The Athletic SF/SJ coverage of Sharks
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
SjMilhouse
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2012
- 2,162
- 2,535
I paid for a subscription because I couldnt stand the local coverage of the Sharks and thought with Pollak writing occasional articles along with Zachary DeVine (who I like) I would finally get something decent coverage of the Sharks with the new "approach" to writing the Athletic was pushing which is to give the writers more freedom. FtF used to be my go to but all the great writers have either gotten legit jobs or left for various reasons and now it's pretty weak and the turnover is constant over there.
Then today they announce this....
My only hope is that the writing/coverage we got from KK at NBCS CA is not reflective of what he can actually do. If what we saw at NBCS CA continues, I'm going to be really upset I spent all this money to subscribe only to get the same weak content we got from before that has the depth of a puddle full of his own bias. Oh and don't forget the occasional snarky comment about the fans of analytics or even posters on HF and FtF.
Not pleased at all with this announcement, please prove me wrong KK because I paid good money for what I thought would be quality content like Pollak was known for before he retired.
Then today they announce this....
My only hope is that the writing/coverage we got from KK at NBCS CA is not reflective of what he can actually do. If what we saw at NBCS CA continues, I'm going to be really upset I spent all this money to subscribe only to get the same weak content we got from before that has the depth of a puddle full of his own bias. Oh and don't forget the occasional snarky comment about the fans of analytics or even posters on HF and FtF.
Not pleased at all with this announcement, please prove me wrong KK because I paid good money for what I thought would be quality content like Pollak was known for before he retired.
LadyStanley
Registered User
wishman
Registered User
- Jan 20, 2007
- 1,234
- 368
I'm in agreement with the above. Maybe with better editors KK will be able to step up with his writing/analysis. But when you look at the quality and experience of most of the other reporters the Athletic has hired, they are in a whole different league.
I do like the stuff DeVine has been putting out as well. Really hope he gets more involved (thru the Athletic or other avenues).
I do like the stuff DeVine has been putting out as well. Really hope he gets more involved (thru the Athletic or other avenues).
SactoShark
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
DeBoer's usage of Marc-Edouard Vlasic tanked his metrics (while making his Sharks teammates look better)
Tyler Dellow
What is Joe Pavelski's Favorite Color?
David Pollak
The Sharks Need Chris Neil.
Kevin Kurz
When do the playoffs start?
Tim Kawakami
Tyler Dellow
What is Joe Pavelski's Favorite Color?
David Pollak
The Sharks Need Chris Neil.
Kevin Kurz
When do the playoffs start?
Tim Kawakami
bigwillie
Registered User
wishman
Registered User
- Jan 20, 2007
- 1,234
- 368
SJSharksfan39
Registered User
As a listener of various hockey podcasts and hearing interviews with the likes of Dellow, Russo (Wild), Portzline (Blue Jackets) and the Pens and Bruins guys, I always wondered why the Sharks couldn't get anyone of that stature. Maybe I'm putting them on a higher pedestal but they always came across as knowing thier stuff and I was a little jealous. I didn't think Kurz was that guy, especially with his troll like behavior on social media. Still maybe he will change, and I'm debating if I want to subscribe to the athletic or not.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,377
- 12,571
You might be putting them on a bit of a pedestal. Portzline and Russo have long been regarded as the cream of the crop in terms of beat reporting.
SJSharksfan39
Registered User
Maybe I'm not looking for someone of that caliber (though it would be nice) but someone who could get there and just give quality reporting and a fun interview.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,377
- 12,571
Well...I guess bright side here is that now CSN must be looking for a new guy to be the insider. We could potentially get someone good there...or we could get someone just as bad.
SJSharksfan39
Registered User
Or someone who doesn't like hockey but it's a paycheck. This really isn't a hockey market in the grand scheme of things.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,377
- 12,571
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Too real.
Yeah, it might be nice if Kurz' replacement actually liked the Sharks.
Last edited:
SactoShark
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I actually just subscribed yesterday.
Whatever your opinion of Kurz, The Athletic is now the best source for Sharks content right out of the gate.
