FIRE JOE MORGAN: 04.06

FIRE JOE MORGAN

Where Bad Sports Journalism Came To Die

FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over. You can still e-mail dak, Ken Tremendous, Junior, Matthew Murbles, or Coach.

Main / Archives / Merch / Glossary / Goodbye

Friday, April 28, 2006

 

Hatguy Is Back

Yay Hatguy!

There is consternation in Yankee Nation. On Wednesday night, Mariano Rivera lost his second game of the season and saw his ERA climb to 4.91.


I'm not saying Mariano Rivera is going to be lights out this year. He might be a little worse than he's been in the past. I don't know.

I do know that Mariano Rivera once called Michael H. Celizic's child "a raging homo." You know how I know this? Because there is no other way to explain MHC's one-man crusade against Mariano Rivera. Here's last year's Rivera's-sky-is-falling article. Rivera's numbers by the end of 2005? How about: 1.38 ERA / .87 WHIP / 80/18 K/BB. Forty-three saves.

No one asked the real question, which isn’t, “Why did Mo blow the game,” but, “What was your most valuable player doing pitching two innings in a tie game against Tampa?”

In other words: "Who finally had the common sense to pitch Mariano when it really mattered instead of throwing him out there for 3 outs with a 3-run lead?" Right? No.

Torre extemporized that Rivera hadn’t been pitching a lot and needed the work. But he didn’t need two innings of work. Soon enough, there will be plenty of opportunities for Rivera to pitch. Better to let him get a tad rusty than to burn him out by pitching him for two innings in tie games in April against the Devil Rays. The Yankees have been down this road before, and it leads to nowhere good.


During the game in question, Rivera threw 38 pitches. Four of those were in the form of an intentional walk, so we're really talking about 34. He threw 18 in the first inning of work, and Torre sent him out for another inning. Thirty-four pitches is not exactly short relief, but it's also damn well worth it if you're trying to get a victory. And in a tie game, with an offense that's likely to score 1,000 runs this year, that's what you're hoping for. Throw Mo for two innings, and give yourself two shots at a victory. It didn't work out that way, which is going to happen sometimes.

And if "nowhere good" is a place where my closer throws 78 innings of dominant relief, as it was last year, I'll take it.

So the last thing you want to do is burn him up by pitching him in non-save situations or using him for more than one inning at a time.

All hail The Save! Most arbitrary of statistics!

Chien-Ming Wang pitched seven solid innings, leaving with a 2-2 tie. Farnsworth, as the script calls for, pitched a brilliant eighth — three up, three down, two strikeouts, 12 pitches thrown.


If anyone has written a script involving both Chien-Ming Wang and Kyle Farnsworth, I want to read it right now.

Rivera’s job is to get three outs in the ninth and save wins. When he is given that job, he’s spectacular. When things fall apart is when Torre uses him to pitch two innings or brings him in with a five-run lead or uses him to preserve a tie when he has other options.


Get it right, Joe Torre. I am Michael Hatguy Celizic and this is what you do with Mariano Rivera. You throw him in save situations. You throw him when you're up three runs in the ninth. You do not throw him when you're up five. Unless you are up five and the bases are loaded, and then (of course) you can bring him in to pitch because it's a save situation.

But with Torre, who has never shown any confidence in any reliever except Rivera, even something that simple becomes complicated. So he gave up on Farnsworth, who was brilliant. And he went to his security blanket, Rivera.


Sometimes, a guy who just pitched a brilliant inning of relief is also a giant fucking question mark. And sometimes, your security blanket is a guy who struck out 80 dudes and only walked 18 the year before.

I wonder what he keeps under that hat, anyway. Can't...stop...looking...at...hat...

posted by dak  # 3:05 PM
Comments:
That is truly amazing, Junior. The clearest indication yet that people just write stuff and don't bother to check to see if they are correct.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
 

Follow-Up to the Follow-Up

And this is the last one, I promise.

Even more mail poured in after the "Follow-Up," sustaining such a high level of discourse I have been forced to break out the ol' philosophy books to keep up. The most important points, some made by several readers:

1. I totally blew it by saying Tony LaRussa never played ball -- he did, in fact. I believe, as some of you suggested, I was thinking of Buck Showalter. My apologies.

2. Interestingly, as loyal FJM reader Peter pointed out, so did Branch Rickey, who had a little MLB experience with the Browns and Yankees. See how much you learn about baseball when you try?

3. In the last section of the post, during my gedanken experiment, I casually lump Billy Beane in with the non-playing-the-game folks -- I hope this was not too confusing. I was cheating a little there, trying to cut away Beane's playing experience Occam-style to get at the essence of his baseball knowledge, and thus placing him on Team Knowledge. Pardon the rhetorical device.

3.5. Aren't these philosophy terms fun? How many can you spot?

4. Finally, I simply can't resist. One last (wonderful) hypothetical for Joe to ponder, from reader Brian (slightly altered by yours truly):

You're on a major league team, and your name is announced as a pinch-hitter. Before the first pitch, the pitcher steps off and appeals that your baserunner left early on a sac fly -- they win, and the game ends. You then get credit for appearing in that game although you did not actually play. Suppose you get sent to the minors the next day never to return, but you "appeared" in one major league game...would you thus be qualified to teach Joe about the game?

P.S. Categorical Imperative.
P.P.S. Socrates.

Labels:


posted by Anonymous  # 3:08 AM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Thursday, April 27, 2006

 

Follow-Up: Joe Morgan's Epistemological Nightmare

Yes, that is the title I'm going with.

I have received an FJM-record-breaking number of e-mails concerning the section of the last JoeChat (see post below) wherein Joe addresses, yet again, his reasons for not reading "Moneyball." (Note: If discussion of this bores you, skip this post -- it's only for people who are really really into a like New Critical-style close-reading of Joe's off-the-cuff babble.)

It is worth re-printing the key section and its interrogatory antecedent:

Patrick (St. Louis, MO): You stated in your last chat that because you've been around the game for so long, there isn't much more anybody can teach you about it. It seems like you're saying that everything in baseball is known already, whereas I feel that there is plenty that we don't know, especially with advances in sports medicine, the ability to use technology to evaluate defense more accurately, and the increasing availability of pitch-by-pitch data to study long-term trends in the game. Don't you owe it to your listeners to listen to new arguements and research, especially if they are intelligent and logical? You seem to have the notion that a lot of the objective analysis being done now is trying to get rid of traditional scouting, but most sabremetricians feel that both are essential to get the best results.

Joe Morgan: The guy that wrote Moneyball can't teach me about the game. That is what I meant. If you haven't been on the field, why should I read your book? How can that person teach me about the game? I learn plenty about the game everyday. Every Sunday night I learn something. The game changes almost every day. But I'm still not going to read Moneyball or books written by people who haven't been on the field or really experienced what goes on in the game of baseball.


And later:

I want to clarify the misunderstand [sic] about what I learn. Every Sunday I learn something new. But I'm going to stand by the fact that somebody who didn't play the game can't teach me about the game. I learned from the best, the legends who played the game. I played alongside so many great players. I'm just not going to read a book in hopes of learning how to play baseball. But this is an everchanging game and I do learn something almost every day. I'm just a former baseball player who is now an analyst. My thoughts are about the game and not medical technologies and such. Just because somebody writes a book doesn't mean they know the game.

Many readers wrote in to discuss this -- especially the statement: "If you haven't been on the field, why should I read your book?" and its follow-up: But I'm still not going to read Moneyball or books written by people who haven't been on the field or really experienced what goes on in the game of baseball.

My initial response concerned the fact that although Michael Lewis himself did not play pro ball (though he did, as several readers pointed out, play high school ball in Louisiana and later wrote a book about his HS coach), the subjects of the book, like Billy Beane and Scott Hatteberg, etc., were "on the field," thus rendering Joe's bitterness at once ignorant and pointless. Also, as Coach points out in the comments section of that post, apparently nobody has told Joe that "Moneyball" is not a how-to manual on bunting -- it is a book mostly about the business of baseball. Blah blah blah. Preaching to the choir.

