FJM is a closed forum, but we welcome reader feedback. We're especially interested in corrections of our work, and research (usually number-crunching) that we may not be able to do ourselves. Please check the comments section as well, where we often post readers' opinions, and, less frequently, announce that we were wrong about something.
You can e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach individually.
Next Up: A.O. Scott and David Denby Discuss the Surging Mets
Wanna fuck your brain up? Watch Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith channel their inner Pauline Kaels and break down The Dark Knight:
I watched it already, so my brain is fucked. And yet the video, paradoxically, gives you so many things to think about.
1. They're even worse at this than they are at talking about sports. This might be the biggest surprise of all, because they're both terrible at talking about sports. You would think you couldn't find another thing in the world for them to be worse at, and yet ESPN has managed to find that one thing.
2. The least surprising thing about the video is Skip Bayless' take -- people love The Dark Knight, so there's no way in hell he could say anything positive about it and show his face in the ex-Cold Pizza Show studio ever again. Watch how quickly he follows "It's a good movie, not a great one" with a very loud "I didn't like it that..." as if to wash away the memory that he even admitted it was good.
3. We now know the only opinion that can bring together Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith: hatred of Maggie [hard "g" sic] Gyllenhaal.
4. I never, ever, ever thought I would hear, in an oral review of The Dark Knight, the words "How about a Sanaa Lathan or a Gabrielle Union?"
5. I actually sort of liked it when Stephen A. talked about how Batman "touched on your soul."
6. The quality of the film criticism here is about on par with IMDb.com message board posters or YouTube commenters. "NOT ENOUGH BATMAN!!!" "JOKER WAS TOO STRONG!!!!" "Maggie Jizz-n-balls is UGGZZZZ!"
7. Skip Bayless' original draft: "Bottom line, the movie isn't that good, Heath Ledger is overrated as the Joker, and I still don't think Heath Ledger is dead. Show me the body or I'm going to assume he's still alive. That's just me. Show me the body. Back to you, Stephen A."
Stephen A. Smith has now capitalized all the words in the Rosa Parks quote. There is no reason all of the words should be capitalized, but at least they are all capitalized.
He has also posted some new things, which is good, even if they are inexplicably in different fonts, and with different line spacings.
And it no longer says "Welcome to The Official Stephen A. Smith My Blog."
So, good work all around.
(Except that it kind of says, "Welcome to the Official Stephen A. Smith Stephen A. Smith Blog." But at this point, we'll take it.)
According to an article linked through Deadspin, the Philly Inquirer officially fired FJM favorite Stephen A. Smith today, which: congratulations. This fact reminds us here at the World-Wide Leader in Sports [Journalism Attacking]™ that Stephen A. Smith has a blog. And further leads to three observations about that blog.
1. At the top it says: "Welcome to the Official Stephen A. Smith Online Blog." "Online Blog" is now the "ATM Machine" of web-based redundancies.
2. Also at the top, it says this, and exactly this:
"I Have Learned Over The Years That When One's Mind Is made up, This Diminishes Fear." -- Rosa Parks
The relevance of this inspirational quote to the chunks of nonsense that come out of Stephen A. Smith's mouth on a daily basis I will leave to the reader to determine. My question -- and no, I don't believe this is petty -- is: why capitalize every word of the quote except "made up?" He even capitalizes "The" and "That" and "This," and for some reason does not capitalize "Made Up." That is all kinds of nuts. That's like a note you find from a crazy old lady after she's found in her apartment being eaten by her cats.
3. Stephen A. has now posted exactly twice in like fifteen days. We post on this blog like 5-10 times a week, and we all have full-time jobs. What is the man doing?
I saw this on Deadspin, so you've already seen it, too, but oh my God is this the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Your Stalin-era commentator is Mr. Stephen A. Smith. The subject is the internet. The text is this:
And when you look at the internet business, what’s dangerous about it is that people who are clearly unqualified get to disseminate their piece to the masses.
