And I love his answer:

"KT: We may need to create a whole second blog called FireThisChatAnswer.

Stats like OPS -- though I would prefer EqA, or WARP, or Win Shares or something -- tell you pretty accurately what you do for the team. No, they do not tell you certain things about hitting cut-off men, or taking an extra base on a single to center against Juan Pierre, or how you backed up a throw to second that prevented the winning run getting to third with one out in the ninth inning of a tie game on the road. But: they tell you a lot about how valuable you are on an everyday basis.

The craziest thing is, Joe isn't even arguing this with the classic "things that don't show up in the box scores" gambit. He is arguing -- and I really can't believe this even as I type it -- that Runs Scored and RBI are more valuable statistics than, for example, OPS.

Never mind the fact that he began the answer by saying that individual stats are overrated, and then proceeded to say that what does matter are two individual stats: runs scored and RBI. Let's just focus on how hilarious it is that with Joe's system, Julio Lugo (49 RBI) is doing more for his team than Placido Polanco, Corey Hart, Hunter Pence, Ryan Garko, or Joe Mauer. Or that Juan Pierre (66 R) is more valuable than Ryan Howard, Derrek Lee, Justin Morneau, Jorge Posada, Vlad Guerrero, or Carlos Pena.

For the last time (not really): runs scored is largely a product of other people on your team. RBI are largely a product of the other people on your team. Stats like EqA, or more crudely, OPS, are individual measures of how you impact your team independent of everyone else on your team. And thus, a better way to judge a player's contributions. This is not ####### rocket science."

so someone 'splain this to me : why exactly is it that Joe Morgan has this job? Apparently lots of people find him to have... what? Insight? I mean, there are other strengths one can have beyond Sabermetric understanding. Maybe Joe has some of 'those strengths', whatever they are. What DOES he do well, in the minds of many?

What DOES he do well, in the minds of many?

Beats me. The other night he was talking about Luis Castillo being unfamiliar with Wrigley field winds on popups because he was an American league player. Apparently doesn't know its the same Luis who played a decade with the Marlins.

he's folksy. He can repeatedly assert that davey concepcion was a great fielder. His voice is a soothing baritone. The list goes on and on

I'll give Joe credit though. Probably 50% or more of what you read on baseball websites is a repsonse or refutation of something stupid said by somebody else. Maybe that estimate is low. Without Joe, we'd have a lot less to talk about.

so someone 'splain this to me : why exactly is it that Joe Morgan has this job? Apparently lots of people find him to have... what? Insight? I mean, there are other strengths one can have beyond Sabermetric understanding. Maybe Joe has some of 'those strengths', whatever they are. What DOES he do well, in the minds of many?

I don't watch a lot of ESPN broadcasts but the man does know a lot about the game. For example, while doing a Red Sox game this year, he quickly pointed out that Schilling was tipping his changeup because he was slowing his motion down. The guy was, without a doubt, one of the smartest players in the game. He's at his best when he points out things like that.

Without Joe, we'd have a lot less to talk about.

That's the best argument to fire him that I've read after all these years.

so someone 'splain this to me : why exactly is it that Joe Morgan has this job? Apparently lots of people find him to have... what? Insight? I mean, there are other strengths one can have beyond Sabermetric understanding. Maybe Joe has some of 'those strengths', whatever they are. What DOES he do well, in the minds of many?

He's consistent. He has confidence. See, a rookie would have ups and downs, would need to prove himself, would need to gain the confidence to say something when Jon turns to him. A veteran like Joe has that confidence. He consistently has something to say. And you don't see all the teamwork and team chemistry between Jon and Joe. There's the locker room stuff. Joe is a team leader. Maybe there's a rain delay. Maybe Jon wants to pack it in and go back to San Francisco. Who is going to step up consistently and be a leader? Who is going to say "no guys, we can do this, we can wait it out through this rain delay, pull through as a team, and finish this broadcast."

Joe Morgan, that's who.

Joe Morgan is Now.

I really dislike all the hype against Morgan and this FJM etc. Seems a little personally negative, but mostly i dislike it for strategic reasons. If there is going to be some fan-based grassroots movement against a national baseball broadcast and announcers, it should be against Tim McCarver and the awful Fox production. Who cares about the slipups during a weekly game or in some espn.com chat, McCarver and Fox's terrible camerawork are there for THE WHOLE POSTSEASON AND THE WORLD SERIES! During the year, most fans get their games through their local stations but they dont have that chance during the postseason. If every announcing team is bicthed about on the internet etc than Fox wont give creedence to fans' displeasure with their handling of the postseason.

It must be hard to be Joe Morgan sitting there and wondering why people put so much stock in complicated statistics like OPS. He really doesn't even begin to understand. He really is a very very very stupid man. But alas its probably not hard for him at all. He is so clueless I'm sure he just assumes that its the people who put stock in OPS that just don't understand. BTW Joe, OPS is just quick and dirty stat that we made up so idiots like you can have a quick estimate of a player's offensive value. Can you imagine trying to explain WARP to Joe. You would need to have a retreat in the woods. 3 weeks with nothing but notebooks, pens and pencils and a whiteboard. No TV, no radio, no phone. That wouldn't really do it. He is so very very far from getting it.

Perhaps I should be thankful though because without Joe there would be no firejoemorgan.com and I think I enjoy mocking Joe during the broadcasts and reading the mocking of Joe on firejoemorgan.com more than he annoys me.

For the last time (not really): runs scored is largely a product of other people on your team. RBI are largely a product of the other people on your team.

Isn't Morgan actually being consistent here? He's arguing against individual stats, and he cites two statistics that measure team effort instead of individual performance. Not that it's very coherent, but I suspect that may be where he's heading here.

What DOES he do well, in the minds of many?

Play Jon Miller's straight man, often without knowing it.

He really is a very very very stupid man.

Say what you want about Morgan, but he is not stupid, either intellectually-speaking or with respect to his overall baseball IQ, which many have demonstrated to be among the highest among anyone who has ever played the game. He is, however, bullheaded and unwilling to admit a mistake.

