My "Get Over It" award of the week" goes to Henry Schulman of the SFGate, which is apparently home to the San Francisco Chronicle. He is boycotting the ESPN Sunday Night Baseball games until they quit showing the Mets. I have to agree with him that ESPN has shown a lot of Mets games recently and I am behind him on this losing battle of having more teams represented on ESPN's telecasts. It won't happen, we have to get over this. ESPN needs to make money, not make friends, and high-profile teams make them more money. I 100% agree with him in principle with what he is talking about.
He gets my "Get Over It" award because there isn't even a need to complain about it now. It won't change now, or ever. Why does he even watch ESPN's telecasts of baseball games anyway? What possible value could hearing and seeing ESPN telecast a game that doesn't feature the Giants bring him? Why watch ESPN at all is my question? So my answer to his reasonable and impossible-to-fix complaint is get over it and just stop watching baseball games televised on ESPN that don't involve the Giants. That's what I did except for unusual circumstances.
As if I need to provide more proof of why I don't watch many ESPN MLB telecasts, here is the JoeChat. Lets's see what the new special advisor to the Reds has to say about the baseball year so far:
JM: One thing that I've taken notice of this year has been the fact that the stars are still being the stars. They're being consistent from the beginning of the season.Whereas, we're finding that a lot of teams that were supposed to be at the top of the division are struggling,
No one expected the Twins, Phillies or Cardinals would be leading their division at this time of year. What a wild and crazy season this has been!
but the star players are still playing like stars. I'm specifically talking about guys like Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Pujols, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Jeter. Guys like that are playing consistent. I think that separates them even more from the pack.
I think what else separates them from the pack is that Joe just named six guys who have 7 MVPs among them. I think what makes Manny so consistent is that he has been on the 15-day DL since April 22nd. Of course Joe did this chat on April 27, so I am assuming he knew this.
I also like how he puts Alex Rodriguez in there, which is correct in that he is playing consistent, but he is consistently average (for him) with a .253/.342/.421 line this season so far. It is not like A-Rod is tearing it up or playing excessively well this year. Ryan Howard is also underachieving for him with a .273/.310/.491 line. Not to mention it is May 5th, so it is kind of hard for a player to not be consistent since so few games have been played so far. Saying a player has been consistent after such a small sample size is classic Joe Morgan.
Clay D NY [via mobile]
What are your thoughts on A-Rod walking over the mound against Oakland?
"He needs to be more consistent with his walking over the mound. Also, Dave Concepcion should be in the Hall of Fame."
JM: I have to admit that I have been corrected, because I didn't know that unwritten rule. I've seen different reports. One said that he stomped on the rubber. The other said that he walked over the mound.
If only there was a site that SHOWED you what happened, like in video form. If only. Then, and only then, could Joe Morgan speak to exactly what happened.
The pitcher said that was his mound, but it could be the Yankees' pitcher's mound too, right?
(Bengoodfella lowering his IQ 45 points to understand what Joe is saying)
So Joe is saying that the Yankees have to pitch off the mound too, so really the mound isn't actually the A's...even though the A's were pitching on the mound when the incident in question occurred?
(Raising IQ 45 points back to his original level) Yes, but it wasn't the Yankees mound at THAT POINT though, which is the problem Dallas Braden had with A-Rod's little adventure across the mound. I am not sure I had ever heard the rule either, but I have only been following baseball since I can remember so I may have missed it at some point.
If he's standing on the mound, I understand that. But I don't think he was.
Is this a game of tag or something? Is the mound "base?" Why does Dallas Braden have to be on the mound at the same time as A-Rod in order to be authorized to get pissed off? More importantly, what the hell is Joe talking about?
If that's the case, then pitcher's shouldn't stand in the hitter's batting box.
Is Joe Morgan familiar with the sport he gets paid to cover? The pitcher doesn't stand in the batter's box at any point, other than to yell at the umpire or when he is batting...at which case the pitcher isn't a pitcher, but a batter. The pitcher almost never goes in the batter's box. What the hell is Joe talking about?
