FIRE JOE MORGAN

Look at this.

John (New York, NY): Do you agree with other analysts that Derek Jeter's defense is overrated? With the number of errors he's made so far this year, it seems like everyone's jumping off the bandwagon.

Joe Morgan: I would not put myself in that group.

Ken Tremendous: Explain why.

First off, as a middle infielder, shortstop is the most difficult position to play on the field.

KT: I agree.

Any lapse of concentration or injury can throw you off.

KT: Same can be said of all positions, but I'm still with you.

I think with Jeter, he's been losing his concentration recently, but I expect him to get out of it. Middle infield demands that you have your highest confidence at all times, so a few errors can throw you off.

KT: It's a confidence problem? For Derek Jeter? Are you sure?

I won't say someone's overrated because I don't see him every day.

KT: All-time low for the Joe Morgan "I don't see him every day so I can't comment" thing. How many times have you seen Jeter in your life, Joe? A hundred? Two hundred? And you still can't comment on whether you think he's overrated? This is insane. If you are telling me you can't make a comment on Derek Jeter because you haven't seen him play enough, you are officially saying that you can never render your opinion on anything, ever.

Obviously, if he's won 3 consecutive Gold Gloves, he has to be pretty good.

KT: Opposite of true.

Rick in DC: Mr. Morgan: The Tigers are pitching well thus far, but all we hear about are the arms on the Red Sox. Do you think these teams will meet in the ALCS this year?

Joe Morgan: I actually feel like Detroit might win the American League again. Obviously it's early, so I can't make a real prediction.

KT: People make predictions all the time. Before seasons even start. Can you ever just offer an opinion without qualifying it? What is the point of constantly saying you can't give your opinion? Why do you have this job?

So far, with Boston, Schilling has bounced back, Beckett is capable but hasn't reach his full potential, and Dice-K looks like a stud. You can't say they have a great staff just yet; they've certainly made some good starts. The Tigers have more room for improvement than the Red Sox, as Schilling and Wakefield aren't getting any better. I still think the Tigers will prevail in the end.

KT: See? Was that so hard?

Tony (Weymouth MA): With all of the injuries to the Yankees starting rotation, will Roger Clemens lean to signing with the Red Sox as the best chance to win it all one last time? Does he stay in Houston or retire?

Joe Morgan: I know Roger pretty well, but I'm not going to predict what he will do.

KT: Oh my God.

Here's a play I just wrote:

(Scene: Joe is the blind Greek seer Tiresias. Oedipus approaches.)

Oedipus: Tiresias, priest of Zeus. I come to you to gain knowledge of the slaying of King Laius.
Joe Tiresias: Well, I knew Laius pretty well, but I don't want to say I know who killed him.
Oedipus: But your visions are never wrong, great seer. You see all.
Joe Tiresias: I have seen a lot of things happen, yes. I have been a seer for a long time, so don't tell me I don't know what's gonna happen in Greece.
Oedipus: (confused) ...I wasn't saying that. I am saying the opposite of that. I am asking you for your help in learning the identity of the slayer of King Laius.
Joe Tiresias: I knew Laius. I watched him be King for a long time. He was a great veteran King.
Oedipus: ...What?
Joe Tiresias: If you're saying that he is not as good a King as you, I wouldn't say that. You just started as King, and he did it for a lot of years. He knew how to rule.
Oedipus: ...Yikes. Okay. Listen. I want you to use your wisdom and sight and the power of the Gods to tell me who killed him.
Joe Tiresias: Well, I didn't watch him rule every day, so I don't want to comment. I don't want to say one way or the other.
Oedipus: (Blinds self out of frustration)

Personally, I believe the only place Roger Clemens can play is Houston, because Roger doesn't want to travel, and Houston is the only team of the three to allow him to do what he's doing. Neither the Yankees or Red Sox can allow him to do that. If he pitches again, as an analyst, I feel he will pitch with Houston.

KT: And again, he ends up answering the question after saying that he can't answer the question.

Shawn in Philly: Do you really believe the lack of African-American players in the game is a "crisis"? Does it matter how many there are in the league as long as the opportunity is there? To me, the real problem is the lack of African-Americans in front office positions.

Joe Morgan: Of all the people I've listened to about this percentage, you have the right understanding. I cannot find it in my heart to blame MLB for the percentages. The opportunity is there. Players are making a choice to go to the NBA or the NFL. If baseball wants to try to help persuade them to go that way, that's great, but it's not baseball's fault. Football is 70 percent African-American and basketball is 80 percent African-American. All those athletes are not playing baseball. I agree fully that the problem is in the front office and in the management, but if you do not have African-American players, where are the managers going to come from? They have brought people into the front office who have graduated from Harvard, but not African-Americans who have graduated from Harvard. You have guys who get two, three chances, but a guy like Cito Gaston, Dusty Baker, Don Baylor, Lloyd McClendon, Davey Lopes, Jerry Manuel who don't get as many chances. Yet a aguy like Phil Garner, who lost in Milwaukee and Detroit, found a good team in Houston. Not to pick on him, but the opportunity isn't there. Only Frank Robinson has managed more than three different teams; Cleveland, San Francisco, Baltimore, and Washington. You have a very good understanding of what I see as the problem.

KT: All right, look. Dabbling in racial discussions is always a dangerous thing. And I fully agree that all different types of people should have the opportunities to manage MLB teams, and I think it's probably true that MLB, like the NFL and the NBA, should have more minority managers and front-office types -- especially African-Americans.

But. Look at that list of guys who, Joe is insinuating, didn't get a fair shake. Cito Gaston won two WS, then went 56-88, 74-88, 72-85, and was fired. I'll quote from his Wikipedia page here...

He had failed to lead the team to a winning record since 1993 and seemed uninterested in keeping his position. Gaston forced [GM Gord] Ash's hand by telling his boss that he was taking a vacation at season's end and would not be around for the usual post season evaluation process, thus ending his Jays managing career in an undignified fashion. He was replaced by then-pitching coach Mel Queen on an interim basis for the last week of the 1997 season. Gaston rejoined the team as a hitting coach after the 1999 season but was not retained after a disappointing 2001 campaign and the sale of the franchise to Rogers Communications. In 2002, he was hired by the Jays for a third time, as special assistant to president and chief executive officer Paul Godfrey.

Given Gaston's impressive record and World Series titles, it is somewhat surprising that he never managed again in the Major Leagues. Nevertheless, Gaston was a final candidate for the Detroit Tigers manager's job in the 1999-2000 season and was the runner-up to in the Chicago White Sox manager position in the 2003-4 off season. Sox GM Kenny Williams, a former Blue Jays player, had Gaston as one of two finalists for the job but decided to hire Ozzie Guillen. Gaston had several offers to rejoin major league teams as a hitting instructor...but declined offers. His length of unemployment now makes it unlikely he will return to the major leagues as a manager.

So...it was African-American GM Kenny Williams who hired Ozzie Guillen -- a minority candidate -- over Gaston. Just sayin'.

And Lopes, well, he has a career record of 144-195. (Also, I don't believe he is African-American. Am I wrong?) Dusty Baker is the man who thinks that you shouldn't "clog up the bases." He probably ended the careers of Mark Prior and Kerry Wood by having them throw like 150 pitches a game even after DL trips. He stinks on ice. Don Baylor won more than 83 games once in nine years. Lloyd McClendon was 336-446 in five years. Jerry Manuel was better (500-471), and is currently coaching for the (African-American-coached) Mets, I think, and he's only 53. He'll get another chance.

A lot of these guys -- like McClendon, and Baylor to some extent -- had crappy teams. But they also didn't do that great, so it's not totally surprising that they haven't been handed other jobs. I don't know. MLB should do more to encourage front-office -- and, I guess, non-Harvard -- minority hires. But I don't think it's racism, necessarily, that has kept, say, Dusty Baker, from getting hired. I think it's good sense.

Doug (New Rochelle, NY): Joe - how do you assess Junior Griffey's legacy? The last few years have been marred by injuries, and yet he still has a great shot at 600 home runs and he is one of the few sluggers in this geneation without a steroid question hanging over his head.

Joe Morgan: What you havre with Griffey is a Hall of Fame career, but unfortunately people may remember him near the end, when he broke down. Willie Mays was the greatest I ever saw, but he was average toward the end of his career. Fortunately, he's already built his legacy. His place in history is already set. He's one of the greatest to ever play the game.

KT: That part is kind of boring. But I love this next part:

Joe Morgan: When you saw Griffey on the field, you knew he was having fun. You don't see that with all the other players.

KT: To me Griffey is kind of a famously sourpuss kind of guy. He always looked unhappy, to me. Am I crazy? And also: who cares?

Bob(Chicago): In your opinion, why didn't more teams interview Dusty Baker during the offseason? Has he been scarred by the Wood/Prior injuries since 2003 or is it just the residue of being a Cubs manager?

KT: Here's a quotation you might have read, that Dusty Baker once said, when his team was last in the league with a .318 OBP and was asked if his team should walk more: "On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."

That is why more teams did not interview him. It betrays a lack of understanding about baseball bordering on the criminally insane. But let's see what Joe thinks.

Joe Morgan: I think all those things are in play. I don't think the Wood/Prior situation is as important as being in a losing situation in a big market. I'll go back to my answer before. Do you think if he was not African-American and had his same resume, would ha get interviewed?

KT: I think that no matter what ethnicity a man is, if he believes that walks "clog up the bases," he should not be a major league manager, because he is ill-suited for that job.

The same goes with Cito Gaston. We can say we shouldn't look at it that way, but you tell me another way to look at that, and I will.

KT: I just did. But here it is again, same guy (Dusty), same subject, different quote:

“No. 1, I’ve let most guys hit 3-0 (in the count). That’s one reason. . . . I think walks are overrated unless you can run. If you get a walk and put the pitcher in a stretch, that helps, but the guy who walks and can’t run, most of the time he’s clogging up the bases for somebody who can run.”

