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.
Mike: (York, Pa): Hey joe, how did you enjoy the Little League World Series? I know I enjoyed listening to you. Have fun.
Joe Morgan: I thought it was great.
Ken Tremendous: Cool.
It was a fun event.
KT: Good. Glad you had fun.
It was the first time that I had ever been there.
KT: Huh.
The excitement and pagentry was great.
KT: So, you liked it.
I thought it was great.
KT: Right.
I hated to see one team lose...
KT: I'm bored.
... but it was great for them to get there.
KT: I am asleep.
Nick Chicago: So is Jermaine Dye finally the top canidate for AL MVP? .326-39-106 are all in the top 5 and with Big Papi out indefinitely the only competition I see is Jeter who is only leading in batting avg by 11 points. What are your thoughts?
Joe Morgan: When I was in Boston a couple of weeks ago, I said Derek Jeter was 1 and Big Papi was 1A and Dye was the other candidate. The other two guys are in heightened situations, but I think Dye is the most consistent producer from Day 1. Remember for a while, Big Papi was only hitting .250-.260. But Dye has been consistent, but he was overshadowed by Thome for a while.
Joe is actually pretty right on with his assessment here. However, he is only right because the Indians stink, and thus Indians are probably not really in the MVP discussion right now. Hafner is the best hitter in baseball, and I seriously doubt that his 15-run lead over Jeter in VORP is made up for by Jeter's mediocre defense. If there were any justice, Hafner gets it, and Jeter's second.
And before you write in and yell at me and call me a Jeter hater -- which I am on a personal level, but which does not impair my ability to evaluate him statistically, btw -- look at some of these stats and try to tell me Jeter is better than Hafner. I dare you. (Be sure to look at MLV. And if you're old-timey, check out SLG as well.)
Clay : (Savannah, GA): Joe, do you remember a season where 3 players had 30+ game hit streaks?
KT: Fifty bucks says Pete Rose gets a mention here.
Joe Morgan: No, I don't remember any time like that. I was on the time when Pete Rose had his 44-game streak and it was fabulous.
KT: You all owe me $50.
kevin cali: Who is the best man to call a baseball game, if you had to pick one? (It's a shame that baseball fan ouside of LA cannot listen to Vin S. everyday, he is the best.)
Joe Morgan: Well, I don't think you're alone. I think a lot of people think Vin's the best, maybe ever. He used to do national broadcasts on TV. But I think he's better on radio than on TV.
KT: Somewhere, Jon Miller is crying.
David (Chicago): Joe, How good do you think Josh Barfield can be? He has surpassed most expectations this year.
Joe Morgan: I haven't seen him play much. We've only done one Padre game. We're going to do one next week in San Francisco. But I've noticed that he has nice reactions and he looked like a good player. I agree, he has surpassed the expectations. I talked to him and he has a good attitude.
KT: Add the Padres to the list of, I'd say, 25 MLB teams that professional baseball-watcher Joe Morgan has not seen play enough to comment on their players. Unless you play for the Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, Mets, or White Sox, Joe will plead ignorance when asked about your rosters. To wit:
Brent (Bakersfield, CA): Do you think Barry Bonds can stay hot for the rest of the season if hegets an off day here and there? Will the Giants pitching hold up to make a run at the Wild Card?
Joe Morgan: Well, I live in the Bay area, so I get to see a lot and read a lot on the Giants.
KT: I live in the Bay Area, so I get to see a lot and read a lot on the Giants. I finally understand this problem. Joe, despite being a nationally-televised broadcaster, does not realize that we are living in an era where people in any part of the country -- nay, verily, the world! -- can access information about events that occur in other parts of the country or world. Someone needs to alert Joe immediately that he can learn about the Padres without physically being in San Diego, California.
Dan (NYC): Hey Joe, Late last night Hideki Matsui was cleared for BP. If he is able to come back by October, how do you see him fitting into the Yankees lineup? And how much scarier does this make the Yankee offense, considering many of the contenders pitching lack playoff experience?
KT: See if you can follow the möbius strip of knowledge that Joe drops here:
Joe Morgan: First and foremost a guy that sits out that long won't come back and make the same impact. He won't be the same Matsui that we saw last year at this time. We'll have to see what kind of production he can give them. I think right now, they're doing a good job with the players they have. Damon, Abreu are going to play every day. You're not going to get much better with Matsui, you will with Sheffield. I say that because Sheffield can dominate a game and carry you for days at a time.
KT: (1) A guy that sits out for a long time can't come back and dominate. (2) Matsui is one of those guys. (3) Plus, they have reserve outfielders who are doing a good job. (4) And yet, Gary Sheffield -- also injured for a long time, also an outfielder -- will make the team better, because (5) he can dominate.
mitch (mo val, ca): pedro or koufax in their primes?
Joe Morgan: That's a tough question, because you're looking at different eras.
KT: Yes, true. But, we have stats like ERA+ that adjust for those eras. Now, I'm not saying that these stats are perfect, but they give you some indication about who was better relative to the league and era in which he played. And at least by that measure, Pedro is better. Let's take each guy's two best years (arguably, in Koufax's case...)
Pedro: 1999: 245 ERA+, .923 WHIP, 313 K's in 213 IP 2000: 285 ERA+, .737 WHIP, 284 K's in 217 IP
Koufax: 1965: 160 ERA+, .855 WHIP, 382K's in 335 IP 1966: 190 ERA+, .985 WHIP, 317 K's in 323 IP
Now, Koufax did have a better WHIP year -- 1963, when he sliced through the NL at .875. And obviously he threw more innings, but Pedro's K/IP ratio is a lot better. If you go by all-time adjusted PRAA, Koufax's two best years are 64 (1966) and 59 (that amazing 1963 year), and Pedro's are 62 and 56. Gosh, it's darn close. But I would say that Pedro's 2000, with a ridiculous 285 ERA+ and .737 WHIP, is possibly the single best season relative to his league that anyone has ever had. Overall, it is almost a dead heat, all things considered. Let's see what kind of statistical analysis Joe comes up with to compare the two...
Koufax had charisma and power and people liked that. Pedro had some charisma too. I'd probably go with Koufax, but it's a very tough decision, because I like to see them both pitch.
KT: Huh. Okay. I didn't think to run their numbers through the Charisma-Power Index. Or the Liked-By-People Metric. Let me do that fictional and stupid thing, and let's see what we get:
Pedro (career): 288.7761489 glorpulons; VV6*3 Likeability Factor (33[13] power rake J-bones 7) Koufax (career): 288.7761489 glorpulons; VV6*3 Likeability Factor (33[13] power rake J-bones 7)
A dead heat!!!!!!!!! Unbelievable!!!!!!!!
Sean (Attleboro, Mass.): As a fmr. player, how do you feel about Carl Pavano holding back telling the Yankess about the injury sustained in his car accident?
Joe Morgan: My take is that he was wrong for not telling them. But I understand why he did it, because he was already injured and he didn't want to add more fuel to the fact that he hasn't been able to perform in New York. He was still wrong, you have to stand up and tell them and he didn't do that.
KT: Ladies and gentlemen, the world's only Carl Pavano Apologist.
Mike (Lansdale,PA): I think the Little League World Series is great for the kids, but they need to get the camera's and the mic's out of the kids faces and the dugouts! What do you think?
Joe Morgan: I'll say that I agree with you. I don't want to get any deeper than that, because I work for the people that put the cameras and microphones there.
KT: Ladies and gentlemen, the World's Greatest Company Man!
Chris (St Louis): What should the Cardinals do with Mulder?
Joe Morgan: That's a very good question and it's also a very difficult question for me, because I'm not there to see how he's throwing and his mental state.
KT: Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, will someone please get Joe a St. Louis newspaper so he can evaluate these players?! How do you expect him to talk about the St. Louis Cardinals?! He's in Pennsylvania for God's sake! What, is he supposed to like, get a pair of super binoculars so he can see all the way to St. Louis?! You are asking too much of this poor man!!!!
But I do know this that Tony La Russa will make the right decision.
KT: Oh. Never mind. It won't matter. He's an idiot.
Dave (Florida): Todays pitchers are supposed to be stronger than pitchers 25-30 years ago, but in your day they threw 20-25 complete games a year. Now a days pitchers cant even get into double digits, why did that change?
Joe Morgan: Well, it changed because we started babying pitchers. By that I mean that we didn't force them to finish what they started. Things are more specialized. Gibson, Koufax went out there to win. Now I see headlines where a guy goes five and gets the win.
KT: You see headlines? You have never seen this happen in person? I used to joke about this, but I seriously doubt if Joe watches a single baseball game other than the ones he broadcasts.
Mike (Milwaukee): Joe, As a hall of fame 2nd baseman I was wondering your thoughts on Rickie Weeks and his future in the League?
Joe Morgan: I haven't had much of a chance to check him out, but I have heard some good things.
KT: He has HEARD SOME GOOD THINGS about Rickie Weeks. This is getting serious. He has definitely never watched a baseball game other than the ones he has broadcast. Is anyone else reading this?!
But I like to see a player myself before I say what he's going to do.
KT: Don't yell at the chatters for asking you your opinions on players, you dolt. You are supposed to know things about players. Don't you dare get snippy and say that you like to see people before you give an opinion. WE HAVE ALL SEEN THE PLAYERS. WE WATCH BASEBALL GAMES. YOU SHOULD BE WATCHING BASEBALL GAMES TOO, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BASEBALL ANNOUNCER.
Justin FJM (Denville, NJ): Hi Joe - What do you think is the most important aspect of being a leadoff hitter? Steals? On-base percentage? Something else?
