cardsfanboy:

The point of FJM is to point out idiocy in sportswriting and broadcasting, not to provide analysis. I think, on the whole, that they do the former quite well, despite the often annoying tenor of their discourse.

The point of FJM is to point out idiocy in sportswriting and broadcasting, not to provide analysis.

The two are inextricable. Only by an analytical move can you demonstrate that a statement is "idiocy." As cfb shows, FJM's response to Morgan's response did not demonstrate in any way the "idiocy" of Morgan's response. It just jumped up and down and showed itself to be a jerk.

I agree that usually FJM's method amounts to no more than pointing and shouting "you're dumb, dumbass", but that just shows that they're, well, dumb.

My pet peeve with FJM: A large percentage of the questions Joe gets is, "Do you think team X (which is in contention)can win the division/go all the way this year?"

What is Joe supposed to answer? No, it's impossible, or Yes, this team is definitely going to win it this year? Those are the answers that would be stupid.

Instead, he pretty much answers them all the same way: No team is perfect [like the 1998 Yankees or the Big Red Machine], if they do things right, they could do it this year, but they need more pitching or hitting or whatever.

Well, that is the answer. There are a lot of close division races. Pretty much any team in contention could win the division or the wild card. This is Joe Morgan, not Ms. Clio, he is not going to give some BS answer.

With respect to racism: Joe Morgan probably comes to the issue with a completely different mind set than most of us -- He is an African-American born in 1943. He may not have been old enough to remember it distinctly, but he was alive when the color barrier was first broken. He may have moved north, but he was born in Texas, and Jim Crow was still the law of the land throughout the South when he was growing up. He did not see a black manager in Major League baseball until he had been playing the game for 12 years. I would be shocked if he had never either experienced discrimination or racial slurs first hand, or heard about it from close relatives. These would have been his formative experiences, so hell yeah, he is going to see things with a different perspective, and question motives.

And he is going to push and agitate, because that is probably what his heroes did, and they helped change the world he lived in.

Anyone who was born after 1965 might have a hard time really understanding and internalizing the fact that the American South operated its own version of Apartheid for decades; that it did not legally end until the mid-60's -- with George Wallace, as late as 1968, running for President, and winning the electoral votes of several states in the South as the Segregationist "States Rights" candidate.

You really needed to have lived through that time, to understand how deep seated and legally ingrained the prejudice was, and why the vestiges of discrimination have hung on. And I can only begin to imagine the effect of that on the world view of a young African American, who saw the most raw racial hatred and discrimination -- as well as the efforts of many Whites who joined with Blacks to end this scourge.

The two are inextricable.

On some level, I suppose. But we've been over before how it is not the responsibility of a critic to provide a better level of performance than the one being criticized.

This goes for critics of movies, ballplayers, or whatever. It is really silly to hold FJM responsible for not providing good analysis. If all you can do when reading FJM is say that they provide shitty analysis, so they shouldn't criticize Joe, you are really missing the point.

My pet peeve with FJM: A large percentage of the questions Joe gets is, "Do you think team X (which is in contention)can win the division/go all the way this year?"

What is Joe supposed to answer? No, it's impossible, or Yes, this team is definitely going to win it this year? Those are the answers that would be stupid.

I agree that this gets very tiresome. On the other hand, Joe presumably picks the questions the responds to, and furthermore, it is absolutely bs that Joe answers these questions in an anywhere near adequate fashion. There is a lot of room to give an intelligent response between "no" and "yes". Joe's answers are equally stupid.

cardsfanboy:

The point of FJM is to point out idiocy in sportswriting and broadcasting, not to provide analysis. I think, on the whole, that they do the former quite well, despite the often annoying tenor of their discourse.

the FJM guy has spent a great deal of time bashing Joe for not answering question in an apparent need for Joe to go on his own personal tangents against/for an issue, and here was perfectly another time for him to bash Joe again for once again straying, instead he decides to emulate Joe and do the same thing go on his own tangent to bash something which the FJM apparently can't comprehend.

I mean strutting out Pyth as proof that they have no chance to compete this year is as idiotic as anything Joe Morgan has ever said (even the Billy Beane writing Moneyball quotes) it is a pure example of what this FJM has been lambasting about Joe, in that it's apparent that FJM didn't do any bit of research in coming up with his analysis.

