I like Joe Morgan. I know that’s the wrong thing to say on a blog. I know Joe has said some pretty wild things through the years. I know that he doesn’t always seem as up to date on current players as, you know, the lead commentator for ESPN should be, and I know that there are countless documents over at Fire Joe Morgan about why he’s not especially incisive about the game, and I know my buddy Bill James has written that he’s a windbag, and yes, sure, I know that I’ve taken a few swipes at him myself. But I still like the guy. I can tell you that when I decided to write this book about the 1975 Reds*, one of the reasons was the idea of writing about Joe Morgan. I’m fascinated by him.
*Did I mention I was writing this book?
I was thinking about again this after catching the latest Joe Morgan tidbit. You may have seen this on the Sunday Night game on ESPN, or you may have caught mention of it on The Sporting News blog … Joe Morgan is getting ribbed again for his seeming disdain for the new statistics.
The scene went like this: Jon Miller (who I like a lot too) was talking about how great Jim Edmonds has been since arriving in Chicago.
MILLER: Since coming to the Cubs, he’s played 25 games, he’s hitting .311, he’s got four homers, six doubles, and 16 batted in in only 74 at-bats. … (Here’s a brief pause) … He’s got a .939 … ops (phonetically spoken)“
MORGAN: ”OK.“ (This is followed by a bit of sustained laughter).
MILLER” “He was only hitting .178 in San Diego …”
Now, I did not hear this live. If I had heard it live, I probably would not have thought anything of it, other than perhaps offering a quick double take after Miller pronounced OPS like it rhymes with flops. That was weird. OPS has become mainstream enough, I imagine, that calling it “Ops” is not a lot different than saying a guy has a “3.48 errah” or a “.289 avej” or that he works for the “fibeye.” Ops as a word sounds goofy enough that I would guess Miller, who likes poking fun at people, was just trying to get a rise out of Joe.
And I would also guess that Joe was just playing the part handed to him. I mean, he just said “OK,” and laughed. It didn’t seem like a crime against mathematics to me, but I do think we all know how Joe feels about ops, no matter how you pronounce it.
Thing is I really do find the guy to be fascinating … wait, hold on, sorry, I have to interrupt this Joe Morgan thought to ask a serious question that perhaps one of you brilliant Denver reasons can answer: Why in the name of all that is holy and decent is Willy Taveras leading off for the Colorado Rockies? Why? The guy has a 55 OPS+, a .299 on-base percentage, and it’s against his very nature to walk. I mean, look, you don’t have to buy into every part of the statistical revolution, but I really thought that the whole “You want a fast guy to lead off even if he doesn’t get on base” thought process was about as outdated as the, “Sure, it’s perfectly fine to hold an infant in your lap in the front seat while driving” thought process.
Willy Taveras?* Leadoff? Seriously? I mean, yes he had a .367 on-base percentage in part-time duty last year, but I mean that was because he HIT .320 (.330 at home), and that ain’t ever happening again. I mean, aren’t there like — oh, I don’t know — FIVE OR SIX better leadoff hitting options on this team? I mean … well, wait again, never mind … the Rockies are down two runs to the Royals in the eighth, and they just had Ryan Spilborghs try to steal second base with Matt Holliday at the plate. He got thrown out, of course. The tying run and the Rockies best hitter at the plate in the eighth inning, two runs down, and this guy gets thrown out stealing? I’m trying to come up with a reason for this … I don’t have one. So never mind on that first thing. Compared to THAT steal attempt, the decision to put Willy Taveras in the leadoff spot thing is like the decision to make Babe Ruth a hitter.
*What I remember most about Willy Taveras is that I was sitting next to Buck at a Houston Astros game when Taveras came up. Buck said, “This guy looks like Willie Mays.” I thought, “What? Willy Taveras? What? Buck, the guy who signed Lou Brock, Joe Carter and Lee Smith, thinks Willie Taveras looks like Willie Mays? Is he feeling well?” And then he said: “No, I mean it, look at his face, he LOOKS like Willie Mays.” I’m not sure I see that entirely, but realizing that’s what he meant made me feel a lot better.
OK, sorry, where was I? Oh yeah, Joe Morgan. A lot of people have made the point that it seems pretty silly for Joe to be so averse to the new statistics when it is these new statistics that best explain how great a player he was. Joe only hit .271 for his career. He drove in 100 RBIs just once. He never hit more than 27 home runs. He walked a lot, but people more or less assumed this was because he was short and, anyway, nobody cared about walks. It probably would not be right to say that Joe was under-appreciated in his career — he did win back-to-back MVPs, he was a 10-time All-Star, he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer who received 81.8% of the vote … which was about the same as Willie McCovey.*
*Hall of Fame percentages are probably worth a whole other post but I’ll mention something briefly here: Jackie Robinson received 77.5% of the vote as a first-ballot Hall of Famer. I’m sure I’ve run across this before, but every time I see it that number slaps me like it’s new. That number means that if only five more people had not voted for Jackie Robinson, he would not have been a first-ballot Hall of Famer.
Now, I have long thought that in many ways the percentages don’t matter. Sure, it’s embarrassing for the BBWAA that quite a few people voted against Willie Mays and Ted Williams and Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle and so on. But really, the system is about 75% — once you cross that threshold, it doesn’t really matter. You don’t get a bigger or smaller plaque. STILL, thirty-six sportswriters voted against Jackie Robinson. Sad.
So, no, Joe wasn’t exactly mistreated or ignored, but I do think it’s fair to say he was much better than most people knew at the time. I think that as you look back over baseball since the Deadball Era, there are a choice few players who stand out as the very best of their eras — and you could argue those are the ten or so best of all time.
There was Ruth and Gehrig, of course, with a little Hornsby and Foxx thrown in.
There was Williams, DiMaggio and Musial.
There was Mantle, Mays and Aaron.
There was Bonds … with supporting performances by players like Griffey, Rickey, some others.
And, of course, there’s a gap — a gap from about 1970 to the mid-1980s. Who were the larger-than-life players from that time? Schmidt and Brett come to mind immediately. Reggie wasn’t as good as those two, but he was transcendent in his own way. McCovey from about 1965 to ‘70 was almost inhuman. Bench. Stargell. Rose. And so on.
Still, I think you could make the argument that the very best player of that era was Joe Morgan. From 1972 to 1977 — in a pitcher’s era — Joe hit .301/.429/.495 and averaged 22 home runs, 60 stolen bases, 113 runs, 84 RBIs and an absolutely incredible 68 runs created above average. That’s 68 RCAA per year. How incredible is that? Put it this way: Mike Schmidt, who many people would rank as the best player of the era, never ONCE managed 68 RCAA. This guy AVERAGED that over his six year high.
And so there’s the irony again — runs created above average gives you a sense of just how good Joe Morgan really was, and yet you can bet that Joe Morgan has ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in hearing about RCAA (or in the Jon Miller pronunciation: Rickaha“). It’s a little too ironic, it’s like rain on your wedding day, a free ride when you’ve already paid, all that …
Only, here’s my theory: It isn’t ironic at all*.
