20 comments It's a JoeBait Classic Chat

I have set up a College Football Pick 'Em League for Yahoo. Personally, this is my second favorite fantasy league because it keeps my interest in college football games I wouldn't normally care about on Saturdays. I have set it up against the spread and the games we will be choosing are Top 25 games and games the Yahoo editors choose as "worthy" of being chosen. The ID is 1704 and the password is "asu." Feel free to join and it doesn't take long each week to pick the games, plus it is fun to go against the spread.

Last week in Joe's weekly ESPN chat we learned that Joe prepares for his weekly ESPN Sunday Night Game by reading box scores of the two teams, then figuring out which players have been hot or cold for each team and focusing on those players. It seems that Joe pretty much ignores the players that have been "consistent" all year long and haven't had too many hot or cold streaks. So basically Joe ignores the players that he loves to talk about in his chats, the consistent players. I find that to be fairly ironic.

Last week we also learned that the Reds have the best pitching staff in the National League with the least experience, Cole Hamels lacks the confidence he had last year when he just wanted to get the year over with, and the key to answering any question about a pitcher is to talk about Johan Santana. This week Joe talks around talking about the playoffs a little bit more and answers the age-old question of whether brawls between teams is acceptable or not.

This week we have a lot of JoeBait questions. Sometimes I think it is more fun just to get a natural reaction out of Joe, but sometimes it is good to bait the hook and see what great knowledge we catch from Joe.

Buzzmaster: We've got Joe!

I picture the Buzzmaster as a mid-20's guy who is constantly annoyed that he has to try and hunt down the experts at ESPN to do the chats every week. It's like he is trying to convince himself to be excited they got Joe Morgan, because if they didn't get Joe the Buzzmaster could take a 30 minute break (or 26 minute as the case was for this chat), smoke a cigarette and drink some coffee.

Imagine how difficult some of the ESPN talent must be to hunt down for a chat. You know they don't like chatting every week, but do it because ESPN makes them. I think Joe Morgan also does the Sunday Night Baseball games because ESPN makes him or otherwise he would be watching re-runs of "Cold Case" and mentioning how "Matlock" was a much more consistently entertaining show than any courtroom-related show on television today.

JM: I was in Cincinnati last night. Got a chance to see a brawl. It was pretty interesting how it came down. Luckily it appears that very few guys got injured.

Can we even call it a brawl? It was more like a group of men in a pack moving around the field together attempting to hit each other from 3 inches away.

It appears that very few guys got injured except Johnny Cueto got suspended seven games for trying to drop-kick other players, which I know concerns Joe because that's one more strike against the best starting rotation in the majors with the least amount of experience.

Kyle Styck (Las Vegas, NV)

Joe what is your take on Brandon Phillips comments on the Cardinals and do you think there will be some more bad blood between the two teams in today's game?

I am pretty sure this name is supposed to sound like "Kyle's dick," which if true, gives a whole new meaning to JoeBait.

JM: My feeling is that he shouldn't have called them names.

I don't think the problem was the actual calling of names by Brandon Phillips. The problem was the tapping of the shin guards and the brawl after that. I am pretty sure grown men don't necessarily care if another grown man doesn't like him and says so publicly. It was the direct actions Phillips took that pissed off Yadier Molina.

I just can't believe Joe is talking about the man he proclaimed a month ago to be the best second baseman in the National League like this. I would think Joe could never criticize a guy he seems to think so highly of. From Joe's chat in late June of this year:

ross (kentucky)

Joe, Whats your thoughts on Brandon Phillips? I believe as far as OVERALL he is the best 2B in the NL. No one is close defensively, he will steal you a base was a 30/30 guy and hits for power.

JM: I think you're exactly right. He's the best overall 2B in the league at this moment. He's played much, much better the last few weeks.

In follow up to Joe saying that, I would like to think Chase Utley gets back from being injured he will be the best 2B in the National League, especially considering Phillips has regressed since that time when Utley got injured. Joe said Phillips was the best overall 2B at that moment, and he meant literally that moment, because when Chase Utley got back from being injured, he would be the best 2B in the National League again.

If he dislikes them, a lot of players dislike teams, but he shouldn't have said it.

Again, it wasn't what Phillips said, but his actions that caused the problem.

You're in a pennant race, you don't need to change your focus. But guys are different nowadays than before.

Today's players are SO different the players back in the day. Mostly, because when they get in a brawl these days, they don't use a deadly weapon to injure the opposing player. I bet Joe forgot about the Juan Marichal and John Roseboro fight.

