under an Insider subscription?
Free: Commodity products like AP stories, game recaps, scoreboards (and scoreboard info like box scores) and fantasy games, plus anything video. They could also make free any hard news the site reporters break or report, which will be out there anyway as fast as they hit "Publish."
Subscriber-only: Anything original, which means -- basically -- analysis and columns, but I would even include blogs like TrueHoop or Rob Neyer or the NFL divisional blog group. And, yes, even Bill. Especially Bill. But we'll get to that in a minute.
They already put magazine content behind the Insider wall, along with a small selection of other content. Most notably and recently, they showcased Chad Ford's NBA Draft content -- not just his mocks, but his original reporting, too.
Here is the quandary of the current context, of course:
News reporting has been commoditized; as fast as someone can "break" something, I can post it here (with my take) or anyone can post it anywhere. (Happy to credit you for "breaking" it, by the way -- not sure consumers have ever cared about that. You would be much better off not worrying about the credit and making sure you got me to LINK to it. A link is worth more than "as first reported by" text credit. Much much more.)
But even as news reporting has been commoditized, commentary has been commoditized even further. You could read a newspaper columnist's take on the Dodgers in the LA Times or the Red Sox in the Boston Globe. Or you could read your favorite team blogger -- one of many that cover your team. Or you could read the message boards of your favorite team's best online community. Or, hell, just the tweets of smart fans. The terrific thing about this commoditization of commentary is that it has become far more of a meritocracy; the best stuff tends to win.
Sure, promotion on a highly trafficked site helps artificially inflate page views, but that remains in the short-term; the long-term trends point towards highly fragmented audiences going to the sources that serve them best (presumably with the best-quality analysis, however you define "quality" to you -- a cute turn-of-phrase, a smart idea, well-researched data). Long-term trends also point toward the power of passed links: What people you trust recommend you look at.
Back to my thought experiment:
Let's assume that the majority of ESPN.com's page views are coming from this commoditized "free" content -- headline news that folks come back to check 5 times per day, scores and scoreboard information, fantasy. You could continue to sell ad sponsorships on this content with little if any erosion of the audience size necessary to generate large sponsorship deals. (Take it from me: The Quickie was sponsored from time to time -- you missed out, Starbucks! -- but it was a rare piece of original content that WAS revenue-positive; compare that to the mega sponsorship of, say, Tournament Challenge.)
Now, after you have still sold out your sponsorship inventory on the free content, take everything original you have created and offer THAT for a subscription fee: Forget the piecemeal offerings currently available; this is EVERYTHING. It has incredible value -- the best columnists across every sport, real-time commentary and morning-after commentary and enterprise super-stories that are worth the investment. Everything original.
What percent of ESPN.com's 20 million unique visitors per month would be willing to pay for that kind of content value? 5 percent (1 million)? 10 percent (2 million)? More? (I don't have the existing Insider subscriber numbers to use as a baseline.) And what if you charged a nominal fee for all that content: They currently charge around $40 a year. $3 per month seems more than fair for all that high-quality content. That nets ESPN.com anywhere from $40-100 million a year, on top of the ad sales.
Now, the downside: Going behind the pay wall provides an opening to competitors to emphasize that they have FREE commentary! But if quality is going to be the differentiating factor between sources of commentary, it forces everyone to step up their game: If you're going to charge for your commentary, you better have the best stuff; if you're going to try to convince people that your free commentary is just as good (or better), you better have great stuff, too. I am somewhat convinced that most sports fans would simply consume both, even at nominal cost to them -- especially if it was only nominal cost.
(Actually, I would make everything related to Fantasy sports free, including commentary and analysis, because the fantasy landscape is SO competitive that you have to offer as many high-quality free services as possible. If you satisfy the fantasy consumer, you will make back any lost subscription revenue in selling sponsorships to reach participants; besides, it's not like ESPN.com would lack for original content if you removed fantasy -- still a ton every day.)
