Last week in his chat Joe Morgan was hit with a ton of JoeBait questions. He managed to avoid some of them and then gave his typical non-answer to the others. All in all, it was a successful chat for Joe because he spoke in generalities and cliches, though he did manage to slip in that the Texas Rangers definitely have a chance to win the ALCS and the World Series. I am sure he will take this comment back in the very near future. This week Joe picks a player to start a team with and wants us all to know the regular season is not over, so quit asking him to make predictions about which teams will make the playoffs.
Buzzmaster: We're getting Joe right now!
The Buzzmaster then mutters under his breath, "and by 'getting' Joe 'I mean teaching him how to use a computer and explaining the questions to him.' When will FoxSports get that application and call me back for the associate editor position I want? I'm at the end of my rope here."
JM: The Mets have had a lot of injuries the entire season to some of their main players. Beltran just got back. Reyes was out for a while. The latest is K-Rod being out for the season. You just look at the Mets and wonder how they will regroup for next year.
They'll probably regroup this year just like they regrouped last year when they had a ton of injuries to key players. It's not like the Mets don't have a talented and fairly young core in Reyes, Wright, Davis, Thole, Pelfrey (assuming he pitches a little better than he has recently), Parnell, and Pagan to build the team around. The Mets had a ton of injuries last year and they managed to regroup for this year fairly well.
I know K-Rod is injured, but that injury was completely different from the injuries Reyes and Beltran suffered since it didn't really happen on the baseball field.
This year is just about shot.
Did Joe Morgan just count out the Mets for this year? Was this a prediction of some sort that indicates he is giving his opinion? Joe Morgan thinks the Mets are about out of contention and they were 11 games back as Joe did this chat and 10.5 games back today, so they may be out of it, but I can't believe Joe made a prediction.
Nick (MN)
Hey Joe, big series starting tonight between the Twins and White Sox. If the Twins sweep do you think there will be much of a race in September between these two teams?
I'm at the point, I don't even know why anyone asks Joe a question and expects an actual answer.
JM: It's still too early to count anyone out who's in contention.
Except for the Mets. The Mets year is shot according to Joe. We can go ahead and count them out since they aren't in contention.
If the Twins swept the White Sox they would be 7 games up in the AL Central. The Mets were 11 games back when Joe wrote this. The difference is four games and Joe doesn't count the Mets as being in contention so...if the Twins had have swept the White Sox, it doesn't seem like it would be a great race in September.
They will have a lead if they sweep, but it won't be over if it happens.
If the Twins had swept the White Sox, it would be very close to be over though wouldn't it? The White Sox are now 4.5 games back, but if the Twins were 7 games ahead, that wouldn't have been an easy comeback for the White Sox to take the division.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Hi Joe, do you think the Mets should try to void K-Rod's contract?
(Joe Morgan) "I'm sorry, who is K-Rod? Is he related to Ivan Rodriguez, Alex Rodriguez or ChiChi Rodriguez?"
JM: I don't think you should do that. I think you should fine him.
I don't know why Joe is talking in the second person to Tito right now. I hope he is aware Tito (or commenter Martin F, as he revealed himself to be last week) is not Omar Minaya or in any way related to anyone in the Mets front office.
They're not going to void the contract of Coghlan, when he hurt himself trying to put a pie in his teamamte's face.
Chris Coghlan plays for the Florida Marlins, not the New York Mets. Different teams have different standards their players are expected to meet. I don't know what the Marlins not voiding Coghlan's contract has to do with the K-Rod situation in any manner.
Chris Coghlan threw a pie in the face of a teammate and got hurt, while K-Rod tried to beat the shit out of his father-in-law. One player got injured pulling a prank on a teammate and the other person (essentially) got injured committing a crime. I think there are two separate events that require two separate punishments based on the fact Chris Coughlin was not arrested for assault when he threw a pie in his teammate's face. How can Joe not see the difference in these two situations?
(Joe Morgan's wife calling for him) "Hurry Joe, our daughter Deborah just stabbed the Hendrix's son in the face with a carving knife. He's bleeding badly, let's get to the hospital."
