Wild Speculation and Outlandish Guesses: Let's Play Some Damn Basketball Edition.

Wild Speculation and Outlandish Guesses: Let's Play Some Damn Basketball Edition.

Jeremy Lin reentered the news this week when he asked to sleep on new teammate Chandler Parson's couch. That's the only excuse we need to talk about him! How will he fare in Houston?


John Reyes Nguyen: Jeremy Lin is better off in Houston than in New York. As a Knick, the fans will want Linsanity all the time and that's just not going to happen. He's a good point guard but he's not a player who can turn around a franchise, which is what the Knicks need. I think he will be fine in Houston, probably averaging 13pts, 8ast, 3turnovers per game. Unfortunately, Houston's gonna be really terrible for a while so that will hurt his stock too.

Jacob Greenberg: I think he'll put up nice numbers (around 20 and 8?), but Houston will be nowhere near the playoffs. He also stands a decent shot of getting voted into the All-Star Game as a starter by the fans.

Andrew Snyder: Hopefully, Lin will average 20-7-12, carry the Rockets to the #1 record in the Western conference, and proceeds to break internet basketball culture as we know it.

Franklin Mieuli: Depending upon how you feel about Kevin Martin and Omer Asik, Jeremy Lin might just be the Rockets best player. His usage rate will be very high, meaning he will get a bunch of assists, but also a bunch of turnovers. He rose to prominence while Melo was out and his usage rate was off the charts. Therefore, I think that while Lin's advanced stats will show him to be having a decent year, he's going to average something like 20 points, 5 rebounds, 7 assists and 5 turnovers a game.

After not receiving any contract offers, Brian Scalabrine turned down an offer to coach the Bulls in order to do media work with the Celtics. What are your thoughts on the end of White Mamba's playing career?


John Reyes Nguyen: It's about time. Too many guys making a living in the NBA by being a "Locker Room Guy" and the first person off the bench to high five the players.

Jacob Greenberg: When you earn over $20 million over your career, you must be doing something right. I like him as a broadcaster and think he'll probably get picked up by one of the national affiliates in the near future. We haven't seen the last of White Mamba.

Andrew Snyder: This roundtable is right in my wheelhouse! Scal was a Celtics legend, and having heard him as a guest commentator before, I'm pretty sure he's going to be great in his new role -- who knows, he could slowly morph into the next Tommy Heinsohn! Maybe they'll settle down together, film a reality show, and then Tommy can finally have another "redhead in Needham."

Franklin Mieuli: I just don't get it. I don't get the internet's fawning love of Scalabrine. I mean, did he really ride middling basketball skill and red hair that far? I don't find him that interesting, and I just don't really care.

The New York Knicks offered their D-League head coaching job up to Patrick Ewing, which insulted the big man. Does he have cause to be upset?


John Reyes Nguyen: Do the Knicks really owe him anything? It's not like their head coaching position is available, at least not right now. And the head coach determines who's on his staff. Seems like they tried to bring him back to the organization the only way they can by offering him the D-League position. He's not done paying his dues.

Jacob Greenberg: I mean, he has been an assistant coach for several years now. But plenty of assistant coaches never get head coaching jobs, or have to wait a long, long time before they get a crack at it. Tom Thibodeau was an assistant for 23 years before he got a head coaching gig. I think Patrick feels like he's entitled a job because he's an all-time great player, and did good work with Yao Ming and Dwight Howard. If he really cares, he'll keep working, and something will come up.

Andrew Snyder: I think Ewing definitely has the right to be upset, although without any insider knowledge, I really can't speculate how deserving he is of NBA head coaching jobs and interviews. Maybe this just shows how big of a joke the D-League really is...

Franklin Mieuli: No. His one possible claim to fame is coaching Dwight Howard to stardom, and even that is dubious as Howard's talent was evident (and blossoming) before Ewing came along, and because somehow after 5 years of coaching by Ewing, Howard still doesn't have that good of a post game. Ewing needs to shut up and take this opportunity.

Bill Simmons and Stan Van Gundy will be joining ESPN's studio show this year. Thoughts?


John Reyes Nguyen: If Bills Simmons talks as much as he writes, it'll be a disaster. Sounds interesting, but Jeff Van Gundy is better.

Jacob Greenberg: I'd prefer if they called games, but sounds good to me.

