Football writing is at a crossroads.
We have gotten so used to stories written by crotchety old writers who
kept getting cigar ash in their keyboards. Joe Montana is the greatest leader
ever because he looked up in the stands and said "Is that John Candy?"
Their victory had less to do with all the talent own the field and the play
calling and was the result of Montana being the quarterback and the leader and
calming his team down so they could execute and wouldn't buckle under the
pressure. These stories are still interesting and fun to read, but we have
a better understanding that they don't quite explain wins and losses as well as
certain statistics, but statistics are very boring. I've even noticed this as a
writer. Its a lot more fun to make things up and dive into the
complexities of line play, than to read to you the results of my statistical analysis. Any article trying to used statistics has to use half the words recapping Statistics 101 and how the writer is using them. I agree with you,
it's boring and it sucks. But to have a better understanding of what
leads to wins and losses, you need suck it up and take your medicine.
Trust me it gets better...towards the end, we have to get through our
statistics lecture first.