Joe (LA)
Is Ryan Howard really worth 25 mil/year?
No.
JM: Well, let's put it this way. If Joe Mauer is worth 23 or so. A guy that hits 40 plus HRs and drives in 140 runs a year and Joe Mauer has never done that, then I would say yes.
This could perhaps be some of the worst analysis of the day. It is actually just plain embarrassing this is the best Joe Morgan can do. Joe Mauer plays a premium position, catcher, where great players with certain statistics are worth more than another player at a different position with the same statistics. So this has to be taken into account.
What else has to be taken into account is how long Ryan Howard will be paid $25 million dollars. This isn't a one year contract. If we are comparing the two, will Mauer (we are assuming he is still a catcher) be worth $23 million at the age of 32-34 and will Ryan Howard be worth 34-36 years old as a first basemen? I am not even going to get into Joe's comment about how Mauer has never hit 40 home runs and driven in 140 runs, like those are the only two ways a player can contribute to a team, but this isn't an easy comparison. Rather than just looking at each player's home runs and RBI's and judging from there, we have to look at each player's position and how old they will be (and how productive they are) while they are both still making $20+ million per year.
So I don't think it is just easy to say, "if Mauer is worth $23 million then Ryan Howard is worth $25 million."
Howard produces numbers and that's what we've come to in this game is about numbers. I don't necessarily like the fact that it's about numbers, but he produces them.
What should it be about? Consistency? Some other mythical baseball idea I am not aware of? We never get the answer to this and Joe moves on.
Ray A. (San Francisco, CA)
Mr. Morgan, what do you think of the Giants Tim Lincecum? If you could compare him to one pitcher, who would it be?
JM: Obviously, he has proven to me that he is going to, he's not yet there, a great pitcher.
He's had two full seasons in the majors. His statistics look like this:
2008: 18-5, 2.62 ERA, 169 ERA+, 265 strikeouts.
2009: 15-7, 2.48 ERA, 177 ERA+, 261 strikeouts.
By the way, he is 4-0 with a 1.70 ERA, 0.827 WHIP, and 262 ERA+ this year. He is a great pitcher at the age of 26. I don't care what Joe Morgan says.
Being blunt with you, I didn't think he should have won the Cy Young last year. Wainwright, to me, had the best season of a pitcher last year.
Lincecum went 2-3 down the stretch.
It is fine if Joe prefers Wainwright, but simply because Lincecum went 2-3 down the stretch is not a reason to favor Wainwright. Lincecum lost his last three games by the scores of 2-1, 6-2, and 3-0. The Giants scored 3 RUNS TOTAL in the games he lost to end the season. Clearly this is not his fault and to throw out this statistic of Lincecum going 2-3 down the stretch in order to prove Lincecum struggled during this period is misleading at it's very best.
This is why the statistics "wins" to compare pitchers is used too often. Idiots like Joe Morgan randomly use the statistic in an attempt to prove something and he ends up looking ignorant to anyone who looks into why Lincecum went 2-3 down the stretch. Lincecum going 2-3 down the stretch is not a representation of how well he pitched down the stretch.
I still believe that he's going to be a great pitcher. All that said, he's phenomenal in the way he handles pitchers this year.
I hope he realizes Tim Lincecum is a pitcher and not a catcher. He shouldn't be handling pitchers at all.
I just think you have to wait a little bit before comparing him to a Juan Marichal.
Who the fuck compared Tim Lincecum to Juan Marichal? I think the voices in Joe's head are taking over.
I would compare them, because they both use the fastball and a lot of other pitches.
So we shouldn't compare Lincecum to Juan Marichal, but Joe thinks they are a lot alike. More importantly, you could also compare every other pitcher in MLB using this standard since 95% of them use a fastball and a lot of other pitches.
But if you look at someone that's pitching now, I would say Johan Santana, except he's lefthanded.
So Lincecum is just like Johan Santana, except not really.