In fact, check out this list of famous baseball brawls and half of the fights took place during or before Joe's era. Baseball players aren't THAT different today than they were before.

And the Cardinals did have it on their bulletin board before the game.

Ban bulletin boards then! They are a menace to society!

Courtney Jackson (Lindenwold, NJ)

Hi joe, after watching the brawl yesterday, who do you think should be punished the most managers or players?

JM: It has to be the players. The managers didn't do anything out there.

I am pretty sure LaRussa and Dusty Baker were right up in the middle of that brawl (or scrum as Joe called it. It was more like a scrum actually). Baker and LaRussa didn't instigate the fight on the field but they certainly took part in it. I know Joe loves Dusty Baker and Tony LaRussa so he doesn't want to blame them for taking part in the brawl, but they were a part of it.

I don't know what was said in the clubhouse, but on the field, it started with Molina and Phillips and it escalated.

Exactly. If Joe doesn't know what happened in the clubhouse then he can't say for sure whether Dusty Baker and Tony LaRussa had anything to do with the brawl. From the looks of their actions on the field, it certainly looks like they were pumped up about Phillips' comments in the clubhouse. For a guy who doesn't like to say anything for sure because he doesn't have enough information, Joe seems pretty sure the managers aren't to blame for the brawl.

John (Dallas)

Hey Joe, you impressed by the Rangers win last night? Do you buy them having a shot at the ALCS?

JM: So far this year they've played great. A lot of their young guys are maturing. Michael Young is one of my favorite professional players. The bounce back of Hamilton. They have a great team.

Here goes Joe with his random sentence fragments again. He starts listing things in sentence fragments and then lists one fragment that is more fragmentized (is that a word?) than the other fragments. Here he writes "The bounceback of Hamilton," randomly as a sentence. What about it? Does Joe like it? Does he hate it? I wonder if Joe does this in other parts of his life?

(Joe Morgan testifying in court) "I did see that man (points to the defendant) enter the home around midnight that night."

(Prosecutor) "Please note the witness pointed to the defendant, Jack Golightly. What else did you see that night Mr. Morgan?"

(Joe Morgan) "I can't really say everything I saw that night. I can't really remember every single thing I saw, so I don't know if I can answer that question or not."

(Prosecutor prepared for Joe to do this) "What else in relation to the break-in did you see that night. Let's just focus on the break-in (hands Joe an animal cracker to soothe him) at your neighbor's house."

(Joe Morgan) "I had a pretty good view that night. I saw a car pull up, two men get out of the car, then I saw those two men leave the house a few minutes later with the paintings. The gun left a mark on his chest. Then those men walked down between houses and I couldn't see them after that."

(Prosecutor) "I'm sorry Joe. Did you say the 'gun left a mark on his chest?' There was a gun and someone got shot? That's not in your police report at all and you have never mentioned anything like that to me previously. Please tell me what happened involving this gun."

(Joe Morgan) "I can't tell you everything that has ever happened with the gun bu---"

(Prosecutor handing Joe a warm slice of apple pie) "Just tell me what happened that very night on this very instance with the gun."

(Joe Morgan) "As I said, when the dog got near and barked at the two men---"

(Prosecutor) "You never mentioned a dog. Where was this dog?"

(Joe Morgan) "You should be more consistent with your questions. It was a big fucking dog. It was warm in the kitchen. The dog was the size of should-be Hall of Fame shortstop Dave Concepcion."

(Prosecutor) "Tell me what happened with the dog, the gun, and the two men on that night please Mr. Morgan."

(Joe Morgan) "I saw everything. I saw the two men leaving the house. Start walking down the street. I went to go call the police because I saw they had possessions of the McPherson's in their hand. My television broke. Then the dog started barking and I came back to the window."

(Prosecutor) "So the dog didn't attack the two men Mr. Morgan? Where did the gunshot come from? What does the television have to do with anything?"

(Joe Morgan) "The gunshot was on television and the dog approached the two men but was held back by a fence. The movie was good. There was no the dog could have gotten the two men because of the fence."

(Prosecutor) "I don't unders---"

(Defense attorney stands up) "I would like to make a motion for a directed verdict. This man clearly either wasn't at the scene or has an unreliable memory. As the only witness to this crime and the entire basis for the State's evidence against my client he is doing nothing but confusing this jury."

(Judge thinks for a minute) "Though it disregards all legal process and possibly could violate the laws that govern our country, I will make a directed verdict of innocent and set Mr. Golightly free. Mr. Morgan, you are being held in contempt of court."

