I do see a lot of Joe Morgan in Michael Scott.

We've traces the call, and it's COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE.

I have no idea why that just popped into my head.

does this mean we now have to take firejoemorgan.com seriously?

Why?Should poor rhetoric be excused just because it has a famous-ish name attached to it now?

Oh here we go again.

Let me sum up the thread. FJM is rude, has no class, and swears too much. Think of the children, blah blah.

I agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death your right to say it

It's funny!!!!! Lighten up! 'poor rhetoric'... sheesh

I don't understand the lovefest for FJM. It is a one trick pony that got old really fast.

Hey let us pick a part every single word Joe Morgan has ever uttered, not only that but let us pretend that all of our responses are witty, funny, and full of snark.

Fine, you don't like it. You've advanced beyond snark. You're on like enlightenment level 7 or something. When you have pure sympathy for Joe Morgan you'll vaporize and become one with the universe. Just leave us poor unenlightened folks alone.

But I haven't advanced past snark! They just don't do it very well, and if you will notice I am not on FJM vitching about FJM. I am on BBTF vitching about FJM. Technically it is you who should be leaving us alone on your views for FJM.

It's interesting to hear the comparison, since both the office and fjm are venues I was "supposed" to think were funny, but never really appreciated. I get grilled constantly for not liking the office, but I stopped feeling guilty for disliking it. To me, comedy is about irony in its many manifestations (anachronism, incongruity, arousing discomfort in others, clever rhetoric). Monty Python did a terrific job of staging ironic situations which allowed the viewer to draw the contorted line between two circumstances, which I believe enhances the enjoyment. Some would rather be bludgeoned in the face by the humor, but I think the paucity of adult fans of Adam Sandler hints at the immaturity of the cognitive processes that interpret that sort of irony. Fundamentally, though, I believe the viewer has to be able to ultimately draw the connection between the incongruous elements of the story to derive the humor, thus a more intelligent audience ought to have the capacity- if not the temperament- for more humor.

With that said, I find the office disjointed in this fundamental thread. As far as I can tell, the irony comes from the juxtaposition of the seemingly irredeemably stupid characters (steve carrell and dwight, I believe) with the mundane lives of the office employees around them. It seems that people are supposed to identify with jim or pam while laughing at the idiotic flaps of the others. We have all worked in offices, we're looking at a caricature of real life, yes, I get it. At the same time, I cannot draw the connection between dwight and jim, for instance. The humor comes from the fact that their relationship is close enough to realistic that many can sympathize. And maybe dwight is close to reality in some ways, but if he really existed, jim would NOT remain friends with him EVEN IF they worked together. The fictional social dynamics undermine the realistic component, without which there is no connection to a mundane reality, no incongruity, no irony, and no humor.

Yeah, yeah, I know that trying to analyze humor is uniquely un-funny, but I take enough abuse for not watching the office that I deserve to say my piece.

I can't read it every day, because it gets old really fast, but once inawhile FJM is really funny. The deconstruction of the Pirates/Superbike Racing thing was awesome.

When FJM picked me apart, I thought some of it was unfair. Some of it seemed like a willful misreading of my intentions. But in general, I think the site fights a good fight - frankly, much the same fight that BTF seems to fight in picking apart mainstream idiocy. FJM's methods aren't my methods, but I think there's value there beyond just their love-it-or-hate-it tone.

I get grilled constantly for not liking the office, but I stopped feeling guilty for disliking it.

You'd probably like the British version of The Office more.

This is obviously just my opinion, but there's often very intelligent arguments buried under the snark. Quite frankly, knowing the writers work in TV explains the snark, especially the intelligent hyperdrive snark of Ken Tremendous.

My mind has been totally blown by this. The only thing that would be weirder and cooler than this would be if Joe Posnanski was actually a pseudonym for Conan O'Brien or something.

I like analysis of humor. Well done. Funny (not in the humor sense) thing is I don't watch The Office.

There is a long, semi-illustrious history of scholarly investigation into the nature of humor, from Freud’s Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, which may well be the least funny book about humor ever written, to a British research group who claimed they had determined the world’s funniest joke. Despite the fact that the researchers sampled a massive international audience in making this judgment, the winning joke revolved around New Jersey residents: A couple of New Jersey hunters are out in the woods when one of them falls to the ground. He doesn’t seem to be breathing; his eyes are rolled back in his head. The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls the emergency service. He gasps to the operator: “My friend is dead! What can I do?” The operator says: “Take it easy. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is silence, then a shot is heard. The guy’s voice comes back on the line. He says, “OK, now what?”