KT: A special shout-out to loyal reader Justin, who managed to work FJM into the text of a JoeChat. Nicely done. Let me just add a word of caution here, though -- and this is not directed at Justin, per se -- that we do not want to get into a situation where loyal FJM readers start like disrupting the chats or anything with "Stern Rules"-style interruptions. It will only be fun for us to keep reading and dissecting these things if they are allowed to run unabated. Asking questions is fine -- as I did a while back, perhaps recklessly -- and little hidden shout-outs are much appreciated. But let's not go all crazy now that Justin has broken the ice. Deal? Awesome. Now, to the answer:
Joe Morgan: I think the most important thing is having a leadoff hitters mentality.
KT: Or OBP.
By that, I mean is at the start of the game, taking some pitches so your teammates can see how the guy is throwing. You need that mentality.
KT: I'd call that a "skill," but okay.
Rickey Henderson was perfect for that. The second part is making things happen from that position. Rickey made things happen when he was on base, Reyes does too. Then, it's getting on base.
So, in order of importance, it goes: (1) Having a mentality. (2) Doing things when you're on base. (3) Getting on base. Who else besides ol' Kenny T. sees a problem with the order of (2) and (3)?
Joe Morgan: I enjoyed the questions this week and I look forward to talking to you next Tuesday.
One of our annoyingly astute readers, Adam, wrote in with this annoyingly correct comment:
"Hafner is the best hitter in baseball, and I seriously doubt that his 15-run lead over Jeter in VORP is made up for by Jeter's mediocre defense. If there were any justice, Hafner gets it, and Jeter's second."
You are incorrect here. Players who play in the field are usually judged by their defense above the average -- BP calls this fielding runs above average. But if you don't play defense, you don't even get to accumulate ANY defensive runs. That is, you're not an "average" defender because you don't play; you're below replacement level because you don't play. Hafner has -1 fielding runs above replacement, while Jeter doesn't really have to be particularly good to gain those 15 runs back -- he could play a below-average defense, but he's still accumulating defense above replacement level (since replacement level is horrible defense). In this instance, Jeter is actually good defensively -- 25 runs above replacement so far this year. That gives him a 26-run advantage in defense over Hafner, more than enough to make up for the hitting.
He is absolutely right. I don't know exactly what happened, but I believe that when I checked BP's DT Card for Jeter, I saw his FRAA of 1 and thought I was looking at FRAR -- not crazy, since he had a FRAR of zero in 119 games in 2003. (The site has adjusted Jeter's totals after yesterday -- his FRAA is now -1, adjusted for all-time. Which reminds me -- how flukey is that 17 he put up last year? What the hell is that? It makes me very suspicious of the whole metric, that he can be solidly negative his entire career and then one year suddenly add a win and a half through defense?! My guess is, it was Wang's power sinker forcing easy grounder after easy grounder to be tapped right to him. But I digress.)
Anyway, Adam is totally right, although Hafner is at 10.0 WARP3 and Jeter at 10.1, so even with a slightly negative defensive component, Hafner is almost exactly as valuable as Jeter. By the end of the year, I expect Hafner to pass him.
Some people wrote in to add Carlos Guillen's name into the mix, though Jeter is way ahead in WARP3, 10.1 to like 7.3 or something. Jeter also has a higher EqA, .315 to .307. Jeter's better. And you know how much it pains me to say that. Although, I would like to amend my comment about Hafner getting it "if there were any justice," and say that the catcher in Minnesota, with the .927 OPS and 9.4 WARP3 and .321 EqA is a better choice than Jeter. I was riled up about Joe and laid my eggs in the Hafner backet, partly because he is fast becoming one of the truly great hitters of all time, and no one is paying attention. But for MVP, assuming the Twinkies make the playoffs, I would go Mauer 1 and Jeter 1A.
Got a bunch of very thoughtful comments about the Pedro-Koufax section, including this one from Matthew, which has a good (I believe) discussion of what exactly IP means in the comparison:
I think Koufax is better, although not by much. If someone says it's a dead heat, I don't really have a problem with that. But anyway...
Koufax threw 320+ innings in his last 2 seasons. Other pitchers threw a lot more then, too, but only 3 threw more than 300 innings in those 2 years.
The ERA+ argument with Pedro is not really helpful, either.
The problem is that you can say that Pedro did a 250 ERA+ or whatever in 210 innings, but Koufax did that, too. Plus he did another 110 innings of 110 ERA+, which adds extra value.
Pedro's best ERA+ was 285 in 217 innings.
Sandy Koufax's best ERA+ was 190 (in 323 innings).
Now a 285 ERA+ in 1966 context would equate to a 1.15 ERA.
And Koufax did exactly that, for 217 innings! For the other 106 innings he pitched that year, he was merely above average -- 2.89 ERA (league ERA, 3.28).
It may seem like a too quick-and-dirty way of analysis, but Koufax was as valuable as Pedro in 1999-200 PLUS 100 innings of a good reliever or an Andy Pettitte-level pitcher.
Another way to think of it is this: Would it be better for Pedro to miss the first two months of the season because he is not 100 percent and you KNOW he'd have a 285 ERA+ for 217 innings that year, or would it be better to have him pitch at less than 100 percent, but still effectively (113 ERA+) for two months, and THEN have exactly the same last four months (285 ERA+ for 217 innings)?
Plus, there are twice as many sh*tty pitchers making a living in the 1990s/2000s, thereby widening the gap between best and worse, separating the good pitchers even more from the floor.
Do you really think it would be more likely that Koufax could put up mind-bending ratios-in-comparison to the league, when the league comprises 50 pitchers like Julian Tavarez accumulating 20 percent of the innings, while squeezing by at 200 innings a year; or that Pedro could stretch out and dominate a league where he'd have to face Juan Marichal and Bob Gibson 10 times a year and pitch 25 complete games?
But back to the ERA+ argument -- I don't think you can just look at ERA+ and say, ok, Pedro's is higher, he's better (which, by the way, I am NOT accusing you of doing). And this is because it's different that OPS+ in that there is a floor ( i.e., 0.00 era) which is physiologically impossible to attain. And so when Pedro has a "better" ERA+ than Koufax, it's not necessarily because he's better. Because of the floor, the lower your era, the harder it is to increase your ERA+.
Expounding, it's important to note that the ERA floor, while theoretically 0.00, just can't be expected to be zero. Guys play poor defense that isn't charged an error. Vlad takes a ball about to hit the ground and slams a solo shot. Etc. and so on. Bob Gibson's 1.12 doesn't match Pedro's best seasons (as far as ERA+). How much lower could Gibson really be expected to go? I'm sure with a good break or two, maybe it's .99 or something, but he was already rubbing against the floor.
That's the problem.
To me, I guess it comes down to the fact that Koufax could give you a Pedro-like performance for 2/3 of his season and then a pretty darn good performance for an extra 100 innings. The postseason favors Koufax as well. The arguments for Pedro, however, are that he pitched in tougher ballparks, off a lower mound, and faced the DH for most of his career (and certainly in his prime). So yeah, calling it a dead heat is fine, but I put a lot of value in IP, so I give the edge to Koufax.
Why is it that QB Rating has become accepted as a mainstream statistic, while similarly complicated metrics like EqA have almost no place in parlance even among baseball fans and journalists?
Look at the formula for QB Rating. It's a fucking nightmare. Yet NFL fans -- NFL fans! -- are smart enough to realize that regardless of how hard it is to compute, it gives us a basic overall understanding of how good a quarterback is. It may not be perfect, but it's better than just looking at a QB's, say, completion percentage.
Sure. EqA is also tough to compute (though I would argue actually easier than QB rating). But it's a very useful statistic. So why can't baseball fans latch onto it a similar way?
Say it with me: "Oh, okay. It's a weird equation, but at least now I have a pretty good sense of how good this particular position player is at hitting. .260 is average, .300 is really good, and .350 is like top of the league shit. This is like QB rating only better because it's about baseball and baseball is better because it's untimed and beautiful and doesn't feature guys hitting each other super hard and people like John Updike write about it more and stuff!"
Not a big deal, certainly, but didn't Jim Leyland win a World Series Championship in 1997?
Let me rephrase that. Jim Leyland won the World Series as a manager in 1997 for the Florida Marlins. Why is FoxSports.com trying to convince me that he has some sort of Championship monkey on his back?
There was an article a few days ago in a journal called the Boston Metro. It's not available online, except on page 20 of this digitally unwieldy pdf file. A few different readers pointed us to this one, so a specail FJM thanks to Patrick D., Bart L., and Fake G.
The author, Bob Halloran, not only writes for the Metro, but covers sports on-air for WCVB. My Dad once told me that the "V" is the roman numeral for "5," as in Channel Five Boston. Thanks Dad. Anyway, Halloran also used to work for ESPN. Go get 'em, Bob.
Say good-bye to “Moneyball.” We didn’t need on-base percentage (OBP) or on base plus slugging (OPS) to tell us that Ted Williams and Babe Ruth were great hitters.
You guys remember “Moneyball,” right? The book by Michael Lewis, where he chronicles the fight to prove that Babe Ruth and Ted Williams were great hitters by using only two statistics: OBP and OPS?
If you haven’t read it yet, you should really check it out. You’ll just fall in love with the main character, William Beane. For decades, not one human being could prove that either Ruth or Williams were great at baseball. Call it the baseball equivalent of Fermat’s Last Theorem. You’ll never guess how Beane finally proves his case – or maybe you already have! That’s right, he invents two new statistics called OBP and OPS. It’s like Andrew Wiles or that Beautiful Mind guy all over again.
Well, anyway, this Halloran dude doesn't seem to think very much of Beane’s efforts. Apparently – and I don’t know where people come up with this sort of thing – he thinks we could’ve known that Ruth and Williams were great without OBP or OPS.