When someone goes to the trouble that FJM has gone through to make Joe look bad, he should be sure that he isn't pulling the same mistakes.

cardsfanboy: i basically agree. This is why i used the qualifier: "on the whole". Plus, since Joe says the same idiotic things repeatedly, it gets tiresome to critique them in the same way.

This thread is like a perfect compendium of everything about the Internet Baseball Community that pisses me the heck off.

Well, now it is since the token "I hate everything about the internet, but I'm in a forum on the internet, and I'm going to tell you all how I'm better than you because you are all falling into stereotypes" guy is here

I think that Joe Morgan thinks something can only be of value if it produces results whereas sabernerds (like me) think that theoretical performance is better to show the value of a player especially since it is better at predicting future success.


10 shutout innings in a 11 inning loss
Joe: Should have gotten the win.
Me: Dude just pitched 10 innings with no runs.

6 innings 8 runs given up in a win.
Joe: He battled and stuck in there for the win.
Me: His manager must have needed the bullpen cause he was getting rocked, lucky to get the win though.

This goes for critics of movies, ballplayers, or whatever. It is really silly to hold FJM responsible for not providing good analysis. If all you can do when reading FJM is say that they provide shitty analysis, so they shouldn't criticize Joe, you are really missing the point.

This is a deep insult to critics everywhere. A good critic provides substantive evidence and logical arguments to back up their opinions. I hope you can tell the difference between someone like Ebert, who is one of the better human beings in the history of the human race and the random critic--say "Kichard Koeper"--who just says "Yeah, I didn't buy it, it needed to be sexier and have more explosions".

We aren't asking for FJM to get a job broadcasting baseball. We are asking that he actually shows some ability as a critic of baseball announcers, which has yet to occur.

Well, now it is since the token "I hate everything about the internet, but I'm in a forum on the internet, and I'm going to tell you all how I'm better than you because you are all falling into stereotypes" guy is here

And now the guy who selectively quotes one section of a great post just to ridicule the partial idea is here. Awesome.

We aren't asking for FJM to get a job broadcasting baseball. We are asking that he actually shows some ability as a critic of baseball announcers, which has yet to occur

If you read the site, you will see that there is plenty of good criticism of lousy announcing and sportswriting. Joe Morgan is a SPORTS ANALYST. You can be properly critical of sports analysts by noting their lack of analysis without providing any of your own. Is this so hard to understand?

A good critic of sports analysis must indeed provide evidence and logical arguments, but does not need to provide actual sports analysis. If they do that should merely be considered a bonus. I hope you can see that the two are not identical.

Unfortunately FJM also often fails at providing good criticism, and that is because they have a secondary function, that of entertainment.

Hey, I think FJM is too juvenile most of the time too, I just think these criticisms are way off base.

I can be critical of you, as well, by noting that you have seven arms. The way you phrase it, it makes it sound like you just believe that they are good critics because they agree that Morgan sucks.

Then you spend the next paragraphs agreeing with what I said--FJM sucks in its criticism.

I'm not here to defend FJM and their level of criticism. I am simply noting that attacking FJM on the basis of providing lousy sports analysis is completely missing the point of the site.

I can be critical of you, as well, by noting that you have seven arms.

If you truly believe that any criticism of Joe Morgan equates to this than I really see no point in continuing this conversation.

it needed to be sexier and have more explosions

You say that like those things would be bad.

And now the guy who selectively quotes one section of a great post just to ridicule the partial idea is here. Awesome.

The quote was indicative of the tone of the whole post. You can pretty much count on someone criticizing the likes of Joe Morgan for flubbing Stats 101, and then count on someone criticizing the critic for being such a simpleton as to think that's all that matters. Neither criticism is particularly new or interesting.

If you truly believe that any criticism of Joe Morgan equates to this than I really see no point in continuing this conversation.

Not any criticism, but screaming "OPS!" or using the old Limbaugh technique of interrupting a transcript to interject poorly thought out criticism is pretty equivalent.

Let's bring it back on the critic issue: All I am saying is that to be an effective film critic you need to know a reasonable amount about how people ingest film.

The same goes for critiquing Sports commentary.

If you regularly read FJM, your time could be better spent perusing porn.

Actual masturbation is preferable to the mental variety.

I happen to think that the guys at FJM "know a reasonable amount about how people ingest sports". But in truth is if all that was said on this thread was that FJM was juvenile and provided lousy criticism, I would have stayed out of this thread completely, as to me such a point is hardly worth arguing.

