We all miss the JoeChats that Joe Morgan used to do for ESPN.com. While it is nice he is no longer a member of the ESPN Sunday Night Baseball team, this also means we don't get Joe Morgan chatting with people on a weekly basis. We don't get him defending Ryan Howard using Matt Holliday as a comparable player, Morgan hating on wins and his consistent ability to stay consistent in answering consistently to the questions asked. So we need a Joe Morgan fix. Fortunately, Joe went on 94WIP with Michael Barkann and Ike Reese recently to talk about baseball recently. Joe Morgan has solved Cliff Lee's inability to win many games this year. His solution? Cliff Lee just needs to take it up on himself and go win some games.
We all know the Phillies have missed Ryan Howard and Chase Utley in the middle of the order this year, so let's look at what kind of run support Cliff Lee has received from his Phillies teammates when he pitches. Lee had made nine starts when Joe went on the radio and made his comments. Lee has pitched an average of 7 innings per start, has a 2.92 ERA, and is 0-3 on the season. The Phillies have scored 16 runs in 9 starts for him. Cliff Lee was 111th in run support average. Out of nine starts, here the scores from some games Lee has started, with Lee's innings pitched and earned runs in parenthesis:
April 7: 2-1 loss to Pirates (6 innings, 1 run)
April 18: 1-0 loss to Giants (10 innings, 1 run)
May 9: 10-6 loss to Mets (6 innings, 2 runs)
May 15: 4-3 win over Astros (8 innings, 1 run)
May 25: 5-3 win over Cardinals (7 innings, 3 runs)
June 5: 2-1 loss to Dodgers (7.2 innings, 2 runs)
This doesn't include the April 13 and May 20 losses where the Phillies scored three total runs in these two games. Let's just say Cliff Lee isn't getting great run support right now. He has gotten 16 runs in his nine starts. Fortunately, Joe Morgan has the solution for this.
This year, Cliff Lee seems to be getting the short end of the scoring stick with the Phillies. Joe Morgan says that sooner or later, Lee’s going to have to get a win on his own.
That's right. Lee needs to pitch a shutout, which he being a lazy and useless asshole, he hasn't managed to do yet AND he needs to drive in all the Phillies runs. Hey, if Dave Concepcion were a pitcher this is exactly what he would have done. Pitching 10 innings and giving up one run isn't doing enough to win a game. Pitching 8 innings and getting one run isn't enough to get a win either. Lee needs to drive in the necessary runs and pitch a shutout. It's really not that hard.
“There’s always a hard luck pitcher in the starting rotation,” Morgan told 94WIP’s Michael Barkann and Ike Reese on Wednesday. “There’s always going to be one guy that they score less for. Cliff Lee seems to be that guy for the Phillies.”
Which is why Cliff Lee needs to be a man and start working in the batting cage in order to drive runs in for himself.
Lee is winless so far this season, after losing a 2-1 decision to the Dodgers on Tuesday night. Lee pitched well, and took a 1-0 lead into the eighth, before giving up two runs with two outs in the inning.
Well there you go. Lee didn't do enough to win the game, did he? He threw 122 pitches but just couldn't get the job done. This isn't the fault of the Phillies' offense, not at all, that Cliff Lee hasn't won a game this year when he gives up two runs in 7.2 innings of work.
“There comes a time, when you’re a superstar, you’re the star, you’re going to have to do something,” Morgan said.
Joe Morgan directs this statement towards Cliff Lee, naturally, and not towards any of the Phillies hitters. It's not Jimmy Rollins fault. He doesn't need to do anything. His line was .247/.295/.344 when Morgan made these comments. Don't blame Shane Victorino. He's doing all he can hitting .248/.316/.407. What else can you expect from these guys? Cliff Lee is the guy who needs to step up and do something. After all, he's pitching well, so that should easily translate into also hitting well.
“Sometimes [Lee should say to himself], I’m going to have to win the game myself. I’m going to have to pitcher better than the other pitcher on the other team.”
Good idea. Lee already did this when he outpitched Matt Cain, when he outpitched Dillon Gee, when he pitched better than Jeff Karstans, and had the 9th best WHIP and 25th best ERA in the majors this year. Lee has outpitched other pitchers and just not had the luck to get a win. He's had tough luck this year. Outside of pitching a shutout every time out, and driving in the runs himself, there isn't much else he can do.
You can’t be perfect every time out,
Apparently Lee does have to be perfect every time out.
but there are times that the super star has to say I’m going to be better than the other guy on the mound tonight,” Morgan said.
How about there comes a time when Lee says, "How about the offense scores some runs for me? How about my offense is better than the other pitcher tonight, so I can continue to pitch the way I have and get some wins for my team?"
I get what Joe Morgan is saying, that it is on Cliff Lee to pitch well, but I think he's pitched pretty well and doesn't have a hell of a lot to show for it in terms of wins. Of course, this is further proof determining how effective a pitcher is based on wins is a losing proposition. Wins are a bad measurement of a pitcher's effectiveness.
I miss Joe Morgan. Here are some other nuggets from this radio appearance.
(At the 2:40 minute mark)
"Utley is a fine third place hitter and Howard is a great fourth place hitter. You take those two guys out and it just makes a ton of difference. I don't think anyone realizes how much that affects hitters on the offense...Chase Utley gets on and Howard hits a home run...so you have a lead right away and that's just not happening."
Joe Morgan doesn't think anyone realizes missing two All-Star players from the Phillies lineup is making a difference in how many runs they can score? Howard and Utley are the #3 or #4 hitters. Of course those paying attention realize Utley and Howard's absence affects the offense. Joe Morgan is the one telling Cliff Lee to just go out there, pitch better than the other pitcher and win the game. It sounds like Joe Morgan doesn't realize what a difference Utley and Howard make. If he did, perhaps he could have better advice for Cliff Lee than to simply pitch better. I'm pretty sure everyone else knows without those two guys, it is a huge hole in the middle of the Phillies lineup.
Notice that Joe is acknowledging that a pitcher gets wins when his team scores runs, so the amount of runs scored by the offense is tied to whether a pitcher wins a game or not. Let's go back two years to when Joe Morgan was outraged, stunned and outraged I tell you, that Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young Award despite only having 13 wins.
Here's a money quote from Joe about his feelings on this subject...
There are so many things that are involved other than just throwing a number on something. If people think I’m not for that, then they’re right. Because I still think it’s a team game.
Yes, it is a team game, but the Cy Young is an individual award. The Oscar for Best Actor doesn't always go to the male lead in the film that wins Best Picture.
I just wish Joe could put it together that runs are tied to a pitcher's individual performance. It's like Joe understands this because he makes comments that indicate he understands, but he refuses to accept it as a truth.
(At the 5:18 mark when asked about umpiring in MLB)
"It's very difficult to be an umpire in Major League Baseball. I mean, it's not that easy. It's not as easy as it looks. I was an umpire when I was a kid, in college, so I know how difficult it can be at times."
Because umpiring in college and umpiring in Major League Baseball are the exact same thing and all. Not to mention, these MLB umpires make their living doing this job so they should be the very best of the best at umpiring baseball games. I would hope the standard for MLB umpires is higher than that of a college kid umpiring. Simply because it is difficult to umpire a game doesn't mean umpires have a right to be bad at their job and miss calls nor does this mean instant replay shouldn't be expanded.
All in all, I would guess Joe Morgan was a very consistent umpire. He's a pretty short guy, so I wonder if he had to stand up behind the catcher, rather than kneel, so he could get a good look at whether a pitch was a ball or strike. Overall, I would guess he was consistently consistent at umpiring and enjoyed umpiring back in college when there were still all-around good MLB teams...unlike in today's game of baseball when so few teams go on a 25 game winning streak that occurred solely in Joe's mind. There are no elite baseball teams anymore you know.
(At the 6:45 mark when talking about umpires not working together to get a call right)
"I would be more critical of an umpire for not getting the play right, than I am them just blowing it."
Yeah, I know---wait, what? Aren't these the same thing, just phrased differently?
(At the 7:15 mark when asked umpires having too much of an ego to admit they got the call wrong)
"I criticize not that they missed the play, but they let it stand as a group. I don't blame just the guy who missed that play, I blame the other three guys too. Because they saw it and they should have said something like you're saying."
I would say blame the guy closest to the call. It is part ego, but the other umpires possibly didn't get as good of a look at the play and trust their colleague to have gotten the call right. Umpires work as a team. There is absolutely a need for umpires to get together to get a call right, but if the first base umpire says a ball hit down the line is foul and the home plate umpires thinks, but doesn't know, it was fair should he overrule him? I would say, "yes," but a certain point an umpiring team has to trust each other to get the calls right. So I blame the first base umpire mostly because he has the better view in a situation like this.
"The role of the umpire is not to control the game and all that stuff you hear. The role of the umpire is to make sure one team doesn't take advantage of the other, so the game is played fairly."
Yes, to an extent this is the role of the umpire. The umpire is there to control the pace of the game and to control what goes on during the game. So to an extent the umpire does control the game in quite a few ways.
For instance we've all played pick up games where you umpire and you cheat, not cheat, but you make calls in your favor.
No, that is pretty much cheating.
The umpire is there to make sure the game is played fairly and one team doesn't take advantage of the other."
We are arguing the same thing, where Joe and I both think the umpiring needs to be better, but we have different views on what an umpire does. Obviously the umpire is a neutral observer of the game, but the umpire also controls the game in that he makes ball/strike calls, ensures meetings on the mound don't last too long, listen to player complaints and generally controls the flow and direction of the game in certain ways. I don't see their role as simply being there to make sure one team doesn't cheat.
I miss Joe Morgan. He should hire someone to start a website (since we know he probably wouldn't this himself) and do chats every week.
Showing posts with label joechat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label joechat. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Thursday, January 27, 2011
5 comments Joe Morgan Is Back Briefly and Defending Aaron Rodgers...Sort Of
You know you have missed Joe Morgan. I have. This upcoming summer won't be the same for me without him around doing chats for ESPN. Hopefully, the Reds organization will force him to do some chats in his spare time. For the time being, Joe has done an interview with radio station KJR in Seattle and the greatest second-baseman of all-time, yet one of the most headache-inducing announcers, had a couple interesting things to say.
The question is in bold and the answer from Joe is in bold italics.
So you’re going to move on here. You’re young enough. Do you have any plans yet in terms of working in broadcast?
“Uhhh…I’m not sure what I want to do in that direction yet. I actually work for the Reds. I’m a special advisor to the Cincinnati Reds.
I like how they transcribed Joe's "uhhh..." It just seems right.
I help them with their personnel and help them in the marketing department and help them in their community relations.
As if I didn't harp on this enough when I did his chats, this was a huge conflict of interest in my opinion. It was his job to be an analyst for ESPN while at the same time he helped the Reds out with their marketing and personnel decisions (maybe decisions...I hope not). Even members of Congress would be embarrassed to be paid to analyze a business or industry, while also being an advisor to said business or industry.
I also just opened up a Honda dealership in Cincinnati “Joe Morgan Honda,” so I’ll be working there with that.
Let's imagine the slogan for Joe Morgan Honda for a second...
"Joe Morgan Honda equals consistent satisfaction."
"We can't say for sure you will like the car. It's too early to tell you that, but we do know it's possible. Ask us if you will like the car after you have driven it for 100,000 miles."
Or perhaps a commercial...
"Here at Joe Morgan Honda, just name the price you want. We have no prices on the cars, in fact we hate numbers. Our salesperson will tell you how much he thinks the car is worth based on how much he remembers he enjoyed the previous models of that car."
Any better suggestions for a commercial or slogan? The possibilities are endlessly hilarious.
What made the “Big Red Machine” so tough to handle for opposing teams throughout the 1970′s looking at the back-to-back World Series Champions years of 1975-and-1976?
“Well I think the big difference is a lot of people don’t give give him enough credit and that’s Sparky Anderson.
Sparky Anderson is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. I am not sure how much more recognition a baseball manager or player should get than that. Even if he doesn't get enough credit, the fact he was managing a team of Hall of Fame players could be the reason for that. Still, to be elected to the Hall of Fame...that's getting some credit for your achievements. Does Joe want the Hall of Fame to put a statue up in his honor?
You know to have a great team. We did things, we gave up our own individuality to make the team better. You know I could have stolen a few more bases at times.
Of course Joe could have. Why would he do that though when he could stand on first base and give up his individuality to make the team better by not getting in scoring position? THAT'S DETRIMENTAL TO THE TEAM!
I think Bench [Johnny] could of hit a few more home-runs, but there was a time for a single to right stuff like that and he did it.
Because, why get two sure runs on the board for the Reds and be a rally-killer when you can single and get one run in? It's all about the team. Individuality was given up for the benefit of the team to score fewer runs.
(Sparky Anderson in the clubhouse) "Look Johnny, I know you can probably hit a two-run home run here and put us ahead by two runs. I'm going to need to single to right field though. Let's get that run in. We don't need two runs right now. Help the team more by scoring fewer runs."
(Joe Morgan walking around the clubhouse naked) "You don't get enough recognition Sparky."
(Sparky Anderson) "Put some clothes on Joe."
So I think we all gave up a little bit of ourselves to make the team better and I think that’s what made it such a great team because we all knew what we were supposed to do.
Apparently what they were "supposed to do" is score fewer runs for the team if given the chance. I fail to see how scoring more runs for the team is a good thing, but I also don't live in the world of Joe Morgan, which feels like a parallel universe really. A parallel universe where passing up a home run for a single is to the team's advantage.
It has been obvious for a while that Joe subscribes to the "clogging up the bases" mentality of Dusty Baker, but I don't see how a single instead of a home run is a good thing. I'm not baseball coach, but scoring the most runs possible in a game seems like the best possible strategy.
It's good to hear things haven't changed for Joe.
-Mike Tanier writes an article about how passer rating is an overrated statistic and I could not agree more. It's a fairly old way of measuring how good a quarterback has played. Like many other statistics it doesn't have a lot of meaning in itself in comparing quarterbacks to each other over different generations. I think it is a decent statistic to compare quarterbacks to each other using the same year's statistics, but even then I wouldn't use it solely to prove a point.
So I agree with him on his main argument. He does go overboard a bit. He uses Aaron Rodgers as the main example of how quarterback rating is overrated and creates a theory that I am not sure I agree with.
Aaron Rodgers is currently the NFL’s all-time career leader in passer rating, a fact that should leave you impressed, baffled, and maybe a little insulted.
Not really. He's only started for three years in the NFL. Of course he is also awesome, so that could have something to do with him being #1 as well. Still, this doesn't mean he is the best quarterback ever. Reasonable minds who like Rodgers could agree upon this.
Rodgers’ career passer rating is 98.4. Super Bowl foe Ben Roethlisberger ranks eighth on the all-time list at 92.5. The players between them, in order: Philip Rivers, Steve Young, Tony Romo, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Kurt Warner. Some nobody named “Joe Montana” comes in ninth, with Drew Brees rounding out the top 10.
What do these players all have in common? They played in the NFL over the last 20 years. We can see the first problem with comparing passer ratings of quarterbacks that played during different periods of the NFL's history. Passer rating naturally favors the modern quarterback.
The “best” quarterback — Johnny Unitas or Bart Starr — typically did a lot of things well, but not well enough to lead the league in any one category.
The mathematical juggling hides two major flaws.
Then Tanier goes into detail about what the quarterback rating formula entails and proves his point very well. The passing game has exploded in the NFL, cornerbacks could hold in the past where they can't now, and essentially the league has let this happen through rule changes.
OK, that explains why Rodgers outranks Staubach, or even Montana. How the heck does he outrank Brady, Manning, and Brees?
The passer rating is built exclusively from percentage stats, not raw totals. Percentage stats can go up and down during a quarterback’s career. As you know, quarterbacks usually play poorly as rookies, improve until they peak for a few seasons, then (if they are very good) hang around for a few seasons as their performance and statistics decline
Now he begins to overcomplicate the issue in an effort to prove his point. It is really a basic issue. Rodgers has only started for three seasons in the NFL, so he hasn't had much of a chance to have a bad year. Staubach and Montana are retired and Brady, Manning, and Brees have had a chance for bad seasons (for them), plus Manning started as a rookie on a bad team, which affected his statistics.
Now, look at Rodgers’ career. It’s all peak. He spent his “rise” throwing 59 passes in three years while waiting for Brett Favre to cut bait. He hasn’t had time to fall yet.
So this whole over-analytical discussion about how the hell Aaron Rodgers is the all-time leader in passer rating is answered with the simple answer that he hasn't been in the NFL long enough nor has he accumulated enough data for it to be relevant. That's not enough though, there always has to be a theory.
Rivers, second all-time, shares a similar resume. He spent two seasons behind Drew Brees instead of throwing stat-deflating interceptions. Romo (third) hung around the bench for several seasons and was more-or-less at his peak the moment he stepped on the field.
