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.
It is one of the rules of blogging that the more individual posts you make, the higher the traffic will be to your blog. Unfortunately for the investors of firejoemorgan.com, (Bear Stearns, Countrywide Home Mortgage, Qwest, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, KBR, The National Iranian Oil Company, and Fremulon Insurance), we don't really understand those rules. Thus, I am now going to combine the last like four JoeChats into one monster "Best of July" JoeChat that will be long, dense, and unfun for everyone.
Joe Morgan: Last week's interleague play, with the White Sox and the Cubs, was very telling. Home field means a lot; both teams were much more comfortable at home. I never thought home field was such a big deal when it came to good teams, but I found out differently.
I'm not going to make it. I'll never get through the marathon JoeChat. Go on without me. Tell my wife I love her.
Frank (Rockmart, GA): Do you think the NL East is wide open, or will the Phillies find some consistency soon and begin to pull away from the pack?
Since right away I can tell everyone ignored my suggestion to stop JoeBaiting, let's go with the flow and count the JoeBaits. This "consistency" is: 1.
Joe Morgan: I think it is wide open because all the team have weaknesses.
No perfect teams. Teams have weaknesses. 1975. Tony Perez. There: I just gave you all the answers you will find in this JoeChat.
The Phillies starting pitching needs help, as does the Mets' pitching and they need consistent offense as well. And the Braves I just cannot read; they lose close games and are not consistent.
It's amazing, isn't it, folks? We're like 4 years in to this grand experiment we call "JoeChats," and the issues we face are the exact same ones we faced in 2005. Consistency, indeed.
It is wide open and the team that plays well on the road will win it. The Marlins are a group of young guys, who is they get hot will be able to stay on a streak longer than the other team because they are so young.
[yikes]
Frank : The home team in the Rays-Red Sox series has consistently come out on top.
2.
Do you look for that trend too continue? Are the Rays going to the World Series?
Joe Morgan: I think it will continue. Like I said, it seems like home field has become more and more important.It seems like teams just play better at home. [...]
A fact somehow unique to baseball in 2008.
Brad(NM): Hey Joe..not many are talking about what a great season Oakland's having due to the success of the Rays and Cards and such. Do you give them a chance at winning the West? Where does their pitching staff rank in the league?
Joe Morgan: They have a chance, because when you look at the Angels their offense is down.
Side note: you know what's amazing? The Angels and A's, three weeks after Joe wrote this, have almost the exact same run differential, and the Angels are 12 games up. The Cubbies are +72 over the Brewcrew and they're tied. Pretty incredible.
If they had better offense they would be farther ahead at this point.
A fact somehow unique to the 2008 Angels, apparently.
So I think the A's have a great shot at winning the West, unless the Angels start hitting.
Angels: still not hitting that well. A's: almost no chance at winning the West.
You are right that the A's are flying under the radar, and that may be because the Rays have a bit of a better team and are leading their division. But the A's have the tools to get it done.
Hindsight = fun.
Kent Remendeaux (Oscenns City):
I'm flattered.
Hi Joe, love your work. Can Delmon Young start hitting more consistently
3.
and help the Twins overtake the White Sox and hold off the Tigers?
Joe Morgan: I have to admit I am shocked at his lack of power and production. Usually when a guys [sic] has a good first year you expect them [sic] to get better. Of course he had to adjust, in leaving Tampa, but we are far enough into the season that he should be coming around. There is something missing there right now. I still think he is one of the next stars of the AL, but I thought he would be further along at this point.
PECOTA's 50th percentile had Young at .288/.323/.445. 15 HR and 32 2B. Projected totals: .297/.338/.400. 6 HR, 29 2B. So, his HR numbers are down, but otherwise it's pretty close. And remember: he's 22.
The Twins will need him if they are to catch the White Sox. As far as the Tigers, they are on a thin rope, because if they have another bad stretch they are finished.
Can you be "on" a "thin rope?" You can be on a tightrope, and you can be on thin ice. I'm not sure you can be on a thin rope.
I am watching Gladiator right now. The accent work in this Oscar™-winning movie is truly terrible. Joaquin Phoenix sounds like a geeky high school kid reciting Monty Python sketches.
Joe Morgan: That is all the time I have for today. Thank you for all the questions. We'll chat again next week.
Joe Morgan: I think the addition of CC Sabathia to the Brewers will be the big difference-maker in the NL Central. If you're the Cubs, you need to fear the Brewers more than anyone else in that division. They may need to make a move in response.
Kudos to Big Joe on this one. Unless the Harden trade had already happened, and he just hadn't heard about it.
Blueberry Johnson (NY): Hey Joe! Any opinions on allstar selections? Biggest snubs?
I am going to label "Blueberry Johnson" JoeBait #4, because: Blueberry Johnson?!
Joe Morgan: I would say there are a few things that jump out at me. Ian Kinsler probably deserves to start over Pedroia, though Perdroia has had an excellent hot streak recently. [...]
"Perdroia?" It's pronounced: "Pedroierr."
Sam (Lake Bluff, IL): Joe, how many more wins does Sabathia give the Brewers? I know he was the biggest difference maker on the market, but how much of a difference does he really make in the standings?
Joe Morgan: It's hard to say that he'll make a difference of, say, ten games, because even if he goes 10-0, someone starting in his spot would have won at least a few of those games. I think his advantage is psychological--he lets the Brewers know that they can match up pitcher for pitcher with anyone. It energizes the whole Brewer franchise.
He also strikes people out and pitches well. That's another advantage he gives the Brewers. Seriously -- how did this movie win an Oscar? It's like a community theater Shakespeare play with one good actor and decent special effects.
Steve (New York): Joe, you did the Yankee game last Sunday, what were your thoughts on Joba Chamberlain?
Joe Morgan: He threw the ball well. I saw a guy who was quickly gaining major league starting experience. You have to remember, the Red Sox make hitting adjustments well, and aside from that one bad inning, he controlled them very well.
Questions for learning:
1. According to the text, how did Joba Chamberlain throw the ball?
(A. "Well.")
2. How do the Red Sox make hitting adjustements?
(A. "Well.")
3. How did Joba Chamberlain, aside from one bad inning, control the Red Sox?
(A. "Well.")
Corey: (Philadelphia, PA): Joe: What do you think of the Braves decision to put Francoeur in AA for a couple of games? Do you think Francoeur deserved the benefit of the doubt and just try to fix it at the big league level, rather than just being demoted that quickly?
Joe Morgan: I cannot go along with that decision to send him to the minor leagues. Jeff Francouer lives in that area,
Not a consideration.
has played well for that team for the last three years,
Kind of a consideration.
and drove in a hundred runs last year.
Maybe a consideration, in that he has been a pretty good hitter, but RsBI isn't maybe the best way to show that.
You have guys like Ryan Howard and David Ortiz batting under .200 for much of the season.
The last time Ortiz was under .200 was May 2. He followed that up with a month of 1.026 OPS. On the day he was sent down, Francoeur had a .287 OBP and was 7-his last-52. And he's 24. Sending him down to work on his swing wasn't an insane idea.
I did not like the idea of doing that because it messes with a guy psychologically. You have a hitting instructor in the big leagues--work it out with him!
You also have the minor leagues. Where players can practice baseball without harming the part of the organization that matters.
Andy (St. Louis): Joe, you said the race between the Cubs and Brewers is going to be great to watch, but have you forgotten about the Cardinals?! They are resilient and find ways to win. Ankiel is hot, Pujols is back, and the starting pitching has been excellent compared to original expectations. Do you think they have any chance of contending for the division crown or wild card?
Joe Morgan: You're right, the Cardinals are in that mix. [blah blah blah] We're talking about Sabathia, but if he gets hot and starts hitting like he did last year, that will only give the Brewers yet another shot in the arm.
I am assuming that he is saying that if Sabathia starts hitting "like he did last year," that will help the Brewers. For the record, last year, in a very telling sample size of 3 AB, Sabathia had 2 hits, for a very significant .667 BA. These are important facts that totally matter due to their significance in terms of mathematics, and are highly predictive because of how significant they are.
Three data points is only two more than 1, which is the absolute minimum number of data points a guy can have. (For the ever-growing record, CC is .264/.278/.472 in 53 career AB, which is pretty darned good for a pitcher, and pretty darned irrelevant in terms of the Brewers' chances this year.)
Gladiator is over and I am now watching Airplane II, which -- no joke -- has better acting than Gladiator.
Ben Morgan (Omaha, NE): Joe, as a White Sox fan I'm looking over my shoulder at the Twins and beginning to be a little worried. For a while I kept myself calm by convincing myself they weren't for real and they would cool off but how long can I use this defense mechanism? I think the Sox are for real but I'm starting to think this is more than just a hot streak for Minnesota. Thoughts?
The Twins are kind of a smoke-and-mirrors team. They're in the middle of the pack of most offensive and pitching categories, they're dead last in the AL in HR, and are only +21 in run differential. They've started to come back down to earth, predictably, since this chat took place, going 3-6 in their last nine games. Detroit has a better run differential, but are 4 games behind the Twinkies -- my guess is, as time goes on, here, Minnesota idles or fades, and Detroit is the team challenging Chicago for the division.