I don’t know who to believe anymore!
Baseball remains a game of scoring runs and preventing runs. The best hitters are the ones who either score the runs or drive them in. It’s that simple.
It’s way more complicated than that. But let’s try to keep it relatively simple anyway. In general, yeah, the best players are usually around the top of the league in runs and / or RsBI. Sometimes they’re not. But sometimes great hitters don’t get the chance to score a lot of runs, or drive a lot of them in, for a number of reasons. Here are some of those reasons:
1) They hit in front of players who are bad 2) They hit behind players who are bad 3) They have a manager who insists on hitting them in, say, the 7 spot in the order because the manager thinks the player is “too young” or “not a great contact hitter” or some other bullshit 4) The majority of their at bats come in a “pitcher friendly” ballpark
Of course, the converse is also true. Players often have their run or RBI totals “inflated” because, say, they bat at the top of a tremendous line-up, or they bat behind Barry Bonds, or whatever. (There’s a great example, for those who own the 2001 Bill James H.B.A., of a hypothetical season in which Gino Cimoli drives in 151 runs batting behind Babe Ruth. It’s a bit of a cheat in this case because they’re walking Ruth every time, but you get the point. Fellow baseball nerds willing to spend inordinate percentages of disposable income on giant books can turn to page 785.)
Yes, individual performance influences Runs and Runs Batted In to a great degree. Unfortunately, they’re also influenced by the team you play for and the line-up you hit in. And that’s why they’re bad to use when evaluating individuals. Am I wrong in thinking that this is pretty basic stuff? Bob Halloran is paid by multiple news outlets to cover baseball. Do any of them care that he doesn’t get this?
[silence….a night watchmen at WCVB takes a slow sip of coffee…somewhere in the Boston Metro offices an old man empties a garbage basket into a larger garbage basket…Bob Halloran sleeps peacefully in his beautiful New England colonial home in Medfield or Concord or Westerham (pronounced “Wesham”) or North Southborough] Batting average, home runs and RBI are the only categories needed to tell us who the best hitters are in the game. All the other stats created by disciples of “Moneyball” and fantasy league geeks are redundant, superfluous and redundant.
I feel like I’ve seen that joke on a t-shirt before.
I’m going to give Halloran the benefit of the doubt here, and try to deduce that the point he’s making is that the 3 “Holy Trinity” stats of the Old Guard – BA, HR, RBI – at least tell you different aspects of a player’s abilities.
To say that newer statistics don’t do the same only makes sense when the only "new" stats you understand are OBP and OPS. Certainly EqA gives us a different story than say, P/PA. (I know, not exactly a “new” stat, but one that’s become a little more valued in recent years.) Or K/BB vs. WHIP – 2 “geeky” or “fantasy” stats which are simple enough that even Halloran should be able to understand them.
If you want three stats to determine how good a position player is, well, fuck, I’ll take a player's WARP3, Games Played, and his Middle Name over Batting Average, HR and RsBI.
While it’s true that heading into yesterday’s action, 18 of the top 30 in batting average are not among the top 30 in-base percentage. The hitters that replace those 18 include Travis Hafner, Jim Thome, Jason Giambi, Ryan Howard and David Ortiz. With sluggers like them, it’s not their on-base percentage that jumps out at you. It’s their run production. Those five guys are in top eight in homers and the top 13 in RBI. To tell me they’re also in the top nine in OPS and top 11 in slugging is just overkill.
Bob. You see, everyone except you understands that OPS is made up of on-base percentage and slugging percentage. We get that. No one’s forcing you to look at OBP, SLG, and OPS. That’s not overkill, that’s wasting your time. Nobody does that. Stop doing that.
Also, am I wrong here or is he disproving his whole case in second sentence by giving us this list of amazing hitters who excel at getting on base but not at BA?
The “Moneyball” theory was really created to find productive players at a cheaper price. The long-ball hitters make big bucks. So, small market teams need to find productive players who lack the flash, less obvious players like Kevin Youkilis, Scott Hatteberg or Nick Johnson. But “Moneyball” has the potential to backfire, because it can be misleading. Heading into yesterday, Youkilis ranks 23rd in on-base percentage. But the reason he’s a bargain at $350,000 this year is because he’s 16th in runs scored.
There are 2 reasons which explain 99% of why Kevin Youkilis is 16th in runs scored, in my opinion. 1) He gets on base at the 23rd best clip in the league. 2) He’s spent most of the year hitting at the top of the line-up featuring two historically ridiculous batters in the 3 and 4 spot.
Hatteberg is 13th in OBP, but he’s only scored 51 runs and driven in 38. Sometimes, a walk is not as good as a hit.
Right. He also has 150 fewer plate appearances than Kevin Youkilis. True: a walk is very often not as good as a hit. This has very little to do with why Scott Hatteberg has only 51 runs.
It’s true that you have to be on base in order to score – unless you’re blasting home runs – but among the leaders in runs scored – Chase Utley, Jose Reyes, Grady Sizemore, Jimmy Rollins and Alfonso Soriano – only Utley (at 28th) ranks in the top 40 in OBP. What they lack in OBP, they more than make up for in SPEED.
Here are the ranks of those same players in total number of Plate Appearances in all of baseball:
Chase Utley (11) Jose Reyes (17) Grady Sizemore (4) Jimmy Rollins (5) Alfonso Soriano (7)
I’d call that a lurking variable.
As far as "SPEED" goes -- by the way, really? All caps on that one? -- sure, some of these guys are fast. But then again, Carlos Lee has more steals than Chase Utley. Sizemore has 18 – these aren’t exactly Roadrunners. They’re good hitters (one in particular is amazing this year) who hit at the top of the line-up.
Do you like Michael Young as a hitter?
I like him. I don’t love him. He’s not having what I’d consider an outstanding year. Do you?
He led the league in average and hits last year. He’s 85th in OBP right now.
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to tell you. He’s having a pretty mediocre year. Did you know that his EqA this year is only .276? Pretty pedestrian. I’m sorry – what was your point?
If you’re trying to figure out if a guy is a good hitter or not, just look to see how often he’s crossing home plate and how often he’s driving someone else across. That’s what’s money.
“And by ‘money,’ I mean largely dependent on the performance of every other hitter on your team who is not the hitter in question.”
So, we're in the process of enrolling in Google's Ad Sense program, which means, yes, there will be advertisements on the site. They should fit in pretty seamlessly and hopefully won't get in the way of your favorite HatGuy criticisms, or ramblings about Jason Bay's EqA.
Guys, come on. Why? Well, mostly to pay for the small costs of running the site, the domain name (firejoemorgan.com), and all the e-mail accounts. These things add up over time and, listen, we're not going to get rich off this.
Now that you're going to see some income, shouldn't you pay someone to design a better looking site? Nah, I'm good.
But dak, don't you subscribe to Adbusters and everything? Yes, I do. Believe me, I have mixed feelings about the situation. But we hope you'll visit our sponsors and continue to support us.
Hey, this isn't totally relevant, but since we're doing this whole Q and A thing...I keep e-mailing you guys and I never get a response. What in Robinson Cano's codpiece is up with that? Yeah. I'm sorry -- we're not the best at getting back to people. We read every e-mail though and often use suggestions from readers. I will say one thing to keep in mind: we're just not going to publish anything unless we can verify that it was said or written verbatim. What that means is, we'll totally read your account of what that Mariners' color guy said about Jamie Moyer's incredible poise or whatever, and we'll probably enjoy it, but we're not going to post any paraphrasing e-mailed to us.
Also one of the Angels announcers just described Coco Crisp as having a "calm, confident swagger." At the time Crisp was standing on first base following a foul ball.
Joe Morgan, in the 8th inning of tonight's game, was talking about how the way to get out Yankee hitters is by pitching them inside. Then Papelbon struck out Cano, and Joe said:
"[K zone] shows that the ball was over the middle of the plate, but that was inside."
Hmmm.
Earlier, he also called Cano, and I quote, "One of the best fastball hitters in the league."
In the bottom of the 6th, Joe was talking about how, with the emphasis on home runs and such, it was harder for middle infielders to win the MVP award, for their on-field leadership, etc. To prove his point, he listed the last 5 AL MVP winners, two of which were middle infielders at the time (ARod and Tejeda).
I honestly don't. Bill Plaschke has absolutely outdone himself. I mean, for God's sake, the article is called
There's Trust in His Eyes
And it is pure (read: terrible) poetry.
Around the hotel table sat Dodgers executives discussing trades.
In the corner sat the old scout watching television.
Around the hotel table they were talking about dumping Milton Bradley and wondering whom they should demand from the Oakland A's in return.
In the corner sat the old scout who has never worked with radar gun, computer or even stopwatch.
Just like good scouts do. Good scouts never use scouting tools. They trust their goddamn eyes, and their guts, and their spleens. Why?
Because Old Hoss Radbourn was not discovered with a computer, dargbloomit! He was discovered because 130 year-old Petey "Garbageface" Krunkston, who had been a rookie league manager for 142 years and had seen a goddamn ballgame or two in his day, woke up one morning with a wart shaped like a flame on his left arm, and he turned to his wife of 186 years Edna Mae and he said, "The flame mole's back, darlin.' I's a gone and what been done and moseyed to the ballpark -- there's sure to be a great future prospect a-lurkin' about, iffin' the flame mole done appeared-a-mafied on m'arm!" And he did go down there t' ol' Brasston Park, and sure 'nuff, a 4 year-old Hoss Radbourn was thar, an' he was a-throwin' and a-hittin somethin' fierce! And bloogburrmit if Garbageface didn't sign that 4 year-old right then and there! And he became a Hall-of-Famer!!!!!