But. Several of you brought up other excellent points, that I feel are worth adding to the discussion, to wit:

Adam writes in with an intriguing idea:

Joe claims not to need to learn anything from books because he played the game and played with other people who played the game and has been in the game for 40 years. 'Watching' is not involved. I would like to test Joe, though. Say, lock him in a sensory deprivation chamber completely isolated from the outside world, then have him predict the outcomes of ABs, games, and seasons based solely on his intuition and experience.

Adam takes things a bit literally, but I appreciated the idea of Joe locked in a closet.

Chris raises an interesting point about those who did not "play the game":

What about things that Jack Buck, Harry Carey, or Lon Simmons have said? Branch Rickey never actually played baseball, but he was directly responsible for 1) creating a minor league system, and 2) Jackie Robinson joining the Dodgers in 1947. Again, I guess there's nothing he could teach Joe Morgan (ignoring the fact that he was around a bit before Morgan's time).

Excellent point. The more you think about it, the excellenter it gets. What about oft-praised Joe favorites like Tony LaRussa? I happen to think he's an idiot, thus kind of proving Joe's point accidentally, but Joe loves him, and he never played ball. Tommy Lasorda barely did. Tons of GMs, coaches, scouts, and so on had either little or no actual on-field experience. Conversely, plenty of HOFers have made terrible managers -- Pete Rose, Ted Williams... Not that Joe argues the converse, but still. The theory that only those who played the game have knowledge of the game worth listening to or reading is so backwards and insular and wrong it's hard to imagine how one could ever espouse it.

But my personal favorite e-mail came from reader Nicholas, who focuses on the part of Joe's answer that reads "I learn plenty about the game everyday. Every Sunday night I learn something." Nicholas writes:

Can you please point out the epistemological unsoundness of Joe's answers about experience? The suggestion is that he can learn about the game by watching, but Michael Lewis can't; therefore one has to have played the game in order to learn by watching the game. If one reasonably assumes that this incommensurability also applied to talking about the game, the implications for the in-booth dynamic are mind-warping. Presumably, Jon Miller can teach Joe about the game because Joe's experience playing makes him able to learn. But despite Joe's pedantic railings, Jon won't be able to learn because he never played.

Also, implied in this analysis: although Joe's playing experience enables him to learn from Jon, Jon's lack of experience renders him unable to teach -- Joe is a European socket and Jon's cord doesn't have the right adapter. (Metaphor intended non-sexually.) Poor Jon Miller -- all he does is talk and talk about baseball right next to Joe Morgan, and yet Joe can never learn a thing; and poor Joe, whose brilliant insights fall on impotent, non-having-played-the-game ears.

I had never considered Nicholas's central point -- in order to learn by watching, Joe essentially posits, one has to have already played. Thus (as I wrote to Nicholas) imagine the flow of "knowledge" as EM waves, emitting constantly from those who played and are now talking, being absorbed by those who played, but bouncing off those who did not. Now, imagine a booth filled by Peter Gammons, Billy Beane, Bill James, and Dayn Perry on one side, and Joe Morgan, John Kruk, Hawk Harrelson, and Mitch Williams on the other. Now imagine trying to track the motion of these knowledge-pulses as they bounce around the room.

Now imagine the intellectual content of what each person is actually saying.

Labels: , ,


posted by Anonymous  # 6:01 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
 

We Are Officially Toddling

No one could possibly care about this except us, but a few days ago FJM celebrated its first birthday.

With that in mind, we just wanted to thank everyone who has come to this site. When we started this blog, its intended audience was like six people. We were all amused by all the ridiculous things that sportspersons would say and write about baseball, so we decided to put it in one place that the six of us could read.

One year later, apparently, thousands of other people read our nonsense every day. Some of you really don't seem to like us, and that's cool too.

Thanks for reading; e-mailing; posting links to us on all those obscure message boards; and even threatening to castrate Ken Tremendous.

Now let's get back out there and get Joe Morgan fired.

posted by dak  # 3:11 PM
Comments:
Joke's on you guys -- I'm a eunuch.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

 

Everyone Ready?

Buzzmaster: Everyone ready for Joe? He'll be here shortly!

Ken Tremendous: Yeah, hang on one sec...just booting up the Morgan-English dictionary...there. All set.

Joe Morgan: Hello! Even without Barry Bonds catching Ruth, there are a lot of exciting things going on with many players stepping up and teams excelling. I'm ready for your questions.

KT's Computer: [breaks]

Brandon, Fl: I know there is a lot of talk about Bonds breaking Hank's record. I for one don't think it will matter in 10 years because Arod will have 800 by then and there is no telling what Pujols will end up with (if he stays healthy). Your thoughts?

Joe Morgan: I think there is a lot of space between how many HRs ARod and Pujols has and what Barry has. You never know what will happen with injuries and how long they will be able to play. Nothing is a cinch. Remember when everyone was saying Griffey was going to break Aaron's record? Only Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds have hit 700 home runs. That is quite an accomplishment.


KT: Bonds used steroids. Bonds used steroids. Bonds used steroids. For the rest of my life, every time Joe refuses to address the fact that Bonds's chase is marred by steroids -- which is the essence of like 98% of Bonds-related questions these days -- I am going to type "Bonds used steroids" three times.

Sean (NYC): No one seems to want to say anything on behalf of Keith Hernandez, and maybe rightfully so. But as I see it, what is a trainer/massage therapist doing IN UNIFORM? aren't those the people usually in the dugouts wearing polos? I'm thinking it wasn't so much that there was a woman in the dugout, but that she was wearing a team uniform. That seems a bit odd to me.

Joe Morgan: We are in 2006. There have been lots of women trainers in every sport. It is not uncommon to see a lady on the sidelines in football or basketball or to see female trainers in any other sport. I will not and cannot defend what he said.


KT: Nicely done. Perhaps the smartest thing you have ever said. I feel...cheated. But happy.

Bengi (Dyersville, IA): Joe, how big of an accomplishment is Jim Thome's record of scoring a run in 17 straight games? I don't think this got enough publicity--because it's a great accomplishment!

Joe Morgan: I agree completely. I used to keep count of that in my career because I knew how much it was helping my team.


KT: Really. Following your own stats is about the team. Huh.

I don't know how many I got in a row but it wasn't 17! Unfortunately, all people want to think about now are HRs and strikeouts by a pitcher. That isn't what always wins ballgames. By scoring those runs, he guaranteed his pitcher wasn't going to lose a 1-0 game. He deserved to get more publicity for that accomplishment, I agree.

KT: Junior e-mailed me this section about fifteen minutes ago, and made an excellent point: "Jim Thome homered in 9 of those 17 games. In 5 of the games, the legendary 17-game run streak would have been broken if not for a homer. We're talking about Jim Thome and he brings up overvaluing the HR!" (His ire is so cute, isn't it?) I would also add: HR (for hitters) and K (for pitchers) are two of the best "traditional" ways to determine how valuable a player is (i.e. excluding much better stats like OBP, RC, or WARP, or any of the metrics invented by Nazi computers who try to force Joe to learn what baseball is).

Patrick (St. Louis, MO): You stated in your last chat that because you've been around the game for so long, there isn't much more anybody can teach you about it.

KT: I have a crush on Patrick. And he hasn't even asked a question yet,

It seems like you're saying that everything in baseball is known already, whereas I feel that there is plenty that we don't know, especially with advances in sports medicine, the ability to use technology to evaluate defense more accurately, and the increasing availability of pitch-by-pitch data to study long-term trends in the game. Don't you owe it to your listeners to listen to new arguements and research, especially if they are intelligent and logical? You seem to have the notion that a lot of the objective analysis being done now is trying to get rid of traditional scouting, but most sabremetricians feel that both are essential to get the best results.