The larger issue is that pay walls remove the content from the wider conversation online. Set aside the issues with search discoverability -- I don't mean to minimize that, because it's huge, but our example property, ESPN.com, has never really been focused on optimizing its original commentary for search (note that I specify its "commentary"; ESPN.com's commodity content like headlines, scoreboards and team pages is VERY search-friendly, to their credit). No, it really makes it harder for people who traffic in passed links -- bloggers, message-board participants, people on Twitter -- to link to your stuff, because there's always that pesky "Subscription required" caveat you have to apply.
But here's the upside: See enough of those links -- and those caveats -- and soon consumers might start to wonder what they are missing by not having a subscription themselves. That, in turn, will create more subscribers; once a critical mass of folks are "inside" (no pun intended), the passed links generate even more value.
(Funny: You hear a lot of newspaper company executives talking very hostile about Google and Huffington Post; you haven't heard that kind of talk from online-sports-media execs... I suspect that's because they recognize the traffic that comes from Google and from folks who excerpt-but-link-back, like sports bloggers. Might not drive a TON of traffic, but it drives credibility.)
Again, this is just a thought experiment. My inclination is to say "Information wants to be free!" My inclination is to go to sites that offer me free content, rather than pay for it, because I think that every time someone puts up a pay wall, someone else creates (or can create) free content of equal value on the same subject (without ripping the other outlet off, obviously). But that's because there are very few places that have shown me that they are worth my subscription payment -- put something as valuable as, say, every original piece of opinion and analysis on ESPN.com behind a subscriber wall and I'd pay for that in a second. It would simply be too much content that is too good to be missing.
Maybe I'm cherry-picking my argument, because it feels like it would work for ESPN.com in a way that it wouldn't for other competitors in the online sports media world -- or certainly the news or entertainment world. Besides, none of ESPN.com's competitors have an existing subscription product to build off of, as ESPN does.
And, make no mistake: I see the potential downside -- what if consumers don't adopt? (It certainly would indicate something about the value of the original content -- "I like it, but not so much that I'm willing to pay for it.") What if consumers stop coming to ESPN.com, not just for original commentary, but for the commodity stuff, too? Honestly, maybe it would happen like that. But -- and, again, maybe this is because ESPN is a special case -- the brand loyalty remains very very high. I think that if anyone could do it, ESPN could do it.
And, yes, purely from an academic perspective, I would be very curious to know how many folks would pay, say, $3 a month to read Simmons. He does, what, a million or two uniques per column? Let's be absurdly conservative and call it a million uniques, in aggregate, over an entire year. If even 10 percent of those fans felt strongly enough about him to pay $3 a month, that's $4 million a year, which -- as the business manager -- I would gladly split 50/50 with my star, roughly doubling what I figure is his current annual deal. Yup, those are 10 percent of his readers.
I have mentioned this idea to folks around ESPN.com a handful of times over the years -- I bring it up every couple of industry shifts. Usually, it is dismissed as a crackpot theory -- for a lot of good reasons listed above. I'm not even going to commit to supporting it myself -- I just think it makes for an interesting theoretical discussion. You might not be willing to pay for a small fraction -- however high-end -- of ESPN.com's original content, but would you be willing to pay for EVERYTHING they do?
I guess you could file it under "Freemium" -- some stuff free, some stuff paid. Antenna TV: Free. Basic cable: Paid. "Sopranos" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "Joe Buck Live": Pay even more.
Again, this is just a thought exercise, inspired by the current discussion over free versus subscription and the "value" of original content produced by high-end content publishers.
I can say this with certainty: Who in their right mind would try to make LINKING illegal? (Oh, a Federal judge? AWESOME.)
-- D.S.
UPDATE: Great tweet response from a reader about a terrific case study for successful deployment of a "freemium" strategy being Rivals.com.
How did Rivals pull it off? Three main reasons:
(1) Partly, it was the same reason that the Wall Street Journal pulled it off -- they launched with a strategy to make subscribing part of the service, right from the start.