It's also a nice site and the mobile app is great.
Whatever your opinion of Kurz, The Athletic is now the best source for Sharks content right out of the gate.
It's also a nice site and the mobile app is great.
I agree, I really enjoyed the articles on Hertl, Jumbo and Vlasic. Really good info and analysis.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,377
- 12,571
Same, as long as Dellow, or Dom, or any of the other stat heads and talking heads talk Sharks hockey, it's still gonna be really good. Not to mention the coverage on other Bay Area sports and the other wider league stuff.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Won't happen as he's employed (full time) by BANG as is Gackle.
Most of the US contingent seem to be full time employed by Athletic. But some of the Canadian hockey guys have Athletic and something else. (Duhatschek just left G&M to go full time to Athletic)
Chairman Mallard
Registered User
Some things in life are just certain:
Death, Taxes, and never paying a dime to hear what Kevin Kurz has to say.
Death, Taxes, and never paying a dime to hear what Kevin Kurz has to say.
WTFetus
Marlov
KKurzNHL
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 58
- 46
Kurz: Here's why I'm joining The Athletic to cover the Sharks
https://theathletic.com/106689/2017...-im-joining-the-athletic-to-cover-the-sharks/
https://theathletic.com/106689/2017...-im-joining-the-athletic-to-cover-the-sharks/
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
***FAIR WARNING TO THE AUDIENCE: I am taking one sentence and blowing it up into a full-on essay response. Long post alert. Consider yourselves warned.***
It was all going so well right up to 2nd last sentence of the piece:
I don't have a subscription to the site. At this point I don't particularly plan on getting one either (comments like that aren't the reason, but they don't help). But if I had to hazard a guess as to why the comment sections are better than the internet at large, it would be that: a) the service is newer and the audience smaller, meaning that fewer audience members overall are going to be idiots. anywhere else. and b) being a pay-for-content/access service, it's weeded out the part of the potential audience most likely to be idiots, because few are likely to want to pay money just to hassle and viciously disagree with the writers when they can take to message boards and social media and do it for free.
Secondarily, stuff like this is part of why those fans exist. Instead of trying to work through those issues, or at the very least take the high road and avoid confrontations altogether you fight back. Just for example on this site, many of your comments ended up tinged with a biting edge or passive-aggressive snarking or condescension:
granted that without context some of these probably seem more benign, but even if they weren't meant with any amount of vitriol I would contend that a writer should be able choose his words more carefully to avoid the appearance of such reactions entirely. They also reflect about a quarter of your total engagement on this board, which is not a good sign if it appears that a significant chunk of your limited time on this site has been spent getting into dust-ups with other posters.
(also fair warning to the other posters: I have removed the post ID tags from those quotes to prevent them from linking back to the original threads. While it certainly wouldn't be difficult to find said threads and posts, please do not go back to any of them to post responses, and please do not respond specifically to them here either. I've reposted them for illustrative purposes with respect to the point I'm making, not to rehash any old incidents that have been off the radar for months/years)
While I won't pretend that that the audience here has treated you well or with a high degree of civility over the course of your time with the Sharks (and I will admit that I have a certain amount of fondness for playfully citing the CSN advertising line of you being "deep inside" whenever there's an apparently missed story or obvious bit of reporting), it's not like you've done a lot to ingratiate yourself to the audience either. I've seen things on twitter too, not just the HF posts I quoted. It doesn't look good when you appear to be guilty of the same behavior that you chastise the audience for. and to trot out a well-worn line from being a site moderator here, "he started it" doesn't make responding in kind acceptable.
I should also point out that both you and Brodie Brazil started out in similar circumstances with regards to the audience reaction around here. Most people didn't like Brodie at the beginning of his tenure with the team. But over time he got in good with the audience. He had some fun with them. He went on one of the Infestation bus trips (ostensibly to do a story about it, but from everything I remember he actually did hang out with people in the process.) He engaged on Twitter in a positive way even when it wasn't initiated by positivity from the audience. He didn't react negatively to the criticism that was levied against him or the mocking from the peanut gallery. And now most fans on here like him quite a bit. On the other hand, your image on here has been anything from mildly standoffish to actively argumentative and condescending based on how you have responded to challenges or criticisms of your reporting style or depth of information. Regardless of how much that view represents reality, it appears like you simply haven't done much to remedy the issue either.
