Even the little people count

It's a cool feeling to write to a mainstream-media sports journalist and get a response.

In almost all cases, because of the volume of comments these people receive, the response is limited to one sentence, two tops. I'm aware of at least three types of responses along those lines:

1. The "briefest of acknowledgments, in case this reader is crazy" response. For example, a couple years ago I decided to write in to John Buccigross about hockey at the University of Illinois. However, I accidentally sent four copies of the message because I did something wrong with Web Mail. On the plus side, it does show that Bucci cares about his readers. Or at least his own safety.

2. The "I'll keep it in mind" response. This can occur when one actually has something concise, unique, and of interest to say. For example, I thought Jayson Stark's "Useless Info Dept." column could have run this question: "Who is the only player in major American sports who will be the last player in his league to wear a particular number, even though that number is not retired for him?" The answer: Mariano Rivera (Jackie Robinson's number 42). Never ran in the column, though. I think I've only encountered one mention of this by anyone, anywhere, in the several years since it became fact...so I guess no one really cares about this, no matter how unique it is.

(Speaking of which...something is either unique or it isn't, right? Are there degrees of uniqueness? And shouldn't unique have a much weirder-sounding nominalization, like uniquity?)

3. An actual response, despite its brevity. This usually only occurs with lesser-known writers that can actually spend the time to read all of their mail (i.e., definitely not Bill Simmons). The funny part about these is that they're usually one-liners -- like what you'd say in a men's room to complete strangers, never intending to speak with them again.

The funniest response I've ever received, though, is the kind of thing that no professional writer should ever send to a complete stranger. Unless, I guess, he realizes that he's not a big enough writer that anyone would take notice, even if what he said got out. Believing as I do in the sanctity of private communication, all I will say is that the subject of our discussion was Tiger Woods, and in a mere 2.5 sentences the writer used prick and a-hole in referring to the prominent golfer.

I still laugh at this.

There's at least one other category of response -- the detailed, well-considered response -- that I have witnessed on occasion. However, I'm still trying to understand what Aaron Schatz wrote. Still, I appreciate the effort, and maybe one day I'll really understand why successful third down plays are inherently more valuable than successful first down plays. (Rereading it, I think I'm almost there. Almost.)