Tuesday, June 9, 2009

New Feature: the FJM Hall of Shame

We here at FJM have had quite a few HOF debates over the years - focusing around a few core players like Robert Horry, Craig Biggio (twice!), Tim Raines, LeBron James and other NBA stars, a host of NFL players and Curt Schilling. Articles about Hall of Fame-eligible players are easy pickins', since there's no clear definition for what constitutes Hall of Fameness in any sport, and it's usually not hard to find some way to argue against what any writer is saying.

Anyways, since this blog sees so many names repeated over and over again headlining and tagging on these hallowed pixels, we thought it only makes sense to honor the writers out there who've managed to achieve truly pathetic status. These writers have consistently (consistently) committed some of the most egregious fouls sportswriters can commit:

  • lacking basic research skills
  • poor syntax or grammar
  • misusing or abusing statistics
  • a naive lack of any critical powers
  • oversentimentalizing sports or life
  • heavy and wanton use of anecdotal evidence
  • disparaging things they don't understand or
  • anything else we like to complain about.
Since we're already hypocritical enough as it is, we're going to do the same thing that every sportswriters' association does to their respective sport - induct writers based on no set metric other than that we think their writing is not just bad, not just extra bad, but truly worthy of the Hall of Shame.

Certain obvious candidates will be inducted quickly and easily - there's nobody out there arguing that Babe Ruth wasn't a Hall of Famer and I'm pretty sure inductee #1 (who will arrive later today) will be voted in with 100% of the ballot. But you're welcome to start the debate about which writers truly belong in the next class, which be inducted approximately whenever I get to working on the next one.


Jack M said...

I think "heavy and wanton use of anecdotal evidence" should be one of the metrics for induction.

Jemele Hill gets my vote for the next class. Her body of work is small, and ESPN no longer publishes her articles. That being said, the light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long. And Jemele burned so very, very brightly.

Matt said...

I would agree on Jemele - but would also move that Bill Simmons needs to be part of the inaugural class. His hypocrisy is staggering (everyone sucks except for Boston), he beats jokes so far into the ground they may come out the other side, and he's a whiny schmuck.

Biggus Rickus said...

To me a Hall of Shamer just jumps off the page at you. If you have to think about whether or not the writer sucks then the aren't worthy. For instance, Dennis Dodd is always unreadable, a no brainer. Matt Hayes, on the other hand, is just incredibly illogical. Not Hall-worthy. I mean, we're not talking about the Hall of Shame here, not the Hall of Very Bad.

Biggus Rickus said...

All grammatical mistakes in my prior comment are evidence of my qualification to rule on entry.

Venezuelan Beaver Cheese said...

Gregg Easterbrook and Mike Celizic have been bashed on this site so many times that not inducting them would be a crime. Certainly, both meet almost every criterion from the list.

Bengoodfella said...

I would think that Jay Mariotti would be a no brainer pick. He's like the Ty Cobb of the class and of course I think Bill Simmons would have to be inducted for prolonged ineptitude and annoying traits. Then we can put his induction on his annoyingly long wikipedia page.

CHart said...

Jemele Hill has got to be #1. She's the greatest horrible sports writer of our era.

cs said...

SCOOP JACKSON. Shit, I would be in favor of going ahead and naming it the "Scoop Jackson Hall of Fame".

We'd have a statue of him wearting a Michael Vick jersey with the inscription "You big". Anyone?

blanco said...

just from checking out the topics of discussion list on the front page it is clear the list should at least contain:

Jay Mariotti
Jemele Hill
Hat Guy

Tonus said...

Hrm... if Jemele Hill and Scoop Jackson don't make the first cut, is that racist because they're being excluded? Or is it racist to include them in the initial group, since that would be an obvious implication that all blacks are bad sports writers?

Shit... controversy and the beer's not even warm yet!