Around the hotel room table, someone mentioned an unknown double-A outfielder named Andre Ethier.
In the corner, the old scout jumped.
Is Plaschke the most overblown prose artiste in the business, or what? In the corner...around the hotel table...in the corner... I swear, I think Plaschke believes he is the walking embodiment of James Earl Jones's character in "Field of Dreams." People will come, Bill. People will read. People will vomit.
"Wait a minute!" shouted Al LaMacchia. "I know Andre Ethier!"
In a gait slowed by years of climbing bleachers, LaMacchia walked over from the television to the table.
With Dodgers executives staring at him in amazement, the old scout began to sell.
Were they really staring at him "in amazement?" Were you there, Plaschke? I find it hard to believe that in an organizational meeting to discuss prospects the team might want to acquire, that when a scout started talking about a AA prospect, the rest of the organization "stared at him in amazement."
GM: We need some good minor leaguers.
Scout: Hey! I know some minor leaguers!
GM: (falls off chair in dismay) Ga-ga-ga-ga-ga goink!!! This is our lucky day!!!!!!!
He was on the phone, and it sounded as if he was crying.
"You're writing something about an old fella like me?" said Al LaMacchia.
He's 85, and he's been scouting for 51 years, and he can't believe anybody still cares.
I tell him I am writing the story because the Dodgers still care.
For the first time since Fred Claire was their last world championship general manager, the Dodgers are listening to their older scouts again.
They are reading reports scrawled in aging penmanship. They are evaluating players based on dusted-off instincts.
Ned Colletti's new administration is still using computers, but they also value guys who have no idea how to turn one on.
"I trust my eyes," LaMacchia said. "Been good enough so far."
Colletti trusted LaMacchia's recommendation at last year's winter meetings in Dallas, and the Dodgers are in first place in August, and that is no coincidence.
I'm sorry. I can't stop snortling derisively. Hang on. ... Okay. There.
The Dodgers are 64-57. They have the worst record of any first-place team. Let's not go bragging about any aspect of their brilliant system just yet. A month ago they lost like 40 games in a row, and in most other divisions they'd be basically nowheresville.
"You cannot microwave experience," Colletti said. "The only way to get it is to live it. I want guys who have lived it."
Colletti has hired two scouts/advisors since joining the Dodgers last winter in moves typical of him but totally uncharacteristic of any other CEO anywhere.
Both of the new guys were over 70.
Get ready. Here's my favorite part.
The scout, Phil Rizzo, lives in Chicago and does nothing but attend Cubs and White Sox games.
"The guy who watched a bunch of Maddux starts and filed the reports on him?" Colletti asked. "That was him."
I am going to hit return ten times, leaving a wide open white space on this blog, so we can all reflect on how unbelievably stupid that is. Ready? Begin reflecting. Then read the rest of this post, because Plaschke has a lot more to say.
You are telling me that you needed to hire someone to tell you that Greg Maddux might be a good pitcher? I mean, the guy is old, but...he's Greg Maddux. You play in Dodger Stadium, which is pretty friendly to pitchers, generally. He's Greg Maddux. You needed a 70 year-old scout, with all of his accumulated baseball knowledge, to tell you that Greg Maddux might help your team? He's Greg Maddux.
The advisor is Bill Lajoie, a longtime baseball executive who helped engineer the trade with one of his former employers, Atlanta, for Wilson Betemit.
Everyone in the universe knew Betemit was a good young player. He was a 25 year-old SS with a .784 OPS. What are you saying?
"Scouts are my lifeblood, they see players, they know players, they can tell you things that you can't get anywhere else,"' said Colletti.
LaMacchia knew Ethier.
It required thousands of miles on his old Ford, and pages of scribbling in his little black date book.
It required a brief break for congestive heart failure — "He told me it was just a little thing, he'd be back in a week" said Colletti — and it took him all of last summer.
Okay.
I just typed "Andre Ethier" into Google. The first hit I got was from thebaseballcube.com. I clicked on it, and I learned:
in 2005, for the Midland, TX Oakland A's AA team, Andre Ethier:
I also learned that at ASU, a big-time program, Ethier crushed the ball, putting up a 1.061 OPS with a 52/30 BB/K ratio, and was a 2-time Pac-10 All-Star OF.
I also learned that in 2005 he was the MVP of the Texas League, as well as the Oakland A's Minor League Player of the Fucking Year (emphasis and cussing mine).
You're telling me it took a million miles of driving and a heart attack and 368 years of baseball experience to tell that the 2005 OAKLAND A'S MINOR LEAGUE PLAYER OF THE FUCKING YEAR might be a guy who might interest you? Whatever, man. I learned it in twelve seconds with a computer.
My leg does itch a little though -- I think I have dry skin. Does that medical ailment mean my opinion counts more?
But LaMacchia made it his business to know Ethier.
"I guess that's what I do," he said. "I try to know players."
Most scouts do. Even the ones who use technology.
Working as a national scout from his home in San Antonio, where he lives with his wife of 62 years, Annie, LaMacchia would watch Ethier as he played for Oakland's double-A Midland team.
He saw him play in San Antonio, and Corpus Christi, and Frisco. He saw him taking early batting practice on 100-degree days, and running out ground balls at the end of blowout losses.
He didn't need a stopwatch to judge his hustle. He didn't need a computer to feel his swing. And when LaMacchia ever needs a radar gun reading, well, he just asks one of the scouts sitting next to him.
Luckily, one of the scouts has a radar gun. Because otherwise, LaMacchia would have no idea how fast the guy's throwing.
"The younger fellas look at me like I'm strange," he said. "But it's all in my heart and my head."
In Ethier, he saw so much potential, one day he couldn't help himself.
He walked down to the dugout railing and started giving him instructions.
Said LaMacchia: "I wanted to help the young kid, tell him not to try to pull everything, tell him to take what they gave him."
Said Ethier: "I thought he was just some crazy old man yelling at me from the stands."
I don't blame you, Andre.
A couple of old-timers quickly set the kid straight.
LaMacchia was a right-handed pitcher who won a couple of big-league games for St. Louis and Washington in the mid-1940s then became a legendary talent evaluator.
He played the game! Hey Joe Morgan -- rest easy, man, this guy played the game! You can listen to his opinions. They are valid!
I can't help it anymore. The rest of my comments will be in super-angry all-caps.
...When Ethier's name came up at the winter meetings, LaMacchia perked up as if they were talking about his son.
Logan White, the Dodgers scouting director, also had knowledge of Ethier. But it was LaMacchia's enthusiasm and information that sealed the deal.
"No question, I give Al full credit for this one," said Colletti. "He knew the guy. He loved the guy. We listened to him."
Colletti immediately asked the A's for Ethier. And, initially, he was turned down.
BECAUSE HE WAS THEIR 2005 MINOR LEAGUE PLAYER OF THE YEAR. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I CAN EMPHASIZE THIS.
"But I kept thinking about what Al said, and I kept asking," Colletti said.
DID YOU KEEP THINKING ABOUT HOW HE WAS THEIR 2005 MINOR LEAGUE PLAYER OF THE YEAR?
When the A's wanted the Dodgers to add infielder Antonio Perez to the trade, LaMacchia again pushed Ethier, telling Colletti that the kid had a chance to be better than Bradley or Perez.
"The A's finally gave in, and we got what we wanted," said Colletti.
Did they ever. While the A's received two serviceable players who have probably reached their peak, the Dodgers received a possible rookie of the year.
A PREDICTION ONE MIGHT HAVE ARRIVED AT, KNOWING HIS MINOR LEAGUE STATS, AS WELL AS HIS FIRST-PLACE FINISH IN THE RACE TO BE THE OAKLAND A'S 2005 MINOR LEAGUE PLAYER OF THE YEAR.
Before Tuesday, Ethier led all National League rookies in batting average (.333), on-base percentage (.390) and slugging percentage (.557).
He also has an old buddy who still occasionally calls him on the cellphone and reminds him to take what they give him.
From his San Antonio home this week, LaMacchia sighed.
"I am so grateful somebody still listens to me," he said.
From the Dodgers' clubhouse Tuesday, Ethier smiled.
"Everyone thinks they do all these analyses before they make a trade, but, in the end, I'm a Dodger because of that crazy old man," he said. "I can't thank him enough."
YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OAKLAND A IF HE HADN'T TRADED FOR YOU, AND YOUR TEAM WOULD HAVE A BETTER RECORD.
Once and for all:
I don't think -- NO ONE THINKS -- that scouts are worthless. EVERYONE who watches baseball and knows about baseball knows the value of scouting. It has value. Okay? It has value. It can tell you things about a player's constitution, and hustle, and all that stuff, which is definitely important.
But what has as much, if not more, value -- in nearly every single fucking possible scenario -- is the analysis of statistical information.
If you seek to invalidate the use of statistical analysis...if you denigrate it, mock it, or look down your nose at it...if you write terrible mock-poetry articles declaring the objective superiority of gut instinct and old-fashioned "stare tests" over numbers-based research...then you are a far bigger snob, a far bigger ignoramus, and a far more provincial person than those whom you target with tripe like this.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to drive 1600 miles on a pack mule to St. Louis so I can give Albert Pujols a little look-see. Want to be able to speak up tomorrow when the Boss Man asks me if we should try to trade for 'im.
1. Very special thanks to reader Bryan for the tip. 2. The title of this post, if you're curious, refers to Plaschke's article, and not my feelings about my own writing. 3. My feelings abot my own writing are nearly always: "...eh."
I only highlighted MLVr because that's the biggest disparity (among players with a min. 300 ABs, he ranks 15th in the majors), and there's nothing at which he has equally underperformed that balances it out somewhat. At his current rate, he would end up with a VORP of roughly 39-40. Something else, too, is that his BABIP is .396.