I'm going to go ahead and ask Mr. Smith to defend the claim that he is in any way "qualified" to disseminate anything to "the masses."
I respect the journalism industry, and the fact of the matter is ...someone with no training should not be allowed to have any kind of format whatsoever to disseminate to the masses to the level which they can. They are not trained. Not experts.
Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; unless the people trying to write stuff are not trained experts, in which case, fuck 'em.
(Emphasis mine.)
More important are the level of ethics and integrity that comes along with the quote-unquote profession hasn’t been firmly established and entrenched in the minds of those who’ve been given that license.
I am with you here. People should be ethical. Somehow, though, I don't think ethics is really what you are objecting to. I think it's the large amounts of criticism your blowhardness has generated from the internet, which is very good at holding people accountable for their actions.
Therefore, there’s a total disregard, a level of wrecklessness that ends up being a domino effect. And the people who suffer are the common viewers out there and, more importantly, those in the industry who haven’t been fortunate to get a radio or television deal and only rely on the written word.
What about the people who suffer when you phone in your columns via Blackberry? Or suffer when you appear in Chris Rock movies and Soap Operas? (By the way, I don't think people like Stephen A. Smith should be allowed to act in movies or TV shows. He is not trained. He is not an expert.)
And now they’ve been sabotaged. Not because of me. Or like me. But because of the industry or the world has allowed the average joe to resemble a professional without any credentials whatsoever.
Welcome to America, friend. Where average Joes are allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as they are not slanderous or put anyone's person in danger.
Why Would You Ask This Man A Question About Baseball?
Of course, no one should listen to sports talk radio. Clinical studies have definitively shown that even brief exposure to ESPN Radio causes memory loss and reduction of cognitive function in lab mice.
So I was just in my car listening to a man whose name I believe is Erik Kuselias (Wikipedia helpfully notes that this man "is a member of Mensa International, the society for people with high IQs"). I have very little to say about Erik, except to plaintively ask him, Why would you ask Stephen A. Smith questions about baseball?
I didn't transcribe any of this, but I believe in about a (loud) five-minute span, Mr. Smith said approximations of the following things: I'm not really a baseball guy
I'm a big Yankees fan
I'd like to see the Yankees get Gagne, or the Mets
(on whether the Red Sox need Jermaine Dye) David Ortiz gave me a hug
The Boston Red Sox KNOW HOW TO WIN
The Red Sox play WillieBall
The Yankees rely on home runs
The Red Sox steal bases, hit and run, and again, KNOW HOW TO WIN
He also once (loudly, confidently) referred to the Boston Red Sox as the Boston Celtics.
Just for the record:
Yankees SB: 80 Red Sox SB: 56
Yankees WillieBall Quotient: 9.36 Red Sox WillieBall Quotient: -3.42
Erik Kuselias, you are a member of Mensa International, the society for people with high IQs. Please, do not ask this man about baseball again.
Some weird stuff Sunday morning on ESPN. Stephen A. Smith was inexplicably like lurking around the studio for both Sportscenter and BBTN. It was so weird that at the end of SC he like didn't even have a chair, and had to awkwardly stand nearby the anchor desk. Then at the end of BBTN Steve Phillips said goodbye on behalf of himself and Krukie, leading Smith to give him a look like "What the hell?" and then eventually Phillips included him. Odd all the way around.
On SC they did that mentally challenged "Who's Now?" thing and it was Vince Young vs. Maria Sharapova. I felt bad for everyone involved, as they tried to figure out if Vince Young's 6 wins as a rookie were more "now" than Sharapova's $20m in endorsements. One of the most pointless arguments I have ever been exposed to.
America's Sweetheart files this report via email:
I have an idea for what to do after "Who's Now?" is over. It's called "what time is it?" A panel of ESPN experts would sit around and argue about what time it was. They would never agree because the time would always be changing. People could vote on-line and the it would all depend on when they voted.
