Avs/Penguins coverage

Hello! Today on Grading Dater, we will look at the Post's coverage of the Avs-Pens game, in which the Avs lost the game 6-3, after the Penguins scored four goals in the third period. The Avs started strong while the Pens looked flat, and thanks in no small part to a magnificent goal from Duchene, the Avalanche had a 3-1 lead at the end of the first period. The Penguins then decided that they would play some hockey, and the second period was a dogfight, and by the third period the Pens' four lines had worn down the Avs' 2.5. Even though the Avs still played a tough game, the Penguins displayed why they're one of the top teams in the NHL.

First off, let's take a quick look at the "Live Chat" thing that Dater has been doing for the games he covers. Basically, it's a chat room where Avs fans can sign in and all type "damnit..." and/or "FIRE SACCO!!!!!!" at the same time whenever the opponent scores a goal. This is a chance to see Dater at his most negative and pessimistic, surrounded by others who are often just as bad. Although there do seem to be a handful of folks there who are genuinely interested in, and appreciative of, smart hockey conversation, it's still a very, very depressing way to spend one's time during a hockey game, and I'd strongly advise against it. It does provide a window on Dater's coverage of the Avs, though, and since it's on the Denver Post web page and it counts as DP coverage, Grading Dater is going to comment on the Live Chat this time, but we'll leave it alone after this.

All Things Avs blog: Dater wants to see emotion out there, damnit!

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/03/31/postgame-avs-predators-an-all-too-typical-performance-of-late/6819/

In this blog entry, Adrian Dater offers his thoughts after another Avs loss, this one to the playoff-bound Nashville Predators. Dater mentions that Erik Johnson was upset after the game, and then states that he believes that the team needs a lot more angry guys playing angrily.

While I think it's great that Johnson was pissed off after the game, Dater doesn't seem to realize that not everybody is like that. There was a movie a few years ago, a chick flick disguised as a baseball movie, which worked in that it tricked me into watching nearly the entire thing (it had Drew Barrymore in it, for chrissake, but it still managed to get me). It wasn't bad, but I can't remember the name. Fever Pitch, maybe? Anyway, this Red Sox fan was living and dying with the team, like they do, and after a particularly tough BoSox loss they guy was just heartbroken, fuming and furious. And what did he see that night? Three members of the Red Sox, eating dinner after the game, laughing and having a good time as if the loss was no big deal at all.

The fan was upset and pretty much offended at this, but eventually it led to a bit of an epiphany for the guy about priorities, and he ended up running out onto the field in the middle of a game to give Drew a grope in front of everybody before Pedro told them to get a room. I can't really remember how it ended, to be honest, so I just made that last bit up, but it's probably a pretty safe bet.

Ranting Homer? Yeah, that sums it up nicely.

Dater needs to learn this: it's the fan's job to get all emotional about this game. The players see it differently, because they're not fans... and it isn't Dater's place (or ours) to question their desire to win just based on their demeanor after the game. Dater here is writing like a fan, not a journalist... which is perhaps his biggest fault (among many).

Ironically, Dater steps into journalist mode long enough to call out Cody Mcleod for taking a stupid penalty that hurt his team. The irony there, of course, is that McLeod's angry, hit-anything-that-moves attitude on the ice is pretty much exactly what Dater just said the team "needs A LOT more of." Make up your mind, Dater... you want them playing angry and with plenty of emotion, but when they do, you criticize the inevitable result? Doesn't sound like a very clear line of thinking to me.

Dater goes on to criticize management for trading away Shattenkirk and Stewart in the trade that brought Erik Johnson to the Avs... but wait, isn't Johnson the very same player that not three paragraphs earlier, Dater said was bringing exactly the right attitude to the team? Oh, I'm so confused...

He goes on to touch on just about every hot topic he can think of: the Anderson trade (shock!), the coaching, the ownership, Jay McClement... since when is a 4th-line center at the heart of a team's problems? Dater has himself so twisted around here, it's rather funny.

Basically, this is just another of Dater's fuming, unfocused complaints about the team not having enough fire and focus out there. Blogs like this occur about once every three losses, and they rarely say anything that the previous 50 did not. It's another cliche-filled rant about anything and everything, designed just to entice readers to click on the blog, without any real attempt to report, educate, debate, or analyze.

Dater substitutes cliches for knowledge of the game... which is why we get so many of them. It's just a bit uncommon for him to shoot as many holes in the bottom of his boat in such a short time as he does in this blog entry.


D+

All Things Avs post: Eeyore returns, time to start tankin'

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/26/postgame-avs-kings-was-today-really-a-win-for-avalanche/6594/

Do you ever get the impression that Dater just LOVES to throw dirt on the Avalanche? I'm not suggesting that he actually enjoys it, because he's a fan like the rest of us no matter what he says. But, he's one of those types of fans that thinks if a team can't make the playoffs that there's just absolutely nothing worth watching about them at all. He gets so mopey about it... he's basically a fan who can't stand to see them lose, and so when they lose he flips around and attacks as a defense mechanism.