Morgan first went on record criticizing sabermetric concepts a long long time ago, back when they were far from mainstream, or at least farther than they remain today. He was one of the principal critics of Moneyball, and even before that seemed to bristle against the increasing use of OPS and other measures of baseball ability that had been filtering into baseball analysis.

I think Morgan's initial criticism constituted a knee jerk response, but not one that was all that different from what any number of other writers and broadcasters were saying at the time. Since those days, however, many of the initial naysayers and doubters have come around. WGN and Fox broadcasts show OBP, and the people who once laughed at the geeks are using some sabermetric principals in their analysis and commentary. But not Morgan. Morgan still sticks to his guns. Why?

Because what defines Morgan the most is not his ignorance, but his stubbornness. I think that now, in a private moment, he would agree that Julio Lugo and his RBIs aren't nearly as valuable to the Sox as Placido Polanco's OBP is to the Tigers. I think he would admit that an RBI is a team-dependent occurrence and therefore doesn't tell you a lot about an individual player's value. He won't do this in public, however, because he is simply incapable of reversing himself in public. We've seen this with the bit about his phantom hit against the Phillies in 1964 as well as with the Luis Castillo comment. ESPN asked him both times to make a correction, and either did so with a reluctant grunt, or else Miller had to do it for him.

So, is Joe Morgan stupid? I really think not. But he is bullheaded. For what it's worth, I think it would be easier to accept a broadcaster that is simply stupid or ignorant than it is to accept one who is unwilling to change his opinions about that which is before his very eyes. The former can't help himself. The latter can't help anybody.

Craig, # 14: absolutely spot on. Well said.

The guy was, without a doubt, one of the smartest players in the game. He's at his best when he points out things like that.

I actually like Morgan as a broadcaster, even though I think he's a terrible analyst of player performance and roster construction. I do think he is an excellent analyst of the baseball game that's in progress. He can explain why things happen the way they do, even if you disagree that they should happen the way they do. Morgan can explain why a manager would sac bunt or hit and run or why Juan Pierre is a good base stealer. He can explain defensive positioning and a lot of other more nuanced things that I don't know about. What he can't do is explain why the sac bunt is often strategically poor or that Juan Pierre is not a valuable player even though he steals a lot of bases.

My favorite example was last year (I think). I was watching a game and there was a runner thrown out at home plate without sliding. There was some speculation as to the reason why he decided not to slide, mostly related to the play itself. Joe pointed out that on the replay you could see that the on-deck hitter was not on top of the play motioning for the runner to slide. Joe speculated that the runner didn't slide because he didn't realize that he had to: the on-deck hitter didn't do his job. I thought it was a really great piece of analysis, and is the type of thing that I wouldn't have noticed without him. I'd never seen an analyst point that out before.

My biggest pet peeve with sports analysts is when they simply watch a replay and redescribe what's happened. Fox football broadcasters are the worst at this, and I get the bad ones because I live in Lions' country. Most of these jokers just wait until the replay comes up and then simply say EXACTLY WHAT I CAN ALREADY SEE. It's totally worthless. I could already see that the guy fumbled on that play, or that he hit the hole hard or that he's fast. Say something I don't know, like how the play was really made by the backside tackle, or how the fullback took on the wrong linebacker. Those are the things I don't know. It's so amazingly aggravating. And, yes, if there is NOTHING TO SAY, THEN SHUT THE #### UP. Sometimes you just let the game speak for itself.

Furthermore, I agree that the entirety of Fox's baseball presentation sucks and is a bigger problem than Joe Morgan. I've been noticing this year that their Saturday baseball broadcast has been cutting away from commercials early to avoid missing pitches. I hope they continue that in the postseason. Nothing worse that missing a pitch because you needed to see another House advertisement. And I like House.

Maybe Joe has some of 'those strengths', whatever they are. What DOES he do well, in the minds of many?

see number 6
one broadcast he explained how a 2B should do the pivot at 2nd to effectively get the ball out of his glove and on the way to first while simultaneously avoiding the runner.

He can do things like that.

He used to be able to tell you if player A could field a ground ball better than player B (he can't do that any more because he hasn't bothered to keep up and really pay attention to players in the league for some years now) He really does not work at his job, and its getting worse and worse- you'd think he'd absorb some info by virtue of all the games he presumably watches, but no. Hell even Kruk seems to be slowly improving on some areas for god's sake.

He was never able to remotely accurately judge the relative values of a walk a Sac Bunt or a double or a ground ball to the right side. Well many people couldn't and can't but more importantly Morgan is completely uninterested in any discussion of the relative values- the relative values are what he intuitively feels that are, and that's that, no one who was not an MLB player has an "opinion" that matters.

RBI were what was important when he was growing up, and steals and runs scored (and batting average) were also considered important when he was playing (and coincidentally excelling at those particular stats)

lol. Joe Morgan can't even spell OPS+.

I meant to say that that probably wouldn't do it.

I think that now, in a private moment, he would agree that Julio Lugo and his RBIs aren't nearly as valuable to the Sox as Placido Polanco's OBP is to the Tigers. I think he would admit that an RBI is a team-dependent occurrence and therefore doesn't tell you a lot about an individual player's value.

On the evidence at hand, I see no reason to think he would in fact admit these in any context.

He used to be able to tell you if player A could field a ground ball better than player B (he can't do that any more because he hasn't bothered to keep up and really pay attention to players in the league for some years now)...

I never studied this, but it seems like alot of color guys are best at the start of their broadcasting career when they still no the guys on the field fairly well.

On the evidence at hand, I see no reason to think he would in fact admit these in any context.

You may be right. It's just a suspicion on my part based on my belief that he is really not a stupid guy and that appreciation of those concepts depend only upon the application of reason to evidence as opposed to a greater intellectual stretch like DiPS or something.

To figure it out for sure would require the aid of Joe Morgan himself, a lie detector, and maybe a psychiatrist, and I'm not sure anyone is all that eager to go there.

Although the FJM coverage of it would be fantastic.

out of the hundreds of questions in the query, morgan decides to answer one that is obviously mocking him (the castillo question), and then answers the question w/o addressing the real issue. dumb 1, stubborn 0.