Joe's guess is: Ron Gardenhire is awesome and every team could win but who knows but we'll see but if things go wrong for a team then they won't win but maybe Chicago?
Joe Morgan: I agree, you should give Minnesota a lot of credit, especially Ron Gardenhire, the manager. He knows how to handle young players and they play hard for him. When I watched Minnesota play last night against Boston, I realized that this team is for real. It's going to go down to the wire with the White Sox and Twins. Detroit could be in it, but if anything goes wrong, they are finished. But I still like Chicago to win the division.
See?
Joe Morgan: In closing, I have never fel that the All-Star game winners should get home field advantage in the Series.
I agree.
It's an exhibition and not fair to the team in the Series.
Amen.
The best way to do it is to alternate it year by year.
...sorry?
That's the best way to do it? Randomly-declared oscillation?
Not, you know, who had the best record? Which might make teams play hard all the way through the end of the season? Which might make otherwise meaningless games in late September incredibly meaningful? Which means the greatest prize would meritocratically be awarded to the team who performed the best?
The best way to do it is to ignore the results of the sport you are playing in favor of a metronomic inevitability?
'kay. This is more of a made for TV thing, and yet we still ended up with a tie once. I never lost an All-Star game when I was playing, so I don't think that should be the way you judge home-field advantage.
Jacob (FL): Joe, you gotta feel for Dan Uggla after his performance last night. Could that affect him for the rest of the season?
Uggla since the break: 1-25, for a tidy .332 OPS. This is almost certainly the result of making those errors (which ended up not affecting the outcome of the game in any way) and not a random 25-AB fluctuation in the middle of the season. Because MLB players are frail little babies who never recover from things like non-game-affecting errors in stupid exhibition contests.
Joe Morgan: I definitely feel for him. I certainly hope it does not affect him, but we (meaning fans and media) will have an effect on how he handles the rest of the season. If we continue to bring it up and talk about it, it will be tough for him to deal with. The last error was a tough ball, as it jumped up at him, but it's obvious he was nervous out there, and understandably. It showed in his play.
I don't know. Maybe he was nervous. But maybe he just had a shitty night. He's never been Orlando Hudson out there at second. Give him a break.
These are now "comments" instead of "jokes." I think I'm dehydrated. I need a Joe I.V.
Chris. P (NY): What are the Chances of Bonds being a Yankee? Cashmen could of said No but he didnt. How well can Bonds do at Yankee Stadium?
I hate to be "this guy," but it delights me how many dumbdumb errors Chris P. (NY) made. He doesn't even know how to spell the name of his own GM. Because the Yankees are about to swarm all over everyone and win the East as Manny Ramirez claims that the Red Sox have never respected him and that they should give him $40m more when he asks out of a game against the Yankees in late July with a mysterious knee ailment, I am going to exact petty revenge by reprinting Chris. P (NY)'s question with [sic]s.
Chris. [sic] P [sic] (NY): What are the Chances [sic] of Bonds being [sic] a Yankee? Cashmen [sic] could of [sic] said No [sic] but he didnt [sic]. How well can [sic] Bonds do at Yankee Stadium?
God, that felt good. Joe Morgan: As great a player as he has been, you can't say how well he would do this year because he hasn't had spring training, hasn't had live pitching to hit against, and hasn't played period. [...] I'm not sure why Barry wants to play, since playing less than half a season would make him a hired gun, and his place in the history of the game is better than a hired gun.
This...this is why we do what we do.
Barry Bonds shouldn't come back this year...because it would tarnish his reputation?
Barry Bonds.
Being a "hired gun" would tarnish.
his repu.
tation.
Here are things that could tarnish Barry Bonds's reputation, at this point:
1. Committing double murder of Tom Brokaw and Dame Judi Dench 2. Defecting to Afghanistan, joining Taliban, leading Afghan baseball team to Gold medal over American team in Beijing 3. Running high-end dog fighting ring where the dog fights take place on Princess Diana's grave 4. Inventing time travel but instead of traveling back in time to kill Hitler using it to go back to 1989 in order to start taking steroids earlier than he originally did
Things that will not make a motherfletching dent in Barry Bonds's reputation:
1. Being labeled a "hired gun" by playing for the Yankees
Joe Morgan: I think Clint Hurdle and Terry Francona managed the game very well last night, trying to win the ballgame instead of just making sure the players got in. Winning should be the first priority. Thanks a lot, everyone!
Andy (Grand Rapids, MI): Do you think the Tiger's can still win the Division?
Joe Morgan: Well they can still win it but they cannot have anymore 4-5 games losing streaks. They are on a thin line right now.
Can you be "on a thin line?" You can be on thin ice, you can be on a tightrope, there can be a thin line between love and hate, there can be a thin blue line or a thin red line, you can be on the red line, the orange line, the green line, or the blue line, but I'm not sure you can be "on a thin line."
The Marlins are leading the Cubbies 6-5 in the 6th (it is now the next day -- that's how long this JoeChatMarathon is) and Alfonso Soriano just popped up to second after a leadof single, shattering his bat so violently and horrifyingly I was sure all eight Marlins were going to be found dead with maple spikes in their foreheads. Something should maybe be done about these bats.
Blueberry Johnson (NY): Joe, Texas has been outscored by 33 runs this year. Yet, they are still have a .520 winning percentage. How are they doing it?
Joe Morgan: I think run differential is just a stat that does not mean a lot. Look at what the Dbacks did last year. Run differential is a deceptive stat.
First of all, a hearty "Welcome Back!!!" to Blueberry Johnson. How have you been, man? Great to hear from you again. I was not sure you were going to ask another question, since you are a fictional character from a children's story.
Second of all: Yes, good work, a stat that shows you how many runs you have scored versus how many runs you have allowed does not mean a lot. You know what does mean a lot? Team triples. If your team is tripling a lot, that means your guys are hustling, and you will win a lot. Just ask Arizona and San Francisco!
By no means look at run differential. If you did, you would see that the divisional leaders in run differential are all either in first place or within 1.5 games of first place, except for Oakland. Don't look at last year, either, because you'll accidentally learn that 4 division winners led their division in run differential. The Phillies were only 6 behind the Braves, and Arizona pulled one of the flukiest seasons ever (-20), somehow finishing ahead of the +101 Rockies, who then went to the World Series.
Just because there are quirks and occasional exceptions doesn't mean a stat is "deceptive." You don't have to be a genius to understand that the number of runs a team scores, and the number of runs it allows, is probably a pretty good indicator of how good the team is and how well it has played.
DLee just went yard to tie it up. That guy is awesome.
Fred (Montgomery Village): Joe, The Phillies have been doing pretty good without everyone hitting at the same time (Rollins, Utley, Howard, Burrell). How good will this team be once they all hit at the same time?
Joe Morgan: Well we are deep into the the season and they all hit well to get the lead and now they are not all hitting. Now they may not all start hitting at the same time, and even if they do they still need better pitching and bullpen support.
Opposite of analysis. The exact opposite of analysis. The platonic ideal of "nothing."
Jim Edmonds just tried to bunt a guy to second, in a suddenly-tie-game in the seventh with nobody out and DeRosa and Fukudome behind him. Jim Edmonds, in his career, has 7584 total plate appearances and 10 sac bunts. And a .933 OPS in his last 50 games. Good call, Lou.
DeRosa walks, Fuku pops up. If the Cubbies don't take the lead here, you'll know why.
Jordan (Slinger, WI): Joe: The Brewers are in the midst of a series with St. Louis right now, and have a series with the Cubs at the end of the month. Come August, who will be on top of the division?
Joe Morgan: I still think the team that is on top now, is still the team that will be on top later. The Cubs may be able to gain a few games here with the Brewers and Cards playing each other now. But when the Cubs are on the road they are not near the best team in the NL. It is a three team race, and will be right down to the wire. It is really hard to tell. Two weeks ago I thought it would be the Brewers, but teams go through spells.
It's time for the game where we take a 100-word answer from Joe and boil it down to its essence.
Jordan: Who wins the Central? Joe: One of the teams in the Central.
SprungOnSporks (Longer Island): The Twins are 23-9 in their last 32 games. Can they keep it up and catch the ChiSox?
Joe Morgan: Well they are only a half game behind, so I think they already caught them in some ways. But it will be very hard to keep playing that type of baseball, winning 23 out of 32. I think they can win the division, but everyone in the division is looking back at Detroit at this point. I think it is going to come down to a three-team race as the season comes to a close.
"SprungOnSporks" has to be a JoeBait, or a shout-out, or something, and I appreciate it. Also:
Q. Who wins the A.L. Central? A. One of the teams. Same as the N.L. Central.
Wild pitch to Daryle Ward. Both runners move up. Now they're walking Ward to load the bases. Wouldn't you love to have that out back, Lou?
Brian (Chicago): Do you think Francisco Liriano should be brought up, or do you think it will hurt the chemistry the Twins have created?
Joe Morgan: It will not hurt the chemistry because he is a pitcher. [...]
