Jan 4, 2022·edited Jan 4, 2022Liked by Ethan Strauss
"House of Strauss: Sports Commentary Without Access, Fear, or Orthodoxy."
In seriousness, I think the criticisms of HoS are rooted entirely in the fact that you aren't saying exactly what everyone else does all the time, and that this approach is clearly successful. I like that you think about sports in a way that goes beyond the boxscores, analytics, and safe-as-milk locker-room quotes. You take a very silly subject rather seriously, but not too seriously. A sports columnist should challenge the reader a little, but a lot of mainstream sports types think "challenge the reader" means "take an obviously controversial hot-as-fuck take on the same story everyone else is talking about today." I don't always agree, and I don't always disagree, but I always come away with a perspective I can respect. What you're doing is, in my experience, unique in the sports world, and that's why I subscribe.
You're succeeding despite breaking all of the rules...and that I love.
In your case, I'd compare it to Steve Jobs (or maybe it was Johny Ives) "the customer doesn't know what they want". If you'd have asked me what I wanted - I never would have told you an article on Nike, the inner workings of agencies, Lebron missing the mark on ads. But I sure as hell loved those writeups. The world tells everyone to have one thing they are great at - and stick to it - so I appreciate you bucking that trend. Something tells me that your trend of "burning a media bridge" will eventually reverse and inflect in the opposite direction. Maybe wishful thinking but there's something very refreshing about what you are writing about - and humanizing much of the characters that we view in this fictionalized lens.
I will say the reason I pay is because you are the first writer since Bill Simmons that I will read everything you write no questions asked. He did not hide is rooting interests in Boston sports (unlike everyone else at the time) and had a unique funny voice, and I think you are very similar in that regard. No one else would have written that Woj story and for reasons like that I will continue to subscribe.
Speaking as a paid subscriber myself, I started following you when you were doing Warriors coverage. Honestly, I paid up because I feel you bring something unique in your reporting about the sports world (& such in general) that I haven't found in many others/others in general and it's intellectually fulfilling.
Thanks for posting this. That's cool about Royce! Long Live the Daily Dime! I used to email him and Adam Reisinger a "Buzzer Beater Elements" post for the Cavs back in 2014.
Took me a while to pull the trigger, but I knew I eventually would. Happy to support you doing this and looking forward to years of thoughtful/fun pieces for me to consume. Glad you've got the rare combination of thick skin without being a jerk. (love your twitter sentiments too)
I'm very interested to find out, have any other sports journalists reached out to ask to join you? I guess my main question has any journalist been attracted by your "outside" perspective and wanted to join forces, work under you, etc? When Bari Weiss left the NYT she seemed to attract other, like minded, tired of the "echo chamber" journalists from other outlets. Would be interesting to see if that has happened to you at all?
I was going to say that calling HoS "cancel culture" and "anti-woke” is facile but upon further reflection I think it’s just wrong. The words themselves don’t bother me. It’s sloppy usage that gets my goat.
Your subjects are what it’s like to have a substack and kaleidoscopic glimpses into how a player in the content/media industry runs. Both of those things could not be more timely. Neither of those things are centered around telling folks how to think.
Of course you have a point of view, but, to your great credit, you’re very careful to isolate your “data” from your “commentary.” If you had an agenda to push, you’d operate differently.
I wonder if this usage is like calling someone with serious bedhead in 1978 a “punk.”
"House of Strauss: Sports Commentary Without Access, Fear, or Orthodoxy."
In seriousness, I think the criticisms of HoS are rooted entirely in the fact that you aren't saying exactly what everyone else does all the time, and that this approach is clearly successful. I like that you think about sports in a way that goes beyond the boxscores, analytics, and safe-as-milk locker-room quotes. You take a very silly subject rather seriously, but not too seriously. A sports columnist should challenge the reader a little, but a lot of mainstream sports types think "challenge the reader" means "take an obviously controversial hot-as-fuck take on the same story everyone else is talking about today." I don't always agree, and I don't always disagree, but I always come away with a perspective I can respect. What you're doing is, in my experience, unique in the sports world, and that's why I subscribe.
You're succeeding despite breaking all of the rules...and that I love.
In your case, I'd compare it to Steve Jobs (or maybe it was Johny Ives) "the customer doesn't know what they want". If you'd have asked me what I wanted - I never would have told you an article on Nike, the inner workings of agencies, Lebron missing the mark on ads. But I sure as hell loved those writeups. The world tells everyone to have one thing they are great at - and stick to it - so I appreciate you bucking that trend. Something tells me that your trend of "burning a media bridge" will eventually reverse and inflect in the opposite direction. Maybe wishful thinking but there's something very refreshing about what you are writing about - and humanizing much of the characters that we view in this fictionalized lens.
I will say the reason I pay is because you are the first writer since Bill Simmons that I will read everything you write no questions asked. He did not hide is rooting interests in Boston sports (unlike everyone else at the time) and had a unique funny voice, and I think you are very similar in that regard. No one else would have written that Woj story and for reasons like that I will continue to subscribe.
Speaking as a paid subscriber myself, I started following you when you were doing Warriors coverage. Honestly, I paid up because I feel you bring something unique in your reporting about the sports world (& such in general) that I haven't found in many others/others in general and it's intellectually fulfilling.
Thanks for posting this. That's cool about Royce! Long Live the Daily Dime! I used to email him and Adam Reisinger a "Buzzer Beater Elements" post for the Cavs back in 2014.
Took me a while to pull the trigger, but I knew I eventually would. Happy to support you doing this and looking forward to years of thoughtful/fun pieces for me to consume. Glad you've got the rare combination of thick skin without being a jerk. (love your twitter sentiments too)
Keep the interesting articles coming! I'm excited to read about both of the upcoming topics (Fegan and that Florida real estate mogul).
I was sold the moment i heard you on fifth column and came over to subscribe.
I'm very interested to find out, have any other sports journalists reached out to ask to join you? I guess my main question has any journalist been attracted by your "outside" perspective and wanted to join forces, work under you, etc? When Bari Weiss left the NYT she seemed to attract other, like minded, tired of the "echo chamber" journalists from other outlets. Would be interesting to see if that has happened to you at all?
I was going to say that calling HoS "cancel culture" and "anti-woke” is facile but upon further reflection I think it’s just wrong. The words themselves don’t bother me. It’s sloppy usage that gets my goat.
Your subjects are what it’s like to have a substack and kaleidoscopic glimpses into how a player in the content/media industry runs. Both of those things could not be more timely. Neither of those things are centered around telling folks how to think.
Of course you have a point of view, but, to your great credit, you’re very careful to isolate your “data” from your “commentary.” If you had an agenda to push, you’d operate differently.
I wonder if this usage is like calling someone with serious bedhead in 1978 a “punk.”
Hey Ethan! How do I get my half hour zoom? Ty. Love the content