Dana Carvey used to tell a joke about how New Jersey was the butt of jokes the world around. It was something like, "So I'm in Japan on a tour and I'm flipping channels on the TV and I happen to stop on a talk show. The guest and the host are talking (Asian sounding gibberish) New Jersey, host and guest laugh."

I have had this argument with a number of established sportswriters who haven't even been targeted by FJM. I'm always told they're too harsh, over the top, there has to be a limit, etc. My rejoinder is always the same: By and large, the FJM guys are right. They target fatuous writing, vapid writing, counterfactual writing, fact-free writing, and so on. If you don't want to be targeted, go the extra mile to check your facts, to craft evidence-based arguments ... if nothing else, just to cover your ass. They're not picking apart every sports article that includes a single factual error - they're going after the lowest level of writing. And I don't understand why bad sportswriting should get a free pass.

Let me sum up the thread. FJM is rude, has no class, and swears too much. Think of the children, blah blah.

didn't you miss the most obvious point? it's also wrong most of the time, has a tendency to take small throwaway comments as gospel, and has the baseball sense of a Bizzaro Buster Olney.

Keith wins the thread. I agree 100%. The FJM crew makes no claim to be super-experts or professional writers themselves; they just target and ruthlessly pick apart irresponsible, demonstrably false, content-free, and otherwise bad sports writing. The world needs more sites like them, at least in that regard.

The last time me and cardsfanboy were on the same thread about FJM he advocated my execution. Something about concern over the viability of the species should I reproduce.

FJM doesn't even talk about Joe Morgan that much.

he advocated my execution. Something about concern over the viability of the species should I reproduce.

Maybe he was just advocating your sterilization.

"The last time me and cardsfanboy were on the same thread about FJM he advocated my execution. Something about concern over the viability of the species should I reproduce."

Then let me be the first to go Neo-Malthusian on this thread. Crucify him!

Sorry.

If you're going to be as viciously snarky as they are, you need to be a super expert. If you're going to tear apart the smallest details, you can't say things like Texas is a pitchers park or use rate2 a a way to evaluate defense.

If you're going to act like you're smarter than everyone else, you actually need to be.

I will say, for the record, that even as a fan of FJM I understand any and all criticism levied upon their site. They employ naked cruelty, which leaves them wide open for potshots when someone disagrees with them. They can be occasionally too dogmatic with their sabermetric approach. And hey, it's entirely possible you might just not find them funny.

As for me, this article (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2006/08/best-ever.html) is Exhibit A through Z as to why I am a fan.

I'm seriously giddy about this news. It's weird. And kinda scary.

If you're going to act like you're smarter than everyone else, you actually need to be.

I disagree. I think I said this on a previous FJM thread, but the job of "Internet #######" does not require any special training.

The last time me and cardsfanboy were on the same thread about FJM he advocated my execution. Something about concern over the viability of the species should I reproduce.

Sorry not a super fan of FJM, no problem with their existence, but as mentioned they get old real quick, they haven't refined their approach so it still appears as if this is the first time they have attempted to attack a target this way, they have Zero clue about conversational speaking and why it's not always going to be spot on exact, and of course they really just don't seem to know baseball. Just reading that site, for the first time ever I could actually envision a person who is talking about baseball who's probably never ever played the game outside of on a computer. Almost nobody on this board would I imagine that about but reading that site was the first time "I" ever thought "have you ever played?"

didn't you miss the most obvious point? it's also wrong most of the time, has a tendency to take small throwaway comments as gospel, and has the baseball sense of a Bizzaro Buster Olney.

I don't know why I'm bothering, but:

1) They are a humor site. The people they pick apart are supposed to be responsible. They are supposed to make dumb jokes. It's like when Jon Stewart was on Crossfire "The show that precedes mine is puppets making crank phone calls."

2) When they are shown to be wrong, they will say as much. Often times they will edit their posts or show in the comments section new information that shows their wrongness. In other words, they will admit when they make mistakes. That alone makes them more tolerable than the MSM.

3) They don't take "throwaway lines as gospel." But I don't see why a professional writer should get away with saying something egregiously stupid just because it was a "throwaway comment." Throwaway comment or not; if it's wrong, it's wrong. And they (FJM) show how it's wrong, or at least try to.

29 - Even if that were true (though I don't know where you get that FJM really doesn't seem to know baseball), the value of the "I've never played" argument is pretty limited, especially in the face of the huge errors made by Hall of Famers-turned-broadcasters and the like.