KT: (batting eyes) My word, Patrick, you handsome devil! You done gone and given me the vapors! (lies down on a divan; fans self)

Joe Morgan: The guy that wrote Moneyball can't teach me about the game. That is what I meant. If you haven't been on the field, why should I read your book? How can that person teach me about the game? I learn plenty about the game everyday. Every Sunday night I learn something. The game changes almost every day. But I'm still not going to read Moneyball or books written by people who haven't been on the field or really experienced what goes on in the game of baseball.

KT: This is one of those, "How many ignorant things can I jam into one answer?"-type answers. Let's break it down.

1. The guy that wrote Moneyball can't teach me about the game. You don't even know his name. How do you know he can't teach you about the game? You literally don't know who he is.

2. If you haven't been on the field, why should I read your book? Well, gosh, I don't know. Because...you are an Emmy-winning baseball broadcaster, and that book is probably the most important (mainstream) book writen about baseball in the last 20 years?

3. How can that person teach me about the game? Something new in the Joe-vs.-"Moneyball" war just occurred to me: Joe has not considered the idea that the book contains analysis by people other than its author. In other words, if Billy Beane were the author of the book and not its primary subject -- and those of you diehard Joe-vs.-"Moneyball" war fans will no doubt remember several interviews with Joe where he did indeed think that was the case -- would he read it then? Beane played on the field. He satisfies Joe's insane demand that only former players can "teach" us anything. Jeremy Brown, Jason Giambi, Scott Hatteberg -- nearly all of the book's subjects played the game. So this ridiculous line of thought on Joe's part is actually more meaningless than I previously believed, because Joe doesn't even know enough about the book to understand that it is not just Michael Lewis pontificating about baseball. It is actual players discussing the game Joe loves and refuses to learn about. I thus would like to invite someone, next Tuesday, to make this point in a question to Joe, and then we'll start some real fireworks, by gum.

4. I learn plenty about the game everyday. Every Sunday night I learn something. The game changes almost every day. Three nice little tidbits here, the first two of which, from my empirical info-gathering, seem wholesale false, and the third of which would, to most normal people, indicate that constant information gathering and research in all media would benefit someone who desires to be an "expert," and thus, theoretically, compel the quotation's author to go out and read "Moneyball."

5. But I'm still not going to read Moneyball or books written by people who haven't been on the field or really experienced what goes on in the game of baseball. See note #3, supra.

Mike (Saratoga Springs, NY): After Sundays 3 hit 1 run performance by Randy Johnson, is he finally starting to realize that he doesn't have a 96mph fastball anymore. He seemed to be spotting his fastball consistently inside to RH hitters and changing speeds much more effectively. Is this the RJ Yanks fans will see the rest of the year?

Joe Morgan: First of all, Randy Johnson has known how to pitch for a long long time.


KT: No one was saying he hasn't known how to pitch. The question is whether at age 43, RJ is altering his approach. It's like, everytime someone says anything about a player that seems to indicate that that player isn't A-plus #1 awesome perfect, Joe takes it like a personal insult. He should be the head of the players' union.

I didn't see that specific game but I've seen him pitch several times where he didn't just rely on the fastball. He already knows how to pitch, he didn't learn anything Sunday.

KT: For a nice contradiction to what Joe just said about a player not learning everything, see his answer to the question from like two minutes ago wherein he says, "I learn plenty about the game everyday. Every Sunday night I learn something. The game changes almost every day." One would expect, were this the case, that actual players would also be learning things about the game.

victor alexandria,la: where is next sunday,s game going to be?

Joe Morgan: Texas at Cleveland.


KT: Hey, Victor. C'mere for a sec. Do you think the best way to find out where next Sunday night's game is, is to join an on-line chat and ask the color commentator?

firevictorfromalexandria.blogspot.com.

Joe Morgan: Inbetween I'm going to my daughter Ashley's National Junior Olympic Gymnastics Finals in Oklahoma City.

KT:...oh. Thanks. What do you think you'll have for dinner that night? Just so I know.

Jeff (Iowa): Could you explain in 50 words or less why baseball is a better sport than the other big three?

Joe Morgan: I can't do that. The only thing I will say is if you have been a baseball player and you love the game, then you would understand why it is great and why it mirrors life in general. I can't say it is better because I enjoy all sports. But if I had one to choose, it would be baseball. Joe Morgan: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Kareem, etc. who are all friends of mine, all wanted to be baseball players. Bryant Gumble said it best .. the other sports are sports but baseball is love. You fall in love with baseball. Everyone plays baseball and understands it.


KT: For the record, that's 107 words -- though only 103 came after Joe said he couldn't answer the question. Also: "Everyone plays baseball and understands it?" I can't even begin to unpack what that means, given Joe's answers to the "Moneyball" questions.

Joe (NY): Who is the best third-baseman in NYC?

Joe Morgan: That's not a valid question at this point. ARod has almost 500 HRs and you are going to compare him to David Wright? What? Who would you rather have on your team?


KT: Look, Joe, the answer is clearly ARod, but why do you get so snotty when people ask questions like this? David Wright is like 14 years old and he's amazing. If he stays healthy he might be a top-10 player in the NL for years and years. Just say that ARod is better, but the answer to that question might be "David Wright" sooner than most people think, or something. Don't yell at the nice man who logged on for your chat and asked you a legitimate question about baseball. Please.

Joe (Portland, OR): Given the resurgence of the Tigers, do you think the AL Central is now the toughest division in all of baseball?

Buzzmaster: Hold on, folks! Lost our connection with Joe. We should get him back in a second.


KT: I would've given anything if that question could have involved statistical analysis, so it looked like Joe had like smashed his computer into pieces. That would have been fantastic.

Charles (Birmingham, AL): Do you think there are too many teams, not enough teams or just the right amount from a competition point of view?

Joe Morgan: Too many. Every team now has weaknesses. If we had fewer teams, some of those weaknesses would go away. We have good teams but not great teams. Every team is missing something. Not because I was on the team, but my old Reds teams had hitting, Gold Gloves, pitching, etc. We had it all. I just don't see teams now that have all the pieces.


KT: This is my least favorite argument of Joe's. The 2005 ChiSox, Indians, and Cardinals. The 2004 Cards and Red Sox. The 1996-2003-ish Yankees. The 2003 Angels and Marlins. There are a lot of great teams in this league, who have great fielders, pitchers, and hitters. This "it was better in the old days" stuff is rubbish.

Ben, Philly: Can you go to any baseball game you want any day you want? If so, can you please kidly request that I have such a luxury?

Joe Morgan: I can't just walk in! But I have a Gold Pass. If you play for 8 years you get a Gold Pass that allows you to go to any game. But you have to call in advance. They will leave you two tickets. That doesn't work for playoffs and World Series though! That reminds me, I don't know where mine is! I need to find it.


KT: I'm guessing Bud Selig stole it back. Or maybe Jon Miller burned it.

Chad(WI): Would you be willing to sell me your gold pass?

Joe Morgan: No! It's a very cool thing.


KT: That you lost.

It's a great honor.

A lost honor, in your case.

Remember, the average player played around 4.5 years in my day. So when you got to 8 years and got the Gold Pass, it put you in a special category.

And then you lost it.

Ronny B. (DC): If you won't sell your gold pass, how about if you use it to get me a free ticket the next time you're in town?

Joe Morgan: I was just there Sunday! Sorry I missed you. If you can find me, you have a deal!


KT: Except that you lost your Gold Pass!

Interestingly, Joe now delivers a seemingly unprovoked apologia of his earlier answer to the "Moneyball" question. Let's see if he can clarify or explain better his thoughts on the matter.

I want to clarify the misunderstand about what I learn. Every Sunday I learn something new. But I'm going to stand by the fact that somebody who didn't play the game can't teach me about the game. I learned from the best, the legends who played the game. I played alongside so many great players. I'm just not going to read a book in hopes of learning how to play baseball. But this is an everchanging game and I do learn something almost every day. I'm just a former baseball player who is now an analyst. My thoughts are about the game and not medical technologies and such. Just because somebody writes a book doesn't mean they know the game.