(2) Partly, it was because they trafficked in, what was then, very exclusive information. It's the same reason finance and political newsletters still find a paying audience.
(3) Partly, it was because of the incredible message board communities -- incredible, in part, because the subscription fee was a hurdle to keep out the trolls and leave it to serious fans.
Hard to replicate now:
(1) Sites that might charge aren't launching; they are established (as free destinations);
(2) Info/intel -- even recruiting -- is simply too commoditized; you could not start Rivals or Scout in 2009 and expect folks to pay a subscriber fee;
(3) Great message boards are VERY hard to develop. They take years and dedication, which was all more available pre-Web 2.0.
Here is a thought experiment, using one of the more powerful brands/products in online media:
What if ESPN.com put everything original they did under an Insider subscription?
Free: Commodity products like AP stories, game recaps, scoreboards (and scoreboard info like box scores) and fantasy games, plus anything video. They could also make free any hard news the site reporters break or report, which will be out there anyway as fast as they hit "Publish."
Subscriber-only: Anything original, which means -- basically -- analysis and columns, but I would even include blogs like TrueHoop or Rob Neyer or the NFL divisional blog group. And, yes, even Bill. Especially Bill. But we'll get to that in a minute.
They already put magazine content behind the Insider wall, along with a small selection of other content. Most notably and recently, they showcased Chad Ford's NBA Draft content -- not just his mocks, but his original reporting, too.
Here is the quandary of the current context, of course:
News reporting has been commoditized; as fast as someone can "break" something, I can post it here (with my take) or anyone can post it anywhere. (Happy to credit you for "breaking" it, by the way -- not sure consumers have ever cared about that. You would be much better off not worrying about the credit and making sure you got me to LINK to it. A link is worth more than "as first reported by" text credit. Much much more.)
But even as news reporting has been commoditized, commentary has been commoditized even further. You could read a newspaper columnist's take on the Dodgers in the LA Times or the Red Sox in the Boston Globe. Or you could read your favorite team blogger -- one of many that cover your team. Or you could read the message boards of your favorite team's best online community. Or, hell, just the tweets of smart fans. The terrific thing about this commoditization of commentary is that it has become far more of a meritocracy; the best stuff tends to win.
Sure, promotion on a highly trafficked site helps artificially inflate page views, but that remains in the short-term; the long-term trends point towards highly fragmented audiences going to the sources that serve them best (presumably with the best-quality analysis, however you define "quality" to you -- a cute turn-of-phrase, a smart idea, well-researched data). Long-term trends also point toward the power of passed links: What people you trust recommend you look at.
Back to my thought experiment:
Let's assume that the majority of ESPN.com's page views are coming from this commoditized "free" content -- headline news that folks come back to check 5 times per day, scores and scoreboard information, fantasy. You could continue to sell ad sponsorships on this content with little if any erosion of the audience size necessary to generate large sponsorship deals. (Take it from me: The Quickie was sponsored from time to time -- you missed out, Starbucks! -- but it was a rare piece of original content that WAS revenue-positive; compare that to the mega sponsorship of, say, Tournament Challenge.)
Now, after you have still sold out your sponsorship inventory on the free content, take everything original you have created and offer THAT for a subscription fee: Forget the piecemeal offerings currently available; this is EVERYTHING. It has incredible value -- the best columnists across every sport, real-time commentary and morning-after commentary and enterprise super-stories that are worth the investment. Everything original.
What percent of ESPN.com's 20 million unique visitors per month would be willing to pay for that kind of content value? 5 percent (1 million)? 10 percent (2 million)? More? (I don't have the existing Insider subscriber numbers to use as a baseline.) And what if you charged a nominal fee for all that content: They currently charge around $40 a year. $3 per month seems more than fair for all that high-quality content. That nets ESPN.com anywhere from $40-100 million a year, on top of the ad sales.