*Of course, none of those things in the Alanis Morrisette song were technically ironic either. I really did like her first album though … I was still at that age when I wanted a little bit of anger in my life. I understand from my buddy at Warner Music that she has a new angry album out now — I guess she broke up with her actor boyfriend who ended up getting engaged to Scarlett Johansson. I can see how that might inspire some angrier-than-ever songs, but, you know, I’ll probably skip it for more or less the same reason I still have not seen Hotel Rwanda. Sure, men still suck, but I’m at that age where I probably will never really be in the mood to hear songs about it.
My theory is this: Joe Morgan learned a long time ago to not trust statistics. It did not begin with Moneyball. It did not begin when he came to the Reds in ‘72. It began a LONG time ago, when everyone told him he was too small and managers told him to swing the bat, for crying out loud. I cannot tell you how many stories I have read where Morgan is trying to explain to some reporter why on-base percentage is the most important statistic, why slugging percentage is so telling, why it isn’t important how MANY stolen bases you have but how often you are successful.
Really. If you go back to 1975 — did I mention, oh wait, I did — and you read a bunch of sports sections, you will see that there was something fundamentally different about Joe Morgan. The guy was absolutely ahead of his time, not just as a player but as a thinker too. So many of those things that seemed so fresh and new in Joe’s much hated Moneyball — the concept that it isn’t about how good a player looks, the notion that popular statistics didn’t tell you much, the philosophy that scoring runs and winning baseball is about simple and tangible things — heck, Joe was preaching this stuff back when Gerald Ford was in office.
The thing is … nobody really got him then. Owners didn’t pay you to walk. Managers didn’t always look beyond size. Reporters didn’t get what REALLY won the game. Every day, in the paper, you saw batting averages, and RBIs, and stuff that Joe understood were secondary, selfish stats, not directly in line with winning. I think THAT’S when Joe Morgan lost any real use for statistics … they didn’t TELL you what mattered. I think that was when Joe thought: ”Statistics are useless. You have to watch and play baseball to really understand it.“ Then he became an announcer. At first I do think he brought a fresh voice to it because Joe Morgan really does know baseball, knows it in a way that few have ever known it. Plus the stories were new.
After a while, like more or less every other color commentator, he more or less ran out of things to say. It just happens. Time crushes us all, but especially those color commentators who are supposed to provide new insights forever. So, sure, Joe became the punchline of the hilarious Fire Joe Morgan guys, he became a living symbol of a the old regime trying to fight off Moneyball with sticks and arrows, and he became a living Fred Mertz.
And I’m not saying he’s misunderstood. I don’t know that. I get that most people reading this do not like Joe at all, and I know why. I hear it too. I just think there’s more there. I think Joe might be in on the joke more than anyone thinks. You know, the thing most players from the ‘75 Reds remember about Morgan is the way he stuck the needle, the way he and Pete Rose went after each other, the way he could take a joke. There’s a story I’ve been thinking about a lot — Joe made three errors in a game. He was obviously hacked off at himself. The Reds won the game, though, and when he came back to his locker he saw the big garbage can was there and his glove was inside. There was a sign: ”Glove wanted, will pay cash.“
Here’s what Joe Morgan did: He cracked up. He could not stop laughing. He shouted loud enough for reporters to hear: ”You guys are crazy. I love it.“ He was talking about it for days afteward. I like that guy. And I don’t know, maybe I’m crazy, definitely I’m crazy, but I still hear that guy in the booth sometimes.
Loading ...
78 Comments, Comment or Ping
Curtis
I still enjoy watching Sunday Night Baseball. Yes, Joe can be a blowhard sometimes, but he does know the game. The few times I have heard him try social commentary when some scandal has hit the game that has broader societal ramifications, it is a disaster. But mostly he talks about the game. I have heard all the negatives and read the website, and I understand them, too. In many ways, Joe Morgan is just like the rest of us in that the best things about him and the worst things about him are flip sides of the same coin. The world is better for that coin, I say.
That Alanis Morissette song would have been more accurately titled, “Doesn’t it suck…”
Jun 25th, 2008
Wookster
Why wasn’t there a choice for “anyone but McCarver” on the poll?
Jun 25th, 2008
Ryan
To add insult to injury, Spilborghs getting thrown out in today’s game was the first time the Royals’ Buck has thrown out a baserunner this year.
The Royals pass the Indians and are in 4th!
I like Joe Morgan. He does the CWS every year, and he likes baseball.
Jun 25th, 2008
Shelby
Did you know that the guy after whom the Nobel Prize was named invented TNT, and he wasn’t mentioned in that song?
Jun 25th, 2008
Pop Fisher
There’s no such thing as a first-ballot Hall of Famer. I’ve been to Cooperstown and they’re all in the same room.
Jun 25th, 2008
Damon Rutherford
If OPS is ops rhymes with mops, perhaps OPS+ can be said as — special ops!
>> After a while, like more or less every other color commentator, he more or less ran out of things to say.
This applies to blogs, too, but I hope the JoeBlog is immune to this.
Jun 26th, 2008
Jm J Monroe
Excellent post! Joe Morgan was so ahead of the game in the 70s, and it’s a plausible argument that he just gave up on statistics, this missing out on the “revolution” that reaffirmed his greatness as a player…
…and by the way, wasn’t that Ted Knight great at doing the “angry” routine?
Jun 26th, 2008
Ryan JL
The hall of fame voting oddity that I never got, as someone too young to have watched him, is Eddie Mathews.
When Eddie retired, he was certainly the greatest 3B of all time, right? And it wasn’t close, was it? Even when he came up for HOF voting in 1974, Schmidt and Brett had just finished their first years. I guess you could make a case that Robinson’s defense closed a lot of the gap, but who did people consider better than Mathews?
Mathews’ 512 homeruns would have put him, what, 8th all time? And easily the most for a 3B. The only other 3B in the hall were:
Home Run Baker, 135 OPS+ in 6,660 PA’s (96 HR’s)
Jimmy Collins, 113 OPS+ in 7,452 PA’s (65 HR’s)
Pie Traynor, 107 OPS+ in 8,293 PA’s. (58 HR’s)
And that’s it. Those were the HOF 3B’s in 1974.
Eddie Mathews had a 143 OPS+ in 10,101 PA’s. (512 HR’s)
So we’re talking about the obvious best 3B of all-time, at a time when there were only three others in the hall, and one of only a handful of players to hit that 500-HR plateau. This guy has got to be a first-ballot lock, right? I mean this is as easy as it gets.
He got 32% of the vote. Thirty-two!!! Am I missing something here? What the hell? Okay, Mickey was also on the ballot and probably got most of the attention, but still, Eddie finished in ninth place in the voting.
