FIRE JOE MORGAN

That dirtiest, unholiest of symbols, the Worst Possible Outcome* a hitter can achieve, the crowning embarrassment of sports, wherein a professional baseball person just stands there johnson in hand as the third pitch sails by and his mother covers her eyes in the stands.

One man besting another. Mighty Casey's stunning comeuppance. No one wants to strike out. It's the worst, dummy! Or is it?

Yes it is, according to Bill Conlin of the Philadelphia Daily News, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning** article A striking contrast between Pat B & Joe D.

Striking, get it? I got it. I'm smart. I understand words.

Prepare yourself. We're about to slog through some C-minus conceptual comedy. Did I say "some"? I meant a whole damn shitload.

First, I want to thank Pat Burrell's left wrist for setting up this interview with the left hemisphere of his brain.

I warned you.

Hi, and thanks for giving me some time on this important NFL Sunday. Should I call you Pat? Half-Pat? Half-Brain?

Amazingly, it never really becomes clear why this device is necessary. He could have just called this piece "A Fake Interview In Which I Malign Pat Burrell" and been done with it. Would've been a lot more honest.

PB: Any of those would be better than what some fans attach to "Brain." Pat will be fine. He used me to hit in the cage for an hour this morning, now he's moved over to his right hemisphere for the games.

Slog slog slog, slog slog slog. Remember, we're still "talking" to Pat Burrell's left brain hemisphere, even though Bill mentioned Pat's left wrist and when Pat's left brain hemisphere says "he used me to hit in the cage" you might think that you're now talking to the wrist instead, but -- you know what? Never mind.

First, I want you to take a deep breath, close your eyes and try to clear everything out of your left hemi. Ever hear of Joe DiMaggio?

PB: The guy who sold those Mr. Coffee machines, right? I remember those ads when I was a kid. And wasn't he married to that fat actress, Marilyn somebody?

Marilyn Monroe. He was the most famous baseball player in America.

YOU DAMN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN! Again, remember: fake Pat Burrell brain half interview. He's getting fake mad at fake Pat Burrell answers he made up himself.

She was the No. 1 Hollywood sex goddess back when models and actresses wearing shag sweaters weren't mistaken for pipe cleaners.

Take that, Pat Burrell's left brain hemisphere!

She never had to walk into a plastic surgeon's office and say, "Fill 'em up."

And that, you convolutedly contrived proxy for the youth I so desperately wish I could somehow regain once again! Please, please, somebody out there make me young again!

Joe was also a great hitter who had that 56-game hitting streak in 1941.

I, Bill Conlin, will pay any man one million dollars to transport me back to that magical year, when hitters were hitters and racists were violent, unchecked racists.

PB: Oh, that guy. Remember, I'm half-brained right now. But I do remember a tune my folks used to play that had a line, "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?... "

Pat, DiMaggio wound up hitting .357 in '41. He only hit 30 homers because he missed 15 games with injuries and the leftfield power alley in Yankee Stadium was 415 feet. Guess how many times he struck out in 541 at-bats?

Finally. Baseball talk. Whew. But wait. I'm about to get angry again.

PB: High-average power hitter? Probably put the ball in play. Maybe 100 to 125?

How about 13! That's thirteen strikeouts.

This is, of course, amazing. That is a very, very low number of strikeouts. And a very talented hitter such as Joe DiMaggio was effective at the plate with his low strikeout and low walk totals because he had a high average. But should we assume this is the norm because hey, Joe DiMaggio did it that way?

No, we should not. Rarely striking out is no indication of hitter value. It's just not. In fact, it might be a negative indicator these days.

That year that DiMaggio struck out thirteen times, he was only second in the bigs in at bats per strikeout. The man in first was Doc Cramer, who rode that low strikeout rate all the way to a .338 slugging percentage and an OPS+ of 77. The third and fourth place finishers, Rip Radcliff and Lou Finney, also had below-league-average OPS+s. (Cecil Travis, fifth in the majors, had a great year.) The point is, not striking out is no universal salve for hitting woes.

I know you're all dying to get back to the fake interview, so here.

What a coincidence. In 2005, when you had one of your better seasons, your numbers were similar to Joe D's 1941 in some areas. You had 562 ABs, just 21 more. You hit 32 homers, two more - of course you were playing home games in a ballpark with an alley 70 feet closer than Joe's yard. But you struck out 160 times. That's 147 times more than DiMaggio struck out in just 21 more at-bats.

