11 comments Joe Morgan's Brain Ends Up Like the Rest of Us And Finally Gives Up

I am not 100% sure Joe Morgan actually was present for his weekly Tuesday chat this past week. It's not that what is being written by Joe isn't bad, quite the opposite at certain points, and moments of clarity and actual insight are mixed into what is being typed in response to questions asked. So either Joe has gotten more intelligent and acceptable to new baseball ideas (highly unlikely) or there was an imposter who did the chat and just sounded like Joe Morgan (even more unlikely). This leaves me confused. Joe even mentions OBP in response to a question, though it is more likely he could have been referring to the Open Book Project as opposed to On Base Percentage.

Still, any progress we can make in Joe's chats is a good thing.

Buzzmaster

We're getting Joe!

(ESPN executives pull a green window-less van up beside Joe while he is teaching inner-city youth how to play baseball and four guys in masks yank Joe into the van.)

JM: We've got Texas and Minnesota this Sunday. I'm looking forward to seeing some of the other teams. Seems like I've been seeing a lot of the Yankees, Mets, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Boston.

(Joes' brain) "Good introduction sentence, got that out of the way. Didn't have to predict anything, just stated I follow baseball for three hours a week and then play golf the rest of the time."

I say it nearly every week, for some reason Joe Morgan doesn't think he is allowed to watch any baseball game that he isn't actually broadcasting on a Sunday night. Why is this? Does he even like baseball anymore? When he is at home during the week does his wife try to talk to him about baseball and he covers his ears with his hands because he doesn't want to know about any of the other teams because he believes he is only contractually bound to watch baseball three hours per week?

There is this new thing called "satellite television" that Joe could purchase which would allow him to watch as many games as he wants. Of course a satellite is a semi-new idea, at least to Joe, and he tends to be resistant to new ideas. I am pretty sure he can afford the bill the MLB package costs every month. I would think if a person holds himself out there as an analyst on baseball, part of the requirements to be an analyst would be to actually watch baseball games and know something about every team. I joke about it, but really any baseball analyst who admits to know so little about baseball, like Joe does, should be fired.

Jon (Bristol, CT)

Alex Gonzalez has gotten off to a terrific start, and is on pace for about 40 homeruns. How do you explain it?

(Joe's brain) "Ok, this is an easy one. Just talk about how he is going through a good spell right now and move on to the next question."

Actually Jon, Alex Gonzalez is not on pace for about 40 home runs. He currently has 11 home runs and he has played 53 games. That amounts to a pace of about 34 home runs. That's not a pace of 40 home runs. Factor in his bad hitting during the month of May and it is pretty obvious Gonzalez started off hot and is gradually going back to his normal level of play.

JM: One thing about hitters, they actually change a little bit every year.

So at the age of 33, Alex Gonzalez changed enough to nearly double his previous career high in home runs? The last time a hitter "changed" like that it involved needles and a discreet place to put that needle.

Hitters do change. For his sake, let's hope it lasts.

We can hope it lasts, but Alex Gonzalez's previous career highs in home runs for a season are 23, 18, and 16 home runs. I don't think 30-40 home runs is in the cards for this year. Currently 11.8% of his fly balls have been home runs. That percentage is not going to last.

Shane (Idaho)

Joe, what do you make of all the uproar about Pujos have a "down" year? The guy is still hitting above .300! Has just been to good that everyone expects him to hit .320-.350?

JM: People may not remember this, but last year he got off to a fabulous start, then had a bad spell,

People may not remember this because he didn't have a bad spell for any normal MLB player. I guess we are holding Pujols to a higher standard now, but Pujols had a "bad" spell during the month of July in 2009. Pujols stats per month in 2009:

April: .337/.457/.675
May: .341/.477/.682
June: .320/.427/.856
July: .289/.415/.485
August: .319/.443/.649
September: .357/.440/.616

The down month for Pujols was July when he "only" had an OPS of .900 and had an OBP of .415. I wonder why Pujols' SLG% started going down in July, but his OBP did not dive that much? I wonder why his numbers immediately went up in August? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact pitchers were pitching around him until Matt Holliday joined the team on July 24, 2009. So I don't think Pujols had a down month, but pitchers just started pitching around him in July, which explains the 12 intentional walks he had that month.

This year, I see the same thing. He got off to a good start and pitchers have stopped pitching him.

This may be partially true, but Pujols also had more strikeouts than walks in the month of April, which is out of the norm for him. His BABIP is currently sitting at .287 for the month of May, so he has also had some bad luck considering his career BAPIP is .317

george (ny)

what do you think the chance of roy oswalt going to the mets is?

JM: However, there are a lot of teams that could benefit from him, the Mets being one. I don't know if there's any team that wouldn't want him,

The Nationals could trade for Oswalt, BUT NOT FOR STEPHEN STRASBURG...plus more prospects from the Nationals.

Pat [via mobile]

Joe- I defiantly think Brett Gardner will lead the league in stolen bases. What do you think??