And this one:

“Who have been the champions the last seven, eight years? Have you ever heard the Yankees talk about on-base percentage and walks? . . . Walks help. They do help. But you aren’t going to walk across the plate, you’re going to hit across the plate. That’s the school I come from.”

For the record, the Yankees' championship teams were very much about OBP and walks.

Want more?

“Everybody can’t hit with two strikes, everybody can’t walk,” Baker said. “You’re taking away some of the aggressiveness of a kid if you’re telling him to go up there and try to work for a walk. . . . It’s like when I see kids in Little League and they make the small kids go up there and try to get a walk. That’s not any fun. . . . Do you ever see the top 10 walking (rankings)? You see top 10 batting average. A lot of those top 10 do walk, but the name of the game is to hit.”

How in the world is any sane GM going to let that guy manage his team?

There's no way that you can win like Dusty and Cito and not get another job. If you're an honest man, you realize there's something wrong with that picture.

KT: I actually take offense at this. Joe Morgan is calling me a racist. Or at least, not an honest man. That's wrong. If he's not careful, my friends and I might create a blog that ridicules him and people like him who don't know what they are talking about.

Bob (Tinley Park, IL): Joe, what do you think of Henry Aaron and Bud Selig's stance on Bonds breaking his record? Should they be there in your opinion or is Bonds a cheater and therefore not worthy of their presence?

Joe Morgan: I don't ever call anyone a cheater unless I know for sure.

KT: Okay. Fair enough.

Barry Bonds told a federal grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream supplied by the Burlingame laboratory now enmeshed in a sports doping scandal, but he said he never thought they were steroids, The Chronicle has learned.

Federal prosecutors charge that the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, known as BALCO, distributed undetectable steroids to elite athletes in the form of a clear substance that was taken orally and a cream that was rubbed onto the body.

Bonds testified that he had received and used clear and cream substances from his personal strength trainer, Greg Anderson, during the 2003 baseball season but was told they were the nutritional supplement flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm for arthritis, according to a transcript of his testimony reviewed by The Chronicle.

Federal prosecutors confronted Bonds during his testimony on Dec. 4, 2003, with documents indicating he had used steroids and human growth hormone during a three-year assault on baseball's home run record, but the Giants star denied the allegations.

During the three-hour proceeding, two prosecutors presented Bonds with documents that allegedly detailed his use of a long list of drugs: human growth hormone, Depo-Testosterone, undetectable steroids known as "the cream" and "the clear," insulin and Clomid, a drug for female infertility sometimes used to enhance the effect of testosterone.

The documents, many with Bonds' name on them, are dated from 2001 through 2003. They include a laboratory test result that could reflect steroid use and what appeared to be schedules of drug use with billing information, prosecutors told the grand jury.

In a September 2003 raid on Anderson's Burlingame home, federal investigators seized documents they said showed Bonds was using banned drugs, according to court records. Anderson was indicted in February on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to distribute steroids in the BALCO case.

Now can you say he cheated?

(Did you not hear about that, Joe? it was a really big story.)

Joe Morgan: Hopefully this will be a better week for all of us, and baseball will help us move forward in the aftermath of what happened at Virginia Tech. It has not been a good start to the week. I'm concerned because my two daughters will be going to school two years from now. It's almost like the Imus situatiion; kids and people going to get educated and being hit from the outside with negative comments and threates on their lives. I guess if you're not safe in college, where are you safe?

KT: I'd just like to say here that the Imus situation was horrifying and despicable, and I'm glad he was fired. But how on God's green earth do you even begin to compare that with the Virgina Tech massacre? That's not even apples and oranges -- it's like apples and hurricanes of murderous insanity that destroy entire communities.

Sorry this chat was so downerish and sad. Hopefully next week he'll just go back to saying he can't comment on anything.

Labels: dusty baker, joe morgan, joechat

Because the creator of this site is not a professional journalist. He is just a guy who wants ARod to be more respected in New York.

And this is a cause I can get behind. I am a Red Sox fan, and thus, currently, I "hate" ARod. But as you might have read on our site, we feel that his treatment by fans and the NY press is absolutely insane. He is super awesome at baseball, and plenty of sportswriters think that because he has had some bad playoff series he is a headcase who fails in the clutch. The phrase "not a True Yankee" gets thrown around. Please see our Glossary for some thoughts on the phrase "True Yankee."

Point is, AlexRod is straight-up, no foolin', one of the maybe five best offensive players in baseball over the last decade, which lots of people, weirdly, forget.

Anyway, this "Project A13" fellow thinks that all Yankee fans have to do is read "The Secret" and bend some spoons with their minds and maybe rub some crystals on the back of a cauldron filled with jackal testicles and then maybe, just maybe, Alex Rodriguez can become good at baseball.

Maybe, if they use their positive vibes and Healing Vectors and Optimism BrainPlasma Rays extra effectively, he'll even become as good at baseball as he was in 2005, when he won the MVeffingP Award for being the best baseball player. As a member of the Yankees.

There is just something contagious about positive energy, and even though it can't be put into words readily, or explained in a lab with science, we've all felt its effects at Yankee Stadium in the past.

Yes. Going to baseball games is very fun, and when the crowd gets into the game, it is very exciting. Why do Yankee fans often feel like Yankee Stadium, which is a 1970's-remodeled shithole, is governed not by the laws of physics but by White Magik?

Think post-9/11, in the 2001 World Series, when every fan's thoughts were focused squarely on baseball—they had to be—and how amazing their pinstriped heroes could make them feel. In back-to-back games, the Yankees hit two game-tying, two-run home runs in the bottom of the ninth inning, with two outs each time (what are the odds?), a feat never before witnessed in World Series play.

This happened...because of positive energy? Not because BK Kim threw like 100 pitches in 2 days? Not because the hitters who hit them were good. Not because sometimes: crazy shit happens, especially in the wonderfully complex and unpredictable world of baseball? It all happened because of positive feelings.

For the record, I was living in New York at that time. Those HR were amazing. They brought tears to my eyes. They almost made me happy, which I never thought any Yankee triumph could do. People in New York were happy, for the first time in two very terrible months. It was wonderful, for the city. It did not happen because of magic.

Derek Jeter went on to hit an extra-innings, walk-off home run in the first of these two games, and Alfonso Soriano had the game-winning hit in the second. Euphoria rained down in the Bronx.

Anyone remember who eventually won that World Series? Who? The Diamondbacks? Huh. Maybe the Yankee Fan Brain-Energy Sparkle Photons couldn't penetrate the warm desert air.

Want more examples?

Yes, please.

Think Tino's upper-deck Grand Slam versus San Diego in the 1998 Series. Or Chad Curtis' two Game Three, World Series home runs in 1999.

The Yankees were very good at baseball in the late 1990's. Every good thing that happens in your home park is not due to Dark Arts.

Mariano's three Series-clinching saves in three consecutive October Classics—also a feat never before seen.

This is what we in the tangible human world of cold mathematics call: a Cherry-Pick.

And the list could go on and on for this extraordinary stretch of time, such as David Justice's clutch home run off Arthur Rhodes in the 2000 playoffs, and let's not forget the back-to-back perfect games pitched by David Wells in 1998, and David Cone in 1999.

These are "back to back" because they happened in consecutive years? That's not what "back to back" means. You can't say that Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz hit back-to-back home runs on May 13, 2003 and August 18 2004. Or that Bill Clinton and George Bush won back-to-back elections. Or that France and America won back-to-back revolutions. They both threw prefect games, in Yankee Stadium. It was all very exciting.

Hang on a second. Oh my God. Their names are both named David. Maybe everyone in The Bronx should change their names to David!!!!!!

Just like the media can create waves of negative energy to sell its newspapers and ad space, fans like you and me can create waves of positive energy that carry our athletes to heights never thought possible.

Nope. No. Sorry. Untrue. Opposite of true. Baloney. Fake fake fake silly dumb no. Bad nope ugh stop dumb silly no no no.

It is super fun to go to baseball games. It is one of my favorite things in the world. And I certainly believe that it is exciting and fun for players to hear -- and feel -- that the crowd is roaring their approval. But for the love of god, man. Get a grip.

Think of all those insane moments, where the opposition and their fans were left staring out onto the field, or at their TV sets, in dazed, dejected, bewilderment—mouths hanging to the floor—while the Yankees danced, and jumped, and hugged, shaking their heads...the Yankees' Mystique...the Ghosts of Yankees Stadium...the Aura of New York. All of these events can be explained, in large part, because everyone involved believed they would happen—they just knew the Yankees would come through—players and fans alike.

I hate to be "this guy." But did everyone think the Yankees would lose Games 6 and 7 in 2004? Did you think you would lose to the Tigers? Did you think you would lose to the Angels?

Here are some words I would use to describe the Yankees' players and fans after those defeats:

"dazed, dejected, bewilderment—mouths hanging to the floor—while the [other team/their fans] danced, and jumped, and hugged, shaking their heads."

And read this again:

"All of these events can be explained, in large part, because everyone involved believed they would happen—they just knew the Yankees would come through—players and fans alike."

Those events can be explained because the Yankees were good at baseball. It had little/nothing to do with the fans in the stands. Sorry.

It can be that way again. All we need is a spark.

Plus two more good starters, a reliable lefty set-up guy, a good year out of Cano, quick injury come-backs from Abreu and Wang, a 75% PECOTA year from Posada, and another 30 rounds of HGH for Giambi. And Roger Clemens. And Phil Hughes.

Oh -- and a spark. You need a spark.

To a certain extent, these moments still happen for the Yankees, even if a ring is not the ultimate reward. For example, Hideki Matsui's opening day grand slam in 2003, in the snow.

This is an event worth singling out? This is a "special moment" that resulted from Yankee Magic? The guy hit a grand slam. He's a good hitter. Fernando Tatis hit two in one inning once. Was that because of fans?

Or, my personal favorite, the 2003 ALCS Game 7 comeback against Pedro, punctuated by Georgie's game-tying double in the eighth, and signed, sealed and delivered by Aaron Boone in the bottom of the eleventh—the definition of insanity.