Yes, Pat Burrell is a high strikeout player. Joe DiMaggio, along with being an all-time great, was a low strikeout player. In 2005, Pat Burrell was 28 years old and posted an OBP of .389. In 1942, Joe DiMaggio was 27 years old (he didn't have an age 28 season) and posted an OBP of .376. Stop trying to make fake Pat Burrell feel bad. He's not Joe DiMaggio. We get it.

Even worse, though, you're fetishizing low strikeout rates. Let's look deeper and see what's going on in the modern game. Here's a list of nine hitters:

Pierre
Garciaparra
Polanco
Lo Duca
Eckstein
T. Walker
Vizquel
F. Sanchez
Lofton

Here's another list of nine hitters:

Dunn
Howard
Granderson
Hall
Soriano
Bay
Sexson
Sizemore
Swisher

Now, let's do a little experiment, Bill Conlin. These two teams are going to play an offense-only game of baseball. You and I are going to pick sides and bet on who's going to win. On the line will be the freedom of Mrs. Conlin, who will be sold into white slavery if you lose (you are white, aren't you? Great). You pick first.

Excellent. So unless you reallly really hate Mrs. Conlin, you picked the second group of guys. Surprise! The first list is the top nine guys in at bats per strikeout, and the second list is the top nine in total strikeouts.

That was a vague, back of the envelope way of suggesting what more rigorous studies have tended to show: strikeouts aren't that much worse (if at all) than regular outs, and in fact, strikeout rate correlates positively with things like isolated power and slugging percentage.

And sigh, now back to Pat Burrell's half brain.

PB: Yeah, but he never had to face closers. And setup men. And guys throwing close to 100 mph.

And you never had to face big-league pitching at a time when there were just 16 teams and major league baseball dwarfed every other sport in importance. Bob Feller won 25 for Cleveland that year. He was clocked at 100 mph when he was 18. And the fastball was his second-best pitch. He threw a curve in the mid-80s that used to hiss like a snake when it broke 12-to-6 and letters-to-knees. He would have turned you into the mother of all right-bracket parentheses.

He was clocked at 140 mph when he was 22. He threw a spitball made entirely from real unicorn spit. People don't talk about this, but a pitch he threw killed Princess Diana. He had a super-curvy-special pitch that broke 3-to-9-to-1-to-3.65 before lodging itself in your colon and curing your colon cancer. Bob Feller was the first openly gay astronaut.

PB: So what's your point? Is this about me "protecting" Ryan Howard?

This news just in. Chase Utley has agreed to a 7-year, $85 million contract. And it sounds as if they actually think he'll earn it. Insulating Howard is part of it. But a bigger part is you getting a grip on your own baseball career. The word is you refuse to alter a flawed approach to hitting. You're stronger than DiMaggio was and he was a powerful, athletic man for his time, one of the first genuine "five-tool" players. Some scouts projected you as a .320 average, 40-homer guy for a decade. Not quite... Of course, they were basing that on the swing you had at the University of Miami before you fell totally in love with your ability to hit batting-practice pitches 500 feet.

Fun fact: Ryan Howard struck out 181 times last year. Chase Utley struck out 132 times. These gentlemen are both extraordinarily good baseball players.

Fun fact two: from 1918 to 1928, Babe Ruth led the league in strikeouts five times. The other six years, he finished second.

PB: That's a little harsh. How come Jim Thome was able to hit 47 homers in 2003 with me having my worst year? Some days it looked like Larry Bowa picked our batting order out of a hat. Abreu, Thome, Lieby, Utley, me;

Thome, Lieby, Abreu, me, Utley. I mean, on and on, different almost every day.

It's called clutching at straws. Let's close the book on Joe D's strikeouts vs. yours: Joe retired after 13 years with 361 homers - and 369 strikeouts. That's an average of 28 homers and 28 strikeouts a year. After seven seasons, you're averaging 27 homers and 147 strikeouts - that's 1,017 Ks.

Yes, let's close the book. It's a very, very uninformative book -- maybe worse than Dianetics. Maybe.

Funny you should mention Jim Thome. Good hitter. Great hitter. Sixth all time in career strikeouts. And he's still playing. 1,909 K's. Almost twice as many as Pat Burrell.

Hell, let's just look at the whole dang career strikeout leader list. Out of the top fifteen guys, seven are hall of famers (and most of the others are pretty good, too).