He's also quite good, and I haven't heard anything about how he's a terrible dude or anything, and also: you seriously wouldn't bring an awesome starting pitcher up because of completely unfounded "chemistry" concerns, Brian? You think Livan Hernandez is going to keep winning games with a 1.60 WHIP and the league hitting .332 against him? Really?
Mike Fontenot's bases-clearing double gets Jim Edmonds stupid bunt attempt off the hook. Reason and logic take another one on the chin.
Joe Morgan: I think we are going to see a lot of close races here in the second half of the season that come down to the very end. A lot of teams can win and many of these races will come down to which team gets hot at the right time.
Blueberry Johnson is a character from that fantastic MTV comedy show, the State. Episode 301, if you have a chance to check it out (the links on youtube have been taken down).
I like it less now. Nothing against The State, but I thought it was just a weird pseudonym.
Time Magazine Is Not A Source For Correct Baseball Information
Time.com is running a horribly designed piece called "The Evolution of Barry Bonds" that requires you to click 21 times to get to all of the (extremely minimal) content. Each page has, in total, six numbers, one of which is the year.
For example:
1986
Games Played: 113 Batting Average: .223 Home Runs: 16 Runs Per At Bat: 25.8 Listed Weight: 185
That's all you get on one page. Oh, wait. You also get a picture of Barry, two giant ads for Health.com, approximately one hundred links to other Time.com articles, and two separate targeted (?) text ads that read
I "Hate" my Yellow Teeth
The Secrets Dentists don’t want you to know about Teeth Whitening!
But enough about their hideous design. What the fuck is
Runs Per At Bat: 25.8
That is not a thing, Time.com. That is not a recognizable baseball statistic, and even if it were, it wouldn't be a meaningful one. "Runs Per At Bat"? First thing that jumps out at you -- Time's "Runs Per At Bat" is pretty clearly not, in fact, actually runs per at bat.
In 1986, Barry Bonds scored 72 runs in 413 at bats for a runs per at bat total of 0.17433414. He scored 0.17433414 runs per at bat. That is what should appear in a table after the words
Runs Per At Bat
Right? Anyway, after some head-scratching, I figured out what Time.com means when they say "Runs Per At Bat."
Are you ready?
They mean "At Bats Per Home Run."
Of course! Obvious. How could I not see that's what they meant when they said, right there in black pixels on my white screen, "Runs Per At Bat"?
In 1986, Barry Bonds had 413 at bats and hit 16 home runs, for an at bats per home run total of 25.8125. That ratio went down precipitously as he infused himself with more and more awesome chemicals that make you strong, but if Time.com has its way you'll never find out about that, because it will take you four hundred clicks to even get to 1994 or so, by which time you've probably already gone off to play Line Rider or something.
EDIT:
Yes, as a couple of you have pointed out, this article is a year old. And it's still wrong.
SECOND EDIT:
After over a year on the web, very quietly and very mysteriously, the "Runs Per At Bat" error has been corrected.
Real quick, because this Open Letter thing is threatening to get out of hand:
1. Yes, there are a lot of jerks out there. There's only one Biggest Jerk Ever. And my main point is that bringing in the Biggest Jerk Ever for a few weeks of production just doesn't seem worth it.
2. Before I forget -- sorry I called you an asshole. You know I love you, bubelah.
3. "I thought I knew you?" Are you kidding, you asshole? You were the one who just cited Bill James's own piece saying that the numbers didn't make sense. And as far as believing that the circus atmosphere would damage the team -- in this case, yeah, I do. The Shaughnessey thing I included because you know there'd be a month worth of shit-stirring, and who needs that, especially when it's with the all-time #1 shit stirrer journalist and the #1 all-time shit-stirred player? Why invite the headache?
4. Sorry I called you an asshole again. You're my best bud.
5. The whole moral issue is iffy, I know, and as many an emailer has already pointed out, Julio Lugo beat up his wife in a parking lot, and isn't that worse than blah blah blah? My point, asshole, is that I think it's icky to say that you would happily win the WS and have it be exposed that the DH on your team was a massive PED user. Even if there wasn't a big punishment in place for steroid users until 2003, there sure as hell is now, and if you just willy-nilly hire the biggest most famous drug user in sports history for a month, and you get 5 HR and 12 walks, and 100 headaches and 500 altercations with reporters and 700 questions to Francona about XYZ and on and on and on, and then he tests positive the day they win it all? You're cool with that? I don't know, man. Cheating is bad. I think we can all agree that cheating is bad. You shouldn't be cool with cheating.
6. Sorry, dude, but you don't "get points for creativity" when you throw your kids in front of you to take bullets from the media -- especially when you, at that moment and at countless others, are lying through your teeth. That's a shitty, shitty, shitty thing to do, to use your kids like that. It was fucking gross and cowardly.
7. This won't end until Junior or Murbles writes an Open Letter to both of us that says: "You're both assholes. Shut up and attack Plashke or something."
I was on the internet today and happened to read your Open Letter to Theo Epstein. I'd like to talk about that letter, and I apologize to you and anyone else reading that this is going to be boring and unfunny. I blame you.
As far as points 1-4, 7, 8 and 10: as I said from the beginning, I'm leaving it up to Theo as to whether or not the Sox would be better off spending their resources on Bonds. They probably aren't. Bill James has already made a great case for not signing Bonds on a pure baseball-performance level; I don't need Ken Tremendous running the numbers for me when it's already been done by the pros. (Why does anybody read this website anyway?)
I didn't think this was going to be about numbers or even baseball analysis. I also didn't think you were going to call me an asshole.
5. Barry Bonds hated Boston and thought it was racist, before he had ever been there. That seems like a dude you definitely want on your team, which plays in Boston.
I'm fine with it. I'm fine with a guy saying that he didn't want to play in Boston because he thought it was racist, four years ago. I'd be even more fine if that same guy decided to retract his statement, and play in that very same city if it proved to be his only viable option (which again, it won't; this is all hypothetical and pointless).
As I said before in the comments to the original post, I think it might help repair the racist image of the Boston sports world if the Sox signed one of the most high-profile African-American athletes in the country, especially at a time when no one else wanted him. I don't think it would make a big difference, but I certainly don't see the problem. I mean, if you don't like Bonds for calling Boston racist, wouldn't you want to see him admit that he was wrong, put on the Sox uniform, and (hopefully) find out that he was, in fact, at least kind of wrong?
That might be an unlikely scenario, but, within the universe of scenarios wherein Bonds plays for the Red Sox (I'm so bored right now), I submit that it's more unlikely that he would end up saying something like "Man, this place is even more racist than I thought." To be sure, Boston has its problems, but I like to think that (a) the situation is not nearly as bad as Bonds thought it was and (b) he'd be on his best behavior anyway and therefore pretty careful about what he said about his new team's town.
6...Now, I know a lot of guys in professional sports can proudly claim one or more of (a)-(f). But only one has all of them. And you want to put that guy -- that 43 year-old mini-scrotumed douchebag -- on your team?
There are hundreds of guys who are guilty of (a) and (b) (using PEDs and lying about it). Are you certain that none of them played on the 2004 or 2007 Red Sox? (Again, Gagne.)
I'm going to assume that every single baseball player cheats on his wife until proven otherwise, and I don't really care much if a guy cheats on his taxes or buys a house for his mistress (c). I'm not in favor of these things, and I also don't think it speaks very well for him. But I also don't root for my sports teams based on character. I root for the Boston Red Sox, and so do you. Sure, I'd prefer that they sign nothing but dudes who spend every non-baseball-playing-moment volunteering at the Jimmy Fund, but I tend not to worry about this kind of thing.
As far as calling racism everywhere he went (d), yeah, I'm not fond of that neither. But I'd also be willing to bet that he's been the victim of racism more often than you or I. In fact, I give him a pretty long leash on this one...do you think he would have booed so vehemently if he had been white? Hard to say.
As far as the kids thing (e), well, if you're going to lie about using steroids (which again, dozens of players have), you might as well use your kids, right? I give him points for creativity. And skipping a Home Run Derby (f)...you really care about that?
I can't defend everything Bonds has done. My main point is that many of his transgressions have been unnecessarily vilified, or seem worse relative to other players guilty of the same shit, simply because of how good he was, the stage he played on, and, perhaps, his race. None of those things are his fault.
Some people are jerks. Some of these jerks play baseball. Some of these people will end up playing for the team you root for. Would you root for a guy who was guilty of 1 of these a-f things (and surely you've rooted for at least one player who's taken steroids for years)? How about 3? Where do you draw the line?
I say once you're a fan of a team, you've signed up for the absurdity of the whole thing. You can't control who your team signs. You want to root for people you like, sure. But there's so much about these players we don't know, anyway. How sure can you be that Bonds is more of a douchebag than Mike Timlin? How can you even measure that? Why root for one but not the other, if they were wearing the same uniform? Are we still friends?
9. Let me ask you something -- and you too, dak. Is there any part of you...any part at all...that thinks that this would go well:
"Barry?" "Yeah?" "Hi. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Dan Shaughnessey."
You want that? You want what follows that in your clubhouse?