My favorite part was this:

CJ (Farmville, VA): Hey Joe, hope things are well where you are. You think this may finally be the year the Angels win it all?

I hope that was a joke. This question makes sense if the team was "Cubs" or "Mariners" or "Brewers" or any other good team that hasn't won it or won it since your grandmother was in pre-school, and not, you know, a team that won it 5 years ago.

I never studied this, but it seems like alot of color guys are best at the start of their broadcasting career when they still no the guys on the field fairly well.

This isn't fair. There are a lot of old white broadcasters who are just as stubborn and ignorant.

Joe Morgan is okay. It's Jon Miller that I can't stand listening to.

I actually like Morgan as a broadcaster, even though I think he's a terrible analyst of player performance and roster construction. I do think he is an excellent analyst of the baseball game that's in progress. He can explain why things happen the way they do, even if you disagree that they should happen the way they do. Morgan can explain why a manager would sac bunt or hit and run or why Juan Pierre is a good base stealer. He can explain defensive positioning and a lot of other more nuanced things that I don't know about. What he can't do is explain why the sac bunt is often strategically poor or that Juan Pierre is not a valuable player even though he steals a lot of bases.

You know, there's probably a bunch of ex-players out there that can do this. There's probably a lot of non-players out there that can do this. That Morgan is stubborn for the sake of being stubborn and doesn't work at his craft is unexcusable. And, yes, he doesn't work at his craft. A serious announcer or analyst who is going to be on national tv would know that Luis Castillo played 10 years in the NL, so Wrigley Field isn't a foreign place to him. Joe has admitted that he doesn't watch much baseball outside of the games he broadcasts. He also sounds like he doesn't do much reading about the game or talking to people that are currently in the game. These are all things that professionals do.

For as much as we criticize guys like Joe Buck, McCarver, and other announcers, it is clear that they do at least try and work on their job. They go and talk to managers, players, etc. They read about the guys they'll be covering. They know rosters. They've watched games. Joe Morgan doesn't do any of these things. Reading FJM is fun, and we all have a good time laughing about the mistakes he makes and his ignorance, but it's really getting to the point that it is embarrassing to ESPN and Joe Morgan. Even the national media is starting to notice.

Furthermore, I agree that the entirety of Fox's baseball presentation sucks and is a bigger problem than Joe Morgan.

This is my first year of having HD, I can't wait until I can see the ultra closeups of all the players in HD! Woo-hoo!

I've tried to read FJM before, but it suffers from the same problems that Engrish.com does. Basically, there is something funny there, but the need to produce content means that the commentary is 99% of the time far more mockworthy than the what was originally said.

Morgan suffers from a character flaw that many above have pointed out--hubris and an unwillingness to change. It's a major problem and probably hurts his quality of life, but it is common among old guys like him.

Many (not all) of his detractors suffer from the same character flaw--they have their conventional wisdom of the world and are unwilling to look at other evidence--e.g. Morgan offers unique information.

The idea that someone who thinks exactly like a stereotypical stathead and loves OPS+ must be in every booth says more about our desire to populate the world with people exactly like ourselves.

We don't need to replicate our knowledge. As others have pointed out above, I have eyes and I know about sabermetric analysis. I don't need someone to look up WARP3s for me and I don't need someone to tell me exactly what is going on on the screen. I don't need someone to read random Jason Stark statistics that their errand boy has looked up. I need someone who understands the intricacies of the game that I don't know much about.

Joe Morgan is that guy.

Now if someone could fire the talking baseball and the people who fabricate the hokeyness of the FOX broadcasts and make me miss about 20% of the pitches in the game, that would be worth something.

6, 14, 16, 17, thanks. As a non-TV guy (baseball on the radio, whilst I accomplish other things, THAT is the good life!), most of my exposure to JM is the silly things he writes/says in chats like the above. I'm sure he MUST be insightful in some ways (he WAS a smart, smart player), and much of joy and success in life is gaining from what thigns people do well and ignoring what they do poorly. So I'll try to ignore Joe's analysis of what stats make a team win and catch his insights on the little things that happen on the field.

I know its impolite to call someone stupid but I really do think that the reason Joe puts so little stock in OPS and other stats is that he doesn'nt understand the arguments for preferring them over more traditional stats. Its that simple. He doesn't understand why they are better.

He is arguing -- and I really can't believe this even as I type it -- that Runs Scored and RBI are more valuable statistics than, for example, OPS.

not really. He is arguing that stats like runs scored and driven in actually reflect what happened in the games, which is true even if it is misguided.

As for what Joe Morgan's job is, isn't it about time that some folks here (and especially at FJM) admit that it's not what they wish it was? The overwhelming majority of the people who tune into his broadcasts do so to be entertained by the pictures, descriptions and accounts of a baseball game, not to be educated about advanced methods of baseball analysis, or to have their own preferred approach to baseball analysis either validated or refuted. As long as those people enjoy Morgan and Miller, Joe is doing his job well in the eyes of his employers. No matter how much progress is ever made in gaining acceptance for sabermetrics, casual fans will always outnumber "us", and the networks will continue to pander to the casual fans because that's where the money is.

I just don't get why this is so hard to understand, or why it bothers people so much. Use your mute button.

Oh yeah, and what Craig said. X too.

Morgan first went on record criticizing sabermetric concepts a long long time ago, back when they were far from mainstream, or at least farther than they remain today.

Which I've always found ironic because Joe the player, not that he was underrated, is a sabermetric wet dream: incredible patience at the plate (.271 avg, .392 obp), efficient base stealer (81%), and power production from the right side of the defensive spectrum, among other reasons.

And well said, no. 25.

To my opinion, to help the team, you drive in runs or score runs.

Can somebody explain to me what is wrong with this answer, please?

Isn't that the goal of an offense, to score as many runs as possible? It isn't to have the highest OPS possible.

#31, but that's a self fullfilling prophecy. If you put a different type of person in the booth, it would attract a different type of audience.

I'll agree with you that sports broadcasts cater to the casual fan. I'm just not so sure that that's the smartest business decision in the long run.

