I keep seeing remarks on this story which suggest that there is no difference between “surgery” and “rotator cuff surgery” and that just seems silly to me. There are lots of things that can go wrong in a shoulder and lots of different things that can be done to try to fix them, and only a limited number of those involve the rotator cuff.

I imagine this is particularly sensitive to Schilling since he was once mis-diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear which could have ended his career. Dr. Morgan came up with a different diagnosis, did a different surgery, and saved Curt’s career. Hence Schilling’s special concern for Morgan’s rep.

Consider what the Star Sports section gives us. 1) It gives recaps on the games. These recaps are really only helpful to Kansas Citians who managed not to watch the game and haven’t visited the internet since the game finished. Recaps written by star reporters seldom differ materially enough from AP reports carried on SI to be worth making the special trip to the Star’s website.

2) It gives occasional recruiting updates and health updates for KC squads. There is a small value to this, but now most of this information can be found on the websites of those teams.

3) Puff pieces about KC athletes. Again a definite but minor value.

4) Info on smaller sports and high schools. The argument could be made that these items should be expanded as they fill a niche that isn’t easily available elsewhere, but the demand isn’t that great as only a limited number of people care about any given high school (and even fewer may care about the Explorers, of whom, I’m a fan).

5. Commentary.

Now I could be wrong, but it seems like the commentary pieces have been reduced. Obviously Joe writes pretty prolifically here, and Whitlock writes across the web, but the actual Star seems to carry less.
I can understand why they carry less Whitlock. While he may be a principled and entertaining writer (he may not too, but to give the benefit of the doubt), the vast majority of Jason’s columns are designed to generate readership by stirring the pot. It is hard to trust someone who essentially plays a clownish version of devil’s advocate (which is why his serious columns on hip hop culture seem to generate publicity while nevertheless gaining little actual traction). More importantly, his interest in and knowledge of KC sports often seems completely absent.
On the other hand, the Star has Mr. Posnanski who is widely regarded as one of the best sports columnists in the country, and for good reason.

All of this ignores a vast KC sports market: sophisticated commentary on the teams.

Now Joe does some of this, maybe as much as his employer will allow. He has consistent columns on the Royals that contain actual information and his article detailing the Patriots plan versus the Chiefs non-plan was excellent. Still, the demand for information of that ilk is practically insatiable.
Where blogs are the most effective is where they bring rigorous and entertaining analysis to sports. (Perhaps these aren’t accurately called blogs with the word’s ugly-sounding smushing of web log that seems to indicate a certain laziness and lack of consequence.) The best of these websites is FootballOutsiders, an amazing combination of sophisticated analysis and meaningful stats. They bring the Bill James approach to football. (Unfortunately, as their influence has grown, their writing has become consistently snarkier, a phenomenon which hopefully Aaron Schatz and the gang will move back away from.)

The Star may believe that the demographic of fans with an interest in a Moneyball approach to sports isn’t that large (the relative infrequency of the high quality Stat Guy columns would suggest that). Or they may believe that the existence of high quality websites like FootballOutsiders and the plethora of baseball-related sites is enough to cover that market.

I don’t think so. Kansas City is such a fanatical sports town that the Chiefs message board receives hundreds – and sometimes thousands – of posts a day. Now those posts are not all the quality of the posts on this board, and there is a lot of the kind of flaming that exists on any highly trafficked board. On the other hand, there are a lot of surprisingly sophisticated posts. Not from a writing standpoint, but from the standpoint of a rigorous arguing of the Chiefs’ suggested strategy.

Consider how it would drive hits and message board activity if the Star published a DAILY strategy debate between two of their writers. And this doesn’t have to be pandering to the lowest common denominator. These can be high quality debates using advanced stats and fleshing out the truth behind ideas like “The offense can help the defense by scoring less, suffering more three-and-outs and reducing its own TOP.” – Herm Edwards, circa 2006-2007, virtually every week.

As an aside: Right now, Rotoworld, with an assist from an FO writer, has a spectacular column demonstrating why Brian Brohm is going to be a star and Matt Ryan a bust. Brian Brohm will almost certainly be available when the Chiefs pick (if he continues to “fall” based on “draft momentum” he might fall within range of a trade up from their second round spot).

If the Star wants to re-invent itself as a model newspaper for the current times, it needs to focus less space on rather mundane transactional news and on blog-like screeds from Whitlock, because there is no comparative advantage there. You can find both things everywhere on the net. Instead, it should focus on detailed, analytical reporting on its teams. You can find column after column like this in the national media on the Yankees and Red Sox, the Patriots and Cowboys. You cannot, however, find it on the Chiefs or Royals, because KC is a small market.
But KC is not a small market for the STAR, it is THE market. Even if Joe weren’t such an entertaining writer, people would still follow this website for that very reason. (And that’s the reason Rob and Rany on the Royals probably gets more hits per update of content than any website in the world).

That is a ridiculous allegation.

It’s easy to win graciously in the NFL, but it’s hard to lose graciously.

That accusation is completely unfounded and I can see no good reason for saying a thing like that.

Okay, fine.

Sen. Phil Graham of Texas, no hero of mine, was asked before the 1996 Republican convention why he had thrown all his delegates to the presumptive nominee, Bob Dole, instead of continuing to fight as Pat Buchanan was doing. (I could have the names and dates wrong, but it was definitely Graham.) On PBS, the Senator said, “In a democracy, when you lose, you sit down.”

Ron Paul’s supporters have made great use of the tools of the 21st Century. They have raised a pile of money via the Internet. They have inundated blogs and online surveys. I dare say that I have seen more Ron Paul bumper stickers while vacationing in Florida, while visiting relatives outside of Pittsburgh, and in my decided liberal neighborhood than that of all other candidates combined.

What they do not have is votes. The American people do not like Ron Paul any more than they like Dennis Kucinich. Representative Paul participated in dozens of debates, just not the one on the Faux News Network. (For those Ron Paul supporters who just realized that Fox News is the most visible propaganda arm of the corporate wing of the Republican Party — and not a legitimate new source — welcome aboard!) He received ample media coverage, far outweighing any measure of actual success as reflected in polls. If people wanted to vote for him, they would have.

Caucuses are practically designed to give great weight to a well-organized outsider candidate with a passionate base of support, but Rep. Paul only attained 10 percent of Iowa Republican caucus attendees.

New Hampshire is probably the most libertarian state in the union. And even there, in a state where face-to-face contact FAR outweighs the importance of media coverage or fund raising, in a state where Independents can vote in either party’s primary, Rep. Paul attained 18,303 votes, 2 thousand fewer than Rudy Guiliani, 30 thousand fewer than John Edwards, and 93,948 fewer than Hillary Clinton.

In a democracy, when you lose, you sit down.

It’s over. You lost.

But that is not what I meant to write about. I just want my sports back. I don’t care about the current soap opera story lines that are so prominent today. And I can’t believe that there are enough people that do to justify how much “ink” the MSM wastes reporting on them.

You lost.

Too often sportswriters want to turn the sports pages into an exact copy of the rest of the paper. But it shouldn’t be the same, and a few sportswriters (yourself included) seem to have grasped this, which is why I keep reading.