Fuck, I don't care. Part of me thinks these two guys deserve each other. My biggest concern would be that Shaughnessy would garner more attention if he gets to cover the Bonds beat.
Do you want to be the guy who makes a case that this clubhouse atmosphere would adversely affect the performance of the other players? Go ahead, dude. Be my guest. I thought I knew you.
11...With (dak')s logic, there is no crime, no matter how heinous, that a player on your favorite team could commit that would sour a positive result on the playing field.
Of course there are crimes that are so heinous. I would not root for a team of convicted murderers, or players who have been proven to fix or throw games. I don't know how I would feel if this guy turned out to be Curtis Leskanic, but it would certainly wouldn't make me feel great about the Sox '04 Most Awesome Thing Ever.
As you know, I don't think Pete Rose belongs in the hall of fame. I think Barry Bonds does. I also don't really care that much, because almost everything about the Hall of Fame (again, the Hall, not the Museum) is poopyshoes.
Every day Pete Rose passed a sign on the wall explaining to him that anyone who engaged in the exact kind of behavior he was engaging in would be banned from baseball for life. Until 2003, MLB didn't even have a penalty in place for steroid users until 2003. (First time violators faced the near unbearable penalty of...counseling.)
But I just can't fault a guy for taking steroids when there wasn't a penalty for it. I'll take it to the extreme: I still think there's a case to be made that it's worth taking steroids today, in certain dire injury circumstances, and risking the first time 50-game suspension. People have broken the rules in every sport since the day they were invented. In the case of steroids, Bill James' travelling analogy seems worth bringing up (remember when he was on your side of the argument?).
Fortunately, sins of the highest magnitude (incest; game fixing; finding SJP more attractive than Trachtenberg) are weeded out by a combination of the law and MLB policy. Of course, those are the easy calls. The real question for both/all of us: where do you draw the line?
This is the second in a series of FJM's Peabody- and MacArthur Genius Grant Award-winning essays on the topic: "Should the Boston Red Sox sign Barry L. Bonds to replace the injured David Ortiz's production in the line-up?" In Vol. 1 of this series, dak argued: "Yes." In order to make things interesting, and because it is the correct answer, I have decided to take the position: "no."
COUNTERPOINT: dak IS A WEIRD AMORAL CONSEQUENTIALIST ASSHOLE*
Dear Mr. Epstein,
First, allow me to apologize for the inappropriate and juvenile way that my friend dak tried to forge a bond with you in his essay. His odd attempts to raise tenuous "connections" with you, based on nothing more than childhood geography and Jewishness was, in a word, embarrassing. I know that you do not stand for that sort of thing, because you and I totally met at the 2003 Hot Stove, Cool Music and talked for several minutes and we're basically best friends, so, again, I apologize, and also let's hang out.
To the matter at hand, though: you shouldn't sign Barry Bonds, even in a theoretical world in which you might be contemplating signing Barry Bonds, which is not this world, because you are not a crazy insane mad man.
Normally on this site, and in my life as a rule, I prefer to use numbers and statistics to back up my points, so let's start there and gradually work our way toward my final point.
dak seems to think signing Barry Bonds is a good idea, for an offensively-needy club like yours. This, as Baruch Spinoza famously said, is fucking insane. Here are like 11 reasons why: (I don't even know if I have 11, but I am so confident I can come up with 11 I'm just going for it):
1. dak suggests that Barry Bonds, who is 43 (that's 78 in "I never took steroids" years), could just waltz onto an MLB 40-man roster, walk 100 times and OBP .480 and hit like 28 HR (pro-rated, I guess). I doubt this. PECOTA's 50% projections had Barry at .233/.387/.462, EqA of .293. That ain't bad, but it's not a .480 OBP and 28 HR.
Now, obviously, this is a dude who has been blowing away 50% PECOTA projections ever since he started using zinc and flaxseed oil, but the fact remains: there isn't a good reason to think that the guy will hold up that well, especially since it turns out that the zinc and flaxseed oil he was using was actually (spoiler alert! stop reading now if you are a simpleton who believes that Barry Bonds never used steroids) Winstrol/Stanozolol, Deca-Durabolin, HGH, The Cream, and The Clear, among other things. Without that kind of zinc and flaxseed oil, this could be one broken-down 43 year-old pituitary case.
2. Bond's VORP was set at 12.1. I think you can probably make up 12.1 runs (pro-rated) by DHing Manny and playing both Crisp and Ellsbury in the OF every day -- those two have to be worth 12 runs of defense over Manny and either of them. Manny is -73 FRAA over the last five years (14+ runs of badness/year). So, already, without doing anything, you are probably better off without Bonds.
3. Barry Bonds hasn't played baseball yet this year.
4. Barry Bonds has never played in the American League.
5. Barry Bonds hated Boston and thought it was racist, before he had ever been there. That seems like a dude you definitely want on your team, which plays in Boston.
6. Let's see...what else...oh -- he is the world's biggest douchebag. Now. I know we're supposed to be objective here, and we're supposed to get all stat-y and rational and everything, but this dude is actually the #1 Douchebag in America, according to a recent study by professors at the College of Excellence. Consider that he (a) has been cheating at baseball for like 10 years and (b) lied about it the whole time and (c) cheated on his wife and used non-IRS-reported cash to buy his mistress a house in Arizona and (d) claimed racism everywhere he went for whatever reason if it suited his purposes and (e) once dragged his fucking kids into a press conference and used them as literal human shields to try to protect himself from questions about whether he was using steroids (which, again, he totally was) and to try to make the reporters who were asking the questions feel guilty for asking them and (f) didn't even show up to the fucking HR-hitting contest held at his own fucking ballpark, thus essentially producing his weiner from his XXXXXXXXL pants and urinating on the one group of fans anywhere, in any city, that still liked him.
Now, I know a lot of guys in professional sports can proudly claim one or more of (a)-(f). But only one has all of them. And you want to put that guy -- that 43 year-old mini-scrotumed douchebag -- on your team?
7. You don't really need him that bad. Your team has scored 309 runs, 2nd in the AL. That'll take a hit with Ortiz out, but again, DHing Manny and having Crisp in CF every day will help on the other end.
8. The core of this current team has won two WS in four years. There is no urgency here. This is not 2004, when it'd been 86 years and Pedro was old and leaving and Lowe was leaving and Damon and Tek and all those dudes were either leaving or about to start sucking. There is no urgency. None. Boston always wants to win, but after '04 and '07 we don't have to. You don't have to do every single thing in the world to try to win. (This simple fact should prevent you from signing the World's Biggest Douchebag, and should be thought of as a corollary to #'s 2 and 7, which pretty easily show that there is no guarantee the guy would even help that much, overall.)
9. Let me ask you something -- and you too, dak. Is there any part of you...any part at all...that thinks that this would go well:
"Barry?" "Yeah?" "Hi. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Dan Shaughnessey."
You want that? You want what follows that in your clubhouse?
10. Your real problem, Mr. Epstein, is pitching, and we all know it. SSS warnings here, but: Oki is more hittable and more wild this year...Francona is starting to have to rely very heavily on Craig Hansen in the late innings...Justin Masterson is not going to remain undefeated the whole year...Schilling is a ?...Wakefield is Wakefield...Beckett is suddenly allowing HR at his 2006 rate...Buchholz is a ?...none of these problems can be solved by a 43 year-old asshole who's being chased by like 11 government agencies at once and whose blood contains certain mutated proteins heretofore found only in syphilitic sharks.
11. I guess for my final salvo, I shall respond to one of dak's points. He charmingly writes:
The real issue, of course, is steroids. Or cheating. Or lying about cheating? I don't really know. Let's put it this way: the other night, my friend Junior asked me, "Would you want the Red Sox to win the 2008 World Series if, on the same night they clinched, Red Sox DH Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids and HGH and let's say, for the fun of it, black tar heroin?"
Yes. Yes yes. Yes yes yes. I want the Red Sox to win the World Series.
This is lunacy. With this logic, there is no crime, no matter how heinous, that a player on your favorite team could commit that would sour a positive result on the playing field -- an amusingly inane brand of consequentialism usually reserved for budding fascists and Machiavelli enthusiasts whose underdeveloped brains and beatings at the hands of older jocks have driven them to the conclusion that murdering the high school quarterback is actually a utilitarian good.
Why, dak, why? Why allow your team to win at any cost? Are you out of your fucking mind? Great, the Sox won the Series. Now we get fucking SpyGate II for the next 25 years. And every time anyone brings up the Red Sox' World Championships of 2004-2008, instead of remembering Roberts stealing second or Bellhorn's HR or Schilling's sock or coming back from 3-1 down against Cleveland, the first thing everyone remembers is -- how about that time they clinched the Series and that night it came out that Bonds was a one-man farmacia?
With similar logic, dumbass, would you want the Red Sox to win the 2008 WS if on the night they clinched it came out that DH Barry Bonds had fixed the games? That he had personally taken some of the not-reported-to-the-IRS cash (which he got from ripping kids off at autograph sessions) that was originally earmarked for another house for his mistress, and gone to the Cubs' pitchers and said, "I know you guys need money -- what if I give you this untraceable cash in exchange for you blowing the games?" and they'd said: "Okay, that sounds good. We will further embarrass and enrage the city of Chicago for $25,000 a piece." Would you still savor your sweet victory then, dak?