I'm just not so sure that that's the smartest business decision in the long run.

I know it's the smartest decision. Hiring someone who doesn't take his job seriously and doesn't work hard is another issue altogether.

If you put a different type of person in the booth, it would attract a different type of audience.

My point, however, is that the people who make these decisions aren't interested in attracting a different type of audience, because they are of the opinion that it would be a smaller audience. I tend to think they are probably right. Most people don't want watching a baseball game to be work, or to make them feel stupid.

Kevin, i think the problem is the tense of what he is saying, and what that implies. If the statement was "if you drove in runs and scored runs, then you helped your team", i would have an easier time swallowing it. Obviously, he'd be right. But to say "to help the team...", it implies (at least in my opinion), some type of future outcome that's predictive in nature.

To help the team, you have a high OPS. That should lead to driving in runs and scoring runs, unless you just happened to be really unlucky or on a bad team.

I don't think Joe would argue that a guy who led the lead in runs, but only b/c he kept hitting into double plays and wound up on first, only to be driven in later, was "helping the team".

I actually like Morgan as a broadcaster, even though I think he's a terrible analyst of player performance and roster construction.

One consequence of hearing Morgan is that you get to understand how like-minded people think. I remember one A's playoff game where Morgan was upset because Macha (or maybe Howe) pulled his starting catcher for a pinch hitter. The PH was a better hitter than the starting catcher, but the PH was a rookie, which offended Joe's delicate sensibilities. It never would've occurred to me to consider that (in a playoff game, no less), but I'm pretty sure managers do consider the pecking order when making these kinds of decisions.

Most people don't want watching a baseball game to be work, or to make them feel stupid.

Most people love to hear about the Hidden Game though. It's like the da Vince Code!

To generate revenue, it's not just a "quantity of audience" argument. How long will audience member be a fan of the game? what's their income? Do they spend money on the product (ESPN wouldn't necessarily care about that, but MLB would obviously have an interest)? Are they going to then watch Sportscenter afterwards to catch up on it? Will they be visiting the website while at work?

100 primates are probably more valuable to espn in the long run then 200 joe casuals. but the people who run espn NOW are like the GM who's trying to save their job by making their team slightly more profitable NOW.

To help the team, you have a high OPS. That should lead to driving in runs and scoring runs, unless you just happened to be really unlucky or on a bad team.

Well, to flip that, you hope that a high OPS leads to scoring runs but some people are much better at scoring runs than others are. For instance, Vince Coleman had a lousy OBP but was really, really good at moving his ass around the bases so he was a much better player than his OPS indicated.

That's what Morgan is getting at.

As long as those people enjoy Morgan and Miller, Joe is doing his job well in the eyes of his employers.

Actually, the proper way to phrase this is: "As long as people enjoy Morgan and Miller more than the alternatives, Joe is doing his job well in the eyes of this employers."

If ESPN could hire another broadcaster that people would enjoy more than Morgan, that would be a smart decision, even if people already enjoy Morgan to some degree. What people are arguing here is that you could have someone who does what Morgan does well AND could do well what Morgan does not do well. This mythical broadcaster would be more enjoyable by definition (since he does what Morgan does well).

The flip side is that ESPN may decide that while they could get a broadcaster that people might enjoy more than Joe Morgan, they would also have to enjoy him enough to tune in. If you get a better broadcaster and ratings don't go up, who cares? People would have to enjoy this guy so much more than Morgan that they tuned in instead of tuning to something else our tuning out entirely. And who watches baseball for the broadcaster? Not me. In the meantime, sticking with Morgan is a safe decision because he's a Hall of Famer, with multiple Emmys. Until Morgan starts costing them viewers, you won't see a change.

100 primates are probably more valuable to espn in the long run then 200 joe casuals.

That's not always the case, though. Yes, in general a lot of us probably like the expensive toys, nice clothes, and other expensive things. But, look at what's advertised during a baseball game, and look at how it's advertised.

Beer
Razors
Reality Tv shows
Other sporting events
Impractical cars (Hummers, Jeeps, Trucks, etc)

And they all use sex or "being a man" to advertise. That's not aimed at the wealthy educated consumer. That's aimed at the LCD. Advertisers don't want people who sit and think about what to purchase and comparatively shop, they want the impulsive buyer who sees something and instantly wants it.

One anecdotal example of this is Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It was canceled pretty quickly. Why? Not enough of a draw. Every survey showed that it drew pretty much the highest educated and wealthy group of consumers out of prime time shows, but there just aren't enough of that type of people to make it worth it. First, highly educated wealthy people are outnumbered in the whole country by 3-1 or 4-1, and then you have to whittle that down to how many watch tv, and then whittle that down to how many watch sports. I work in the ivory tower of academia, and I've worked at some of the most prestigious universities, and I can tell you that not many of those people spend a significant amount of time watching tv, and even less watch baseball.

To help the team, you have a high OPS. That should lead to driving in runs and scoring runs, unless you just happened to be really unlucky or on a bad team.

Dropping runs and RBI in favor of OPS is like switching from butter to margarine--it might make you feel superior to those eating butter, but it's not going to make a big difference in your health and it tastes like ####.

This isn't fair. There are a lot of old white broadcasters who are just as stubborn and ignorant.

Okay, take Tim McCarver then. He was good back when he first started, IMO. Nowadays, I can't think of anyone that cares for him. (I'm sure he must have some fans, but I don't run into them.)

Dropping runs and RBI in favor of OPS is like switching from butter to margarine--it might make you feel superior to those eating butter, but it's not going to make a big difference in your health and it tastes like ####.

Ultimately what you want is Rs and RBIs. If offered a team where every regular was guaranteed to have at least 100 RBIs, all of us would take it instantly. It would be a great offense.

The thing is that OPS+ is a better predictor of team Rs and RBIs than previously accumulated Rs and RBIs. I would never trade future Rs and RBIs for a better future OPS+. That's dumb. I would trade past RBIs and Rs for past OPS+, because that will likely lead to more future Rs and RBIs.