To be fair, while this is true, these quarterbacks still have to play well when they get on the field. It's not that to practice for 2-3 years and then have to step on the field and play well. It is not like Rivers and Rodgers were just able to automatically play well because they were on the bench and knew the offense. They still have talent and were able to play well when put in the lineup. So a little credit should be shown to them, rather than act like it is obvious they would play well just from sitting on the bench for a couple of years.
Steve Young and Kurt Warner also had the chance to sit on the bench and then come in at their peak as well. So it is not exclusive to just Rodgers and Rivers. Essentially both quarterbacks (Young and Warner) were handed Super Bowl-type talented offensive teams to put around them. They just had to execute the offense well and they did. I take nothing away from them, but I would put them in the discussion with Rivers and Rodgers as quarterbacks who started playing at their peak.
Call it the “Iceberg” Theory: Active quarterbacks often reach the top of the passer rating list because we only see the tip of their iceberg.
This is kind of a blanket statement. While true to an extent, it's not completely true:
Out of the Top 20 passers in NFL history in passer rating (only the active ones) here are their rankings on the list and when they started full-time for their team:
1. Aaron Rodgers- 4th season
2. Philip Rivers- 3rd season
4. Tony Romo- 3rd season
5. Tom Brady- 2nd season
6. Peyton Manning- 1st season
8. Ben Roethlisberger- 1st season
10. Drew Brees- 2nd season
11. Matt Schaub- 4th season
12. Chad Pennington- 3rd season
13. Joe Flacco- 1st season
16a. Carson Palmer- 1st season
16b. Matt Ryan- 1st season
20. Brett Favre- 2nd season
I am not completely disagreeing with the "Iceberg" theory, just stating out of the 13 active quarterbacks in the Top 20 that 8 of those quarterbacks started full-time for their team in the 1st or 2nd season they were in the NFL. Some parts of the theory have merit, but Flacco and Ryan are already at #13 and #16 and they presumably haven't reached their peak yet. So their peak will move them up the list further (presumably), so I am not sure their presence on the list is a result of being an "Iceberg" quarterback.
Brady and Manning will probably wind up like Young and Montana, hovering at the top of the list forever, but always wedged among a bunch of young guns coming off two or three hot seasons. They deserve better. The league should raise the minimum pass attempt requirement for the career rating list from 1,500 passes to 2,500. That would cut our Rodgers Romo, and Rivers for at least another season, forcing them to prove a little more before they sneak into a club that’s too exclusive for them.
I am not sure a smart football fan really believes a quarterback who has been in the NFL for 3-4 seasons is better than Montana, Young, or Dan Marino. This whole problem seems to be one caused by a small sample size.
Ironically, Rodgers’ high passer rating could be held against him. When television announcers use graphics to show that Rodgers has the highest rating in history, it forces viewers to be skeptical.
Is this really ironic? I am not sure if two different assumptions based on the presentation of data can be considered ironic or not.
If Rodgers ranks as the best ever at some bogus stat, maybe there’s something bogus about his performance.
So here's how we got to this point and see how it holds up using the assumptions we are supposed to use:
-Aaron Rodgers has the highest passer rating in NFL history.
-He must be the best quarterback of all-time.
-This isn't true because quarterback passer rating favors the modern quarterback.
-So Aaron Rodgers must not be the greatest quarterback of all-time.
-The passer rating statistic must be bogus on some way.
-If the passer rating statistic is bogus, then other statistics must also be bogus.
-Aaron Rodgers has other good statistics.
-Aaron Rodgers may not really be a good quarterback because the statistics he accumulates all could be bogus.
Couldn't we use that same logic to say ALL modern quarterbacks' numbers are bogus and not just Rodgers? If modern statistics are bogus in some ways, then all modern quarterbacks who put up great numbers could not really be great quarterbacks.
Maybe it's too many screens, too much reliance on his receivers, something inherently “wimpy” about completing five-yard smashes to Greg Jennings when every Staubach pass was an 80-yard bomb into the Steel Curtain.
Yes, because we all vividly remember Joe Montana throwing the ball deep continuously. Is Montana overrated because he had the greatest receiver of all-time to throw the ball to? Is Kurt Warner any less of a quarterback because he had two Hall of Fame-type receivers and a Hall of Fame running back playing with him? I don't think so. I'm not sure why these type of things could be held against Aaron Rodgers either then.
I am not sure if Tanier is being sarcastic here, but Staubach's three longest completed passes over three seasons (I didn't delve into how many 80+ completed passes he had in one season) were 75 yards in 1969 and 1979, 85 yards in 1971, and 91 yards in 1978. Granted, Staubach led the NFL in average yards per pass attempt, but I don't know if this makes him a better quarterback any more than a high passer rating makes Aaron Rodgers a good quarterback.
Staubach also didn't start full-time for the Cowboys until his 3rd year in the NFL and was 29 years old when he did. He could perhaps be an "Iceberg" quarterback.
Rodgers is an excellent quarterback, just achieving his potential. He doesn’t need a glitch antique statistic to make him into something more. As for the passer rating itself, think of it as a grandfather: Old fashioned, set in its ways, and a little silly, but still worth listening to, if only to understand how quickly times have changed.
Agreed, passer rating is an old statistic that should be overhauled. I am just not sure if Aaron Rodgers' passer rating can be used against him at all. I also believe the presence of more active quarterbacks at the top of the all-time passer rating list is a product of the changes in the NFL passing game and some quarterbacks on the list not having accumulated enough seasons in the NFL. Tanier seems to somewhat agree with this.
I don't know how much the influx of modern passers has to do with "Iceberg" seasons where the majority of modern quarterbacks on the list started for their team when they were at their peak. Many of the quarterbacks in the Top 20 of all-time passer rating did start for their team when they would throw stat-killing interceptions that would move them down the list. What's interesting is Tanier says this:
As quarterbacks age, the law of averages starts to temper their statistics, which is why Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger and Brees have slipped below the newcomers.
What is interesting is three of these quarterbacks were not "Iceberg" quarterbacks in that they started in their 1st or 2nd year in the NFL. So really wouldn't they throw their stat-killing interceptions at that point in their career and not have their statistics tempered as they got older? It may be a to-may-toe or to-mah-toe discussion either way I guess.
The question is in bold and the answer from Joe is in bold italics.
So you’re going to move on here. You’re young enough. Do you have any plans yet in terms of working in broadcast?
“Uhhh…I’m not sure what I want to do in that direction yet. I actually work for the Reds. I’m a special advisor to the Cincinnati Reds.
I like how they transcribed Joe's "uhhh..." It just seems right.
I help them with their personnel and help them in the marketing department and help them in their community relations.
As if I didn't harp on this enough when I did his chats, this was a huge conflict of interest in my opinion. It was his job to be an analyst for ESPN while at the same time he helped the Reds out with their marketing and personnel decisions (maybe decisions...I hope not). Even members of Congress would be embarrassed to be paid to analyze a business or industry, while also being an advisor to said business or industry.
I also just opened up a Honda dealership in Cincinnati “Joe Morgan Honda,” so I’ll be working there with that.
Let's imagine the slogan for Joe Morgan Honda for a second...
"Joe Morgan Honda equals consistent satisfaction."
"We can't say for sure you will like the car. It's too early to tell you that, but we do know it's possible. Ask us if you will like the car after you have driven it for 100,000 miles."
Or perhaps a commercial...
"Here at Joe Morgan Honda, just name the price you want. We have no prices on the cars, in fact we hate numbers. Our salesperson will tell you how much he thinks the car is worth based on how much he remembers he enjoyed the previous models of that car."
Any better suggestions for a commercial or slogan? The possibilities are endlessly hilarious.
What made the “Big Red Machine” so tough to handle for opposing teams throughout the 1970′s looking at the back-to-back World Series Champions years of 1975-and-1976?
“Well I think the big difference is a lot of people don’t give give him enough credit and that’s Sparky Anderson.
Sparky Anderson is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. I am not sure how much more recognition a baseball manager or player should get than that. Even if he doesn't get enough credit, the fact he was managing a team of Hall of Fame players could be the reason for that. Still, to be elected to the Hall of Fame...that's getting some credit for your achievements. Does Joe want the Hall of Fame to put a statue up in his honor?
You know to have a great team. We did things, we gave up our own individuality to make the team better. You know I could have stolen a few more bases at times.
Of course Joe could have. Why would he do that though when he could stand on first base and give up his individuality to make the team better by not getting in scoring position? THAT'S DETRIMENTAL TO THE TEAM!
I think Bench [Johnny] could of hit a few more home-runs, but there was a time for a single to right stuff like that and he did it.
Because, why get two sure runs on the board for the Reds and be a rally-killer when you can single and get one run in? It's all about the team. Individuality was given up for the benefit of the team to score fewer runs.
(Sparky Anderson in the clubhouse) "Look Johnny, I know you can probably hit a two-run home run here and put us ahead by two runs. I'm going to need to single to right field though. Let's get that run in. We don't need two runs right now. Help the team more by scoring fewer runs."
(Joe Morgan walking around the clubhouse naked) "You don't get enough recognition Sparky."
(Sparky Anderson) "Put some clothes on Joe."
So I think we all gave up a little bit of ourselves to make the team better and I think that’s what made it such a great team because we all knew what we were supposed to do.
Apparently what they were "supposed to do" is score fewer runs for the team if given the chance. I fail to see how scoring more runs for the team is a good thing, but I also don't live in the world of Joe Morgan, which feels like a parallel universe really. A parallel universe where passing up a home run for a single is to the team's advantage.
It has been obvious for a while that Joe subscribes to the "clogging up the bases" mentality of Dusty Baker, but I don't see how a single instead of a home run is a good thing. I'm not baseball coach, but scoring the most runs possible in a game seems like the best possible strategy.
It's good to hear things haven't changed for Joe.
-Mike Tanier writes an article about how passer rating is an overrated statistic and I could not agree more. It's a fairly old way of measuring how good a quarterback has played. Like many other statistics it doesn't have a lot of meaning in itself in comparing quarterbacks to each other over different generations. I think it is a decent statistic to compare quarterbacks to each other using the same year's statistics, but even then I wouldn't use it solely to prove a point.
So I agree with him on his main argument. He does go overboard a bit. He uses Aaron Rodgers as the main example of how quarterback rating is overrated and creates a theory that I am not sure I agree with.
Aaron Rodgers is currently the NFL’s all-time career leader in passer rating, a fact that should leave you impressed, baffled, and maybe a little insulted.
Not really. He's only started for three years in the NFL. Of course he is also awesome, so that could have something to do with him being #1 as well. Still, this doesn't mean he is the best quarterback ever. Reasonable minds who like Rodgers could agree upon this.
Rodgers’ career passer rating is 98.4. Super Bowl foe Ben Roethlisberger ranks eighth on the all-time list at 92.5. The players between them, in order: Philip Rivers, Steve Young, Tony Romo, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Kurt Warner. Some nobody named “Joe Montana” comes in ninth, with Drew Brees rounding out the top 10.
What do these players all have in common? They played in the NFL over the last 20 years. We can see the first problem with comparing passer ratings of quarterbacks that played during different periods of the NFL's history. Passer rating naturally favors the modern quarterback.
The “best” quarterback — Johnny Unitas or Bart Starr — typically did a lot of things well, but not well enough to lead the league in any one category.
So the NFL decided they needed a new statistic, and the league formed a committee. That’s what the passer rating is — a stat developed by a committee. A committee that met in the early 1970s, when pocket calculators were the size of blimps.
I hate to pick on this article because it is fairly well-researched. Yet, I must go on...it is in my contract that I must do so.The mathematical juggling hides two major flaws.
First, it’s an insanely over-engineered solution to a simple problem, but we’ve come to expect that from a league that can turn a simple concept like a “fumble” into Supreme Court-worthy legislation. Second, the rating compares quarterbacks to an “average” that was established in 1970, which might as well have been the Stone Age.
You get the point. Can we overhaul the passer rating statistic though? What would the harm in it be? The NFL has changed and comparing quarterbacks across generations is nearly impossible, because older guys like Joe Namath look terrible in comparison to today's most average quarterbacks, when this may not be the case.Then Tanier goes into detail about what the quarterback rating formula entails and proves his point very well. The passing game has exploded in the NFL, cornerbacks could hold in the past where they can't now, and essentially the league has let this happen through rule changes.
OK, that explains why Rodgers outranks Staubach, or even Montana. How the heck does he outrank Brady, Manning, and Brees?
The passer rating is built exclusively from percentage stats, not raw totals. Percentage stats can go up and down during a quarterback’s career. As you know, quarterbacks usually play poorly as rookies, improve until they peak for a few seasons, then (if they are very good) hang around for a few seasons as their performance and statistics decline
Now he begins to overcomplicate the issue in an effort to prove his point. It is really a basic issue. Rodgers has only started for three seasons in the NFL, so he hasn't had much of a chance to have a bad year. Staubach and Montana are retired and Brady, Manning, and Brees have had a chance for bad seasons (for them), plus Manning started as a rookie on a bad team, which affected his statistics.
Now, look at Rodgers’ career. It’s all peak. He spent his “rise” throwing 59 passes in three years while waiting for Brett Favre to cut bait. He hasn’t had time to fall yet.
So this whole over-analytical discussion about how the hell Aaron Rodgers is the all-time leader in passer rating is answered with the simple answer that he hasn't been in the NFL long enough nor has he accumulated enough data for it to be relevant. That's not enough though, there always has to be a theory.
Rivers, second all-time, shares a similar resume. He spent two seasons behind Drew Brees instead of throwing stat-deflating interceptions. Romo (third) hung around the bench for several seasons and was more-or-less at his peak the moment he stepped on the field.
To be fair, while this is true, these quarterbacks still have to play well when they get on the field. It's not that to practice for 2-3 years and then have to step on the field and play well. It is not like Rivers and Rodgers were just able to automatically play well because they were on the bench and knew the offense. They still have talent and were able to play well when put in the lineup. So a little credit should be shown to them, rather than act like it is obvious they would play well just from sitting on the bench for a couple of years.
Steve Young and Kurt Warner also had the chance to sit on the bench and then come in at their peak as well. So it is not exclusive to just Rodgers and Rivers. Essentially both quarterbacks (Young and Warner) were handed Super Bowl-type talented offensive teams to put around them. They just had to execute the offense well and they did. I take nothing away from them, but I would put them in the discussion with Rivers and Rodgers as quarterbacks who started playing at their peak.
Call it the “Iceberg” Theory: Active quarterbacks often reach the top of the passer rating list because we only see the tip of their iceberg.
This is kind of a blanket statement. While true to an extent, it's not completely true:
Out of the Top 20 passers in NFL history in passer rating (only the active ones) here are their rankings on the list and when they started full-time for their team:
1. Aaron Rodgers- 4th season
2. Philip Rivers- 3rd season
4. Tony Romo- 3rd season
5. Tom Brady- 2nd season
6. Peyton Manning- 1st season
8. Ben Roethlisberger- 1st season
10. Drew Brees- 2nd season
11. Matt Schaub- 4th season
12. Chad Pennington- 3rd season
13. Joe Flacco- 1st season
16a. Carson Palmer- 1st season
16b. Matt Ryan- 1st season
20. Brett Favre- 2nd season
I am not completely disagreeing with the "Iceberg" theory, just stating out of the 13 active quarterbacks in the Top 20 that 8 of those quarterbacks started full-time for their team in the 1st or 2nd season they were in the NFL. Some parts of the theory have merit, but Flacco and Ryan are already at #13 and #16 and they presumably haven't reached their peak yet. So their peak will move them up the list further (presumably), so I am not sure their presence on the list is a result of being an "Iceberg" quarterback.
Brady and Manning will probably wind up like Young and Montana, hovering at the top of the list forever, but always wedged among a bunch of young guns coming off two or three hot seasons. They deserve better. The league should raise the minimum pass attempt requirement for the career rating list from 1,500 passes to 2,500. That would cut our Rodgers Romo, and Rivers for at least another season, forcing them to prove a little more before they sneak into a club that’s too exclusive for them.
I am not sure a smart football fan really believes a quarterback who has been in the NFL for 3-4 seasons is better than Montana, Young, or Dan Marino. This whole problem seems to be one caused by a small sample size.
Ironically, Rodgers’ high passer rating could be held against him. When television announcers use graphics to show that Rodgers has the highest rating in history, it forces viewers to be skeptical.
Is this really ironic? I am not sure if two different assumptions based on the presentation of data can be considered ironic or not.
If Rodgers ranks as the best ever at some bogus stat, maybe there’s something bogus about his performance.
So here's how we got to this point and see how it holds up using the assumptions we are supposed to use:
-Aaron Rodgers has the highest passer rating in NFL history.
-He must be the best quarterback of all-time.
-This isn't true because quarterback passer rating favors the modern quarterback.
-So Aaron Rodgers must not be the greatest quarterback of all-time.
-The passer rating statistic must be bogus on some way.
-If the passer rating statistic is bogus, then other statistics must also be bogus.
-Aaron Rodgers has other good statistics.
-Aaron Rodgers may not really be a good quarterback because the statistics he accumulates all could be bogus.