He did not make it until 1978, his fifth year on the ballot. After Kiner, Roberts, Lemon, and Banks were inducted, voters finally put Mathews ahead of Slaughter, Gil Hodges, Jim Bunning, and Don Drysdale, and on a fairly weak ballot, Mathews squeaked in with 79% of the vote.
Someone explain this to me, please.
Jun 26th, 2008
Devon Young
There’s definitely worse commentators. I’ve been watching games from several markets lately, and some of those guys… really need to be replaced. Where would someone apply for that job?
Jun 26th, 2008
Eric Enders
The Joe Morgan who laughed at the trash can joke — if you still hear that Joe Morgan in the broadcast booth sometimes, then I wonder if perhaps you have accidentally switched to the SAP feed. Because the Joe Morgan I hear on Sunday nights has no sense of humor about anything. Ever.
Jun 26th, 2008
Damon Rutherford
> Someone explain this to me, please.
Mathews only hit .271 for his career with only 354 doubles. Stan Hack hit .301 with 363 doubles, yet he’s not in the HoF. Hell, Orlando Cabrera has a career .273 with 354 doubles. Do you consider him a Hall of Famer?
I didn’t think so!
(please note the raining-on-a-sunny-day irony of the above)
Jun 26th, 2008
Louis Doench
I was also one who was taken by “Jagged Little Pill.”
The fact that none of the events mentioned in the song “Ironic” are in fact examples of irony is… like … the point of the song i believe. Which would in fact BE ironic.
I could easily see Joe Morgan as getting all the jokes about him. When I see him on ESPN, he’s still got that split your face smile he always had.
Jun 26th, 2008
Jason
Maybe it’s just me, but the phrase “the thing most players from the ‘75 Reds remember about Morgan is the way he stuck the needle” resonates oddly in the post-steroids era…
Jun 26th, 2008
Matt
So, Joe Morgan was ahead of his time, but like most of people, he got close-minded at some point. He doesn’t deserve points for being visionary once upon a time–it is still his job to be visionary now.
ESPN really should recognize that it’s leading analyst is too close-minded to be it’s lead analyst (they should also notice that Joe clearly does very little prep work, relative to all other announcers, national and local). It is NOT true that every announcer eventually runs out of things to say. All they need is an open mind and internet access, because there are hundreds of people doing interesting work.
Jun 26th, 2008
Derek
I’m Derek, and I’m also a Joe Morgan Fan (”Hi Derek”).
I agree JM doesn’t really seem up to date about the new stats/thoughts re: baseball, but that’s not where his value is. It’s that he seems to have an excellent feel for the intrinsic parts of the game, like what you’d expect from someone who’s been around it for so long.
For example and illustration, if later in the game he notices that a pitcher has lost a few MPH off the fastball, Joe will comment on that and then follow with something like “The third baseman and shortstop should see that and each take a few steps closer to the 3rd baseline for right handed batters”. A simple point to be sure, but he’s one of the few who I’ve seen notice those things. And his pseudo-predictions have been right often enough to earn him “Good Baseball Analyst” in my book.
Jun 26th, 2008
Dorasaga
Excuse me, but why is Bob Brenly not in here? WGN/Comcast is national, I assure you.
(Try your Dish.)
Jun 26th, 2008
Dorasaga
Maybe Morgan is lovable, and he sure is a great player. But when talk about commentators, we ask at least some responsibility of providing accurate information.
So forgive me to mention this:
http://homerderby.com/archives/2290
He ’s been misguiding listeners for awhile, and in this case:
Ernie deserves an apologie, so do Cubs fans.
Jun 26th, 2008
Sig
The entry above just beat me to the punch. How uninformed and stupid Morgan is. Also, can’t he shut up every few innings or so. Not only is most of his commentary useless his voice has that “nails on chalkboard” qualitiy. While it would be the most horrible choice imaginable, I would prefer Tim McCarver.
The next time he is doing a game at Wrigley Field I suggest fans start chanting “Sandburg was better than you, Morgan”. Maybe that will shut his face up
Jun 26th, 2008
John
I was a big Reds fan back in the ’70s and I remember Joe was the definition of the thinking man’s ballplayer, the guy who never made mistakes and did all the little things, drew walks and got on base and ran smart and fielded smoothly and scored runs. He was the final piece necessary for the Reds to transmute from a very good team (Bench, Rose, and Perez were all on the 1968-70 edition of the Reds) to the ´72-´76 Machine that won the NL West four years out of five.
Jim Bouton portrays Morgan as an underheralded player who could really turn the double play, and as a funny guy in Ball Four; Bouton tells a story about Joe distinguishing between a regular curveball and a “motherfucking curve”: “it drops off the table and before you know it, it’s motherfucking strike three.”
Joe would have rather better career stats if he hadn’t played in the Astrodome between ‘65 and ‘71.
I like Joe much better as a well-informed analyst of specific things that casual fans like me don’t know about how game is played–the batter will be taking this pitch, they should bring the third baseman in, the right fielder missed the cutoff man, the pitcher’s had no success today with the change–than I do when his comments get more general.
Jun 26th, 2008
Noel
Nice post. If you read ‘Ball Four’, Jim Bouton has some stories about his Astro days where Morgan comes across as a good guy with a good sense of humor.
I’m not sure what happened to that guy. What bothers me most about Morgan isn’t necessarily his seeming disdain of stats; rather it seems he doesn’t enjoy the game or is having a good time out there.
Jun 26th, 2008
Bill
I do like listening to Joe, understanding that every now and then there’ll be incredibly frustrating moments like the one referenced above. It’s the “columns” and “chats” that I can’t tolerate (but don’t have to).
BP’s Kevin Goldstein, who I’m guessing most people around here perceive just a little differently than they do Jon Miller, used “ops” phonetically in giving a book talk in Chicago a few months ago. I thought it was a little awkward at the time, but really, why not? “Player X opsed 850″ is easier to say, and I think actually sounds less geeky, than “Player X had an O.P.S. of 850.”
So what I’m saying, clearly, is that Jon Miller is just ahead of the times. His treatise on what PITCHf/x data teaches us about platoon splits and pitcher rest is going live any day now.
Jun 26th, 2008
JYarnell
Hey Joe, it’s actually rain “on your wedding day.” Not sure if that’s ironic or not, but it’s certainly something no bride wants.
Jun 26th, 2008
Tim
Only Joe (P) could make the case for Joe (M) sound even remotely credible….and did I get it right? Are you writing a book?
Jun 26th, 2008
jacob
I was watching the Sunday night broadcast, and it struck me that Jon Miller was making a joke when he said “ops.” I could be wrong, but that was my first impression.
Jun 26th, 2008
Bruce
I don’t read FJM, so forgive me if they, or someone else, is all over this, but my real probelm with JM is his complete ignorance of the rules. Any time a rules question/interpretation comes up, he’s wrong 90% of the time. He’s not unique in this regard, it’s just that after all this time, you’d think the lead color guy on national broadcasts would either learn something about the rules from simply watching a lot (which I’m not sure applies with JM), or try to read the rules once, just once.