KT: Nope. Still ignorant, misguided, and pointless. Also, "medical technologies?" Does he think "Moneyball" is about medical technologies?

Thanks for all the great questions. We'll talk again next Tuesday.

KT: Medical technologies?

Labels: ,


posted by Anonymous  # 7:04 PM
Comments:
Touché to the several readers who pointed out that perhaps I should have congratulated Joe for correctly answering a chat question, instead of chastising Victor for asking what the Sunday Night game was. Well-played, several readers.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
I'm just not going to read a book in hopes of learning how to play baseball.

Has no one explained to Joe that the book isn't an instruction manual on bunting? Having no coaching, managing, or front office experience, you'd think Joe would be interested in a book that's about a successful approach to constructing a baseball team. But, I guess Joe already knows the keys to a successful team in modern baseball:
my old Reds teams had hitting, Gold Gloves, pitching, etc. We had it all.
One hopes that Joe came by this wisdom either by reading George Foster's diary or by watching "The Day the Earth Stood Still."
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

 

JoeChat!

Sorry for the delay -- Joe is hiding his chats on Tuesdays instead of his usual Fridays, and someone (I'm looking at you, Murbles) forgot to recalibrate the SnarkTron 3000™ for Tuesdays...blah blah blah. Whatever. No harm, no foul. We're back on the case.

Joe Morgan: Hello!

Everyone (unison): Hi, Joe!

It's been an interesting week. A lot of people thoughts HRs would go down because of the testing but they have gone up for other reasons. We can explore those. I'm ready for your questions!

Ken Tremendous: Did you type that paragraph in a different language and then have someone translate it back into English?

Eric (Toledo): Chris Shelton: Over or Under 45 HR's?

Joe Morgan: It's still too early to predict how many he will hit.


KT: Really? You mean you can't tell with certainty what the answer to this question is? Aren't you omniscient? No? That's disappointing.

How long is it going to take you to figure out that when people ask questions like this, they are asking for your opinion, and not an impossible-to-deliver iron-clad fact?

He's on quite a pace. But those things have a way of evening out. I would say under 45. HR hitters hit them in bunches and go in slumps. So I would say under 45 but he will still have a great year.

KT: "HR hitters hit them in bunches and go in slumps." Ladies and gentlemen, Emmy award-winning commentator Joe Morgan.

bronx, Ny: Are pitchers going to start walking and pitching around pujols like they do to Bary Bonds?

Joe Morgan: I expect that to be the case, yes. He doesn't have many weaknesses you can attack. They will always walk him in clutch situations now. He will probably only be pitched to with the bases empty. I don't like it. You should always want to compete. I don't like it when teams give up.


KT: I wonder if Joe's dislike of the intentional walk is in any way due to the chapter called "Was Billy Martin Crazy?" in the recent Baseball Prospectus book "Between the Numbers," wherein the authors use impressive statistical analysis to prove that it is almost always a bad idea to walk anyone -- even Barry Bonds -- intentionally. I bet that is why Joe doesn't want people to walk Pujols, right? Anyone?

Steve Dallas, TX: Joe, what's the secret behind the Mets hot start?

KT: I got this one, Joe. David Wright is off to a phenomenal start. Billy Wagner has solidified the bullpen. Pedro is pitching well, Delgado and Beltran are hitting. Xavier Nady has been a pleasant surprise, hitting .396 with pop. But really, it's the pitching. They lead the NL with a stellar 3.22 ERA and a .672 OPS-against, and as a staff are striking out more than 8 per 9 IP, with a 1.23 WHIP.

Joe Morgan: Carlos Delgado. Simple as that.

KT: Um...

The addition of Delgado is why I picked the Mets to win their division. He is not only a numbers guy but also a great leader. He will do wonders for Beltran's attitude and help him to relax and play better. So far he has been the difference for this team. David Wright and Pedro Martinez have obviously also played a part.

KT: (throat dry; choking a little) Yeah...okay. Sure. Also, there's the staff 3.22 ERA/.672 OPS against...and the team .854 OPS...but no, okay, cool, it's just Delgado, and his influence on Carlos Beltran.

Marc (East Rockaway, NY): Is Mariano Rivera a first ballot Hall of Famer?

KT: Yes. The answer is yes. Just say yes. Please?

Joe Morgan: I'm not going to answer questions about Hall of Famers unless they have already been on the ballot.

KT: Well, that makes sense. After all, you're unqualified to do so. Because you're not a former player, nor are you an analyst, nor are you participating in a chat about baseball, nor are you in the Hall of Fame yourself, nor are you Vice Chairman of the HOF Board. So how could you be expected to answer such a question? I'm sure you have other good reasons for not doing so.

If I say yes, then people will wonder why I didn't say yes on somebody else.

KT: No we won't. We will assume that if you say "no" on someone else, that will indicate, through semiotic signifiers known as "words," that you do not believe that hypothetical person should be in the HOF. See how it works?

I'm Vice Chairman of the Board so I don't feel comfortble speaking about every single guy.

KT: I promise we won't ask about every single guy. We will not ask you if Doug "Eyechart" Gwosdz deserves to be in the HOF. We will not even ask you tough ones, like Raffy or McGriff. For now, we will just ask you about Rivera, and you should say "yes." There's still time.

I will say yes, that I think he is a first ballot guy but that's the last time I will talk about it.

KT: Good work. You're effing crazy, you know that, Joe?

Josh (Miami): Joe, can you answer this honestly? As someone who played the game the right way how will you react if Bonds passes Aaron? And how do you think Aaron will react, as well as your former teammates?

Joe Morgan: I won't have the same reaction I had when Aaron passed Ruth. But I will have a great sense of accomplishment for him. Obviously it is different now than when Hank was chasing Babe. It is easier now to hit home runs and accumulate numbers than it was before. But it doesn't take away from what he has done. It's just a different accomplishement than what Hank did. I've also said if Aaron, Mays or Ted Williams played in this era, they would hit far more home runs than they hit in their day. The parks are smaller and the pitching isn't as good.


KT: Yes. Very nice. Bonds's accomplishment will be different because the parks are smaller and the pitching isn't as good. That is totally the difference between Bonds and Aaron. The main thing that comes to mind when I think about Barry Bonds and the HR record is that the parks are smaller. That's totally correct. That's what "Game of Shadows," a national bestseller, is about, right? Parks being smaller? That's why Victor Conte was in jail, correct? Because he designed parks that were too small? And why the Giants' trainer was subpoenaed today? Because he was trafficking in blueprints for tiny parks on the black market? Nice work, Joe. You got right to the heart of what is on the minds of baseball fans everywhere in re: Barry Bonds and the HR record. You totally answered that guy's question. You totally satisfied his request that you "answer this honestly." He wanted your honest opinion -- he went out of his way to request your honest opinion -- about whether or not the smaller average park size in today's game will diminish Barry Bonds's impending HR record. Great work all around, there, Joe.

Nora (St. Louis): Is this the year Albert breaks through and wins his first gold glove? He's been incredible!

Joe Morgan: That's difficult to say. A lot of things are involved in a Gold Glove. It's not always just not making errors. Derrek Lee is built like a perfect first baseman, long and lean, and it will be hard for Albert to supplant him. But he is a Gold Glove quality first baseman for sure.


KT: Here's another answer: the Gold Glove is a farce. It has as much to do with good fielding as the Oscars do for "best acting." It is a popularity contest. Raffy Palmeiro won in a year when he played like 25 games at 1B. It's a stupid award and means nothing. Also, Pujols is a good defensive first baseman. Also, you have a crush on Derrek Lee.

Steve (Boston): Hi Joe, is there any doubt whatsoever that the Red Sox have supplanted the Yankees as the class of the AL East?

