Are generalist sports columnists an endangered species?

My virtual friend Craig Calcaterra of Hardball Talk wrote an interesting post late last month in which he argued that generalist columnists are “a vanishing breed. Probably for good reason.”

I don’t entirely agree with him. I think there’s still a place for the generalist. But it’s a very small place. And Calcaterra’s argument is worth considering.

He was responding to a Deadspin piece that hilariously pointed out how Boston Globe hack “Dan Shaughnessy Has Been Writing The Same Soccer Column For 25 Years,” with often identical quotes from the various versions of Shaughnessy’s World Cup column that have appeared in the Globe since 1990.

The Deadspin takedown, Calcaterra wrote, “shows the limits and, often, the absurdity of the old newspaper model of the generalist sports columnist.” He went on: “For the most part, having one person serve as the voice and/or expert of your publication for all sports is outmoded and obsolete in this day and age and does little to serve readers.”

Fans have access to so much information now that, with a little effort, they can become the kind of experts about their favorite team or sport that in earlier times would have been possible only with full-time devotion—something few people could afford, sportswriters among those few. This access, Calcaterra wrote, removes the generalist columnist’s main reason for existing. Why would you want to read what a generalist has to say about your favorite sport when you have access to all manner of people who know so much more about it?

As a former generalist sports columnist, I experienced this myself. When I began writing a general sports column for Salon around the turn of the century, there wasn’t that much competition. Not many writers were aiming at—and reaching—a national audience with a regular sports column. It felt like we could have met for breakfast.

By the time I stopped writing that column in 2009, there were thousands upon thousands of such people. There was even a word for the collection of them, or us: the “blogosphere.” When Salon ended my column, I didn’t go looking for a similar gig. I felt like the world didn’t have any particular need for one more generalist sports column. The business had changed. Readers who had enjoyed my take on, say, the NBA playoffs, could go read, say, Bethlehem Shoals. We were both entertaining writers, but he knew a lot more about the NBA than I did.

I could probably write a better curling column, but why would an NBA fan care about that? And why wouldn’t a curling fan read a writer who knew more about that sport than I did?

But I also agree with a commenter called “APBA Guy” on Calcaterra’s post. He writes, “When Tom Boswell took over [from Shirley Povich as the Washington Post's main sports columnist] it became clear that for generalist columns to work, not only did you have to be the best writer, you also had to have writing skill beyond a certain benchmark. Povich had it, Boswell—who’s baseball and golf work could be very good—did not.

“And I think that’s the thing: the bar for generalist writing is pretty high. That’s why [Joe] Posnanski is highly regarded, and Shaughnessy is not. Pos is an excellent story teller, Shaughnessy is not. For me, it’s that simple.”

In the end, Dan Shaughnessy’s hack soccer column doesn’t prove anything beyond Shaughnessy’s hackery. Good for him for getting himself grandfathered in to a living that wouldn’t be there for him if he were starting out today. And good luck to anyone hoping to follow his path. As APBA Guy points out, if you want to make it as a generalist, all you have to be is better than everyone else.