Jun 26th, 2008
Eric
Maybe Joe lost his sense of humor when he was detained in an airport about 20 years ago solely because he was black. There’s a published 9th Circuit case out there somewhere.
Jun 26th, 2008
joseflanders
Bill Fremp gets Joe Morgan jokes. I assure you, Joe Morgan does not.
Jun 26th, 2008
Dave
Joe –
Suggestion for the blog — you need a “print this entry” option — you know, for us bathroom readers…
Thanks!
Jun 26th, 2008
Drew
I heartily endorse Dave’s idea on a print option for the can.
And maybe an option to make your website look like an excel spreadsheet or something else equally deceptive to my nosy boss.
Jun 26th, 2008
James
On the topic of irony, the late great George Carlin had this to say in his book “Brain Droppings”:
Irony deals with opposites; it has nothing to do with coincidence.
If two baseball players from the same hometown, on different teams, receive the same uniform number, it is not ironic. It is a coincidence. If Barry Bonds attains lifetime statistics identical to his father’s, it will not be ironic. It will be a coincidence.
Irony is “a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was to be expected; a result opposite to and in mockery of the appropriate result.” For instance: a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck. He is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck was delivering insulin, ah! Then he is the victim of an irony.
If a Kurd, after surviving bloody battle with Saddam Hussein’s army and a long, difficult escape through the mountains, is crushed and killed by a parachute drop of humanitarian aid, that, my friend, is irony writ large.
Darryl Stingley, the pro football player, was paralyzed after a brutal hit by Jack Tatum. Now Darryl Stingley’s son plays football, and if the son should become paralyzed while playing, it will not be ironic. It will be coincidental. If Darryl Stingley’s son paralyzes someone else, that will be closer to ironic. If he paralyzes Jack Tatum’s son, that will be precisely ironic.
Jun 26th, 2008
MIKE
Why all the hate for “little joe? The guy breaks down the finer points, like pitching situations, mental and defensive errors, better than any one else doing color.
He’s smart, funny, basically a very quiet guy. He possessed razor quick reflexes as a player, and he brings that same sharpness to his commentary.In the booth he’s as good as I could want it. Attention to details, avoiding mistakes, playing smart: all these traits make the difference between winning and losing between two evenly matched teams, and Joe points these out all the time.
I guess dancing girls and fireworks between innings would better suit the instant gratification generation that dumps on my man Little Joe. I love the guy. He KNOWS baseball. More than I can say for the lunkheads over at Fire Joe Morgan.
Jun 26th, 2008
Jim P
For the 10 or 20 years I’ve seen it, I’ve always pronounced it “ops”. Most acronyms that can be pronounced as a word _are_ pronounced as a word: scuba, NATO, PECOTA, you name it. ERA stands out as an exception. Heck, even some that clearly can’t be pronounced as words are morphed, like ribbies for RBIs.
oh-pee-ess always struck me as something a newbie would say, as if seeing it for the first time in that very sentence.
JC Bradbury has his PROPS model which is certainly pronounced as a word, and it’s based on OPS, so if it’s “props”, it should also be “ops”.
Jun 26th, 2008
Mikey
Great post. Puts Morgan’s stubbornness in a whole different context.
The biggest problem with presenting advanced statistics on TV is that such a huge percentage of the viewing public is innumerate. The average viewer has a hard time calculating how much tip to leave on a restaurant check. I don’t say that to be snarky or mean. It’s just a fact.
If you bring advanced metrics into a broadcast you’re going to make a lot of your viewers feel confused or just dumb.
So while in this case I find Morgan and Miller’s attitude off-putting, I also don’t think it’s easy to introduce new stats - even something as seemingly simple as OPS - to a mass audience. It’s way, way easier to just say, ah, it’s all hocus-pocus and geeks in green visors.
Jun 26th, 2008
Ryan
Mike, the pseudo-irony jokes got old about 5 posts ago.
Jun 26th, 2008
Grant
He adds depth to a complex game that deserves it. Baseball is multi-faceted and there is room for Joe Morgan-types to help us understand some of these facets. No matter how much I play, watch and pontificate baseball I still find myself gaining insight from Joe.
On Sunday Night Baseball a few years ago a runner was mid-steal as the batter drove a hit toward center field – likely planned a hit a run. Joe described the problem with the runner not picking up the flight of the ball and knowing whether to retreat on a fly ball or continue to second or potentially third. At the point between first and second the runner doesn’t have good visual contact with the third base coach and therefore Joe described, from experience, how the runner will often look at the second baseman or shortstop to watch their eyes follow the ball as a proxy for its flight path. If they are looking up in the air - you might pause or pick up your third base coach.
Then Joe goes on to describe how as a second baseman he would decoy with his eyes/head and make temporarily slow the runner by making him second guess trying to get to third even if the batter had actually laced a ball down the first base line behind the runner. He then went on to describe how smart base runners know that second baseman and SSs do this so they had learned to watch the third baseman – a player who is back far enough to be in line-of-sight but often feels more removed from the runner and rarely decoys.
This is an example of how Joe and other players with his strategic understanding were not just out on the field being stubborn stat haters. They were out there inventing the dynamics of the game we enjoy today.
While I may not always feel warmed by Joe’s stubborn commentary, baseball deserves this depth. Some of you may feel that this example is elementary and you already know all the situational analysis you need. I don’t… I’m still learning. Joe can help. We can joke, but let’s not actually fire him.
Hi Derek, I’m Grant. I also like Joe Morgan.
Jun 26th, 2008
wp
Joe-
Couldn’t agree more on Alanis’s silly song. I once heard a comedian in Britain comment “Rain on your wedding day is only ironic if you are marrying the God of Inclement Weather.”
Jun 26th, 2008
Planet B
I might be more forgiving of Morgan if he didn’t just make things up out of whole cloth on a regular basis. The most recent example.
Jun 26th, 2008
Chris
Don’t mean to turn this into a music blog, but…
The only reason I listened to Jagged Little Pill is because of the cameo of Flea and Dave Navarro (during his Peppers days) playing on “You Ought to Know.” There was also a very cool alternate version of that song on the back side of the album. When you listen to it, you can tell why they played the first version on the radio; Flea and Dave absolutely rip the alternate version and completely outshine Alanis.
Still, my favorite cameo has to be when Flea recorded the bass line for Young MC’s “Bust A Move” for the payment of a bag of…er, green…
Jun 26th, 2008
Orange Julius
I am amazed at how much baseball watchers hang on the words and analysis of announcers. I never clued into Joe’s faux pas until I was beaten over the head with them on the internet. I am generally able to watch any baseball games (sans Ken Harrelson) or listen to any baseball game (sans Sterling/Waldman–cue the sound of a crow caaing..) without letting it interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Tune in and turn out, really, it’s not that difficult.