The necessary credentials of a critic on the other hand is something that interests me far more. I myself don't pretend to be a great sports analysist, but I am able to articulate to my friends the myriad ways that Krukow reduces the general populace's comprehension of baseball and just generally annoys the hell out of me when I watch the Giants.

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

I don't believe this is true. If Minaya doesn't leave to run the Expos, when Steve Phillips was fired Minaya probably would have been promoted to interim GM instead of Duquette. And since they kept Duquette as GM for the next year, they probably would have kept Minaya as well.

for the record, I wasn't criticizing fjm on the whole, (mind you as mentioned many times in this thread their efforts should be focused more on getting Fox sports out of MLB broadcasting than a relatively competent color analyst who is an idiot when it comes to team construction)

considering that I honestly belief the idiot that posted in 11, 19, 30, 55, 57, 60, 62, 64, 66, 74, is FJM, and considering his comments, I really can't respect the site, seriously anyone on the planet who is capable of breathing that honestly thinks Joe Morgan is an idiot (not hypothetically, not relatively but 100% honestly thinks that) is an idiot beyond comparison. I don't mean to say he's dumb, I mean to say this is a guy who really should be shot so that the concept of him breeding doesn't happen. Joe Morgan is annoying and incorrect and stubborn, but to think he is an idiot is absurd (I'm a liberal and I may make fun of George Bush, but I honestly don't think he is an idiot)


the fact that this guy is wasting his time on this thread with a belief that is totally absurd, then for him to waste all 25 of his brain cells to try and pretend to analyze a division race is hilarious. I mean this fjm chap really should stick with sarcasm, because he doesn't have the brain cells of even a joe morgan to attempt to analyze a baseball team. His nitch is sarcasm not intelligence.

I should be shot huh? I must have touched a nerve with you cardsfanboy.

By the way I have no affiliation with the FJM website. I'm a fan of it. It makes me laugh. I look forward to reading it. I have nothing to do with its production. I have no relationship with its purveyors.

for the record, I wasn't criticizing fjm on the whole

but...

I honestly belief [sic] the idiot that [sic] posted in 11, 19, 30, 55, 57, 60, 62, 64, 66, 74, is FJM...

and...

...anyone... who... honestly thinks Joe Morgan is an idiot... is an idiot beyond comparison... this is a guy who really should be shot so that the concept of him breeding doesn't happen... this fjm chap... doesn't have the brain cells of even a joe morgan...

Well, just as long as you're not criticizing.

It all depends how you define idiot.

George W. Bush is clearly able to function in society to some degree, so by the classic definition, I suppose he's not an idiot. But on the other hand, it's obvious from listening to him talk that he's not smart enough to have graduated from Yale--let alone their graduate school--without having his name and his money, especially while addicted to drugs. He also makes serious policy decisions based on knee-jerk emotional reactions to beliefs for which he has no evidence, and trusts advisors who are clearly in the business solely for their own personal aggrandizement. So he's stupid, at any rate. An idiot by the definition I and most people colloquially use.

For what it's worth, I'd probably classify over 50% of the American population as stupid or lower. Joe Morgan is obviously either stupid or very lazy. Both are unbefitting someone in his position, and so he should not have that position.

It all depends how you define idiot.

George W. Bush is clearly able to function in society to some degree, so by the classic definition, I suppose he's not an idiot. But on the other hand, it's obvious from listening to him talk that he's not smart enough to have graduated from Yale--let alone their graduate school--without having his name and his money, especially while addicted to drugs. He also makes serious policy decisions based on knee-jerk emotional reactions to beliefs for which he has no evidence, and trusts advisors who are clearly in the business solely for their own personal aggrandizement. So he's stupid, at any rate. An idiot by the definition I and most people colloquially use.

For what it's worth, I'd probably classify over 50% of the American population as stupid or lower. Joe Morgan is obviously either stupid or very lazy. Both are unbefitting someone in his position, and so he should not have that position.

Wow. Is this the definition of a self rightous internet nerd? I love the "addicted to drugs" part as if Vaux actually was there when GW took a pee test (knee-jerk emotional reactions to beliefs for which he has no evidence). And for the record, I don't like bush or most of the american public myself:)

considering that I honestly belief the idiot that posted in 11, 19, 30, 55, 57, 60, 62, 64, 66, 74, is FJM

That's not him. The guys at FJM write much better than he does...