A BABIP of .396 is nuts. The guy is getting a little bit lucky, I'd say. He seems like a good player, but he will probably come back down to earth a bit. That's one point. The other point is that if PECOTA had him projected for a .290 EqA, an .848 OPS, and a 5.0 WARP, how the hell did no one else in the Dodgers' organization know about him?
Finally, our friend the Beautiful Cynic writes:
The entire crux of his argument relies on his statement early on that "Around the hotel room table, someone mentioned an unknown double-A outfielder named Andre Ethier." How "unknown" could Andre Ethier have been if I'd read about him every two weeks in Baseball America?
Baseball is unlike any other professional sport. A majority of the players never went to college and were tossed into a business at the age of 17 or 18 and forced to sink or swim -- socially, that is. I'm telling you right now, major league baseball is a haven for social misfits. Guys who just don't get it.
Not Todd Jones. I've never met a more humble, genuine pro athlete. A true good guy.
I'm happy that Todd Jones is nice. That makes me happy. I like nice people. Why do you bring this up, Matt?
Why do I bring this up?
Yes. Why do you bring this up?
Because the other day I was watching baseball highlights and saw Jones mow down yet another team in another comeback situation. He leads the majors in saves, and plays for the team (Detroit) with the best record in baseball -- and the best story in baseball.
Vance Wilson catches for them sometimes. MVP?
Although, to be fair, one of the stated criteria for Cy Young consideration is that the team on which the potential candidate plays must have a Minimum Good Story Quotient (MGSQ) of at least 40.0. The Tigers are an outrageous 88.6 right now, so...point Jones! (The team with the Lowest Good Story Quotient Index? Surprisingly, it's the Giants, at a pathetic 26.3. Must be all the Bonds stuff. Or it could be that I made all this up, and there is no such thing.)
There's still a month and a half to go in the regular season, but if Jones continues to lead the league in saves -- and considering there is [sic] all of three pitchers with an ERA under 3.00 in both leagues -- give him the Cy Young Award.
Anyone else want to handle this? No? It's all me? Okay.
Ahem.
That might be the stupidest idea I have ever heard, in re: who should receive a major award.
Todd Jones:
45.2 IP 52 H 25 ER 21 Ks 4.93 ERA 4.81 DERA (so it isn't flukey)
Do you know where Todd Jones ranks in VORP for pitchers in MLB?
261st.
Daniel Cabrera of the Orioles is 260th. Kirk Saarloos of Oakland is 243rd. Elmer Dessens of Kansas City is 264th.
Granted, Jones is a reliever, but he is incredibly mediocre. The idea that saves, perhaps the most arbitrary stat in the universe, would alone make the guy a viable Cy Young candidate...it's too stupid to even joke about. But if you do want to talk saves, idiotically, here's KRod, who has 30 saves -- or one less than Jonesy:
48 IP 35 H 12 ER 62 Ks 2.25 ERA 2.58 DERA 1.06 WHIP .201 BAA
What is even a remotely possible argument for Jones over KRod? Maybe KRod isn't nice enough.
I also love the insane -- insane -- assertion that an ERA under 3.00 is vital, somehow, for Cy consideration. Roy Halladay and Johan Santana do not have ERAs under 3.00. I would still like them to play for my team, please. Plus, if ERA is so great, how about your boy Jonesy and his sub-par but Very Nice Guyish 4.93? (I know he's a closer, so one bad inning can affect him more, but come on.)
I don't care about Francisco Liriano or Jones' teammate Justin Verlander. Or the argument that relievers don't do enough (compared to starters) to earn the award. Ask the Yankees how important a reliever is.
What does it mean when your left eye goes blurry and you get a tension headache? Is that a migraine or a stroke? Because that's what's happening to ol' Ken right about now.
Liriano is injured, perhaps seriously, and that is going to kill his chances for the Cy. Amazingly, he's still 3rd in VORP in the AL, even though he hasn't pitched in a while. But Verlander...Verlander is so much more important to the Tigers it's not even funny. He's 4th in VORP.
And if you think what Jones is doing is anywhere close to what Mariano Rivera has done in any of the past 11 years, I will call the cops. Seriously. I will have to call the cops on you. Because you are dangerous.
It's too overwhelming to try to point out why Hayes "not caring" about these arguments is not justification for Jones to win the Cy Young Award. Instead, here are some pitchers who, by any measure, are better candidates, and suffice to say each of their claims to the award is backed by irrefutable evidence that even in the partially subjective world of award-giving could simply not be, well, refuted.
Halladay J. Santana E. Santana KRod Verlander Contreras Schilling Rivera Mussina Wang Haren Bonderman Zito Lackey Papelbon Kazmir Sabathia
Now, I don't think all of these guys are actually good choices for the award, but they are all way way way better than Todd Jones. And even if we do that thing where you limit the candidates to teams who are real contenders, that still leaves at least a dozen of those guys.
Is universally regarded as a terrifying train wreck of a closer by Detroit fans.
Is such a humble, genuine good guy that he once declared that if he found out a teammate was gay, he'd refuse to play with him.
Writes for the Sporting News. Why, that's where the article proclaiming him the deserving Cy Young was published! It's a small, wacky world, Ken Tremendous.
This isn't exactly statistical analysis, but for those of you who are interested, here's what Todd Jones -- who is such a good, good, nice, swell guy -- said about gay MLBers:
"I wouldn't want a gay guy being around me," Jones told the paper. "It's got nothing to do with me being scared. That's the problem: All these people say he's got all these rights. Yeah, he's got rights or whatever, but he shouldn't walk around proud. It's like he's rubbing it in our face. 'See me, Hear me roar.' We're not trying to be close-minded, but then again, why be confrontational when you don't really have to be?"
"There is nothing that opens up big innings any more than a leadoff walk. Leadoff home runs don't do it. Leadoff singles, maybe. But a leadoff walk. It changes the mindset of a pitcher. Since he walked the first hitter, now all of a sudden he wants to find the fatter part of the plate with the succeeding hitters. And that could make for a big inning."
Now, I'm not one of the ten most brilliant geniuses in the world, like McCarver, but I do know some stuff. For example, the average number of runs a team scores when the leadoff runner reaches base is 0.953. (You can find such information here, thanks to tangotiger and the Hardball Times.) The average number of runs a team scores in an inning where the leadoff guy homers = 1 + whatever happens next. So, it stands to reason that teams will score more runs in innings where their leadoff guy homers than they will when the leadoff guy walks.
Now, McCarver, who earned a B.A. in Intelligence from the University of Brilliance, did, admittedly, reference "big innings," not just "runs scored," and I suppose in some way it is possible that teams might have more "big innings" (like, say, innings where they score 4+ runs) after a leadoff walk than after a leadoff HR. I can't imagine that's true, but I suppose it's possible. However, what about innings where the leadoff guy homers, and then the next guy walks, meaning they now have the run in hand plus the average of .953 runs/inning from having a guy on 1B and no one out? If I had to guess -- and I do, because I don't have the info readily available right now (perhaps someone out there does?) -- I'd say that there are far more "big innings" that result from leadoff homers than from leadoff walks.
As for McCarver's assertion that a walk is better than a single...I'm guessing they're about the same.
(Jeter promptly grounded to short, Abreu singled, ARod hit into a double play.)
During the Yankees-Angels game today on Fox, McCarver and Co. talked about the "impressive array" of young pitchers the Angels have developed. Then they showed a graphic of Jered Weaver, Joe Saunders, and Dustin Moseley, and mentioned how the trio was 12-0 this year! 12 and 0. Wow. Here are the stats they showed:
Jered Weaver: 7-0, 2.20 ERA Joe Saunders: 4-0, 1.67 ERA Dustin Moseley: 1-0, 7.20 ERA
Weaver and Saunders have indeed been great. But Moseley? He had one start, gave up 10 hits and 4 runs (including 2 dingers) in five innings, K'ed 2 and walked no one for a WHIP of 2.00 and a BAA of .417.
But he got the W, as the Los Angeles-Metro-Anaheim Angels of the 5 Freeway Corridor beat the Indians 10-5.
Do we all see now why "wins" are a terrible stat?
It also made me laugh that they showed Moseley's ERA on the screen. If you're going to make terrible arguments, at least Occam's Razor your way out of counter-argument info, you know?
Just Say Whatever You Want And Hope No One Notices: Tom Singer Edition
Thanks to reader Sam for pointing me in the ultimate direction of this one, but let me start by saying:
Ever since late Thursday night, I've been thinking about this one really strange record that you may not have heard of yet. It was buried deep in the story of Boston's third straight loss to the Royals: Emil Brown homered in the Royals' sixth. But Schilling also went into the record book in a good way. His 54th straight start without allowing an unearned run broke his own major league mark...Schilling also set the mark by going 53 in a row with Arizona over 2001-02 without an unearned run. This current streak began after he gave up two unearned runs on June 14, 2004 at Colorado. [emphasis mine]
This seems like one of the strangest coincidences I've heard of since Scott Youkilis caught his brother's foul ball. I mean, it's impossible that Curt Schilling has some sort of incredible ability to prevent unearned runs (relative to earned runs), right? And yet this guy has not only the longest, but the second longest streak of starts without an unearned run in major league history.
I guess it makes sense that the record would belong to a very good pitcher; and certainly Schilling was excellent during the 01-02 span in Arizona (ERA+s of 154 and 136). Obviously, the fewer runs in general a dude gives up, the less likely he is to give up unearned runs.