After two WS wins, you'd welcome a third, no matter how bad the scandal that accompanies it? That is insane.
Listen, people, (I forgot whom I'm even talking to at this point), there are a lot of dudes out there who can give you 12.1 VORP. Brandon Moss might be able to give you 12.1 VORP, even appendixless. Coco Crisp might be able to give you 12.1 FRAA. Maybe Youkilis and Drew will step it up in Ortiz's absence. Maybe a rest in the middle of the season will even do him good...
Barry Bonds is a horrorshow. Barry Bonds is the single most hated and divisive and polarizing figure in the history of sports. He's also 43 and hasn't played baseball this year. I want the Red Sox to win the World Series too, but Jesus, man. Come on.
(My high school debate coach taught me that you should end every debate with: "Jesus, man, come on," so I'll stop there.)
So, it's not going to happen, but with the Red Sox short one monster hitter for an indefinite amount of time (Papi), the name Barry Bonds has come up as a possible replacement. It's not even a legitimate rumor (jumbo shrimp / military intelligence, right people?!), but there is an argument to be made that he's one of the best available fits for the situation.
On this issue -- should the Red Sox pursue Barry L. Bonds -- we at FJM are squarely divided. So we're taking a bit of a departure from our usual nonsense to bring you the first of two open letters to Red Sox GM Theo Epstein. Stay tuned for a fiery, illogical, and misguided sequel from KT, a man who hates fun.
===
Dear Theo Epstein,
If you think it will help the Boston Red Sox, you should totally sign Barry Bonds.
I don't know you, but, like 90% of the other human beings I know, I love you. You are good at your job; you seem humble; and yet you had the stones to trade Nomar. Your team won it all, twice. New England likes the cut of your jib, and your form-fitting shirts. You've earned such respect from Sox fans that most people would have faith in you if you traded Ellsbury to Aston Villa for Alan Smith. And on top of that, you don't care about most people. So go ahead. Not because I or anyone says so, but because you in your near-infinite wisdom have decided it's best for the team. Sign Barry Bonds. I like it when you call David Ortiz "David."
You'd know better than I if Barry Bonds can help the team, or if it's worth spending whatever it will take to get Bonds. Of course, there are no outstanding offers for Bonds that anyone knows of, so just how much could it cost, anyway? I mean, how much do you have to pay a dude to give him his only opportunity to pad his stats? Jesus, dude. Sign this guy already. (Assuming that you know he's ready to play, and you think it'll help, etc etc.)
I bet we both like the same kinds of music, and we could talk about that over Kelly's roast beef sandwiches.
Do you know what Barry Bonds' OBP was last year? Of course you do. You're a handsome genius. It was 480. He hit 28 taters in 340 ABs. Oh, also, this is cool: he's Barry Fucking Bonds. You can bat him in front of Manny Ramirez. And then Manny will be batting with at least one dude on base 48% of the time. That's assuming that Bonds will be as good as he was last year. Which of course he won't. But it will still be awesome.
Hey, man. What was your Haftarah parsha? Mine was Korach.
The real issue, of course, is steroids. Or cheating. Or lying about cheating? I don't really know. Let's put it this way: the other night, my friend Junior asked me, "Would you want the Red Sox to win the 2008 World Series if, on the same night they clinched, Red Sox DH Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids and HGH and let's say, for the fun of it, black tar heroin?"
Yes. Yes yes. Yes yes yes. I want the Red Sox to win the World Series. Also, if Bonds is the DH, that means they're winning the WS at Fenway. How can you pass that up? You think Gino from Brockton is going to care if Barry Bonds took some extra special medicine while he's dancing somewhere in short left-center along with 34,000 people who just want to pour beer on Mike Timlin's head and bang a townie? Nope sir.
Sometimes I think about what it would be like just to hug you. Just once.
Remember last year when you traded for Eric Gagne? You knew he was a roid dude. But you did it anyway. The fact that he had "cheated" in the past didn't prevent you from acquiring him. So Barry Bonds did it all on a bigger stage, and maybe benefited from it more. Does that make him any more morally reprehensible than any of the dudes who juiced at any point in their careers? Why does Bonds have to sit on the outside while Andy Pettite gets to toss his Godball under the bright lights? Hey, by the way, that guy sucks, right?
I bet you and I would make a pretty sweet doubles ping-pong team. We have a table in my garage...I'm just saying.
Do you think most Sox fans have cheated in some tiny form or another on their taxes? I do. I bet most of them have. I say these jerks are taking money away from poor people. When they deducted that round at Leo J. Martin as a business expense, they were taking money away from people who really needed it. Which do you think is worse, Theo Epstein/America? Stealing money from poor people, or taking banned substances to try to make yourself better at your job?
Exactly. So who are these assholes to tell you that if you sign Barry Bonds, you'd be somehow tainting the sanctity of Fenway Park? These jerkstores taint it every time they sit their thieving asses down in the bleachers, am I right? I've sort of lost the point of this rhetorical exercise, so I hope you're still on board. I have "Manhattan" on DVD if you ever wanna watch it at our house the next time the Sox are playing in Anaheim. Holds up pretty well.
What are the other possible cons? The media circus? Even if you believe that the scrutiny of the media can actually affect the team, you'll remember that the Red Sox have performed for decades under what is generally considered the largest, most warped magnified glass in all of sports journalism. Hard to imagine Youkilis's OPS taking a nosedive if he has to answer questions about the size of Bonds's clubhouse recliner (which, by the way, should be five of the largest recliners available at Jordan's furniture fused together to form a Voltron-like megarecliner).
I bet our moms would like each other.
It's cool for baseball players to get cortisone injections, but they're not allowed to use other kinds of steroids. Tera Patrick should be more ashamed of what she does than Megan Fox. Most people wouldn't take a virtually harmless pill that would make them better at their jobs, if it were against company policy. What a shame it would be for lovable Bud Selig to have to watch his nemesis, Barry Bonds, finally win a World Series ring. To all of these related-only-in-my-head-statements, I say: BULLPOO. Think outside the bun.
Reader John P. writes in re: Manny batting with runners on >48% of the time:
As I'm sure others have reminded you, when Mr. Bonds (or any other batter, for that matter) hits a home run, he's no longer on base.
True. And he does hit a lot of home runs, due mostly to his awesomeness.
Of course, there's also a decent chance that Manny will have someone on base who Bonds stranded (unlikely!), so the real percentage would probably be higher than 48% (again, assuming a Bonds OBP of 480 which won't happen).
A few e-mails about the race issue. Yes, Bonds has made comments that he would never play in Boston because it's too racist. That was four years ago -- hard to know if his mind has changed now that nobody else wants him. (Reader Ben G. found the quotes in question here.)
Assume for a minute that Bonds would be willing to play in Boston. Let me throw this out there: might signing a high profile African-American baseball player, when nobody else wants him, help combat the racist image of the Boston sports world?
SprungOnSports (Long Island): Do you think Willie Randolph should be fired for the Mets' recent failures, or are his players or the GM more at fault?
Once again, SprungOnSports (Long Island) gets there first. That dude is eager.
Joe Morgan: If you're going to fire Willie, you'd have to fire Jim Leyland, John McLaren, Bud Black, and Ned Yost. The list could go on and on. Why is he the one being picked on when so many other teams are playing below their potential. Maybe Willie's point of playing under more scrutiny is a valid one.
John McLaren doesn't seem that great, but Bill Bavasi is the one who put that team together. Jim Leyland won the pennant two years ago and has probably earned at least an ASB-type chance. Maybe Bud Black should go, though he did win 89 games last year. Ned Yost...maybe. That team should be playing better. I don't know. It seems to me that instead of anyone playing the race card, we should look at the obvious facts: the team has a $138m payroll, acquired Johan Santana in the off-season, was PECOTAed to win 93 games this year, and most importantly, had an all-time record collapse last year down the stretch. Any manager of that team -- in NY -- is, as Mike from Paradise Hotel 2 would say, going to be on the boilerplate if his team gets off to a bad start.
Alan (Philly): Joe, have you ever seen a second baseman or any player at that as versatile as Chase Utley?
Mention Cano. Mention Cano. Mention Cano.
Joe Morgan: There have been a lot of really exceptional second basemen around. Robinson Cano has that ability of being versatile. [...]
Robby Cano, or "RoCa" as Jim Kaat has surely tried out calling him at home before he announces games and then decided, "Nah -- AlSo was better," is an excellent baseball player. But Chase Utley has 16 HR this season, and Cano's season high to this point in his career is 19. Just sayin'. He's also 51-60 in steals for his career, and Cano is an abysmal 11-24. I'm not sure what "versatile" means here, but Cano's not in his league for two out of the classic "5 tools."
I think Chase Utley right now is the best of the group, but there are a lot of really good second basemen around.
The only one whose name I know, however, is Robinson Cano.