Remember Randy Quaid's character in Major League 2? No, of course you don't, nobody actually saw Major League 2... this guy starts out a huge Indians fan, but sours on the team quickly as they fail to meet expectations. However, instead of just going home, he keeps coming to games just to gripe about them and generally annoy everybody in his section, until they actually win the pennant and all of a sudden, he's a huge fan again. That's Dater.

This blog is basically Dater throwing in the towel on the season for probably the dozenth time. According to Dater, we're at the point where losses are better than wins because it gets them closer to the top pick in the draft... which Dater admits he has no earthly idea who that might be (Adam Larsson -- look him up AD). But really, why does anybody want to read a guy whining about the Avs and suggesting they just start losing on purpose?

Dater throws in some of his standard, no-insight analysis on the loss to the Kings: "No passion, no spirit, no toughness, no nothin’" It's pablum, yet another in a long line of blog entries that leave the reader not one iota more informed than before it was read. If I ever get my wish and Dater's blog was a personal Avalanche blog and it/he were totally unaffiliated with the Denver Post, would anybody read it? What exactly does it offer?

I will admit that every once in a while he will do something useful such as post practice video or Q&A in the locker room, stuff that we can't really get elsewhere... but beyond that, his blog is the biggest collection of nothing I could imagine for an Avs fan. I was watching the NHL Network last night and they talked about the game, and the guy behind the desk broke down three or four plays and explained exactly what the Avs were doing right, at exactly the point where one (or more) Avs made the wrong decision, and how the Kings took advantage of it. It was pretty darn good for a 90-second breakdown... but not once did I see this guy pause the video and say, "Right here, the Avs could have used a bit more passion, a bit more spirit." If the guy who's job is to give a cursory glance to every game in the league every night and find something to talk about can offer some insight and analysis, why can't the guy who's job it is to cover one team at least match that, if not exceed it?

Dater then says something that kind of baffles me:

The Kings got two 5-on-3s and the Avs killed them both – and still lost. That almost never happens

 
I'm pretty sure that happens a lot, actually.  My guess is that teams that get multiple 5-on-3s against them during a game usually DO end up losing most of those games, whether they kill the 5-on-3s or not. A team that gets more than one 5-on-3 against them in a single game is probably playing frantic, undisciplined, stupid hockey, which is not a description that is usually applied to the winning team. Odd statement there by Dater.


Dater moves on to a question he asked of Sacco about the players tuning out to his (Sacco's, that is) message. He doesn't seem to think that's likely, and I agree, but he asked the question anyway, and apparently Sacco either didn't understand the question or refused to answer it. He uses this to lead into one of his Glenn Beck moments about whether Sacco and Sherman will return next season.
.
Dater closes by pointing out yet again that Craig Anderson is playing well for the Sens. He and I seem to be coming at this from entirely different angles... to him, Anderson's good play in Ottawa is proof that the Avs should never have traded him in the first place, while to me it's proof that the little signs I thought I picked up on during games that told me he wasn't giving his best effort were probably accurate. The man had clearly mailed it in for the better part of the year in Denver; his light-switch resurgence in Ottawa supports that belief, and the Avs are better off without a guy like that.

D+ Not terrible, but the relentless negativity that Dater believes gives him credibility is, in reality, simply annoying. Another display of non-analytical game analysis leaves the reader wondering why they clicked on his blog in the first place.

All Things Avs blog: The Rending of Garments

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/14/valentines-day-2011-darkest-day-in-avalanche-history/6492/

In this blog entry, Dater presents his recap of the day's events. Only two things really happened today: Peter Forsberg did not show up to play hockey, and the Colorado Avalanche did not show up to play hockey. So really, it was a pretty uneventful day when you think about it.

Dater starts with another "Look, I don't usually (blank), but..." intro, and considering that this entry is gloomily subtitled "The Darkest Day in Avalanche History," it looks like it's going to be a solid "F" from the get-go. The second paragraph begins with Dater describing the day as a "disaster in Colorado Avalanche history." I know he's feeling the pain today, but a disaster would be the team plane hitting the side of a mountain (presumably, one that does not resemble a hockey goal). An aging player who can't skate announcing his retirement is NOT a disaster, and a 9-1 butt-kicking is just that, a butt-kicking. So I would have backed off a bit on the "disaster" description, and maybe just have said that the day did not go exactly as planned.

Dater moves on to question whether Sacco will keep his job, and to wonder what other changes might take place before the Feb. 28 trading deadline. I know it's just a quick thing here, but this is a big part of what bothers me about Dater's blog: once again, he's thinking (and writing) like a fan, and not a reporter. He's treading very close to a conflict of interest here... as soon as he says "Sacco should be fired," he pretty much loses his ability (if not the right) to cover Sacco or the team objectively. Of course, many fans are wondering themselves if Sacco will/should keep his job, and they are wondering what the Avs will do to address their losing streak... but Dater's personal musings on the matter should remain personal. At least, though, he doesn't try to answer these questions here, he simply asks them.