So let's close that book. It's misleading and dumb.

PB: Chicks dig the longball...

When DiMaggio was a teenager tearing up the Pacific Coast League, they told him after signing him off the family tuna boat that if he struck out a lot he was gone. So he spread out into that ultrawide stance and cut his stride to a matter of inches. Guess who else in the 21st century game has taken the same approach?

Juan Pierre?

PB: Albert Pujols? He spreads out and just sort of does like a half pivot on his front foot. And...

And then he hits it as far as you do. He's in perfect balance. His hands are always inside the ball. Bottom line, he's had the greatest first 6 years in offensive baseball history, going back to the deadball era. He's averaging 41.7 homers and 65.6 strikeouts with a career .332 average. And he just turned 27.

Juan Pierre strikes out less, so based on the information you're giving us I believe he's more like Joe DiMaggio.

Out of the top ten players in baseball in OPS, Albert Pujols is the only one with fewer than 99 strikeouts. He had 50. Seems like Bill Conlin is cherry-picking here. Actually, of course he is. Out of the top fifty players in OPS, Albert Pujols had the second-lowest strikeout total. Pujols is the outlier here. He's an uber-talented exception, not the rule.

PB: So you think I should spread out so I strike out less and can protect Ryan Howard?

Pass this on to the rest of your brain, as well: Forget about protecting Ryan Howard and start worrying about protecting your own baseball reputation. Start by taking a long look in the mirror and asking, "Am I the hitter I wanted to be 7 years ago?" You won't like the answer.

This whole overthought, overwrought article can be summed up by the sentence "I, Bill Conlin, think Pat Burrell ought to spread his legs more when he hits because Joe DiMaggio was told something on a tuna boat once."

*Not true, of course (a double play causes two outs!)

**Prize awarded by Peoria, Illinois' Eric Pulitzer every three hours to the work that sets back baseball analysis the farthest

Labels: bill conlin, joe dimaggio, pat burrell, strikeouts

posted by Junior # 8:14 PM

Let's see what Joe Morgan has to say about Andruw Jones, shall we?

When you perform on baseball's biggest stage, the expectations of fans are heightened. And while Jones, 28, has had a solid career, some expected him to be better at the plate. It's true that he's averaged 30.6 home runs in his eight full seasons (he debuted in August '96). However, he had a .268 career average heading into this season. He's hit .300 just once (.303 in 2000), and people have expected more from him offensively.

Okay, maybe Jones didn't become the absolute monster some people thought he might at the exact moment they were watching him explode during the 1996 WS. (Mark Lemke never hit .417 in a full season, either.) But here are Jones's career seasonal averages:

.269/.343/.500/.843. 95R, 31 2B, 32 HR, 97 RsBI, 15 SB.

That's pretty damn good. And he's 28. And he's a CF who plays the best defensive center field in like 50 years. And he negotiated his own contract at below market value so he could stay in Atlanta. And he had a .907 OPS in 2000. And he has played on some really terrible offensive teams his entire career. So who in the world cares that he has a .268 career average, or that he's only hit .300 once? If there's a criticism of him, it's maybe that he doesn't walk enough -- he did have 83 BB in 2002, but averages only like 63 a year, and could be more selective. But aren't we nitpicking? Is there one team in the entire league, except maybe the Cards, that wouldn't want Andruw Jones in CF?

The point is, right off the bat here, that Andruw Jones is good. We can all agree there, right Joe? Even though you weirdly start off by talking about how he's not that good, and use stupid statistics to back your point? Whatever. Andruw Jones is really good. We all agree. Good. Now, let's see what incisive analysis you bring to this discussion.

Maybe one of the reasons Andruw is hitting so well this year is because he's not in Chipper's shadow. Andruw has always been the "other Jones" in Atlanta. Chipper has been the star and the major run producer...Sometimes good players are stifled to a degree when they have great teammates.

This is amazing. Joe Morgan thinks the reason Andruw Jones is having a great year...is because Chipper is hurt? How does removing a guy with a .401 lifetime OBP make anyone on his team a better hitter? Does Joe think that these people's egos are so fragile that they are given a boost when a longtime teammate suddenly leaves, or is hurt, or something? In my humble opinion, this is one of the lamest comments announcers and analysts make -- that a player "steps up" when another player goes down, as if the two are causally linked. As if Andruw Jones has been suffering emotionally, for the last ten years, because Chipper gets all the attention. Or like, when Sammy Sosa leaves the Cubs and people start talking about how Derrek Lee is "stepping up" and "putting the team on his back," BECAUSE Sosa left. Like, if Sosa were still there, Derrek Lee would think, "I'm going to take it easy and hit .280 with 18 HR this year, because Sammy Sosa is on the team. What? He got TRADED? Fuck. Okay. I guess I'll hit .380 with 50 HR, because my teammates need me."