(Joe and his wife drive the kids to the hospital)
(Joe and his wife are sitting in the waiting room when Mr. Hendrix approaches Joe) "I am filing charges against your daughter. Where did she get the carving knife from?"
(Joe Morgan) "I'm not sure exactly where the knife was made, it may be on the handle of the knife, so I can't really answer that question."
(Mr. Hendrix) "Quit with the bullshit. Obviously it is your knife and you let your 10 year old daughter run around with it? I am pressing charges and you or your daughter are going to jail."
(Joe Morgan) "Now wait a minute. That's not fair. You didn't arrest our other daughter when she got mud on your carpet, so why would you arrest Deborah for stabbing your son? If you didn't arrest her for getting mud on the carpet, I don't see how you can arrest her for stabbing your son."
(Mr. Hendrix) "You're an ignorant asshole. Your daughter just attempted to murder my son and you can't see the difference in what happened here and getting mud on the carpet?"
(Joe Morgan) "Other parents have had their children injured outside while playing with other children and they didn't get arrested. I don't see how you can have my daughter or me arrested here. Good day sir, I have a chat with ESPN I must do now."
(Mr. Hendrix) "I'm going to sue your ass in court."
(Joe Morgan tips his hat at Mr. Hendrix as he starts to walk away) "That must be an urban term for playing basketball. I'm sorry, but I don't play basketball anymore. Maybe we will play catch one day. You'd want to play catch with a legend wouldn't you?"
One was on the field, but the result was still the same. You fine him and move on.
The result was the same, so the punishment shouldn't be more severe? Say I accidentally fall out of a tree climbing with a friend and break my arm, the result is the same if someone comes up to me and hits my arm with crowbar so it breaks...does this mean the person who hit me with a crowbar shouldn't get arrested? One incident involved a pie in the face and the other incident involved a domestic incident. The outcome shouldn't matter, because it is the action that took place in each where one action was a crime and the other wasn't.
Other people have had domestic problems and their contract doesn't get voided.
Like who? Who has domestic problems and gets injured during these domestic problems and hasn't gotten their contract voided?
Mike (Jersey)
Do you think that the Phillies catch the Braves?
JM: If Howard comes back right away, he may be able to come back today along with Utley.
Utley has come back and Ryan Howard seems to be coming back in the next week or two. So he will be back soon.
If they get their full team back healthy, I think they will catch the Braves.
I don't know if any team in the majors has their full team healthy right now, but I will assume Joe is referring to Ryan Howard and Chase Utley being healthy. So the full team appears to be coming back healthy, so does this mean Joe Morgan has accidentally made another prediction? Last week he said the Rangers definitely have a chance to be in the ALCS or the World Series and this week he says the Phillies will catch the Braves.
He didn't mean to make this prediction, but he ended up doing so.
Harold (Wausau Wisconsin)
Joe-You are one of my favorite people in baseball. How do you feel about expanding replay in the playoffs and not the regular season?
If we asked Joe to make a list of his favorite people in baseball he couldn't do it because, "I don't know everyone who works in baseball."
I think expanding replay in the playoffs and not the regular season is pointless. Expand replay in the regular season too or don't expand it at all. That's my position.
JM: That would be better than trying to expand it during the regular season. If it were in the playoffs, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
How is expanding replay in the playoffs better than trying to expand it during the regular season again? Wouldn't it make sense to expand replay during the regular season so all the kinks are worked out before it is used in the playoffs?
I'm not a big fan of it to begin with it, but in the playoffs, I don't have a big problem with it.
I don't understand how Joe can not be a big fan of replay, but doesn't have a problem with the use of replay in the playoffs. I realize in the playoffs the calls made by umpires need to be correct, but wouldn't it make sense to use instant replay in the regular season to work out any kinks and for the umpiring crew to get used to it?
A lot of people are saying to have a replay system with challenges like the NFL. That's OK if you're just trying to get more of them correct and not all of them correct.
How many replays does Joe think there will be every game? Five or six of them? There may be one or two replays a game. I am not advocating a replay system like the NFL, but probably won't be any more than a few replays a game. NFL coaches are given a total of four challenge flags to throw, I think that would be sufficient number for a baseball game.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do the moves the Dodgers made at the deadline look a little silly now considering that their playoff chances are close to zero? They got older and more expensive and lost a few cost-controlled younger players just for a couple of rentals in Dotel and Lilly.