Couldn't we use that same logic to say ALL modern quarterbacks' numbers are bogus and not just Rodgers? If modern statistics are bogus in some ways, then all modern quarterbacks who put up great numbers could not really be great quarterbacks.
Maybe it's too many screens, too much reliance on his receivers, something inherently “wimpy” about completing five-yard smashes to Greg Jennings when every Staubach pass was an 80-yard bomb into the Steel Curtain.
Yes, because we all vividly remember Joe Montana throwing the ball deep continuously. Is Montana overrated because he had the greatest receiver of all-time to throw the ball to? Is Kurt Warner any less of a quarterback because he had two Hall of Fame-type receivers and a Hall of Fame running back playing with him? I don't think so. I'm not sure why these type of things could be held against Aaron Rodgers either then.
I am not sure if Tanier is being sarcastic here, but Staubach's three longest completed passes over three seasons (I didn't delve into how many 80+ completed passes he had in one season) were 75 yards in 1969 and 1979, 85 yards in 1971, and 91 yards in 1978. Granted, Staubach led the NFL in average yards per pass attempt, but I don't know if this makes him a better quarterback any more than a high passer rating makes Aaron Rodgers a good quarterback.
Staubach also didn't start full-time for the Cowboys until his 3rd year in the NFL and was 29 years old when he did. He could perhaps be an "Iceberg" quarterback.
Rodgers is an excellent quarterback, just achieving his potential. He doesn’t need a glitch antique statistic to make him into something more. As for the passer rating itself, think of it as a grandfather: Old fashioned, set in its ways, and a little silly, but still worth listening to, if only to understand how quickly times have changed.
Agreed, passer rating is an old statistic that should be overhauled. I am just not sure if Aaron Rodgers' passer rating can be used against him at all. I also believe the presence of more active quarterbacks at the top of the all-time passer rating list is a product of the changes in the NFL passing game and some quarterbacks on the list not having accumulated enough seasons in the NFL. Tanier seems to somewhat agree with this.
I don't know how much the influx of modern passers has to do with "Iceberg" seasons where the majority of modern quarterbacks on the list started for their team when they were at their peak. Many of the quarterbacks in the Top 20 of all-time passer rating did start for their team when they would throw stat-killing interceptions that would move them down the list. What's interesting is Tanier says this:
As quarterbacks age, the law of averages starts to temper their statistics, which is why Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger and Brees have slipped below the newcomers.
What is interesting is three of these quarterbacks were not "Iceberg" quarterbacks in that they started in their 1st or 2nd year in the NFL. So really wouldn't they throw their stat-killing interceptions at that point in their career and not have their statistics tempered as they got older? It may be a to-may-toe or to-mah-toe discussion either way I guess.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
6 comments Joe Morgan Sees the Light About Wins Just In Time To Never Chat Again
It's official, Joe Morgan and Jon Miller will no longer be doing the Sunday Night Baseball broadcast on ESPN. It's a sad day because as long as I can remember those were the two guys who did the Sunday Night game. This also means that because Morgan's contract isn't going to be renewed he has very few JoeChats left over...forever. In fact, there was one scheduled for today and it is off the ESPN chat calendar. So I am not going out on a limb and saying this is probably the last JoeChat ever. Unless someone hires him. I wish I had worn something more fancy to this sad occasion.
When we last left Joe Morgan he was noticing an everyday player can help his team more than a pitcher can help his team. Of course this conclusion is completely debatable. He also said his usual bat-shit crazy stuff about Edinson Volquez being an elite pitcher. Now that the World Series is over it is time to recap what happened, because I am pretty sure at this point it isn't too early for us to to do so, and let Joe explain to us what happened in the World Series and why.
(Spoiler alert: Joe doesn't know what happened in the World Series or why. He can report the World Series was played though)
This week the biggest event has to be Jose from the Bronx muscling Tito from Brooklyn out as the top JoeChatter for this week. I say the only solution to this duel of Hispanic-descent JoeChatters is to see which person can eat the most cheeseballs in a 2 minute span from the Target economy-size cheeseball container.
Buzzmaster (11:05am)
Hey everyone. Joe just landed back on his flight home from last night's game. We're going to give him some time to get his bags and get to his car, then we can chat in about 30 minutes.
Joe was at the game so he got to experience and see the pitching and hitting of each team firsthand. He will probably have extraordinary tales to relate about this. Hopefully they will be better than Peter King's tales of smelling marijuana smoke everywhere.
Here's Joe! (woman and children start screaming running to their computers and begin to faint as Joe starts chatting)
JM: The Series was shorter than I anticipated it to be. But I still think it was interesting. Not great, but interesting.
So the World Series is like many people's first sexual experience? I am sure Bud Selig is beaming with pride right now.
Jose (The Bronx)
Do you think Edgar Renteria deserved to be the MVP? Did Tim Lincecum get robbed?
Jose from the Bronx with the first question asked of Joe. I think I am going to keep a running score between he and Tito from Brooklyn.
JM: No, he didn't get robbed. Lincecum gave up a lot of runs in the first game. He only won because his team outscored the Rangers.
I couldn't have read that right. I'll read it again.
No, he didn't get robbed. Lincecum gave up a lot of runs in the first game. He only won because his team outscored the Rangers.
This is the Holy Grail of quotes by Joe. This is him admitting (though not consciously knowing it, which is absolutely perfect) that a pitcher's ability to win games is dependent on his team scoring enough runs. It's like the clouds have opened and the sun is shining through. Of course Joe is too ignorant to know exactly what he said and what it means, but that's to be expected.
Using this very logic that a pitcher can't win games if his team doesn't score runs for him, then how in the hell could a pitcher like Felix Hernandez be judged in a negative fashion for barely having a .500 record? So a pitcher that gives 3 runs in a game, but wins the game because his team scored enough runs for him to win DID NOT pitch better than a pitcher who gave up 2 runs, but his team didn't score enough runs for him? That shouldn't be a question. Yet, this fight will still go on.
In Game 2, Renteria hit a home run that broke open a tie. He had three hits in Game 4. He also played great defense. He and Moreland were the only two consistent hitters in the whole series.
Yet again, Joe Morgan confuses the word "consistent" with "the best." He does this constantly. Moreland and Renteria were the two best hitters in the series. Because they were the two best hitters this doesn't mean they were also the best hitters. Sure, in a short series they are nearly the same thing, but Joe Morgan teams/players need to be more "consistent" when he means they need to be better at winning games or playing well.
A hitter who hits between .215-.230 every year is a consistent hitter. He is consistently a hitter with a bad average. I have a feeling Joe Morgan wouldn't see it this way because the guy isn't a good hitter for average, so he wouldn't say he was consistent.
Mark (Texas)
What was wrong with our hitting? Was it the Rangers hitting or the Giants pitching?
JM: I think it was a combination of both.
You really can't expect an answer from Joe.
What you need to understand is when a guy like Hamilton hits .359 and a lot of the other guys have high batting averages, they have a chance to hit against the mediocre pitchers as well. It's an average. Hamilton might hit .400 against some of the worse teams, but he's not going to hit .400 against the better teams.
The Top 5 teams in the American League in batting average against were Tampa Bay, Oakland, Texas, New York Yankees and Boston. Discounting the Rangers since Hamilton plays on that team, he hit .300, .424, .250, and .421.
So Hamilton did hit .400 against two of the Top 5 teams in the American League when it comes to batting average against them. Sure, these aren't huge sample sizes, but I feel like this has to be mentioned along with Joe's discussion about how Hamilton won't necessarily hit well against better pitching teams.
Jose (The Bronx)
Who do you think is the better manager: Bruce Bochy or Ron Washington?
That's two questions to none. Advantage Jose. I think I'm done counting for a bit, I'll update it at the end...because I am sure you all deeply care.
JM: I would have to give the edge to Bochy, as far as this series is concerned.
That's not really what Jose was asking at all. He meant overall.
Ron Washington's bullpen was not nearly as good as Bruce Bochy's. So the moves that he made with the bullpen were not going to look as good as Bochy's.
I am assuming that the relief pitchers didn't just walk to the mound without being summoned in some fashion by Ron Washington, so he did have a part in the bullpen not looking good. Granted, it is not his fault the bullpen stunk, but as the manager moves like this fall on him. I think it is a bit of a fallacy to let a manager off the hook for making a move and the player in the move doesn't perform well.
Otherwise, I'm not sure there were enough great manager moves or poor manager moves to make a difference in this series.
Playing Edgar Renteria as much as he played is not considered a great manager move by Bochy?
Kyle (VA)
Speaking of adjustments Joe, do you think that maybe guys rely too much on technology or the video of their at bats to look at how to make adjustments and therefore haven't developed the ability to do it ath the platE?
JM: It sounds like you've been listening to some of the things I've been saying all year.
It sounds like Kyle is baiting the absolute hell out of Joe.
They get too much information about what pitch a guy might throw in this situation or that situation, instead of being in the moment in the batter's box. They try to anticipate what the pitcher will do.
The problem with "being in the moment" is that a pitcher has information on what the batter likes to do and has a plan, so the batter has to have a plan as well. I've said it before, if a batter knows a pitcher likes to throw a certain pitch in a situation then he can look for it and react. It doesn't mean he is locked in on that pitch and only that pitch.
Kirk Gibson's famous home run in the 1988 World Series was partly based on him knowing Dennis Eckersley liked to throw a backdoor slider in a 3-2 count. He knew this and prepared for this pitch.
I see the players in the clubhouses watching video and trying to figure out everything. Once they get in the batter's box, they don't know how to adjust.
They do know how to adjust. The batters aren't only looking for one pitch and only that pitch. They get an idea of how a pitcher likes to pitch him by looking at the video. It's not like what they see on the video is the gospel and they refuse to adjust. If a player goes in the batter's box and knows the pitcher likes to throw a fastball on the first pitch and expects a fastball, but gets a slider, this doesn't mean he is confused the rest of the at-bat.
Jose (The Bronx)
With the strong pitching of the Rangers and Giants, will this World Series usher in a new era of dominant pitching?
JM: We go through cycles in baseball. Sometimes the hitters catch up with the pitchers and the pitchers respond with something new.
Then the hitters respond with something new and MLB responds with a strict PED testing program.
The hitters make the adjustments.
How do the hitters make these adjustments? Certainly not by looking at video of what the pitcher likes to do or throw in a certain count...because we were just told that having too much information is a bad thing while batting. The hitters make these adjustments by "being in the moment" at the plate. Whatever that means.
I don't think the pitching will be as dominant two years from now as it is now.
Yes, but Joe just said it goes in cycles so pitching will eventually be dominant again according to him.
Richard (Stratton Mountain, Vt.)
I think the Yankees and Phillies will be back in 2011 playoffs. Do you think the Rangers and Giants will be back next year as well as the Reds, Red Sox and Rays?
JM: No one is guaranteed a spot,
What? I thought it was like the PGA Tour where if you appear in the World Series than you get a sponsor's exemption and get to come back to the playoffs the next year?
probably other than the Yankees and Phillies.
Naturally. Logic would dictate the two teams that lost in the ALCS and NLCS respectively would make it back while the two teams in the World Series would not.
I thought the Yankees were the best team for a spell, but then I thought the Rays and the Red Sox for a time. It makes you think, is the AL East as good as we give it credit for?
If it is hard to decide which of three teams in one division happens to be the best team in baseball, then I think that division would be the best division in baseball, or at least very close. Throw in the fact the Rangers would have been 3rd place in the AL East if they played in that division with the record they had this year and I think it is safe to believe the AL East is as good as we give it credit for.
Tito (Brooklyn)
What did you think of the overall umpiring this postseason?
JM: There weren't as many obvious missed calls as there were last year, but there were some.
I can think of 2-3 missed calls this postseason, while the only call that stands out last year was the foul ball called down the left field line in the Yankees-Twins ALDS game. If Joe believes this year was better than last year he may not have watched any of the LDS games.
The easiest call is out/safe at first base. There were two calls missed in Game 5.
This isn't helping back up the claim this postseason had better umpiring than last season.
I'm not for all of the replays, because you will never get through a whole ball game with all of the calls that could be reviewed. It would ruin the rhythm of the game.
No, it will not. I don't like this argument in the least. Replay would be used only 1-2 times a game and would take the place of the manager coming out and spending 1-2 minutes arguing with the umpire over the missed call. Only an idiot could not see that taking 1-2 minutes making sure the call is right won't ruin the rhythm of the game anymore than having the manager throw a hissy-fit at the missed call. Nor will it ruin the rhythm of the game anymore than constant throws to first base and visits to the mound currently ruin the rhythm of the game. This argument fails badly in my mind.
Brian (Dayton)
What do you think the Reds need to do in order to have the best chance to get to the World Series next year?
JM: I thought the Reds intensity level in the playoffs wasn't high enough. By that, I mean it seemed they played the game the way they played during the regular season.
In terms of actually playing the game of baseball, I would love to know exactly how a team is supposed to do this...other than play better of course.
That's what we say with the Rangers in the World Series. The Reds needed a higher intensity level. Sometimes teams that haven't been there or haven't been there in a long time, sometimes you're just happy to be there.
That's not really intensity level, but more a matter of focus. The Reds may not have been focused because they felt they had achieved their goal by winning the NL Central. Raising your intensity level doesn't always mean you play better.
There are teams that are built for 162 games, which the Twins are. There are teams built for the short run, which the Yankees always are.
Except for this year when they lost a series in "the short run" to the Rangers. The Yankees are built for a short series most years, but I wouldn't say every year this is true.
Chris Fiegler (Latham,NY)
Who do you think will win the Rookie of the Year,Manager of the Year,Cy Young & MVP in Both the A.L.
JM: I have my own opinion.
Well that's nice because Chris from New York was actually asking about your opinion. Does Joe think these questions are just being asked in general of him and he isn't supposed to give his opinion? That would explain a lot.
My opinion is that Cano should win the AL MVP, but there are a lot of people that believe it's Josh Hamilton. But he missed a month of the season.
So it would be better to choose a player who isn't really the MVP because he played in more games than the guy who has better numbers? Which player was the MVP of the American League? I say Hamilton because I don't know if Cano is even the MVP of his own team.
I think Sabathia should be the Cy Young award winner, because he won the most games. But others are saying Felix Hernandez, but he was only 13-12, I think and he was pitching in a more pitcher friendly park, and wasn't pitching in a playoff race.
Joe from earlier in the chat:
I think Sabathia should be the Cy Young award winner, because he won the most games. But others are saying Felix Hernandez, but he was only 13-12, I think and he was pitching in a more pitcher friendly park, and wasn't pitching in a playoff race.
Let's use this same principle and apply it to Felix Hernandez. Why can't this be done?
It doesn't matter if Hernandez pitched in a pitcher friendly park or not because his road numbers were as follows:
.216/.289/.342, 2.46 ERA, 1.139 WHIP.
CC Sabathia's numbers at home and on the road were as follows:
Home: .220/.285/.320, 3.00 ERA, 1.117 WHIP.
Road: .255/.314/.385, 3.34 ERA, 1.255 WHIP.
So even on the road when he was away from his pitcher friendly park he had comparable numbers to CC Sabathia's best splits, which were also at home. This isn't even factoring in the whole run support issue, which explains the difference in wins for both pitchers.
And oh yeah, whether he pitched in a playoff race is insignificant to this discussion. If Hernandez had the MVP (according to Joe), along with the rest of the Yankees lineup he would have pitched in a playoff race.
In the NL, I think it's Halladay, even though he lost 10 games. In the MVP race, I think Joey Votto of the Reds. Pujols was the leader most of the year, but he had a struggle toward the end of the season.
Translation: Votto's team won the division and Pujols team did not win the division.
Let's take a peek at the "struggles" Pujols had at the end of the season. Here are his September/October statistics:
.293/.433/.586, 7 home runs, 23 RBI, 23 walks, 15 strikeouts. He also had a .278 BABiP during this period, so he wasn't having the greatest luck either.
Over an entire season that is 38 home runs, 124 RBI, 124 walks, and 81 strikeouts. Pujols ended the season 42 home runs, 118 RBI, 103 walks, and 76 strikeouts. So he didn't exactly struggle that much down the stretch of the season, but his team didn't win the NL Central so Joe doesn't feel like he can give Pujols the MVP over Votto. I'm not arguing with this conclusion, just the inane way of coming to the conclusion.
Hunter (New Jersey)
In 07, 08, and 09 I think we could I say the best team won the World Series, but this year I'm thinking luck played a huge part in the Giants winning the WS. Can you honestly say the BEST team won?
Really Hunter? In 2008 the two teams with the 2nd best record in the American and National League met in the World Series. I don't know if the Phillies were clearly the best team that year. Other than that, you are possibly correct. Let's not forget the Giants had 2nd best record in the National League this year, so they were a good team for most of the year.
I've said this for a long time that any team that gets into the playoffs can win. Obviously, there is a certain amount of luck that goes along with it.
I've always said I hate it when Joe says this.
