Alright, since you asked, I read through the Zambrano column.
You're making a point of Zambrano versus Lilly. The guy's compliant when hurt, walked 36, (Zambrano walks 78) and there's a note about Z's wins costing 9M each, and Lilly's .230 average.
1. You're not making a point. If Lilly's compliant when hurt, are you infering Z isn't? Say it directly. If
Z's wins cost 9M each; what did Lilly's wins cost? What's Z's average? If you're going to compare
Ted Lilly to Carlos, give me a takeaway. Beginning, middle, end. Straight line of reasoning.
Statistics that are comparable. You might as well told me about Lilly, then said Carlos wears red
underwear.
a. More interesting stuff: what do you expect of Lilly? Innings pitched, games won, averages,
number of walks. Same as Carlos, or is it more like, "team carried on Carlos' back?"
b. The new regiment sounds good but you're of the opinion that Carlos will loose it, as he's done
before (say that!) THEN putting your estimated day of crackage is reasonable.
2. The Greg Maddux comment will make more sense/not be a throwaway thought with the previous
to set it up.
3. "And the pressure is on Zambrano now more than ever. The staff is missing it..."
You're blending two paragraphs together, and I'd prefer setting up that the rest of the team
sucks separately, and then put the fact that Carlos is needed for more team-carrying on his back.
How?
"And the pressure is on Zambrano now more than ever. To wit: (Or 'I Offer' or something that
more fits your speech patterns)
The staff is missing... (and the rest of the para backs up what the staff is missing)
Which goes on for a few paras
And then you say, "So the expectation for Carlos to carry the team is here, possibly more than
ever. But, if he's not compliant when hurt (rattle your comparisons with Lilly here,
after all you were trying to present him as the counterpoint, right?)
Close the column and call it a day.
But even then, consider that no matter what Lilly's stats were, there's injury time to compare, innings pitched per game (who is a strain on the bullpen?) Carlos' behavior patterns allowing more injuries to occur, and for longer... etc., etc.
My thoughts about "writing like you speak": You speak (and I listen) at a certain pace; but I read at a completely different pace. I can be more meticulous. I can say, "yeah, but, where's the progression of these stats into a point", where, when listening I'd say, uh-huh, uh-huh and fill in (or forget) the gaps in what you're saying.
Ultimately your editor is not helping: if he secretly wants a radio station, then he can have a Dan McNeil presenting facts and opinions at your normal pace. But the Chicago Tribune isn't a radio station, its a paper, and its meant to be read at a 'reading pace.' Which means arguments and supporting evidence. Instead of reading like a scatterbrain wrote it.
[A mean SOB would add, 'well, that's all the logic a radio host can muster -- you want cogent thoughts, go read a Rick Morissey (or pick your columnist -- I no longer know who works where.)']
WTF, Dan, if they wanted you to sound like you, and the inference is, to speak/present ideas and arguments at your speaking pace, then why not put you on WGN or CLTV? Opinions at a speakers' pace. Because, otherwise, it's a setup: make the radio host look dumb.
There, that's about $0.25 effort for you...
|