Of course, there's another, much more important, super obvious reason why a guy might not give up a lot of unearned runs...but first, let's hear why Tom Singer thinks Schilling is so fucking good at not giving up ERs. Curt Schilling, the intense Boston right-hander, has not allowed a single unearned run the last two seasons. That makes him tops in an overlooked category we've always considered an important tell-tale sign of pitching verve: The ability to steel up, rather than let down, after mistakes behind you.
This Schilling guy sounds tough. I remember when he pitched that game with the blood and everything! Of course he steels himself better than other players. He's the guy with the bloody sock! I bet he likes hockey. Tell me more about this verve! It's an art, part of a pitcher's makeup. The knack of not only keeping your focus, but sharpening it, in response to peril.
He's tough and he's an artist? What a dreamboat! This guy's verve is so hot I want to suck on it. Next time you see a Schilling game and there is a defensive breakdown around him, watch closely. He'll pace behind the mound with deliberate steps, impatient to get the ball back in his glove. Once he's got it, he'll climb the hill purposefully, look in for the sign with a determined squint ... and make his subsequent pitches with an extra grunt. That I-got-your-back attitude helps explain the fact he has not permitted an unearned run in 260 1/3 innings over the last two seasons.
This sounds an awful lot like the Curt Schilling I usually see pitching, even if a defensive lapse hasn't happened. Determined squint? You mean, like, more determined that a non-defensive-lapse-has-just-happened squint? "He'll climb the hill purposefully"? Is he usually climbing the hill with a clown nose and a pair of flippers on?
To others, errors are a refuge from responsibility. Runs are diverted from their earned run averages, prompting them to waver, even if subconsciously. "I did my job, what happens next isn't on me," is a natural reaction in any workplace -- where it isn't as measurable as on a diamond.
Man, I hate those guys. The non-Schillings. The guys who secretly love it when a dude on their own team fucks up so they can somehow pad their stats by giving up runs (impossibly).
"Everyone strives for perfection -- but it doesn't happen," says Buck Showalter, the Texas manager. "Picking up for others is part of the job description. The game is played with human beings, not computer chips. There will be failures -- and how you handle it is what separates you."
It's true you guys. Computer chips can not be there to pick up for others. Unless they are programmed to do so. Overall this is a level playing field. Across a long season, every pitcher presumably runs into that monster: The Four-Out Inning! They all have an equal chance of taming it.
Well, yeah, they're all probably going to have at least one "four-out inning." But just how many will a given pitcher have?
And, here's where we finally get to the real point. It's pretty simple, really. The streak in question is comprised of starts without an unearned run. What, more than anything else, leads to the scoring of unearned runs? Errors. So what's the biggest factor in a streak like this? Errors.
-- 3 quick notes: 1) Yahoo! and Retrosheet have different dates for the last time Schilling gave up unearned runs, in Colorado. 6/14 or 6/16/04. Whatever. 2) The streak only includes starts. Schilling of course pitched in relief for some of '05. Though Martinez includes those appearances in his discussion, I'm not taking the time to look at them. 3) Yes, unearned runs can also be a result of passed balls and catcher's interference. But, come on.
Okay, so, the idea is: let's look at all of Curt's starts over this span and find all the times that Curt had to pick up his fellow teammates after they fucked up in the field. Remember, according to Tom Singer, it's something to watch for -- the guy steels himself and everything. I used retrosheet for '04 and '05 starts and Yahoo box scores for '06, fwiw.
In reverse chronological order, a list of games Schilling started that included an error by the Red Sox:
Ten errors total. In 54 starts. But wait, it gets better:
One of the errors on 7/4/06 was after Schilling was in the game. And the other was an error on Schilling himself. Schilling himself also had the only error on 9/10/05. And 4/23/05. The error on 4/13/05 was, again, after Schilling left the game. (I know this is boring, just bear with me.) Finally, the error on 6/27/04 was also post-Schill.
So the final tally for errors while Schilling was in the game: 3 errors by Schilling himself 4 by other players.
Four errors by other players. And Tom Singer has seen this enough to notice a purposefull climb and a determined squint? Wow. I mean this seriously: either that guy is really, really an insightful baseball analyst, or he is making shit up.
Here's what Schilling did on each of the four occasions when he purposefully climbed the hill following horrible relapses by his defense.
1) 4/30/06: With two outs in the bottom of the third, Joey Gathright steals second and takes third on a throwing error by Jason Varitek. Schilling squints to home and promptly walks Johnny Gomes. Then he strikes out Ty Wiggington.
2) 4/18/05: Two outs again, top 2nd. Bases loaded, and Bill Mueller drops a foul pop off the bat of Frank Catalanotto. Schilling then strikes him out on the next pitch.
3) 9/21/04: One out, top 2nd. Javy Lopez reaches on another Mueller error, sending Surhoff to second. So first and second, one out, and Schilling K's Jay Gibbons and Larry Bigbie.
4) 9/10/04: One out, bottom 1st. Randy Winn reaches on another error by Bill Mueller. Edgar Martinez succumbs to the squint and grounds into an inning-ending double play.
Granted, he struck out 4 of the 6 guys he faced after defensive "meltdowns" -- or more accurately, he struck out 3 guys in full at bats and threw one strike to strike out another. But it's not exactly like these were life-threatening situations. It's not like he was facing Albert Pujols with no outs in the bottom of the 8th in a 2-2 tie. And, of course, the bottom line is, we're talking six plate appearances over 2 1/2 seasons.
Seven errors in 54 starts. Four by players other than Schilling himself.
And I'm supposed to believe the reason for this guy's incredible streak is his squint.
EDIT: "less runs" to "fewer runs" (thanks to KT, who finds it acceptable to use "Occam's Razor" as a verb and still call out other people on grammar)
EDIT ALSO: Info on the Catalanotto at bat. There were two strikes already at the time of the error.
BIG EDIT: Somehow I thought this article was written by Buck Martinez. It was written by Tom Singer.
I have two questions and a comment. May I proceed?
Why did Bill Mueller personally want to make Schilling give up an unearned run?
Who are the other pitchers with long streaks of no UER-giving-up? I bet they're guys with a lot of Ks, like Schill. Or else they are just a random smattering of guys with no discernable link, since the very idea of a streak like this seems way more likely to be the product of luck than skill. Much like the list of guys who have thrown no-hitters. It kills me that people think that things like no-hitters and unearned run streaks are without question the result of skill. So dumb. Roger Clemens has zero no-hitters in his career. Len Barker threw a perfecto. It's flukey, people. Flukey. Where was I? Oh yes, the comment.
Sorry for the delay folks. Let's chat this shit up!
Buzzmaster: Send in those questions. Joe will be here shortly! Buzzmaster: So, what's on peoples' minds today?
Mark: Buzz, any sign of Joe?
Buzzmaster: He'll be here at 11:30 ET. Joe's a busy man. We're kind of at the mercy of his schedule. We get him when we can.
dak: Joe is too busy not watching baseball games and not keeping up on his favorite players to give vague and wandering answers right now. Sit tight.
Heath (NYC): Joe, how do you explain the A's getting hot seemingly every August?
Joe Morgan: They've done that a couple of times. Last year they got hot earlier, but then couldn't close the deal. They haven't played well in September the last few years. We'll have to wait and see how they do this year. They have more veterans to deal with the situation this year.
dak: So, listen. I'm filling in for Ken Tremendous. He ususally takes the JoeChat; Junior's filled in a couple of times. But this is my first crack at it in a while, and I realize now the hardest part of this thing is simply where to fucking start.
Let's start with the obvious: he doesn't answer the question. At all. Doesn't offer any single piece of explanation. More amazingly, he misses a free shot at Billy Beane and the modem he uses to make trades. Haven't we all heard that the A's have been great second half teams at least in part because of the trades that Beane has made in past mid-seasons? Wouldn't Joe Morgan want us to believe this is wrong?
Then there's the thickheaded fallacy: wins in September are more important than wins in, like, May. The season is 162 games long. Every win counts the same, except, one might argue, for games that are played against the team directly above or below you in a pennant race. Sure, games in September seem more important; there's only like 15 games left, you're down 2 in the standings or whatever...I can understand why they seem so important. I can even understand why they seem more important. What I can't understand is how a baseball analyst can get away with implying that they actually are more important.
And oh! the ridiculous, yet difficult to disprove: the key factor in wins down the stretch will be veteran leadership. That's right folks: Frank Thomas is going to teach Eric Chavez how to win in September. I mean, what did you think -- that Major League baseball players were born with the ability to win in September? No. They have to learn from sage veterans like Jay Witasick.
Bonus wrongness: I realize that this isn't exactly the same as having veterans around, but it's worth noting that this year's Oakland A's team is slightly younger on average (28.5 years old) than last year's team (28.6 years old).
What's that? Keep it shorter?
Tim (Rochester, NY): Joe, Have not heard about Johnny Bench in a while. Can you tell me how he is doing?
Joe Morgan: He just had a son, Justin Palmer. He was born April 1. He still works with the Reds, he has some title. He does a lot of appearances, speaking. I talk to him a lot. We talk on the phone a lot.
dak: I did a little internet research, and it turns out Joe Morgan is totally right about the name and birthdate of Johnny Bench's son. And as a result, I'm a little disappointed. So that's what my life has come to, I guess.
I like the Yoda-ish sentences in the middle, though. And the vague details. Joe, you sure he works for the Reds? "He has some title." Oh, ok. Mea culpa. You really talk to him a lot? "We talk on the phone a lot." Oh, the phone. Yeah. I guess you do. Jim (Det): Joe, how impressed are you with the Tigers?
Joe Morgan: I've been very impressed. I think they'll finish strong. Success breeds confidence.
dak: "Success breeds confidence?" What the hell does that mean?