That quoted line from the Athletic is just the latest in such behaviour. You give a piece that is heartfelt and personal, full of quotes and experiences and little to no need for any sort of address to the audience themselves except for the acceptably matter-of-fact statement about how you weren't always well-received (the inclusion that such feelings extended to other media people was a revelation and kinda interesting though. That said, your applied reason for the dislike is unsettling and largely incorrect. We'll get back to that in due time though). It's the kind of thing that could actually humanize you to the fans who have treated you like the devil to this point.
And then the house of cards falls apart right at the conclusion by indirectly calling conversation away from The Athletic uncivilized and unengaging. Because people are going to love being addressed like they're crass, uncouth morons or shallow, bleating idiots.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't believe people in the audience disliked you because you were "an outsider" as you state in the piece. They disliked you because you would treat dissent with derision and categorize part of your audience with broad, Joe-Morgan-esque stereotypes like the basement dwelling stat nerd who can't comprehend the game without a spreadsheet or calculator because s/he's not part of it or never played it (given that a cursory look at hockeydb and elite prospects shows that you have zero hockey playing experience down as far as the low end of elite amateur play like Jr B or NCAA DIII, such comments seem a trifle ironic). Your status had little to do with fan reaction. Fans tend to be sharply critical of most reporters, especially new ones. It was all in how you chose to deal with those reactions.
It would seem that your move to the Athletic will do little to change that, but may allow you to go on believing that we all hate you because you're different. Which isn't true. If you want us to stop misrepresenting you as a know-nothing or an interloper or a reactive blowhard, perhaps you should stop misrepresenting us as collective know-nothings, petulant children, or worthless geeks who don't understand what we can't formulate in Excel. And if you wanted people on here to actually contribute to the continuation of print journalism as you provide it, perhaps you could've made your plea without taking one last swipe as you head out the door from free coverage to pay-to-read. Because I'm not paying $5 a month to have someone tell me I don't understand the game as well as him if I disagree.
In closing, I also want to take another moment to address the rest of the poster base here: Please do not turn this post into an opportunity to attack Kevin. I've done my best to tune the above to be within bounds of the site rules. But I know that's a difficult thing to do in situations like this, so I would ask that you be very careful if you intend to make similar comments.
It was all going so well right up to 2nd last sentence of the piece:
Excellent marketing plan there. Let's close this piece with an ask for subscribers to chip in their hard-earned money to read more material, then follow it up with a pretty unsubtle shot the very same audience you're courting.
I don't have a subscription to the site. At this point I don't particularly plan on getting one either (comments like that aren't the reason, but they don't help). But if I had to hazard a guess as to why the comment sections are better than the internet at large, it would be that: a) the service is newer and the audience smaller, meaning that fewer audience members overall are going to be idiots. anywhere else. and b) being a pay-for-content/access service, it's weeded out the part of the potential audience most likely to be idiots, because few are likely to want to pay money just to hassle and viciously disagree with the writers when they can take to message boards and social media and do it for free.
Secondarily, stuff like this is part of why those fans exist. Instead of trying to work through those issues, or at the very least take the high road and avoid confrontations altogether you fight back. Just for example on this site, many of your comments ended up tinged with a biting edge or passive-aggressive snarking or condescension:
kkurzcsn said:
kkurzcsn said:
kkurzcsn said:
kkurzcsn said:
kkurzcsn said:
granted that without context some of these probably seem more benign, but even if they weren't meant with any amount of vitriol I would contend that a writer should be able choose his words more carefully to avoid the appearance of such reactions entirely. They also reflect about a quarter of your total engagement on this board, which is not a good sign if it appears that a significant chunk of your limited time on this site has been spent getting into dust-ups with other posters.