Jun 26th, 2008
Chris
BTW…
the diagonal line background on every other comment is hurting my brain.
-Completely Unrelated-
The Bulls and Heat will rue the day they didn’t pick Beasley in the 2008 draft
Jun 26th, 2008
Josh in DC
I’m breathless about Mike’s comment.
“Attention to details, avoiding mistakes, playing smart: all these traits make the difference between winning and losing between two evenly matched teams, and Joe points these out all the time.” — Mike
Since when are two teams evenly matched? The team with better players is the better team. The team that scores more runs or allows fewer of them to score, that team is the better one.
If it were even possible for two teams to be evenly matched, the rules would allow for ties. What Mike — and Joe — do not understand is that some players and teams are objectively better than others, and baseball statistic — the written record of baseball accomplishment and failure — reveal part of that answer.
Jun 26th, 2008
Andy
Joe, I’ve read everything you’ve written on here over the past 9 months or so, and I’ve loved almost all of it, but that right there might be the most interesting and perceptive blog post I’ve read in my entire life. Do they give Pulitzers for blog entries?
Jun 26th, 2008
Richard
Josh in DC, your use of the word “breathless” leaves me speechless.
Jun 26th, 2008
Jackie Ballgame
I’m probably just a homer, but I really like Paul Splittorf as a color commentator, and its only partially because his name sounds like a pitch (”This kid gets hitters out with a devastating splittorf”). I could easily see him doing Sunday baseball.
Jun 26th, 2008
Dan
There’s one problem with the theory - if Morgan had any self-awareness or intelligence for that matter, he’d be saying things like, “when I played the game, OBP and SLG wasn’t recognized. No one cared if you walked a lot, I was criticized for not swinging the bat. But I understood that getting on base for the big boppers played a big role in our offense. Plus I had some pop. I’d have made a lot more money with my game today than I did back then. ”
But since he can’t even make the link between his own game and what the “newfangled” stats show it only demonstrates that to be charitable, he’s less than incisive about the game. To be uncharitable, he’s dumb as a brick.
Jun 26th, 2008
gogiggs
It’s not that Joe Morgan brings nothing to a broadcast. Obviously, he knows more about the details of actually playing baseball than I do or ever will. Still, his seeming lack of interest in the sport (one gets the impression reading and listening to him that he pays no attention whatsoever to the game except when actually broadcasting) and his aggressive disdain for advances in baseball knowledge make him a bad choice for his job.
I don’t care if you can predict the weather by listening to the birds sing, if you refuse to learn about crop rotation and think tractors are for pussies, I’m not putting you in charge of the farm.
Jun 26th, 2008
Aaron
I remember watching a Sunday Night Baseball game last year (Tim Lincecum’s debut I believe) and just shaking my head about Joe Morgan absolutely making things up.
Cole Hamels was pitching for the Phillies and fielded a bunt down the first base line very cleanly to throw out the batter. Joe proceeded to comment about how, as a LHP, Hamels finishes his pitching motion falling off to the first base side which assisted him in making the excellent play on the bunt. If you’re just listening, this sounds highly insightful. I then proceeded watch Hamels motion on every pitch for the next two innings and NOT ONCE did he fall off to the first base side. He stays right in place on the mound. This was an outright lie to fill airtime.
Similarly, Ryan Howard hit a first inning homerun off Lincecum and was praised for having the hitting skills to drive a low pitch out of the strike zone for a home run. All replays subsequently clearly showed that it was a belt-high pitch, either fastball or hung breaker (can’t remember), that should absolutely be punished by a hitter of Howard’s caliber.
Joe Morgan: STOP MAKING THINGS UP!
Jun 26th, 2008
Mike
Joe,
Pat Darcy’s daughter lives in KC. The next generation’s take on giving up one of the most famous homers in history seems to be, “My dad won the World Series!”
Jun 26th, 2008
Derek
>>>
I don’t care if you can predict the weather by listening to the birds sing, if you refuse to learn about crop rotation and think tractors are for *&^%$^&*, I’m not putting you in charge of the farm.
<<<
No one is saying put him in charge of crop rotation (or all baseball announcers to bring the analogy back), but listening to the guy talk about things the rest of us don’t know about - there’s the value right there. The guy brings new and interesting baseball material to the table, things other announcers don’t bring.
I agree that JM isn’t a perfect announcer largely because he doesn’t sufficiently prostrate himself at the alter of sabermetrics like a good baseball fan should, but he is one of the best baseball analysts (make of that what you will).
Jun 26th, 2008
Creston
I LIKE Joe Morgan as a baseball guy/announcer. He’s a nice man, he’s a good ambassador for the sport, and he has a VERY good voice for announcing a game.
He’s also an arrogant schmuck who thinks that NOBODY in the entire world can possibly know more than he did about baseball. And it’s true, it’s not until we started analyzing the statistics differently that we came to the conclusion that Joe Morgan was the best second baseman EVER after Rogers Hornsby.
And it’s weird that Joe was prophesying OBP and SB% back in his days. I mean, he KNOWS it’s right! He didn’t forget it in the years between, he didn’t have a change of heart. He KNOWS it’s right! But because it’s a bunch of guys who’ve “never played baseball” saying it, suddenly it isn’t true?
Btw, I’ve played baseball for 20 years. Not in the major leagues, not in the minor leagues, but I played baseball. Probably over 500 games or so. I OBP’ed .642 one year and hit 16 homers in a span of 13 games. Does that make me authorized to tell Joe Morgan about the game of baseball?
I like that by Joe’s definition, NEIFI PEREZ can teach him something about baseball, but Bill James couldn’t.
Btw, Jon Miller never played baseball, so by default, Joe Morgan cannot listen to anything that Jon Miller has to say.
Also : Jon Miller is fantastic.
Willy Taveras leads off because he is a table setter, Joe! He’s a dirty, gritty, pinetar eater! He gets his uniform dirty! He’s scrappy and plays the game the right way!
Baseball is still infested with idiot managers.
Jun 26th, 2008
Creston
As for the Jackie Robinson thing, a lot of writers didn’t vote for him because of racism, is’t that simple.
And Jackie SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame, because he was the first black player in the majors, and opened the way for a ton of great black players.
But let’s be honest here. Should Jackie have been in as a player? Purely on statistical merit? He was very good for four years. Not elite. Not Mickey Mantle/ Lou Gehrig / Babe Ruth / Stan Musial type elite. He wasn’t even Manny / Thome / Freddy Lynn type sub-elite.
Jackie 100% deserves to be in the Hall of Fame for what he went through, but purely based on his statistics I’d say “hmmm.”
Jun 26th, 2008
Creston
“He KNOWS baseball. More than I can say for the lunkheads over at Fire Joe Morgan.”
I bet the lunkheads over at FJM would put together a better team of players as a GM than Joe Morgan would. They’d likely win more games as a manager too (though it’s debatable exactly how much a manager contributes to a win anyways).