They definitely have a chance of winning the ALCS and of winning the world championship.

You heard it here first. Joe Morgan this week thinks the Rangers have a good chance of winning the World Series. Next week, after that Rangers lose a few games he may change his mind, but its too early to tell (as Joe would say). I guarantee between now and October, Joe will rule the Rangers out as viable World Series contenders.

Matt (Parts Unknown)

Last night's 12-6 beatdown to the Twins...the beginning of the end for the ChiSox?

I like to think possibly Matt is lost somewhere in the United States, maybe he is in a cave, but he gets a good enough signal to participate in Joe's weekly chat. Good for him. Way to show up.

JM: Earlier in the year, they struggled mightily, then they got hot and played well. That's the sign of a good team, being able to bounce back.

I always thought Joe believed this was the sign of an inconsistent team? So when the White Sox start playing poorly, isn't Joe going to write them off and say they aren't good enough? If the White Sox rebound (whatever that means) then they are a good team right, so for a team to be good, they also have to rebound from tough times? Therefore, even good teams have bad stretches and so Joe can now quit criticizing teams by calling them not consistent enough. I am perpetually confused by Joe's evaluation of baseball teams.

I think they can bounce back, but the Twins are a good team as well and can get on a roll. I think you'll see that in the final weeks, teams getting on a roll and bouncing back.

What the hell does this even mean? Joe is somehow managing to talk in such a vague manner I don't even understand what he is saying.

I don't think there will be a lot of consistency in that division.

But if we see a lot of teams playing poorly, getting on a roll and bouncing back...isn't that consistent? It sure sounds consistent to me. I like how Joe uses the word "consistent" only in terms of something only being positively consistent.

JM: At one point Detroit was in first place, remember, and now they've fallen down.

Literally. Detroit fell down AND THEY CAN'T GET UP! (Cue anyone remembering those commercials)

Fine, here's the link. I love quoting that commercial for some reason.

I just hope the Tigers didn't break a hip when they fell.

Andrew (Poughkeepsie, NY)

Do you think it was a good idea for two (NL Central) contenders to get into a fracas like that when there is still so much of the season remaining? Could 'cooler heads' have prevailed here?

JM: First of all, what has happened now, they've put a lot of pressure on each other. Each player has more pressure when he goes to the plate and when they play each other. It's tough enough to play in a pennant race without having added pressure.

I don't see how there is added pressure on the Cardinals and Reds. They still are in a tight pennant race and it just so happens they hate each other. The Giants and Dodgers hated each other in the 50's and 60's and it didn't add any enormous amount of extra pressure. Either way, both teams are going to try and beat each other for the division title.

Steve (Blacksburg, VA)

The Rangers beat Mo last night, and have Cliff Lee going tonight. Is it time they are taken seriously as AL pennant contenders?

JM: I really believe that this series will tell Texas exactly where they stand with the big boys, Tampa Bay, Boston and the Yankees the last few years.

This two game series in Texas is going to tell the Rangers whether they can stand with the big boys or not over the last few years? How the hell can a two game series in 2010 tell the Rangers how they stand compared to the Rays in 2008 and 2009?

So far they've been able to play well against them.

The Rangers are 1-4 against the Yankees, have a 2-2 record against the Rays, and a 6-4 record against the Red Sox.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Has Pujols overtaken Votto as the NL MVP?

Tito is determined to figure out whether Votto or Pujols is the MVP of the National League and Joe keeps giving him the same non-answer every single week.

JM: I think it's still too early to decide.

That would be the same non-answer.

I've always felt that the MVP is Pujols' to lose. He's that good. He changes the whole lineup for the Cardinals.

I've always felt this is the thinking of an idiot. Pujols is that good, but the MVP isn't a lifetime achievement award and nothing a player has done in the past should affect positively or negatively his standing for the award in 2010.

Someone has to take it away from him. But it's still too early.

When is it not too early? When the season is over? It is mid-August right now. There is less than 25% of the season left. If there is ever a point before the season ends to know who could win the NL MVP, now would be that point.

But I think Pujols has moved back to the top of the list. Watching him every day, he is still the dominant force in the NL.

Pujols this year: .310/.406/.572, 28 home runs, 84 RBI's, OPS+ of 160.

Votto this year: .319/.421/.597, 28 home runs, 77 RBI's, OPS+ of 168.