Now, the downside: Going behind the pay wall provides an opening to competitors to emphasize that they have FREE commentary! But if quality is going to be the differentiating factor between sources of commentary, it forces everyone to step up their game: If you're going to charge for your commentary, you better have the best stuff; if you're going to try to convince people that your free commentary is just as good (or better), you better have great stuff, too. I am somewhat convinced that most sports fans would simply consume both, even at nominal cost to them -- especially if it was only nominal cost.
(Actually, I would make everything related to Fantasy sports free, including commentary and analysis, because the fantasy landscape is SO competitive that you have to offer as many high-quality free services as possible. If you satisfy the fantasy consumer, you will make back any lost subscription revenue in selling sponsorships to reach participants; besides, it's not like ESPN.com would lack for original content if you removed fantasy -- still a ton every day.)
The larger issue is that pay walls remove the content from the wider conversation online. Set aside the issues with search discoverability -- I don't mean to minimize that, because it's huge, but our example property, ESPN.com, has never really been focused on optimizing its original commentary for search (note that I specify its "commentary"; ESPN.com's commodity content like headlines, scoreboards and team pages is VERY search-friendly, to their credit). No, it really makes it harder for people who traffic in passed links -- bloggers, message-board participants, people on Twitter -- to link to your stuff, because there's always that pesky "Subscription required" caveat you have to apply.
But here's the upside: See enough of those links -- and those caveats -- and soon consumers might start to wonder what they are missing by not having a subscription themselves. That, in turn, will create more subscribers; once a critical mass of folks are "inside" (no pun intended), the passed links generate even more value.
(Funny: You hear a lot of newspaper company executives talking very hostile about Google and Huffington Post; you haven't heard that kind of talk from online-sports-media execs... I suspect that's because they recognize the traffic that comes from Google and from folks who excerpt-but-link-back, like sports bloggers. Might not drive a TON of traffic, but it drives credibility.)
Again, this is just a thought experiment. My inclination is to say "Information wants to be free!" My inclination is to go to sites that offer me free content, rather than pay for it, because I think that every time someone puts up a pay wall, someone else creates (or can create) free content of equal value on the same subject (without ripping the other outlet off, obviously). But that's because there are very few places that have shown me that they are worth my subscription payment -- put something as valuable as, say, every original piece of opinion and analysis on ESPN.com behind a subscriber wall and I'd pay for that in a second. It would simply be too much content that is too good to be missing.
Maybe I'm cherry-picking my argument, because it feels like it would work for ESPN.com in a way that it wouldn't for other competitors in the online sports media world -- or certainly the news or entertainment world. Besides, none of ESPN.com's competitors have an existing subscription product to build off of, as ESPN does.
And, make no mistake: I see the potential downside -- what if consumers don't adopt? (It certainly would indicate something about the value of the original content -- "I like it, but not so much that I'm willing to pay for it.") What if consumers stop coming to ESPN.com, not just for original commentary, but for the commodity stuff, too? Honestly, maybe it would happen like that. But -- and, again, maybe this is because ESPN is a special case -- the brand loyalty remains very very high. I think that if anyone could do it, ESPN could do it.
And, yes, purely from an academic perspective, I would be very curious to know how many folks would pay, say, $3 a month to read Simmons. He does, what, a million or two uniques per column? Let's be absurdly conservative and call it a million uniques, in aggregate, over an entire year. If even 10 percent of those fans felt strongly enough about him to pay $3 a month, that's $4 million a year, which -- as the business manager -- I would gladly split 50/50 with my star, roughly doubling what I figure is his current annual deal. Yup, those are 10 percent of his readers.
I have mentioned this idea to folks around ESPN.com a handful of times over the years -- I bring it up every couple of industry shifts. Usually, it is dismissed as a crackpot theory -- for a lot of good reasons listed above. I'm not even going to commit to supporting it myself -- I just think it makes for an interesting theoretical discussion. You might not be willing to pay for a small fraction -- however high-end -- of ESPN.com's original content, but would you be willing to pay for EVERYTHING they do?
I guess you could file it under "Freemium" -- some stuff free, some stuff paid. Antenna TV: Free. Basic cable: Paid. "Sopranos" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "Joe Buck Live": Pay even more.