Oh, I beg to differ, chumly. The definition of insanity is believing that fans and their Positive Energy Beams caused a Tim Wakefield knuckleball to hang. Or that Yankee Stadium, and not Pedro's exhausted arm, or Grady Little's complete and utter inability to manage baseball games, caused those hits to fall in. That, my good man, is the definition of insanity.

The problem today is that these moments are happening less and less frequently, especially in the postseason, and we the fans are getting more and more angry—a frustrating cycle headed in the wrong direction.

Yes. The problem is not an aging roster and terrible trades and a lack of a farm system that plagued the team for the last five years and Jason Giambi's steroids/pituitary tumor and losing Andy Pettitte and playing ARod out of position and giving Tony Womack like 400 AB one year and insisting Bernie can still play CF and Hideki Matsui breaking his wrist and no pitching depth and a crappy bullpen. The problem -- and why won't anyone listen to this guy?! -- is a Cyclical Downtrend in Forward-Thinking Optimism that spawns Grumpy Beams that are Radiated Outward from the Happy Helping Mechanisms (the stands). Haven't you guys ever seen baseball? Or learned science?

This is the problem when a city becomes conditioned on excellence, as the Yankees of the late 90's definitely conditioned their fans. We stop believing good things will happen, and start expecting them to—a major difference. Belief, in its purest form, is a measure of confidence...of faith.

Expectation is a measure of entitlement, which is not nearly as endearing a quality, is it?

No, it is not. But even less endearing is: lunacy.

I really don't want to be a killjoy. I like the humanistic element of baseball fandom. I often do not move from my seat if the Red Sox have a rally going. But: and this is key: I do not actually believe that my actions affect those of the players on the field. How is it possible for me to differentiate between superstition and the actual doings of men I have never met? Because -- and this is my secret -- I am a sentient human.

Labels: arod, blogs, yankees

If you've been living under a rock or something and are like totally not hip to important things that are happening in the world, allow me to inform you that former mediocre New York Yankee Mike Pagliarulo has some kind of scouting website.

It appears to be co-run by someone named Adam, but for the purposes of this blog entry, I am going to assume it is designed, written, and executed by Pags and Pags only. Because that is funnier.

Call us crazy, but where else in the world can you find an industry where a small market GM leads the large market companies?

1. You're crazy.
2. I would imagine there are a lot of them. Lots of large companies are influenced by, and steal ideas from, small companies. Apple's design team blows Microsoft's out of the water. JetBlue and Southwest were, for a while, running rings around much larger airlines. Most people refer to the product that allows you to record TV shows as "TiVo" and not "TimeWarner HD Cable DVR" or something. Sometimes Miramax and FineLine and Paramount Vantage and stuff win Oscars while Universal and Warner Bros. make clunkers. Should I keep going? Or do you want to talk about baseball?

Where else does a business with half the budget dictate protocol for the “super powers” except in the business of baseball?

We're in troubs, here, Pags. This sentence is all over the linguistic map. I think what you mean to say is: in what other industry does a "company" (team) with half the budget of other companies (teams) with which is it competing, control the way business is conducted within that industry. Instead, you just wrote the word "business," and then wrote a bunch of phrases with no antecedents or referents ("half the budget," "super powers") and then wrote "business" again. Not make word-goods you wasn't.

(BTW: For the answer to the question, see the answer to the previous question, because this is just a rephrasing of the previous question.)

In the case of the Oakland A’s and GM Billy Beane, quite a phenomenon exists throughout a majority of the monopoly consisting of major league baseball teams.

This is painful. Pags, sweetheart -- have you ever read...anything? If you haven't, you should. If will help you communicate better with your audience. This sentence appears to have been first "written" in sign language by a Russian chimp, and then translated into English by a Chinese businessman who learned English from old soap operas.

It seems that what Pags wants to say -- but tragically cannot, because he writes like a fifth grader trying to fake his way through an oral report on salamanders -- is: "What makes Billy Beane so great, anyway?!" Which is an excellent question. That has been answered many, many, many, many times.

Billy Beane is a great GM because he found a way to keep the A's competitive in MLB, despite a payroll far behind those of several other teams. He did this by using cutting-edge statistical analysis to find players with undervalued skills who had been overlooked by other teams. He drafted these players (or traded for them), paid them rock-bottom prices, and watched as his army of nerd robots won many division- and wild card titles. If this sounds familiar, it's because everyone in the world has been talking about it for like six years (or more), and because it was chronicled in the book Moneyball by Michael Lewis, which is very good, and really has nothing to do with anything that anybody now thinks it has to do with.

I sincerely doubt that anyone reading this blog has not read Moneyball, but if you haven't, you should, because it's quite good. I am also going to go ahead and bet that Pags has never read Moneyball. I might even...yes, yes I believe I am going to go ahead and guess that Pags has not completed an entire book since he polished off Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing, when he was seventeen.

There are a few teams (Toronto, Boston, NY, and Texas) who rely on statistical formulas and hire knowledgeable front office personnel at a cost of $50K to $500K, who create and analyze – something!

They analyze baseball players. Did you really not know this?

We aren’t sure what that “something” is and they certainly aren’t talking about it, especially to the media.

That's because it's a crock! They're full of it! They aren't really doing anything, these nerds. They have like mob-style no-show jobs. Hang on...come to think of it...I never heard any generals give interviews explaining how we were going to attack Baghdad. They're crocks too! They should be explaining that to us in the media! Also, where is the explanation of the formula for Coke? That should be available to me, from the media, via some people who work for Coke. If it isn't, I will assume that the people who make Coke are frauds who are just taking money and not making any actual product. And to answer your next question, no, I will not be dissuaded by the purchasing and consuming of Coke.

Sincerely,
Pags

Quite possibly, the statistical masterminds are creating retirement accounts and special offshore businesses for these highly paid decision makers.

I have said this before, but it's worth reiterating. Jokes definitely work best when they are formed as long, drawn-out sentences with lots and lots of extra words.

Example:

Bad Joke: Take my wife -- please!
Good Joke: For one example, why don't you take my wife -- although, my wife is so annoying and vexing and irritating that when I say "take my wife" what I actually should be saying is, "Sir -- if you are going somewhere far away, take my wife...please!"

Let’s take a closer look at the genius whose numerical formula positions his team 14 games behind in the American League West and without the ability to muster a .500 record.

Yes, let us. And to do so, I will quote from one of the comments found below this post on Pags's site. (And I will add, in bold, the payroll of the team.)

2000: 91-70 (division title) (32,121,833)
2001: 102-60 (wild card) (33,810,750)
2002: 103-59 (division title) (40,004,167)
2003: 96-66 (division title) (50,260,834)
2004: 91-71 (59,425,667)
2005: 88-74 (55,425,762)
2006: 93-69 (division title) (62,242,079)
2007: 69-72 (79,366,940)

You know what the Yankees' payroll was in 2006? $194,663,079. You know how many more games they won than the A's? Four. You know what the Yankees' payroll was in 2001? $112,287,143. You know how many more games they won than the A's that year? Negative seven more. That's how many more.

Now, a sentient human with a central nervous system and the ability to process information and engage with his fellow man might look at this data and say, "Billy Beane appears to be a talented GM." Here is what Pags gets from it:

The A’s are bad!

Just to clarify, he's talking about this year. Which: yes, they are, pretty bad. They have also sustained injuries to 41 of the 40 men on their roster. It's kind of a wash, really, 2007. But Pags seems to want to forget all of the years referenced above in order to "prove" his "point," which he evidences with the following fun PowerPoint-style bullets:

• They cannot “contend” in a four- team division, resulting in a sorry state of affairs.
• They fired a manager from 2006 who carried them to the playoffs because their genius (Beane) felt a new manager would help enhance team communication. This piece of information was reported in spring training.
• They use assistant GM David Forst to critique and interrogate manager Bob Geren to second guess the lineups both before and after games.
• Forst uses OPS, OBP, LLBean, FYI, and SOB as a system of analysis. Astoundingly, no one else uses this championship formula.
• Other general manager disciples such as Epstein, Cashman, Daniels, and Richardi have larger money blankets than Billy Beane, but they don’t use their blankets to warm Billy when he flounders and produces a product void of luster.

I know I say this a lot, but I think this is the shittiest writing I have come across in my 54 years of deconstructing sports journalism. I just described it to Mrs. Tremendous as "a treasure trove," and she rolled her eyes and kept on doing exactly what she was doing. But I could tell she was more into it than usual.

Let's go PagsPoint™ by PagsPoint™.

They cannot “contend” in a four- team division, resulting in a sorry state of affairs.

They are not contending this year. Correct. Is this the only year you have heard of? Do you not know that there have been other years? In four of the last seven, they won the division. What a sorry state of affairs. And who are you to use the phrase "sorry state of affairs" anyway? Fucking T.E. Lawrence?

They fired a manager from 2006 who carried them to the playoffs because their genius (Beane) felt a new manager would help enhance team communication. This piece of information was reported in spring training.

I'll say right now that dealing with managers has never really seemed like Billy's strong point. That weird "Macha out, Macha talking to Pittsburgh, Macha back in" thing from 2005 was painful to watch, and I don't know how anybody thought that was going to work out. So, I guess: Beane: not great with managers. Point Pags.

They use assistant GM David Forst to critique and interrogate manager Bob Geren to second guess the lineups both before and after games.

Man. I just...this isn't English sentence construction, man. Get an editor. Or, just, maybe hire a high school kid to rewrite your stuff or something. You've got back-to-back infinitives, for god's sake.

Look. This is the way Billy Beane runs his team. He wants certain guys playing in certain situations. If you take the A's managing job, you play by his rules. You know what allows him to wield that kind of power? Four division titles in seven years.

Forst uses OPS, OBP, LLBean, FYI, and SOB as a system of analysis. Astoundingly, no one else uses this championship formula.