(also fair warning to the other posters: I have removed the post ID tags from those quotes to prevent them from linking back to the original threads. While it certainly wouldn't be difficult to find said threads and posts, please do not go back to any of them to post responses, and please do not respond specifically to them here either. I've reposted them for illustrative purposes with respect to the point I'm making, not to rehash any old incidents that have been off the radar for months/years)
While I won't pretend that that the audience here has treated you well or with a high degree of civility over the course of your time with the Sharks (and I will admit that I have a certain amount of fondness for playfully citing the CSN advertising line of you being "deep inside" whenever there's an apparently missed story or obvious bit of reporting), it's not like you've done a lot to ingratiate yourself to the audience either. I've seen things on twitter too, not just the HF posts I quoted. It doesn't look good when you appear to be guilty of the same behavior that you chastise the audience for. and to trot out a well-worn line from being a site moderator here, "he started it" doesn't make responding in kind acceptable.
I should also point out that both you and Brodie Brazil started out in similar circumstances with regards to the audience reaction around here. Most people didn't like Brodie at the beginning of his tenure with the team. But over time he got in good with the audience. He had some fun with them. He went on one of the Infestation bus trips (ostensibly to do a story about it, but from everything I remember he actually did hang out with people in the process.) He engaged on Twitter in a positive way even when it wasn't initiated by positivity from the audience. He didn't react negatively to the criticism that was levied against him or the mocking from the peanut gallery. And now most fans on here like him quite a bit. On the other hand, your image on here has been anything from mildly standoffish to actively argumentative and condescending based on how you have responded to challenges or criticisms of your reporting style or depth of information. Regardless of how much that view represents reality, it appears like you simply haven't done much to remedy the issue either.
That quoted line from the Athletic is just the latest in such behaviour. You give a piece that is heartfelt and personal, full of quotes and experiences and little to no need for any sort of address to the audience themselves except for the acceptably matter-of-fact statement about how you weren't always well-received (the inclusion that such feelings extended to other media people was a revelation and kinda interesting though. That said, your applied reason for the dislike is unsettling and largely incorrect. We'll get back to that in due time though). It's the kind of thing that could actually humanize you to the fans who have treated you like the devil to this point.
And then the house of cards falls apart right at the conclusion by indirectly calling conversation away from The Athletic uncivilized and unengaging. Because people are going to love being addressed like they're crass, uncouth morons or shallow, bleating idiots.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't believe people in the audience disliked you because you were "an outsider" as you state in the piece. They disliked you because you would treat dissent with derision and categorize part of your audience with broad, Joe-Morgan-esque stereotypes like the basement dwelling stat nerd who can't comprehend the game without a spreadsheet or calculator because s/he's not part of it or never played it (given that a cursory look at hockeydb and elite prospects shows that you have zero hockey playing experience down as far as the low end of elite amateur play like Jr B or NCAA DIII, such comments seem a trifle ironic). Your status had little to do with fan reaction. Fans tend to be sharply critical of most reporters, especially new ones. It was all in how you chose to deal with those reactions.
It would seem that your move to the Athletic will do little to change that, but may allow you to go on believing that we all hate you because you're different. Which isn't true. If you want us to stop misrepresenting you as a know-nothing or an interloper or a reactive blowhard, perhaps you should stop misrepresenting us as collective know-nothings, petulant children, or worthless geeks who don't understand what we can't formulate in Excel. And if you wanted people on here to actually contribute to the continuation of print journalism as you provide it, perhaps you could've made your plea without taking one last swipe as you head out the door from free coverage to pay-to-read. Because I'm not paying $5 a month to have someone tell me I don't understand the game as well as him if I disagree.
In closing, I also want to take another moment to address the rest of the poster base here: Please do not turn this post into an opportunity to attack Kevin. I've done my best to tune the above to be within bounds of the site rules. But I know that's a difficult thing to do in situations like this, so I would ask that you be very careful if you intend to make similar comments.
KirbyDots
Registered User
- May 10, 2011
- 11,627
- 3,191