If Andruw Jones could have had this year last year, or 2001, or whenever Chipper was MVP, don't we think he would have? How about attributing his good year to the fact that he is 28 and hitting what is widely recognized as his prime four-year stretch? How about using logic and reason and intelligence instead of good ol' timey whimsy and conventional folksy baseball wisdom? How about ANALYZING something instead of just saying stuff you heard Harry Caray say about Ken Boyer in like 1964?

Here's more -- still annoying, but in a new way (for this column):

Still, I don't see Andruw Jones' being a .330-40 HR-125 RBI hitter. But he doesn't have to do that to contribute to the Braves' success. He might not be totally satisfied with his career, but he has to be happy with it – because he's contributed to Atlanta's amazing run of division titles (he's been part of nine of the 13 straight).

Well, if you believe in paces, (and I don't, for the most part, but Andruw doesn't show many signs of slowing down), his actual projection this year is .282/50/114 with a .955 OPS. I love that Joe doesn't even bother to look that up, and just blindly and illogically throws out .330/40/125 -- which is what someone like Pujols, not Andruw, would give you. (As Joe himself noted earlier, Jones has hit .300 only once. And also, again, who the hell cares.) Then he goes on to say that he doesn't have to do that to contribute to Atlanta's success. Right. All he has to do is do everything he has done for the last NINE YEARS, during which he has been an absolute rock in a frequently-changing line-up, offensively and defensively, that wins its division every single year. Also, what on God's green earth would suggest that Andruw Jones is not "satisfied" with his career? And why is holy hell would Joe Morgan feel it necessary to tell Jones, and us, that he "has to be happy with it?" What the hell is that? And then we get this weird diversion:

Another factor has contributed to the heightened expectations faced by Jones: He and Vladimir Guerrero were signed the same year, in 1993, and I'm told that Jones was ranked above Guerrero in at least one analyst's ranking.

Expectations were high for Andruw Jones. Because he was 18 and awesome. Does anybody in the universe remember that he was ranked above Vlad by "at least one analyst?" This is not exactly a Brien Taylor-type situation. Jones has had a great career. Plus, who the hell remembers or cares that Jones and Vlad were signed the same year? Darin Erstad and Geoff Jenkins were both drafted in 1995. I'm sure "at least one analyst" thought Jenkins was better than Erstad. Did that heighten expectations for Jenkins? I'm dizzy, from the stupidity.

As excellent as Jones is, Guerrero has had a better career. Guerrero, 29, is a career .325 hitter, and he's driven in 100 runs six times (compared to three for Jones) and exceeded Jones' career high in homers (36) five times. So Guerrero has been more consistently productive on offense, while Jones is better defensively, but they're both good at both sides of the game. The edge goes to Guerrero because of his batting average and production.

I will refrain from commenting on how rudimentary are Joe's methods of comparison/contrast (still with the BA and RsBI?!), and instead will point out that he makes the same point like six times: Jones is excellent, Guerrero has been better. Guerrero has hit better. Guerrero has been more consistently productive on offense. Jones is better defensively. They're both good at everything. Guerrero is better because he hits better.

Then there's this:

Guerrero also has struck out far less than Jones. In a single season, Guerrero hasn't yet reached the 100-strikeout mark. Jones has struck out 100 or more times eight straight years.

Here are some people who have struck out 100+ times in a season: Jim Thome, Mike Schmidt, Sammy Sosa, Reggie Jackson, Mark McGwire, Willie Stargell, Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds, Duke Snider, Eddie Matthews, Harmon Killebrew, Ralph Kiner, Jimmie Foxx...should I continue? (amazingly -- side note -- The Babe never did, though he had a few seasons in the 90s.) In fact, most of these players led their league in K's at least once.

How does Joe Morgan, about whom, by the way, Bob Costas once said "no one knows more about baseball than [Joe]," which makes me suddenly hate Bob Costas -- not understand that striking out is not always a bad thing? It's just an out. Is Robert Fick a better player than Andruw Jones because Fick has never struck out 100 times in a season?