Andrew Snyder: Oh baby. As a Simmons reader since before you were (Child of Boston... what's up Page2!?), at least I think I've got all the credibility you could ever need to answer this question. I've slowly listened to Simmons transform from a B.S. Report train wreck into a solid pod-host. Is that a word? However, he's has been wildly inconsistent on TV, killing it on occasion as a PTI fill in, but also sounding awkward in the NBA booth doing something he has no business doing - color commentary. Ultimately, the role of a studio host is somewhere in between those two, and I'm interested to see where this goes. Simmons could be great, or he could be a trainwreck who can't stop talking about the Celtics, or bringing up self serving concepts only he cares about (the pyramid?) from page 273 of The Book of Basketball. On the other hand, Stan Van Gundy has been there done this - he'll kill it.

Franklin Mieuli: Very excited to watch Stan Van Gundy to commentate, as that guy has no problem saying what he thinks. As far as Simmons, I've been underwhelmed by his podcasts and TV appearances, so I'm not expecting much.

Longing For A More Perfect Imperfection.

Longing For A More Perfect Imperfection.

There are lots of fascinating stories in this young NFL season.  The dominant 49ers are one.  Greg Schiano's bush leaguery is another.  But the most interesting storyline, without a doubt, is the effect of the replacement referees -- who are being used as scabs in a labor dispute with the regular referees -- on the "integrity" and "watchability" of the game.

Now, much of the hullabaloo has been largely unwarranted.  The replacement referees, who were drawn from the college and semi-professional ranks (if you consider the "Lingerie League" to be a semi-professional league), have generally done a fairly decent job.  Sure, there have been rough patches here and there.  But  there have been no blown calls that had any real ramifications on the outcome of any contest (though the extra timeout for the Seahawks in Week One could've been pretty bad), and there has been far less outcry about the refs performance after Week Two than there was after Week One.  And though I never take kindly to scabs, I must admit that officals' performance this week to the eye of a casual fan, was mostly indistinguishable from the past performances of the regular refs that they have replaced until at least Week Five.  The labor dispute is bad, but the football?  In my opinion, still quite watchable.


Yet, based upon the reviews of a quadrumvirate of fans, players, coaches and broadcasters, who want Goodell bring back the normal referees, I may be in the minority.  Broadcasters have been quick to point out missed calls by the replacement referees, with noticable disdain in their voices.  St. Louis Rams' fans chanted "Referees Suck" in full force this past Sunday.  And even Allison and I (stone caster that I am) incredulously pointed out a slew of missed calls in the 49ers-Packers game, and ridiculed the refs for their timid demeanor around players who they'd probably rather get an autograph from, rather than whistle for roughing the passer.  And the players and coaches haven't been silent either.  Joe Flacco and Ray Lewis eviscerated the refs after the Ravens lost to the Eagles, and Mike Shanahan and Jason Garrett both took exception to some missed calls in their games.  In all of these complaints, a singular issue emerges: the integrity of the game.  The general sentiment amongst the fans, players, coaches and broadcasters who have to interact with the refs, have mostly agreed that the replacement referees, for all the good and bad that they do, have compromised some aspects of integrity in the game of football.

"Integrity" (and it's marketing and advertising equivalent, "watchability") in officiating seems to be very much in the public consciousness of sports consumers, perhaps nowhere more strongly than the National Basketball Association.  This past season, the referees were constantly under fire for "bad calls", from journalists, bloggers, fans, players and coaches alike.  In particular, the issue of "flopping" -- where an defensive player sells contact from a driving player in an effort to draw an offensive foul -- became a major focus for those who spend a lot of time around the game, either in person, or in front of a television, computer, or mobile device.  Jeff Van Gundy has become the movement's informal leader, based upon a rant he made while calling a Knicks game for ABC.  TrueHoop even launched a series that set out to "Stop the Flop" by suggesting innovative ways to penalize players who are known floppers, or punish referees who continually fall for flopping.  While the focus mostly was on the players who got away with flopping, there was a fair amount of hatred directed at the referees who let the floppers flop.  They were the ones who allowed the integrity of the game to be compromised.


In many ways, regardless of sport or situation, referees cannot win.  They are tasked, along with players, coaches, and broadcasters, with keeping the game fair, watchable, and entertaining through their honest efforts.  Aside from the obvious bad apple -- the crooked, mob-connected Tim Donaghy -- we have absolutely no evidence that refs do anything except study the rules, take classes, integrate useful technology, and call games to the best of the human and professional abilities.  Yet players, coaches, fans and broadcasters lambast them regularly for failing to make the proper call after an infraction (which lasts but a millisecond, and is often indistinguishable from a non-infraction) is committed, and usually, after instant replay confirms (or denies, though that is rarely admitted) their assertions.  To protect their officials (or is it to protect themselves?), professional league offices collect fines from players, coaches and owners who criticize the zebras, but that fine money goes to various unlisted charities, and not to the refs themselves.  And then, when it comes down to negotiating a fair contract, so professional sports can maintain their integrity, and remain watchable, leagues can hold out forever, pinching pennies because refs, in the end, can be easily replaced, even for the long haul.