I like to see how Pat is defiant about this. Others may think Pat is a moron and this isn't possible even though Gardner is currently 4th in the majors in stolen bases...but Pat is defiant and dares anyone to disagree with him, which is why he asked this question to Joe Morgan, a man who loves speed and abhors those home runs that only kill rallies.

Learning to spell is FUNdamental.

JM: I think he's a very good player and improving all the time. If he continues to have a high OBP, he has chance to lead the league.

What? Let's read that again.

I think he's a very good player and improving all the time. If he continues to have a high OBP, he has chance to lead the league.

Joe is seeing a correlation between being on-base a lot and being able to steal more bases? I think this is progress.

Jacoby Ellsbury led the league last year because he was on base a lot.

It's good to see Joe realizes the more a player gets on-base the easier it will be for that player to steal more bases. I think the imposter wrote this one.

tom* (parkville, md)

Mr. Morgan, should Baltimore keep Dave Trembly for the rest of the season or make a change now?

(Joe's brain) "Shit, he is asking for an opinion. What should I do? I have no idea if the Ravens should keep their quarterback or not. I don't follow the NFL."

I think the situation is horrible.

(Joe's brain) "Good one Joe. He has been throwing a TON of interceptions this year. That seems like it would be horrible. Why am I being asked a question about football?"

To say what they should do, I don't see them enough to make that determination.

this is another situation where Joe is saying, "I don't see them enough to give an opinion. I don't feel comfortable giving the answer to a question about baseball, even though I get paid to give my opinion?"

But it seems like it's a mess over there and has been for a few years. Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Kansas City have all been rebuilding and so far it hasn't worked.

"But here is my opinion anyway."

Upon saying he can't make a determination, Joe immediately makes a determination.

Jack (C-Ville)

Who do you think is the best young pitcher in the MLB?

(Joe's brain) "I haven't seen every single pitcher that plays in baseball. There is no way to answer this question accurately. Let's pass on this one."

(Joe's fingers typing) JM: I'd start probably with Mike Leake in Cincinnati.

(Joe's brain) "What the hell are you doing? Mike Leake in Cincinnati? I don't even know who that is." (Joe's brain gives up for the rest of the chat and grabs an order of fish tacos)

He doesn't overpower the hitter, but he knows how to pitch. I'd start with him.

If you start with him, there had better have been a virus that wiped out pitchers like Zach Greinke, Clay Bucholz, Jon Lester, Tim Lincecum, and probably ten other pitchers who are more qualified for the honor of "best young pitcher in MLB." Nothing against Mike Leake, but he has ten total starts in the majors under his belt right now. I don't think that is enough to classify him as a better young pitcher than a 2-time Cy Young award winner who is only 26 years old or any other young pitcher who has actually pitched in the majors for an entire season.

A lot of these guys are really young. Tim Lincecum is still young, but he's already proven that he's a star.

The question wasn't: "Who is the best young pitcher that isn't a star?" It was "who is the best young pitcher in MLB?"

The answer to that question is NOT Mike Leake. He is young, yes, but he is not the best young pitcher in MLB.

Jaime Garcia.

I think we are just naming players at this point in order to avoid saying guys who have more than a full season of starts under their belt. Jaime Garcia is pitching very, very well this year. Two months worth of starts doesn't make a pitcher the best pitcher in MLB though. The best young pitcher in baseball doesn't mean the best pitcher who has pitched less than a full season in the majors.

gee (san diego)

hey joe, when do the padres stop being a fluke and become a legit contender. 1st place with june right around the corner.

JM: I think you have to say they're a contender because of their pitching staff.

So they are a contender in Joe's mind. I find it hard to believe Joe thinks he has seen enough of the Padres to give an opinion. Why does Joe only pass on giving his opinion when asked about certain teams like the Orioles, but he gives his opinion on the Padres even though he probably hasn't seen them play that much either?

I still believe the Giants and Colorado will finish in front of them.

So three of the four teams in the NL West should finish in front of the Padres...which means they really aren't contenders because they will miss the playoffs. Joe has changed his mind or he isn't sure how many teams can make the playoffs in MLB.

I don't think they're the best team in that division.

I don't think you know what you think.

Steve (Blacksburg, VA)

Do you think the Rangers can win the AL West?

JM: The other reason that Texas can hold on is that no one is having a career year, they're just doing what they normally do.

Which is not win the AL West? That's what the Rangers normally do. The Rangers last won their division in 1999.

Here are a couple players on the Rangers not playing above their head necessarily, but have better numbers than they normally do:

Vlad Guerrero: .33/.366/.558, 12 HRs. This would be his best season in three years if he kept up this pace.

Nelson Cruz: .327/.405/.729, 10 HRs. This would easily be the best season of his career.

Colby Lewis: 4-3, 1.18 WHIP, 3.41 ERA, ERA+129. This would easily be his best season as a starter.