FJM isn't above being critiqued; I hardly think that makes them a lost cause. If they make a mistake, they should be critiqued. But it's not all-or-nothing.

I wish I could use code in editing my comments, because in my giddy fanboy joyousness I just wanted to point out that Ken Tremendous wrote this and this. That's farking awesome.

As bummed as I was to become an FJM target ... now I have to ask, when does the intelligence behind that site find a TV audience?

I guess Jon is unfamiliar with Fox's reality programming.

3) They don't take "throwaway lines as gospel." But I don't see why a professional writer should get away with saying something egregiously stupid just because it was a "throwaway comment." Throwaway comment or not; if it's wrong, it's wrong. And they (FJM) show how it's wrong, or at least try to.

agree about the writing thing, especially if it's a writer who is a member of the BBWAA, but I think that level of expectation should be lowered a bit for a guy who isn't a writer (and is commenting on a game) or a guy who isn't a writer and is doing a chat (heck even Rob Neyer doing a chat I would accept mistakes)

the value of the "I've never played" argument is pretty limited, especially in the face of the huge errors made by Hall of Famers-turned-broadcasters and the like.

there is argument when people are talking about stuff that isn't quantified by the numbers, I'm not saying that Jim Rice belongs in the hall of fame, but it's pretty hard to dispute that he was feared at the time, I've got multiple books written in '79, '80 that actually use the word fear when describing Jim Rice, (not saying that this is FJM argument, just one I'm grabbing out of the air which may be used by someone not familar with playing the game) then to argue with the guy that was playing at the time that Rice wasn't really feared, because he didn't intentionally walk is an example of someone that doesn't understand the emotion connection that a person has while playing the game. (once again I don't think anyone was thinking that Jim Rice was going to go to their house and kill their family, but there may have been a sense of impending doom.)

when reading FJM, I don't get any impression that they are fans of the game, more like guys who want to ridicule someone, or just get their jollies off of proving people wrong(or not 100% accurate) When I read a Lederer article, comment I get the distinct impression he is campaigning/criticizing because he cares deeply about the game, FJM just seems like the typical dork bullies who have gotten picked on all of their lives, and for some strange situation they are now the room monitor for a class that is two years younger, and get a chance at revenge at the younger brothers of the kids that picked on them.

-As bummed as I was to become an FJM target ... now I have to ask, when does the intelligence behind that site find a TV audience?

I guess Jon is unfamiliar with Fox's reality programming.

And just dropping back from the sassiness for a moment, I'm actually a big fan of The [American] Office. It's pretty hard to remake what was minute-for-minute the best series in history, but they've managed to do their own thing and make a damn good show that stands up on its own merits.

I don't think FJM is all that strong, though, despite some good moments here and there. No biggie. The Serpent's Egg is 85% of a disaster, but I still love Ingmar Bergman.

I think it's axiomatic that FJM cares about the game, otherwise they wouldn't go to this trouble. Certainly, if they didn't care about sports, they would find more interesting people to target than sportswriters.

And again, I don't see why anything in their childhood years (mostly imagined by you) should disqualify them from analyzing the game. (The phrase "dork bullies" is a weird one, I have to say.)

I will say this, just read their take on an article about Eli vs Rivers (the trade) and most of it was pretty good.

And again, I don't see why anything in their childhood years (mostly imagined by you) should disqualify them from analyzing the game. (The phrase "dork bullies" is a weird one, I have to say.)

It's about how they perceive the world. I mean if I'm watching Fox news, I know that it really doesn't matter what the facts are about whatever they are talking about, that I will see the Republican national line about whatever it is. Just like if I'm watching Daily Show, Rush Limbaugh, etc that their personal perspective is going to color their analysis. Sometimes it will still be fair and balanced (not on Fox of course, but in general someone could be fair and balanced when looking at something) but in FJM's case it feels like they are missing the broader points of something that is being said to focus on the narrow points because they think it makes good reading. They don't really seem to grasp the game from a players perspective at all, and I don't mean a professional player, I mean anyone who's ever worn a glove even at 7 years old.

agree about the writing thing, especially if it's a writer who is a member of the BBWAA, but I think that level of expectation should be lowered a bit for a guy who isn't a writer (and is commenting on a game) or a guy who isn't a writer and is doing a chat (heck even Rob Neyer doing a chat I would accept mistakes)

Normally I would agree, but in this case we're talking about a guy, Joe Morgan, who clearly, time and again, goes out of his way to not answer any of the questions he's asked. (Keith Law is exactly the opposite; he answers the question in as few words as possible and goes to the next one.) The criticism of the JoeChats is 100% deserved, though I think I do disagree with Ken Tremendous and the rest about why Morgan's chats are the way they are; I think his assumption is that Joe just isn't the brightest crayon in the box, but I think Joe knows exactly what he's doing. He finds a way to turn every answer he gives in his chats into some variation of the general theme of "if you don't watch baseball games every day of your life, you're absolutely unqualified to have an opinion about baseball."