Joe Morgan: There is still some doubt. Boston is more interesting to watch. They are fun to watch and they seem to have more joy in how they play the game. But you can never discount the Yankees lineup. They throw a group of stars out there everyday. Boston may have 3 stars and the others contribute well. Boston is a really fun team to watch. The Yankees are more business-like. I guess its like watching a TV drama vs. American Idol.


KT: This may be unfair, Joe, but in order to try to point out how inane that answer was, I am going to reprint it, and edit out a few things:

Boston is more interesting to watch. They are fun to watch. Boston is a really fun team to watch. I guess its like watching American Idol.

Dave, Sacramento: Hi Joe, I love your work, but I'm wondering why you won't read "Moneyball?" It's short, readable, and the pages won't bite, I promise.

KT: I literally cannot wait to read the response. I haven't read it yet. I feel like it's Christmas and I'm nine years old and my parents promised me a dirtbike and there's a dirtbike-shaped present under the tree.

Joe Morgan: I haven't read a lot of books.

KT: Already, I couldn't be happier.

I didn't read Canseco's book or Game of Shadows. I'm not sure the last baseball book I read.

KT: I'm guessing it was "Win Shares" by Bill James? No?

I form my own opinions because I played the game and have 40 years of experience in the game. There isn't much that others can teach me about the game.

KT: The wrongest thing you have ever written.

I've been taught by the best .. the players I played with and against. I know what it takes to win out there.

KT: There is steam coming out of Joe's head and leaking through his computer and coming out of my computer.

I've seen players who are winners and just good players.

KT: I've seen guts, and I've seen determination. I've seen Pete Rose slide head-first into second and bust up a double play with his head. I've seen Bob Gibson throw a baseball clear through a guy's stomach, just to send a message. I've seen Smokey Joe Wood eat a baseball like an apple to intimidate a batter. I've seen Three-Finger Brown shove his whole arm up Honus Wagner's ass when Wagner didn't run out a groundball -- in a goddamn exhibition game!!!! So don't you go telling me about computers!!!!!!!!!!!! Or books!!!!!!!!!!!!! And how they are "good"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't get enjoyment out of reading baseball books. I'd rather watch a sci-fi movie on TV.

KT: Catch Joe's "Battlestar Galactica" chat on SciFiChannel.com every Tuesday at noon, right after his ESPN chat.

John (Portland, ME): Does Pujols compare to anyone that played back in your era?

Joe Morgan: People won't remember this but the first at bat I ever saw Pujols take was against Houston .. I saw him swing at the first two pitches and I told Jon Miller on the air that he reminded me of Tony Perez because of how aggressive he was and how he attacked the ball. He struck out but homered and doubled later in the game!


KT: FWIW, Pujols is so much better than Tony Perez, it's, like, not even...forget it.

Phil (Stl,MO): Last night you chose Ortiz over Pujols due to success in the post-season. I would encourage you to look at the numbers as it's Pujols who comes out as the much better post-season performer.

KT: Don't ask him to look at numbers! Are you insane?

Joe Morgan: Go look at the numbers!

KT: His head just exploded.

Pujols was OK in the World Series but Ortiz is a big game player. There is an element of luck involved but you have to be the guy who comes to the plate in big situations and come through. I say he is the best big game hitter in baseball but Pujols is the best overall hitter by far.

KT: Pujols, post-season: 137 AB, .336/.428 /.620. 10 HR.
Ortiz, post-season: 143 AB, .301/.383/.552. 8HR.

I looked at the numbers. Pujols is better. Not by a lot, but he's better.

Mark (Chicago): Of all the new ballparks sprouting up around the country, which one would you most want to play in?

Joe Morgan: Probably Cincinnati. Not just because I played there. It just seems like a great park to hit in. But then again, so do so many of the other new parks. They are just built that way now. Houston is almost a joke how easy it is to hit in.


KT: I don't have the 2005 numbers, but here are Minute Maid's ballpark adjustments for hitters for 2004:

BA (105)
2B (97)
3B (134)
RH HR (104)
LH HR (103)

So, the phrase "Houston is almost a joke how easy it is to hit it," besides barely being English, is also not really true.

San Jose, CA: Why is Bonds struggling i've watched every at-bat of his season and when he swings it looks like it used to when he was hitting tons of HRs i don't get why he isn't hitting them know.

KT: Because he's like 60 years old and isn't allowed to take horse steroids and HGH and female fertility drugs and greenies and (I'm guessing) like nine other things anymore.

Joe Morgan: Injuries slow your bat speed down and makes you try to compensate. I haven't seen that many at-bats but his front knee is not as solid as before. He has a sore left elbow now from throwing the barrel of the bat at the ball. He hit a nice line drive off the wall the other night. He will be just fine. Pitchers are still afraid of him.

KT: But, kind of maybe not as afraid, due to the steroid thing, right Joe? I'm sure you meant to say that.

Joe (Portland, OR): What do you think about the Twins' strategy of easing Francisco Liriano into the rotation? Do you like Seattle's strategy with Felix Hernandez more?

Joe Morgan: It's hard for me to say because I haven't seen the Twins this year.


KT: I know we do this every time, but isn't it just amazing how many questions Joe answers by saying, "I don't know because I haven't seen them?" It's shocking how little baseball he actually watches, for a guy who claims not to need to learn anything from books because he watches games.

Gardenhire knows how to handle young players very well and has done a great job. If he feels this is the right move, I would have to agree with him at this point.

KT: "Well, he's the boss, so his decision must be correct." Joe would have done very well as a Jesuit knight in the time of St. Ignatius.

Max (San Antonio): Joe, Do you think the Marlins move to Texas or does the Miami Gov't finally come to their senses and offers the Marlins a fair legit stadium package?

Joe Morgan: I don't think they will be in Miami. But I have no idea where they might end up.


KT: I totally don't hold that against you. There is absolutely no reason you should have an opinion on where a baseball franchise might relocate to, because you are a data systems analyst for a small software company in Michigan. Right? No? You're an award-winning baseball analyst? My mistake. You should have an opinion on that.

Joe Morgan: Good questions today! Make no mistake about it, in pro sports all the players are good. It's a thin line between good and great. But many times it is intimidation. If pitchers could throw inside more, it would be easier for us to seperate the good hitters from the great hitters. Talk to you next week!

KT: (trying to muster enthusiasm) Can't wait.

Edit: to change "indicted" to "subpoenaed." Thanks to those who wrote in to correct me.

Labels: ,


posted by Anonymous  # 2:26 AM
Comments:
Really amazing that Joe still gets away with "I haven't seen much of" MLB club X.

Enter FJM!

Joe, if you're reading, the folks at Fire Joe Morgan are willing to pay for the entire cost of your MLB Extra Innings package if you'll agree to watch some baseball games.

I'm not joking. D. Schoenfield -- you still reading this thing? Tell Joe he's sitting on like $150 worth of merch if he'll just e-mail us.
 
We should hire a political cartoonist to draw a picture of Joe Morgan in Barry Bonds' house.

Barry is sitting in a rocking chair, in his Giants uni. And there's an enormous elephant in the room, with the word "STEROIDS" written on it. It's so big that the walls are ready to burst.

There's also a very tiny doggie which is hiding under the radiator.

Joe Morgan is standing next to Bonds, pointing towards the elephant, but also in the direction of the radiator, with a caption that reads: "Nice Doggie!"

Okay, maybe we shouldn't.

PAGING ROZ CHAST MOTHAFUCKAS
 
You guys. When I went to Boston this week, I left the SnarkTron 3000 out in the rain.

It still works, I guess, but the Gene Wojciechowski knob is a little wonky.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

 

Jim Bowden Has Always Hated Statistical Analysis

And now, that hatred of numbers -- numbers like .08, or .10 -- has bitten him on the ol' patookis.

Labels:


posted by Anonymous  # 3:38 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Sunday, April 16, 2006

 

Is Ron Gardenhire the Worst Manager in Baseball?