While we are seeing this play out in the NFL, this has happened in the NBA several times in the past.  There have been a number of referee strikes which required the NBA to hire replacement referees to call games.  1995 was the last time a replacement ref officiated a regular season game, and 2009 was the last time a replacement ref officiated a preseason game.  While some strikes have been worse than others, two similarities seemingly emerge from all of them.  Firstly, the replacement referees get better.  As Howard Beck reported in a 2009 article, a number of high profile regular referees -- Joey Crawford, Kenny Mauer, Bill Kennedy, Eddie Rush, Leon Wood and Derrick Stafford are among their ranks -- started off as scabs who learned the job better than the guys who they were being paid to replace.  So the notion that something bad is coming in the NFL because replacement refs are there is ludicrous; they can only get better at their jobs, not worse.  Secondly, when the refs come back -- and they will come back, lest Roger Goodell go all Ronald Reagan on us -- everyone, for a little while, is going to be ecstatic.  Chris Webber famously let out a whoop of joy when he was told the regular refs were coming back to the NBA in 1995, and one can expect Joe Flacco and Ray Lewis to follow suit when their zebras return to the NFL.


Of course, it will be fleeting.  Soon, all of us will be moaning and groaning about blown calls, terrible officiating, and clearly crooked refs.  Soon, all of us will be falling back to our old ways.  When a call is missed, we won't assume that the most obvious conclusion -- that even the refs are human, and at best, must make a 50/50 call on something that happens just once, for a millisecond -- and will instead settle on conspiracy theories, profanity-laced tirades, and preposterous propositions ("Man I could do a better job than these guys.")  These are the tried-and-true plays of a Monday morning quarterback, or an armchair point guard.

But for a minute there, we will all rejoice.  In our eyes, order will be restored, and all will be balanced.  I ask you to remember that moment when Joey Crawford calls another offensive foul on whomever Reggie Evans is guarding, and everything just seems offensive and wrong.  Really folks, it's not that bad.

Longing For A More Perfect Imperfection.

Longing For A More Perfect Imperfection.

There are lots of fascinating stories in this young NFL season.  The dominant 49ers are one.  Greg Schiano's bush leaguery is another.  But the most interesting storyline, without a doubt, is the effect of the replacement referees -- who are being used as scabs in a labor dispute with the regular referees -- on the "integrity" and "watchability" of the game.

Now, much of the hullabaloo has been largely unwarranted.  The replacement referees, who were drawn from the college and semi-professional ranks (if you consider the "Lingerie League" to be a semi-professional league), have generally done a fairly decent job.  Sure, there have been rough patches here and there.  But  there have been no blown calls that had any real ramifications on the outcome of any contest (though the extra timeout for the Seahawks in Week One could've been pretty bad), and there has been far less outcry about the refs performance after Week Two than there was after Week One.  And though I never take kindly to scabs, I must admit that officals' performance this week to the eye of a casual fan, was mostly indistinguishable from the past performances of the regular refs that they have replaced until at least Week Five.  The labor dispute is bad, but the football?  In my opinion, still quite watchable.


Yet, based upon the reviews of a quadrumvirate of fans, players, coaches and broadcasters, who want Goodell bring back the normal referees, I may be in the minority.  Broadcasters have been quick to point out missed calls by the replacement referees, with noticable disdain in their voices.  St. Louis Rams' fans chanted "Referees Suck" in full force this past Sunday.  And even Allison and I (stone caster that I am) incredulously pointed out a slew of missed calls in the 49ers-Packers game, and ridiculed the refs for their timid demeanor around players who they'd probably rather get an autograph from, rather than whistle for roughing the passer.  And the players and coaches haven't been silent either.  Joe Flacco and Ray Lewis eviscerated the refs after the Ravens lost to the Eagles, and Mike Shanahan and Jason Garrett both took exception to some missed calls in their games.  In all of these complaints, a singular issue emerges: the integrity of the game.  The general sentiment amongst the fans, players, coaches and broadcasters who have to interact with the refs, have mostly agreed that the replacement referees, for all the good and bad that they do, have compromised some aspects of integrity in the game of football.