JM: The one pickup I liked was Ted Lilly.
No one asked Joe what pickup by the Dodgers he liked. Tito asked Joe if the Dodgers look stupid for making the deadline deals they did because they took on salary. They took on Lilly and Theriot's salary for this year. Granted, Lilly is a free agent after this year, but Theriot is eligible for arbitration and made $2.6 million this year. The Dodgers gave up Blake DeWitt, who was under team control for a while and is probably a better player than Theriot. It's a legitimate question, just not one that Joe Morgan feels the need to give an answer to.
I know he's going to be a free agent and they may be renting him, but at the time they were in it and had a shot.
The Dodgers were 7 games out of first place in the NL West when they made the trade. They are currently 12 games out of first place in the NL West. Being 7 games out of first place on July 31st is still in the hunt, but it is pretty on the fringe of the hunt.
But I agree some of the other pick ups, I don't like as much as the Ted Lilly one.
Who were the "other pick ups?" Octavio Dotel? Ted Lilly was the Dodgers big pickup at the trade deadline, there weren't too many other deals they made by the Dodgers.
Mike (Jersey)
Does Minaya have to consider "blowing up" the Mets? This core doesn't seem to be able to get it done.
JM: Because they're in New York, you can't just blow it up and rebuild.
I think the New York fans could handle starting over in New York as long as their is a clear picture of where the team wants to be and a plan to get there sooner rather than later.
That's the problem. You have to keep trying to work things around. You can't just blow it up and start over. But they do have a situation where it looks like they should.
So the Mets should blow it up and start over, but the fans are preventing the Mets from doing so? Does Joe think the Mets do what is best for the team or what the fans want them to do? As long as there is a plan in place, I think the Mets fans would be able to accept a slight rebuilding.
Maybe I am wrong.
Xander (Philly)
With the season winding down, who do you see as the 4 NL playoff teams?
Here is the thing about asking Joe a question like this...you won't get an answer and even if you do get an answer Joe will change his mind the first time one of the teams goes on a two game losing streak.
JM: I picked the Giants to make the playoffs at the beginning of the season. I'm not sure that prediction is going to come true now.
I enjoy how Joe can say that he isn't confident in his prediction the Giants will make the playoffs anymore when they are 1 game behind in the Wild Card standings, yet he doesn't want to count out the White Sox if they had gotten swept by the Twins and ended up 7 games behind in the AL Central. He also just told us the Mets should possibly blow up their team and they were 8.5 games out of the Wild Card when Joe wrote this. Joe's mind is all over the place.
Consistency may be Joe's mantra, but it certainly isn't what he practices.
The Padres, Reds, Cardinals and I'm still thinking Philadelphia might sneak in there.
This sounds like an actual prediction from Joe. I am shocked.
But it's still hard to pick because there are still a lot of games left.
There we go. It is hard to pick, which is why Joe just picked.
Kyle (VA)
Joe, what do you make of the close division races this year? Just a cycle or a change in the game?
JM: I don't believe it's cyclical in that the game has changed in that there are no great teams any more. There are a lot of good teams, no great teams.
Why does Joe always talk about how there are no great teams anymore because the divisions are close? Maybe that means there are MORE great teams than there used to be. Parity doesn't always mean teams are not great teams, just that teams are closer to each in other in regard to talent level. There can be parity where the teams are better than they used to be.
It's not a bad thing that some divisions aren't won by 10-20 games every single year, even though Joe thinks this is a bad thing.
There have been a lot of teams that were grea,
t,
the Yankees, Cardinals, Red Sox in the past. But now they're all going to stay close together with the parity.
But this doesn't mean there aren't good teams anymore, it just means teams are closer in talent level to each other. There can still be good teams in the majors and not have a situation where one or two teams dominate the standings from year-to-year.
Matthew (Columbia, NJ)
Hey Joe, does Roy Halladay have a legit shot at the Cy Young Award?
JM: He definitely has a chance, but he has a lot of losses.