The exhumed corpse of Rondell White hits fourth for the Twinkies. After an 0-4, 3K day today, through 47 AB, White is OPSing .206.

That's OPS. Not OBP. Not SLG. Not BA.

OPS.

.206.

I know "line-up position doesn't matter." I know it's early. But my goodness.

Edited: to correct some of the worst grammar and syntax errors I have ever committed. There were like four dangling modifiers in three sentences. Sorry, everybody.

Labels:


posted by Anonymous  # 6:58 PM
Comments:
I knew I was just blowing off some Gardenhire steam by posting this -- hence the bad grammar -- and I knew that ultimately 47 AB isn't anything to get that upset about. I had just watched Rondy K like four times in a row with guys on 3rd and nobody out...anyway, my steam-blowing-off was best summarized by reader Seth, who writes:

You want a better example of a bad manager? On the same day, the Padres batted their 3rd string catcher, Rob Bowen in the clean-up spot. He didn't play in the majors last year, in his career (2003/2004) he has hit .108/.190/.189, and in the minors (AA/AAA) the past 2 years hit .197/.292/.345 and .267/.366/.401. Now that is a poor clean-up hitter.

Amen, buddy. Also: Gardenhire stinks.
 
Off topic: I keep getting scam e-mails from a guy who claims he has $6 million in a frozen account, blah blah blah. But: these e-mails begin:

"Hello, I am Dr. Greg Steve."

Dr. Greg Steve. Come on. That's hilarious.
 
How about a hand for Ken Tremendous, everybody! The last man in America who refuses to call "scam" e-mails "spam."

I once got "scam" from Thomasin Franken, which, I believe, is the name of Al Franken's daughter.

That's weird, right?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Saturday, April 15, 2006

 

"Too Busy?" Not For a JoeChat™

Buzzmaster: Hellooooooooo! Joe Morgan is finishing up an interview with Dan Patrick and will be joining us in just a few minutes .. how's everyone feeling after the first week of the season? Still optimistic or already throwing in the towel? Remember, it's a looooong season!

Ken Tremendous: You're telling me, Buzzmaster. I was just in Tahiti for a week, but now I'm back, my head is clear, and I can't wait to--

Joe Morgan: Hello! Baseball is off to an interesting start! A lot of teams we didn't expect to do well are on top already. I'm ready for your questions!

--oh shit. I'm not ready for this.

Vik (Chicago): Joe, why is everyone around Boston trying to get Papelbon into the rotation? They desperately need a closer and he seems to fit that bill pretty well.

Joe Morgan: First of all, a starting pitcher is always better than a closer. It's tougher to get to the ninth inning that it is to close it out. They are hoping Foulke will get back to his closer role. Starters are in much higher demand. Just look back to the Braves and Maddux, Smoltz, etc. They never had a great, dominate closer. But they still won the division.


KT: The hilarious thing about this, to me, isn't just that Joe has seemingly forgotten about like Mark Wohlers and John Rocker and so forth. The hilarious thing to me is that the most dominate [sic] closer in Braves' history was John Smoltz, whom Joe mentions in the sentence about how they never had a dominate [sic] closer.

Tim (Cincinnati, OH): Hey Joe, just picked up the new MLB 2K6 game for the Xbox 360...How long did it take you to record all those lines, your great in it BTW...

Joe Morgan: Tooo long! Actually, last year it took me about 20 hours maybe. This year it was less because we had some things in the box. This year it took maybe 16 hours total.


KT: Nothing too egregious here. I just like the sentence: "This year it was less because we had some things in the box." That makes me laugh.

Jon (New York): Hey Joe, I'm a diehard pirates fan tell me something positive. please?

Joe Morgan: The only thing is that you will need your young pitchers to step up and get it done. Just hope for that.


Jon (New York): What?!? That's the best you can do? That's "something positive?" It's just a weird cliche! I don't even understand what you mean! (kills self)

Carter (Belmont, MA): An article yesterday reported that the Marlins will be forced to trade Dontrelle due to insufficient funding on a new stadium. Which race will become a bigger story: The race for the Rocket or the race for Dontrelle?

Joe Morgan: Obviously it would depend on the teams but I would say Dontrelle.


KT: Cool. He answered the question. The race for Dontrelle will be a bigger story.

He has more long term potential.

Wow. He even explained why. This is going really well.

The Marlins won't be forced to trade Dontrelle.

Oh buh-ruther.

(Those sentences are consecutive, by the way. No internal editing of Joe's words.)

Casey (Memphis): Manny seems to be getting another slow start? Do you think it's just him aging, or is something of greater concern?

Joe Morgan: Anybody that is concerned about Manny doesn't understand the game. He will put up great numbers as he always does. No reason to be concerned.


KT: I know this is the pat answer to this question, and I know that basically Joe is accidentally using sabermetrics' old friend the Small Sample Size to make his point. However, a more thorough analysis of this question might have involved: Manny had a slow start last April as well, so maybe, just maybe, this is a trend for an almost-34 year-old guy. Or, it might have involved saying something about how he has truly looked horrible at the plate thus far, without any of his trademark balance and plan-of-attack that makes him so tough -- i.e. that it's not like he's been hitting the ball hard, but at people. Failing any of that, Joe, you maybe could have just, I don't know, not outright insulted the guy who was seeking your advice. Try that next time -- you don't even have to do any research!

Vik (Chicago): Do you think Andruw Jones 50 HR season was an aberrition, or can he repeat that performance this year?

Joe Morgan: I don't think it was an abberation.


KT: So you think he will consistently hit 50?

HR hitters hit in cycles and are streaky.

Oh...sorry. You don't think he will consistently hit 50. You think he will be streaky.

It seems to me he will have more hot streaks than before and that will add up close to 50.

Oh...sorry again. You think he will be streaky, but consistently streaky, and will again hit 50. Great.

Denver, CO: Hi Joe, Do you see any production from the big two (Woods and Prior) of the Cubs this year or will it be another bust like 2005?

Joe Morgan: I think they will get some production out of the two this year, but it should be icing on the cake and not the whole cake. I like the Cubs attitude of going forward without them.


CUBS' CLUBHOUSE
Chicago, IL
4/14/06

Baker: Guys, bad news. We've lost Prior, and we've lost Wood.
Walker: What are we gonna do, skip?
Baker: What can we do? We are canceling the season.
(Players start packing up gear, making off-season plans, etc. Joe Morgan enters.)
Joe Morgan: Hey guys. Listen up. You don't have to give up. There's a different way.
Players (in unison; baffled): Huuuuhhhhhh?!
Joe Morgan: You can change your attitude to: "let's go forward without them."
(Players ponder this; several do old-timey actual scratchings of tops of heads; Baker chews toothpick; several minutes pass)
Baker: Let's give it a shot!
Players: tossing caps in the air Hurrrrah! Thank you Joe Morgan!
Flourish. Exeunt. Curtain.

Tim (Cincinnati, OH): Did you hear Pete Rose's interview on the Dan Patrick show the other day, Do you believe he should be able to get put on the voters card so he can have a chance to get voted in?

Joe Morgan: Someone told me he was on but I didn't hear it. What exactly did he say?


KT: Oh boy. Does Joe understand that computers and phones aren't the same? That this guy can't just answer him? I guess not, because he just continues with the chat.

d (st. louis): Did you see the piece on Darren Daulton? He has some inner demons from his playing days

Joe Morgan: I saw the piece. He was one of my favorite players. I read the story also until it bothered me and I stopped. I didn't like what I was reading. I guess I was disappointed about the jail time, etc. I didn't read the whole thing because it just bothered me.


KT: Joe in a nutshell. Stops doing something that would make him better informed because it "bothers him." This guy is an Emmy-winning journalist, remember.

Josh (Lakeland, FL): Joe now that they have new owenership whats your take on the Devil Rays? Do you think they are moving in the right direction?

Joe Morgan: Tough question. I don't know the new owners or what their gameplan is...