Joe Morgan: They've had a lot of success, so their confidence is high.
dak: Nonono. I mean, "what the hell does that mean?" as in, "what the dick kind of meaningless baseball pseudo-psychology is that?" Not "explain to me what 'breeds' means." Christ, Joe. Ben (NY): You know, I don't think the MVP award is all about stats. Stats aren't everything. Do you agree?
Joe Morgan: There is a criteria for the MVP award. It goes something like character, contributions to baseball, contributions to your team, so there are more than statistics involved.
dak: "There is a criteria?" Did you mean, perhaps, "there are criteria" or "there is a criterion" or even "there is a a set of criteria"? Paging Doctors Strunk and White, am I right you guys? Haha!...ha. [Coughs quietly to self.]
I don't think that stats are everything when it comes to MVP voting. Of course, in essence we're looking at how good a player was in a given year, and the easiest way to quantify and compare these things is...well, it ain't stories, anecdotes and gut feelings.
However, character should be an issue (and it is -- more on this later). And I'd even go so far as to say that "clutchness" should play a factor.
Now, let's get it straight: do I think players should be rewarded a little more for putting together a number of so-called "clutch" hits in a season? Yes. A little. Do I think that players are born with a preternatural ability to perform in the clutch? Not really / I'm not sure / not significantly more or less than their almost-equally talented peers.
From JoMo's description of the criteria for MVP voting, it sure sounds like they make a big deal out of "contributions" and "character" and everything. Sounds more like we're voting for Secretary of Lincoln High's Key Club.
Now, here's what the BBWA says about MVP voting (which, incidentally, is surprisingly hard to find anywhere on the internet): There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.
The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:
1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. 2. Number of games played. 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. 4. Former winners are eligible. 5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
Break it down:
1. "Strengh of offense and defense." I see little use in anything other than numbers to help me reach my conclusions of how strong a players' offense and defense are. 2. Albeit a simple one, this is a straight-up statistic. (How many people, by the way, had "number of games played" as their guess for second official criterion for MVP voting?) 3. Okay, fine, character. And of course, loyalty, which unfortunately rules out Nick Punto this year, who was found guilty of treason. Tough break, Nick. Let me throw some names out there: D. Ortiz; T. Hafner; J. Mauer; D. Jeter; J. Giambi...whoever. Do any of these really stand out among the others in "disposition"? "Effort?" Hey, I'll consider it in my hypothetical voting -- it's in the criteria listed by the BBWA -- I just don't see it making a big difference in the way I hypothetically vote. 4. and 5. They must have meant something about "contributions." El Centro, Ca.: Joe, will you ever manage in the majors?
SportsNation Joe Morgan: I don't think I will manage in the major leagues. I never use the word never. I did have some interest at one time. I went to sleep one night thinking that I would take a job and woke up changing my mind. I've done that twice since I retired.
dak: Note that JoMo doesn't say anything about how interested teams were in him -- only that he was interested in managing. I like to think that he just went to sleep one night after not watching baseball, thinking, "I'm going to call the baseball teams tomorrow and take a job as a manager."
Come on Joe, get crazy!
Bob Mozitis (Philadelphia): Are you excited to be doing the Little League World Series? Those kids play with passion and don't worry about the stats. They are like Derek Jeter in that regard.
Joe Morgan: I think it's great because it's the reason we all played the game. We just loved baseball and that's all they cared about. I think it's great to see kids play the sport. At one point, I was like they are. I didn't play in the LLWS, but I was at their age playing baseball.
dak: If I'm not mistaken, Joe Morgan just took credit for having once been a child. Justin (Chicago): Whos the best CF in the game today?
SportsNation Joe Morgan: That's difficult. There are a lot of great centerfielders. Are you saying defensively or overall? Center field is really a defensive position. It's the normal guys you'd look at, Andruw Jones hit 50 HRs last year and won a Gold Glove. Jim Edmonds has won a lot of Gold Gloves. That's a tough question unless you are asking a specific question of whether you're talking defensive or overall.
dak: Jesus H. this guy is lazy. Why doesn't he want to talk about baseball instead finding any excuse to not answer a question? Why not answer the question both ways? Why not assume that he meant overall since that's what people usually mean when they don't specify defense? Why not say Vernon Wells is 3rd in all of baseball with a VORP of 55.9?
Mike (Morgantown, WV): Game 7: Koufax, Gibson, or Clemens...who do you choose to pitch for your team?
Joe Morgan: Obviously, that's very difficult for the first two. It would be either Koufax or Gibson, because I've seen them pitch a seventh game. I've never seen Clemens pitch one. Koufax can dominate a lineup, but Gibson was one of the best competitors I've ever seen.
dak: For those who haven't e-mailed us about this already, JoMo has just told us that he did not watch:
1) Game 7 of the 2001 World Series (the World Fucking Series) 2) Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS (possibly the most anticipated pitching match-up of all time, Pedro v. Clemens) 3) Game 7 of the 2004 NLCS (last game of a fantastic series) 4) Game 7 of the 1986 ALCS (dak was 8 years old and in the stands)
Four Game 7's that Roger Clemens started. Or, as Ken Tremendous likes to call him, Rogcar Clemtron. (He tells me that would have been his name if he were a robot.)
That's our Joe!
Bobby ( Staten Island, New York): When Mike Piazza gets inducted into the HOF what hat do you think he should wear?
Joe Morgan: What we do as the board at the HoF, we look at what team he had the most success and what team he was most identified with. When it's a close call, we do take into consideration what they want. But they don't get to choose, because some teams have offered to pay players to wear their hat when they go into the HoF.
dak: Huh. Okay, I think I knew that already, but that was pretty informative. NOW WHAT FUCKING HAT DO YOU THINK PIAZZA SHOULD WEAR?
That is the name I am now giving to Michael Kay's groundbreaking work in the area of Announcer Influence over In-Game Events. You might remember a few days ago when Kay, the Yankees' broadcaster, absolutely tore some caller a new asshole on his [Kay's] radio show, when the guy criticized him for "jinxing" a Chien-Ming Wang perfect game by announcing that Chien-Ming Wang was throwing a perfect game.
A WAV file containing a snippet of Kay's tirade can be downloaded by clicking on this here link, also contained in the post below entitled "Idea that Announcer Can Jinx Perfect Game = Holocaust." I highly recommend listening to it. Because it's not often you can hear a respected broadcaster comparing silly baseball traditions to both the United States's sorry history of slave-owning and the Axis's horrifying history of genocide, all in a shrill New York accent.
Now, from faithful reader Anthony, comes this story:
From tonight's Yankees-White Sox broadcast on YES...
Kay was telling a story of how in 1998, during a (very rare) tough stretch for the Yankees, Paul O'Neill said to him something like, "Interview me. Maybe that'll change our luck." After that, O'Neill did every pregame interview the rest of the way, culminating in the Yankees sweeping the Padres in the World Series.
Kay then uttered the following: "You know what the crazy thing is? Paul still didn't want to do the interview, even though he knew it was good luck."
I swear to you, those were his exact words.
So to recap: according to Michael Kay, announcers can't be bad luck, but they can be good luck.
Apparently, interviewing Paul O'Neill to help the Yankees break a losing streak is not as bad as slavery or the holocaust. This is a key postulate in the larger theorem string that comprises the Kay Paradox. We will publish the rest of the findings as soon as they are completed at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.
By the way, some of our readers somehow interpreted the previous post as FJM arguing that Kay should not have broken the old rule that announcers shouldn't say the words "perfect game" or "no-hitter" while said events are on-going. Our official position is simply: of freaking course announcers have no influence over the events on the field. I mean, does that even need to be stated? However, baseball is a game of superstitions, which is a part of what makes baseball fun. Who among us has not gotten up to get a soda from the kitchen and had one foot out the door when our favorite player has gotten a hit, and has watched the rest of the inning from the kitchen with our hand on the open refrigerator door, more than willing to let all of the food thaw out and rot if it means continued luck for our hometown nine? Surely not just me, right?
The point being: no, you will not "jinx" a guy who's throwing a perfect game by saying he's throwing a perfect game. But it's fun to play along, isn't it? I mean, why be so strident about this? Why scream and yell that this "intangible" thing is meaningless and stupid?
Idea that Announcer Can Jinx Perfect Game = Holocaust
That is the position of Yankee broadcaster Michael Kay, who, on his radio show today, went totally bananaballs crazy.
Apparently, Kay began his show by saying, "On this day, August 4th, 2006, I declare the Red Sox officially dead." He then began getting angry calls and e-mails from Yankee fans who thought he was jinxing the team -- especially since he "jinxed" Chien-Ming Wang's perfect game in the 6th inning earlier this year by announcing that it was happening.
During one of these calls, captured in the clip below, Michael Kay goes batshit crazy and starts talking about slaves and Nazis "putting people into ovens."
Now, we at FJM happen to agree with Michael Kay that it is stupid to think that an announcer has any effect on what happens on the field of play. These are not the Middle Ages. The sun does not get eclipsed by the moon because the Gods are angry about our harvest. However. We at FJM also understand that there are certain silly superstitions in baseball -- like not saying "perfect game" during a perfect game -- that are fun and enjoyable and time-honored traditions that add a humanistic element to the game. And we certainly do not believe that comparing the caller's feelings on this matter to the Nuremburg defense used by mass-murderers is, um, appropriate.
To listen to a seriously unhinged dude, click here.
(P.S. Later in the broadcast, Kay says: "Jim Kaat is the best color commentator in baseball. And that includes Tim McCarver." Which is less offensive than the first part of his diatribe, but still incredibly offensive.)
Friend of FJM and 11-time Roto-Ball champ Mike S. solves the Michael Kay absentee mystery:
Kay was originally supposed to work the Orioles series and not the upcoming Tigers series. Seeing how the Tigers series is so important and all, he was switched. Singleton did (or started) the game alone because Paul O'Neill's private plane was late taking off from Cincinnati. At least that's the deal according to the good times banter on the Michael Kay show.