Those are their raw numbers. Which of those players has been the most valuable to his team, that's the question? If the season ended today, I would say I would vote for Votto simply because he doesn't have (Joe's nemesis) Matt Holliday or Colby Rasmus hitting behind him. Votto has Scott Rolen and Brandon Phillips, so I think Votto is more valuable to the Reds. It is close though.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Has the loss of Chase Utley been more devastating to the Phillies than any other injury this year? He's consistently among the best players in the game.

Tito just insists on JoeBaiting with the word "consistent." I think at the next chat, everyone should ask questions as "Tito from Brooklyn" and see if Joe notices.

JM: For those that have seen me on TV know that Utley is one of my favorite players. His loss has prevented them from being a consistent team like before.

Chase Utley left the Phillies lineup on June 28 when they were 40-34 and the Phillies are currently (fill in number) 64-50. It didn't seem to hurt them that much from being "consistent."

Marty (Baltimore)

What do you make of the Orioles 7-1 under Showalter? Can a manager really have this kind of effect on a team or this merely a coincidence in terms of timing? What can you tell us about Buck from his time at ESPN?

(Joe Morgan thinking about who the hell Buck Showalter is and did he really work for ESPN at one time?)

JM: A coincidence a little bit, but Buck is also a good disciplinarian, good manager and he brings some credibility.

Plus he "set up" the Yankees dynasty in the 90's and led the path for Bob Brenly to win the World Series in Arizona. Good news Baltimore fans, when you fire Buck Showalter in a few years, which you will, you will win the World Series the next year. It's pretty much a guarantee. I guess it just didn't work out for the Rangers that way for some reason.

There's no doubt in my mind that he will make a difference there in Baltimore. But they won't go 7-1 through the whole season. At some point, they might go 1-7.

They'll never be consistent enough for Joe! If the Orioles went 7-1 throughout the entire season they would have only played 8 games, so I imagine this occurring isn't very likely.

Derek (Alabama)

what kind of chance do you think the braves have at the world series

Somewhere around zero and none now that Chipper got hurt. It's a consistent zero and none, so this should please Joe.

JM: The key is to get into the playoffs. If you can do that, anyone can win.

Well no shit. There is no rule preventing certain teams from winning the World Series if they make the playoffs, so this is the epitome of an obvious statement. Why can't Joe just answer the question without babbling about?

All you have to do is get hot for a couple of weeks. You see teams doing that all the time. Anybody that gets into the playoffs can win the championship. It's a short season from that point on.

Dear ESPN,

Please fire this man. Read this answer he just gave. Then please fire this man. He was asked what chance the Braves had at making the World Series and answered that any team who makes the playoffs and gets hot could make the World Series. You pay this man to analyze baseball games and this is what you get. Sure, it may be a small step up from John Kruk, but don't keep your standards that low. I am sure there is an ex-baseball player who understands how to analyze the game he played for a living and you could hire this person.

Sincerely,
Bengoodfella

Bawbyboy (Fairview, UT)

Which of the 6 last plast teams do you think have the brighter future for next season?

Bawbyboy is chatting with Joe immediately after being eliminated on the first question in his/her first grade spelling bee.

JM: I would say Seattle, if they get the right manager. Baltimore already has the right manager. And Washington, I think will be good because they keep getting No. 1 picks.

Joe was asked to give one team who had a bright future next year and gave us three teams. God help us all. Pick one team! Just one and then answer the question.

So Joe thinks Seattle, Baltimore, and Washington have a bright future for next season. I look for him to talk in his next chat about how at least one of these teams is very far from contending. Everything with Joe is week-to-week. One week he likes a team enough to think they could make the World Series, assuming they make the playoffs because ANY team that makes the playoffs can win the World Series, and the next week he doesn't like the team and thinks they aren't consistent enough.

Joe can't make a decision. Does Joe have multiple wives? How did he go about choosing just one woman to marry?

Tito (Brooklyn)

Which pitcher would you rather face, Jack Morris or Bert Blyleven?

JM: I don't think I ever faced Jack Morris.

Joe faced Jack Morris 8 times in his career. (He got two hits off him)

Joe faced Bert Blyleven 32 times in his career. He got six hits off Blyleven and struck out twice. He also faced Blyleven in the postseason and didn't get a hit off him and struck out once.

I would say this, if it's the seventh game of the World Series, I would think Jack Morris has proven that he isn't the one you want to face.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Joe actually faced Blyleven in Game 3 of the NLCS in 1979 and Blyleven threw a complete game of eight hit and one run ball.