At the end you would have some idea of what time it was.
Finally, on BBTN, Phillips and Kruk debate the "Worst Franchise in Sports." Phillips chooses the Phillies because their next loss will be their 10,000th. This is problematic for several reasons: first, because that says as much about the longevity of the franchise (starting in 1890) as anything else. Second, the team is only 4 games out this year and has a lot of good players. Third, the team has been in the WS as recently as 1993. The Phils aren't close to being the worst franchise in baseball, much less all of pro sports.
Not to be outdone, Kruk chose the New Orleans Saints.
Stephen A. Smith, Mr. Quite Frankly himself, is apparently still slumming it in the newspaper business every now and then. To comment on Stephen’s latest piece, we’ve invited a very special guest blogger to join us here at FJM. Please welcome Stephen’s polar opposite, Dr. Frank Quietly.
Dr. Frank Quietly: … (quietly) Hello. (gently sips a cup of chamomile tea)
Dr. Frank, as is his wont, is going to offer reasonable opinions about reasonable things at a reasonable volume. His thoughts will appear in a normal, reasonable typeface, Stephen A. Smith’s in bold.
Stephen A. Smith | Only one clear choice for National League MVP
Stephen, I respect your opinion, but I’m afraid I’m already going to have to disagree with you here. There are at least two legitimate candidates for the NL MVP, with the most qualified probably being Albert Pujols.
We don't know much about the Phillies these days, and to tell you the truth, we really shouldn't care. When you lose perpetually, give 101 lessons in the art of public non-relations, keep missing the postseason, and evidently are allergic to progress, it's pretty difficult to ask anyone to stand up and take notice.
If you didn't have Ryan Howard.
It seems you will be endorsing Ryan Howard for the award. I’m open to this. I’m sure you’ll provide a well thought-out rationale for your opinion.
Except the Phillies do have Ryan Howard. The same kid who smacked 58 homers, drove in 149 runs, batted .313, and had a .659 slugging percentage.
That’s a good start. These numbers are impressive. Pujols trailed Howard in home runs and RBI but led him in batting average and slugging. Quite a race we have here!
He symbolized the only reason fans had for showing their faces around Broad and Pattison during summertime.
All right, Stephen. Interesting. I’m not sure how heavily we should weigh fan appeal, or more specifically Philadelphia fan appeal, in the MVP selection process, but do carry on.
Oh, did I mention he should also end up as National League MVP?
To be honest, the title of your article gave me more than a little hint. And oh, by the way, if you wouldn’t mind, the proper sports commentary protocol is to employ “And oh, by the way …”, not “Oh, did I mention …”
The result of the voting for the National League's most valuable player is expected tomorrow and, with apologies and respect to Albert Pujols, the vote shouldn't even be close.
I’m only one man, but it strikes me as somewhat disrespectful to Mr. Pujols to say that the vote shouldn’t even be close. He did lead Mr. Howard in WARP3 by the count of 12.9 to 9.4. Your turn, Mr. Smith.
Of course, there are naysayers who'll spew otherwise, vociferously pointing out how the league's 2005 MVP still had 49 homers with a better batting average and slugging percentage than Howard - despite missing 15 games in June because of an injury.
Consider this my vociferous spew, then, my dear Stephen! Pujols also led Howard in VORP, 85.4 to 81.5. VORP does not take into account defense, which even the staunchest Howard supporter will admit is not his strongest suit.
They'll be the same people I accuse of not paying much attention last season.
I … I don’t understand, Stephen. We are all baseball fans here. No need for personal attacks. A civil discourse is all I ask! (Pujols is also a better baserunner than Howard.)
You don't just look at the stat sheets or the box scores to measure the impact of Ryan Howard.
Then where, pray tell, might we look? I must confess I’m growing rather impatient with you.
You view the landscape of MLB then ask yourself, "Where did these fans come from?"