He finds a way to turn every answer he gives in his chats into some variation of the general theme of "if you don't watch baseball games every day of your life, you're absolutely unqualified to have an opinion about baseball."

I should point out that the ridiculousness of that premise is a running theme throughout FJM's articles.

I don't like their format the most I guess. The whole quote a sentence or two and then ripped that quote to shred, then rinse and repeat.

FJM just seems like the typical dork bullies who have gotten picked on all of their lives, and for some strange situation they are now the room monitor for a class that is two years younger, and get a chance at revenge at the younger brothers of the kids that picked on them.

Seriously, where do people come up with this ####? I don't love Fire Joe Morgan, but psychoanalyzing complete strangers based on the fact that you don't like their blog is, to put it kindly, folly.

You mean kind of like what FJM does to articles and chat transcripts?

FJM Rules!!!! They rule Damnit!!! Do you hear me? They Rule!! End of discussion.

I like FJM. I don't care what you say.

FWIW, Ken Tremendous is referred to periodically here (Kaling site), which overlaps in content with my own non-existent blog more often than I'd care to admit.

FJM just seems like the typical dork bullies who have gotten picked on all of their lives, and for some strange situation they are now the room monitor for a class that is two years younger, and get a chance at revenge at the younger brothers of the kids that picked on them.

New signature.

And maybe dwight is close to reality in some ways, but if he really existed, jim would NOT remain friends with him EVEN IF they worked together.

Yeah, it would be so much more realistic if only Jim retaliated by making Dwight a target for frequent practical jokes in the aim of driving him off, only occasionally countering this by offering him basic human sympathy.

When Joe Morgan is fired, FJM will be irrelevant. Until then, it remains one of humanity's most vital causes, and if it's repetitive, that's because Joe Morgan's missteps are repetitively stupid and display the type of incompetence that should get you, um, fired. Nice guy, great ballplayer, shouldn't be doing commentary on playoff games and worthy of public scorn/snark until he ceases to do so...

The Republican Party no longer exists in reality no matter how many times you hear the words said on tv. At present, it's a media creation (as are many things in baseball). Truth detectors are helpful in life, if imperfect.

Bah, I removed my FJM feed when they ripped Hollinger's playoff projection system for no reason. I don't miss the shtick.

Robert Altman wrote for it? For true?

(FTR, I don't believe it for a second. But still, that'd be odd, given his death not being the least bit exaggerated.)

Bah, I removed my FJM feed when they ripped Hollinger's playoff projection system for no reason. I don't miss the shtick.

For no reason? Did you see what that thing was predicting? It was giving Boston and Detroit a combined 87.8% chance of winning the title...in early January...after some 32ish games. That's something that needs to be caught before it hits the front page of the worldwide leader. I'm not sure it's safe to give any two teams those kinds of odds come playoff time.

For those who watch the office, not only is Ken Tremendous a writer, he's also Dwight's cousin Moze.

"he's also Dwight's cousin Moze."

who is ####### hilarious
and ####### crazy

For no reason?

There was a reason, a dumb one FJM would be ripping had anyone else come up with it first. There were plenty of other retorts, revisions, etc. to Hollinger's projections that actually had some thought and facts put into them. I'm not smart enough to critique the projections, but 32ish (I think it was less) games in doesn't seem like much data, and it's still a 2 horse race in the East. The odds are more reasonable now.

"Ken" needs to stop striking so that The Office can go back on the air, damn it.

Yeah, it would be so much more realistic if only Jim retaliated by making Dwight a target for frequent practical jokes in the aim of driving him off, only occasionally countering this by offering him basic human sympathy.

My point is that this situation would never happen. Do you play practical jokes on your coworkers? If I play any sort of joke on a coworker, it's not someone whose behavior is a stone's throw from a serial killer. One of my coworkers is seriously poorly adjusted for social life, although not nearly as intensely as the tv character. Still, nobody really talks to her. The "basic human sympathy" is to leave her alone and not get on her case when she does something incredibly stupid.