Then Joe says:

But comparisons can be misleading, because Andruw Jones is a great player in his own right.

He has made this point fifteen times already. Also, yes, comparisons can be misleading, expecially when they're being made by Joe Morgan. And whom is he warning that comparisons can be misleading? Why did he make the comparison, then? He's arguing with himself. It's like he's saying, "Rocky Road is delicious. Mint Chip is also very good, but Rocky Road is better. But hold on -- don't compare them, it can be misleading. But they're both good. But be careful when you talk about them. But Rocky Road is better. But be careful."

Believe it or not, he's not done yet. Apparently, he does not yet think we have gotten his point about Andruw Jones:

When you excel on the October stage, people expect you to be a .300 hitter, hit 35-40 homers per year and drive in 120 runs every year. Jones hasn't lived up to those expectations, but he has been one of the best and most consistent players in the majors throughout his career.

First of all, the only person who has tossed out those numbers is you, Joe. And second, oh my God, I hate you. YOU were the one who said that those numbers were "expected" of him. YOU are "people." And will you PLEASE stop making the point that Andruw Jones hasn't lived up to some unnamed people's expectations, but is still good?

Joe then goes into a lengthy and miserably-argued section about where Jones ranks defensively all-time. He says: third, behind Mays and Griffey, Jr. I will leave it up to someone else (dak, probably, or maybe Junior [the blogger, not the ballplayer]) to check on Griffey's RF vs. Jones's. (My guess is Jones comes out ahead. Could be wrong.) But suffice it to say, Joe's argument is anecdotal at best, and nonsense at worst.

Then we get to this, completely out of sequence:

The main criticism of Jones as a hitter is that he hasn't been especially patient at the plate. He needs to be more selective, as his eight straight 100-strikeout seasons attest (including a career-high 147 last year). While he's showed stretches of being patient, he's been inconsistent.

Yeah, we talked about this about four pages ago. Where were you, Joe? In any case, he's right that Jones could be more selective, and wrong that the evidence for this is the number of strikeouts he has per year. Jim Thome is incredibly selective, and he strikes out all the time. Adam Dunn is selective -- ditto. Chipper Jones strikes out 90+ times a year and has the aforementioned .401 career OBP. In fact, let's look at some recent league K leaders: Thome, Giambi, Dunn, Bellhorn, Sosa. All guys who are selective hitters. Selective hitters often get to 2-strike counts, and thus often strike out. So, Joe, if a lot of strike-outs isn't necessarily a good indicator of whether a player is a selective hitter, what is?

Hmmmm.

Let's think.

Gosh, I don't know...

How about...

How many times that player WALKS?

How about that, Joe, you blundering dolt?

Jones could walk more. That is, probably, the number one criticism one can make of him as a hitter. It is complete jibberish to say that the fact that he strikes out a lot is evidence that he is not a selective hitter. The two are not causally linked.

He continues:

In today's game, 100 strikeouts isn't that extreme. A hitter should never strike out 147 times, though.

Here are some people who have struck out 140+ times in a season: Adam Dunn, Jim Thome, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, Mo Vaughn, Andres Galarraga, Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, Bobby Bonds, Dick Allen, George Scott, Frank Howard, Harmon Killebrew, Jim Edmonds, Troy Glaus, Mark McGwire. That's, what...at least eight HOFers?

When Jones is patient, he's one of the better hitters in the game. When he isn't, he's just a good hitter – but his good is pretty good. Yes, many fans expected more because of Jones' fantastic start in the '96 World Series...

Oh my God. He's making the same point. Again.

Jones' experience can be compared to Carlos Beltran's performance in the postseason last year. In 12 games in a two-week span, Beltran hit eight home runs (four each in the NLDS and NLCS) with 14 RBI and a .435 average. The difference is that Beltran, 28, was an established major-leaguer when he made his amazing postseason debut. Andruw's teenage youth in the '96 Series gave his success more of a mystique and raised those expectations.

And again. I give up.

EDIT: Added win shares analysis in the "comments section."

Labels: joe morgan, strikeouts

posted by Ken Tremendous # 7:25 PM

FIRE JOE MORGAN

Thursday, March 29, 2007

The War Against The War Against Strikeouts

Monday, January 22, 2007

This Post Is Brought To You By The Letter K

Monday, October 03, 2005

Meet Modernity, Murray Chass

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

FJM Instant Classic

Archives