Fan appeal? Again? “Landscape” of MLB? These are your MVP criteria? Pujols EqA: .357. Howard EqA: .346.
Who are all these people who weren't watching the Phillies before? This franchise hasn't made the postseason since 1993, so why on earth are stadiums packed whenever they come to town?
People interested in a playoff race? Also, were stadiums really packed for the Phillies last year? More importantly, you still haven’t convinced me that this has very much MVP relevance.
Where did all the African American fans come from?
Now Albert Pujols has to draw fans of a certain race to compete for the MVP? Good God, Stephen, I don’t mean to shout here, but be reasonable for one second!
Why haven't we heard about steroids? Mark McGwire? Barry Bonds?
Apologies to Mrs. Quietly and those with delicate sensibilities, but WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING? People were still talking about steroids all year – how the new policy would affect home run rates, the Roger Clemens rumors, even Kenny Rogers’ (re?)surgence. And ESPN was running a Bonds HR count on their ticker all year. People talked about Bonds a little less because he was no longer OPSing 3.000.
The answer would be because there's no need. Because Howard is the real deal. He's the modern-day athlete major-league baseball was starving for.
Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Ahem. Sorry. FUCK. Stay calm., Quietly. Reasonable. Serene. Ryan Howard saved baseball?!? He’s like the fiftieth most famous guy in the league! According to Quite Frankly over here, he single-handedly stopped people from even thinking about steroids. How is that possible when Mark McGwire is still four hundred times more famous than he is?
"I care about winning," Howard told me several weeks ago, right before he left town to smack homers all over Japan. "I care about winning and doing it the way it's supposed to be done. Everyone wants to get paid, to be successful. But sometimes it's as much about how you do things as well as what you do. I know that. I'm aware of that."
The same can be said of Pujols, who is as big-time as they come.
So even you admit there was no point to that quote.
The St. Louis Cardinals would not have sniffed the postseason without him, let alone captured a World Series championship. But the reality is the talent that is Pujols, while fairly unique, is a dime a dozen in the laundry list of Latin talent that has invaded baseball.
There are so many problems with that last sentence even I, Dr. Frank Quietly, can’t let it go. Pujols, while fairly unique, is a dime a dozen? “Dime a dozen in the laundry list” is an amazing two clichés in seven words. Invaded? Invaded? Jesus, that’s negative. What if someone wrote that African-Americans invaded the NBA? That would sound terrible. Albert Pujols led Ryan Howard in WPA, 9.24 to 8.20.
When you think of Pujols, you also think of Manny Ramirez and David "Big Papi" Ortiz or Alex Rodriguez.
What? What?! What in the -- ? I’m sorry. (Goes to get a drink of water. Paces around a bit. Pets a friendly dog. More water. Sits in an easy chair. Smokes a cigarette. Another cig.) Okay, I’m back. When you think of Pujols, you think of Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, and/or Alex Rodriguez? What kind of statement is that? Because they all speak Spanish, you lump them all together? A-Rod, by the way, was born in the United States, just like Ryan Howard. When I think of Albert Pujols, I think of Chris Carpenter and Scott Rolen, because they’re his teammates. Or I think of Derrek Lee, because in 2005 they both hit for crazy average and crazy power, which is pretty unusual. I certainly don’t think of fucking A-Rod.
They play great baseball, but that's it.
Yes, David Ortiz plays great baseball and that’s it. No one’s ever talked about David Ortiz’s personality. He has no charisma whatsoever. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him smile. What a lifeless Spanish-speaking fuck, just like Alex Cintron, another Latino-or-whatever man who plays baseball. (Hey, Stephen A. Smith, this is Dr. Frank Quietly, and I’m being a fucking sarcastic asshole because of you. I hope you’re happy.) In Howard's case, not only has he performed, he's single-handedly transformed the focus of a sport, forcing baseball - and possibly the rest of us - to take a closer look at potential African American prospects perhaps through something more than Reviving Baseball in the Inner City (RBI) programs.