Again, this is just a thought exercise, inspired by the current discussion over free versus subscription and the "value" of original content produced by high-end content publishers.
I can say this with certainty: Who in their right mind would try to make LINKING illegal? (Oh, a Federal judge? AWESOME.)
-- D.S.
UPDATE: Great tweet response from a reader about a terrific case study for successful deployment of a "freemium" strategy being Rivals.com.
How did Rivals pull it off? Three main reasons:
(1) Partly, it was the same reason that the Wall Street Journal pulled it off -- they launched with a strategy to make subscribing part of the service, right from the start.
(2) Partly, it was because they trafficked in, what was then, very exclusive information. It's the same reason finance and political newsletters still find a paying audience.
(3) Partly, it was because of the incredible message board communities -- incredible, in part, because the subscription fee was a hurdle to keep out the trolls and leave it to serious fans.
Hard to replicate now:
(1) Sites that might charge aren't launching; they are established (as free destinations);
(2) Info/intel -- even recruiting -- is simply too commoditized; you could not start Rivals or Scout in 2009 and expect folks to pay a subscriber fee;
(3) Great message boards are VERY hard to develop. They take years and dedication, which was all more available pre-Web 2.0.
New William & Mary Nickname: One Option
I don't really have a particular name in mind for a new nickname for William & Mary's athletic teams. From one of my favorite trivia questions, I will offer a few criteria:
*Not an animal.
*Not a color.
*Doesn't end in "S."
Know how many teams qualify under those criteria? In 1-A football, three: Navy (Midshipmen); Notre Dame (Fighting Irish); Illinois (Fighting Illini).
Expanding that to Division 1 basketball, William & Mary "Tribe" was one of the few others that qualified.
W&M has always had a place with me because they were part of that answer.
And so I think that the uniqueness of their nickname is the rarity of the animal/color/"s" trifecta -- THAT is the legacy they should maintain.
-- D.S.
Update: Yes, UMass MINUTEMEN makes the list. Wasn't a dis. I just didn't list all of the DI hoops schools that qualified. And, no, Alabama CRIMSON TIDE does NOT qualify -- the whole "crimson" thing, obviously.
*Not an animal.
*Not a color.
*Doesn't end in "S."
Know how many teams qualify under those criteria? In 1-A football, three: Navy (Midshipmen); Notre Dame (Fighting Irish); Illinois (Fighting Illini).
Expanding that to Division 1 basketball, William & Mary "Tribe" was one of the few others that qualified.
W&M has always had a place with me because they were part of that answer.
And so I think that the uniqueness of their nickname is the rarity of the animal/color/"s" trifecta -- THAT is the legacy they should maintain.
-- D.S.
Update: Yes, UMass MINUTEMEN makes the list. Wasn't a dis. I just didn't list all of the DI hoops schools that qualified. And, no, Alabama CRIMSON TIDE does NOT qualify -- the whole "crimson" thing, obviously.
Tuesday 6/30 Quickie: Who Needs Yao?
Who needs Yao?
That was my first reaction to the news that the Rockets might lose Yao for all of next season -- with the ominous suffix "maybe longer" attached to every blog post about it.
But without Yao (or T-Mac, for that matter), the Rockets nearly knocked off the Lakers -- and gave the champs their toughest series of the playoffs.
It was a testament to Houston's thinking-man's approach to the NBA, and it leads today's SN column, if you want to check it out.
So: Do the Rockets need Yao to be playoff competitive? Obviously not.
Do they need Yao to actually BEAT the Lakers (or whoever) and win a championship? I would argue that the playoffs proved otherwise, but -- yes, sure -- Yao would certainly help.
Then again, the team was better without McGrady. And far better with the addition of Ron Artest, whose re-signing should be a priority for the Rockets.
Do the Rockets need a quote-unquote "superstar?" I don't think so, just based on their style and what happened last month in the playoffs.