Let's sum up what Joe has said here. He said Tim Lincecum is not a great pitcher, we shouldn't compare them to Juan Marichal, he thinks Lincecum is a lot like Juan Marichal because he throws a fastball and a lot of other pitches, Lincecum isn't a great pitcher yet, but he is a lot like a guy who is a great pitcher, Johan Santana. Got all that?
Clay D (NY)
What player, either current or past, does Jason Heyward remind you of the most?
JM: Probably the only player you could compare him to that young is Joe Mauer.
Well naturally the only player you can compare Jason Heyward to, present or past, is Joe Mauer. I can't think of any other comparisons (Dave Parker, though that one is overdone) that would be appropriate...unless you discount the other 100 people Heyward has been compared to that isn't Joe Mauer. When I think of Jason Heyward's game, I think of Joe Mauer being so much like him.
They're different types of players,
Clearly, Joe Morgan has difficulty with understanding what it means to compare players who he claims are alike.
Being a rookie, he's had off days, striking out three times in one game.
This reminds me, Joe Morgan was talking about how Ryan Howard was worth $25 million per season and he didn't even mention how many times he strikes out in a game as a negative. It is good to see that Joe is progressing like that and is not afraid of strikeouts as much anymore.
Shane (Knoxville)
Joe, as a former player, how do you feel about how star players get paid these rediculous amounts of salary that they consider "fair" or "market value", causing teams to trade good players because they can't "afford" them?
JM: I'm not one of the old guys that say they shouldn't get paid. I think they should get paid whatever the market will bear. I don't see anyone complaining when Tom Cruise gets paid $50 million for a movie and then more than that for residual DVD sales.
Actually, I would like to complain about that. Tom Cruise sucks and he shouldn't make that much money. Possibly the Thetans (whatever the hell those are supposed to be) are the reason he makes so much money and that's great for him, but I am still pissed he makes shitty movies now AND he mentally screwed-up Katie Holmes. So I would like to complain about how much he makes for movies. I don't think I am the first. I believe Paramount complained too as the cut their ties with Cruise a few years ago.
Last year, MLB tried to cut salaries, but the stars will still get paid.
I am fairly certain this didn't happen. If MLB got together with teams and tried to cut player's salaries, that would be collusion, which I am pretty sure is illegal for MLB management and teams to do. Maybe they WANTED to cut salaries, but had no real way of doing it.
It's unfortunate that the superstars will get most of the payroll, but it's the same with other sports as well. Manning, Favre, Brady, those guys make big money too. I look at other sports and other entertainment industries and it's the same. The NBA, LeBron James is going to get whatever money he wants.
This is actually incorrect. The NBA has a cap on what free agents can earn on the free agent market and the NFL also has a salary cap teams must stay under. The elite players in these sports do take up a good portion of the payroll, but LeBron James isn't going to get whatever money he wants on the free agent market. There is a cap on how much he can get.
For a quick second though, imagine how much LeBron James would be worth on the open market. What would he be worth? 7 years $200 million? 10 years $400 million? Would that amount really be off the table if he could earn as much as he wanted?
Nora (St. Louis)
JM: You have to start with Halladay, until last night. He was undefeated until then.
It still constantly grates me when Joe Morgan says shit like this. The fact Halladay lost a game means he isn't the best pitcher in the National League? Is Albert Pujols not as good of a hitter when compared to Ryan Howard because Pujols' team hasn't made the World Series while Howard's team has? Is Ernie Banks not as good of a shortstop compared to Phil Rizzuto because Ruzzuto has more World Series rings? Why does Joe insist on tying a team winning/losing a game directly to a pitcher's performance with no other data involved?
I realize pitchers have more to do with winning a game than one single batter, but to judge a pitcher individually on how the team did, still seems slightly unfair to me.
Lincecum has not been defeated. He's pitched great.
But he is still not a great pitcher in Joe's mind. He's pitched great, but he isn't a great pitcher yet...for reasons only known to Joe.
The guy who has pitched well and maybe wasn't supposed to is Mike Pelfrey.