It's 3.5 months until spring training. All of those teams saying wait until next year, that's when the next year will start.
So Spring Training is when the new baseball season starts? Thank God Joe Morgan is here to be paid vast sums of money to tell us these things.
We did see two teams in the World Series that hadn't been there in a long time, even one that hadn't been there. Even though the ratings were down, in some ways, I think it was good for the game. We did find some new stars.
I'm not sure who these new stars are exactly, but if a person has paid attention to baseball then they probably know many of the "stars" that were on the Giants and Rangers. Either way, this sounds like a goodbye from Joe. He needs to give us one more chat for this season.
The final tally of Jose from the Bronx v. Tito from Brooklyn:
Tito had four questions answered and Tito only had one question answered. Tito needs to bounce back and become Joe's favorite again.
When we last left Joe Morgan he was noticing an everyday player can help his team more than a pitcher can help his team. Of course this conclusion is completely debatable. He also said his usual bat-shit crazy stuff about Edinson Volquez being an elite pitcher. Now that the World Series is over it is time to recap what happened, because I am pretty sure at this point it isn't too early for us to to do so, and let Joe explain to us what happened in the World Series and why.
(Spoiler alert: Joe doesn't know what happened in the World Series or why. He can report the World Series was played though)
This week the biggest event has to be Jose from the Bronx muscling Tito from Brooklyn out as the top JoeChatter for this week. I say the only solution to this duel of Hispanic-descent JoeChatters is to see which person can eat the most cheeseballs in a 2 minute span from the Target economy-size cheeseball container.
Buzzmaster (11:05am)
Hey everyone. Joe just landed back on his flight home from last night's game. We're going to give him some time to get his bags and get to his car, then we can chat in about 30 minutes.
Joe was at the game so he got to experience and see the pitching and hitting of each team firsthand. He will probably have extraordinary tales to relate about this. Hopefully they will be better than Peter King's tales of smelling marijuana smoke everywhere.
Here's Joe! (woman and children start screaming running to their computers and begin to faint as Joe starts chatting)
JM: The Series was shorter than I anticipated it to be. But I still think it was interesting. Not great, but interesting.
So the World Series is like many people's first sexual experience? I am sure Bud Selig is beaming with pride right now.
Jose (The Bronx)
Do you think Edgar Renteria deserved to be the MVP? Did Tim Lincecum get robbed?
Jose from the Bronx with the first question asked of Joe. I think I am going to keep a running score between he and Tito from Brooklyn.
JM: No, he didn't get robbed. Lincecum gave up a lot of runs in the first game. He only won because his team outscored the Rangers.
I couldn't have read that right. I'll read it again.
No, he didn't get robbed. Lincecum gave up a lot of runs in the first game. He only won because his team outscored the Rangers.
This is the Holy Grail of quotes by Joe. This is him admitting (though not consciously knowing it, which is absolutely perfect) that a pitcher's ability to win games is dependent on his team scoring enough runs. It's like the clouds have opened and the sun is shining through. Of course Joe is too ignorant to know exactly what he said and what it means, but that's to be expected.
Using this very logic that a pitcher can't win games if his team doesn't score runs for him, then how in the hell could a pitcher like Felix Hernandez be judged in a negative fashion for barely having a .500 record? So a pitcher that gives 3 runs in a game, but wins the game because his team scored enough runs for him to win DID NOT pitch better than a pitcher who gave up 2 runs, but his team didn't score enough runs for him? That shouldn't be a question. Yet, this fight will still go on.
In Game 2, Renteria hit a home run that broke open a tie. He had three hits in Game 4. He also played great defense. He and Moreland were the only two consistent hitters in the whole series.
Yet again, Joe Morgan confuses the word "consistent" with "the best." He does this constantly. Moreland and Renteria were the two best hitters in the series. Because they were the two best hitters this doesn't mean they were also the best hitters. Sure, in a short series they are nearly the same thing, but Joe Morgan teams/players need to be more "consistent" when he means they need to be better at winning games or playing well.
A hitter who hits between .215-.230 every year is a consistent hitter. He is consistently a hitter with a bad average. I have a feeling Joe Morgan wouldn't see it this way because the guy isn't a good hitter for average, so he wouldn't say he was consistent.
Mark (Texas)
What was wrong with our hitting? Was it the Rangers hitting or the Giants pitching?
JM: I think it was a combination of both.
You really can't expect an answer from Joe.
What you need to understand is when a guy like Hamilton hits .359 and a lot of the other guys have high batting averages, they have a chance to hit against the mediocre pitchers as well. It's an average. Hamilton might hit .400 against some of the worse teams, but he's not going to hit .400 against the better teams.
The Top 5 teams in the American League in batting average against were Tampa Bay, Oakland, Texas, New York Yankees and Boston. Discounting the Rangers since Hamilton plays on that team, he hit .300, .424, .250, and .421.
So Hamilton did hit .400 against two of the Top 5 teams in the American League when it comes to batting average against them. Sure, these aren't huge sample sizes, but I feel like this has to be mentioned along with Joe's discussion about how Hamilton won't necessarily hit well against better pitching teams.
Jose (The Bronx)
Who do you think is the better manager: Bruce Bochy or Ron Washington?
That's two questions to none. Advantage Jose. I think I'm done counting for a bit, I'll update it at the end...because I am sure you all deeply care.
JM: I would have to give the edge to Bochy, as far as this series is concerned.
That's not really what Jose was asking at all. He meant overall.
Ron Washington's bullpen was not nearly as good as Bruce Bochy's. So the moves that he made with the bullpen were not going to look as good as Bochy's.
I am assuming that the relief pitchers didn't just walk to the mound without being summoned in some fashion by Ron Washington, so he did have a part in the bullpen not looking good. Granted, it is not his fault the bullpen stunk, but as the manager moves like this fall on him. I think it is a bit of a fallacy to let a manager off the hook for making a move and the player in the move doesn't perform well.
Otherwise, I'm not sure there were enough great manager moves or poor manager moves to make a difference in this series.
Playing Edgar Renteria as much as he played is not considered a great manager move by Bochy?
Kyle (VA)
Speaking of adjustments Joe, do you think that maybe guys rely too much on technology or the video of their at bats to look at how to make adjustments and therefore haven't developed the ability to do it ath the platE?
JM: It sounds like you've been listening to some of the things I've been saying all year.
It sounds like Kyle is baiting the absolute hell out of Joe.
They get too much information about what pitch a guy might throw in this situation or that situation, instead of being in the moment in the batter's box. They try to anticipate what the pitcher will do.
The problem with "being in the moment" is that a pitcher has information on what the batter likes to do and has a plan, so the batter has to have a plan as well. I've said it before, if a batter knows a pitcher likes to throw a certain pitch in a situation then he can look for it and react. It doesn't mean he is locked in on that pitch and only that pitch.
Kirk Gibson's famous home run in the 1988 World Series was partly based on him knowing Dennis Eckersley liked to throw a backdoor slider in a 3-2 count. He knew this and prepared for this pitch.
I see the players in the clubhouses watching video and trying to figure out everything. Once they get in the batter's box, they don't know how to adjust.
They do know how to adjust. The batters aren't only looking for one pitch and only that pitch. They get an idea of how a pitcher likes to pitch him by looking at the video. It's not like what they see on the video is the gospel and they refuse to adjust. If a player goes in the batter's box and knows the pitcher likes to throw a fastball on the first pitch and expects a fastball, but gets a slider, this doesn't mean he is confused the rest of the at-bat.
Jose (The Bronx)
With the strong pitching of the Rangers and Giants, will this World Series usher in a new era of dominant pitching?
JM: We go through cycles in baseball. Sometimes the hitters catch up with the pitchers and the pitchers respond with something new.
Then the hitters respond with something new and MLB responds with a strict PED testing program.
The hitters make the adjustments.
How do the hitters make these adjustments? Certainly not by looking at video of what the pitcher likes to do or throw in a certain count...because we were just told that having too much information is a bad thing while batting. The hitters make these adjustments by "being in the moment" at the plate. Whatever that means.
I don't think the pitching will be as dominant two years from now as it is now.
Yes, but Joe just said it goes in cycles so pitching will eventually be dominant again according to him.
Richard (Stratton Mountain, Vt.)
I think the Yankees and Phillies will be back in 2011 playoffs. Do you think the Rangers and Giants will be back next year as well as the Reds, Red Sox and Rays?
JM: No one is guaranteed a spot,
What? I thought it was like the PGA Tour where if you appear in the World Series than you get a sponsor's exemption and get to come back to the playoffs the next year?
probably other than the Yankees and Phillies.
Naturally. Logic would dictate the two teams that lost in the ALCS and NLCS respectively would make it back while the two teams in the World Series would not.
I thought the Yankees were the best team for a spell, but then I thought the Rays and the Red Sox for a time. It makes you think, is the AL East as good as we give it credit for?
If it is hard to decide which of three teams in one division happens to be the best team in baseball, then I think that division would be the best division in baseball, or at least very close. Throw in the fact the Rangers would have been 3rd place in the AL East if they played in that division with the record they had this year and I think it is safe to believe the AL East is as good as we give it credit for.
Tito (Brooklyn)
What did you think of the overall umpiring this postseason?
JM: There weren't as many obvious missed calls as there were last year, but there were some.
I can think of 2-3 missed calls this postseason, while the only call that stands out last year was the foul ball called down the left field line in the Yankees-Twins ALDS game. If Joe believes this year was better than last year he may not have watched any of the LDS games.
The easiest call is out/safe at first base. There were two calls missed in Game 5.
This isn't helping back up the claim this postseason had better umpiring than last season.
I'm not for all of the replays, because you will never get through a whole ball game with all of the calls that could be reviewed. It would ruin the rhythm of the game.
No, it will not. I don't like this argument in the least. Replay would be used only 1-2 times a game and would take the place of the manager coming out and spending 1-2 minutes arguing with the umpire over the missed call. Only an idiot could not see that taking 1-2 minutes making sure the call is right won't ruin the rhythm of the game anymore than having the manager throw a hissy-fit at the missed call. Nor will it ruin the rhythm of the game anymore than constant throws to first base and visits to the mound currently ruin the rhythm of the game. This argument fails badly in my mind.
Brian (Dayton)
What do you think the Reds need to do in order to have the best chance to get to the World Series next year?
JM: I thought the Reds intensity level in the playoffs wasn't high enough. By that, I mean it seemed they played the game the way they played during the regular season.
In terms of actually playing the game of baseball, I would love to know exactly how a team is supposed to do this...other than play better of course.
That's what we say with the Rangers in the World Series. The Reds needed a higher intensity level. Sometimes teams that haven't been there or haven't been there in a long time, sometimes you're just happy to be there.
That's not really intensity level, but more a matter of focus. The Reds may not have been focused because they felt they had achieved their goal by winning the NL Central. Raising your intensity level doesn't always mean you play better.
There are teams that are built for 162 games, which the Twins are. There are teams built for the short run, which the Yankees always are.
Except for this year when they lost a series in "the short run" to the Rangers. The Yankees are built for a short series most years, but I wouldn't say every year this is true.
Chris Fiegler (Latham,NY)
Who do you think will win the Rookie of the Year,Manager of the Year,Cy Young & MVP in Both the A.L.
JM: I have my own opinion.
Well that's nice because Chris from New York was actually asking about your opinion. Does Joe think these questions are just being asked in general of him and he isn't supposed to give his opinion? That would explain a lot.
My opinion is that Cano should win the AL MVP, but there are a lot of people that believe it's Josh Hamilton. But he missed a month of the season.
So it would be better to choose a player who isn't really the MVP because he played in more games than the guy who has better numbers? Which player was the MVP of the American League? I say Hamilton because I don't know if Cano is even the MVP of his own team.
I think Sabathia should be the Cy Young award winner, because he won the most games. But others are saying Felix Hernandez, but he was only 13-12, I think and he was pitching in a more pitcher friendly park, and wasn't pitching in a playoff race.
Joe from earlier in the chat:
I think Sabathia should be the Cy Young award winner, because he won the most games. But others are saying Felix Hernandez, but he was only 13-12, I think and he was pitching in a more pitcher friendly park, and wasn't pitching in a playoff race.
Let's use this same principle and apply it to Felix Hernandez. Why can't this be done?
It doesn't matter if Hernandez pitched in a pitcher friendly park or not because his road numbers were as follows:
.216/.289/.342, 2.46 ERA, 1.139 WHIP.
CC Sabathia's numbers at home and on the road were as follows:
Home: .220/.285/.320, 3.00 ERA, 1.117 WHIP.
Road: .255/.314/.385, 3.34 ERA, 1.255 WHIP.
So even on the road when he was away from his pitcher friendly park he had comparable numbers to CC Sabathia's best splits, which were also at home. This isn't even factoring in the whole run support issue, which explains the difference in wins for both pitchers.
And oh yeah, whether he pitched in a playoff race is insignificant to this discussion. If Hernandez had the MVP (according to Joe), along with the rest of the Yankees lineup he would have pitched in a playoff race.
In the NL, I think it's Halladay, even though he lost 10 games. In the MVP race, I think Joey Votto of the Reds. Pujols was the leader most of the year, but he had a struggle toward the end of the season.
Translation: Votto's team won the division and Pujols team did not win the division.
Let's take a peek at the "struggles" Pujols had at the end of the season. Here are his September/October statistics:
.293/.433/.586, 7 home runs, 23 RBI, 23 walks, 15 strikeouts. He also had a .278 BABiP during this period, so he wasn't having the greatest luck either.
Over an entire season that is 38 home runs, 124 RBI, 124 walks, and 81 strikeouts. Pujols ended the season 42 home runs, 118 RBI, 103 walks, and 76 strikeouts. So he didn't exactly struggle that much down the stretch of the season, but his team didn't win the NL Central so Joe doesn't feel like he can give Pujols the MVP over Votto. I'm not arguing with this conclusion, just the inane way of coming to the conclusion.
Hunter (New Jersey)
In 07, 08, and 09 I think we could I say the best team won the World Series, but this year I'm thinking luck played a huge part in the Giants winning the WS. Can you honestly say the BEST team won?
Really Hunter? In 2008 the two teams with the 2nd best record in the American and National League met in the World Series. I don't know if the Phillies were clearly the best team that year. Other than that, you are possibly correct. Let's not forget the Giants had 2nd best record in the National League this year, so they were a good team for most of the year.
I've said this for a long time that any team that gets into the playoffs can win. Obviously, there is a certain amount of luck that goes along with it.
I've always said I hate it when Joe says this.
It's 3.5 months until spring training. All of those teams saying wait until next year, that's when the next year will start.
So Spring Training is when the new baseball season starts? Thank God Joe Morgan is here to be paid vast sums of money to tell us these things.
We did see two teams in the World Series that hadn't been there in a long time, even one that hadn't been there. Even though the ratings were down, in some ways, I think it was good for the game. We did find some new stars.
I'm not sure who these new stars are exactly, but if a person has paid attention to baseball then they probably know many of the "stars" that were on the Giants and Rangers. Either way, this sounds like a goodbye from Joe. He needs to give us one more chat for this season.
The final tally of Jose from the Bronx v. Tito from Brooklyn:
Tito had four questions answered and Tito only had one question answered. Tito needs to bounce back and become Joe's favorite again.
Friday, October 29, 2010
4 comments Is This JoeChat About the World Series? Anything Can Happen, But It Is Too Early To Tell
It's World Series time, which means it's time to see if any of Joe Morgan's preseason predictions have come true. I am kidding of course, he doesn't make any preseason predictions, other than the standard "anything can happen." Joe does want us to know that he isn't surprised by anything that has happened in this MLB postseason because anything can happen in baseball. It's easy to not be surprised when you make no assumptions or refuse to use your position as an "expert" to educate the masses.
If Joe was a executive with a financial firm during the 2008 financial crisis he would have sent out a newsletter to his clients that said,
"I am not surprised the stock market has tanked like it has. There are no consistent stocks anymore. As I always say, if you invest money in the stock market anything can happen. Sorry everyone lost 78% of the average value of their investments, but this downturn did not shock me at all. I wasn't in a position to give you financial advice because I didn't know what the stock market would do. I thought it would have a huge downturn, but it was too early to tell. Fortunately, I got all of my money out in time. Please provide the names of any family members who would like to invest their money with me. I have included a reference form in this letter."
Joe would not be a good financial executive. Of course it doesn't matter what he can't do when he is such a master chatter.
Buzzmaster: We've got Joe!
This fake excitement for Joe's arrival only has to be kept up for a few more weeks.
JM: I have always felt that anyone who makes the playoffs can become World Series champions.
Joe comes out of the gate swinging with his standard, incredibly obvious statement. I wonder how long he thinks about what he is going to write to begin the chat? I am guessing he thinks about it all week.