KT: Emmy. Winning. Journalist.

Tim (Cincinnati, OH): What are you more proud of, your two MVP's or two world series rings.

KT: Hardball question from Tim, there, Joe. Be careful how you answer this.

Joe Morgan: They both go hand in hand. I wouldnt' have been MVP without getting to the World Series or have gotten to the World Series without being MVP!

KT: Do I really need to make a list of league MVPs who did not get to the WS? Or teams who got to the WS without the league MVP on their rosters? No, I don't. You all know how stupid a comment this is.

I guess if I had a choice of the two, you always want to win a championship. You get labeled if you are a great player who never won a championship. But I wouldnt' give any of them back!

KT: Will you give back your Emmys?

Labels: ,


posted by Anonymous  # 5:20 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Thursday, April 13, 2006

 

Do We Need to Start a Separate Blog?

With all the grade-A shit Mike Celizic is churning out, I'm beginning to think we might have to.

Nothing too exceptional here, just your usual Celizic-level hyperbole, bad humor, Yankee dick-riding, and general wrongness. But, since Joe Morgan, John Kruk, and Rob Dibble (remember that guy?) seem to have heeded our advice and limited their online opinion writing, we'll have to take what we can get.

Let's begin.

There’s a buzz in the air around clunky old Shea Stadium these days, a sense of anticipation that hasn’t been felt since the second half of the 1980s when for a brief shining moment the Mets were New York’s darlings.You can insert here the usual caveat about it being too early to declare a pennant race over when it’s barely one week into a six-month schedule. But after you do, take a good look at New York’s other team, the one that is 20 years removed from its last World Series victory.

Wow, three whole sentences into an article about the Mets before you reference the Yankees. Good job, Mikey! What happened? Did your copyeditor object to your original lede: "Yankees! Yankees! Yankees!: A National League East Preview"?

What’s left is a powerful lineup studded with talent: Jose Reyes, a potential superstar shortstop at the top of the order.

I don't think anyone who regularly reads this blog needs to hear our opinions of Jose Reyes yet again, but it bears repeating:

Jose Reyes Lifetime Statistics:
.278/.300/.386 (-82 OPS+)
45BB, 145SO, 89XBH in 1190 AB

The Mets have pitching, they have defense, they have offense, and they have a New York kind of guy pulling the strings, former Yankee great Willie Randolph, who’s looking very comfortable in his second year as manager.

Thank god they have a former Yankee pulling the strings! God, could you imagine if they had some idiot like Terry Francona or Bobby Cox! Who other than a Yankee could squeeze production out of such bums as Pedro Martinez, Carlos Delgado, David Wright, Billy Wagner, and Paul LoDuca? And the characterization of Willie Randolph as a Yankee "great" is pretty much the definition of "tenuous." Wait, no. That's the wrong word. What word am I looking for? Hmm..."Wrong?" It is pretty much the definition of "wrong." That's better.

It shouldn’t take long to find out just how good they are. On April 17, they play a three-game series against the Braves, who are to the Mets what Boston is to the Yankees. By May 7, they Mets will have finished a third series with Atlanta — nine games in all.

Umm, sort of. I would probably switch that around a bit. The more apt analogy, considering the Braves' 14 consecutive division championships and the Yankees' 8 would be Red Sox:Yankees::Mets:Braves. Nitpicky, yes, but correct.

So these nine upcoming games [against the Braves] are crucial. Win six of them, and the season is theirs. Win five and the prospects of a happy October get much brighter.

What? Repeat: what? Are you kidding me? Are you honestly suggesting that winning 6 of 9 over three weeks in April and May can seal the season for the Mets? Don't get me wrong, the Mets are good. And if they won 6 of 9 that would be a good thing, but come on, Mike Celizic.

posted by Murbles  # 3:35 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

 

How Old Do You Think He Was When He Started Wearing The Hat? (I Like To Picture Him Wearing It Even As An Infant.)


Almost immediately, the subheadline has me worried.

Close losses indicative of experienced, talented team that wants to win

"Close losses indicative of...team that wants to win?" Most teams don't want to win? You can tell by these close losses that a team wants to win, say, more than any other team? More than, like, a team that's been winning? The hell? Wait -- experienced and talented too? There's so much going on in that one phrase, my head is spinning.

Must be a mistake. MSNBC must've thrown some 22-year-old intern a bone, letting him fill in the subheadline that Celizic forgot to include. The intern probably skimmed the article, totally misunderstood what was being written, and submitted this copy to his editor without thinking it through. He was still kind of stoned from last night, didn't get much sleep, and to be honest, was really thinking more about his girlfriend and whether her irrational fanaticism for the band Jawbreaker will be the proverbial camel-straw in their relationship.

So, that explains it. I mean, not even Mike Celizic could possibly think that losing close games exhibits talent, a desire to win, or whatever it is they harvest from those magic fucking beanstalks in pinstriped fields, fertilized by Steinbrenner's --

This edition of the Yankees isn’t going to stagger through the first couple months of the season like last year’s team did.

Mike, I'm trying to ramble, here. Could I just...? Thanks. Okay.

Like I was saying, not even the moldy brain of Mike Celizic could produce a notion as astronomically retarded as --

You can see that already, not in the two big wins in which they scored 25 runs, but in the four losses that leave them in last place.


Hypothetical 22-year-old intern, you're off the hook. Celizic is at it again.

Now, before I go any further, the truth is, I agree with some of what Celizic's saying. Teams that lose many close games and win in blowouts are likely to see more wins in their future. (Pyth W-L rec, etc. -- you've heard it all before.) And like Celizic, I don't see the Yankees continuing to lose at this pace. (For that matter, you have to wonder how many people really think the first 5 or 6 games are any real sort of indication of how good the Yanks will be over the whole course of the year.)

Of course, Celizic can't just chalk up his prediction to runs scored and runs allowed -- he's got more in mind. Remember, those close losses showed Celizic that this team "wants to win."

Scoring 15 runs in their first game probably didn’t help, serving to make the hitters try for even bigger totals instead of just going with the flow; giving them a false sense of their own omnipotence. Add to that the pressure of George Steinbrenner sending them off into the season by stating flatly that the 2006 Yankees would win the World Series this year, and you have all the ingredients for a couple of lost series.

Of course. The-First-Game-Gave-Me-The-Impression-That-We-Could-Just-Spend-The-Whole-Season-Padding-Our-Stats
Syndrome. That old chestnut.

The problem wasn’t a lack of effort, but too much of it.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, Celizic believes that the reason the Yankees will start winning is because eventually they will start trying less hard. Don't get me wrong -- I think the effects of effort in baseball are pretty overestimated, but is he really suggesting that the Yankees will benefit from not trying so hard to, what, hit home runs?

The good news for the Yankees is that it’s easy to choke a short series, but impossible to choke a full season. Sooner or later, when you play six days a week for six months, you just say, “screw it” — or words to that effect — and go out and play the game.

The first part I can live with. Again, a reference to Expected (PYTH) W-L Records might be useful. But, I mean, this is Mike Celizic we're talking about, so let's not get hysterical.

But that's not why Celizic likes the Yankees' chances of rebounding. He thinks that soon, they'll say "screw it," or something similar, and this utterance -- perhaps indirectly -- will lead to more victories. In other words, MC fans, they haven't been winning because they haven't been "go[ing] out and play[ing] the game."

Last year at this time, I was already writing that the Yankees were in trouble. Though they won the division, I was right.


"Last year, I predicted that 'Pooh's Heffalump Movie' would win the Oscar for Best Picture. Though 'Crash' won, I was right."

Bonus: Celizic also predicted that Hideki Matsui, not A-Rod, would win the 2005 AL MVP.
Double Bonus: April 7, 2005: Mariano Rivera is finished.
I Can't Help Myself Bonus: Celizic says Clemens will leave Astros by end of 2005.


I know they’re not a 2-4 team, and they won’t sleep-walk through the first couple of months like they did last year.