That's a good point about the losses...if losses were the sole criteria to be used to determine how good a pitcher is, which doesn't happen, so it is actually not a good point. Halladay has 8 losses, but a 2.16 ERA and a 1.03 WHIP. I'm going to say the 8 losses aren't a big deal considering his other statistics are great, especially knowing he has 8 complete games this year.
I don't know what they look at for the Cy Young Award any more, because last year Adam Wainwright should have won the Cy Young.
We have been over this before, no Wainwright should not have won the Cy Young last year. I know what they look for in the Cy Young Award. They look for the best pitcher in the National and American League, not the pitcher with the most wins, but the best pitcher overall.
Adam Wainwright had 8 losses last year by the way. Tim Lincecum had 7 losses. So Joe can't even stick to his own archaic, backwards-ass way of measuring how good a pitcher is over the length of a season.
I think he should win it again this year.
Wainwright is having a great year and I am not sure I can argue with this right now. It's a tough race between Halladay and Wainwright. The one thing I am sure about though is that I am absolutely thrilled the Braves traded Wainwright for one year of J.D. Drew. It's like the Mark Teixeira trade before the Mark Teixeira trade, just on a smaller scale and with less prospects that were given up by the Braves.
Mike (Jersey)
What's your thought on why pitching has been so dominant this year?
JM: There are a lot of reasons. The hitters have something to do with it.
You don't say? You mean the hitters have something to do with the dominant pitching this year? Joe Morgan gets paid very well to make statements like this.
Part of my thoughts is that the hitters have too much information at the plate now. There is too much what going on in their heads.
Leave it to Joe Morgan to think that having too much knowledge is a bad thing. Knowledge is a weakness in Joe's mind. Why doesn't this surprise me?
Also, the pitchers have widened their repertoire. Every pitcher coming up now has a change up. That's been the biggest plus for pitchers in years.
So the key to the dominant pitching this year is the changeup? That's the explanation? Does Joe believe pitchers are just using their changeup more effectively this year?
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do you think about the punishments given out for the Reds/Cards melee? Were they appropriate or fair in your view?
JM: As far as the games given to Cueto, I think they had to make a point. But if you look at the situation, and I was there, he was pinned on the net with no where to go and guys were swinging at him.
So of course Cueto started drop kicking everyone he could see. Naturally under Joe Morgan's Theory of Law that throwing a pie in someone's face out of jest and assaulting another human being is really the same thing, he wouldn't have blamed Cueto if he had opened fire on the other players with an Uzi. AS LONG AS NO ONE DIES, THE OUTCOME IS THE SAME!
There was no place for him to go and he was backed up and guys were swinging at him.
It's good to see that Joe Morgan can throw aside all favoritism towards the Reds and talk about this situation without bias. It was Chris Carpenter according to Joe that was the real instigator, while Cueto just had to go Bruce Lee on everyone's ass to defend himself.
Sean (Kansas City)
Mr. Morgan, I've been a life long Royals fan! What in the world do they need to do to be a contender?
JM: Well, I think it's easier now more than four years ago when there were some great teams out there.
What does this even mean? It isn't easier to win baseball games now than it used to be 40 years ago. The fact there are no great teams has no bearing on what the Royals need to do to be a contender.
They beat the Yankees and shut them down a few games ago.
The Royals beat the Yankees in one baseball game. To Joe Morgan, this is a sign there aren't any good teams anymore, which means the Royals have to do less to compete. He gets this conclusion from one game where the Royals beat the Yankees.
I think they can move forward now because the bar is not as high as it was.
This is bullshit. The 1976 Reds would not be able to beat the 2009 Yankees in a seven game series. I said it and I think I mean it. I know I sound crazy to some people.
Let's think about this. Joe says MLB is weaker now because there aren't great teams, all the teams have the same talent level? Doesn't that mean there are better teams now then there used to be because teams like Joe's 1976 Reds can't get easy wins over bad teams? The "great" teams in Joe's generation were great because there wasn't as much parity and every team didn't have a certain talent level. There may have been a select-few teams that were elite teams, but there was also less parity. That's why teams were so far ahead in their division during 1975 and 1976, there wasn't as much talent throughout baseball. Joe pretty much admits this by saying there is more parity in today's game, yet he also says teams "in his day" were better teams. Maybe they were "better" because there weren't as many talented teams as there are in 2010. The crappy teams were much crappier than they are today, which means the better teams in 2010 have to work harder to beat the crappy teams than they did in 1976. It's just a theory of mine.