50% of the populations is below average. That is a fact, you can look it up.

...intelligence is measured primarily, if not solely, by one's ability to converse in WARPs and OPSes. People who denigrate such methods are dumb - in particular, they're dumber than me! I am superior to the person who denigrated WARP becuase I am smart enough to get WARP.

Possible new sig. Thnaks, Matt.

50% of the populations is below average. That is a fact, you can look it up.

And 67% are within one standard deviation of average. So does that mean that 16.5% of the people are dumb and anequal number smart while the rest are middling?

You can pretty much count on someone criticizing the likes of Joe Morgan for flubbing Stats 101, and then count on someone criticizing the critic for being such a simpleton as to think that's all that matters.

You're badly missing my point. I criticized Morgan for flubbing Stats 101.

The problem with FJM, and much of the commentary on this thread, is that they go beyond criticizing Morgan for misunderstanding and misusing certain context-neutral statistical measures, to saying htat he's stupid and should be fired becuase he fails to understand certain context-adjusted statistical measures. The rhetoric of the site depends directly on "being such a simpleton to think that's all that matters." I'm not moving from a criticism of Morgan's misunderstanding of OPS to my critique, I'm moving from the wealth of claims that he's stupid to my critique.

Morgan does a number of forms of analysis quite well, or not too badly, and these were dismissed above in the thread as not requiring intelligence. The point was, obviously, that only the use of certain context-adjusted statistical measures demonstrates intelligence.

And I thought that by referencing my fandom, I was being clear that I'm a part of the internal baseball community, and what I'm saying comes from within that community. I don't "hate hte internet" or something - I just want to change certain aspects of hte discourse.

George W. Bush is clearly able to function in society to some degree, so by the classic definition, I suppose he's not an idiot. But on the other hand, it's obvious from listening to him talk that he's not smart enough to have graduated from Yale--let alone their graduate school--without having his name and his money, especially while addicted to drugs.

Man, why is it that people always want to bring politics into a baseball discussion?

50% of the populations is below average. That is a fact, you can look it up.

In my Lake Wobegon summer league, everyone had an OPS+ over 100.

In my Lake Wobegon summer league, everyone had an OPS+ over 100.

<3

Wow, what a thread. I actually don't mind Joe's crotchety-ness and refusal to give new stat thinking even a cursory glance. I really do enjoy it when he focuses on some small point of skill that I usually don't think about or take for granted. And I kind of like his stories about the old Reds even if he probably tells those stories too often. His lack of preparation drives me crazy, though. I work 50 hours a week and then go home and spend time with my girl, take care of cats, do laundry, iron my clothes for the next day, cook dinner 3 or 4 times a week, etc etc etc and I guarantee you I know more about who's who on every team in the league than Joe. It's inexcusable.

(That said, I loved the ALCS 1n 1989 Joe called with Reggie Jackson. If there are two guys in baseball who hate each other more than those two did at the time, I'd be surprised. I remember even my mother wondered aloud if they were going to throw punches.)

Man, why is it that people always want to bring politics into a baseball discussion?

Its all about the similarity scores. When it comes to stubbornness, an absolute refusal to ever admit you were wrong, Joe Morgan's #1 comp happens to be W.

First, we have the implication that intelligence is measured primarily, if not solely, by one's ability to converse in WARPs and OPSes. People who denigrate such methods are dumb - in particular, they're dumber than me! I am superior to the person who denigrated WARP becuase I am smart enough to get WARP.

It's not about WARP or OPS. It's about a wholesale rejection of any scientific attempt to analyze the sport of baseball.

It is stupid to reject outright (and worse, show disdain for) an entire field of analysis without making an attempt to understand it.

I've said a few times that I have issues with WARP myself because it is "inside a black box." I have issues with Win Shares as a measure of quality but I believe it to be a fine measure of what happened... to the degree that I understand it a lucky player will have more win shares than an unlucky player; that makes it of questionable value in my opinion in determining who IS better, as opposed to who had better results.

That said, I don't reject WARP or WS as useless. I simply don't rely on them heavily within my own (very limited) analysis. If there's a dramatic difference in my opinion of a player and a particular metric, I'm always interested in why that difference exists. No metric is perfect and it's useful to have an idea if there's a flaw in one guy's methodology or the other guy's.