"Integrity" (and it's marketing and advertising equivalent, "watchability") in officiating seems to be very much in the public consciousness of sports consumers, perhaps nowhere more strongly than the National Basketball Association.  This past season, the referees were constantly under fire for "bad calls", from journalists, bloggers, fans, players and coaches alike.  In particular, the issue of "flopping" -- where an defensive player sells contact from a driving player in an effort to draw an offensive foul -- became a major focus for those who spend a lot of time around the game, either in person, or in front of a television, computer, or mobile device.  Jeff Van Gundy has become the movement's informal leader, based upon a rant he made while calling a Knicks game for ABC.  TrueHoop even launched a series that set out to "Stop the Flop" by suggesting innovative ways to penalize players who are known floppers, or punish referees who continually fall for flopping.  While the focus mostly was on the players who got away with flopping, there was a fair amount of hatred directed at the referees who let the floppers flop.  They were the ones who allowed the integrity of the game to be compromised.


In many ways, regardless of sport or situation, referees cannot win.  They are tasked, along with players, coaches, and broadcasters, with keeping the game fair, watchable, and entertaining through their honest efforts.  Aside from the obvious bad apple -- the crooked, mob-connected Tim Donaghy -- we have absolutely no evidence that refs do anything except study the rules, take classes, integrate useful technology, and call games to the best of the human and professional abilities.  Yet players, coaches, fans and broadcasters lambast them regularly for failing to make the proper call after an infraction (which lasts but a millisecond, and is often indistinguishable from a non-infraction) is committed, and usually, after instant replay confirms (or denies, though that is rarely admitted) their assertions.  To protect their officials (or is it to protect themselves?), professional league offices collect fines from players, coaches and owners who criticize the zebras, but that fine money goes to various unlisted charities, and not to the refs themselves.  And then, when it comes down to negotiating a fair contract, so professional sports can maintain their integrity, and remain watchable, leagues can hold out forever, pinching pennies because refs, in the end, can be easily replaced, even for the long haul.

While we are seeing this play out in the NFL, this has happened in the NBA several times in the past.  There have been a number of referee strikes which required the NBA to hire replacement referees to call games.  1995 was the last time a replacement ref officiated a regular season game, and 2009 was the last time a replacement ref officiated a preseason game.  While some strikes have been worse than others, two similarities seemingly emerge from all of them.  Firstly, the replacement referees get better.  As Howard Beck reported in a 2009 article, a number of high profile regular referees -- Joey Crawford, Kenny Mauer, Bill Kennedy, Eddie Rush, Leon Wood and Derrick Stafford are among their ranks -- started off as scabs who learned the job better than the guys who they were being paid to replace.  So the notion that something bad is coming in the NFL because replacement refs are there is ludicrous; they can only get better at their jobs, not worse.  Secondly, when the refs come back -- and they will come back, lest Roger Goodell go all Ronald Reagan on us -- everyone, for a little while, is going to be ecstatic.  Chris Webber famously let out a whoop of joy when he was told the regular refs were coming back to the NBA in 1995, and one can expect Joe Flacco and Ray Lewis to follow suit when their zebras return to the NFL.


Of course, it will be fleeting.  Soon, all of us will be moaning and groaning about blown calls, terrible officiating, and clearly crooked refs.  Soon, all of us will be falling back to our old ways.  When a call is missed, we won't assume that the most obvious conclusion -- that even the refs are human, and at best, must make a 50/50 call on something that happens just once, for a millisecond -- and will instead settle on conspiracy theories, profanity-laced tirades, and preposterous propositions ("Man I could do a better job than these guys.")  These are the tried-and-true plays of a Monday morning quarterback, or an armchair point guard.

But for a minute there, we will all rejoice.  In our eyes, order will be restored, and all will be balanced.  I ask you to remember that moment when Joey Crawford calls another offensive foul on whomever Reggie Evans is guarding, and everything just seems offensive and wrong.  Really folks, it's not that bad.

Your Annotated Smartphone Bathroom Reader for Sunday, September 16, 2012.

Your Annotated Smartphone Bathroom Reader for Sunday, September 16, 2012.

There's so little going on in the basketball world, it's frightening.  Enjoy this very football-heavy basketball reader.