In the pantheon of smugly ignorant acronym use, this takes the cake. LLBean is a terrible "nerdy acronym" joke for many reasons: like, that it's not an acronym. And that it appears in an article attacking Billy Beane, which gives one the impression the author is too dumb to think of two different things at the same time. FYI is boring. SOB is a term not heard much by people under fifty. And the whole thing -- the collection of five acronyms; two real, three unfunny and fake -- is referred to as a "system of analysis." Pags, seriously bro, if you had any idea how sophisticated their actual systems of analysis were...dude. Bro. Your effing head would explode.

Other general manager disciples such as Epstein, Cashman, Daniels, and Richardi have larger money blankets than Billy Beane, but they don’t use their blankets to warm Billy when he flounders and produces a product void of luster.

This may be the most wonderful sentence I have ever read. This sentence holds the English language by the throat, pushes it against a wall, and slashes it across the face with a broken beer bottle.

"Other general manager disciples"

Disciples of what? Or whom? Epstein came from San Diego. Cash has always been a Yankee. Jon Daniels worked in Colorado and then for Jon Hart in Texas. Ricciardi -- that's how you spell his name, BTW -- is the only one you could actually call a Beane "disciple." But you didn't call them Billy Beane disciples, I guess -- you just called them "disciples." Sort of covering all your bases there. Nice work.

"have larger money blankets than Billy Beane"

It's time to play: "Has Anyone Ever Heard This Phrase?" I have not. Please write in if you have, and let me know where. This is what I imagine. But I'm willing to listen to other explanations.

"but they don’t use their blankets to warm Billy"

Excellent. Just excellent. You make up a term, and then one second later you use the term in a different metaphorical context -- an extremely tortured metaphorical context, mind you, because: how could these "money blankets" be used to 'warm" Billy Beane by other GMs? Are you saying that they don't like loan him money? Or something? Or are you saying that they don't metaphorically "warm" him with praise? This is fucking gibberish.

"when he flounders and produces a product void of luster."

My favorite part. What a finish. When he flounders and produces a product void of luster. Void of luster. Billy Beane has produced a product void of luster! Is this product...a watch fob? A set of plus-fours or spats? Perhaps an improperly polished saddle for tomorrow's hunt? No -- it's a baseball team! Surprise!

The fact is that the A’s will never win a World Series relying upon their current statistical formulas. The Oakland franchise is not structured to win a World Series.

Pags! Guns blazing! Prove it.

Sadly, Billy Beane doesn’t know this nor do his disciples.

That is sad. Those guys are just toiling away on their sophisticated mathematical modeling projects, working as hard or harder than anyone else in baseball, trying to level the playing field by outsmarting the other teams (many of whom have adopted and co-opted their methods) to compensate for (in some cases) their severely limited resources. And all that time, they don't know that they're doomed to go championshipless...forever. And they're being told this by Pags, who wrote this article from the stern of his 22-foot fishing boat ("The Yank Pags"), off the Gulf Coast, while pounding his eleventh Miller Lite.

Fundamental baseball wins championships and fundamentals aren’t found in the statistical formulas used when signing players for the Oakland franchise. They don’t get it, yet the “disciples” will revel in the notion that Billy B. says, “Joba Chamberlain is going to be a star”…………Now there’s a big time prediction!

I had to read this four or five times to understand it. I believe what PagsBone is saying: Oakland's mathematical modeling doesn't take "fundamentals" into account. Then there is a missing chunk where he would say that Beane is stupid for using these formulas, currently represented by the near non-sequitur "They don't get it." Then he adds that Beane's disciples think he's so great and point to predictions that Beane makes -- like that Joba is going to be good -- as evidence of his genius, when in fact, argues Pags, anyone in the world could have seen that!

Everything about this paragraph is wrong. The ideas behind it: wrong. The execution: virtuosically bad. A new bar has been set.

So, we ask, who will get fired this year? Will it be Bob Geren, Bob Schaefer, or David Forst? We know it won’t be Beane.

Toronto has a formula for drafting college pitchers who are unable to throw above 90 mph. Boston has Bill James-500K, the best fantasy baseball statistician in the game. He consulted in the JD Drew deal, totaling $70 million, but won’t admit it.

This makes it sound like Toronto has a specific desire to draft pitchers who cannot throw hard. I don't think that's true. I think they probably use a different set of criteria for guys who throw below 90 -- a formula involving K/BB rates, and BABIP, and the kinds of things you would want to know about a soft-tosser.

"Bill James-500K" sounds like a robot. Learn the difference between dashes and hyphens, dummy. Also, he is the opposite of a "fantasy" statistician. A "fantasy" statistician cares about things like RBI, runs, wins (for a pitcher) and stuff. Bill James does not. And yes, I am sure he did consult on the JD Drew deal, and I'm sure if you asked him he would admit it. On what basis are you saying he will not admit it? Did you ask him? Has anyone asked him? Is he publicly throwing other people under the bus for that deal? No, Pags, my man, he is not, I don't think. I could be wrong, but I don't think he is. I think that everyone in the Red Sox organization would say the same thing about that deal: disappointing so far, but it's a five-year deal, and you can't judge the success or failure of anything based on 15% of its eventual total.

The Yankees have two confidential statistical guys who are well dressed and very quiet. They both share an office near the PA announcer and are capable of telling the GM how many changeups Edwar Ramirez has thrown at AAA.

What does any of this have to do with anything, positively or negatively?

Daniels isn’t sure which part of the hierarchy is on his side.

What hierarchy? And why is this relevant? And what does it mean? And what point are you making?

Put quite simply, this is MONEY HAUL, the worst-spent dollars in major league baseball. This economic virus tows the leaders of the industry, the envious fans and executives in love with our national pastime.

This is the end of the blog entry. Fantastic. Economic virus? Envious fans? (Of what, one might ask.) And how is anyone's love of our national pasttime affected by this? And why is this money ill-spent? The Yankees, Red Sox, and A's have phenomenal records of success in the past decade. If the Pirates, Royals, and Orioles were using these methods, attack away, friend.

Sometimes -- and I know this is crazy -- I feel like Mike Pagliarulo isn't the smartest guy in the world.

Labels: a's, billy beane, mike pagliarulo

Hey! Look! It's an enchanting article, called:

Series Isn't So Classic Anymore

By a 135 year-old man.

The precious images cannot be blotted out by the curious programming of Major League Baseball.

I am already confused. You?

There is a hot stove ablaze with logs crackling, spewing pungent odors.

Ewww. What is this? Are you writing a horror movie screenplay? Because the WGA is on strike.

A group of craggy faced oldsters in heavy plaid sit around the room, chatting out their opinions about rumors and speculation.

Oh -- I get it. You're describing your ideal birthday party.

It used to be this way when baseball turned on America with the competitive enchantment of the World Series.

Here's where we try to figure out how old Jerry Green is:

A seven-game set decided by a home run by a light-hitting Bill Mazoroski in the bottom of the ninth.

Okay, 1960. Say you were, I don't know, 20? when this happened. That makes you 67.

Or a hung-over Grover Cleveland Alexander wobbling in from the bullpen, eyes rimmed with redness from his night on the town, and striking out Tony Lazzari with the bases full of Yankees.

Grover Cleveland?! Tony Lazzeri? This event took place on October 10, 1926. If you were even 10 when this happened, you, Jerry Green, are 91 years old. (So old you forgot how to spell "Lazzari [sic]."

Or a Brooks Robinson, sliding to his right, and stabbing the shot down the line -- backhanded.

An event that only happened in the World Series. (?)

The enchantment of Babe Ruth

You are 104.

and Sandy Koufax, of Kirk Gibson and Willie Stargell; of Willie Mays racing back full speed to snare the drive over his shoulder in the center-field depths of the ancient Polo Grounds. Of Don Larsen's perfect game.

So far the most recent event cited is from 1988. And that event is: The Enchantment Of Kirk Gibson. (???)

The enchantment of Kirby Puckett and Joe Carter hitting their critical home runs; of Jack Morris telling manager after nine innings of scoreless pitching, "No, I'm not coming out. It's my game." The enchantment of Mickey Lolich winning three games for the Tigers.

Seems like, back then, baseball's World Series used to be absolutely fucking stuffed with enchantment.

Back then, long ago and not so very long ago, Baseball's World Series used to be stuffed with enchantment.

See?

Every October. Every year.

Really? You've mentioned events from about ten years since 1926. Pretty sure there were some boring sweeps mixed in there, too.

And it was followed by something we called the Hot Stove League. It was the offseason, with all its remembrances of the recent World Series enhanced by the sport's juicy tidbits.

It has been a while now since I heard, or read, the phrase Hot Stove League. I guess it is passé, so 20th Century, only for old-fashioned dreamers.

It's been a while since you heard or read the phrase "Hot Stove League?" Here is the google result for a search of the term "hot stove league." There are more than one million hits. Many of them from the 21st century. Here, too, is a link to Peter Gammons' annual concert/charity "Hot Stove, Cool Music." You might not be familiar with Mr. Gammons, because he is a non-sesquicentennialian sports writer. You should read his stuff -- it's very enchanting.

And it has been a while known since Major League Baseball has delivered to America an enchanting World Series.

I don't know. 2004 was pretty goddamn enchanting. 2002 was, I'd say, sirenic, and 2001 was downright winsome. We've also recently had World Series that were glamorous (1997), entrancing (1996, 1988) and ravishing/beguiling (1992). The Reds-A's of 1990 was bewitching, methinks! And who can forget how intriguing, charming, befrothing, and just straight-up trebimmulating was the '05 Series? And on a more important note, why do you keep using the word "enchanting," you nerd?

It is very sad when the Hot Stove League delivers more enchantment than the World Series. But that is how it has been in this week that just was:

"Already a busy offseason"

The Tigers filling their vacuum for a prize shortstop in the Hot Stove League's first major trade, the coup in acquiring Edgar Renteria.

Enchantment Index (using standard 75-point Lathingham-Norbley Scoring System:

Sox Sweep Series: 42.8
Tigers Trade for Renteria: 55.9 (!!!!!!!!)

The Yankees hiring Joe Girardi as their manager and the New York rumor quacks had Don Mattingly all set as the successor to Joe Torre.