So, I guess his absence was not due to the hotheaded rant about slaves and Nazis he unleashed on his radio show (see post above). That question has been answered.
But this question has emerged: how many office water coolers did Paulie smash with his briefcase when he found out his plane had been delayed?
Apparently Kay was not in the booth today to call the Yanks-O's game. I am officially wildly speculating -- and I emphasize that I have absolutely not one shred of evidence to support this -- that this is due to his insanely offensive on-air rant about slaves and Nazis during his radio show today.
See post above for details. And stay tuned for more wild speculation.
Note: For some reason the link is not working on some browsers when you just click on it. Drag it into your browser window and it will automatically download the WMV file. If it still doesn't work, here's the ugly old-timey way to do this: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Mike-Mad-Dog-Cashman-meltdown.wmv
This link will take you to a discussion of the Abreu/Lidle trade between Yankees GM Brian Cashman and New York radio impresario and perpetual laryngitis candidate Chris "Mad Dog" Russo. It contains some of the least-sensible, most mal-informed comments about baseball you will ever hear. Fortunately for Yankee fans, most of them come from Russo, and not Cashman.
The comments in question are not about Lidle or Abreu, mostly. Although the one silly thing Cashman says -- after Russo gets him pretty keyed up -- is about Lidle, and it is this:
Russo: Look at [Lidle's] career! Cashman: Yeah, look at his career, look what he does in the 2nd half of his career! Look at what he does the second half of every single season he's been in the big leagues, look what he does!
Reader Ben breaks it down thus:
Cory Lidle's post All-Star break numbers for the past 3 seasons:
Anyway, it's like 10 minutes long, but if you like to hear weaselly little dudes screaming in hoarse voices about how guys who have won rings are better than those who have not, please follow the link. You're in for a treat.
After [Russo] says that Abreu never won a ring, Cashman comes back that Don Mattingly never won a ring either. [Russo] seems slightly taken aback, and then says something along the lines of: "Mattingly hit 45 home runs!" (Which he never did, of course). "You can't compare Bobby Abreau to Don Mattingly!"
Well, why don't we?
Mattingly career:
OPS+ 127 EQA .290 .307/.358/.471/.830
Abreu career OPS+ 138 EQA .313 .303/.411/.512/.923
Geez, maybe he's right. I wouldn't try to compare Mattingly to Abreu either.
Depending on your definition of porn, I guess. JoeChat.com (see post below) is more "traditionally" porny, but our JoeChat is certainly still offensive to many people with refined aesthetics.
Buzzmaster: We've got Joe!
Ken Tremendous: Great! Keep him! (rim shot)
kerry, katonah, ny: If anyone would know Joe, it's you. How good is Robinson Cano? Is he the long term second baseman for the Yankees?
Joe Morgan: I think he's a very good player. Right now, he's a very good offensive player than defensive player.
KT: Say again? "He's a very good offensive player than defensive player?" I think you meant, "He's a mucher more gooder offensive player contrabalanced versus defensive make-plays-man."
It's easier to learn defense. I think he'll be a very good player for a long time.
KT: Do you realize you've written the word "player" four times in four sentences?
Defensive problems come from concentration lapses.
KT: Or, presumably, not being good at defense? No?
Nick (New Jersey): Mr. Morgan, is Big Papi the best clutch hitter you've ever seen?
Joe Morgan: I very rarely ever say the best I've ever seen, unless I'm talking about Willie Mays.
"Hey, Joe -- how about this omelet? Is this not the best omelet ever?" "Willie Mays." "...What?"
He's a great hitter. He's the best clutch hitter of his generation. I said two years ago that he was a great clutch hitter and that was before some of his more recent heroics
KT: Many of our readers have pointed out a trait of Joe's I had previously missed; namely, that he seemingly lays claim to just about every observation anyone has ever made. He constantly works into these chats sentences like this one here: "I said two years ago that David Ortiz was good!" Watch for it, especially during his Sunday Night Baseball tele-disasters. They're a constant barrage of "I've been saying for years that Albert Pujols is the best hitter in the game" and "I said when I saw Beltran in spring training that he was going to have a good year" and "I knew in 1983 that Barry Bonds was going to be great" and "I predicted last October that You, Me, and DuPree was going to underperform at the box office."
Miami,FL: why do you think that the nationals did not trade alfonso soriano? Also, why do you think that roger clemens didn't go to boston? do you think he might have something to the owner?
Joe Morgan: It surprises me that they didn't trade him. It tells me that they think that they can sign him for next year. But he's going to be a free agent. I think it was a mistake, personally, but if they can sign him, it wasn't a mistake.
KT: What I like about this is that the guy asks about Soriano and Clemens, and Joe's answer employs only the pronouns "him" and "he" for a player and "they" for a team, with no antecedent for either. And yet, the answer applies accurately to both Soriano and Clemens (although he is most likely talking only of Soriano). Joe is either the most efficient answerer ever, or he stopped reading after the first part of the question. Guesses?
Scott (DC): Joe, What more puzzling? Soriano not being dealt or Clemens/Oswalt/Lidge being rumored to be dealt?
Joe Morgan: I knew that Oswalt was in a deal. I hadn't heard anything about Clemens. It's surprising to me if the owner had said to trade one guy. He probably just wanted to improve the team.
1. You did not answer the question. 2. "It's surprising to me if the owner had said to trade one guy?" Which guy? What are you saying? 3. Of course he wanted to improve his team. 4. "The owner"'s name is Drayton McLane. You should know that.
Jeff (Sioux Falls SD): Which stadium is the most underratedd?
Joe Morgan: That depends what you're talking about. I would say Seattle.
KT: So...it doesn't depend on what he's talking about?
Barry ((Providence,RI)): How does Abreu's aquisition effect Sheffield's chance of getting the option picked up?
KT: Excellent question. So good, in fact, that I would like to ask Joe to answer it by spontaneously writing a free-verse slam poem, entitled, "It Doesn't Look Good."
Joe Morgan: It doesn't look good. Obviously, I don't know what's in their minds, but it doesn't look good for Sheffield. Matsui's already signed to a long deal and so is Damon. It doesn't look good for Sheffield.
KT: Nicely done.
Drew (MIdland Tx): Hello Joe: I'm a huge Yankees fan and I know about Abreu, and Wilson; but not much about Lidle. I know he's an upgrade as the 5 starter (Ponson...HA-HA-HA), but just how good is his stuff right now. Oh, and how will these moves impact the Yanks...Al East?, Wildcard?, World series???
Joe Morgan: I don't know a ton about Lidle, but I do think he'll be able to help them. He can give them some innings and help the rotation. If they can get him some runs, they can win.
KT: Those of you who play the JoeChat home game will recognize this as the template answer for the question: "Will PITCHER X help my favorite team?"
Joe: "I don't know a ton about PITCHER X, but I do think he'll be able to help them. He can give them some innings and help the rotation. If they can get him some runs, they can win.
Works for every pitcher in every situation. It's the equivalent of a meteorologist saying, "Partly cloudy, chance of showers." Except this meteorologist is a multiple Emmy-winner and among the highest-paid color commentators in America.
Kevin (Manassas): Hey Joe..Can Cesar Izturis start playing like an all-star again with the Cubs? I think him and Cedeno at second will be a nice young middle infield, and hopefully we won't have to see Neifi Perez a much.
KT: Pay close attention to Joe's first two sentences here.
Joe Morgan: He was one of my favorite players before he got injured. I haven't seen him play this year to see how strong his arm is. (...)
KT: The essence of Joe. He was one of my favorite players. I never watch him play.
Carson (Dallas): Hello Joe, why don't we see many big time base stealers anymore? What happened to guys like Willie Wilson, Henderson, and Coleman?
Joe Morgan: The game has changed. We went through a spell where everyone was looking for a three-run homer. Now it's a lost art. Not many people know how to do it anymore. Now, it's all home runs, home runs.
KT: Baseball is so stupid. It used to be that teams made low-percentage maneuvers when trying to score runs. Now they make higher-percentage maneuvers. What idiots. If everyone bunted and stole bases all the time, offenses would be as good as they were in the 1960's and '70's.
You know what else is a lost art? Using reel-to-reel tape recorders to record music.
NickT (NewJersey): Hey Joe, I was wondering do you think Randy Johnson lost his stuff, or is he just having a bad year?
Joe Morgan: Well, at this age, there's no such thing as a bad year. (...)
KT: That's right. Because performance is graded on an age curve. Every year over 38 you get to take an increasing percentage off your era to get your AAERA (Age-Adjusted ERA). RJ is 42, and even though his ERA is over 5.00, his AAERA is a sterling 2.61! Which is awesome, except that this is made-up.
I know Joe is kind of kidding here, but the answer is: he's lost his stuff, a little. Not all of it. But some. The DRays kicked the crap out of him the other day, a result he now encounters about 25x more than he did even a few years ago.
I will now present a slightly -- slightly -- edited version of Joe's sign-off. All I have done is remove a sentence or two -- no additions.
Joe Morgan: I spent the weekend in Cooperstown. It was a great occaision. I thought it was great. It's always great to be there and it's always great when great players take their rightful place in the Hall of Fame.
KT: Sounds great!
Buzzmaster: Thanks to Joe for stopping by. Next up is Rob Neyer!
[Y]ou mention Joe's desire to plant a flag in the idea that Ortiz is good. In addition to the weird grand-standing involved, there's another small issue - you don't really get a prize for noticing that Ortiz did a good job in the 2004 season, a baseball season that, in the end, went fairly well for him.