(Joe Morgan's brain) "What should I lead off with this week? A long paragraph about how Ryan Howard's contract isn't bad compared to Matt Holliday? A brief discussion of how the Rangers beat the Yankees? Nah, even I don't understand what happened exactly. Perhaps I should talk about how the Phillies were the best team in the National League and they are proof there aren't any consistent teams anymore? No, because then I will have to list why the Phillies weren't consistent and I didn't watch a single game in that series. It's so hard to have to talk about the sport I have spent the majority of my life playing...what should I say?:
(stares blankly at the wall for 27 minutes while only moving to eat an entire bag of Fritos)
"I know! I will blow them all away with the thought that the playoffs are a guessing game. No one knows what could happen, which is why I can't predict what will happen. I'm not sure anyone has ever realized that once the playoffs start, any team can win the World Series. Few people understand this. I'm going to blow some minds this week."
When the playoffs started, everyone felt that it would be Philadelphia and the Yankees playing for the world championship and with the Rays having an outside chance.
"Everyone" is including Joe himself, despite the fact he didn't come out and say it. He beat around the bush for a while that the Phillies and Yankees were the ones he thought would make it, but he never actually predicted it. It looks like Joe has outfoxed us this time. He thought the Phillies and Yankees were the two best teams, but continuously said anything could happen. His inability to make an opinion has paid off because two teams few expected to make the World Series ended up doing just that. Well played Joe Morgan. Well played.
Neither were given much of a chance against the mighty Yankees and the two-time NL champions Phillies,
The Phillies have actually won the NL more than two times over their history, but I won't nitpick Joe today because I know what he means.
but both the Rangers and the Giants have proven that if you can just get in the playoffs, you have a chance to be world champions.
You want what else proves if a team just gets in the playoffs they have a chance to be world champions? Common sense. Anyone with a firm grasp on common sense can look at the teams in the playoffs and deduce that any of them could win the World Series.
Jason (Philly)
Philly had the best record in baseball and with Roy Halladay seemed to be a lock for the World Series. What happened?
JM: Well, first of all, there is no such thing as a lock in baseball. Maybe in some of the other sports, the best team will win a series.
If a two teams play a series then isn't the team that won the "best team?" Maybe they weren't the best team during the season, but at that point they are the best team.
But in baseball, it's not always the best team, but also the team that's playing the best at that time.
Because in the playoffs anything can happen...except for the Twins beating the Yankees in a five game series. That may never happen.
John (Dallas)
Bigger home-field advantage... Arlington or San Fran?
JM: I think they both are home field advantages, or pretty equal.
There's a shock, Joe Morgan doesn't give an answer to a straightforward question. There is no advantage in regard to homefield, both teams are equal, both teams are equally as good at their home field, and all of the games will end in 0-0 ties, until the homefield advantage kicks in during the 10th inning when the home team will win the game 1-0. Even though the Giants have homefield advantage, there's no way of knowing if the Giants will win 4-3 or not.
San Francisco is relying on its pitching staff and AT&T Park is a pitcher friendly park. The Rangers are more of an offensive minded team, with good pitching.
That's right. I almost forgot the Rangers ballpark is perfectly suited for a team with speed and a team with power...(cue Joe's comment from last week's chat)
JM: But I think they can win at home. Their ballpark fits their team, just like Yankee Stadiums fits the Yankees. Texas has a powerful lineup. They have speed. All of those things are better suited for their park.
The Rangers ballpark holds a huge disadvantage for teams that are slow and can't hit home runs. Otherwise known as "a team that didn't make the playoffs."
Mike (Attleboro)
The Yankees paid two players as much as the entire Rangers team made. How can other small-market do to mirror the Ranger's success?
Make a trade with the Braves (cries over the Mark Teixeira trade for the fifth time today).
JM: When you have as much money to spend as the Yankees do, you can throw stuff up against the wall and see what sticks. You can make mistakes as far as free agents. What you have to do if you're a small market or mid-market team is make smart decisions.
Here's the thing though. Even the Yankees have to make smart decisions. They don't win the World Series every year because they still have to make smart decisions. Trading for Javier Vazquez was not a smart decision for them. So ALL teams have to make smart decisions, other teams have more leeway in getting the decisions wrong.
The Giants did sign Barry Zito to a huge ill-advised contract, their pitching depth in the minors helped cover that mistake up.
Although some might say that the Giants made a mistake in signing Barry Zito to that big contract.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the Giants made a mistake in signing Zito? Here goes Joe refusing to take a stand. I think EVERYONE, including Zito himself, think that huge contract was a mistake. They owe him $57.5 million over the next three years. The Giants also owe Aaron Rowand $27.2 million over the next two years. Both players are not even close to being worth the money they are making. The Giants have made mistakes with players, but it has worked out for them. So they were able to spend a lot of money on players and still make the World Series.
But, it's clear that the Rangers did not make many mistakes, as far as payroll is concerned. You just have to make better decisions if you're a small market team.
Chan Ho Park and Alex Rodriguez beg to differ.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Does the emergence of the Rangers prove that the Mets were wrong to give up on Jeff Francoeur?
Francoeur has made a World Series. The end is near.
JM: Sometimes a change of scenery helps a player. When that change of scenery takes you from a team that's really struggling to a team that's in first place, it helps you focus better.
What also helps Francoeur focus better is that the Rangers are only starting Francoeur against LH pitchers. As soon as he learned to swallow his ego and realize he sucks against RH pitchers and can hit LH pitchers well, then he was a productive player for the Rangers. It has nothing to do with a change of scenery and has everything to do with the fact he doesn't play against RH pitchers.
I've always thought that Jeff Francoeur was a pretty good player,
Then Joe is a bigger idiot than I thought...and I have always thought Joe could be a pretty big idiot at times.
but he had not performed that well during the last year or so after being traded from the Braves.
He also didn't perform well WITH the Braves...unless Joe is impressed with Francoeur's .239/.294/.359 line in 2008 or his followup year in 2009 that consisted of .280/.309/.423.
But I can't blame the Mets for trading him. That would be like blaming the Angels for not re-signing Vladimir. He did not play well there the last year and he had been struggling with injuries.
That injury Francoeur suffered from? A blow to the head that must have led him to believe he was an everyday RF and led him so far astray from reality as to demand a trade from the Mets where he can play everyday...the Mets got no offers for him to be able to do this.
Tito (Brooklyn)
If the Reds could get a do-over on the Josh Hamilton and Volquez trade from 3 years ago, do you think they would keep Hamilton? Have the Rangers "won" that trade?
JM: That's a hard question and I don't think it's been answered yet.
It's been three seasons. I think we are close to answering this question. Texas won the trade. Texas has an MVP candidate over a pitcher that has been injured and suspended for violating the league's drug policy.
Last year Volquez, when he was healthy, was one of the best pitchers in the NL.
I'm confused. Is "last year" 2009 when Volquez pitched in 9 games and put up a 4-2 record, 4.35 ERA, and a 1.329 WHIP? That isn't even close to being of the NL's best pitchers.
Was "last year" 2010 when Volquez pitched in 12 games and put up a 4-3 record with a 4.31 ERA and a 1.500 WHIP? That's not one of the NL's best pitchers either.
Possibly Joe was talking about 2008 (which isn't "last year"), when Volquez had a pretty good year. Volquez hasn't been healthy since the 2008 season, so Joe should take his Reds-colored glasses off and realize the Rangers won this trade.
I think the jury is still out on who got the better end of that trade. But there is no doubt that Josh Hamilton has proven in two of the last three years that he's one of the best hitters in the game. When Volquez is healthy, though, he's one of the best pitchers in the game.
No, the jury is now in. The Rangers got the better end of the deal. Volquez isn't healthy, so it doesn't matter what Joe believes Volquez could do when healthy. Hamilton has been a great hitter and Volquez hasn't even be a great pitcher even when he was healthy. So Joe is pretty much wrong about everything. Volquez isn't one of the better pitchers in the game and the Rangers have won the trade.
As I've always said, an every day player who is as good as a pitcher is always better because he can help in more games.
That doesn't make sense Joe.
(If this comment did make sense, wouldn't it mean the Rangers got the better end of the deal because they got the everyday player?)
John (Dallas)
What do you think of Ron Washington? Like em? Hate em?
JM: He's the reason that they're in the World Series.
Ron Washington is the reason the Rangers are in the World Series...outside of the fact the team is playing very well and the players on the team are the reason they are in the World Series. Otherwise, Washington has done a great job managing the players who have caused the team he manages to be in the World Series.
Not just this year, but when he took over, he changed the entire mindset of the organization.
The new mindset of the organization? More cocaine please.
(I'm sorry, I had to say something like that once. It's the first and last time)
He asked for a team that's more well-rounded. They put a lot of pressure on the defense with stealing bases, hitting and running, bunting. Hitting home runs is great, but what happens when you're not hitting them?
The Rangers, even when prorating for having played more games than other teams in the playoffs have easily hit more home runs during the playoffs than any other team.
So the answer to what happens they don't hit home runs is still up in the air...because they got to the World Series by hitting home runs. The Rangers were 10th in the majors in home runs hit during the season as well. It's not like they are a light-hitting team that has "manufactured" runs in the postseason.
They had tried to just load up with sluggers and try to outslug you and that didn't work.
Except that is exactly how they got to the World Series. They have outslugged the Rays and the Yankees to get to this point. So while the Rangers don't rely on the home run from Joe's point of view, they sure have hit a lot of home runs while making their way to the World Series.
John (Dallas)
Do you think the best two teams made the WS?
Tito from Brooklyn, you have competition from John from Dallas. Game on.
JM: Over the long stretch, Philadelphia was the best team in the NL and the Yankees or the Rays were the best in the AL. But when you get to a playoff system, it's different than a 162-game schedule.
It is good to know that Joe pays enough attention to statistics to be aware that 162 games is more than the maximum 19 game season a team can play in the postseason and the playoff schedule is different from the regular season schedule.
As we saw last year, the Yankees only used three starting pitchers over the course of the postseason. Over the course of 162 games, it's a test of consistency, but it tests your entire team, because you have to use all of your players. In a short series, you only use your best players and your best pitchers and that changes the outcome sometimes.
I am not sure I can argue with Joe's reasoning here. It is true, but what it fails to explain is how the Phillies and Yankees lost in a short series. If a short series causes teams to only use their best pitchers and best players, wouldn't that be an advantage for the Yankees and Phillies? Both teams don't have deep rotations, so they would prefer to pitch with only 3 guys. The Phillies had the best rotation in the National League with Halladay, Oswalt and Hamels and the Yankees had a strong rotation in Sabathia, Pettitte, and Hughes. Both teams also had deep and strong lineups. So using this reasoning of a short series allowing a team to use the best pitchers and players on that team, the Phillies and Yankees would have won their series.
I'm just saying, on paper the short series seemed to favor those two teams. Reality was much different obviously.
To use another analogy, the regular season is a marathon; the playoffs are a short sprint. That takes two different skills.
But the Yankees and even more specifically, the Phillies (at least from a pitching point of view) were built for a sprint.
Jen (Mississippi)
What player's performance has surprised you most this postseason?
JM: A lot of players have impressed me.
What players have surprised you, not impressed you. Seriously, read the question or buy a dictionary to figure out what "surprised" means. It sounds cruel, but there's no point in answering questions that aren't asked.
Of course, Cliff Lee. Pitching was the dominant position in the playoffs. I was very impressed with Robinson Cano and how he handled the postseason this year. I was impressed with Josh Hamilton's performance in the LCS, after sitting out for a month of the season, it took him a while to get his timing back. In the NL, you had to be impressed with Halladay pitching a no-hitter in the first round and by winning Game 5 to extend the series against San Francisco. And you have to be impressed with the game by Tim Lincecum in his first playoff start against the Braves.
Since Joe is answering this question however he would like to answer it, he was impressed by five players...all of whom made the All-Star team this year and actually deserved it. So Joe Morgan was impressed by five All-Stars, but not Ian Kinsler, Nelson Cruz, Cody Ross, CJ Wilson, or Matt Cain.
I find it interesting the best players in the majors are the ones that impress Joe while he leaves out players that played well in the LDS and LCS who did not make an All-Star team as impressing him...of course the question asked was about which players "surprised" him, so it's just a fail all around for Joe.
Only All-Stars are impressive to Joe Morgan.
There are other players that have done well too. Molina and Uribe hitting game-winning home runs.
So then Joe names a player, Juan Uribe, as a player who impressed him with a game-winning home run...even though Uribe hit .071/.133/.071 in the LDS and .214/.250/.429 in the LCS. Joe is obviously more impressed with a player that had one important hit over a player who has a consistently (!) good series, like Cody Ross. That's not the Joe Morgan we know. He loves consistency. He fears the Inconsistency Monster. The man writing this is an imposter...release Joe Morgan!
I guess the unusual thing is that it's not any of the big names of the Yankees - Jeter, A-Rod, Teixeira - had good playoffs. Same thing for the Phillies.
No big names for the Phillies and Yankees except for the two players that Joe personally singled-out as having done well in the playoffs, Roy Halladay and Robinson Cano.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do you think replay needs to be used more in the playoffs?
JM: I would not be against expanding some of the plays that can be reviewed. But I'm not for wholesale changes, because the game would last forever...To have to go in and review every close play, it would kill the pace of the game, which hurts the pitchers who have to stand around.
And as anyone who has ever watched playoff baseball or watch Andy Pettitte pitch, pitchers hate to stand around...unless that standing around involves taking 1 minute between pitches or throwing over to first base three or four times. We wouldn't want to have pitchers stand around to ensure a call on the field was correct when this valuable time could be used wandering around the pitcher's mound and lightly throwing the ball to first base in an attempt to hold the runner on.
There is a rhythm to a baseball game and I think we would destroy that rhythm if we expanded replay a lot.
The rhythm (that doesn't exist) is more important than making sure calls are right? I am not for replaying balls and strikes, but what is the harm in expanding some replay? There may be 1-2 calls per game that would take 1-2 minutes each to review...or about as long as it takes a guy like Bobby Cox to waddle to the mound to talk with his pitcher in order to buy time for a pitcher in the bullpen to warm up or as long as it takes for a manager to come out and argue with the umpire over what the correct call should have been. Instead of wasting 1-2 minutes with the manager getting angry on the field, spend that time in the replay booth getting the call correct.
I know they aren't the two biggest markets in baseball, but there are a lot of new faces and a lot of new names in the World Series.
There are new names and faces if you haven't followed baseball all year. So to Joe most of these players will be new. For everyone else who is a baseball fan, many of these names will be familiar.
I'm looking forward the Rangers and Giants in the World Series.
I'm looking backward the chat on ESPN.
If Joe was a executive with a financial firm during the 2008 financial crisis he would have sent out a newsletter to his clients that said,
"I am not surprised the stock market has tanked like it has. There are no consistent stocks anymore. As I always say, if you invest money in the stock market anything can happen. Sorry everyone lost 78% of the average value of their investments, but this downturn did not shock me at all. I wasn't in a position to give you financial advice because I didn't know what the stock market would do. I thought it would have a huge downturn, but it was too early to tell. Fortunately, I got all of my money out in time. Please provide the names of any family members who would like to invest their money with me. I have included a reference form in this letter."
Joe would not be a good financial executive. Of course it doesn't matter what he can't do when he is such a master chatter.
Buzzmaster: We've got Joe!
This fake excitement for Joe's arrival only has to be kept up for a few more weeks.
JM: I have always felt that anyone who makes the playoffs can become World Series champions.
Joe comes out of the gate swinging with his standard, incredibly obvious statement. I wonder how long he thinks about what he is going to write to begin the chat? I am guessing he thinks about it all week.
(Joe Morgan's brain) "What should I lead off with this week? A long paragraph about how Ryan Howard's contract isn't bad compared to Matt Holliday? A brief discussion of how the Rangers beat the Yankees? Nah, even I don't understand what happened exactly. Perhaps I should talk about how the Phillies were the best team in the National League and they are proof there aren't any consistent teams anymore? No, because then I will have to list why the Phillies weren't consistent and I didn't watch a single game in that series. It's so hard to have to talk about the sport I have spent the majority of my life playing...what should I say?:
(stares blankly at the wall for 27 minutes while only moving to eat an entire bag of Fritos)
"I know! I will blow them all away with the thought that the playoffs are a guessing game. No one knows what could happen, which is why I can't predict what will happen. I'm not sure anyone has ever realized that once the playoffs start, any team can win the World Series. Few people understand this. I'm going to blow some minds this week."
When the playoffs started, everyone felt that it would be Philadelphia and the Yankees playing for the world championship and with the Rays having an outside chance.
"Everyone" is including Joe himself, despite the fact he didn't come out and say it. He beat around the bush for a while that the Phillies and Yankees were the ones he thought would make it, but he never actually predicted it. It looks like Joe has outfoxed us this time. He thought the Phillies and Yankees were the two best teams, but continuously said anything could happen. His inability to make an opinion has paid off because two teams few expected to make the World Series ended up doing just that. Well played Joe Morgan. Well played.