Yankees Hire Girardi/NY Rumor Quacks Miss on Donnie Baseball: 21.3

Geoff Jenkins is going to play for Detroit. No, he's not.

Jenkins Not Going to Tigers: 0.0

(Incredibly unenchanting. Also, "Geoff Jenkins not signing with the Tigers" is being used as an example of how much more exciting/enchanting the Hot Stove season is than the World Series. I don't care if you're a Yankee fan and Matt Holliday is your cousin and you are a Rockies groundskeeper -- the World Series was about a billion fucking times more enchanting than "Geoff Jenkins not signing with the Tigers.")

The Dodgers signing Torre as their manager in their own coup as the rumor quacks actually got one correct. For a change.

You are a thousand years old. You are a thousand year-old monk who lives on Easter Island and worships giant stone things.

And Curt Schilling, the mouth that seldom stops, using his blog to list 13 ballclubs for which he might be willing to pitch.

Neither enchanting nor unenchanting. Just, like, a "thing."

And Barry Bonds proclaiming that he would reject election to the Baseball Hall of Fame -- if he ever happens to be elected.

This didn't happen. He said he'd reject it if the record/ball had an asterisk.

And the Tigers crushed by another vacuum in the quaint shoulder injury to Joel Zumaya.

You don't use adjectives well. Or nouns, or language.

And of course, the daily speculation and rumors about the next destination for man-child Alex Rodriguez, celebrated free agent. The Marlins? The Angels? The Red Sox? The Dodgers? Back to the Yankees despite the Yankees strong statements of good riddance.

Not to rain on your parade, Andy Rooney's grandpa, but most humans in the world find the exploits of ARod and his agent: the opposite of enchanting.

And the Tigers slipping in the announcement at the end of the heavy baseball news week that most ticket prices would be raised for 2008.

Am I nuts? These things are more enchanting than the World Series? That's the argument, right? I'm not nuts.

Now he contrasts all of these things with:

"Another October rout"

Meanwhile, there is the rumor and speculation that the 2007 World Series actually ended last Sunday night. Ah yes, the night after a baseball game actually finished in 4 hours, 19 minutes of little action adorned by repeated television commercials.

"There is only one October. There is only one World Series." Over and over on the TV screen.

The idea of 2200 year-old Jerry Green trying to download and process what Dane Cook is... Fantastic.

Plus the droning about obscure records by Joe Buck and the mysterious explanations of Tim McCarver.

I take it all back. Jerry Green is a genius!

Wild-card Bud Selig and his cohorts from the Fox TV network sure gave American another World Series extravaganza! That makes it four straight now for Bud and Fox.

Yes. It is Bud Selig's fault that the World Series was 4-0. Well done.

The math:

In 2004, the American League wild-card Red Sox sweep the Cardinals in four games. Series over!

It is absolutely inconceivable to me that a 1.2 million year-old man, whose life goal seems to be searching for "enchantment" in playoff baseball, would not place the 2004 Red Sox WS victory in that column. Regardless of how many games it lasted.

In 2005, the White Sox sweep the National League wild-card Astros in four games. Series over!

So, whether they sweep or are swept, the Wild Card is the problem, somehow. 'Splain that.

In 2006, the Cardinals actually lose a game to the American League wild-card Tigers and win in five games. Series over!

Not even Eckstein can enchant Jerry Green?!

In 2007, the Red Sox sweep the National League wild-card Rockies in four games. Series over!

Wild-card Bud Selig keeps telling us how compelling Major League Baseball has become to the American psyche. His ego swells because the sport is popular again. He boasts that the game has rebounded from its work stoppage of the 1990s and the cancelled World Series. The World Series that he cancelled.

You spelled "canceled" wrong. Twice. (EDIT: I don't care if it's a common British spelling. America -- love it or leave it. Am I right?!) Also, Selig didn't cancelllll it. The players' union cancellllllled it when they went on strike. Or the owners cancellllllllllllled it, if you prefer, by not giving them a deal.

It is true. Baseball is thriving again.

Color you unenchanted, I guess.

But what does it tell wild-card Bud when a week of the old-fashioned Hot Stove League upstages the World Series? For four consecutive Octobers?

This is such a weird thing to do -- to pit the World Series against the Hot Stove league, as if they are comparable things. What a waste of time. The only bigger waste of time would be to dissect and analyze it for a blog you don't even get paid for.

To me, it seems that Bud Selig and Major League Baseball exist, their minds boggled, their eyes fogged, in a Land of Enchantment.

Are you J.R.R. Tolkien?

Jerry Green is a retired Detroit News sports writer.

Enchantée, M. Green. The pleasure is mine!

Labels: enchantment, jerry green

Around The Horn, July 19th, 2006. "Buying or Selling" Francisco Liriano as your AL Cy Young Award Winner?

Woody Paige steps to the mic. First, he informs Kevin Blackistone what "WHIP" actually stands for (Blackistone, believe it or not, had pronounced it letter for letter: W.H.I.P.).

"WHIP stands for Why Halladay Is Pre-eminent!"

Great. Hilarious. Here are Paige's reasons why he likes Halladay better than Liriano:

"He has more wins, more innings pitched, more shutouts, fewer walks, and he plays for a team that's not as good!"

Let's take it slowly here.

More wins.

Halladay has twelve. Liriano has eleven. Of course, Halladay has started seven more games than Liriano. One fewer win with seven fewer starts.

The better argument, of course, is that wins are a poor way to measure a pitcher's value. Keep in mind that Halladay gets 6.98 runs of support per game (good enough for 7th in all of baseball), while Liriano gets 5.82.

Oh wait -- I forgot. Halladay has a Pitcher Influence Over The Hitters Of His Own Team of +5.33. Liriano's is -.40. Maybe Halladay is better than Liriano.

Oh wait -- I forgot again. That doesn't exist.

More innings pitched.

He does. Halladay has more innings pitched than Liriano. About 33 innings. More starts, obviously. Should Liriano be penalized because the Twins didn't start him all year? Maybe a little. He's certainly more valuable as a starter than as a reliever.

Still, Liriano's innings are just way better than Halladay's. Liriano's BAA is about .052 lower than Halladay's. Pretty substantial. His WHIP is .11 better.

Use pretty much any metric you want, and Liriano comes out on top. I don't have the energy to go through all of them.

More shutouts.

Well, Woodrow makes a good point. I'm sure Halladay has like four shutouts and Liriano doesn't have any. Shutouts aren't a great stat, but sure, they show that on a given day, that guy was absolutely dominant. I'll just look up the stats to confirm --

Oh, okay. This makes more sense. Woody Paige just decided to make this shit up.

Neither Halladay nor Liriano has a shutout this year. They have the same number. Zero.

You know who does have one? Mark Hendrickson! He's not even the AL anymore. Must be better than Halladay and Liriano!

Woody Paige just lied to you. Do not trust Woody Paige.

Fewer walks.

True. Halladay has fewer walks than Liriano. Nine fewer.

He also has fewer strikeouts. Forty fewer.

And he plays for a team that's not as good!

I'm not 100% sure what Woody means. First of all, the Twins and Blue Jays have basically the same record. They're separated by like 1/2 a game.

On top of that, I don't know if he meant that Halladay was on a better team, or a worse team. He was using pronouns instead of proper names, and the way he was talking and stumbling, it was basically too close to call.

Thanks to that ambiguity, we have a nice example of two pieces of conventional baseball wisdom that contradict each other.

"Plus, Halladay's on the better team. His team is in the playoff race, and his success is more important than Liriano's because it's kept the Blue Jays close. Halladay for Cy Young!"

vs.

"Plus, Halladay's done all this on a team that's not even that great! He's been the best thing about the Blue Jays this year, and he has a tougher time winning because his team is worse than Liriano's. Halladay for Cy Young!"

So, I don't know which way Woody was going here. Let's break it down like this:

Woody, if you think the Twins are better -- and I think that's what you were saying:

First, look at the standings. Look at the teams' run differentials and their expected W-L records. (As of today, they're identical.) Second, even though you think the Twins are better, look again at Halladay's run support vs. Liriano's. Third, look at all the numbers, not just the ones you chose. And the one you made up. Also consider that one of the main reasons that the Twins are better is in fact because they have Francisco Liriano.

Now, if you think the Blue Jays are better:

First, look at the standings. Second, remember that Cy Young voting is supposed to be independent of the team a pitcher plays for. Third, you are right in that Halladay's team is better, on average, when Halladay pitches than the Twins when Liriano pitches. They score more runs. And this should be held against Roy Halladay.

Now, for the opposite of your enjoyment, Woody Paige's Top 10 lists.

Labels: cy young award, francisco liriano, roy halladay, woody paige

Of course, I'm talking about the State Farm Home Run Derby and alternative post-grunge southern rockers 3 Doors Down.

Gotcha! It turns out that combination is an unmitigated disaster! I was really talking about:













Here's how it works: I supply the Gallimaufry, you get hammered. Shot clock violation!

Let's kick it off with a tip from reader Zach G., who points us in the direction of CBSSports.com's Scott Miller. Scott has made some interesting choices for his Anti-All Star Team:

Shortstop: Jose Reyes, Mets.

He's got talent. He's got speed. He's got pizzazz. He's also got an infuriating case of immaturity.

I'd say he's got talent, speed, pizzazz, and an acute case of the 2nd highest OPS among shortstops. This guy is the opposite of an all-star? Jose Reyes?

Sure, his numbers are respectable. But this guy has the tools to be great. And he won't put out to get there.

Put out? I don't know, maybe it's not so crazy. Maybe Reyes should try letting some 16 year-old dudes feel him up at Siobhan's party next Friday night.

Dude. There's going to be so much Zima.

I was there in Anaheim when he threw a colossal fit on the field when interim manager Jerry Manuel removed him from the game as a precautionary measure to protect a mildly strained hamstring. It was the worst thing I've seen on the field since Jose Guillen threw a similar fit years ago while playing for the Angels.

