One of my biggest peeves regarding modern sports media is how they formulate questions for interview subjects.
In ancient times, we asked questions for two reasons: 1) To get an explanation or ascertainment; or 2) To get color.
In “Bull Durham”, Crash Davis taught Nuke LaLoosh to expect nothing but the second type of question. (They think they’re throwing hardball when they ask “what was the gameplan?” or “what was the mindset?”, but those are from the LaLooshSpeak playbook, total bullshit because the answers never change.)
While the conversations got as soft as ice cream in the sun, media also grew increasingly comfortable injecting themselves into the stories (in freshman newswriting classes during ancient times, that was something they told you not to do).
So here’s what you get now:
“Coach, Joe Shlabotnik came out shooting after halftime. With a change in mindset or focus, and more energy than in the first half. Was that something you talked about in the team room? What was your reaction to Shlabotnik in the third quarter?”
In other words: I’m telling you what I thought, and I expect you to agree according to convention.
10 or 15 years ago, when I was very sick all the time, I attended a post-game conference at Cal. I said something, and I remember going blank. Whatever question I was getting to, it was gone.
Coach Lindsay Gottlieb — one of the best interviews while she was at UC Santa Barbara and had spare minutes post-game — said: “Would you like me to comment on that?”.
That was embarrassing as fuck. I’d turned into one of them.
At the Sparks pregame conference, I should have taken that route.
Coach Roberts and I crossed paths in the bowels of the Staples Center (I don’t know when crypto.com bought the naming rights to the arena, but it’s always been Staples Center to me, and I shop at Staples, whereas crypto.com isn’t a staples-and-paper business). Coach said: “What’s your take on tonight?”.
I said: They don’t look together yet. They don’t look like a Roberts team, and I said I hoped she knew what I meant. She laughed and nodded.
You’re missing very important pieces, I said, and as the very important pieces come back, you have to fit them in — while removing other pieces! You have a lot of work to do, I said.
“That’s why the job was open”, Coach said. That’s why GM Pebley and the suits hired her, to do that work.
While waiting for Coach Nakase’s pregame talk to begin, I thought about team togetherness, and came up with:
The Valkyries are closer to getting it together than are the Sparks. (I made a mental note that if Coach and I resumed that chat, I would use the words “Valkyries” and “Sparks” rather than “they” and “we”.) The Valkyries are more together (Coach Nakase said the Valkyries “communicate really well” and that it’s “not as much about being comfortable together as it is about being on the same page”.), but I thought Golden State sometimes looked confused when Washington played after setting high screens. The Mystics guards were getting some very good looks at long baskets.
That’s what I could’ve said after some thought, but at a media conference, there’s no question, just my opinion (which she asked for). There’s no question unless I said all that, plus: “Did you and the staff get that feeling from the tape, and if you did, which Sparks guards are best-equipped to take advantage of this?”.
This is what I’ll keep my eyes on tonight. Sparks running screen-
rolls and such, and getting good shots if Golden State’s defense doesn’t stick. (And if Golden State resorts to zone defense, will the Sparks shoot well enough to stretch the defense apart.)