Neither were given much of a chance against the mighty Yankees and the two-time NL champions Phillies,
The Phillies have actually won the NL more than two times over their history, but I won't nitpick Joe today because I know what he means.
but both the Rangers and the Giants have proven that if you can just get in the playoffs, you have a chance to be world champions.
You want what else proves if a team just gets in the playoffs they have a chance to be world champions? Common sense. Anyone with a firm grasp on common sense can look at the teams in the playoffs and deduce that any of them could win the World Series.
Jason (Philly)
Philly had the best record in baseball and with Roy Halladay seemed to be a lock for the World Series. What happened?
JM: Well, first of all, there is no such thing as a lock in baseball. Maybe in some of the other sports, the best team will win a series.
If a two teams play a series then isn't the team that won the "best team?" Maybe they weren't the best team during the season, but at that point they are the best team.
But in baseball, it's not always the best team, but also the team that's playing the best at that time.
Because in the playoffs anything can happen...except for the Twins beating the Yankees in a five game series. That may never happen.
John (Dallas)
Bigger home-field advantage... Arlington or San Fran?
JM: I think they both are home field advantages, or pretty equal.
There's a shock, Joe Morgan doesn't give an answer to a straightforward question. There is no advantage in regard to homefield, both teams are equal, both teams are equally as good at their home field, and all of the games will end in 0-0 ties, until the homefield advantage kicks in during the 10th inning when the home team will win the game 1-0. Even though the Giants have homefield advantage, there's no way of knowing if the Giants will win 4-3 or not.
San Francisco is relying on its pitching staff and AT&T Park is a pitcher friendly park. The Rangers are more of an offensive minded team, with good pitching.
That's right. I almost forgot the Rangers ballpark is perfectly suited for a team with speed and a team with power...(cue Joe's comment from last week's chat)
JM: But I think they can win at home. Their ballpark fits their team, just like Yankee Stadiums fits the Yankees. Texas has a powerful lineup. They have speed. All of those things are better suited for their park.
The Rangers ballpark holds a huge disadvantage for teams that are slow and can't hit home runs. Otherwise known as "a team that didn't make the playoffs."
Mike (Attleboro)
The Yankees paid two players as much as the entire Rangers team made. How can other small-market do to mirror the Ranger's success?
Make a trade with the Braves (cries over the Mark Teixeira trade for the fifth time today).
JM: When you have as much money to spend as the Yankees do, you can throw stuff up against the wall and see what sticks. You can make mistakes as far as free agents. What you have to do if you're a small market or mid-market team is make smart decisions.
Here's the thing though. Even the Yankees have to make smart decisions. They don't win the World Series every year because they still have to make smart decisions. Trading for Javier Vazquez was not a smart decision for them. So ALL teams have to make smart decisions, other teams have more leeway in getting the decisions wrong.
The Giants did sign Barry Zito to a huge ill-advised contract, their pitching depth in the minors helped cover that mistake up.
Although some might say that the Giants made a mistake in signing Barry Zito to that big contract.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the Giants made a mistake in signing Zito? Here goes Joe refusing to take a stand. I think EVERYONE, including Zito himself, think that huge contract was a mistake. They owe him $57.5 million over the next three years. The Giants also owe Aaron Rowand $27.2 million over the next two years. Both players are not even close to being worth the money they are making. The Giants have made mistakes with players, but it has worked out for them. So they were able to spend a lot of money on players and still make the World Series.
But, it's clear that the Rangers did not make many mistakes, as far as payroll is concerned. You just have to make better decisions if you're a small market team.
Chan Ho Park and Alex Rodriguez beg to differ.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Does the emergence of the Rangers prove that the Mets were wrong to give up on Jeff Francoeur?
Francoeur has made a World Series. The end is near.
JM: Sometimes a change of scenery helps a player. When that change of scenery takes you from a team that's really struggling to a team that's in first place, it helps you focus better.
What also helps Francoeur focus better is that the Rangers are only starting Francoeur against LH pitchers. As soon as he learned to swallow his ego and realize he sucks against RH pitchers and can hit LH pitchers well, then he was a productive player for the Rangers. It has nothing to do with a change of scenery and has everything to do with the fact he doesn't play against RH pitchers.
I've always thought that Jeff Francoeur was a pretty good player,
Then Joe is a bigger idiot than I thought...and I have always thought Joe could be a pretty big idiot at times.
but he had not performed that well during the last year or so after being traded from the Braves.
He also didn't perform well WITH the Braves...unless Joe is impressed with Francoeur's .239/.294/.359 line in 2008 or his followup year in 2009 that consisted of .280/.309/.423.
But I can't blame the Mets for trading him. That would be like blaming the Angels for not re-signing Vladimir. He did not play well there the last year and he had been struggling with injuries.
That injury Francoeur suffered from? A blow to the head that must have led him to believe he was an everyday RF and led him so far astray from reality as to demand a trade from the Mets where he can play everyday...the Mets got no offers for him to be able to do this.
Tito (Brooklyn)
If the Reds could get a do-over on the Josh Hamilton and Volquez trade from 3 years ago, do you think they would keep Hamilton? Have the Rangers "won" that trade?
JM: That's a hard question and I don't think it's been answered yet.
It's been three seasons. I think we are close to answering this question. Texas won the trade. Texas has an MVP candidate over a pitcher that has been injured and suspended for violating the league's drug policy.
Last year Volquez, when he was healthy, was one of the best pitchers in the NL.
I'm confused. Is "last year" 2009 when Volquez pitched in 9 games and put up a 4-2 record, 4.35 ERA, and a 1.329 WHIP? That isn't even close to being of the NL's best pitchers.
Was "last year" 2010 when Volquez pitched in 12 games and put up a 4-3 record with a 4.31 ERA and a 1.500 WHIP? That's not one of the NL's best pitchers either.
Possibly Joe was talking about 2008 (which isn't "last year"), when Volquez had a pretty good year. Volquez hasn't been healthy since the 2008 season, so Joe should take his Reds-colored glasses off and realize the Rangers won this trade.
I think the jury is still out on who got the better end of that trade. But there is no doubt that Josh Hamilton has proven in two of the last three years that he's one of the best hitters in the game. When Volquez is healthy, though, he's one of the best pitchers in the game.
No, the jury is now in. The Rangers got the better end of the deal. Volquez isn't healthy, so it doesn't matter what Joe believes Volquez could do when healthy. Hamilton has been a great hitter and Volquez hasn't even be a great pitcher even when he was healthy. So Joe is pretty much wrong about everything. Volquez isn't one of the better pitchers in the game and the Rangers have won the trade.
As I've always said, an every day player who is as good as a pitcher is always better because he can help in more games.
That doesn't make sense Joe.
(If this comment did make sense, wouldn't it mean the Rangers got the better end of the deal because they got the everyday player?)
John (Dallas)
What do you think of Ron Washington? Like em? Hate em?
JM: He's the reason that they're in the World Series.
Ron Washington is the reason the Rangers are in the World Series...outside of the fact the team is playing very well and the players on the team are the reason they are in the World Series. Otherwise, Washington has done a great job managing the players who have caused the team he manages to be in the World Series.
Not just this year, but when he took over, he changed the entire mindset of the organization.
The new mindset of the organization? More cocaine please.
(I'm sorry, I had to say something like that once. It's the first and last time)
He asked for a team that's more well-rounded. They put a lot of pressure on the defense with stealing bases, hitting and running, bunting. Hitting home runs is great, but what happens when you're not hitting them?
The Rangers, even when prorating for having played more games than other teams in the playoffs have easily hit more home runs during the playoffs than any other team.
So the answer to what happens they don't hit home runs is still up in the air...because they got to the World Series by hitting home runs. The Rangers were 10th in the majors in home runs hit during the season as well. It's not like they are a light-hitting team that has "manufactured" runs in the postseason.
They had tried to just load up with sluggers and try to outslug you and that didn't work.
Except that is exactly how they got to the World Series. They have outslugged the Rays and the Yankees to get to this point. So while the Rangers don't rely on the home run from Joe's point of view, they sure have hit a lot of home runs while making their way to the World Series.
John (Dallas)
Do you think the best two teams made the WS?
Tito from Brooklyn, you have competition from John from Dallas. Game on.
JM: Over the long stretch, Philadelphia was the best team in the NL and the Yankees or the Rays were the best in the AL. But when you get to a playoff system, it's different than a 162-game schedule.
It is good to know that Joe pays enough attention to statistics to be aware that 162 games is more than the maximum 19 game season a team can play in the postseason and the playoff schedule is different from the regular season schedule.
As we saw last year, the Yankees only used three starting pitchers over the course of the postseason. Over the course of 162 games, it's a test of consistency, but it tests your entire team, because you have to use all of your players. In a short series, you only use your best players and your best pitchers and that changes the outcome sometimes.
I am not sure I can argue with Joe's reasoning here. It is true, but what it fails to explain is how the Phillies and Yankees lost in a short series. If a short series causes teams to only use their best pitchers and best players, wouldn't that be an advantage for the Yankees and Phillies? Both teams don't have deep rotations, so they would prefer to pitch with only 3 guys. The Phillies had the best rotation in the National League with Halladay, Oswalt and Hamels and the Yankees had a strong rotation in Sabathia, Pettitte, and Hughes. Both teams also had deep and strong lineups. So using this reasoning of a short series allowing a team to use the best pitchers and players on that team, the Phillies and Yankees would have won their series.
I'm just saying, on paper the short series seemed to favor those two teams. Reality was much different obviously.
To use another analogy, the regular season is a marathon; the playoffs are a short sprint. That takes two different skills.
But the Yankees and even more specifically, the Phillies (at least from a pitching point of view) were built for a sprint.
Jen (Mississippi)
What player's performance has surprised you most this postseason?
JM: A lot of players have impressed me.
What players have surprised you, not impressed you. Seriously, read the question or buy a dictionary to figure out what "surprised" means. It sounds cruel, but there's no point in answering questions that aren't asked.
Of course, Cliff Lee. Pitching was the dominant position in the playoffs. I was very impressed with Robinson Cano and how he handled the postseason this year. I was impressed with Josh Hamilton's performance in the LCS, after sitting out for a month of the season, it took him a while to get his timing back. In the NL, you had to be impressed with Halladay pitching a no-hitter in the first round and by winning Game 5 to extend the series against San Francisco. And you have to be impressed with the game by Tim Lincecum in his first playoff start against the Braves.
Since Joe is answering this question however he would like to answer it, he was impressed by five players...all of whom made the All-Star team this year and actually deserved it. So Joe Morgan was impressed by five All-Stars, but not Ian Kinsler, Nelson Cruz, Cody Ross, CJ Wilson, or Matt Cain.
I find it interesting the best players in the majors are the ones that impress Joe while he leaves out players that played well in the LDS and LCS who did not make an All-Star team as impressing him...of course the question asked was about which players "surprised" him, so it's just a fail all around for Joe.
Only All-Stars are impressive to Joe Morgan.
There are other players that have done well too. Molina and Uribe hitting game-winning home runs.
So then Joe names a player, Juan Uribe, as a player who impressed him with a game-winning home run...even though Uribe hit .071/.133/.071 in the LDS and .214/.250/.429 in the LCS. Joe is obviously more impressed with a player that had one important hit over a player who has a consistently (!) good series, like Cody Ross. That's not the Joe Morgan we know. He loves consistency. He fears the Inconsistency Monster. The man writing this is an imposter...release Joe Morgan!
I guess the unusual thing is that it's not any of the big names of the Yankees - Jeter, A-Rod, Teixeira - had good playoffs. Same thing for the Phillies.
No big names for the Phillies and Yankees except for the two players that Joe personally singled-out as having done well in the playoffs, Roy Halladay and Robinson Cano.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do you think replay needs to be used more in the playoffs?
JM: I would not be against expanding some of the plays that can be reviewed. But I'm not for wholesale changes, because the game would last forever...To have to go in and review every close play, it would kill the pace of the game, which hurts the pitchers who have to stand around.
And as anyone who has ever watched playoff baseball or watch Andy Pettitte pitch, pitchers hate to stand around...unless that standing around involves taking 1 minute between pitches or throwing over to first base three or four times. We wouldn't want to have pitchers stand around to ensure a call on the field was correct when this valuable time could be used wandering around the pitcher's mound and lightly throwing the ball to first base in an attempt to hold the runner on.
There is a rhythm to a baseball game and I think we would destroy that rhythm if we expanded replay a lot.
The rhythm (that doesn't exist) is more important than making sure calls are right? I am not for replaying balls and strikes, but what is the harm in expanding some replay? There may be 1-2 calls per game that would take 1-2 minutes each to review...or about as long as it takes a guy like Bobby Cox to waddle to the mound to talk with his pitcher in order to buy time for a pitcher in the bullpen to warm up or as long as it takes for a manager to come out and argue with the umpire over what the correct call should have been. Instead of wasting 1-2 minutes with the manager getting angry on the field, spend that time in the replay booth getting the call correct.
I know they aren't the two biggest markets in baseball, but there are a lot of new faces and a lot of new names in the World Series.
There are new names and faces if you haven't followed baseball all year. So to Joe most of these players will be new. For everyone else who is a baseball fan, many of these names will be familiar.
I'm looking forward the Rangers and Giants in the World Series.
I'm looking backward the chat on ESPN.
Friday, October 22, 2010
7 comments Let's Have a Tip of Your Hat For a Joe Morgan Chat!
Before I get to today's article, a friend of mine put together what may be the most quickly put together and drafted hockey league ever. He set it up two days ago and the draft is this evening at 8:15pm, but its fine because we both wanted to join a hockey league and so we have. We still need some more teams, so if anyone wants to join the league ID is "96573" and the password is (wait for it) "password." Feel free to join. We need more teams to make the league more interesting.
If Joe Morgan has a chat and only Tito from Brooklyn is around to participate in it, does it still count as a chat? We find out this week. Joe answers 16 questions and Tito asked 5 of them. Next year I may have to add a "Tito from Brooklyn" tag for any JoeChats I cover. This week Joe talks for 26 full minutes about the playoffs. As you have noticed, I am going to do things a little different for this week's JoeChat. Because he talks mostly about the playoffs, I wanted to post this one earlier than Tuesday so that the questions and answers will be more relevant. I know this ruins the entire day of Tuesday for everyone, so I am sorry.
I have come to the conclusion Joe Morgan doesn't actually do these chats. He has probably refused to do them in the past and ESPN is paying him back by having an imposter chat under his name as payback for refusing to do weekly chats. ESPN is being cruel and making Joe sound like an idiot in his chats, but Joe doesn't care because he is a Hall of Fame second baseman and has better things to worry about. That explains why Joe doesn't seem very knowledgeable...I am being a JoeOptimist today. By the way, it is fun to throw "Joe" in front of every word when talking about him.
Even if you're not a Ranger fan or a baseball fan, you have to be impressed by the effort of Cliff Lee last night against the Yankees.
Editor's note: If you are not a baseball fan, you probably didn't watch the game Cliff Lee pitched against the Yankees on Monday. You probably are not aware of exactly how good Lee was if you don't like baseball. We at ESPN realize this, but Joe was trying to speak in generalities.
I think ESPN should hire an editor to put "editor's notes" in there after certain statements that Joe makes. I think I am going to do that for this chat...until I forget to do it, which could very well be the next question.
It just doesn't get any better than he pitched the Yankees lineup last night.
Editor's note: We realize this sentence doesn't make sense. Joe has to type fast. Please forgive him. We also realize it does actually get better than how Cliff Lee pitched the Yankees lineup. If Lee had pitched a no-hitter or a perfect game, it would have been better. Joe was using hyperbole.
You also have to have a tip of your hat for Andy Pettitte
Editor's note: We do realize this is a fucked up version of the phrase "tip of the hat to..." and we apologize to anyone who doesn't understand what the hell Joe is talking about. Frankly, we are confused, but we work with Lou Holtz also, so we are used to having to decipher what a person is trying to say.
Theo (Boston)
Considering Cliff Lee has won all three of his postseason starts against the Yankees, is it safe to say he?ll be in pinstripes next year as New York's "can?t miss" free agent?
My biggest question and one this article tackles is how long of a contract should Cliff Lee get this offseason? The article assumes Lee will fall off when his SO/BB ratio starts to decline, which they assume (based on past data) will happen as he gets older. That is possible, but I am not sure if that is a safe assumption or not.
JM: Well, the Yankees tried to obtain Cliff Lee before the trading deadline this year and they were not successful. I do believe that they will be willing to do whatever it takes to get him as a free agent in the offseason.
What it will take to sign Cliff Lee as a free agent: $$$
J Red (Hyde Park)
The Yankees are 4 for 26 with runners in scoring position this series. Is it only a matter of time before they snap out of their funk, or has Ranger pitching simply been that dominant?
JM: I think it's a combination.