Look, Ryan Howard had a great year. Is it possible – possible – that you might admit that what you wrote here is hyperbole, Stephen? Held back - some might say hidden - by the Phillies for far too long, Howard has burst onto the scene in less than two years in the majors. And he's done it with a Magic Johnson-like smile despite the Phillies' unwillingness to show him some money and his being surrounded by limited, wannabe talent.
The Phillies hated and discriminated against Ryan Howard so much they traded away Jim Thome to make room for him. Ryan Howard has had to play in a lineup surrounded by no-talents like Chase Utley, Bobby Abreu and Pat Burrell. Ryan Howard, FRAR: -4. Albert Pujols, FRAR: 28.
Meanwhile, we'll pray they get rid of Pat Burrell and his $27 million over the next two years for a leftfielder who actually looks interested in playing 150 to 162 games a year.
Funny you should mention him. Burrell, 2005: 154 games played. Burrell, 2006: 144 games played.
In the meantime, there's Howard, who ranked either first or second in homers, RBIs and slugging percentage. He's given Phillies fans a reason to hope for a change.
Yes, you made note of his home runs, RBI, and slugging percentage already.
Numbers are being retired all the time. Baseball prides itself on setting precedents while maintaining tradition.
Honestly. I mean – Jesus. What in the fucking bloody vag does a sentence like “Numbers are being retired all the time” have to do with Ryan Howard for MVP? (Ed. note: Please excuse Dr. Frank Quietly’s vulgarity. Dr. Frank Quietly’s words do not reflect the sensibilities of the editors of Fire Joe Morgan.)
Awarding a difference maker on the field - and in the community at large - has always been baseball's version of a home run.
Huh. I always thought that baseball’s version of a home run is the motherfucking home run itself.
Pujols deservedly got his recognition last year.
It's Howard's time now.
It doesn’t matter who won last year. To recap:
Pujols WARP3: 12.9 Howard WARP3: 9.4
Pujols VORP: 85.4 Howard VORP: 81.5
Pujols EqA: .357 Howard EqA: .346
Pujols FRAR: 28 Howard FRAR: -4
Pujols WPA: 9.24 Howard WPA: 8.20
Pujols Number of Times Single-Handedly Saved Game of Baseball: 0 Howard Number of Times Single-Handedly Saved Game of Baseball: 1
I’m not really that angry that Ryan Howard won the MVP. He had a legitimately wonderful season, and after all, it’s just the MVP, so who cares? In the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of far better reasons to become extremely angry. Like Stephen A. Smith.
Junior here. Reader Andrew provides this amusing information: "As a side note, Smith suggests that Howard's success should encourage scouts to focus more efforts on recruiting black, inner-city talent. Please note that Ryan Howard went to the same high school (Lafayette Senior High) as my girlfriend. That school's student population is 84% white."
Alert: Ryan Howard may not actually have been a rich white suburbanite. Brad writes: "I just wanted to let you know that there is a high probability that Ryan Howard is actually from the city of St. Louis . Lafayette is in St. Louis County which is predominately white, but kids from the city are bused out to the suburbs through a de-segregation program in order to make more diverse classrooms."
If anyone's still reading down here, Andrew wrote back in to say that Ryan Howard's father is a doctor who provided a nice suburban home for him. Also, rather humorously, his name is Ron. Ron Howard.
After an extremely cursory search, I didn't find a definitive source to back up the doctor part, but his name is definitely Ron.
Someone Has Stolen Scoop Jackon's Brain and Replaced It With a Tiny Jar of Apple Butter
I say 2005, and what do think of? If you're Scoop-Jackson-with-his-brain-replaced-by-a-tiny-jar-of-apple-butter, your reply is five words and one fairly obnoxious extraneous initial: Quite Frankly with Stephen A. Smith. That's right. Scoop Jackson has chosen Quite Frankly as one of the topics of his year-end wrap-up, the inaccurately titled "What mattered most in 2005."