A Rough Start?
Charles P. Pierce
Grantland

This piece is a bit dated, seeing as how things look pretty hunky-dory in Week 2 (which is on in the background as I compile this week's reader).  But Charles P. Pierce's main point -- that Roger Goodell's dictatorial rule of the NFL is producing some unforeseen side effects which seemingly compromise his overall vision for what the league is supposed to represent -- still rings true.  Pierce looks at the bevy of distractions that have marred the start of the new NFL season, ranging from the overturning of the Bountygate suspensions, to the replacement refs, to the growing rancor over the barbarism of football, and its lasting effects on the human body, to Chris Kluwe's brilliant use of the term "lustful cockmonster", to the ham-handed assertion that NFL-funded research will make the military safer.  He concludes that Goodell, who has run the NFL much like a post-colonial gatekeeper, has largely lost control of his of his league, and that the neat narratives that make football attractive to right-leaning individuals and corporations, are no longer so clean-cut.  It honestly makes David Stern look like a fair arbiter of justice, and the NBA fairly free of problems.

- JG
Why the Mariners are the Biggest Opponents of a New NBA Arena in Seattle
Barry Petchesky
Deadspin

For most of their existence, the Seattle Mariners have had to scratch and scrape just to remain in the consciousness of Seattle's fair weather fans.  Though Seattleites are more than willing to spend money on the M's when they're a winning outfit, they are not nearly as generous when the team is playing poorly.  This has been disastrous for the Mariners, who have not made the playoffs since 2002.  In 2011, the M's fell to third place in terms of attendance behind the Seahawks and the Sounders, Seattle's MLS franchise.  Now, they stand to fall to last place, once Chris Hansen builds his new arena right next to the house that Griffey built and moves the reborn Sonics (and eventually an NHL franchise) into said new arena.  Barry Petchesky details the tactics the Mariners have used to try and prevent the construction of a new arena in the South Downtown (SODO) area of the city, and explains why they're so opposed to the arena being built there in the first place.  Unsurprisingly, it has everything to do with competition, but not necessarily competition for fans to fill their own arena.  Petchesky explains that the M's are worried about competition in terms of merchandise sales, season ticket holders, and the various businesses around the arena.  He also asserts that the M's are concerned of the potential of the new Sonics developing a regional sports TV network; something they've been planning on doing once their deal with Root sports expires in a few seasons.  Luckily, the M's are a joke, and the only thing stopping the NBA from returning to Seattle is the fact that no teams are currently for sale.

- JGJay Cutler is People
Nick Bond
The Classical

Nick Bond is correct in his assertion that Jay Cutler, the Chicago Bears' quarterback, is perhaps now "America's favorite sports misanthrope" (at least since LeBron James won his ring and all the haters were finally forced to shut up), and that there's a certain pleasure in watching things go poorly for him.    All of us who enjoy ridiculing Cutler had a field day this past Monday night, when Cutler threw four interceptions in a losing effort to the Green Bay Packers.  Bond provides a rundown of Cutler's transgressions (especially the much-analyzed shove he gave to linebacker J'Marcus Webb after Webb spectacularly blew a blocking assignment), but then encourages us to view Cutler in a different light: that Cutler is "like any other kid who grew up insanely competitive and firmly convinced of [his] exceptional abilities," and that when he appears petulant, his perceived whining in instead "an existential whine, not so much a questioning sound as the sound of someone confronting a fate is he sure he doesn't deserve."  I have always appreciated analyses that focus on the Everyman traits that professional athletes display on large stages, and this is a very good one.

- JG
So Unlike Mike
Ryan McGee
ESPN the Magazine

The title of this piece is as clever as it deceptive.  While we have grown accustomed to Jordan-bashing since he became a basketball executive and owner, we have fallen out of practice of Jordan-praising when he attempts to improve his track record.  This article provides more details into the ways Jordan has failed as an owner of a small-market team, but also the ways he's changing his behavior, and attempting to build a winner.  As McGee explains, in the past, Jordan's roster decisions usually were made in the aftermath of the NCAA tournament, when a young player has a Jordan-esque moment that impresses the G.O.A.T., who then drafts that player with a lottery pick.  But of course, none of them work out, because those who are great in college rarely are great in the pros.  This is why high draft picks were wasted on players like Emeka Okafor, Sean May, Adam Morrison and Kemba Walker -- guys who look great in March against other teenagers, but clearly don't have what it takes to be a elite players in a league of men. But according to McGee, Jordan has finally become self-aware, and has realized that there are people who's specific job in the league is to assess talent, manage assets, and build teams.  In other words, Jordan learned that there are people called "general managers" who you can pay to take care of that type of stuff.  Enter Rich Cho, who has received credit for building winners in Seattle/Oklahoma City and Portland, and who is starting the long, arduous process of rebuilding the Bobs from the ground up through the draft and restricted free agency.  While I have no problem with reading Jordan-bashing, it's nice to see that he's changing his ways, and that the media is beginning to take notice.