Well, to flip that, you hope that a high OPS leads to scoring runs but some people are much better at scoring runs than others are. For instance, Vince Coleman had a lousy OBP but was really, really good at moving his ass around the bases so he was a much better player than his OPS indicated.

That's what Morgan is getting at.

1: I think your giving Joe too much credit

2: I saw Vince in his NY daze, he was as bad then as his OPS indicated. Sure once on base he was more likely to come around to score than the average player, but his SLG was worse than a comparable SLG than some other players - as a general rule you can't score a runner from 2nd on an infield hit, or get a runner from 1st to third. He was probably somewhat better in his STL days, but still he was pretty bad.

100 primates are probably more valuable to espn in the long run then 200 joe casuals. but the people who run espn NOW are like the GM who's trying to save their job by making their team slightly more profitable NOW.

No way. You can count on 100 Primates to watch baseball, but they're not going to help you in the long run because there's little money generated from them. It's the 200 Joe Casuals that have the money advertisers seek, that's who their ads are aimed for. Look for example at "Who's Now." ESPN says it's been successful, let's just say it has... they're not getting viewership and web traffic for that from Primates (I haven't seen a single person here say it's not crap), they're getting that from Joe Casual.

Dropping runs and RBI in favor of OPS is like switching from butter to margarine--it might make you feel superior to those eating butter, but it's not going to make a big difference in your health and it tastes like ####.

??? I have no idea what this means.

Well, to flip that, you hope that a high OPS leads to scoring runs but some people are much better at scoring runs than others are. For instance, Vince Coleman had a lousy OBP but was really, really good at moving his ass around the bases so he was a much better player than his OPS indicated.

That's what Morgan is getting at.

So Joe took the time to say that almost nobody understands the game to highlight the importance of a fact that nobody would disagree with?

Dropping runs and RBI in favor of OPS is like switching from butter to margarine--it might make you feel superior to those eating butter, but it's not going to make a big difference in your health and it tastes like ####.

I think OPS+ is butter. It's so filled with sweet information.

When I get high, I like to look at player's rate stats, not their RBIs and Runs (unless I'm looking at Dimaggio or Henderson). Batting average is still tasty though.

Ya' know, it is possible weave in the old with the new.

Bob Uecker is the lead play by play guy for the Brewers teamed with a guy named Jim Powell. Now, Bob Uecker is in his 70's and pretty much meets the definition of "old white guy" in many respects. Powell is about 35 years his junior and has demonstrated a knack for discussing such things as OPS, WHIP and the like. Jim is quite subtle about it, gives a quick but precise explanation each time he does it, and has engaged "Uke" in these types of discussions.

Uecker knows about getting on base. "Never could do it much" in reference to himself. He knows about driving runners in. "Couldn't do that either". So when Powell talks about how OPS is a quick way to summarize what a guy's contribution to the team is offensively Uecker has had little issue in accepting it. Now, Uecker himself hasn't used the metric in any on-air discussions. But he will talk about it when prompted by Powell and use it to elaborate why a guy like Albert Pujols is so good.

Uke sometimes loses track of who is on base and can get wrapped up in a story at the expense of the game action. But as far as blending the various ways you can look at the game he is still at the top of his game. It's been 45 years since Bob was behind the plate, but he still provides insight into the pitcher/catcher relationship and all things related to catching in baseball. Which I find endlessly fascinating.

Anyway, it can be done. And in a non-threatening yet informative matter. That Uke wraps in a blanket of self-deprecating humor just makes it all the easier for the listening public. I know that the call-in shows to Milwaukee routinely use the metrics used here and elsewhere. And I think that's a tribute to the great Brewer blogs as well as the announcing team for the Crew.

Let's just focus on how hilarious it is that with Joe's system, Julio Lugo (49 RBI) is doing more for his team than Placido Polanco, Corey Hart...

Polanco's got 50 RBI (according to BB-Ref), not to mention 78 runs scored v. Lugo's 50. Corey Hart also has 50 RBI and more runs scored than Lugo. What exactly do you think "Joe's system" is?

#31 is basically correct here. Baseball analysts are interested in value and ultimately plate appearances only have value if they contribute to actual runs being scored in real games. I certainly wouldn't pay the least bit of attention to player projections that were made by Joe Morgan, but fortunately for me, he isn't in the business of projecting player performance, he's in the business of describing it.

Uecker knows about getting on base. "Never could do it much" in reference to himself. He knows about driving runners in. "Couldn't do that either".

This is why Bob Uecker rules.

Okay, take Tim McCarver then. He was good back when he first started, IMO

He was good, but got progressively worse the further and further he got from his playing days

Some of you are giving Morgan way too much credit. I'll admit that some of the things that Joe points out about why certain players did certain things on the field are insightful. That is because he was a very conscientious player. It's not because he is some sort of savant who can only apply his intelligence to fielding or on field decisions. He was a thorough conscientious player who studied the game with respect to the decisions that he had to make as a hitter and a second baseman when he was playing. This doesn't make him smart. You don't need a high IQ to master the fundamentals of sound baseball. So giving credit where credit is due I give Joe credit for that.

However so much of what Joe says is flat out wrong and much else of it is so nonsensical as to be neither wrong nor right, that it totally outweighs any benefit from his insight. He lays out his judgments of player value with total certainty and he is almost always wrong. That is very frustrating to watch. We have a sense of justice watching the games. We want the players who deserve credit to get credit. With Joe it is the out eaters who attempt way too many stolen bases, who use up a valuable spot in the lineup, who get credit because they happen to bat high in the order of a good offensive team so they have a decent run total who get the credit. Likewise with someone who has a decent RBI total only because he has great OBP guys batting in front of him. A player's RBI and run totals have to be interpreted relative to what you would expect an average player's totals to be in that spot in the lineup. Joe doesn't understand this. I repeat, he doesn't UNDERSTAND it. This is frustrating to watch.

Add to that that he frankly doesn't seem very knowledgeable about the players or the teams and he continually subtly implies that racism is influencing every decision regarding every black player and manager and that he is stubborn, and haughty, and the result is that the experience of watching him is one mostly of exasperation.