If they make the right decisions with personnel, which is always the key, they have a chance. KC has made a step in the right direction by signing their No. 1 draft choice.
Translation: I haven't seen the Royals play this year so I can't tell you what is wrong or right with them or even what direction they are headed.
Jason (Memphis)
Joe, I really appreciate a HOFer taking the time to chat with fans each week during the season. If you were GM for an expansion team - which current player would you take - assuming everyone was available?
JM: Very good question. First of all, the toughest positions to fill, and to fill with superstars, usually is shortstop.
That isn't at all what was asked. What position is the toughest to fill isn't the correct answer to this question. Not even close. Joe would make a terrible General Manager. He would choose the best player at the hardest position to fill rather than choose the best player overall.
If you're starting a team from scratch, and using that philosophy, I would look at Starlin Castro and Elvis Andrus,
If you are starting a team from scratch using that philosophy you are also an idiot. I feel like I have to add that.
Also, Starlin Castro and Elvis Andrus over Hanley Ramirez? How the hell does this make sense? I don't care that Starlin Castro and Andrus are young, I wouldn't pick them first if I was choosing a shortstop.
but, that said, Jason Heyward, Austin Jackson, Mike Stanton would probably make me change my mind and I probably would take one of them. Right now the edge would go to Heyward.
Sweet Jesus. What a terrible, terrible choice in my mind. If you are choosing a rookie, I think you go with Stephen Strasburg, but if you are trying to put together a winning team, the answer to this question would be a guy like Miguel Cabrera or Albert Pujols, even if they are "older." Hell, choose Joey Votto, but don't choose a guy who hasn't even played an entire year in the majors yet.
Heyward, Jackson and Stanton may end up being great players but they haven't proven themselves to be building blocks in any fashion. The correct answer here is not these guys and it certainly isn't in any freaking way Starlin Castro or Elvis Andrus.
Every week Joe tops himself with the stuff he writes.
Mitch (Boston)
Mr. Morgan, although the red sox are still dealing with major injuries and 5 1/2 games out, do you see them making a playoff apperance
JM: Yeah, the Red Sox are definitely going to get better. Especially when they get Youkilis and Pedroia back.
The problem is that Youkilis may not make it back until the postseason. So it will be hard to rely on him to help the Red Sox win the AL East and make the playoffs when he may not make it back to the baseball field until the playoffs.
They'll have a run in them. I definitely don't think they're out of the playoff race.
I don't think Joe knows if he thinks they are out of the playoff race or not. He know he has broadcast a few Red Sox games this year and that is about it.
Justin (Baltimore)
What do you think of the job that Buck has done in Baltimore?
JM: I'm a big fan of Buck Showalter as a manager, but let's wait and see.
"I think Buck Showalter is a great manager, but I don't want to say that just in case I am wrong. Giving an opinion, even when I feel strongly one way about something isn't what I look to do as a baseball analyst."
(Jon Miller calling a Sunday Night game with Joe) "Beckett is looking a bit tired out there to me. Do you think he is tiring Joe?"
(Joe Morgan) "Well, I can't really answer that because I haven't heard his postgame interview yet. It looks like he is tired, but let's wait and see what he says."
(Jon Miller) "And Beckett has passed out on the mound! He is on the ground and his eyes are closed. He must have been exhausted. What do you think Joe?"
(Joe Morgan) "He very well could just be asleep on the mound Jon. Let's wait and see if he is taking a nap or was truly so tired he passed out. It's a bit early to make an assumption that he was tired."
(Jon Miller) "His uniform is soaked with sweat though Joe, and he has thrown 136 pitches."
(Joe Morgan) "Maybe he gets night sweats. You never know. It's too early to say for sure."
They've done that, but let's be honest, this is not a great team. They went 7-1 at one point, but I can guarantee that at some point they will go 1-7.
I like how Joe can guarantee us the Orioles will go 1-7 at some point. He is completely unable to make the prediction about who should win the MVP or make any other prediction even though the season is 80% complete, but Joe has no problem making a prediction that at some point the Orioles will go 1-7.
