Fire Joe Morgan

I'm not sure what you are getting at, Alma. Would it have made you feel better if it was revealed that he was writing from his mom's basement?

That site has blasted out some devastating critiques over the last couple years. Just great stuff, IMO. It shouldn't come as a shock that the writers get paid to write for a living.

Maybe I am missing your point.

 

I would me more troubled to find out that Alama really is a 12 year old writing from his basement.

 

I poorly communicated my point....

What I was saying was: Now that you know he's a TV writer (and a pretty good one, considering some of the The Office episodes he's penned) is it possible some of this is...put on? I mean, I've read the site, always felt like some of the rage was a bit over the top. I actually find the blog obtuse.

 

I would ask this way: What's less creepy, a professional writer having some fun, or a crazed obsessed fan who actually took the time to create a website about Joe Morgan??

 

It's like finding out one of the struggling designers on Project Runway is Stefano Gabbana of Dolce & Gabbana.

He's a pro. Meh.

 

Turn the discussion around another way:

I'm not really a Deadspin guy, but for those who are ... if Will Leitch had been writing for the New York Times (as he has done in the last year) before creating his blog, would it make the site any less better?

Talent is talent. If you're good enough to write for The Office, you're good enough to write for the P-D FJM. Both are fantastic.

 

So you're saying there's a chance I could messageboard my way into a job at the Plain-Dealer?

 

I thought Fire Joe Morgan was a reference to the former Boston Red Sox manager.

 

Just spent half-an-hour over there . . . first time in a couple of weeks . . .
still hysterical. Kudos.

 

At least BLOGS! that are done by semi-professionals give the blogosphere credibility, if there was any to begin with. But then others pretty much balance it back out.

 

I think it's fair to reemphasize part of Alma's point:

The site regularly mocks those in the media who favor "intangibles" over things like statistics. Stuff like Joe Morgan's assertion that he has a "feel" for who is the best second baseman of all time (himself), even though statistics do not back this up, and Plaschke's dismissal of "stat geeks" in favor of grizzled old scouts who just "know" someone can be a ballplayer are mocked regularly.

Alma's pointing out an interesting point: Isn't so much of comedy based on intangibles? On something that's impossible to quantify like "feel"? I don't know what exactly it is that makes John Krasinski and Rainn Wilson so good at deadpan comedy, but I know they're outstanding, and that the show would not work nearly as well (and Schur's lines would not be nearly as funny) if these two actors weren't so good at what they do.

How does one compare who's funnier: Rainn Wilson or Will Arnett? There's really no way to do it, and some would argue that it's kind of like saying that Jim Rice deserves to be in the HOF, even though statistically he might not measure up to some other hitters. Is Rainn Wilson funnier than George Wendt? I think so. Is Will Arnett funnier than Jason Alexander? I think so. But I can't prove either one of these statements.

It isn't like a "gotcha!" point, it's just interesting.

Lastly the fact that Schur is the author actually makes me like the site more, not less. Office Olympics, Christmas Party and The Job (all of which he wrote) are three of my favorite episodes of the entire series.