Jun 26th, 2008
Creston
“If you bring advanced metrics into a broadcast you’re going to make a lot of your viewers feel confused or just dumb.”
That’s an excellent point. It’s taken ESPN six years to get OPS (OH PEE ESS!!!!!!) to be used by the majority of their baseball staff, and yet my buddy STILL asked me recently what it meant. (And he’s a HUGE baseball fan, and even plays fantasy baseball, for God’s sake!)
I’ve already swooned with joy at the fact that ESPN now shows a batter’s average/HR/RsBI at pitch counts. I’m sure that most people at home go “huh? Why is it different from his normal stat line?”
So, we must keep pushing. Keep preaching. I have a guy at work who’s slowly turning towards sabermetrics for his understanding of baseball because I’ve been hammering him with them for 5+ years.
Jun 26th, 2008
Jason
Don’t get me started (again) about HOF voting %’s. Here’s a selected list.
Name/Votes/Pct. Ballots
Willie Mays 409 95%
Babe Ruth 215 95% Initial HOF Class
Honus Wagner 215 95% Initial HOF Class
Bob Feller 150 94%
Jim Palmer 411 93%
Roberto Clemente 393 93%
Stan Musial 317 93%
Ted Williams 282 93%
Brooks Robinson 344 92%
Christy Mathewson 205 91% Initial HOF Class
Joe DiMaggio 223 89%
Mickey Mantle 322 88%
Sandy Koufax 344 87%
Yogi Berra 339 86%
Nap Lajoie 168 84% 2nd HOF Class
Walter Johnson 189 84% Initial HOF Class
Warren Spahn 315 83%
Joe Morgan 363 82%
Roy Campanella 270 79%
Jimmie Foxx 179 79%
Jackie Robinson 124 78%
Cy Young 153 76% 2nd HOF Class
Seriously, Big Train got “only” 84%? Mickey Mantle and Joltin’ Joe could only muster 88% and 89%, respectively?!? Cy FREAKIN’ Young, in the 2nd HOF class ever, got only 76%? Talk about a writer bias, huh? Speaking of bias, how does Jackie Robinson only get 78%? And someday, when I am long gone from this world, maybe I’ll get a chance to meet some of these writers and ask which 5% thought Babe Ruth wasn’t HOF worthy, in the INITIAL HOF CLASS EVER!
Source: http://itsaboutthemoney.blogspot.com/2008/01/great-moments-in-hof-voting.html
/end rant
Jun 26th, 2008
Josh in DC
I don’t think one can get too worked up over the initial percentages. “Whatever Happened To The Hall of Fame” explain why Cy Young didn’t go in more easily. Something about how the voters had to vote for players from the 19th Century, and then consider players from the 20th Century, and that his career straddled the centuries, and that it wasn’t clear when they were supposed to vote for him.*
*Not a direct quote.
Jun 26th, 2008
Danny
I am so sick of all the new statistics!!! People are trying to turn this game into an individual sport where they try and break down every little part of the game to solely mathematics. The sport is a pure and complex, not one that can be solved through mathematics.
Jun 26th, 2008
James D
I’m sorry, the glib, cutesy, oft-repeated line that there are no examples of irony in the Alanis song cannot stand. Such a categorical assertion is either dead wrong, or, at the very least, more pedantic than the song is moronic.
To claim there is nothing ironic about a scenario in which A) you require a simple, comonplace utensil (let’s say, a knife); B) you are improbably equipped with ten thousand utensils (all spoons); and C) a spoon (or all of them used in concert) will not do the job is rubbish.
The irony, of course, consists in the fact that you have a RIDICULOUSLY PRODIGIOUS STOCKPILE of utensils and yet you are no better off for your purpose than you would be if accoutered with the mere lint and nickels of an ordinary pocket.
Irony is too scabrous a concept to dismiss as being not in evidence in the cavalier way you have done. The burden of proof falls on you. True, it would not be ironic if you ran, to your discomfiture, into the Spoon Factory knowing full well you needed a sharp enough blade to cut the tag off your new golf shirt. But such a fleshing out of the vignette requires hypothetical contortion on the part of the interlocutor - as it stands in the song there is plenty ironic suggestion and lattitude for irony to any good-faith, unbombastic interpretation.
Jun 26th, 2008
antoniomo
Gogiggs,
“I don’t care if you can predict the weather by listening to the birds sing, if you refuse to learn about crop rotation and think tractors are for pussies, I’m not putting you in charge of the farm.”
Whether I agree with it or not, that’s a great metaphor.
Jun 26th, 2008
Richard Aronson
Here’s how Jackie Robinson only gets 78% of the votes for the HOF: career OPS+ of 132, fewer than 5,000 AB. Compare that to Eddie Matthews as was mentioned above, with a much better career OPS+ and almost twice as many at bats. So it is clear that Robinson was (deservedly) chosen for his ground breaking activities at least as much as his on the field performance. It’s also clear that a lot of bigots weren’t going to vote for him, and justified it in their minds by his statistics being not quite stellar enough long enough, never mind that baseball’s segregation is a big part of why he didn’t get his shot until he was 28. And somehow some of the same kinds of folks found ways not to vote for Aaron, Mays, Banks, etc. with a lot weaker justifications. I mean, Aaron had 19 straight seasons where his lowest OPS+ was 142, Mays was right there with him and arguably better, and so forth. Heck, Ted Williams batted .406, let the league in BA, runs, home runs, OBP, and slugging percentage, but some voters didn’t list him so DiMaggio would win MVP. Not to mention TWICE Williams won the triple crown but not the MVP.
Baseball has been full of bias, and remains so. Listen to Jon Heyman opine against Bert Blyleven’s HOF stats (Postseason record 5-1, ERA 2.47) but favor Jack Morris (Postseason record 7-4, ERA 3.80, and was beaten badly by Blyleven in their one postseason meeting) because Morris (who doesn’t compare with Blyleven in anything importants: Wins, strikeouts, ERA, shutouts, innings) was clutch and Blyleven wasn’t. Heck, Blyleven has more Complete Games than John Smoltz has saves, but Heyman annoints Smoltz as HOF worthy.
Fortunately, slowly, people learn. The Banny logs are an example; I just wish Tommy John had had a similar opportunity to explain why he was doing so well for so long with such junk but with an understanding and intelligent approach to the game that raised it above his oft repaired left arm. And eventually those that refuse to keep an open mind will never figure out how to use the new telepathic interfaces and be completely replaced by those who are willing to learn.
Jun 26th, 2008
Richard Aronson
Joe Morgan was one of the best all around players of all time. He is no worse than a defensive replacement for Rogers Hornsby as my all time second baseman, and if I’m going for power at all three outfield positions, I’d probably start Morgan for his speed.