Yeah, JPWF13. That's my point. This might apply to Hawk Harrelson as well. I really don't know, but as I kid I remember him doing color for the Red Sox and I never once recall my dad having the urge to douse himself with gasoline and light himself on fire. I really should go through paperofrecord.com and look at old Sporting News columns on broadcasting.

Harrelson did Yankees games for awhile back when I used to watch the Yankees and man was he a judgmental self-righteous blowhard.

#55

Why does whether Joe is smart or not matter? Why does his IQ matter?

Why does the fact the he doesn't UNDERSTAND the relative value of RBI and Rs matter so much? Like Eraser-X said, I don't listen to Morgan for UZR and OPS+, or linear weights and WARP. There are other people who do this.

Morgan, racism? Please clarify.

Well, to flip that, you hope that a high OPS leads to scoring runs but some people are much better at scoring runs than others are. For instance, Vince Coleman had a lousy OBP but was really, really good at moving his ass around the bases so he was a much better player than his OPS indicated.

That's what Morgan is getting at.

I'm not convinced that it is what Joe's getting at. It reads to me like he's saying that OPS doesn't help you win games: runs and rbis do. While in a way, he's right, he's also wrong. You can't win a game without scoring actual runs (although technically you can do it without rbis) and OPS doesn't equal actual runs. Of course, a deeper look tells you that higher OPS usually means more actual runs scored. So, if you're trying to determine if player X is good at baseball (and is helping his team), looking at his OPS is a quick-and-dirty way to do it. If you're trying to figure out what player X did to win the specific game A, then check to see if he knocked in or scored some runs.

I think it's just Joe grinding an axe. He could easily have said that a players contribution goes beyond any stats and that you have to understand the intangibles he brings to the table to measure his contribution.

j

It doesn't matter whether Joe is smart or not. What matters is he gives credit to the wrong players and doesn't leave the viewers with an accurate perception of who is contributing most. Its frustrating because there is an urge to correct it for the sake of justice. But if he were smarter I don't think he would get it so wrong.

Add to that that he frankly doesn't seem very knowledgeable about the players or the teams and he continually subtly implies that racism is influencing every decision regarding every black player and manager and that he is stubborn, and haughty, and the result is that the experience of watching him is one mostly of exasperation.

Morgan, racism? Please clarify.

Or at least break up that sentence. Sheesh.

Also, why are so many of you apologists for Joe? If you like him, then great. But why do you have to try and give this favorable interpretation of what 'Joe was really trying to say'. First its probably not what he was trying to say and if it was then he failed miserably to actually say it. Like Marksist said above, that is probably not at all what Joe was getting at and if it was then he should have said that. However I doubt that is what he meant.

I can't wait until I can see the ultra closeups of all the players in HD! Woo-hoo!

Just be thankful that Randy Johnson won't be in the post-season.

Yikes!

Add to that the following :

1) He doesn't seem very knowledgeable about the players.
2) He doesn't seem very knowledgeable about the teams.
3) He continually subtly implies racism whenever he discusses decisions made about black players or managers.
- Example : He suggested that it was incumbent upon Joe Torre to defend himself against Gary Sheffield's insinuations of racism.

4) He is stubborn.
5) He is haughty.

The result of all of this is that watching a game that he is broadcasting is exasperating.

Is that better for you Skipper?

With pointing out what Joe does well i.e. analyze the small parts of a game's happenings, I'd like to add this: I've had the opportunity to watch some games while talking with some (mostly) no-name ex-big leaguers who are now scouts essentially. They offer 10x the insight Morgan has ever offered. It's like watching a game in totally new light. I could sit and watch a game and let them comment on it for weeks. It's really unbelievable how detailed of things these guys know. Whether it's they are more comfortable in the situation, or they do just know more, the most insightful thing Joe has ever said (and I agree he does have his moments...few, but he has them) is about on par with what these guys say twice an inning. There has to be someone with scout credentials with some sort or TV/Radio personality one of the networks can pick up: it'd improve the broadcasts exponentially.

I'm fired up now in my anti-JoeMorgan sentiments. The guy was insinuating for years that Billy Beane had himself written 'Moneyball'. He criticized the book endlessly without ever reading it and clearly, without ever grasping the gist of it.

No. 64: yes.

More substantively, you're right about nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5. I didn't hear Joe's comments about Sheffield. But from what you're saying, it doesn't sound like Joe validated Sheffield's accusation. He only suggested that Torre defend himself against it. This is PR advice, not a comment on the alleged racial bias.

As other have pointed out he isn't terrible when talking about the game.

But I have no idea why he does these chats, he never answers anything and I don't think he watches any games.

More substantively, you're right about nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5. I didn't hear Joe's comments about Sheffield. But from what you're saying, it doesn't sound like Joe validated Sheffield's accusation. He only suggested that Torre defend himself against it. This is PR advice, not a comment on the alleged racial bias.

Skipper, have you stopped beating your wife?

Some accusations should not be dignified with comment.

A player's RBI and run totals have to be interpreted relative to what you would expect an average player's totals to be in that spot in the lineup. Joe doesn't understand this. I repeat, he doesn't UNDERSTAND it.

It's not so much that he (and many other baseball luddites) don't "understand" it- they emphatically reject it- I read an article last year rejecting BJ's claim that Darrell Evans was as good or better than Tony Perez- the argument came down to RBIs. The author even addressed the fact that Perez spent many years batting behind Pete Rose and Joe Morgan by saying it didn't matter how good Perez' teammates were to Evans- over along career it would even out (it didn't- Perez had over 400 more PAs with men on than Evans- 500 more PAs with RISP)- and

the important fact was that Perez drove in those runs and Evans didn't - you couldn't assume that Perez would have driven in less playing for 1970's San Fran, or that Evans would have driven in more batting 4/5 for the Big Red Machine- Perez drove in 300 more runs - REAL RUNS ON THE SCORE BOARD- that produced more value for his teams and more productive than Evans.

That mindset is where I think Joe Morgan is coming from, and I've rarely ever seen anyone with that mindset persuaded otherwise

This is PR advice, not a comment on the alleged racial bias.