Who knew the #9 overall pick in the 2005 draft would be a good pitcher and could pitch well? NO ONE EXPECTED THIS TO HAPPEN! I would have thought Pelfrey would be washed up at the age of 26.
Brad Penny has pitched well. Barry Zito.
I've been impressed with a lot of pitchers. That's just to name a few.
Joe named five pitchers here. I don't know why Nora was looking for an actual answer from Joe Morgan to a direct question posed to him. He can't, and won't, give a direct answer. I do have to tip my hat to Joe, if this is really him answering these questions, because he at least he named pitchers who were currently pitching well. Just a few questions ago he said Alex Rodriguez and Ryan Howard were playing well this year when they are actually playing at a level below their usual standard.
Matt (Puyallup, WA)
Hi Joe, thanks for your time. What are your thoughts on Mike Pelfrey? While he didn't exactly dominate on Sunday, he did well enough & he seems like he has real presence in the early going - even moreso than his solid 4 months or so in 2008. What do you think is Pelfrey's ceiling going forward?
JM: I go back to something that Herm Edwards, the football coach said: You play to win the game. Pelfrey didn't dominate on Sunday, he still pitched well enough to win.
Ok, that's not really answering the question too much, providing a quote about football and then saying Pelfrey pitched well enough to win. I can't help but add Pelfrey pitched well enough to win because his offense scored enough runs to help him win, but Joe acts mentally handicapped and somehow can't see how a team scoring runs and a pitcher "pitching well enough to win" sort of go hand-in-hand. If the team scores a bunch of runs, their pitcher pitched well enough to win, whereas he didn't pitch well enough to win if his team didn't score many runs. We all know by now this type stuff irritates me.
If Pelfrey pitches 6 innings and gives up 2 runs, but his team scored 1 run and the Mets lost, he still pitched well enough to win, but his team didn't score enough runs.
If Pelfrey pitches 6 innings and gives up 7 runs and the Mets scored 9 runs and the Mets won, he didn't pitch well enough to win, but the Mets still won. Pitching well enough to win has a lot to do with how many runs are scored by that pitcher's offense. I can't see how Joe can't see this.
I believe that the pitchers job is to go out there and win the game, not to work on your WHIP or ERA, but to win.
That is his job, but a pitcher can't be judged for a poor offense. A poor offense shouldn't reflect badly on how a pitcher pitched in a given game.
In most cases it's harder to win a game 5-4 than it is to win 2-1.
I can't even begin to understand how the hell this is true. They are both one run games and I would think it would be harder for a pitcher to give up one run in a game compared to giving up four runs.
I believe that we've gotten to a point where statistics are the only thing that's important, but you play to win the game.
No, no, no. This isn't about statistics. This is about common-fucking-sense. A pitcher who has pitched a 9 inning game and given up 3 runs, but loses has not pitched ANY WORSE than a pitcher who has pitched a 9 inning game and given up 3 runs, but his team wins the game. There is no difference. It's like basic algebra. If "X" stays the same, but the result ("Z") is different, then it is because "Y" changed.
Here's an example:
X= runs given up, Y= runs scored, Z= positive/negative score (whether team loses or not)
X + Y = Z is the basic equation...
Example 1: X= 2, Y= 4, Z=?
"Z" would equal 2 and that team would win.
Now if we know Z= -2 and X stays the same (the pitcher has given up the exact same number of runs) then Y has changed. So it is not "X's" fault "Z" has changed because Y can't hold up its end of the bargain. I am confusing everyone, but this isn't brain surgery, it is really, really basic. Quit holding pitchers accountable for wins and losses when the reason a team lost isn't that clear.
I am not giving up until every man, woman, and child understands it is fine to play to win the game, but whether a pitcher has done well in a game ("X") isn't based on whether the team wins or loses ("Z") all the time. It also depends on variable "Y" which is how many runs his team has scored.
Clay D (NY)
How much more years does Jeter have at this pace offensively?