That said, the Rockets are trying to win a championship -- one of a handful of teams actually more concerned with winning now than rebuilding for later.
It might be the case that Houston is the NBA equivalent of the early-00's "Moneyball" A's: For now, the Rockets are able to arbitrage inefficiencies in NBA team analytical proficiencies.
That would be enough to get them into the playoffs -- with the right matchups, even winning a few series. The odds are long that a team of journeymen can hold it together against superstar-powered juggernauts for 3 months. That said: Look what they did against LA.
Richard Justice had an interesting take on my "Who needs Yao?" theory in today's Houston Chronicle: He says that the Rockets should target Chris Bosh in the summer of 2010.
It is actually a pretty smart idea: I wouldn't consider Bosh a true put-team-on-his-back superstar like Kobe, LeBron or Wade. But I would consider him a terrific top-tier talent to mesh within a system as sophisticated as Houston's.
The point of "Who needs Yao?" is that Houston has built a system that works without superstars. Bosh is not a superstar -- just a terrifically talented 6-11 player.
It is hard to imagine that Yao's NBA career is over -- arguably, before it even really began. But the reality is that Houston doesn't really need him.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
That was my first reaction to the news that the Rockets might lose Yao for all of next season -- with the ominous suffix "maybe longer" attached to every blog post about it.
But without Yao (or T-Mac, for that matter), the Rockets nearly knocked off the Lakers -- and gave the champs their toughest series of the playoffs.
It was a testament to Houston's thinking-man's approach to the NBA, and it leads today's SN column, if you want to check it out.
So: Do the Rockets need Yao to be playoff competitive? Obviously not.
Do they need Yao to actually BEAT the Lakers (or whoever) and win a championship? I would argue that the playoffs proved otherwise, but -- yes, sure -- Yao would certainly help.
Then again, the team was better without McGrady. And far better with the addition of Ron Artest, whose re-signing should be a priority for the Rockets.
Do the Rockets need a quote-unquote "superstar?" I don't think so, just based on their style and what happened last month in the playoffs.
That said, the Rockets are trying to win a championship -- one of a handful of teams actually more concerned with winning now than rebuilding for later.
It might be the case that Houston is the NBA equivalent of the early-00's "Moneyball" A's: For now, the Rockets are able to arbitrage inefficiencies in NBA team analytical proficiencies.
That would be enough to get them into the playoffs -- with the right matchups, even winning a few series. The odds are long that a team of journeymen can hold it together against superstar-powered juggernauts for 3 months. That said: Look what they did against LA.
Richard Justice had an interesting take on my "Who needs Yao?" theory in today's Houston Chronicle: He says that the Rockets should target Chris Bosh in the summer of 2010.
It is actually a pretty smart idea: I wouldn't consider Bosh a true put-team-on-his-back superstar like Kobe, LeBron or Wade. But I would consider him a terrific top-tier talent to mesh within a system as sophisticated as Houston's.
The point of "Who needs Yao?" is that Houston has built a system that works without superstars. Bosh is not a superstar -- just a terrifically talented 6-11 player.
It is hard to imagine that Yao's NBA career is over -- arguably, before it even really began. But the reality is that Houston doesn't really need him.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Daryl Morey Loves The D-League
I'm an unabashed fan of Rockets GM Daryl Morey. Here's one more reason he's smarter than the rest of the NBA: The Rockets will run their own D-League team. That means they can develop their own players (and coaches) the way they want to, test out stastistics-based theories and play sets -- and test new ways to collect and analyze information. It is a (mostly) true minor-league affiliation, ideal both for the parent club and the D-League. As for players who want to make the NBA, why wouldn't you want your career trajectory to rely on a league (and a team front office) incented to get you to the NBA? (h/t: True Hoop)
-- D.S.
PS: It's worth repeating, because it is a phenomenal stat -- 1 in 5 NBA players have played in the D League.
-- D.S.
PS: It's worth repeating, because it is a phenomenal stat -- 1 in 5 NBA players have played in the D League.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