George,E.L.,Ma.: Hi Joe.Do you think that the Red Sox will make a move with Lugo(trade or release),or stick it out?
Joe Morgan: He seems like he's been playing better.
He has a .684 OPS (not horrendous for a SS, but that's after a pretty good May) and 12 errors in 44 games (horrendous for a SS). He's being paid eleventy million dollars a year through 2010 and is routinely lifted for a defensive replacement in the late innings. You can't release him, you probably can't trade him unless you Renteria it up and pay like $8m/year to some team that needs a 2Bman.
I don't know if you can go find a shortstop at this juncture of the season.
Unless you have a decent prospect, Jed Lowrie, at AAA. (To be fair, I don't know that Lowrie is necessarily a better option at this point. His defense seems iffy. Though he did have an .862 OPS in 40 games at AAA last year. I think you're stuck with Lugo through the year at least.)
There may be someone available at the all-star break.
Lugo for Kouzmanoff straight up?
Being honest with you, Lugo is not hindering the Red Sox right now. It wasn't his fault the Sox got swept by Oakland.
First of all, thank you for your honesty. Second: what a silly thing to say. It's never one person's fault when a team gets swept. Amount of light shed on the Lugo situation by this answer = .0016 candle power.
john (philly): Will Jay Bruce have an immediate impact for the Reds?
Joe Morgan: I think he will. He brings energy to the team, and besides that, he is a pretty good hitter.
I like that the #1 reason he will help his team is: "energy," and the distant #2 reason is: "ability to hit baseballs."
Ross, Chicago: Is Jim Thome done? Any trade value?
Joe Morgan: I never like to think of players as being done. Only the player will know. They said Frank Thomas was done in Toronto and he is doing well in Oakland. We've poured dirt on guys who have come back to play well before, and only Jim Thome knows whether he's finished or not.
Jim Thome is on pace to hit 32 HR and walk 94 times. Something tells me his BA will come up when his BABIP normalizes a little. See how easy it is to answer questions with facts?
SprungOnSports (Long Island): You just saw the White Sox this past weekend, are they for real?
Hey buddy! Welcome back.
Joe Morgan: I don't think there are any great teams are there.
(a) Not the question. (b) Typo makes it sound like drunk Yoda.
the White Sox had been shut down before we got there for two days.Carlos Quentin saved them when I saw them.They can win the division because they have pitching. You will see pitching dominate the league more this year. More teams will struggle to score runs. Teams that have pitching definitely have the advantage.
Honestly, man -- when was that not the case? Teams with pitching have an advantage? When...did that...not...make...blorp...grrrrnllll
Willy (Cincy):Hi Joe. Any thoughts on why junior is struggling as much as he is this year. Can you lose your bat speed that quick?
(raises hand) I know this! Call on me!
Joe Morgan: Part of it is trying to chase 600 home runs.
No! That's not it! Call on me!
I'm just shocked that he has struggled as much as he has, as he still possesses that sweet swing.
(straining; tipping chair-desk combo unit forward toward teacher) Yes...but...just call on me, and I'll--
The player knows whether his bat speed is gone, and if you're worried about your bat speed,
No, he's not worried about his bat speed, there's something else...call on me! Call on me!
you'll start starting your swing too soon and getting out of position.
Guh.
He's 38, is the answer. He's 38 years old. You should have called on me.
Blake (Aberdeen, MD): After 50 games thus far, what do you think of the Orioles 25-25 ? What could the Orioles get for Sherill at the All-Star break?
Time for the KT Odds Report
Odds that Joe says "there are no perfect teams" -- 1 in 4 Odds that Joe says he hasn't seen the Orioles enough to know about how good they are -- 2 in 5 Odds that Joe knows who George Sherrill is: 1 in 12,500 Odds that Joe actually suggests a trade the Orioles might make using George Sherrill at the ASB and names the specific player or players they get back from a specific team, which would fill a need that the Orioles have that Joe has identified: Sorry, a system error occurred. Abort (A), Retry (R), Fail (F)?
Joe Morgan: You have to give them credit for bouncing back. It's too early to start talking about trading or getting rid of people, as you are still trying to build a foundation. I would say, let's wait before we do anything. The Orioles have to be happy at where they are, as everyone thought they would be a disaster.
Just hit F and we'll try again.
Ryan (Bristol, CT): If you were to choose the final AL East standings, what would they look like?
Joe Morgan: Boston would be the only obvious one at the top. The rest of the teams could be interchangeable. But I could go out on a limb and say Boston-Tampa Bay for the top two.
A prediction! Good for you, man. Well done.
MJ (Edmonton): Joe who was the toughest pitcher you ever faced in your career?
Joe Morgan: I faced so many good pitchers, and at any given day, that pitcher could be the best at that moment. Koufax, Gibson, Seaver, Carlton, Ryan--any of them at their best was the toughest.
I really have no beef with this answer. I am 100% sure that facing those five guys -- obviously -- was miserable for even a hitter as great as Joe. But I'd like to add that I love it when a guy gets asked this, and the answer is someone insane. Like, hey, Tony Gwynn (for example), who's the toughest pitcher you ever faced? "Danny Darwin, bar none. Danny Darwin owned me." I love that. I wish that happened more.
That's all. Back to the chat.
Jeff (Norwich, CT): What is up with the Red Sox problems on the road? They have great pitching and hitting. But no one is stepping up on the road! Any explanations?
Joe Morgan: The team is built so well for Fenway. They all know it so well, and Fenway is a great-hitting park to begin with. It's always been that way for the Red Sox--dynamite in Boston, and not so good on the road.
Last year they were 45-36 on the road, which ain't bad. And in 2002, they were far better on the road than at home. Other than that, you're exactly right.
I expect this team to make adjustments. As I've said before, they are the best team in the game.
The Cubs have a better team ERA and a better team OPS. For the record.
Jeff (Cleveland, OH): Joe, how does a team like the Indians break out of an offensive slump? This is a time when team chemstry plays a role? If you were Eric Wedge, other than continuing to say we need to grind it out, what might you do to help a team like Cleveland start hitting?
Joe Morgan: You have to see them on a daily basis to have an answer--are they overly aggressive, are they not aggressive enough, etc.--but when it starts to happen, players take it on themselves to perform better, which puts a lot of pressure on them. There are a lot of different things a manager can do--manufacture runs, put the hit and run on, or many other things.
Put the hit and run on. Bunt. Be stupider. That's the only way to be better.
I would have to see if somebody is pressing, or if it's just one of those cycles the team is going through. The Yankees had one of the worst batting averages with RISP at the beginning of the year and now they're doing better.
Odds that Joe uses the term "regress to the mean": 1 in [my computer blew up. I am now typing on a new computer. I'm still going to hold out hope that he uses the term "regress to the mean" here. Wouldn't that be something? I mean, it's so crazy, it just...might...]
The best team keeps these low points to a minimum. They do indeed have to grind it out, even if it seems like a cliche.
(Sigh.)
MJ (Edmonton): Joe are you for or against instant replay in baseball?
Buckle up, people.
Joe Morgan: I'm against it for the reasons they're talking about it.
...Who? Are there voices in your head, Joe? You need to call a doctor if there are voices in your head telling you to do things.
It's only because of the bad HR calls recently.
The only reason we want to introduce a solution is because of all the problems we've been having.
There are so many other plays that have an impact on whether the game is won or lost.
Probably, though, home runs are at the top of that list, no? As far as single plays that affect games? I mean, you're talking about plays that by definition score at least one run.
It's the same thing with steroids--people only focused on the home run hitters.
I am a relatively smart person. I majored in Knowledge Acquisition at the University of Science. I cannot for the life of me figure out how wanting to institute replay for HR calls is the same thing as people focusing on HR hitters in the steroids scandal. Yes, in both instances people are "only focusing on" something involving home runs. But: "it's the same thing?" Da-wha?
Everyone influences the game, so why are you looking at one area.
I'm sorry...I thought your objection, as noted in last week's chat, was that soon people would insidiously start expanding replay to other areas. Now you are complaining that it only focuses on one area?
I wouldn't want the K-Zone calling balls and strikes. The reason the umpires called these incorrectly was because they were still running when they made the call.
Yeah, dude, we know why they were called incorrectly. They're not introducing replay so the cameras can follow the umps to get video evidence of why they called HR incorrectly. Willie Randolph didn't go running onto the field to argue that the reason Bob Davidson called Delgado's home run foul was not because he has bad eyesight (as Davidson was asserting in this hypothetical and absurd alternate universe) but rather that he got distracted by a low-flying plane. He ran out to argue that the call was incorrect. Get it?
Your eyes are bouncing when you run,
Someone with artistic skills: please draw a picture of an umpire running towards the outfield fence and show his eyes "bouncing" in a comic way. I will put the winning drawing up on this site in a separate post.
so you can't see with the same precision, and you won't always get a correct view.
You know what doesn't bounce when an umpire runs? An instant replay camera, trained on the path of the flying ball, with the ability to zoom.
There has just been an unusual amount of incorrect calls this season.
If only there were a way to prevent such things in the future.
Once you open that replay box, where do you stop?