For his career Blyleven has a 5-1 record, 2.47 ERA, 36 strikeouts, 8 walks, and a 1.077 WHIP in 8 games in the playoffs.

For his career Jack Morris has a 7-4 record, 3.80 ERA, 64 strikeouts, 32 walks, and a 1.245 WHIP in 13 games in the playoffs. Of course everyone doesn't remember his nearly 4.00 ERA in the playoffs and only remembers him pitching a great Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.

I don't know how Morris has proven he is the guy a batter doesn't want to face in Game 7, other than he has pitched in a Game 7 and Blyleven hasn't.

That's a very difficult question because I didn't face Jack Morris.

Unless you count those 8 times in his career that Joe Morgan faced Jack Morris.

Mike (Ohio)

Ozzie Smith recently endorsed Ryne Sandberg for the Cubs job. Any comments?

JM: I don't know who all the candidates are.

Every single human being that is currently living, except Lou Piniella, is a candidate. Now can you comment?

Does Joe really want a comprehensive list of candidates for the job before he feels like he can comment on this? Of course, now that Joe stated he doesn't know the candidates and seems to act as if he can't comment...he comments.

Let's put it this way, they have not had success recently and you might need an icon from their past to get the people excited again.

No one gives a crap about excitement, but will the Cubs win baseball games with Ryne Sandberg as the manager? That's the question.

It's difficult to choose a manager for certain teams, but with his reputation there and so forth, that could help him to get the job.

So it is easy to choose the manager for some teams? I am not even sure what this means. I do like how Joe is asked to comment on Ozzie Smith's endorsement of Ryne Sandberg as the Cubs manager and Joe can't even really comment on it at all. I don't know why he is here to chat with the public at all.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Does Joba Chamberlain throw too many bad strikes? Can he learn to throw more good strikes?

This question is like throwing a bleeding seal into a Great White Shark tank.

JM: First of all, I'm not a pitching coach,

But you ARE an expert who gets paid to discuss baseball. Therefore you are the type of person who could answer this question.

I don't know if trying to make him a starter hurt him or not, but he definitely hasn't been close to the same pitcher he was in his first year. I saw him Sunday night and it just doesn't look the same.

So Joe isn't a pitching coach and doesn't feel like he can answer this question on Chamberlain's mechanics...but he can tell us just from LOOKING at Joba Chamberlain he isn't the same pitcher.

He doesn't have the same confidence. You can't be successful if you're not confident.

Joe is not a pitching coach, but apparently he has a firm grasp of an individual's emotions while pitching.

Let's think about this again. Joe can't tell you mechanically what is wrong with Joba Chamberlain, though this is the part he can actually see with his own two eyes, but he can tell you Joba isn't confident right now, which is the part Joe can't see or feel because only Joba Chamberlain can feel or experience for himself. Mechanical baseball issues aren't Joe's thing, psychological issues are what he does understand...which is why he is a baseball analyst and not a psychologist?

His stuff doesn't seem to dominate hitters like he did before.

I have to give Joe some credit for avoiding the "good strike" and "bad strike" differential, but he probably didn't mean to avoid it, he just understand or care to answer the question.

Kevin (New York)

Which team do you think has the best shot at winning the World Series?

JM: I'll make it very simple. Whoever has the best starting pitching at the time.

That is simple! All we need to is build a time machine and go into the future and find out which teams make the playoffs so you have the list of teams to choose from, then go into the time machine and find out which team had the best pitching at the end of the playoffs, and then get back in the time machine to the present and give the answer to Kevin from New York. I can't believe it was that easy!

If you look, the Yankees had Sabathia, Hughes, Burnett, Pettitte, when they're all on their game, they're good, but they're not right now. Whichever team's starting pitching is the best at that time will win.

This isn't an answer. This is like being asked by your math teacher what the answer to an equation is and telling her the answer is what she will come up with after she solves the equation.

Can't Joe tell when people are asking him questions they want the answer for RIGHT NOW in his opinion, not asking him to accurately predict the future? He should be able to understand that he isn't a psychic nor is anyone asking him to be.

If I had to pick someone today, which is very difficult to do,

It is very difficult to pick the answer to something when you don't already know the answer. That is true. It defeats the point of asking the damn question if we already know the answer to the question though or wait until the season is over to ask the question.

I'm here in Cincinnati to watch the Cardinals and Reds play. Hopefully I'll see some good baseball and not some fighting.

The Reds are currently in 2nd place to the Cardinals in the NL Central. That means obviously that Pujols is the NL MVP! Or is the award still Barry Bonds' to lose?