And, sure, why not. I'll throw down the race card again. Why doesn't wanting to play so bad that he's willing to throw a fit about it garner him "gamer" status? Why are guys like Milton Bradley, Carl Everett, and Jose Reyes all considered "hotheads" or whatever while jerks like Paul O'Neill are applauded for their fiery style?

Speak of the devil...

Right field: Paul O'Neill, Yankees.

Yes, the comeback of the year! Anybody who has seen O'Neill at The Stadium in his broadcasting capacity this summer will tell you the guy looks like he still can play. Certainly, he has a high enough opinion of himself to give it a whirl.

So, one thing that Scott Miller and I have in common with not only each other but also every single person alive on the planet is that we hate Paul O'Neill.

But this is crazyballs. He doesn't play baseball anymore, so why is he on Scott Miller's Anti All-Star list?

The most asinine occurrence of the year came in April, when Yankees fans were giving it to reliever LaTroy Hawkins because he was wearing O'Neill's old No. 21. Nobody had worn it since Paulie, but because Hawkins' first choice was one of a zillion numbers the Yankees had retired, he had to pick another. So he attempted to honor Roberto Clemente ... and Yankees fans reacted as if he had dumped manure during the Pope's visit.

O'Neill, of course, had the perfect venue to make life easier for a new Yankee: the airwaves. He could have stepped up and urged fans to welcome Hawkins. Instead, O'Neill said he found it sort of surprising that someone was wearing his number. Strange to see his old number warming up in the bullpen, O'Neill said.

I feel sick in a way that I never quite have before. I have a headache that feels like it starts in my ears and then goes all the way down my spine, and my stomach feels like it's going to eat itself. It's not because of Scott Miller's writing, but because of the position he's put me in: I now have to defend Paul O'Neill.

O'Neill said that it seemed strange to him to see his old number warming in the bullpen, and for this act alone, Scott Miller is willing to overlook the fact that he doesn't even play baseball anymore and put him on a list of Anti All-Stars. Truly amazing.

Oh, and of course:

Third base: Alex Rodriguez, Yankees.

Let's just keep the 'maufry moving, shall we. Hey -- chug that shit! This is G+L time, remember?

Reader Tristan decided to subject to himself to the horror that is "1st and Ten" this morning. And for making such a decision, he got what he deserved. Garbage...and Nelly:

 I have to admit I haven't been watching the whole show, but I flipped
to it and saw the guest they have to match wits with Skip today is
Nelly. I kept it on to see what he would say, and he actually threw out some
decent, stat backed analysis of the Cardinals race to catch the Cubs.

"I think we can catch the Cubs. The point is, I think, will we have
enough offense down the stretch to catch the Cubs. I think our pitching is
where it is, I think our ERA right now is around 4.18, I think when we
won the world series it was around, like, 4.5, so I think right now we
can, but we're overachieving..." (A little more talk about picking up
a bat to protect Pujols)

Skip's turn to talk (I tivo'd back to get it right):

"I hope you're right because I have been driving your bandwagon since
opening day, cause there's something about this club I like, and I
can't really do it statistically on paper, but there's some spirit, some
character, someTHING going on there. And by the way, Tony LaRussa should
be the first half manager of the year in all of baseball..."

Nelly (primary jobs: Rapping, acting)- Knows the Cardinals ERA, doesn't
specifically mention Pythag, but I'd like to think that's what he was
referring to when he says the Cards are overachieving.

Skip (primary job: sportswriter)- Can't do anything specifically on
paper, attributes the Cardinals success to "something" going on there.

I understand tomorrow Woody Paige will be debating T. Pain on the merits of Schilling's case for the HOF.

People. There are seven members of the ESPN staff currently announcing the Home Run Derby. If that's not reason to drink, I don't know what is. (I guess maybe if your wife just left you or something? Seriously, though -- seven people? And one of them is Rick Reilly?)

Finally tonight -- you guessed it. More Adam Dunn bashing! This time reader Derek wants us to join in on the misery of reading John Fay's reporting on the Reds.

Four of their highest-paid, most experienced players are having bad years. Among Griffey, Adam Dunn, Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo, none is having even a mediocre year.

Forget the other guys -- I don't even care. We all love Adam Dunn here at FJM and we're not afraid to admit it. He gives us the kind of Three True Outcomes boner that's getting harder and harder to find in this post-steroids "emphasis on fundamentals" bullshit era that is so much less exciting and awesome than the days when everyone did a ton of drugs and hit the ball 4,000 feet and you didn't even have to worry about explaining to people about why it's stupid to bunt because it was never even an issue because for crissakes even your catcher could hit 30 home runs a year because he was doing things to his body that were making him better at baseball but of course god forbid people who play baseball should be allowed to do things that make them better at baseball --

Sorry. You're the ones who are supposed to getting drunk. I'm the 'mauf man. Apologies.

Adam Dunn is having a better than mediocre year. You all know this. He is doing the two things that are most important for hitters very well: getting on base (380 OBP) and hitting the ball hard (538 SLG). Unfortunately, John Fey has found someone to agree with him in his assessment that Dunn's year is -- again, remember this -- not just not great, but not even mediocre.

"That's a fair assessment," Baker said. "You pay attention to them because they're big guys. They're the highest-salary guys."

Good job, Dusty.

Our hearts continue to go out to the fine people of Cincinnati, who will have no choice but to drown their sorrows in Graeter's Ice Cream and Skyline Chili until DB steps down.

If all four were close to their average big-league numbers, the Reds probably would be right in the thick of the National League Central race.

Adam Dunn, career averages:
247 / 381 / 521

Adam Dunn, 2008:
228 / 380 / 528

Alright. You're drunk. And I've always been a huge Mike Gallego fan, and he's pitching in tonight's derby. So time for me to tune in.

Thanks to reader Ted for the G+L Store picture.

Labels: adam dunn, alex rodriguez, dusty baker, food metaphors, gallimaufry, john fey, jose reyes, nelly, paul o'neill, scott miller, skip bayless

Apparently he's an absolutely wonderful baseball player. He must be, because the goshdarn Newspaper of Record in the U. States of A. has written a fawning article about his bunting skills. It's called: The New York Times Sports Section Has Its Head Up Its Ass. Or something. I can't remember. But here are some gems:

Tony La Russa, the St. Louis manager, is a longtime advocate of the squeeze play. David Eckstein, the Cardinals’ leadoff hitter, is a master. Whenever La Russa is in the dugout and Eckstein is at bat with a runner on third base, watch for the squeeze.

Although St. Louis is still best known for Albert Pujols’s 450-foot home runs, Eckstein’s 10-foot bunts can be just as productive.

Well, um, er, ah, that is, gee...I...okay. Ahem. Here's the thing. A 450-foot HR produces one-to-four runs, at the cost of zero outs. A squeeze bunt, if executed well, can produce one run, usually at the cost of one out. There is no conceivable way a bunt can be as productive as a HR. If you squeeze with a man on third and do it so well you don't even get thrown out at first, well, it still is not as productive, because a HR in that situation would have been worth two runs. See how that works, Newspaper of Record in the U. States of A.?

His squeeze bunt Sunday night helped finish the San Diego Padres in their National League division series.

That is technically true. But at the time he did that, the Cards were up 5-2. And Chris Carpenter was pitching. The final score was 6-2.

Eckstein has pulled off 13 squeeze plays in his career, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, including one in each of the past two postseasons.

Albert Pujols hits like 50 450-foot HR a year, including many in the postseason.

He no longer benefits from the element of surprise, yet he continues to drive in runs with bunts.

Amazing. 13 RsBI, each of them probably at the cost of an out. What a valuable, valuable thing. Way way way way more valuable than a player who has knocked in 13 runs with ground balls to the right side. Or sac flies. Or -- here's an idea -- hits. Wouldn't that be something? If guys could drive in runs with hits? Wow. Imagine if that were possible, in baseball.

“I have been doing this my whole life,” Eckstein said. “Everyone is looking for it now, so we have to be really careful. The key is not giving it away too soon.”

This makes me sad. I can't explain why. Just the idea that this is all the guy has.

For any right-handed hitter, Eckstein included, a squeeze is a dangerous proposition. If the pitcher recognizes it, the batter can expect a fastball headed toward his face. And if the hitter fails to make contact, he will probably be plowed over by the runner charging home. At 5 feet 7 inches and 165 pounds, Eckstein does not win many collisions.

If he could hit better, he wouldn't be called on to squeeze so often.

But he has managed to keep his features intact, mainly because he is careful to disguise each bunt. Eckstein does not square around to bunt until after the ball has left the pitcher’s hand, and once he squares, he does not seem to miss.

“Tony does it every time he has an opportunity,” said Yadier Molina, the St. Louis catcher. “And David is the best guy you can do it with.”

"The reason we use 9 year-old children as chimney sweeps," said an old Cockney British guy in 19th century England, "is because they're small, so they're great at being crammed into chimneys."

So confident is La Russa in Eckstein’s bunting ability that he called for a squeeze in the sixth inning Sunday night, even though the situation was far from ideal.

The bases were loaded, giving the Padres a force at home plate. The runner at third was Scott Spiezio, no speed burner. The pitcher was Cla Meredith, a right-handed reliever with a sidearm motion, difficult for right-handed hitters to gauge.

And still, La Russa realized, the only way in hell Eckstein was bringing a run home was by bunting. Because he is bad at baseball.

An average bunt scores the run. Eckstein’s latest was right out of a manual. The ball rolled up the first-base line, away from the runner. The bunt was too hard for the pitcher to have a play at the plate, and too soft for the first baseman to have a chance.

The run scored. Excellent. The batter produced a perfect guaranteed out -- the opposite of what is a "good" outcome for a baseball player. So let's call it more good than bad. But let's also call a HR way way way way way better.

As the Cardinals celebrated their third straight trip to the National League Championship Series on Sunday night, Eckstein stood a few feet from George Will, the author and political pundit. Although Will might have seemed out of place in the clubhouse, it was important to remember the title of one of his books: “Bunts.”