But almost none of the best baseball announcers were major league players. It’s just a different skill, and while I can accept that somebody *might* be HOF level at two different things, it’s awfully rare. Regardless of his understanding of the game itself and how to play the game, his refusal to accept that science and statistics and modern computers have come up with explanations that justify Morgan’s own talents as well as giving indications of how to better correlate performance with winning limits him. And *we* should be his natural audience. We get that Morgan’s 689 steals are worth more because of his excellent success ratio, we get that his patience and walks are worth more because he put himself into scoring position by stealing so often, and we understand how much harder it is to achieve those numbers while playing middle infield, and playing it extremely well.
He should be embracing us, the guys who get his game and cherish it for all the little things that made it better than a mere .271 batting average. Instead he denigrates us, insults us, derides the same statistics that suggest that Morgan is one of the very best second basemen of all time.
Baseball is a fairly easy sport to play (not to play well, but to learn how to play at all) and lots of folks with minimal intelligence and education have played it well. I think Morgan has an inferiority complex when it comes to statistics he doesn’t really understand. And I think that limits him as an announcer. He’s neither entertaining enough nor empathetic enough to excel as an announcer, and he doesn’t try to personalize the game through his areas of excellence because he doesn’t bother to understand how today his skills can be identified and appreciated.
Great ballplayer, and either he or Bench gets my pick as the best player on the Big Red Machine. Mediocre announcer though, at best.
Jun 26th, 2008
Lance Richardson
My friend Geoff Young, who writes for The Hardball Times and also authors the terrific Padre blog, “Ducksnorts”, pronounces OPS phonetically.
He and I were on a road trip to spring training this year, driving from San Diego to Peoria, when he started talking to me about the “opps” we might expect from Scott Hairston or somebody. I was half certain that Geoff was goofy.
Now, I’m entirely certain.
Thanks, Joe…
Jun 26th, 2008
RJL
love the Joe Morgasms…my favorite part of Sunday night baseball.
Is it considered ironic that the team that got rid of the aforementioned Willie Taveras now has Michael Bourn and his .289 OBP and 61 OPS+ are leading off?
Jun 26th, 2008
Aaron M.
I put off watching Hotel Rwanda for a long time too. In fact it sat on my shelf for 3.5 months before I decided I’d better watch it to get a different Netflix movie. Really good movie, would watch it again. You should see it Joe.
By the way, I know it’s not acceptable to call ERA “errah”, but I thought calling it ops or O P S was ok, I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because while the number itself seems to give meaning and be statistically significant, I still don’t really trust it as you are adding together 2 different percentages. 0-1 + 0-4 = O-P-S
Jun 26th, 2008
Brian
The more people I see who say “Joe Morgan is good at telling us things we don’t know about the game” or some such thing, the more glad I am that I’ve been lucky enough to have been exposed to Jerry Remy for 20 years. He’s pretty much always been excellent at the whole “this is what’s going on, and why”, plus he’s funny and doesn’t come across as stodgy and condescending as Morgan. Plus, Remy’s prepared - unlike Morgan, Remy seems to actually know about players and teams he hasn’t seen in person.
Jun 26th, 2008
Daniel
Interesting post Joe. It’s a theory worth thinking about. Joe Morgan confuses me. On the one hand, sometimes he DOES seem very happy to be broadcasting baseball games. He has good chemistry with Jon Miller, which is important on a broadcast, no matter what place it plays in a clubhouse. He also offers insights about the little things, as others have mentioned.
But on the other hand, there’s all that other stuff. Not preparing, rejecting the new statistical work being done in baseball, getting angry at anyone who brings it up…it’s confusing! I really want to like the man, but it’s hard to like someone who keeps himself willfully ignorant. I guess I will continue to laugh at FJM, and intermittently enjoy Sunday Night Baseball broadcasts, and be confused at how a dude who once walked 132 times (!!!) in a season can be critical of OBP as an important stat.
Jun 26th, 2008
Andy Sonnanstine's Scruffy Beard
I think J.P. was right: there is a Cincinnati Red who doesn’t seem to like baseball very much….
Jun 26th, 2008
Daniel
By the way, that year (’75), Morgan had the best OBP in the league by 60 FREAKIN POINTS. Oh, and he OPSed .974, stole 67 bases, won a gold glove…I could go on. The man was an amazing ballplayer. What’s ironic is that Joe would be FJM’s hero if he was playing today.
Jun 26th, 2008
dusty
as discussed in the comments of another article, that would not be “ironic” at all
Jun 27th, 2008
Angelos
I just remember Morgan being a guest on the Dan Patrick show, maybe 4-5 years ago, and talking about how W are more important than ERA. A pitcher has to “know” how to win.
If he give up one run, but his team gets shut out? He sucks balls. The guy who gave up 6 when his team scores 8? Great pitcher.
I gave up on him then.
Jun 27th, 2008
Josh in DC
Angelos, I get the feeling that the situation you describe above is conventional wisdom in baseball circles.
Jun 27th, 2008
Buchholz Surfer
I pronounce it Ops, always have and will continue to do so. As noted above, most acronyms that form words are pronounced as words, not spelled out. It’s not really a big deal though; to me, the biggest annoyance is people who make a big deal out of it one way or another.
Joe Morgan is pretty good as a commentator. Anyone who talks live for hours at a time in front of millions of people WILL say stupid things and be wrong from time to time. I defy you to find one person who doesn’t say dumb things in that situation. It’s a very hard job. It’s so vastly different from writing, it shouldn’t be compared, and it’s always unfair to take something blurted out in the spur of the moment and turn it into writing on a page to mock it. Granted, it’s fun to do that sometimes, and can be hilarious, but it gets a little old after a while. Fish in a barrell, basically.
Morgan saying dumb things sometimes doesn’t bother me. He does give a lot of insight into how the game is played, which is valuable.
He doesn’t talk about stats at all, which is fine. Numbers don’t translate that well to the spoken word anyway. A commentator going on and on about stats would get really annoying, and would inform hardly anyone of anything important to them that they didn’t already know. Most of the audience wouldn’t care, and the ones who do care about the numbers most definitely don’t need a TV commentator to point them out, they already know them or know how to instantly get them.
Most people who hate Morgan take him way too seriously, and I think he enjoys that certain people hate him so much, as Joe P. pointed out. Morgan is arrogant, but he should be; he does know a lot more about how the game is played than most of his critics. (Most of them know a lot more about analyzing what has happened in baseball than he does, but that’s a different thing and not what he’s usually talking about anyway. When he does get into analysis and ranking players, etc. is when he’s at his worst.) And I believe that he says some things just to tweak his critics and set them off.
He’s mostly talking about what it’s like to play the game. He does say dumb things sometimes about which players he thinks are better than others, but everyone who talks about baseball does that, period. The guy has pretty solid chemistry with Miller, who is good. He does shut up and keep quiet once in a while, unlike McCarver. He adds some insight sometimes. True he says dumb things, but everyone in that job does.