- JG
The Man, the Mountain and the Bonner
Anath Pandian
Hardwood Paroxysm

One of the stereotypical terms that gets thrown around a lot when discussing basketball, and in partitcular, professional basketball is the "slow, unathletic white guy".  There are a number of guys who have filled that role over the years, including Fred Hoiberg, Brian Scalabrine, Austin Croshere and, of course, Matt Bonner, who serves as the subject of this piece.  Now, I feel perfectly comfortable looking at players like Matt Bonner, and call them "slow", "unathletic", and "white".  But as Anath Pandian learns as he spends a day training with Coach B: even 6'10'' and 235 pound "slow, unathletic white guy(s)" can run up a 3,050 ft. mountain in New Hampshire about thirty minutes, then come down the mountain and do over an hour of cardio and core workouts while standing upstream in a rushing river.  Then, afterwards, they'll gladly buy you a bottle of water at a coffee shop, and make conversation with the people who knew them when they were young, and still go out with their parents now and again.  This is a really entertaining day-in-the-life piece about the work it takes to maintain a rotation spot in the NBA, and how we really throw the term "slow" and "unathletic" around too much. But buying a bottle of water atop a mountain in New England?  Sooooo white.

- JG 

Monday Media: The Wages of Wins Videocast, or The Revenge of the Basketball Nerds.

Monday Media: The Wages of Wins Videocast, or The Revenge of the Basketball Nerds.


Introducing "Monday Media", a semi-regular look into stuff that other members of the NBA's literati are producing.

Today's media: The Wages of Wins Videocast, where we learn four things:
1.  The Wages of Wins network is filled with incredible nerds.
2.  Those incredible nerds are incredibly intelligent when it comes to understanding professional basketball, and interpreting the stories that stats tell about a game, player or team.
3. I'm not sure Google+ hangout is quite ready for primetime yet.
4.  They are some of the only bloggers (besides myself) who actually like what the Mavs did this summer, but don't think that it will prevent Dirk from becoming a Laker in 2014.
Oh, wash out your mouth, get that vom-vom gone.  He'll be old at that point.  Thanks for the entertainment, stat nerds!

Monday Media: The Wages of Wins Videocast, or The Revenge of the Basketball Nerds.

Monday Media: The Wages of Wins Videocast, or The Revenge of the Basketball Nerds.


Introducing "Monday Media", a semi-regular look into stuff that other members of the NBA's literati are producing.

Today's media: The Wages of Wins Videocast, where we learn four things:
1.  The Wages of Wins network is filled with incredible nerds.
2.  Those incredible nerds are incredibly intelligent when it comes to understanding professional basketball, and interpreting the stories that stats tell about a game, player or team.
3. I'm not sure Google+ hangout is quite ready for primetime yet.
4.  They are some of the only bloggers (besides myself) who actually like what the Mavs did this summer, but don't think that it will prevent Dirk from becoming a Laker in 2014.
Oh, wash out your mouth, get that vom-vom gone.  He'll be old at that point.  Thanks for the entertainment, stat nerds!

Stephen A. Smith: Rarely Intentionally Hilarious, Always Unintentionally Hilarious

Stephen A. Smith: Rarely Intentionally Hilarious, Always Unintentionally Hilarious

A few hours ago The Onion, America's favorite fake-news vendor, posted a not very funny article about Stephen A. Smith talking to his nine-year-old son about sex. Ho-hum.

And then Stephen A. Smith read it.

I thought I'd heard enough despicable lies about myself. Now there's some article out that I have a 9-yr-old son and I'm going to have a
â€" Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) September 17, 2012

Conversation with him about Sex. Mind you, I neither have a son nor a 9-Year-old. Some ppl are beyond despicable. No end! Sad what extent
â€" Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) September 17, 2012

People will go to. Amazing how folks try to tear cats down, primarily due to perceived power of the spoken word. Damn Shame, but too bad.
â€" Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) September 17, 2012

Because I don't intend on going anywhere. Really, Really sad, though!
â€" Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) September 17, 2012

Unfortunately some internet spoil-sports, those same guys that ruined the magic of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, had to tell Stephen A. Smith what was up:

Haaaaa. The got me. I didn't know it was on Satire! Got it. Peeps got jokes. It's cool!
â€" Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) September 17, 2012

Peeps got jokes, indeed.