Another good title for the book: "Outs."

Here's my favorite part:

If a manager is confident that a squeeze is coming, he will call for a pitchout. But if he does not, and the pitcher sees the squeeze developing at the last moment, he will throw directly at the hitter.

The Mets do not have a lot of experience in this area. They hit 62 batters this season — 18 fewer than the Cardinals — underscoring the possible need for target practice.

Mets fans, still delirious over events of the past week, would probably line up in the batter’s box to accept a bruise from Billy Wagner. At this point, better a bruise than a squeeze.

Does anyone understand this? Mets fans would line up in the batter's box to get hit by Mets' pitcher Billy Wagner...because they are afraid of the squeeze bunt...from the Cardinals? Am I just really tired?

The point is: David Eckstein is good at bunting.

Labels: david eckstein

Congratulations, everybody. This is the big one.

Joe Morgan: The season continues to become more and more interesting every week. The Yankees looked like they were on a roll and now they're struggling again.

Ken Tremendous: ...Oh. You're done. That's what makes this season more and more interesting. Not the NL West race, or the Brewers reclaiming a big lead, or the emergence of like 4 great SS in the NL, or two of the most famous steroid users in history chasing hallowed milestones. It's the Yankees' inability to stay hot.

Matt (Watertown, NY): Where do you put the blame for the fall of the White Sox this year? I'm blaming injuries for our demise.. Erstad, Podsednik, Crede, and Dye have been injured, hurting our offense!

Joe Morgan: A lot of it has to do with injuries, but every team has injuries. Every team. That's not a good enough excuse. I'm not sure of what's going on there, but injuries is not the main problem there. It's contributed to their downfall. All those good players with proven records all of a sudden can't hit. I'm not close enough to the situation to put my finger on the exact cause.

KT: If you are a regular reader of our blog, you would know -- from a post not too far down on this page -- that PECOTA had the ChiSox at 72-90 this year. A computer knew that this was going to happen, Joe. A computer.

The reasons are many and readily evident. Joe Crede came back to earth and got injured. Jermaine Dye is not nearly as good as he looked in 2006. Thome is 36. Konerko is 32 and declining already. Toss in a few pitching woes here and there (their staff is pretty old, too) and you have a disaster on your hands.

Joe's answer -- and here I must remind you once again that he is the number one analyst on the number one baseball network in America (the number one country in terms of baseball generally) -- is: I'm not close enough to the situation to put my finger on the exact cause.

I actually have a Red Phone that goes right to the PECOTA computer. Just...hang one on sec. It's ringing.

Hello.

Hey PECOTA computer, it's Ken.

Hello Ken. How are you.

Fine, thanks. Quick question -- have you ever met the White Sox players?

No.

And you haven't, like, "gotten close to the situation" this year. Like, you haven't hung out in US Cellular, shooting the shit with front office guys or anything.

No.

You just kind of used your "brain" to figure out whether they were going to be good, right?

Yes.

Okay. Thanks. One more question. How long is my marriage going to last if I spend all of my free time blogging about baseball writing?

3.2 years.

Yikes. Okay. Thanks.

Brent S. (fjm): Why are the yankees so up and down ths season? also what are your thoughts on the rocket coming in relief?

Joe Morgan: Unfortunately, everything seems to be riding on A-Rod. When he's up they're up, when he's in a lull, they are. The biggest mistake they made was getting rid of Sheffield. He's been the leader on that team offensively the three years that he was there, except the year A-Rod was the MVP. He and A-Rod carried the team. Matsui and Jeter were contributors, but those two carried the team. Now they just have A-Rod. He's played great all year, and he's carried the team to victories. But I'm shocked when I did their game against the Mets three weeks ago and they had won 11 of 12 and looked like they were on a roll. Now they're back to where they started from.

KT: Hey, kids! Here's a game you can play at home. What did Joe leave out in his analysis of the Yankees' struggles? (Here's a hint: there are three aspects of baseball -- hitting, pitching, and fielding.)

Some Yankees' WHIPs/ERAs:

Mussina: 1.35/4.98 (65 IP)
Clemens: 1.42/5.09 (17 IP)
Igawa: 1.61/7.13 (35 IP)
Farnsworth: 1.65/5.16 (29 IP)
Bruney: 1.50/1.97) (24 BB in 32 IP)
Vizcaino: 1.54/5.35 (37 IP)

Now Ken, you say. Aren't ERAs kind of a coarse way to evaluate pitchers? Yes, you arrogant dicks, they are. That's why I included WHIP as well. But also...many of these guys are relievers. Do you know what it means when a lot of your relievers have high ERAs? It means they are letting a ton of guys on base, and then their reliever buddies are letting them score.

The Yankees have scored the 3rd most runs in all of baseball. Losing Sheffield is not their problem. They have the 16th best team ERA in baseball. That is their problem. They have Wang, and Pettitte (who I swear to you all is going to come back down to earth soon), and that's about it. Proctor is unreliable. Rivera is steadying after a shaky first few weeks, but it's June 26 and he's had eleven save chances. Eleven. That's bad.

What is the point of all of this? The point is: how do you get asked a question about what is wrong with the Yankees and not mention their pitching? Answer: you are a terrible analyst.

Zach (Montezuma, IA): What will the Padres get out of Barrett?

Joe Morgan: I had become a big fan of Michael Barrett. I don't know about his defensive deficiencies. I thought he was a pretty good player. I was surprised when they made that deal. I don't believe it had anything to do with the fight, because I think Barrett and Zambrano had shook hands and gotten over it. I'm a Barrett fan, so I think he'll do a good job in San Diego. It's always tough, though, to be shifted in the middle of the season and not know why.

KT: First of all. God. I don't even know what to write as my "first of all."

Okay.

First of all: do you actually think that the Barrett trade had nothing to do with the fight? Think about this, before you answer, Joe. The catcher for the Cubs got into a fistfight with their best pitcher. Then he was traded. He also has a reputation as being a fight-y kind of dude.

Second of all: the question is: "What will the Padres get out of Barrett?" It takes six sentences before Joe even begins to address the question.

And third: he never really addresses the question.

Classic.

And speaking of classic:

Will (Lexington, KY): the reds have young talent for sure, but can they become contenders with the management they have right now?

Joe Morgan: That's a very good question. I don't think I'm equipped to answer that question. But it's a very good question, because I've been asking myself the same question. I'm not as close to the situation as I have been or should be, but I've talked to the owner and he wants to win. I am disappointed in what I've seen so far.

KT: All-time low, right? I think so. All-time low.

Can the Reds become contenders?

That's a very good question.

Thanks, Joe! Wow. That's flattering.

I don't think I'm equipped to answer that question.

But...you are an analyst. You even played for the team.

But it's a very good question, because I've been asking myself the same question.

You've written the word "question" an all-time record four times in three sentences. Also: you've been asking yourself the same question, and you still can't answer it?

I'm not as close to the situation as I have been or should be, but I've talked to the owner and he wants to win.

You're not as close as you should be? How close should you be, exactly? You are an objective analyst, right?

Also: you've talked to the owner. And he wants to win. Just so you know, Joe -- if you ever talk to an owner and the owner says he does not want to win, you have a major scoop on your hands. You have the plot of "Major League."

At what point does ESPN finally come to its senses and realize that this man is simply not equipped to be a baseball analyst?

Brent S. (fjm): Are the braves dead?

Joe Morgan: They were only four games out. So you can't say they're dead.

KT: End here. You answered the question. Good work. Just stop. Please. No?

That's why baseball is such a great sport - anything can happen in the next three months.

This sentence can be used at any moment for any question. That's how you know it is not a good or insightful piece of commentary.

The Yankees are up and down.

Not even in the same division. Has nothing to do with anything.

The Braves got hot, but then couldn't score a run for three days. So much can happen, so you can't say they're out of the race.

You earlier said you couldn't see them wining the division. Are you talking Wild Card, or...

That's what you get with young players - ups and downs.

...Oh. You're just talking clichés. Okay.

Brent S. (fjm): is sammy sosa a hall of famer?

Joe Morgan: Yes. And it shouldn't even be a debate.

KT: Again. I have no problem if you think Sosa, McGwire, et al. should be in the HOF. But to say it shouldn't even be a debate? Come on. It should definitely be a debate.

We have a tendency to want to decide who did steroids without any proof. Yet there are a lot of guys who were doing it and aren't being accused and aren't being suspected.

But there are only a few who have the on-paper qualifications to make it to the HOF, baseball's most hallowed ground. I don't think anyone is going to waste a lot of breath talking about whether Alex Sanchez should like get his MLB pension -- because that is unimportant. But the HOF is the HOF. And you, Joe, of all people, should want to debate this into the ground.

And by the way, everyone: Sammy Sosa did steroids. Innocent until proven guilty, benefit of the doubt, etc. etc. He fucking did steroids, okay? He did something. Here are his full-season HR totals starting in 1990 (skipping partial totals in 91 and 92)

15
33
25 (partial season)
36
40
36
66 (!)
63 (!!)
50
64 (!!!!!!!)

He increased his personal high in HR by 65% in one year. He hit opposite-field, flat-footed homers. Then testing heated up and he suddenly pretended he didn't speak English and started absolutely sucking wind and couldn't hit a beach ball with a tennis racket. He did steroids. So cool it with the holier-than-thou Constitutional arguments. I get it, it's great, I'm very proud of everyone for remembering their 8th grade social studies Bill of Rights class. But come on.

We've only taken a few to choose to point fingers at. The one thing that Sammy did was let the fans be a part of his celebration and of his career. I like that.

"Letting Fans Be Part of Celebration" -- not a criterion for HOF induction.

mvp (mvpland): will ken griffey jr. get traded if so what team?

Joe Morgan: Yes, I think they would consider trading him. They had a deal a couple of years ago set, but he turned it down. They have definitely tried to trade him over the last couple of years. But he would have to approve the deal, because he has a no-trade.

KT: What team, please, Joe? No? Not even a guess. Okay.