I did see this, and it wasn't PR advice. Joe Morgan was implying that Torre had to defend himself against being racist, and that by not defending himself Torre was admitting that he was a racist. It was big time character assassination on Morgan's part. I'll give Jon Miller credit, he obviously was uncomfortable and tried to steer Morgan off the topic gracefully.

On my opinion, Joe Morgan is not stupid. Just listen to the way he talks. Each of his words are carefully crafted gems of knowledge. Both his grammar and vocabulary is quite large. His sentences are always constructed with perfect knowledge of where they were and where they are going, which is a requirement for communicating your thoughts, which in retrospect is what he is all about - tradition.

But I have no idea why he does these chats, he never answers anything

For awhile the Onion would have a question and answer column- someone would write in with a dear Abby type question, and the Onion would have the "Voice Over From the Dukes of Hazzard" or some generic "XYZ Corp. Share Holder Report" answer.

The answers had no relationship to the questions
Joe Morgan's chats are getting more and more like that.

I didn't say that Joe was racist. I said that he subtly implies that racism is a factor in many things that he discusses. Please don't ask for a laundry list of examples. One comes to mind. Years ago when Randolph was trying to get a manager job some other team hired a white manager without interviewing Willie first. Joe kept saying, over and over, that they should have given Randolph a chance. Well racism is bad and I'm against it but I don't see it in every hiring of a white manager. Why does every team have to interview every possible black manager candidate whenever there is an opening? I just didn't think that the failure to interview Randolph was racially motivated in any way.

On the Sheffield thing : Why does Joe Torre have to answer to ridiculous allegations from Gary Sheffield? I don't think it was PR advice. Again a very generous interpretation of what Joe said.

By the way I don't think Joe Morgan is a bad guy. He seems like a nice guy so please don't misunderstand my reasons for hating him as a broadcaster.

Its the stubbornness that gets to me. Like the Castillo situation. Joe comes across as so extremely confident, stubborn, opinionated, and seems to believe himself such an authority because he played the game and you didn't. I imagine if I could have walked into the booth and paused the game after the Castillo comments, it would go something like this:

1. Here's baseball-reference, it shows Castillo playing for the Marlins.

Thats just what some guy says on the internet. You can't trust the internet

2. Here's my latest Bill James Almanac with every player's career statistics.

Bill James? The guy who invented OPS+? That won't tell you anything about a player. You need to drive in and score runs

3. OK, here's video of a game you and Jon broadcast within the last 10 years featuring the Florida Marlins and Luis Castillo.

I have no idea how Joe would respond to the last one, but I'm sure he'd find a way to deny it. Never go back on your initial statement, no matter what evidence. Good thing Joe didn't go into politics, he might have said something like "Saddam Hussein is a threat" and where would we be now?

D'oh! Never mind. Politics has its stubborn idiots too.

But I have no idea why he does these chats, he never answers anything and I don't think he watches any games.

He's admitted that he doesn't watch games. In one of his chats he said in all of spring training, he watched one game. It's almost amazing that the man's job is to follow baseball and he doesn't do it and yet is still employed.

Both his grammar and vocabulary is quite large. His sentences are always constructed with perfect knowledge of where they were and where they are going, which is a requirement for communicating your thoughts, which in retrospect is what he is all about - tradition.

Have you ever read his chats? In that context, this statement is so completely wrong it is hilarious.

Term limits for network sports announcers!

Also from the chat:

GREGC: Joe, you've been on the front lines for so much of baseball history. What's the most impressive thing you have seen?

JoeMorgan: GREGG, the most impressive thing I saw had nothing to do with baseball. Most people do not know that I was there at the Kennedy assassination. I was right next to the President when it happened. It was a real downer for what had been a fun trip to Dallas. Fortunately I knew a very good dry cleaner.

That's right, he was there...... with Tim Johnson.

When Morgan started, I thought he was terrific. He was pointing out things on the ballfield I had never heard broadcasters point out before. Similarly, I used to enjoy McCarver, back in his early days broadcasting Mets games. They certainly were improvements over guys like Tony Kubek (and Kubek wasn't really bad, just unimaginative).

I still enjoy listening to Morgan broadcast a game, but I agree that his chats are awful. And I can't listen to McCarver anymore.

Other than that, how was the motorcade, Mr. Morgan?

Neither the Zambrono film nor the Warren Spahn Report support that nugget, Rear Adm. Piazza.

One anecdotal example of this is Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It was canceled pretty quickly. Why?

Because it was terrible.

I still enjoy listening to Morgan broadcast a game, but I agree that his chats are awful.

I agree with this. He's good at describing a game on a micro level, like criticizing or praising an infielder's footwork, and will frequently impress me with things I didn't know.

On the other hand, his chats really are full of "I don't know, I haven't watched that team"-style nonanswers, and they're a waste of time, because he really doesn't appear to be knowledgeable about baseball on that level. And really, why would he be? He's an ex-player, not an ex-GM.

When Morgan started, I thought he was terrific. He was pointing out things on the ballfield I had never heard broadcasters point out before. Similarly, I used to enjoy McCarver, back in his early days broadcasting Mets games. They certainly were improvements over guys like Tony Kubek (and Kubek wasn't really bad, just unimaginative).

I still enjoy listening to Morgan broadcast a game, but I agree that his chats are awful. And I can't listen to McCarver anymore.

I wish I had written that, Studes. That's exactly my view too.

I imagine if I could have walked into the booth and paused the game after the Castillo comments, it would go something like this:

1. Here's baseball-reference, it shows Castillo playing for the Marlins.

Thats just what some guy says on the internet. You can't trust the internet

2. Here's my latest Bill James Almanac with every player's career statistics.

Bill James? The guy who invented OPS+? That won't tell you anything about a player. You need to drive in and score runs

Why would you take this approach when, "Hey Joe, here's Castillo's baseball card. Check out the back. See those first ten seasons with 'FLA, NL'?" would be much simpler and almost certainly more effective?

#31 is basically correct here.

Why, thank you, kind sir!