C.J. Wilson: 3-3, 1.19 WHIP, 3.48 ERA, ERA+127. This is his first full season as a starter.

This doesn't include guys like Justin Smoak, Joaquin Arias, Elvis Andrus, and Neftali Perez who haven't been in the majors that long. The Rangers are an improved team, they aren't just doing what they always do, though I did start this post a few days ago and in that time every single player I just listed the statistics for the Rangers had their numbers decline. So the Rangers have a few guys performing better than expected and aren't just doing what they always do.

Matt (Houston)

Joe-what would be your strategy with the Cubs going forward? They have a huge payroll so I doubt they will be looking to add someone like Cliff Lee or Adrian Gonzales, but in the same breath, it will be difficult to trade some of their "stars" because of their high salaries (Lee, Zambrano, ect). Any thoughts?

JM: I think that's the biggest problem is trying to trade their high priced players.

(Joe's fifth grade English teacher rolls over in her grave)

I think the Cubs are just going to have to play out the string this year and either come together and play well as they have in the past

Joe thinks the same Cubs team which he said the following about:

JM: I'm wondering why you're questioning the moves now, when what they've done the last three years hasn't worked...They've made some mistakes the last few years. Getting rid of some players who were important to the makeup of the team. I don't think they've made a lot of good decisions lately.

He thinks the Cubs are a team that has come together in the past and played well. The Cubs have won the NL Central two out of the last three years, which was also the exact same time period when Joe thinks what they have done in terms of roster management hasn't worked. I think Joe is trying to confuse me and say that the personnel moves they made haven't worked, yet the Cubs have kept winning. Actually, I don't really know if he even knows what he is saying.

I don't see them making a lot of moves or a lot of things changing. They'll have to win with what they have or not win at all.

It looks like the Cubs have unfortunately currently chosen to not win at all.

Joe's answer to the question? "They're fucked."

Courtney Jackson (Lindenwold, NJ)

hi joe, the braves have been doing bad so far this year, do you see them making the wild card playoffs this year?

From a chat two weeks ago:

Nick (Atlanta)

JM: Is there anyway Atlanta can make the playoffs?

It's going to be very difficult. They've dug a deep hole for themselves not just in the standings, but mentally.

Two weeks ago Joe thought it would be difficult for the Braves to make the playoffs. Apparently they had a season-changing last two weeks. Playing Pittsburgh in two separate series will do that for you, as will playing a struggling Phillies team.

JM: I see them making a push, because they're now playing like I thought they would.

So they were not really out of it, just playing poorly? I have always enjoyed how Joe Morgan is absolutely incapable of predicting what may happen past this very second. He says the Braves are out of contention for the playoffs, because that is where they are RIGHT NOW, but refuses to project and think the Braves may play better at some point in the future because HE CAN'T TELL THE FUTURE YOU STUPID ASSHOLE.

I do believe they'll be in contention.

At least until they lose two games in a row and then they aren't consistent enough for Joe and will be out of contention again in his eyes. In a chat two weeks from now, Joe will have declared the Braves out of the running for the playoffs if they go .500 over that time span.

Jeff (Indiana)

Joe, who is going to be the NL Wild Card?

JM: I would say that one of the teams from the West would be in the mix.

So out of the 16 teams in the National League, the four teams in the NL West have a shot at the Wild Card.

The Mets will be in the mix. The Braves. Cincinnati.

That would be three more teams in the mix for the NL Wild Card. Joe believes seven teams in the National League have a shot at the Wild Card. From previous chats we know Joe thinks the Phillies will win the NL East and the Cardinals will win the NL Central, which means there are seven teams left over who Joe doesn't think can win the Wild Card. So he thinks half the teams in the National League have a shot at the Wild Card. Thanks for the useful information Joe. You can only get incredibly broad information that allows you to conclude nothing from an ESPN analyst.

I think there are a lot of teams that have a shot at it.

In a league with only 16 teams, I would hope we could get a more specific answer other than "any team that is currently still playing baseball in the National League."

JM: Something for you to think about until next week. Why should all of the kids born outside of America be free agents and all the teams can bid on them, but the American kids are put in a draft and are slotted so they can only make so much money?

Probably because some teams are spending a ton of money to set up baseball camps in other countries in the hopes this investment will pay off with them discovering talent in that country. Honestly, it isn't a bad question posed by Joe, but it won't happen as long as MLB teams have camps in other countries because teams don't want to waste money if they don't have the inside track on some of these overseas kids.

I wouldn't be against foreign kids being put in the MLB draft, but I would imagine teams that have invested money in baseball camps overseas wouldn't favor all eligible players being put into one draft pool. It does only seem fair that kids overseas get put into the draft and certain teams can't just bid on their rights. I don't know too much about this issue, but on its face, Joe may have a point here. This was one of his few moments of clarity in this chat.

Buzzmaster

Thanks for chatting Joe!

Thanks for making me feel smart about my knowledge of baseball.