My personal preference would be for as few people in a TV broadcast booth as possible, saying as little as possible. But that’s not going to happen, so we’re going to have at least 2 or 3 people on the broadcast, all trying to get their voices heard enough so the producer doesn’t say “that guy hardly talked last night, maybe we need someone else to take his place who will talk more.” Given all that, Morgan’s not too bad of a commentator as far as I’m concerned.
Jun 27th, 2008
MIKE
Joe’s first couple years as a broadcaster revealed how much he was and still is brilliant at situational baseball analysis. All the crap about OPS and other stats being so important is the blathering of fantasy leaguers and wanna be accountants who think they now know baseball vis-a-vis piles of stinking stats sitting on their desks and computers.
One guy here sez baseball is an easy game to learn; wroing. Learning and executing fundamentals at razor quick speeds while running and looking around for a little ball, positioning correctly on defense, reacting to the change in personel on the field, all these are mental aspects of the game belittled by such a comment. Any body who’s played this game knows it takes a long time to understand, and even longer to get smart at.
As for the farmer/weather analogy, nice analogy but completely off ;point. A more pertinent one would be choosing whose \weather forecast to trust, some old weather beaten farmer who’s spent years working outside versus a inner city condo dweller, who gets in his car in the garage and drives to the garage at work and parks inside. I take Farmer Joe over City Boy anytime.
Show me anywhere in the stats sheets. all you stat freaks, where it has a category for smarts, or heart, or desire, or intuitiveness. Or even toughness.
Major league baseball is played by thoroughbred athletes with incredible hand=eye coordination.and sharp reflexes. Joe talks about the game at that level, and clearly it goes over a lot of peoples’ heads.
He is considered one of the smartest players of all time. He may have a pedantic tone in his speech, but when you listen to him, you can get inside the game. And that’s why ESPN loves him too..
Jun 27th, 2008
Angelos
Nice luddite rant there. Should we get off your lawn now?
Jun 27th, 2008
MIKE
Luddite, ehhh? Man, there’s a lot of guys tossing big words around here who don’t know what they mean. New can be all pretty and shiny but completely irrelevant and not needed i.e., all wrong for the place and time. Good scouts trump stats freaks all day long. Baseball talent is still best assessed by human eyes and brains, as in coaches, scouts, and front offices, Stats don’t measure heart or effort. Joe Morgan knows this, as one who came up through the minor league system of old veteran coaches and the teaching of fundamentals. Plus he played for a long time with a lot of different personalities and managers.
Baseball thrives on tradition, That’s why we can compare Babe Ruth to Hank Aaron with a fair amount of continuity. Maybe you oughta look the meaning of Luddite up. Believing a change is not good does not automatically qualify one as a luddite. It could mean I’m prescient and intelligent.
How bout looking at it like this? “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Joe Morgan knows more about baseball than this entire pile of bloggers.
You may walk on my lawn now, just don’t kill the grass or pick the flowers. In other words, be respectful.
Jun 28th, 2008
Reuben
The Joe Morgan airport case can be found here: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/975/975.F2d.629.91-55863.91-55728.html.
What little I know about Joe Morgan as a person suggests he’s very similar in terms of personality to Frank Robinson (my boyhood hero). If anything, Morgan might be less cranky than FRobby. They really do respect baseball guys like themselves and disdain people who never played the game. FRobby was notable in Washington for his disdain of sabermetrics. His attitude was, I’ve been in the game for 50 years, what can someone who never played the game teach me? And there’s a truth in that.
Morgan’s behavior in that airport stop was entirely typical of black men of that age and era. You work hard, you achieve wealth and station in society, you like to think that you no longer have to “step to” just because some white cop says so (if you can’t tell, I’m black; my dad and his friends would have acted entirely the same way — leave me alone, I’m doing nothing wrong, just because you have a badge doesn’t give you the right to ignore my rights). I think it speaks volumes that a LA jury in the early 90s returned a verdict that favored the cop, even when that verdict could not reasonably be seen as supported by the evidence. One thing for sure: while I never had much use for Morgan the announcer, I have a lot more tolerance for Morgan the person.
Jun 28th, 2008
Dave B.
Wow, Mike, I would have thought confluence of geek (Bill James) and good scouting in Boston might have counted for something. Please don’t give me intangibles: it’s what has brought Derek Jeter every (undeserved) Gold Glove he owns, even though his range suggests he’s actually using an ACTUAL gold glove.
Jun 29th, 2008
Mark Z.
I have never bought into the “Morgan as Greatest Second Baseman Ever” argument. I do agree that for his 2 years he was the best player in the game. But the same could be said for Dale Murphy, Jim Rice and Matt Williams. The rub is that Morgan played for 22 yrs. ‘75 & ‘76 aside, and minus the 4 partial years (injury, youth), that is 16 full seasons of .265 15 hr, 60 rbi–pretty ordinary numbers even with the high SB and OBP. He had an above average pivot, but no arm, and there were a number of guys much better defensively in his era who did not play on artificial turf.
What am I missing?
Jul 4th, 2008
astorian
Mike, you’re flat out wrong. Statistics DO measure heart and desire, provided that heart and desire lead to hits and runs.
“Intangibles” are valuable ONLY if they ultimately lead to some kind of tangible, measurable benefit.
Hard work is a good thing- but I’d rather have a couch potato who hits 40 homers than a guy who spends hours in the weight room and hit 8 homers.
Desire and love of the game are wonderful things- but I’d rather have a .350 hitter who thinks of baseball as “just a job” than a .225 hitter whose whole life revolves around baseball.
Think of the movie “Amadeus.” Salieri had a passionate desire to make great music, and worked at it night and day. Mozart was more interested in drinking and gambling than in music, and dashed off symphonies in a few hours.
The end result? Salieri is forgotten and Mozart is still widely considered the greatest composer of all time. Salieri worked harder than Mozart and wanted much more to create great art, but it didn’t matter: Mozart just had a lot more talent.
It’s the same in baseball.
Thing is, intangibles DO matter. They just aren’t a replacement for statistics.
Suppose we have two young relief pitchers in the minor leagues. Both are tall, strong guys with 98 mph fastballs. But one has a lot less confidence and swagger than the other. One obsesses over every hit he yields, while the other just shrugs off his bad outings, sure that he’ll be unhittable next time.
Confidence is an intangible. And scouts MAY be right to believe that it’s an extremely valuable asset for a relief pitcher. But IF confidence really makes one pitcher better than the other, we should see that in their stats. IF confidence is truly important, the confident guy should post better numbers than the nervous guy. IF confidence is important, the confident guy should have a lower ERA, more strikeouts, fewer walks, and fewer blown saves.
If, on the other hand, the stats show that the nervous guy is actually performing much BETTER than the cocky, swaggering guy, the proper response is to admit “I judged wrongly,” not to insist that “You can’t judge these guys by their numbers.”
Aug 29th, 2008
Reply to “Special OPS”