JM: I'm not nearly concerned offensively as I am defensively.
Nobody gives a shit what you are concerned about. The question was about Jeter's offense. The question isn't, "what concerns you most about Derek Jeter?"
How long can you play shortstop? At what age do you lose range that it hurts the team?
Apparently Derek Jeter loses his range in his mid-20's. It is amazing what using the Internet to find answers can get you.
Then he gets it back when his in his mid-30's. Of course those damned statistics would tell Joe Morgan the answer to this question and he wouldn't have to ask it, but who really needs statistics when the point is to win baseball games?
Offensively, he can play another position and do well.
I'd love to know more about what position Joe Morgan thinks Jeter would play. Not first base because Tex is there and isn't going to be moving, A-Rod seems to have third base covered for the time being, Robinson Cano doesn't have prior experience playing another position as far as I know, Jeter isn't going to play catcher, and I don't know if you want him in centerfield...so that leaves left field or right field for him to play. I am being nitpicky, but I don't know if Jeter can play another position and do well...unless another player moves positions.
He has a unique hitting in that he fights the ball off so well. I'm not concerned about the offense, but how long can you play shortstop at a high level on a championship team?'
Considering his UZR is actually improving, probably a few more years. Of course why would anyone be interested in statistics like this that can help find answers to questions? I know Joe would probably rather spend the rest of his life wondering the answer to this rather than using damned statistics to try and figure it out.
I like how Joe still never answered the question posed to him because he isn't concerned about Jeter's offense.
JM: I'm broadcasting the Phillies-Mets this weekend. There's a lot of talk about Howard, but I'm always asking people, what about Chase Utley? He's the best hitting second baseman in the league. He drives in runs and scores runs. He's a much better player than he gets credit for.
Yeah, why doesn't anyone talk about this Chase Utley guy? He has only been in the last four All-Star games and has only won the last four Silver Sluggers at second base. Can't he get elected King of Philadelphia or honored with a parade in some fashion? Doesn't anyone outside of Philadelphia know his name? No one talks about this guy being any good.
Buzzmaster
Thanks for chatting Joe!
I look forward to arguing with what he writes all summer...actually, I don't look forward to it.
This could perhaps be some of the worst analysis of the day. It is actually just plain embarrassing this is the best Joe Morgan can do. Joe Mauer plays a premium position, catcher, where great players with certain statistics are worth more than another player at a different position with the same statistics. So this has to be taken into account.
What else has to be taken into account is how long Ryan Howard will be paid $25 million dollars. This isn't a one year contract. If we are comparing the two, will Mauer (we are assuming he is still a catcher) be worth $23 million at the age of 32-34 and will Ryan Howard be worth 34-36 years old as a first basemen? I am not even going to get into Joe's comment about how Mauer has never hit 40 home runs and driven in 140 runs, like those are the only two ways a player can contribute to a team, but this isn't an easy comparison. Rather than just looking at each player's home runs and RBI's and judging from there, we have to look at each player's position and how old they will be (and how productive they are) while they are both still making $20+ million per year.
So I don't think it is just easy to say, "if Mauer is worth $23 million then Ryan Howard is worth $25 million."
Howard produces numbers and that's what we've come to in this game is about numbers. I don't necessarily like the fact that it's about numbers, but he produces them.
What should it be about? Consistency? Some other mythical baseball idea I am not aware of? We never get the answer to this and Joe moves on.
Ray A. (San Francisco, CA)
Mr. Morgan, what do you think of the Giants Tim Lincecum? If you could compare him to one pitcher, who would it be?
JM: Obviously, he has proven to me that he is going to, he's not yet there, a great pitcher.
He's had two full seasons in the majors. His statistics look like this:
2008: 18-5, 2.62 ERA, 169 ERA+, 265 strikeouts.
2009: 15-7, 2.48 ERA, 177 ERA+, 261 strikeouts.
By the way, he is 4-0 with a 1.70 ERA, 0.827 WHIP, and 262 ERA+ this year. He is a great pitcher at the age of 26. I don't care what Joe Morgan says.