So, bottom line. This year, the Yankees' problem is trying too hard. Last year, their problem was somnambulism.

Current rating: 1.5 [out of 5 stars] by 4 users.

Too high.

posted by dak  # 12:29 AM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

 

I Don't Know Why I Even Bother

Ah, opening day. The culmination of months of wint'ry anticipation. If you're like most baseball fans I know, you wake up on opening day pretty much overjoyed that the season is finally here. It's the one day of the season that there is almost nothing (really) to complain about. Unless you're an old, bearded idiot with a penchant for retarded headgear.

Now I'm no Yankees fan, that much I admit. But I don't think they're necessarily bad people. Some of my good friends are Yankee fans. (Fun exercise: replace "Yankee fans" with "black people" and I sound like a terrible racist!) But I draw the line when Yankee fans say things like:

Only Major League Baseball is capable of screwing up what should be the best day of the season.

What is Mikey C. referring to here? The Barry Bonds saga? The WBC? The fact that Joe Morgan is still collecting a paycheck? No. He is cranky because he had to stay up past midnight (!) to watch his favorite 200 million dollar team play baseball.

When should games start?

One in the afternoon, Mr. Commish. Not 10 at night, when weary Yankees fans had to stay up until just to see the lineups introduced.

Ten o'clock? Are you kidding me? That is fucking outrageous! Is anyone awake at ten o'clock?! I don't care how long it has been since my team last took the field. My name is Mike Friggin' Celizic and when 9:30pm rolls around, I better be in the bed down the hall from the bed my long-suffering wife sleeps in, or else! (Note: Bonus FJM embellishment for the sake of unwarranted personal attack!) Also, isn't 99% of the American workforce working at 1pm? They would almost surely miss those 1pm starts, wouldn't they? What about them?

But surely, Mike, you must have taken some joy in some of the things that happened yesterday...

Mike Piazza went yard, but Barry "My Life is a Shambles" Bonds didn’t. Bonds, in fact, didn’t even get a free pass to first base. He did, however, get booed roundly, squarely and trapezoidally.

Oh, good! Evil Barry Bonds got booed! I'm glad you could enjoy that. Also, good geometry joke. And I'm not being hyperbolic! (Wink!)

Meanwhile, back in Oakland, the Yankees took advantage of the halftime break in the NCAA championship to slap Barry Zito around, scoring seven runs in the second inning, with four of them coming on a grand slam by Alex Rodriguez, who, this being April and not October, had no trouble coming through with a big hit.

It was closing in on 11 p.m. East Coast time by then, and the teams would make it all the way through the third inning before 11:15. They say suffering is part of being a fan, but this was ridiculous.

It was ridiculous that your team was firing on all cylinders in the first game of the season? Or was it ridiculous that your team caused Cy Young winner Barry Zito to have the shortest outing of his career? Good thing your reigning AL MVP only hit a grand slam and had 5 RBIs so you could still make a crack about him being a choker.

Not that I have anything against Yankees fans suffering. And I get paid to stay up late watching sports — that’s the story I tell my wife, anyway, and I’m sticking to it — so it doesn’t make any difference to me.

This paragraph confuses me. You are clearly a Yankees fan. Why do you not have anything against Yankee fans suffering? And yes, you do get paid to stay up late watching sports. Don't you? And if you don't, and this sportswriting gig is merely a smokescreen to deceive your estranged wife, what is it exactly that you get paid to do, Mike Celizic? Moreover, how do you explain the columns that get published in various media outlets? This sure is a great cover story you've got going! (I'm confused.)

Yes, they won in impressive fashion, but who saw it?

Umm, real Yankees fans? A's fans? Millions of people west of the Mississippi who care about baseball? Me?

Great day for baseball. Too bad, like everything else baseball gets its mitt on, someone had to mess it up.

Yeah, you're right. Baseball sure has screwed a lot of things up recently. That wild card thing was a huge disaster. Interleague play has just been one big money pit for the league. That WBC did an unmistakably terrible job of showing just how far baseball has spread around the world. And to add insult to injury, they scheduled the Yankees opener to start at 10 o'clock! Is there no justice?

This is why people hate Yankee fans. The team beats a consensus World Series contender 15-2 on the glorious first day of the season, and this guy structures his article around a whiny complaint that (gasp!) his team had to start the season on the west coast.

Mike Celizic writes regularly for NBCSports.com and is a freelance writer based in New York.

No shit.

posted by Murbles  # 6:22 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Sunday, April 02, 2006

 

Joe's Back!

4:49 PM, PST. ESPN Sunday Night Baseball.

"You know, Howard Bryant wrote a book called 'Juicing the Game.' Jose Canseco made a -- wrote a book about it. And I'm trying to figure out why this latest book is so much more important than anything else that we've already known about the steroid era. That's -- that bothers me right there."

1. Why does it bother you?
2. Do you really not know why this book, written by the two investigative journalists who have been covering the BALCO scandal and the leaked grand jury testimony for months and months, is more important than the ramblings of a guy who later appeared on a reality TV show about washed-up celebrities?
3. I'll answer for you. It is more important because it contains like a thousand pieces of until-now unseen evidence linking the greatest hitter of all time to a massive illegal steroid operation, including schedules of drug use, eyewitness accounts, and financial records.
4. Why do you insist on trying to protect Barry Bonds?

Labels: ,


posted by Anonymous  # 8:50 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Saturday, April 01, 2006

 

Why April Fool's Day Sucks

Because every sportswriter in the country thinks it's really funny to write a preposterous story as a prank and try to get people to believe it. We owe this scourge to George Plimpton's 1985 masterpiece "Curious Case of Sidd Finch," of course, which was beautifully written and just barely plausible enough and great. The modern-day versions are not.

To wit: this little gem by MSNBC's own Mikey C., who is worse at humor than he is at, like, everything else.

What kind of reaction is he expecting? "Wha..? Matt Leinart is going to forego the NFL draft to be a ballroom dancer?! What!?!?!?!? You've gotta be kidding me! This is insane! Hang on, let me keep reading...uh uh...right...well, this certainly seems like legitimate journalism...my God, what a huge story. How come no other journalistic outposts are reporting this? What a scoop!!!!!"

And then, to make matters worse, he does the ol' Plimpton-inspired "look at the first letter of every paragraph and you'll get the joke" thing at the end. As if even the most CNS-challenged moron hasn't figured out what the deal is by that point.

There's an old literary anecdote that T.S. Eliot gave Ezra Pound his first draft of "The Waste Land," which included long sequences of couplets. Pound returned the draft with almost every single couplet crossed out, and a note that basically said: "You can't write couplets unless they're better than Pope's. And these are not better than Pope's."

I include this anecdote, risking merciless ridicule in the comments section, because I would like officially to say to all sportswriters: You cannot do the stupid April Fool's Day Fake Article Thing unless it is better than "The Curious Case of Sidd Finch." Cool?

Flourish. Exeunt. Curtain.

Labels: ,


posted by Anonymous  # 8:31 PM
Comments:
Ken, you're preaching to other preachers.

Somewhere near the top of the long list of things FJM doesn't excel at is keeping its fellow posters in check.

So I wouldn't worry too much about being ridiculed here as long as you keep posting your cheap, less entertaining rip-offs of David Foster Wallace essays.
 
Tou-mother-effing-che, dak. Well played.
 
Also, I'm sick of sports meta-criticism that invokes T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, and Alexander Pope. It's like, how many more of these do I have to read?!
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Archives

04.05   05.05   06.05   07.05   08.05   09.05   10.05   11.05   12.05   01.06   02.06   03.06   04.06   05.06   06.06   07.06   08.06   09.06   10.06   11.06   12.06   01.07   02.07   03.07   04.07   05.07   06.07   07.07   08.07   09.07   10.07   11.07   12.07   01.08   02.08   03.08   04.08   05.08   06.08   07.08   08.08   09.08   10.08   11.08  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?