At home run calls. Or at some other point, if you want more plays to be reviewable. Like the NFL did.
The game would slow down even more than it does now,
I don't think that's true.
and baseball came out with a new set of rules to speed up the game. I'm concerned with dead time.
Then stop doing analysis on live TV. Oooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh snappp! (high-fives no one; is alone in mom's basement)
Igor(Yonkers,NY): Joe, When will the best player of all time, Barry Bonds, be back in uniform and with whom?
Joe Morgan: If I had a team, Barry could play for me.It's pretty obvious to me that there has been some kind of effort to keep him from playing.
No hint, even, of Barry having made his own bed, steroidically speaking. And another wild accusation of collusion from Joe. Frequent readers of this blog will remember similarly unfounded claims being made against the Red Sox for tampering with J.D. Drew in his option year. No evidence is given, because apparently, when you're Joe Morgan, you need not have any.
He hit 28 home runs last year, and there are a lot of less-productive players playing this year. They could use his legal problems as an excuse, but they would not keep him from playing.
dak/Junior and I disagree on this. I can't imagine having that dude on my team. Sorry, everyone. I know he'd OPS like .900, but he'd clog up the metaphorical organizational basepaths with his slowfootedly awful personality and his knee injury of misanthropic distraction. Call me crazy. Call me a hypocrite. That dude doesn't play for my team.
MJ (Edmonton): Joe, which of today's players is the most fun to interview?
Joe Morgan: I enjoy talking to most of the guys.
Gary Sheffield, Robby Cano, Sheffield, Derek Jeter, Sheff, Gary S., Sheffieldio, Top Sheff, Sheffenpopper Incorporated, The Right Honourable Garibaldy von SheffenPfeffer...all of them.
I really enjoy talking to Jim Thome, Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, and David Ortiz. But I don't get a chance to interview them like I used to.
Here's a question... Suppose you're the Atlanta Braves, and your left fielders are Matt Diaz (who is out for 4-6 with torn cartridge in his knee), Gregor Blanco, and Greg Norton. If you sign Barry Bonds for the $0 that it would cost... Would you win more games than if you didn't sign him? My answer would be yes.
RetroChat! SprungOnSports (Long Island): Joe, can the Yankees be salvaged and play consistently enough to get back into the playoff hunt?
KT: I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but SprungOnSports (Long Island) is always the first one in the pool and the last to leave at these JoeChats. What gives, SprungOnSports (Long Island)? Why so eager to not have your questions answered?
Joe Morgan: If you take the reputations away of all the All-Star players and the big salaries, and you just look at them objectively, you would not be that impressed.
...Wha? What happened to "Well they're still the Yankees...", which is how you always answer this question? Fremp? Is that you, Fremp?
I think they are in trouble. They will be better with A-Rod back, who carried them through the first month last year, so he may be able to do that again. But you have to be concerned about their starting pitching. I just do not think they can win consistently with the pitching they are throwing out there.
Oh brother. Fremp Controversy II? (Except for the use of "consistently.")
Rob (Baltimore): Joe, is a team playing better baseball than the Cubs right now? Are they now a serious threat to win the WS?
Joe Morgan: Any team that gets into the postseason can win it all, if they get on a hot streak. We have seen it happen plenty of times. There are no great teams anymore. Boston is the best team overall. And I think the Cubs will make the playoffs, so I think they have a chance.
Crisis averted. No great teams. Music to my ears. Fremp-proof evidence.
Terrence (NYC): After this weekend's series, I'm hoping Jose Reyes is starting to take off- not only did it look like he was having fun, but he seemed a little angry as he was doign good things- almost like he's playing with a chip on his shoulder about the media and fan criticism. Do you agree?
Joe Morgan: Well I think that too much blame is put on Reyes when the Mets struggle.Yes, Reyes struggled last season down the stretch, but I think too much pressure is put on him.
I don't know, man. He's the SS and leadoff hitter for the Mets. He hit .205/.279/.333 in 117 September AB last year, and was 5-9 in SB after being 23-26 in August. His team collapsed horribly. He certainly wasn't the only one to stink it up, but when you're the leadoff hitter and SS and you stink it up in September and your team collapses horribly, you're going to take that hit. Hell, David Wright took a hit, too, and he OPSed like a billion. (I haven't checked that specifically, but I'm pretty sure it was like a billion.)
So he should be playing with a chip on his shoulder, with everything that has but put on him, especially last season's collpase. I am a big fan of his and I hope that he continues to play well.
Coddler.
Rich (Sun Valley, ID): Joe, have you ever seen a team leave as many men on base as the Cardinals in the last week?
He has no idea what you're talking about, Rich. He hasn't seen the Cardinals play this year. I guarantee you get nothing specific here.
And when is the last time you saw a team get 18 hits (the Rays) and lose? Thanks-
He has never seen that. He doesn't watch baseball. You get no answer here. KT guarantee.
Joe Morgan: Those things happen; where you get a lot of guys on base, and you do not drive them in, the pressure builds and you get tight. It happens, and it happens as a team. Just like hitting in contagious, so is leaving men on base. I have seen plenty of games where teams just cannot seem to drive ina run.
As Nikki Finke would say: toldja!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jon (Mad-town): Will we ever see a a great/dominant team again? I think the D-backs have something in the works for the next decade.
Joe Morgan: Yeah I think we will see dominant teams again. When scientists build a time machine and we can go back to Cincinnati in 1975, assholes.
Just kidding. He didn't write that second part. But how awesome would it have been if he had?
These things happen in cycles. But it has to be a team that has strengths in all areas of the game.
Hang on...this theoretically "dominant" team has to have strengths in all areas of the game? I don't understand.
I think the D-backs, because they are young and can develop, could be great for a very long period of time.
Name three Diamondbacks. (And Randy Johnson doesn't count, because you'd only be naming him because you remember he was on the team in 2001 and don't know that he's been traded like five times since then.)
Kevin STL: Joe, after that fiasco with Delgado's HR being called back, do you think the need for Instant Replay is upon us? Seems as though you and J Miller already knew the ball was fair before they overrode the call because of the replay.
Joe Morgan: Well I knew it was fair before the replay, because I had a good angle. I dfo not think you can have replays, because you would use it too much.
No you wouldn't, if the league regulated how often you could use it. We're very early in this debate, and we already have our "Why does everyone ignore this basic and simple fact?" thing.
There has been talk on using it for HR in the 8th or 9th inning, but that is not fair because often the winning HRs are hit earlier in the game. Replay would slow the game down more, so I think we will just have to live with the decisions of the umpires.
A few intrepid emailers have pointed out: when a controversial HR is hit, here's what happens. One team argues the call. The manager comes out. The hitter and the manager converge on the ump. The up calls the other umps and they talk for 1-3 minutes. The call is either reversed or upheld. The losing side argues. Often, someone is tossed after 1-3 more minutes of arguing. The game continues.
There is no way a red flag-type review situation could take that much longer than it already does.
I did like how they gathered around and talked about the play. But I did not like how the play was overruled by someone who was not the closest to the play. To overturn something like that you need to be 100% sure.
Hey -- here's a way to make it so that you're 100 sure: watch a replay.
Steiny (NYC): Joe, do you think Barry Bonds will be on a major league baseball team before the end of the season?
Joe Morgan: I have no reason to believe he will, so I will say no. But it is too bad, because the guy hit 28 HRs last season and there are plenty of guys with lesser talent playing on teams right now. It is unfortunate that he has become the poster boy for the steroids era, when it is obvious that hundreds of other guys were doing it as well.
Huh. Good point. Why would it be that Bonds became the poster boy for steroids instead of, you know, like Paxton Crawford or something? Can't think of a reason off-hand. I mean, both he and Paxton Crawford used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Both Bonds and Paxton Crawford broke the all-time HR record for a season. He and Paxton Crawford both also set the all-time career mark in HR. So that can't be it. And it was Paxton Crawford, actually, I think I remember, who set the all-time record for walks in a season, because he was the most famous and feared hitter in the history of baseball...
I don't know. There's gotta be a reason somewhere.
MJ (Edmonton): Joe, how do players regain their consistency coming back from an injury?
You know what's amazing? Joe has been baited one thousand times by people using "consistency" in the question, and he's never once indicated that this is strange or unusual.
Joe Morgan: The toughest thing about coming back is the first few days you are full of energy and running on pure adrenaline, which makes you play well; [...]
I am going to take this as evidence that Joe Morgan wholeheartedly supports the use of adrenaline-based PEDs.
Joe Morgan: That's all the time I have. We'll chat again next Tuesday.
Joe has been baited one thousand times by people using "consistency" in the question, and he's never once indicated that this is strange or unusual.
Not only that, but out of the presumably hundreds of millions of questions he's getting, he's specifically picking all of the ones with "consistency" in them. Maybe he thinks it's like his "mega-dittoes" or something.
Alright, I'll be the guy who defends Joe Morgan. Nobody's happy about this, but, here goes.
Re: Bonds/'roids. Morgan never said that he didn't understand why Bonds became the poster boy. He just said that it's unfortunate.