Being blunt with you, I didn't think he should have won the Cy Young last year. Wainwright, to me, had the best season of a pitcher last year.
Lincecum went 2-3 down the stretch.
It is fine if Joe prefers Wainwright, but simply because Lincecum went 2-3 down the stretch is not a reason to favor Wainwright. Lincecum lost his last three games by the scores of 2-1, 6-2, and 3-0. The Giants scored 3 RUNS TOTAL in the games he lost to end the season. Clearly this is not his fault and to throw out this statistic of Lincecum going 2-3 down the stretch in order to prove Lincecum struggled during this period is misleading at it's very best.
This is why the statistics "wins" to compare pitchers is used too often. Idiots like Joe Morgan randomly use the statistic in an attempt to prove something and he ends up looking ignorant to anyone who looks into why Lincecum went 2-3 down the stretch. Lincecum going 2-3 down the stretch is not a representation of how well he pitched down the stretch.
I still believe that he's going to be a great pitcher. All that said, he's phenomenal in the way he handles pitchers this year.
I hope he realizes Tim Lincecum is a pitcher and not a catcher. He shouldn't be handling pitchers at all.
I just think you have to wait a little bit before comparing him to a Juan Marichal.
Who the fuck compared Tim Lincecum to Juan Marichal? I think the voices in Joe's head are taking over.
I would compare them, because they both use the fastball and a lot of other pitches.
So we shouldn't compare Lincecum to Juan Marichal, but Joe thinks they are a lot alike. More importantly, you could also compare every other pitcher in MLB using this standard since 95% of them use a fastball and a lot of other pitches.
But if you look at someone that's pitching now, I would say Johan Santana, except he's lefthanded.
So Lincecum is just like Johan Santana, except not really.
Let's sum up what Joe has said here. He said Tim Lincecum is not a great pitcher, we shouldn't compare them to Juan Marichal, he thinks Lincecum is a lot like Juan Marichal because he throws a fastball and a lot of other pitches, Lincecum isn't a great pitcher yet, but he is a lot like a guy who is a great pitcher, Johan Santana. Got all that?
Clay D (NY)
What player, either current or past, does Jason Heyward remind you of the most?
JM: Probably the only player you could compare him to that young is Joe Mauer.
Well naturally the only player you can compare Jason Heyward to, present or past, is Joe Mauer. I can't think of any other comparisons (Dave Parker, though that one is overdone) that would be appropriate...unless you discount the other 100 people Heyward has been compared to that isn't Joe Mauer. When I think of Jason Heyward's game, I think of Joe Mauer being so much like him.
They're different types of players,
Clearly, Joe Morgan has difficulty with understanding what it means to compare players who he claims are alike.
Being a rookie, he's had off days, striking out three times in one game.
This reminds me, Joe Morgan was talking about how Ryan Howard was worth $25 million per season and he didn't even mention how many times he strikes out in a game as a negative. It is good to see that Joe is progressing like that and is not afraid of strikeouts as much anymore.
Shane (Knoxville)
Joe, as a former player, how do you feel about how star players get paid these rediculous amounts of salary that they consider "fair" or "market value", causing teams to trade good players because they can't "afford" them?
JM: I'm not one of the old guys that say they shouldn't get paid. I think they should get paid whatever the market will bear. I don't see anyone complaining when Tom Cruise gets paid $50 million for a movie and then more than that for residual DVD sales.
Actually, I would like to complain about that. Tom Cruise sucks and he shouldn't make that much money. Possibly the Thetans (whatever the hell those are supposed to be) are the reason he makes so much money and that's great for him, but I am still pissed he makes shitty movies now AND he mentally screwed-up Katie Holmes. So I would like to complain about how much he makes for movies. I don't think I am the first. I believe Paramount complained too as the cut their ties with Cruise a few years ago.
Last year, MLB tried to cut salaries, but the stars will still get paid.