Editor's note: We realize it is difficult for it to be a combination of the Yankees busting out of their slump in due time and the Rangers pitching being dominant for why the Yankees have struggled. Joe didn't read the question. In fact, we had a monkey answer this question because Joe had to go pee-pee. What's worse is the monkey can only read French and he never told us that on his employment application. Huge oversight on our part. The monkey has been reassigned as Rick Reilly's editor.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the Yankees can be so poor with runners in scoring position due to a combination of great Ranger pitching (which is very likely) and it only being a matter of time before they snap out of their funk. So they are bad with runners in scoring position because it will be a matter of time before they are out of their funk? I think Joe is too smart for me and talks over my head.
We saw how dominant Cliff Lee was. But the Yankees have not swung the bat this year as well as last year in general.
Yankees 2010 runs scored: 859
Yankees 2009 runs scored: 915
They have scored 0.34 runs less per game in 2010 as compared to 2009. Is this significant? Maybe. But considering the average American League team scored 0.37 less runs per game this year (the average AL team had 781 runs in 2009 and 721 in 2010), I don't know if it is a sign the Yankees swung the bat worse than other teams or struggled more than they should have.
They've had struggles this year where they couldn't score runs.
I can only imagine what Joe thinks about other MLB team's struggles to score runs if he thinks the team that led the majors in runs scored by 41 runs had times when they couldn't score runs. This is probably why he thinks the entire league is not "consistent" enough.
Matthew (Columbia, NJ)
Hey Joe, do you have a problem with Ryan Howard watching the Eagles game just before playing game 2 of the NLCS?
"Matthew, sure Ryan Howard watched the Eagles game, but what was Matt Holliday doing? No one knows exactly where he was at that point. So I am tired of people talking about Ryan Howard and what he was doing the day of Game 2 and ignoring what Matt Holliday was doing. Why doesn't Matt Holliday get shit for not being present for doing something he wanted to do before Game 2 of the NLCS on Sunday?"
That's the fake Joe Morgan answer for the week.
JM: No. A lot of times players need something to get their minds off of the game ahead. They need to relax before the game. A lot of times players will watch the game on TV, but he wanted to go there.
Editor's Note: We realize this is the entire issue discussed in the question, that Ryan Howard actually went to the Eagles game, and Joe answers with saying Howard wanted to go to the game without addressing whether he should have or not. Joe does the best he can with the questions asked in the time he is allotted in the chat. Yes, also we realize Joe is late for nearly every chat.
Players do different things to get ready for the game. I used to listen to jazz all day before the game. Some people might say that was a waste of time.
I personally don't have a problem with Ryan Howard going to the Eagles game, but I can see how some Phillies fans would take it. What I don't see is how Joe Morgan thinks that listening to jazz all day before a game is the same thing as attending a football game that goes until 4:15 when there is a 8:00pm game Howard has to attend. There is a difference in a leisure activity that is a waste of time and a leisure activity that could potentially affect a player's preparation time for a game that very day.
I can't help but wonder if the jazz album Joe used to listen before games to was called "Chance the Rhythm" and if the cover looks like what I thought it would look like. I shouldn't laugh at my own dumb jokes, but I still laugh to myself thinking of Joe with a red suede jacket thrown over his shoulder.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Hi Joe, who do you think has the pitching matchup in their favor for the AL game tonight?
JM: That's are to say.
Editor's Note: We realize this didn't make much sense. Joe has to type fast you see---fine, Joe doesn't really type his answers, there is someone who types for him and that person had a recent injury---ok, really there have been some cutbacks---you what, Joe's an idiot. Is that what you want me to say? There you go. He's an idiot and confused the word "are" and "hard." I don't know how a person does this either.
AJ Burnett has pitched great in the postseason, last year he did.
Hey, Joe is writing like he is writing a Dr. Seuss book!
"AJ Burnett pitched great in the postseason,
last year he did.
AJ Burnett is a great pitcher in the postseason,
that I would not kid.
If Burnett throws a ball in the dirt away,
away from the catcher it goes.
If a ball of Burnett's hits the dirt,
how many runs the Rangers score no one knows."
I've never seen Tommy Hunter pitch a game in person, so I don't know what to expect.
If only there was a small rectangular contraption that showed moving pictures which would allow Joe to have seen Tommy Hunter pitch at some point...that would fix this problem. IF ONLY!
He had a good record.
Which is the best indicator for how good a pitcher truly is. AJ Burnett won 10 games this year, but he also scares the shit out of any Yankees fan who watches him pitch in the postseason.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do the Yankees need to win the next 3 games so that they don't see Cliff Lee again in the series?
JM: I keep thinking that the Yankees will be able to handle Cliff Lee better each time, but that hasn't been the case. Lee lost 9 games this year and was 4-6 with Texas. He's not unbeatable.
He's not unbeatable but Lee has pitched 24 innings in 3 postseason starts, has given up 2 runs, walked one batter, struck out 34 batter, and has an ERA of 0.75. He's not unbeatable, but he's pretty freaking good at pitching right now. I think that has to factor into the Yankees feelings on facing Cliff Lee in Game 7.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do you think Ron Washington should have used Neftali in the 9th inning with an 8-run lead? Might this limit Neftali's availability somewhat over the next 2 nights if the Rangers happen to need him both nights?
JM: What happened is that remember,
Editor's note: We don't know either what that means. Full disclosure: We actually fired Joe three years ago. He just keeps coming to work and showing up in the broadcast booth. Every time someone reminds him he was fired, he just laughs and walks away.
Feliz hasn't pitched well so far in the postseason. He didn't pitch well against Tampa and he didn't pitch well against the Yankees earlier.
Feliz has given up one run in the postseason in 3.1 innings of work. He hasn't looked great, but his problem has mostly been walks not that hitters were hitting his pitches well. He's given up 2 hits, all in the game against Tampa Bay.
Ron Washington realizes that he's going to need his bullpen if they're going to win two more games. None of his pitchers, other than maybe Lee, are going to go 8-9 innings.
Which would go back to the original question of whether Ron Washington should have had Feliz pitch the 9th inning so that this could possibly limit his availability for the next two games in New York. That was the question and the question requires an answer...that Joe doesn't seem to address sufficiently. Joe never answers if this will limit Feliz's availability or not.
Feliz is a rookie and he's never experienced this kind of post season pressure. It's definitely effected him.
Nowhere in the question, and I mean at no point in the question, was there ever a hint of concern on Tito from Brooklyn's part about how the postseason pressure has affected Feliz. Yet, that is the question Joe answers.
Andrew (Philly)
Hey Joe, any predictions in the Phils-Giants game today? Which pitcher that has been pitching lights out (Hamels or Cain) gets hit up today?
JM: Hamels has to almost have perfect control to be as successful as he was against the Reds. The Giants are not a good hitting team, especially against left handed pitching.
The Giants hit .251 at LH pitchers, which is 19th in MLB. They slug .391 against LH pitchers, which is 19th in MLB. They hit .259 against RH pitchers, which is 14th in MLB. Joe has made a semi-true statement.
Matt Cain can be overpowering at times, but the Phillies have a good offense, especially against right handed pitchers.
The Phillies hit .256 against RH pitchers, which is 16th in MLB. They slug .407 against RH pitchers, which is 15th in MLB.
So Joe believes the Phillies are especially good at hitting RH pitchers, though they rank middle of the pack in terms of statistics, while the Giants are not a good hitting team, according to Joe, especially against LH pitchers, and they rank only 3-4 spots lower against LH pitchers as compared to how the Phillies rank against RH pitchers. Hmm...I find Joe's opinion on this issue interesting.
I would say the edge goes to the Phillies, but both are capable of pitching great games.
Editor's note: We have encouraged Joe to give an opinion in his chats, but he has told us he may or may not do this. It is really too early to tell whether he will or not.
Here is the typical sentence breakdown when Joe is asked to give an opinion between two things:
1. First sentence give an opinion that Team A/Player A is better.
2. Reinforce your opinion in sentence #1 with more information.
3. Retreat immediately from your first two sentences and write a sentence telling everyone not to count out Team B/Player B.
4. Write a sentence saying Team A/Player A is still better.
5. Write one last sentence saying both Team A/Player A and TeamB/Player B are both great.
Mike (Ohio)
Do you think not being able to seal the win in game 1 will come back to haunt Texas?
JM: Yes. I think it has already effected them.
The question was not whether the Game 1 loss affected the Rangers or not. Obviously this would be the case in a 7 game playoff series. The question is whether it would come back to haunt them or not. There is a small difference in how each question would be answered, but it would be nice if Joe could just answer the exact question being asked for once.
Everyone seems to be taking it for granted that Texas is going to win the series.
The series was 2-1 Rangers at this point. I don't know who was just assuming the Rangers would take the series, but it wasn't me. I think it may have been some of Joe's more idiotic colleagues or the voices in his head.
Those were the exact words that Josh Hamilton said after they lost Game 1, he said, Joe, this series is not over yet.
Literally, and even figuratively, the series was not over yet. There were six more games to be played and the Rangers still had a chance to win the series. I am not sure anyone, but the most overreacting analyst would look at how the Rangers played in Game 1 of the ALCS and thought the entire series was over.
Mike (Ohio)
The Rangers have struggled at home so far, with only one win. Is this just a fluke or something of concern?
JM: But I think they can win at home. Their ballpark fits their team, just like Yankee Stadiums fits the Yankees. Texas has a powerful lineup. They have speed. All of those things are better suited for their park.
Editor's note: I won't try to defend this one. I can only do so much.
Aren't teams with power and speed pretty much suited for every ballpark in existence? If a team has power, they can hit the ball out of a small ballpark and if that same team has speed then they could work well in a large ballpark. So if the Rangers have power and speed then they would be well suited for nearly every baseball stadium.
Austin (Lexington)
The reds had a great season this year, until they ran into philly, do you think they can return to that form next year?
Editor's note: Joe's relationship with the Cincinnati Reds in no way affects his ability to be a neutral analyst for ESPN. He only goes slightly overboard in his praise for the Reds, which is perfectly fine in the eyes of our network. We at ESPN have always believed there is nothing wrong with not reporting on a story or a team objectively if it fits our business purposes.
JM: I actually think the Reds will be better next year. They learned how to win and they have some players who will be better next year. Drew Stubbs is a blossoming star. Jay Bruce is also a star in the making. Joey Votto, Brandon Phillips, Scott Rolen are all good players. I think they will be better,
It sounds like Joe has pretty high hopes for one of his employers next year doesn't it...but then...
but it depends on the moves the other teams make, because they'll be trying to get better as well.
Yes, it is the typical Joe Morgan hedge that he loves to do. He goes on and on about how the Reds are going to be a better team, realizes that he is accidentally getting giddy with anticipation of his employer's team being good in 2011 and making a prediction of sorts, and then hedges to where everything he said previously has little value. No one dismisses his own opinion like Joe Morgan does.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do you think Eric Wedge is a good manager for Seattle?
JM: I can never put managers in certain situations,
Never I tell you! Joe Morgan does not have the capability to do things like this! Quit asking impossible things of him! Joe can't tell us anything about whether a manager would be good in a situation or not! He lacks information that he willfully refuses to obtain!
with the exception of Buck Showalter going to Baltimore, that was a good situation for him.
Well, you know, except for that one time when he could say that a manager was in a good situation.
I don't know Eric as well as I knew Buck, so I can't say for sure. But I think he will probably do a good job, because he helped lead Cleveland through two tough spots, basically rebuilding them twice.
"Let me make it very clear I can't answer this question accurately...but let me go ahead and answer the question."
I wonder how this would work in another line of work for Joe?
(Reporter) "President Morgan (cringes), is it true that North Korea has nuclear capabilities and if so, what can the United States do about this?"
(Joe Morgan, President of the United States) "I can never answer questions like this. It's so hard to say without the proper supporting evidence. I haven't seen the nuclear weapons or whatever they have, so I can't say for sure."
(Reporter) "Word is the North Koreans sunk a South Korean battleship with a missile, is that an overt act of war in your opinion?"
(Joe Morgan) "I didn't see the battleship sink, so I can't say whether the battleship sunk or not, but it is no longer in the same place it was supposed to be in the water and the crew has not responded to calls from the Navy. Also, there was a huge explosion reported where the battleship was located. Other than that, we know nothing."
(Reporter) "So you can't say whether the North Koreans have nuclear capabilities and seem bent on war?"
(Joe Morgan) "I never can tell if things like that are true, except in one situation a few years ago when I knew a country had nuclear weapons...but we took care of that (winks at the audience)."
(Reporter) "I'm not sure what that means...so you have nothing to report then? Why did you call the press conference?"
(Joe Morgan) "I will say I have heard recently the North Koreans have nuclear capabilities and they plan on blowing the hell out of most of Eastern Europe and any country in the Pacific Ocean. I think they probably do have nuclear weapons because they were building them a few months ago."
(Reporter) "But you just said..."
(Joe Morgan) "Gotta go!"
Tito (Brooklyn)
Did Cito Gaston get overlooked this year due to all the praise that people were slinging towards Bobby Cox all year?
JM: Cito Gaston has always been overlooked as a manager. He won back-to-back world championships, how many managers have done that? He just never got the credit. Gaston took that team, that was under .500 when he took over, and took them to two titles.
Here's the key to why Cito Gaston never got credit, and I am sure Joe Morgan doesn't know this, but guess how many winning seasons Cito Gaston has had as a manager since the 1993 season?
The answer is two. That was this year and what part of the 2008 season he managed. Gaston's Blue Jays won 55 and 56 games the two years after winning the World Series (yes, both of those were shortened seasons, but he had a winning percentage of .478 and .389 for those two years)
and he was fired after winning 74 and 72 games the next two seasons. Gaston isn't a terrible manager, but he had his chances with the Blue Jays and the team was pretty bad after the two World Series titles.
But if you look at all of the great managers, how many won 2 World Series titles?
The answer would appear to be 21 managers.
It's amazing to me that he won those titles and was fired by Toronto and didn't get another job until Toronto brought him back all those years later.
Yes and no. Yes, it is interesting no other team gave him a shot, but it isn't too shocking considering his record was 257-321 over the last four years of his career there. But, he could be seen as an underrated manager by some people, but I don't know if he was a great manager.
I think the one thing that we have seen in the series is that the starting pitchers are still the most important part of a pitching staff. I've said this for years that bullpens are great, but starting pitching is what takes you to the winner's circle.
Really? The bullpen plays a big role in the playoffs when it comes to which team wins. As Joe said earlier in this chat, not every pitcher is like Cliff Lee and goes 7, 8, or 9 innings.
Game 2 of the NLCS was partially decided by a shaky Giants bullpen and Game 4 was decided by which team had a better bullpen.
Game 1 of the ALCS was directly decided by the Rangers bullpen struggling, the Yankees bullpen melting down made Game 3's result more clear and made the difference in what could have been a 2-0 game in the bottom of the 9th inning and what turned out to be a 8-0 game at that point, and in Game 4 the home run by Molina put the Rangers ahead but the Yankees bullpen gave up more runs to the Rangers to help them put the game away. Great starting pitching can only take a team so far, unless that starting pitching is posting complete games.
This doesn't include the LDS games decided by a team's bullpen, which pretty much includes the entire Atlanta-San Francisco series.
Buzzmaster: Thanks for chatting Joe!
Editor's note: You will all receive a full refund for the 5 minutes of your life you wasted reading this chat. As a special bonus we will send you a Joe Morgan teddy bear just in time for Valentine's Day 2011 that has a heart-shaped button on its chest which says, "I would say 'I love you,' but it is really too early to tell."
If Joe Morgan has a chat and only Tito from Brooklyn is around to participate in it, does it still count as a chat? We find out this week. Joe answers 16 questions and Tito asked 5 of them. Next year I may have to add a "Tito from Brooklyn" tag for any JoeChats I cover. This week Joe talks for 26 full minutes about the playoffs. As you have noticed, I am going to do things a little different for this week's JoeChat. Because he talks mostly about the playoffs, I wanted to post this one earlier than Tuesday so that the questions and answers will be more relevant. I know this ruins the entire day of Tuesday for everyone, so I am sorry.
I have come to the conclusion Joe Morgan doesn't actually do these chats. He has probably refused to do them in the past and ESPN is paying him back by having an imposter chat under his name as payback for refusing to do weekly chats. ESPN is being cruel and making Joe sound like an idiot in his chats, but Joe doesn't care because he is a Hall of Fame second baseman and has better things to worry about. That explains why Joe doesn't seem very knowledgeable...I am being a JoeOptimist today. By the way, it is fun to throw "Joe" in front of every word when talking about him.
Even if you're not a Ranger fan or a baseball fan, you have to be impressed by the effort of Cliff Lee last night against the Yankees.
Editor's note: If you are not a baseball fan, you probably didn't watch the game Cliff Lee pitched against the Yankees on Monday. You probably are not aware of exactly how good Lee was if you don't like baseball. We at ESPN realize this, but Joe was trying to speak in generalities.
I think ESPN should hire an editor to put "editor's notes" in there after certain statements that Joe makes. I think I am going to do that for this chat...until I forget to do it, which could very well be the next question.
It just doesn't get any better than he pitched the Yankees lineup last night.