I would have a tremendous amount of respect for Joe Morgan if he simply said something like:

"There are a lot of ways to look at the game of baseball. We all agree that Alex Rodriguez is a great hitter; we all agree that Neifi Perez is a not-so-great hitter. My personal approach has always been to judge a player's offensive value based on how what he did on the field translated to scoring runs and driving them in, and a pitcher's value in how many times his team wins when he gets the ball. I don't deny that there are other approaches but this has worked for me and for many baseball fans throughout history, so I don't see a particular reason to change my approach. I'm more interested in things like positioning, pitch selection, hitting approach, etc. than I am in being more precise by sifting more heavily over the numbers."

But on the other hand, it's obvious from listening to him talk that he's not smart enough to have graduated from Yale--let alone their graduate school--without having his name and his money, especially while addicted to drugs. He also makes serious policy decisions based on knee-jerk emotional reactions to beliefs for which he has no evidence, and trusts advisors who are clearly in the business solely for their own personal aggrandizement. So he's stupid, at any rate. An idiot by the definition I and most people colloquially use.

Note: I am not a fan of Bush or the job he's doing. I find his faith-based initiatives to be discomforting and he's clearly a lousy public speaker.

But I can't agree at all with the above.

Graduation from college is exceptionally easy for all but a few particular degrees that are highly technical or require a particular talent. It requires a small amount of work and not even a large amount of showing up. I didn't attend an Ivy League school, but I did go to a highly regarded technical school and then a well-regarded state school. There were more smart people at the technical school but all of the non-engineering courses I took were no more difficult than the non-engineering courses I took at the state school. And the few technical courses I took at the state school weren't significantly simpler than the ones I took at the technical school. Ohm's law, the fundamental theorem of calculus, the themes within Hamlet, the rules of classical music composition, a frog's digestive system: these don't get more or less complicated as you go from the meanest community college up to the most selective Ivy League schools.

It's also not like we're talking about Trainspotting here. There are rumors that Bush was an alcoholic and a cocaine abuser. I'm sure the guy liked to party. That doesn't mean he was reduced to such a state that he was rendered useless. It's been a while since I was in college, but there were very few complete burnouts; even among people I knew that lived four years in a perpetual state of intoxication of some sort, there was a near 100% graduation rate.

Bush may have no concrete evidence that Jesus exists or that he expects certain behavior, but he has boatloads of anecdotal evidence. I don't particularly agree with his opinion of the worth of such evidence, but it's not like he's simply making it up as he goes along. He's been fairly consistent in his approach to policy decisions based on his representations throughout his political career as a man who takes his Christian faith seriously in his approach to governing.

I honestly believe that most of his advisors are legitimately concerned about making America a better place according to their own personal beliefs about what is better and what will move the country in that direction. I disagree strongly with many of their beliefs.

Bush (and his adminstration) has a clear agenda that they are pushing this country towards. These are efforts to make this a more religious country, a stricter country, a country with more governmentally mandated moral positions. The success of the administration is a clear sign that someone knows what they are doing. I do not believe that anyone who gets to be president is so woefully ignorant that they aren't a conscious part of driving that agenda. I didn't believe it with Reagan's senile act and I don't buy it now with Bush.

FJM is snarky and sometimes condescending, no doubt. But I'm glad someone is pointing out that Joe Morgan, the #1 in-game analyst for the biggest sports network on the planet does next to no research.

And now the guy who selectively quotes one section of a great post just to ridicule the partial idea is here. Awesome.

Actually, I've been in this thread the whole time. And, I didn't take shots at Joe Morgan for not understanding stats. I think an announcing team that did nothing but recite stats and make the typical SABR style arguments would be rather boring. What I did and continually will criticize Joe Morgan for is his laziness. I also criticized him for what I believed was a cheap shot by him at Joe Torre.

The man is simply lazy and doesn't work to even be passable at his job. He doesn't do any background research into the players or teams he's covering, he doesn't do any legwork, he doesn't even watch extra baseball games. That's lazy, and it should be unacceptable to ESPN. He doesn't have a hard job, in fact, he's got a job that I'd say a fair number of us would dream to have: he gets paid a good amount of money to watch and talk about baseball games. All his travel is paid for, and he gets to meet and interview the players, managers, and GMs.

That he doesn't even put in any effort at his job is pure laziness. I try not to listen to him, most of the time I have him on mute (which is too bad because Jon Miller is my favorite), but I really hope he criticizes a player for being lazy and not taking their job seriously. It would be a great moment of the pot calling the kettle black.