I am fairly certain this didn't happen. If MLB got together with teams and tried to cut player's salaries, that would be collusion, which I am pretty sure is illegal for MLB management and teams to do. Maybe they WANTED to cut salaries, but had no real way of doing it.
It's unfortunate that the superstars will get most of the payroll, but it's the same with other sports as well. Manning, Favre, Brady, those guys make big money too. I look at other sports and other entertainment industries and it's the same. The NBA, LeBron James is going to get whatever money he wants.
This is actually incorrect. The NBA has a cap on what free agents can earn on the free agent market and the NFL also has a salary cap teams must stay under. The elite players in these sports do take up a good portion of the payroll, but LeBron James isn't going to get whatever money he wants on the free agent market. There is a cap on how much he can get.
For a quick second though, imagine how much LeBron James would be worth on the open market. What would he be worth? 7 years $200 million? 10 years $400 million? Would that amount really be off the table if he could earn as much as he wanted?
Nora (St. Louis)
JM: You have to start with Halladay, until last night. He was undefeated until then.
It still constantly grates me when Joe Morgan says shit like this. The fact Halladay lost a game means he isn't the best pitcher in the National League? Is Albert Pujols not as good of a hitter when compared to Ryan Howard because Pujols' team hasn't made the World Series while Howard's team has? Is Ernie Banks not as good of a shortstop compared to Phil Rizzuto because Ruzzuto has more World Series rings? Why does Joe insist on tying a team winning/losing a game directly to a pitcher's performance with no other data involved?
I realize pitchers have more to do with winning a game than one single batter, but to judge a pitcher individually on how the team did, still seems slightly unfair to me.
Lincecum has not been defeated. He's pitched great.
But he is still not a great pitcher in Joe's mind. He's pitched great, but he isn't a great pitcher yet...for reasons only known to Joe.
The guy who has pitched well and maybe wasn't supposed to is Mike Pelfrey.
Who knew the #9 overall pick in the 2005 draft would be a good pitcher and could pitch well? NO ONE EXPECTED THIS TO HAPPEN! I would have thought Pelfrey would be washed up at the age of 26.
Brad Penny has pitched well. Barry Zito.
I've been impressed with a lot of pitchers. That's just to name a few.
Joe named five pitchers here. I don't know why Nora was looking for an actual answer from Joe Morgan to a direct question posed to him. He can't, and won't, give a direct answer. I do have to tip my hat to Joe, if this is really him answering these questions, because he at least he named pitchers who were currently pitching well. Just a few questions ago he said Alex Rodriguez and Ryan Howard were playing well this year when they are actually playing at a level below their usual standard.
Matt (Puyallup, WA)
Hi Joe, thanks for your time. What are your thoughts on Mike Pelfrey? While he didn't exactly dominate on Sunday, he did well enough & he seems like he has real presence in the early going - even moreso than his solid 4 months or so in 2008. What do you think is Pelfrey's ceiling going forward?
JM: I go back to something that Herm Edwards, the football coach said: You play to win the game. Pelfrey didn't dominate on Sunday, he still pitched well enough to win.
Ok, that's not really answering the question too much, providing a quote about football and then saying Pelfrey pitched well enough to win. I can't help but add Pelfrey pitched well enough to win because his offense scored enough runs to help him win, but Joe acts mentally handicapped and somehow can't see how a team scoring runs and a pitcher "pitching well enough to win" sort of go hand-in-hand. If the team scores a bunch of runs, their pitcher pitched well enough to win, whereas he didn't pitch well enough to win if his team didn't score many runs. We all know by now this type stuff irritates me.
If Pelfrey pitches 6 innings and gives up 2 runs, but his team scored 1 run and the Mets lost, he still pitched well enough to win, but his team didn't score enough runs.
If Pelfrey pitches 6 innings and gives up 7 runs and the Mets scored 9 runs and the Mets won, he didn't pitch well enough to win, but the Mets still won. Pitching well enough to win has a lot to do with how many runs are scored by that pitcher's offense. I can't see how Joe can't see this.