Editor's note: We realize this sentence doesn't make sense. Joe has to type fast. Please forgive him. We also realize it does actually get better than how Cliff Lee pitched the Yankees lineup. If Lee had pitched a no-hitter or a perfect game, it would have been better. Joe was using hyperbole.
You also have to have a tip of your hat for Andy Pettitte
Editor's note: We do realize this is a fucked up version of the phrase "tip of the hat to..." and we apologize to anyone who doesn't understand what the hell Joe is talking about. Frankly, we are confused, but we work with Lou Holtz also, so we are used to having to decipher what a person is trying to say.
Theo (Boston)
Considering Cliff Lee has won all three of his postseason starts against the Yankees, is it safe to say he?ll be in pinstripes next year as New York's "can?t miss" free agent?
My biggest question and one this article tackles is how long of a contract should Cliff Lee get this offseason? The article assumes Lee will fall off when his SO/BB ratio starts to decline, which they assume (based on past data) will happen as he gets older. That is possible, but I am not sure if that is a safe assumption or not.
JM: Well, the Yankees tried to obtain Cliff Lee before the trading deadline this year and they were not successful. I do believe that they will be willing to do whatever it takes to get him as a free agent in the offseason.
What it will take to sign Cliff Lee as a free agent: $$$
J Red (Hyde Park)
The Yankees are 4 for 26 with runners in scoring position this series. Is it only a matter of time before they snap out of their funk, or has Ranger pitching simply been that dominant?
JM: I think it's a combination.
Editor's note: We realize it is difficult for it to be a combination of the Yankees busting out of their slump in due time and the Rangers pitching being dominant for why the Yankees have struggled. Joe didn't read the question. In fact, we had a monkey answer this question because Joe had to go pee-pee. What's worse is the monkey can only read French and he never told us that on his employment application. Huge oversight on our part. The monkey has been reassigned as Rick Reilly's editor.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the Yankees can be so poor with runners in scoring position due to a combination of great Ranger pitching (which is very likely) and it only being a matter of time before they snap out of their funk. So they are bad with runners in scoring position because it will be a matter of time before they are out of their funk? I think Joe is too smart for me and talks over my head.
We saw how dominant Cliff Lee was. But the Yankees have not swung the bat this year as well as last year in general.
Yankees 2010 runs scored: 859
Yankees 2009 runs scored: 915
They have scored 0.34 runs less per game in 2010 as compared to 2009. Is this significant? Maybe. But considering the average American League team scored 0.37 less runs per game this year (the average AL team had 781 runs in 2009 and 721 in 2010), I don't know if it is a sign the Yankees swung the bat worse than other teams or struggled more than they should have.
They've had struggles this year where they couldn't score runs.
I can only imagine what Joe thinks about other MLB team's struggles to score runs if he thinks the team that led the majors in runs scored by 41 runs had times when they couldn't score runs. This is probably why he thinks the entire league is not "consistent" enough.
Matthew (Columbia, NJ)
Hey Joe, do you have a problem with Ryan Howard watching the Eagles game just before playing game 2 of the NLCS?
"Matthew, sure Ryan Howard watched the Eagles game, but what was Matt Holliday doing? No one knows exactly where he was at that point. So I am tired of people talking about Ryan Howard and what he was doing the day of Game 2 and ignoring what Matt Holliday was doing. Why doesn't Matt Holliday get shit for not being present for doing something he wanted to do before Game 2 of the NLCS on Sunday?"
That's the fake Joe Morgan answer for the week.
JM: No. A lot of times players need something to get their minds off of the game ahead. They need to relax before the game. A lot of times players will watch the game on TV, but he wanted to go there.
Editor's Note: We realize this is the entire issue discussed in the question, that Ryan Howard actually went to the Eagles game, and Joe answers with saying Howard wanted to go to the game without addressing whether he should have or not. Joe does the best he can with the questions asked in the time he is allotted in the chat. Yes, also we realize Joe is late for nearly every chat.
Players do different things to get ready for the game. I used to listen to jazz all day before the game. Some people might say that was a waste of time.
I personally don't have a problem with Ryan Howard going to the Eagles game, but I can see how some Phillies fans would take it. What I don't see is how Joe Morgan thinks that listening to jazz all day before a game is the same thing as attending a football game that goes until 4:15 when there is a 8:00pm game Howard has to attend. There is a difference in a leisure activity that is a waste of time and a leisure activity that could potentially affect a player's preparation time for a game that very day.
I can't help but wonder if the jazz album Joe used to listen before games to was called "Chance the Rhythm" and if the cover looks like what I thought it would look like. I shouldn't laugh at my own dumb jokes, but I still laugh to myself thinking of Joe with a red suede jacket thrown over his shoulder.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Hi Joe, who do you think has the pitching matchup in their favor for the AL game tonight?
JM: That's are to say.
Editor's Note: We realize this didn't make much sense. Joe has to type fast you see---fine, Joe doesn't really type his answers, there is someone who types for him and that person had a recent injury---ok, really there have been some cutbacks---you what, Joe's an idiot. Is that what you want me to say? There you go. He's an idiot and confused the word "are" and "hard." I don't know how a person does this either.
AJ Burnett has pitched great in the postseason, last year he did.
Hey, Joe is writing like he is writing a Dr. Seuss book!
"AJ Burnett pitched great in the postseason,
last year he did.
AJ Burnett is a great pitcher in the postseason,
that I would not kid.
If Burnett throws a ball in the dirt away,
away from the catcher it goes.
If a ball of Burnett's hits the dirt,
how many runs the Rangers score no one knows."
I've never seen Tommy Hunter pitch a game in person, so I don't know what to expect.
If only there was a small rectangular contraption that showed moving pictures which would allow Joe to have seen Tommy Hunter pitch at some point...that would fix this problem. IF ONLY!
He had a good record.
Which is the best indicator for how good a pitcher truly is. AJ Burnett won 10 games this year, but he also scares the shit out of any Yankees fan who watches him pitch in the postseason.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do the Yankees need to win the next 3 games so that they don't see Cliff Lee again in the series?
JM: I keep thinking that the Yankees will be able to handle Cliff Lee better each time, but that hasn't been the case. Lee lost 9 games this year and was 4-6 with Texas. He's not unbeatable.
He's not unbeatable but Lee has pitched 24 innings in 3 postseason starts, has given up 2 runs, walked one batter, struck out 34 batter, and has an ERA of 0.75. He's not unbeatable, but he's pretty freaking good at pitching right now. I think that has to factor into the Yankees feelings on facing Cliff Lee in Game 7.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do you think Ron Washington should have used Neftali in the 9th inning with an 8-run lead? Might this limit Neftali's availability somewhat over the next 2 nights if the Rangers happen to need him both nights?
JM: What happened is that remember,
Editor's note: We don't know either what that means. Full disclosure: We actually fired Joe three years ago. He just keeps coming to work and showing up in the broadcast booth. Every time someone reminds him he was fired, he just laughs and walks away.
Feliz hasn't pitched well so far in the postseason. He didn't pitch well against Tampa and he didn't pitch well against the Yankees earlier.
Feliz has given up one run in the postseason in 3.1 innings of work. He hasn't looked great, but his problem has mostly been walks not that hitters were hitting his pitches well. He's given up 2 hits, all in the game against Tampa Bay.
Ron Washington realizes that he's going to need his bullpen if they're going to win two more games. None of his pitchers, other than maybe Lee, are going to go 8-9 innings.
Which would go back to the original question of whether Ron Washington should have had Feliz pitch the 9th inning so that this could possibly limit his availability for the next two games in New York. That was the question and the question requires an answer...that Joe doesn't seem to address sufficiently. Joe never answers if this will limit Feliz's availability or not.
Feliz is a rookie and he's never experienced this kind of post season pressure. It's definitely effected him.
Nowhere in the question, and I mean at no point in the question, was there ever a hint of concern on Tito from Brooklyn's part about how the postseason pressure has affected Feliz. Yet, that is the question Joe answers.
Andrew (Philly)
Hey Joe, any predictions in the Phils-Giants game today? Which pitcher that has been pitching lights out (Hamels or Cain) gets hit up today?
JM: Hamels has to almost have perfect control to be as successful as he was against the Reds. The Giants are not a good hitting team, especially against left handed pitching.
The Giants hit .251 at LH pitchers, which is 19th in MLB. They slug .391 against LH pitchers, which is 19th in MLB. They hit .259 against RH pitchers, which is 14th in MLB. Joe has made a semi-true statement.
Matt Cain can be overpowering at times, but the Phillies have a good offense, especially against right handed pitchers.
The Phillies hit .256 against RH pitchers, which is 16th in MLB. They slug .407 against RH pitchers, which is 15th in MLB.
So Joe believes the Phillies are especially good at hitting RH pitchers, though they rank middle of the pack in terms of statistics, while the Giants are not a good hitting team, according to Joe, especially against LH pitchers, and they rank only 3-4 spots lower against LH pitchers as compared to how the Phillies rank against RH pitchers. Hmm...I find Joe's opinion on this issue interesting.
I would say the edge goes to the Phillies, but both are capable of pitching great games.
Editor's note: We have encouraged Joe to give an opinion in his chats, but he has told us he may or may not do this. It is really too early to tell whether he will or not.
Here is the typical sentence breakdown when Joe is asked to give an opinion between two things:
1. First sentence give an opinion that Team A/Player A is better.
2. Reinforce your opinion in sentence #1 with more information.
3. Retreat immediately from your first two sentences and write a sentence telling everyone not to count out Team B/Player B.
4. Write a sentence saying Team A/Player A is still better.
5. Write one last sentence saying both Team A/Player A and TeamB/Player B are both great.
Mike (Ohio)
Do you think not being able to seal the win in game 1 will come back to haunt Texas?
JM: Yes. I think it has already effected them.
The question was not whether the Game 1 loss affected the Rangers or not. Obviously this would be the case in a 7 game playoff series. The question is whether it would come back to haunt them or not. There is a small difference in how each question would be answered, but it would be nice if Joe could just answer the exact question being asked for once.
Everyone seems to be taking it for granted that Texas is going to win the series.
The series was 2-1 Rangers at this point. I don't know who was just assuming the Rangers would take the series, but it wasn't me. I think it may have been some of Joe's more idiotic colleagues or the voices in his head.
Those were the exact words that Josh Hamilton said after they lost Game 1, he said, Joe, this series is not over yet.
Literally, and even figuratively, the series was not over yet. There were six more games to be played and the Rangers still had a chance to win the series. I am not sure anyone, but the most overreacting analyst would look at how the Rangers played in Game 1 of the ALCS and thought the entire series was over.
Mike (Ohio)
The Rangers have struggled at home so far, with only one win. Is this just a fluke or something of concern?
JM: But I think they can win at home. Their ballpark fits their team, just like Yankee Stadiums fits the Yankees. Texas has a powerful lineup. They have speed. All of those things are better suited for their park.
Editor's note: I won't try to defend this one. I can only do so much.
Aren't teams with power and speed pretty much suited for every ballpark in existence? If a team has power, they can hit the ball out of a small ballpark and if that same team has speed then they could work well in a large ballpark. So if the Rangers have power and speed then they would be well suited for nearly every baseball stadium.
Austin (Lexington)
The reds had a great season this year, until they ran into philly, do you think they can return to that form next year?
Editor's note: Joe's relationship with the Cincinnati Reds in no way affects his ability to be a neutral analyst for ESPN. He only goes slightly overboard in his praise for the Reds, which is perfectly fine in the eyes of our network. We at ESPN have always believed there is nothing wrong with not reporting on a story or a team objectively if it fits our business purposes.
JM: I actually think the Reds will be better next year. They learned how to win and they have some players who will be better next year. Drew Stubbs is a blossoming star. Jay Bruce is also a star in the making. Joey Votto, Brandon Phillips, Scott Rolen are all good players. I think they will be better,
It sounds like Joe has pretty high hopes for one of his employers next year doesn't it...but then...
but it depends on the moves the other teams make, because they'll be trying to get better as well.
Yes, it is the typical Joe Morgan hedge that he loves to do. He goes on and on about how the Reds are going to be a better team, realizes that he is accidentally getting giddy with anticipation of his employer's team being good in 2011 and making a prediction of sorts, and then hedges to where everything he said previously has little value. No one dismisses his own opinion like Joe Morgan does.
Tito (Brooklyn)
Do you think Eric Wedge is a good manager for Seattle?
JM: I can never put managers in certain situations,
Never I tell you! Joe Morgan does not have the capability to do things like this! Quit asking impossible things of him! Joe can't tell us anything about whether a manager would be good in a situation or not! He lacks information that he willfully refuses to obtain!
with the exception of Buck Showalter going to Baltimore, that was a good situation for him.
Well, you know, except for that one time when he could say that a manager was in a good situation.
I don't know Eric as well as I knew Buck, so I can't say for sure. But I think he will probably do a good job, because he helped lead Cleveland through two tough spots, basically rebuilding them twice.
"Let me make it very clear I can't answer this question accurately...but let me go ahead and answer the question."
I wonder how this would work in another line of work for Joe?
(Reporter) "President Morgan (cringes), is it true that North Korea has nuclear capabilities and if so, what can the United States do about this?"
(Joe Morgan, President of the United States) "I can never answer questions like this. It's so hard to say without the proper supporting evidence. I haven't seen the nuclear weapons or whatever they have, so I can't say for sure."
(Reporter) "Word is the North Koreans sunk a South Korean battleship with a missile, is that an overt act of war in your opinion?"
(Joe Morgan) "I didn't see the battleship sink, so I can't say whether the battleship sunk or not, but it is no longer in the same place it was supposed to be in the water and the crew has not responded to calls from the Navy. Also, there was a huge explosion reported where the battleship was located. Other than that, we know nothing."
(Reporter) "So you can't say whether the North Koreans have nuclear capabilities and seem bent on war?"
(Joe Morgan) "I never can tell if things like that are true, except in one situation a few years ago when I knew a country had nuclear weapons...but we took care of that (winks at the audience)."
(Reporter) "I'm not sure what that means...so you have nothing to report then? Why did you call the press conference?"
(Joe Morgan) "I will say I have heard recently the North Koreans have nuclear capabilities and they plan on blowing the hell out of most of Eastern Europe and any country in the Pacific Ocean. I think they probably do have nuclear weapons because they were building them a few months ago."
(Reporter) "But you just said..."
(Joe Morgan) "Gotta go!"
Tito (Brooklyn)
Did Cito Gaston get overlooked this year due to all the praise that people were slinging towards Bobby Cox all year?
JM: Cito Gaston has always been overlooked as a manager. He won back-to-back world championships, how many managers have done that? He just never got the credit. Gaston took that team, that was under .500 when he took over, and took them to two titles.
Here's the key to why Cito Gaston never got credit, and I am sure Joe Morgan doesn't know this, but guess how many winning seasons Cito Gaston has had as a manager since the 1993 season?
The answer is two. That was this year and what part of the 2008 season he managed. Gaston's Blue Jays won 55 and 56 games the two years after winning the World Series (yes, both of those were shortened seasons, but he had a winning percentage of .478 and .389 for those two years)
and he was fired after winning 74 and 72 games the next two seasons. Gaston isn't a terrible manager, but he had his chances with the Blue Jays and the team was pretty bad after the two World Series titles.
But if you look at all of the great managers, how many won 2 World Series titles?
The answer would appear to be 21 managers.
It's amazing to me that he won those titles and was fired by Toronto and didn't get another job until Toronto brought him back all those years later.
Yes and no. Yes, it is interesting no other team gave him a shot, but it isn't too shocking considering his record was 257-321 over the last four years of his career there. But, he could be seen as an underrated manager by some people, but I don't know if he was a great manager.
I think the one thing that we have seen in the series is that the starting pitchers are still the most important part of a pitching staff. I've said this for years that bullpens are great, but starting pitching is what takes you to the winner's circle.
Really? The bullpen plays a big role in the playoffs when it comes to which team wins. As Joe said earlier in this chat, not every pitcher is like Cliff Lee and goes 7, 8, or 9 innings.
Game 2 of the NLCS was partially decided by a shaky Giants bullpen and Game 4 was decided by which team had a better bullpen.
Game 1 of the ALCS was directly decided by the Rangers bullpen struggling, the Yankees bullpen melting down made Game 3's result more clear and made the difference in what could have been a 2-0 game in the bottom of the 9th inning and what turned out to be a 8-0 game at that point, and in Game 4 the home run by Molina put the Rangers ahead but the Yankees bullpen gave up more runs to the Rangers to help them put the game away. Great starting pitching can only take a team so far, unless that starting pitching is posting complete games.
This doesn't include the LDS games decided by a team's bullpen, which pretty much includes the entire Atlanta-San Francisco series.
Buzzmaster: Thanks for chatting Joe!
Editor's note: You will all receive a full refund for the 5 minutes of your life you wasted reading this chat. As a special bonus we will send you a Joe Morgan teddy bear just in time for Valentine's Day 2011 that has a heart-shaped button on its chest which says, "I would say 'I love you,' but it is really too early to tell."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)