Give Joe some information about whether a team will win the division or not (based on that team's record) and he will refuse to make a prediction, but Joe is willing to make a guess at a team's record for any stretch of the year without really thinking about it.
I want to reiterate the fact that none of the races are over yet.
I want to reiterate the fact no one said the races are over yet. People are merely asking you questions about who you believe will win each division race.
We still have a long way to go.
No, we actually don't. It is near the end of August. There is not a long way to go until the baseball season is over.
Don't count your team out.
Unless you are a Mets fans or an Orioles fan. Joe has already counted those teams out in this very chat. He may change his mind next week, but he doesn't know yet. It's too early to tell.
"There are no more great teams."
ReplyDeleteI hate this statement with a passion. Joe clearly can't tell the difference between absolute and relative levels of performance. The absolute level of performance in baseball is unmistakably WAY up. You say that the 76 Reds would lose to the 10 Yankees? Of course! The 76 probably couldn't beat 25 teams in the majors right now, and couldn't sweep the other 5. The athletes are better, the training is better, the coaching and scouting are better, the bullpens are better with more specialists. Modern teams are just much better than teams from 30 years ago across the board.
The relative level of performance is how teams do relative to one another, that is, who wins and who loses, and how often. The relative level of performance is what would determine, in Joe's mind, whether there are great teams. But it shouldn't. The Pirates would be the greatest Single-A team ever, but that doesn't make them great on an absolute level. He doesn't seem to get that fans are much more involved when the variance in relative performance is low, so that we get tight races late into the season. [I know we also prefer to watch absolutely great athletes over amateurs, so most of us would rather watch a 10-3 majors game than a 5-4 little league nailbiter.]
I'm too tired to type more, but Joe Morgan is an arrogant prick.
in todays chat morgan says in reference to joba that confidence doesnt make ones performance improve, but then later on he says that jose bautistas confidence is why he has improved. classic joe!
ReplyDeleteHH - interesting that you would bring this up as i found myself thinking about this very issue earlier today. i'm not sure that i agree w/ you about this for baseball. certainly w/ football and basketball where athleticism has changed in incredible ways, but in baseball? hitting a baseball is hitting a baseball, and there have always been pitchers who can bring it the same as today. hitters may be stronger today than in the past, but a sweet swing from a moderately built player (see chase utley today) can still bring tons of power. fielders in the past were just as slick, agile, and fast as they are today. there may be more talent playing today b/c of having more international players though. still, i'm not sure that the majority of teams today woudl beat the best reds, yankees, or whatever all time great teams of the past.
ReplyDeletejoe should have his baseball card (like a "man card") removed for that starling castro comment. it's as if he read the question to be which rookie he would start a team with, not which player. how do these thoughts process in joe's head? he may have a mental disorder.
The Mets have had a lot of injuries the entire season to some of their main players.
ReplyDeleteWell that'd be a reason to be suck if two of the teams in front of them hadn't had significant injuries of their own.
SS? Phillies. Third base? Braves and Phillies. Second? Both. Closer? Phillies. Centerfielder? Phillies. Right field? Braves. First baseman? Both. Catcher? Phillies. SP? Both.
One was on the field, but the result was still the same.
Ya, I remember when Coughlin got charged with third degree assault and arrested too.
That's OK if you're just trying to get more of them correct and not all of them correct.
Ya, screw getting all of them correct! We only like to be right 52% of the time here!
The one pickup I liked was Ted Lilly.
In addition to what you said BGF, Lilly stated a couple times this year that he plans on being with the Cubs next year. So ya. Way to go Dodgers.
As long as there is a plan in place, I think the Mets fans would be able to accept a slight rebuilding.
Would you rather finish in fourth place and have a pretty crappy future or finish in fourth/fifth and actually be building towards something? Then again their GM is Omar Minaya who couldn't build a 50 piece puzzle at this point.
He definitely has a chance, but he has a lot of losses.
Just like Hamels, Roy hasn't gotten a lot of run support. In 9 of his starts, the Phillies have scored 2 runs or less and a whopping 15 starts with 3 runs or less of support.