I guess that is why we watch TV then, so we can watch make believe.

I mean do fat dumb insensitive guys always marry hot smart sassy women? Do 6 20/30 year olds with menial jobs have a million dollar lifestyle? Does an alien crash land into somebodies garage and then have wacky adventures all while trying to eat the cat?

"One of my coworkers is seriously poorly adjusted for social life, although not nearly as intensely as the tv character. Still, nobody really talks to her. "

I think that fits Angela to a T.

I think with Dwight it is different. It isn't just that he is an ####### or is crazy. He is so outgoing and authoritative about it, he thinks he is the MAN.
And he isn't actually dangerous enough to be "one step from a serial killer". I think hes kind of a ##### and a dork who likes to talk big... so thus you don't see him as actually threatening, instead hes just kind of a clown

I more or less explained this earlier in the thread, but the reason I think the office is unique is that it relies on parroting a ho-hum, shared lifestyle to which people can relate. Its humor is only ironic if it can sell itself as real (or somehow hyper-real as a type of caricature). If the relationships within the show are not believable, then they cease to be a parody of real life and become a fictionalization- which is fine, but takes away the show's ironic connection, which is the basis of its humor. I very much enjoy fantastical, even hallucinatory types of entertainment, but not if the overriding assumption is that the fantastical world is the one in which I live.

What difference does it make if the guys at FJM write for 'The Office' or write on city park benches. Shouldn't the site's content be judged on its own merits?

Voros, I take it you've been steering clear of the political threads?

"its own merits..." The Cold War is over, man.

but the reason I think the office is unique is that it relies on parroting a ho-hum, shared lifestyle to which people can relate.

Parroting is the keyword. IF it was real then it wouldn't be funny, or did you really think the fromanges invaded the world and only a scotsman could stop them?

Dwight is my favorite character. He's almost the only character on The Office that I would hang out with. I realize that makes me a bad person.

I mean, I thought I was being charitable by granting that they did a pretty good job of picking up on some of the mundane aspects of a very average office. If I judge the show based purely on its abstract creativity, I guess my evaluation would be that I find the premise of the show wildly disconnected from the jokes (like the worst episodes of family guy) such that the setting and characters add little to the incongruity of the strange situations. In your example, why couldn't the same storyline take place on Cheers, the Simpsons, or even Family Matters? If the writing does not connect stories to its characters and the characters are themselves unsympathetic/unbelievable, there's not much left for me.

I thought I scored major brownie points with my twin boys when I told them that I riff with Cliffy B's brother, Blez...but now THE dude from The Office.

I think The Office (US) gets unfairly compared to The Office(UK) because it's built to last more than 25 episodes. The first 2 seasons of The Office US (~30 episodes) was about as good as TV gets. When you have to stretch out a series to last for 8-9 years of course things are going to get out of control. I personally hated the end of the episode where Michael and Dwight drove into the lake cause their GPS told them to. It was ridiculous. But I can overlook stupid bits like that when the rest of the show usually keeps itself in check.

I LOVE the Mose.

I can't stand the British version of the Office...none of characters are likable to me. The US Office is the best show on TV though.

Shouldn't the site's content be judged on its own merits?

never again.

What difference does it make if the guys at FJM write for 'The Office' or write on city park benches. Shouldn't the site's content be judged on its own merits?

I think it makes a difference ... it makes it appear that the focus of the site is to go on comedic rants, not analytical ones. Any type of "analysis" they engage in has always been quite subpar, but that's more forgiveable now that it appears that their focus has been on comedic bits with a baseball analysis flavor, rather than baseball analysis they try to pepper with comedy.

To me, it means that any FJM thread here in the future should be looked at like a link to the Onion ... much more about the comic relief than the underlying arguments.

To me, it means that any FJM thread here in the future should be looked at like a link to the Onion ... much more about the comic relief than the underlying arguments.

I've never taken FJM any other way. Were people actually using FJM as reference for baseball?

To me, it means that any FJM thread here in the future should be looked at like a link to the Onion ... much more about the comic relief than the underlying arguments.

FJM is, was, and will ever be all about comic relief. To take it seriously is to do it a huge disservice.

Dwight is my favorite character. He's almost the only character on The Office that I would hang out with. I realize that makes me a bad person.

No, it makes you a nerd. Not a bad thing.

I've had friends like Dwight, but I always felt worse after hanging out with them. Why can't he just leave things be?

FJM is awesome.
The Office is awesome
That's all from me.

FJM is so now