Nice commentary on sports columns [Hot Type, March 17]. I've noticed for a while now that newspaper sports sections--and most mainstream sports coverage--is almost entirely proscriptive, once they get beyond reporting the scores. There are more moral judgments in a couple of sports pages than in a year's worth of religion coverage. If the words "should" and "should not" didn't exist, there isn't a sports section in the country that could fill its space. Why is that?
I'm a hard-core baseball fan, and I spend more time at baseballprospectus.com than with either daily sports section. BP deals in facts, informed opinions, and conclusions in which they show their work. When the dailies were mumbling about Mark Prior's Internet-driven "character assassination," I sat back and waited to see who would be proven right: Will Carroll, who has two books' and years' worth of writing about the details of injuries, their causes and impacts, or Paul Sullivan and/or Mike Kiley, who know only what they're told by team executives.
My point is, there's a lot of sports coverage, but precious little sports journalism. I could use less of the former and more of the latter. How about you?