ESPN.com featured two great stories: one asking why Bonds is no longer playing and the other discussing his legacy.
This is a great story topic and the site offers coverage on the topic in two different ways. The first is the news story format written by Jayson Stark and the second is the commentary of Bill Simmons.
I think this is a great example of how a news story doesn't always offer more insight or information than a column. Maybe it's me, but after reading Simmons article I felt more informed even though there wasn't that much information. Stark's article seemed to drag on.
Why? Most sports fans know all about the Bonds situation, his stats and his history chasing the home run record. Sports consumers were inundated with coverage about Bonds during the span of the past couple of years. Oh and do I have to mention that Bonds did steroids? When reading an article we don't need to hear the predictable quotes about why he isn't playing and the reasons.
Simmons assumes we know and makes something of it. I'm not condoning making assumptions, but if a reader is reading a column on ESPN.com, you have to- ahem- assume that they know their sports just a tad. Bottom line: I learned more from Simmons than Stark and it was because his opinion was something valuable on this topic and I just didn't need anymore Bonds news.
It just goes to show that there is never a formula. Sometimes things work and sometimes they don't. Sorry Stark, you lose on this one.
P.S. This could be biased because I am an admitted Simmons-acholic. Did I mention that Simmons started out as a blogger?