I believe that the pitchers job is to go out there and win the game, not to work on your WHIP or ERA, but to win.
That is his job, but a pitcher can't be judged for a poor offense. A poor offense shouldn't reflect badly on how a pitcher pitched in a given game.
In most cases it's harder to win a game 5-4 than it is to win 2-1.
I can't even begin to understand how the hell this is true. They are both one run games and I would think it would be harder for a pitcher to give up one run in a game compared to giving up four runs.
I believe that we've gotten to a point where statistics are the only thing that's important, but you play to win the game.
No, no, no. This isn't about statistics. This is about common-fucking-sense. A pitcher who has pitched a 9 inning game and given up 3 runs, but loses has not pitched ANY WORSE than a pitcher who has pitched a 9 inning game and given up 3 runs, but his team wins the game. There is no difference. It's like basic algebra. If "X" stays the same, but the result ("Z") is different, then it is because "Y" changed.
Here's an example:
X= runs given up, Y= runs scored, Z= positive/negative score (whether team loses or not)
X + Y = Z is the basic equation...
Example 1: X= 2, Y= 4, Z=?
"Z" would equal 2 and that team would win.
Now if we know Z= -2 and X stays the same (the pitcher has given up the exact same number of runs) then Y has changed. So it is not "X's" fault "Z" has changed because Y can't hold up its end of the bargain. I am confusing everyone, but this isn't brain surgery, it is really, really basic. Quit holding pitchers accountable for wins and losses when the reason a team lost isn't that clear.
I am not giving up until every man, woman, and child understands it is fine to play to win the game, but whether a pitcher has done well in a game ("X") isn't based on whether the team wins or loses ("Z") all the time. It also depends on variable "Y" which is how many runs his team has scored.
Clay D (NY)
How much more years does Jeter have at this pace offensively?
JM: I'm not nearly concerned offensively as I am defensively.
Nobody gives a shit what you are concerned about. The question was about Jeter's offense. The question isn't, "what concerns you most about Derek Jeter?"
How long can you play shortstop? At what age do you lose range that it hurts the team?
Apparently Derek Jeter loses his range in his mid-20's. It is amazing what using the Internet to find answers can get you.
Then he gets it back when his in his mid-30's. Of course those damned statistics would tell Joe Morgan the answer to this question and he wouldn't have to ask it, but who really needs statistics when the point is to win baseball games?
Offensively, he can play another position and do well.
I'd love to know more about what position Joe Morgan thinks Jeter would play. Not first base because Tex is there and isn't going to be moving, A-Rod seems to have third base covered for the time being, Robinson Cano doesn't have prior experience playing another position as far as I know, Jeter isn't going to play catcher, and I don't know if you want him in centerfield...so that leaves left field or right field for him to play. I am being nitpicky, but I don't know if Jeter can play another position and do well...unless another player moves positions.
He has a unique hitting in that he fights the ball off so well. I'm not concerned about the offense, but how long can you play shortstop at a high level on a championship team?'
Considering his UZR is actually improving, probably a few more years. Of course why would anyone be interested in statistics like this that can help find answers to questions? I know Joe would probably rather spend the rest of his life wondering the answer to this rather than using damned statistics to try and figure it out.
I like how Joe still never answered the question posed to him because he isn't concerned about Jeter's offense.
JM: I'm broadcasting the Phillies-Mets this weekend. There's a lot of talk about Howard, but I'm always asking people, what about Chase Utley? He's the best hitting second baseman in the league. He drives in runs and scores runs. He's a much better player than he gets credit for.
Yeah, why doesn't anyone talk about this Chase Utley guy? He has only been in the last four All-Star games and has only won the last four Silver Sluggers at second base. Can't he get elected King of Philadelphia or honored with a parade in some fashion? Doesn't anyone outside of Philadelphia know his name? No one talks about this guy being any good.
Buzzmaster
Thanks for chatting Joe!
I look forward to arguing with what he writes all summer...actually, I don't look forward to it.