By comparison, Wainwright has 10 games of 3 or less runs of support.
I think he should win it again this year.
So 8 losses is "a lot," but 7 losses is Cy Young worthy?
Just going to toss this in here, the Cardinals only have three wins against teams above .500 (two against the Reds, one against the Braves) when Wainwright starts.
The Phillies have won 7 games against above .500 teams in Halladay's starts.
I bet Halladay would have more wins if he had two starts against Houston, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee.
First of all, the toughest positions to fill, and to fill with superstars, usually is shortstop.
Catching is like defense in fantasy football. There's one worth getting (Mauer), while there's not a large enough difference between the rest to waste a pick on.
I think you go with Stephen Strasburg
No offense, but he might as well have "PRIOR" on the back of his jersey.
I agree with HH. Although its true that difference is less than in football or basketball. Improvements in technology, whether medicine or training, will always give modern players the advantage. Also, the minor ailments that players played through back in the day have actual treatment today. So while in the short run it might not make a difference, I think over the course of a season it could make a modern team significantly better than a team from the 70's.
ReplyDeleteBut everything is relative. There's really know way to know how good dominant teams are, because they dominated their era. But the talent pool could have been particularly strong or weak, as HH mentioned.
HH, I don't like that statement either. That's why I said I think the 2009 Yankees could have beaten the 1976 Reds. I don't feel as strongly as you do and I wasn't sure others would agree with that statement. I am glad you guys do, because I feel this way about nearly every sport, which is why I sometimes have to hold my tongue when older fans of the NFL, NBA and MLB talk about how great a player was. I am sure he was great, but today's athletes are better.
ReplyDeleteJoe thinks the tight races are a bad thing when they really aren't. There are no more great teams because of parity and the fact I think there relative crappy teams around anymore. There are bad teams, but like he said when he talked about the Royals beating the Yankees in one game, they are still good crappy teams. I agree with your point HH and that's why I hate that statement too.
Anon, I can't wait to read this week's chat. I really think Joe just types and doesn't care if it makes sense.
Matt, I am not as confident that 25 teams could beat the '76 Reds, I can't personally go that far with my opinion. I just think the hitters are better and the pitching is better as well than it used to be in 1976. I could be wrong b/c I wasn't around in 1976. I don't see how Joe thinks parity is bad for baseball. I don't want to see great teams from year-to-year that dominate the league. I like great teams and I think the quality of play has increase to where teams are still great, teams just can't win 110 games in a year as easily b/c the other MLB teams have good relative talent as well.
I'm not hating on Starlin Castro, but even he would agree he shouldn't be the first SS picked.
Rich, I hate using injuries as an excuse, but it is partially true. Teams have injuries and they have to work through them. The Mets seem to have had more significant injuries of late, but I don't think they should blow it all up. I do think Mets fans would stick around if they had a plan and followed that plan while blowing up the team in some areas.
Run support isn't an issue Joe understands. He just sees the losses. This is a guy who thinks a 1-0 game and a 7-6 game doesn't really have a difference in how the starting pitchers pitched. He looks at the bottom line of who won the game.
Joe doesn't know what they look for in the Cy Young award because he doesn't understand what they look for. I didn't know those stats about Wainwright, but he seems to be pitching well against bad teams. Either way, I hate the idea of using losses too much to judge a pitcher's overall body of work in a year.
I hope for the sake of baseball and the Nationals sake Strasburg isn't Mark Prior.
Dylan, you are right in that it all depends on the talent pool. I think by Joe saying there aren't great teams anymore he is also admitting the relative talent between teams has gotten closer, which could also mean there are great teams, but the relative talent has increased so the great teams can't win as many games as they used to.
I dispute the person who said I'm not Tito from Brooklyn...we are ALL Tito from Brooklyn. Tito is the embodiment of collective baseball fandoms frustration with Joe. In honor of Tito, I named my fantasy team after him....
ReplyDeleteI think there are a couple of guys from the Bronx who write in to Joe yesterday. I think they may not be real and Tito has started a trend of guys from the New York area asking Joe questions.
ReplyDeleteTito from Brooklyn is the embodiment of a fan trying to get Joe to answer a question. I like that.