He does include some insight from Peter McNab about the team's current struggles, and McNab's assessment is a good one. He says, essentially, that a team needs to lose like this to learn how to win, and I couldn't agree more. To this point in the season, I think the Avs have skated hard and are trying their best, for the most part, and that's a good sign. This losing streak hasn't been a product of any lack of effort, but rather a dearth of talent and experience. I'm going to go ahead and write off the Calgary game as the result of the month-long Forsberg distraction coming to its inevitable conclusion, and hopefully they continue to play hard, even if the wins remain difficult to come by.

Dater closes with a teary good-bye to Forsberg, saying he was honored to cover him and to shake his hand, and telling him he was the best player he ever saw. It's pretty clear that's not really an objective statement by any stretch of the imagination, but I suppose it's probably OK for a reporter to say something like that after a guy's already retired. I'm going to have to think about that for a bit.

Grade: C-  It starts off just awful, really, with Dater not even remotely interested in acting like anything other than an Avalanche fan, throwing in some impressive hyperbole and some truly high-end Feeling Sorry For Ourselves. Adding the insight from McNab, and a good-bye to Forsberg that comes close to being authentically touching, pulls it up from a low D.

Avs/Preds recap

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_17374501

Here we have Dater's recap of the Avs/Predators game on February 12, which the Predators won 5-3. It opens with a music reference -- a Dater favorite -- and then moves on to a very odd bit where he tries way, way too hard to combine Shaquille O'Neal and Disneyland into some sort of metaphor for the Avs' playoff chances. Rather weird, actually. Eventually, Dater does get around to talking about the game itself.

That part of the article is a fairly depressing rehash of the game, in which the Avs were outshot and outhustled significantly through the first two periods, but still managed to lead 3-2 not three minutes into the third period on a goal by Matt Duchene. However, since these are the Avs and there is no defense allowed, they gave that lead right back moments later, and then lost the game with 2:30 remaining when Winnik's weak clearing attempt was stopped at the blue line and subsequently shot through Budaj's legs.

Overall, the recap of the game is OK. Dater's full into his Debbie Downer mode, but frankly the Avs are playing like crap and there isn't a lot of good stuff to report about them. Dater really misses the mark (as he usually does), however, when he mentions Budaj. These two sentences were the only mentions the Avs' backup goalie (starting his second consecutive game due to Anderson's abscence) received:

It was a soft goal, yes, one that Budaj should have stopped.

and later, as he mentioned the few Avs players who had good games:

 The Avs got a terrific game from Kevin Porter (one goal, one assist), and Matt Hunwick is starting to look like a real player again. But overall, there just wasn't enough sustained offensive pressure, too many turnovers and no clutch goaltending.

This is a prime example of one of Dater's most glaring faults as a reporter: he allows his personal feelings towards a player or a team into his writing. Journalism -- even sports journalism -- should strive to be devoid of bias, but Dater seems to have skipped that semester of journalism school. Peter Budaj was very sharp all game long, and at one point in the third period, when the Avs had been outshot by a 3-1 ratio but still led the game, one could argue that Budaj was the only reason they were in that position at all. But Dater's active dislike of Budaj not only prevents him from mentioning his solid game, but causes him to go out of his way to say something negative about Boods.

The fourth goal was definitely one that Budaj would like to have back, because it looked like he could see it pretty much the entire way and it kind of fluttered in (possibly deflected mid-way) under his pads... but Dater will describe ANY goal that wasn't highlight-quality as "soft," as long as it's Budaj he's talking about. The goal was not soft, it just beat him. It does happen... and when Budaj was the one and only reason they had a chance to win that game in the first place, he should have at least got some recognition for it. But Dater hates Budaj, and would rather be caught dead than say something positive about him.

Budaj has had four games in a row now where he has been very, very good. He is playing better as a backup than Anderson is playing as a starter right now... but the only mention he gets in this article is blame for a "soft" goal that really wasn't, and a ludicrous claim that the Avs didn't have enough "clutch goaltending" in the game, despite the fact that without clutch goaltending they probably would have lost 8-3. 

Dater closes with a brief Forsberg update. Apparently, the notion that Forsberg is the best guy on the ice lasted about one game. Forsberg looked amazing about 15% of the time, and somewhere between "mediocre" and "pretty bad" the remainder, and to Dater's credit he takes his lips off the man's butt long enough to write that Forsberg looked tired and took a couple penalties.

Grade: D+  A failed attempt at a clever introduction leads to a boilerplate recap of the game. Would have been unmemorable if not for providing yet another example of Dater's bias against Peter Budaj. The sad thing is that there are people out there who believe that Budaj is an awful goalie because Dater says so... but by continuing to go out of his way to rag on the guy, he demonstrates that he doesn't know enough about either goaltending or reporting to be considered a reliable source on the matter.