Stephen A. Smith's show No one really got the magnitude of this. Not even at ESPN. When the deal went down and "Quite Frankly" was born, the first thing I wanted to do was write a column about it. Not happening. "Too self-promoting" was what I was told. But "QF" was bigger than that. It was bigger than ESPN.
That's so ridiculous it's hard to make fun of. How about some facts, then? The number of people watching Quite Franklyranges from 0.1% to 0.3% of the people watching TV. If you're wondering, those numbers are very bad. Cold Pizza bad. Previously-recorded British darts tournament bad. According to Scoop Jackson, the show is bigger than ESPN.
When "Quite Frankly" aired on Aug. 1, 2005, it broke down a barrier that had been up for over a decade. And the following sentence is no disrespect to Bryant Gumbel, Michael Wilbon, John Saunders, Montell Williams, Orlando Jones or DL Hugley (sic), but … not since they pulled Arsenio Hall off the air in 1994 has a black man had his own talk show -- or been slated to host one with his name in the title. The fact that Stephen A. was given the format to do him -- to be himself, unscripted, unapologetic, unleashed -- was historical in the landscape of broadcast television.
Hold on a second. Didn't Montell Williams, Orlando Jones and D.L. Hughley all get and/or have talk shows? With their names in the titles? What is he talking about?
Oh. Maybe they weren't unleashed enough.
For a target audience of several million that are forced to watch "Being Bobby Brown," in a Neilsen (sic) era when UPN stands for United Plantation of Negroes because it is one of the few networks where you find "quality" African-American programming, the "officialness" of Stephen A.'s hosting a daily sports talk show was bigger than anything Ron Artest or Terrell Owens did to push us a few steps back. Not only did Sports Illustrated recognize it, but so did David Letterman.
Is anyone even reading these articles before they get posted on ESPN.com? I defy anyone to make sense of the first sentence of this paragraph, and the second sentence doesn't impress me. This tiny, meaningless blog was in Sports Illustrated. David Letterman has to book guests every night. They're not all winners. Kornheiser and Wilbon were on as guests, and their show is good and popular. But I guess it didn't come out in 2005, and it wasn't historical in the landscape of broadcast television.
** BONUS SCOOP JACKSON CRAZINESS **
Scoop also mentions a great thing Kevin Garnett did:
His pledge: To build one house per month for the next two years [for people who lost their homes in Hurricane Katrina]. That's 24 homes! Two seasons of "Extreme Makeover." Financially funded by one person … with no commercial return on his donation. A gesture that should have landed him on the cover of Time alongside Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono as Persons of The Year. A gesture that made Oprah -- read it again, Oprah -- break down.
I have an irrational love for KG, but let's do some quick math here. Let's assume building a home in the vicinity of New Orleans costs $250,000.
24 X $250,000 = $6,000,000
Six million dollars is a fantastic, generous contribution from Mr. Garnett. Now, let me put in black and white what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated to various causes in 2004 (I assume the 2005 numbers are similar. Also, screw Bono, I could care less where he fits into this):
$1,255,762,783
That's 1.2 billion dollars. Billion. If you woke up tomorrow with six million dollars, you could buy a nice house in the Palisades. If you woke up tomorrow with 1.2 billion dollars, you could buy Eritrea.
Here, I'll put the two numbers next to each other:
I might even make the argument that both numbers are Time-worthy. (I hadn't heard that about Garnett. That's awesome.) But only one is "Person of the Year"-worthy. Scoop Jackson is barely blog-worthy.
"Rarely since Jay Leno replaced Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show" has an impending television show gotten the buildup ESPN's Stephen A. Smith received for his "Quite Frankly" debut on ESPN2 last Monday night (Aug. 1)."