Shawn Dayton Ohio: What do the indians need to do before the trading deadline to help them make the final push to the world series

Joe Morgan: What I've seen of the Indians is they just need to be more consistent. They have all the pieces, but like everyone else, they need another starting pitcher. But every team is like that.

KT: This is what would happen if you went to Joe's computer and held your finger down on F1:

They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent. They need to be more consistent.

Bob (Brooklyn): What's more important to evaluate a pitcher: Wins or ERA?

Joe Morgan: I've always believed that an ERA is like a batting average.

KT: You're right! They are both crude and sometimes misleading stats that are overused!

It's a personal thing.

Come again?

For instance, a guy could hit .300, but not be as valuable as a guy that hits .270.

Right again! If the guy who hits .270 walks a lot and hits for power, he is certainly more valuable than a guy who hits .300 with all singles and never walks. Good -- you had me worried with that weird tangential comment about "it's a personal thing."

A guy that makes 7 outs out of 10 with guys on base, he's not that valuable.

Screw you, man. Seriously.

What if the 3 hits are HR? What if they are doubles? Hell, what if they're singles, but with no runners on base he has a .450 OBP and a 1.900 OPS?

Read that sentence again, Joe, and defend it. Defend the idea that if you look at only a hitter's BA with men on base -- and that BA is .300! -- he's not that valuable. Defend that well, and I will shut this blog down and cash in my Fremulon Insurance stock options and move to Ohio and sculpt a statue of me picking your nose and eating it with a huge grin on my face wearing a tee shirt that reads: Joe Morgan Rocks My World.

But if you're clutch, but hit .275, you're more valuable.

So just to reiterate.

If you hit .300 with men on base, you are not valuable.

If you hit .275 but you are "clutch," meaning, presumably, that you hit with men on base, you are valuable.

Notice to all baseball players. If you are hitting .300 with men on base, regardless of what those hits are, and regardless of what you are hitting when there are no men on base, the way to become more valuable is to lower your BA 25 points, down to that coveted ".275" sweetspot.

That's why I think wins are better.

I literally cannot wait to read the rest of this paragraph.

It's just as tough to win a game 7-6 as it is 1-0.

This is not true. If the final score is 1-0, that means that the widest margin for error you have is one run. That seems pressure-packed, to me. If you win 7-6, that might mean you have a 7-0 lead in the first inning. If the bases are loaded with nobody out, your infield can play back and concede a run for an out. You can pitch around good hitters in key situations. You don't have nearly as much pressure, theoretically. Do you ever think about what you are writing before you write it?

The only thing that matters at the end of the year is how many games did we win.

As a team, perhaps. But as an individual stat: no. Do I have to explain why? I will, just in case you, Joe, are reading this, and forgot how baseball works.

Johan Santana this year is 8-6. Jeff Suppan also has 8 wins. Is Jeff Suppan as good as John Santana? No he is not. He is one-point-seven tra-billion times worse. That's mathematically accurate. You can look that up. So why does Suppan have the same number of wins? Because his teammates have scored a lot of runs for him. So he can be a worse pitcher, but still get credited with a "win."

Is this really novel, to you? Is this really not something you have ever thought about? After like 50 years in baseball?

Jason (Michigan): Hi Joe. Do you think the Tigers will be able to get some breathing room from the Indians in the central? These teams have been 2 games apart from each other for 2 months and it's clear that the Tigers are the better team all around.

Joe Morgan: I don't know if they'll get any breathing room, but I think they'll win because they're the best team. I think they're the best team and I said that at the beginning of the year.

KT: Wow. You picked last year's World Series rep from the AL, who have a ton of awesome young pitchers and can rake 1-9, to be the best team in the AL Central. Nice work.

Pat ((Ontario,CA)): Do you think Russell Martin is one the best catchers in the game?

Joe Morgan: I think that he's definitely established himself as a very good catcher. When you watch him play, he has confidence and I look for that.

KT: Other things that Russell Martin has, besides "confidence," that make him one of the best catchers in the game: an .822 OPS, 13 SB (!), a .77 BB/K ratio, and the 5th highest CS% of all catchers.

But really, I think it's his confidence.

Mike, Rockaway Beach: What team(s) do you like to watch during the week when you aren't working the Sunday night games?

Joe Morgan: I'm just like every other fan - I watch every game. I check the box scores and check the stats like everyone else. I'm as interested in the Kansas City Royals as I am the Yankees or Red Sox. I'm a baseball fan. I just like to watch everybody.

KT: Excuse me, for one second. I have to dig through our files. Ah. here we go. Now let me just pull out some quotes here...

I haven't seen enough of him this year
It's tough for me to answer that question from afar
I don't see how they go about their business on a day-to-day basis
I don't know much about their front office and their scouting systems
I won't say someone's overrated because I don't see him every day
I don't know either of them well enough to make the statements that you made
I haven't seen him play first base
I just don't know how good the Dodgers are
I haven't seen him play much. We've only done one Padre game.
I haven't had much of a chance to check him out, but I have heard some good things
He was one of my favorite players before he got injured. I haven't seen him play this year to see how strong his arm is.
I only saw the highlights
I can only go by what Showalter told me, and that is that if they get everyone healthy they will have a good team.
It's hard for me to say because I haven't seen the Twins this year.
[Can the Tigers keep up the hot streak all season long?] I've only seen highlights so far.
I just haven't seen them enough to put my finger on it yet.

So...you're watching a lot of baseball, there, Joe?

Kyle (Kansas): What is the most overated stat in baseball?

Joe Morgan: Batting average

KT: Hallelujah!

and earned run average

Good answer.

and this OPS stuff they do.

"This OPS stuff they do." My favorite thing he has ever written. Ever. This "OPS" "stuff" "they" "do." Joe is officially the Grumpy Old Man character Dana Carvey used to do on SNL.

OPS doesn't tell you anything except about the individual.

...What the hell else are you going to learn from an individual stat? There are team stats too. Do you know that? What does BA tell you? Or HR? Or 2B, or 3B, or OBP, or anything? They are individual stats. If you go to ESPN's stat page, you can click on "player batting" or "team batting." Because they are different.

The same as the other stats. It doesn't tell you anything about the team. A .300 average doesn't help you win games, run production does.

Run production. RsBI, then? A stat that is almost entirely dependent on other people? Okay. Julio Lugo has as many RsBi as Grady Sizemore, Bill Hall, and Frank Thomas. He's within one of Placido Polanco and Ian Kinsler. RBI is possibly the dumbest commonplace way to evaluate hitters.

Chad (Austin, TX): Joe, How come you never got into coaching or managing?

Joe Morgan: Well, it's a situation that's never been right for me. There have always been other things going on. It's never been the right situation to pull me in.

KT: Or, possibly, no one was crazy enough to hire you. I honestly don't know.

Greg (Palatine, IL): Do you think Beurhle going to the Red Sox would be a good move for Boston?

KT: Okay, man. The question is about Boston. Would it be a good move for Boston? Would Mark Buehrle be good for Boston? For the Red Sox, if he went to the Red Sox -- would that be good, for the Red Sox, or bad, for the Red Sox? What do you think, Joe, about Mark Buehrle, vis-a-vis the Red Sox, if he went to the Red Sox?

Joe Morgan: I have no idea where he's going, but I do believe he'll be traded because he's a free agent. They're not playing well and they're not catching anybody.

KT: Annnnnnnnnnnnd...we have complete cerebral failure.

Billy (Michigan): Hey Joe, Who is your MVP for the AL and NL?

KT: Easy one. Name three guys from each league who are awesome. I'd say: AL: Magglio, ARod, maybe Vlad or Guillen. Jeter/Posada, maybe. NL: Fielder, Cabrera, Griffey as a dark horse? Reyes? He's fun to watch. Holliday would be interesting. Bonds, of course, though the team is terrible. Utley?

Joe Morgan: I think in the NL it's open, but Prince Fielder and JJ Hardy come to mind. Jose Reyes. I think several guys have a chance.

Okay. What about the AL?

...

Joe?

Oh. You're just not going to answer.

Bill (Chicago): How come their is so much parity these days?

Joe Morgan: That may be the best question I've heard in the last few months.

KT: Really? That seems...pretty straightforward to me.

No one seems to realize what's happened to the game. There are not any great teams any more. That's when you have parity. Every team has weaknesses. When your strengths show, you win 4-5. When your weaknesses who, you lose 4-5. That's why certain teams match up better with certain teams - the strengths and weaknesses matchup.

Does anyone understand this? "That's why certain teams match up better with certain teams - the strengths and weaknesses matchup." Isn't that...isn't that always why certain teams match up better against other teams? This is a new phenomenon?

And as for the argument that there are not any great teams anymore: I'd say the Red Sox are a pretty great team right now. And the Tigers, with their pitching and hitting. The Angels are pretty kick-ass, with the 5th best RS and 8th best RA.

Also, nearly every team in history has had some kind of weakness. So save the "it was better in the old days" stuff.

Fred (Atlanta): Who's the best hitter in the game today?

Joe Morgan: I would have to say Albert Pujols or Manny Ramirez, normally.

KT: Manny Ramirez is nowhere close to being the best hitter in the game right now. Nor, technically, is Pujols, though by the end of the year, I'd say each will be closer to that title than they are now. ARod is your answer. Maybe Magglio, though he will probably cool down. Bonds is a candidate, still. Prince Fielder is climbing the ranks. But ARod.

If they were doing what they normally do. A-Rod has more power, and hits for average. A hitter is a guy that just gets hits. On second thought, A-Rod might be the best,

There it is.

because he's the most dangerous at hitting the ball out of the ballpark right now. Obviously, these things are all open for debate considering what you're looking for - power or average. Ideally, you're looking for both.

In other words...you're basically looking for...OPS, if you add in walks? You're looking for OPS. The stat you disparaged for no discernible reason, a while ago. That is now what you are ideally looking for. Explain yourself.

Joe Morgan: Great questions. Looking forward to talking to you next week.

KT: I strongly dislike you.

Labels: fremulon insurance, joe morgan, joechat