Between his 'no autographs please' sign that he used to put up at the press box at Rosenblatt Stadium for the CWS and his smugness towards anything OPS related, the guy believes that viewers are his students who don't know squat about baseball, and he's going to be the one to enlighten them.

To some extent there is some "talking past each other", because really Joe does not just have one job. Most seem to agree that at his primary job of broadcaster he's adequate overall. He has great knowledge of how to play the game, but he doesn't do any research or preparation.

He has another job which he's terrible at, which is to put forth analysis of the game via columns and chats. Yes, I know that it's all part of his ESPN job, but it's a completely separate function. At this job he's terrible. His answers to chats are filled with things like, "That could happen, but then again it might not. We'll just have to watch the games." His columns reflect no critical thinking at all.

Both his grammar and vocabulary is quite large. His sentences are always constructed with perfect knowledge of where they were and where they are going, which is a requirement for communicating your thoughts, which in retrospect is what he is all about - tradition.



Have you ever read his chats? In that context, this statement is so completely wrong it is hilarious.

There was a grammatical error (at least one) in every sentence of the post; it was meant to be a joke.

The fact is that Morgan isn't so irritating because he doesn't use modern statistics, he's irritating because he's so self-righteous, stupid, and lazy. There are plenty of analysts out there who aren't any more statistically sophisticated than Morgan but who aren't nearly as grating because they actually work at their jobs and have decent personalities. Don Sutton, Jim Palmer, Joe Simpson for crying out loud, Buck Martinez even. . . Rick Sutcliffe, even! Jeff Brantley, for God's sake! Almost anyone you can name, maybe even Tim McCarver.

I think I was also the only person to like Dave Justice as an analyst. And gosh, how could I have forgotten Tony Gwynn, who is one of the very best in his too-rare appearances.

Not to stray too far off topic, but does anyone know the source of Morgan's beef with Ryne Sandberg?

I asked this long ago but can't remember the answer. Why can't audio (or video) of live games announced by ONE OF "US" be transmitted over the air, radio or web? By "one uf us" I mean someone respected by the BBTF community.

If legally possible now, how could this idea be made a reality?

I didn't say that Joe was racist. I said that he subtly implies that racism is a factor in many things that he discusses. Please don't ask for a laundry list of examples. One comes to mind. Years ago when Randolph was trying to get a manager job some other team hired a white manager without interviewing Willie first. Joe kept saying, over and over, that they should have given Randolph a chance. Well racism is bad and I'm against it but I don't see it in every hiring of a white manager. Why does every team have to interview every possible black manager candidate whenever there is an opening? I just didn't think that the failure to interview Randolph was racially motivated in any way.

This is a great point. The very raising of the possibility in a situation is atrocious and should be grounds for digging up Vincent Chin's corpse and beating it to death with a baseball bat again.

Teams have to interview every possible black manager candidate whenever there is an opening to because it's far easier, although infinitely less constructive than addressing the actual reasons why pretty much no one other than Jerry Reinsdorf or Bud Selig ever hires black leadership in their organizations.

You can fill the whole world with people who think "racism is bad and all" but don't actually care if equal opportunity exists and nothing will ever change.

To be fair, some of this disagreement is just a question of wants. While some of this is probably attributable to a difference in wants, I still get the idea that some of the posters here would fire a mechanic because he doesn't do computer chats well and hire someone who knows no more about cars than they do but always has their nose in a spreadsheet...<>:P

Re: OPS vs. RBI's

The difference is that sabremetricians value stats for their predictive usage. If you ask a player, they will tell you RBI's are the most important....and in a way they are, they are the bottom line because winning is about driving in runs. But its a retrospective way to analyze past performance.

I asked this long ago but can't remember the answer. Why can't audio (or video) of live games announced by ONE OF "US" be transmitted over the air, radio or web? By "one uf us" I mean someone respected by the BBTF community.

That sounds like an Account or Description of a Major League Baseball game to me.

But its a retrospective way to analyze past performance.

And not as good as OPS, much less OPS+.

Because it was terrible.

In all the history of TV and radio, no program has ever been cancelled for that reason. 8-)

Copyright laws. No way around that I suppose. I'm thinking that broadcasts would be more enjoyable with alternative broadcasters. And who better of these alternatives than one of our own.

It would be technically possible for us to buy the rights to air some games, but I doubt we could outbid ESPN or FOX. . .

Not to stray too far off topic, but does anyone know the source of Morgan's beef with Ryne Sandberg?

My impression was that it's ego related

Ryne Sandberg was compared to Joe Morgan- as early as 1984
Ryne Sandberg got some press for breaking Joe Morgan's record for Homers by a 2B. (Kent now has the record)

I don't think Joe thought Sandberg was as good as him or all that similar as a player- and the comparison drove him nuts.

I don't think Joe thought Sandberg was as good as him or all that similar as a player- and the comparison drove him nuts.

Well, at least he was right.

why pretty much no one other than Jerry Reinsdorf or Bud Selig ever hires black leadership in their organizations.

And the Rangers and Mets.

Well, it seems terribly unlikely that the Mets would have given Minaya a chance if Selig doesn't give him one first.

Bob Uecker is in his 70's and pretty much meets the definition of "old white guy" in many respects.

Old? Check.

White? Check.

Guy? Check.

Forget many - he's got all respects covered.

Morgan first went on record criticizing sabermetric concepts a long long time ago, back when they were far from mainstream, or at least farther than they remain today.

Which I've always found ironic because Joe the player, not that he was underrated, is a sabermetric wet dream

I always firugered that his problem was about control. Tradionally, you need some insight? Get someone with experiecne to give it to you. The new stats say they can give you some of that insight without the insider knolwdge. That's hitting Morgan where he lives. Addded bonus: with a long standing reputation as one of the smartest layers in the game, he was the ones with the most control gained by deffering to players on their knoledge. Thus even when he was a players he'd critixcize this stuff, and he's become even more set in his ways as he's gotten older. The sad thing is stats doen't displce a guy like him, it can augment it. It's the old stats vs. scouts roundtalbe: it's not choice betweeen one or the other, but how you mix them. Any mixxing lessens old timer knoledge, which I think really pisses Joe off.