And I agree with him. As we've discussed many times -- and feel free to bring up Frat House again if you like -- I think it's unfortunate that steroid users get vilified more than the other cheaters in baseball history. And similarly, I agree with Morgan that it's unfortunate that Bonds gets vilified more than other steroid users. In both cases, I understand why...I (We? Ugh. We.) just think it's not cool.
We all know Barry Bonds is a bad dude. Does illegal whaling in Japan in the off-season, helps cars hit old ladies crossing the street, has a huge collection of pirated LaserDiscs. Crusty sportswriters -- I'm giving you this one. Not defending Barry's character.
But recently we've had a plethora of "good thing Team X didn't sign Barry!" pieces, culminating in that crazy Tim Kawakami thing that argued that Fred Lewis was better than Bonds. Essentially, these articles all hinge on the same premise: Barry's negative clubhouse presence outweighs what actually does on the field. Sure, they pay lip service to his age, his balky knees, his fielding -- but let's be honest, what they're really saying is that Barry Bonds' confirmed boogeymanness is totally more important than his ability to hit baseballs to Ganymede, Jupiter's sweetest moon.
I present to you Jeff Gordon. Not that one. Is unemployed outfielder Barry Bonds the victim of collusion among Major League Baseball owners?
Well, probably not organized, premeditated, let's-all-get-in-a-dark-smoky-boardroom-and-place-blackballs-into-a-mahogany-box collusion, no. But I'm starting to wonder what the fuck some of these teams are thinking.
Of course not. Only a blithering idiot would believe such nonsense.
For a guy about to spout nonsense, he's pretty harsh on idiots who believe nonsense.
The major leagues are awash with players mentioned in the Mitchell Report. The Cardinals, like many teams, didn’t hesitate to acquire players implicated in steroid and/or HGH investigations.
Okay, but like Larry Bigbie and Glenallen Hill and Nook Logan didn't break the all-time home run record, sullying one of the most hallowed numbers in sports in the process. Bonds has a little bit more stigma attached, no?
Still, the players' association is gathering information on Bonds’ unemployment. It is reviewing how the free-agent marketplace operated after the 2007 season.
We hope their investigators check this corner of cyberspace to get our take. Bonds isn’t in the big leagues because GMs believe his minuses outweigh his pluses in 2008.
Ways To Tell If Someone Is Both Old In Real Life And New To Cyberspace, #435: Uses the term "cyberspace."
Let's keep track of Mr. Gordon's pluses and minuses, and which are baseball-y and which are boogeyman-y.
Can he still hit? Probably. Last year he hit 28 homers in 340 at-bats. He still has a good eye, and lord knows he hasn’t gotten any smaller. He could still bring presence to a batting order.
Plus plus plus! Big plus. You know how many Cardinals hit 28 home runs last year? One. His name was David Eckstein. ("David Eckstein" is what I call Albert Pujols.)
But let’s walk through all the negatives:
* Bonds will turn 44 years old in July. How many other 44-year-old outfielders are flourishing in the big leagues this season?
How many 43-year-old outfielders OPS-ed 1.045 last year? Or .999 the year before, at age 42? * The former Gold Glove outfielder is now a defensive liability, due to his bad wheels.
Yes. He is better suited to be a DH. But weighed against his still-crazy offensive prowess, his bad fielding still might be worth it, Manny-style. Baseball Prospectus has Bonds at -12 and -4 Fielding Runs Above Average the last two years. Man-Ram's been clocking figures like -6, -21, -18, -12, and -13 for years. Big huge boulder of salt with these numbers, as fielding science is far from a reliable game, of course.
* Durability is also a major concern, since Barry played just 126 games last season.
True dat. * His salary expectations are out of whack with his diminished baseball value. At this point in his career, Bonds would put up Chris Duncan power numbers -– maybe a little better, perhaps a little worse. (Duncan had slugging percentages of .589 and .480 the last two seasons. Bonds came in at .545 and .565.)
This is just terrible cherry-picking. Sure, those slugging percentages look similar. But check out their respective OBPs, which is way more important than slugging in the first place:
Plus, if you're so concerned with how many games Bonds is going to play, how about Duncan, who basically needs to be platooned since he has a career .598 OPS against lefties? * Bonds is, by all accounts, a truly horrendous teammate. He has been a disruptive clubhouse presence dating back to his Pirates days.
Boogeyman.
* His unresolved legal issues would create distractions anywhere he went. With Bonds comes a media circus, an army of reporters poking and prodding at his combative and defiant persona.
Boogeyman. * He relishes the villain role, a posture that kills his marketing value. He wouldn’t generate box office buzz for his new team.
Now suddenly we're worried about marketing? Should we mark down Julian Tavarez for looking like a seventh-level cacodaemon? We probably should. Also, don't you think more people would still like to see aging dickhead Barry Bonds hit than, I don't know, Skip Schumaker?
Given all those factors, big league GMs opted to look elsewhere for offensive help: younger free agents, prime-age trade targets or home-grown players.
Especially for teams with horrible DHs, I find this to be inexplicable GMing.
Instead, the Cards relied on home-grown talent (Rick Ankiel, Chris Duncan. Skip Schumaker), bargain signing Ryan Ludwick and Rule 5 addition Brian Barton to man the outfield.
...
Ludwick has built a .675 slugging percentage as a part-time outfielder. Duncan hasn’t found his power stroke yet, but his .385 on-base percentage tells you he has enough patience enough to relocate his swing.
Something tells me Ryan Ludwick isn't going to keep up a 1.185 OPS all year. He has a career .333 OBP, so let's not all start saying he's better than Fred Lewis just yet. These are hungry players who bring energy to the group. They help make the Cards a more dynamic offensive and defensive team.
Skip Schumaker has 5 home runs in 178 major league games. Dynamic!
What would Bonds have done? Hit some homers, probably, but otherwise he would have dragged down the group with his egocentric behavior.
Here's where we get to the core of the matter: people life Jeff Gordon truly believe that the scowls outweigh the homers. Bonds' aura saps slugging points away from Ludwick and Duncan. It makes Aaron Miles flub ground balls. Barry's like a baseball dementor. (See, HatGuy? I can do Harry Potter references too!) Imagine how Bonds would have poisoned the clubhouse, honing in on Pujols and offering advice on how to handle his superstar status. One shudders at the thought of that relationship.
You think...Barry Bonds...would hurt Albert Pujols'...ability to hit baseballs. Me, I don't know, I think it would pretty fucking awesome to see these two guys swap hitting tips. God, that would be amazing.
Jesus, what if Pujols protected Bonds in the lineup or vice-versa? (Note to readers: "protection" is, as far as I understand, a myth.)
The team dealt Scott Rolen to shed his negative clubhouse presence.
And just to prove how nebulous, inconsistent, and scattershot sportswriters are when it comes to gauging "presence," the people in Toronto believed Rolen would have a positive impact on the team's "atmosphere":
"Also, replacing Thomas in the clubhouse with Scott Rolen, who's on track to return mid-May from a spring training finger injury will change the Jays' internal dynamics for the better. Rolen understands how to establish a productive atmosphere."
By moving Rolen and shunning Bonds, the Cards allowed Pujols to become an even stronger leader of his team.
Look at how the less-experienced players feed off him. Look at how Albert feeds off the hustle of all the guys fighting to establish their careers.
Yeah, he really needs Ryan Ludwick to push him. Without him, he was all "Blah, blah blah! 1.102, 1.039, 1.072, 1.106, and shit!" What a layabout!
The Cards’ early success this season underscores the value in assembling the right mix of personalities in addition to the right talent mix. This team isn’t hitting homers yet, but it keeps winning games.
In no small part because their ERA is third in the NL, which they couldn't possibly have done with Barry Bonds in the clubhouse frowning up a storm and repeatedly punching Yadier Molina in the gut, unprovoked.
Would Bonds have furthered their cause this season? Of course not. And that is why he sits home today, playing the role he plays best -- the unloved villain/victim.
The Cards are better off without him. And so is every other team.
Yes, the Mariners are much better off with Jose Vidro and his .546 OPS. OPS? More like OOPS!!!!111!!!ONE11!!!!///
It seems like the Cardinals might be okay in the outfield, so maybe Bonds isn't the best fit for them. But as writers of these pieces always seem to do, Gordon can't help but veer off into "AND NOBODY -- NOBODY -- SHOULD SIGN HIM BECAUSE HE IS TERRIBLE AND EVIL AND VILLAINOUS PURITY OF THE GAME CLUBHOUSE GRUMBLE GRUMBLE MEDIA RABBLE RABBLE CIRCUS!"
Cool. He's a jerk. We get it. Someone should probably sign him, though, because when he plays baseball he's damn good at it.
You know what? I'm going to agree with him here. The argument is all over the map, but if I were a GM, even with a struggling NL team, I'm not sure I sign Bonds. He is old, and even though he OPSed like 3.000 last year, I think he's so poisonous and distraction-y I wouldn't want him on my team. I mean, the Reds aren't going to make the playoffs even with the guy, so why sign him? And if you're a contender, and things are going pretty well...
I don't know. Maybe this is a time when it just isn't worth it.