FJM is snarky and sometimes condescending, no doubt. But I'm glad someone is pointing out that Joe Morgan, the #1 in-game analyst for the biggest sports network on the planet does next to no research.

FJM is really starting to get a lot of press. They got a blurb in an CNNSI.com column, I believe Neyer has mentioned them, and I think Sports Guy has, too.

I think Bush has some very smart advisors and has done throughout his political career. Bush himself, meh, always struck me as something of an empty vessel.

And Joe Morgan is a competent announcer (I pretty much tune him out and listen to Jon Miller), but pretty atrocious at the other part of his job.

Most of his flaws as an announcer strike me as being someone who has well and truly hit their groove and is happy enough to trundle along in a semi-concious state for eternity as long as the pay checks keep rolling in.

FJM is really starting to get a lot of press. They got a blurb in an CNNSI.com column, I believe Neyer has mentioned them, and I think Sports Guy has, too.

FJM has been getting a fair share of press for at least 2 years - I'm pretty sure it's gotten mentioned a few times on CNNSI.com, Will Carroll even had "Ken Tremendous" on BPRadio once (for whatever that's worth), and I'm pretty sure the site's usually namechecked along w/ Deadspin & other such things whenever the MSM (or a big blogger type) boots up their AOL account.

Though I'm not the most impartial party (since some pals & I started a baseball-satire / poop-joke blog around the same time that FJM started getting noticed, & poked more than a little fun @ FJM in the process), I can at least appreciate what FJM is doing, even if their execution (esp. in regards to the point-by-point mid-chat rebuttals) leaves a little to be desired in terms of analysis and execution.

I did go to a highly regarded technical school and then a well-regarded state school.

It's OK; Cal Tech and UC-Berkeley are nothing to be ashamed of.

100% of UC Berkeley's graduate programs are ranked in the top five in the U.S. Stanford can't say that.

advisors are legitimately concerned about making America a better place according to their own personal beliefs about what is better and what will move the country in that direction. I disagree strongly with many of their beliefs.

What troubles me is that these beliefs are not founded on reason. As a result you get the President arriving at decisions this way: "God told me to invade Afghanistan and I invaded Afghanistan. God told me to invade Iraq and I invaded Iraq." (Source: Kevin Phillips) Beliefs based on a proper understanding of history would have served to prevent all the foreign policy mistakes Bush has made.

For what it's worth, I'd probably classify over 50% of the American population as stupid or lower. Joe Morgan is obviously either stupid or very lazy. Both are unbefitting someone in his position, and so he should not have that position.

Yes, because our society is so good at promoting those who are neither stupid nor lazy.

Folks make it sound like there are people unlike Joe Morgan in practically every other position of power in the country.

At least Joe is good at SOME aspects of his job, in fact, world-class.

FJM just linked to Yard Work a couple of days ago.

At least Joe is good at SOME aspects of his job, in fact, world-class.

Which aspects are those?

I'm sorry, but for me, it's not that Joe Morgan doesn't "get" OPS+ or whatever, it's that he rejects the ability of math or statistics to explain things about numbers. He's literally insulting hundreds of years of work by mathematicians, statisticians, teachers, philosophers, and others by simply saying that things which are grounded in math or statistics are innately not as valid as other things.

That to me is a much grosser offense than his stance on RBIs, Tony Perez, or Luis Castillo's National League experience. I think if you asked 100 people on the street if knowing and understanding the basic principles of math and statistics would be a benefit to someone wishing to analyze a facet - ANY facet - of life, that all of them would say yes. People might not get the statistics - they may think them so counterintuitive that they reject or ignore theme - but they understand that statistics is an inherently valuable tool for any person attempting to analyze or understand something.

But not Joe Morgan. It's not just ludicrous, it's disrespectful.

have any anecdotes or rememberances that encapsulate the antipathy?

The only specific argument I remember involved whether Eck or Canseco shoudl be MVP. Morgan was in Eck's camp and Reggie in Jose's. (Eck won because he saved all 4 wins, but Jose hit 3 important home runs in what was a pretty close series despite the fact it was a sweep. Actually, this was 1988, not 1989. Sorry for the mistake.) More, I just remember Joe contradicting everything Reggie said. I recall at the time siding with Joe more than Reggie and it's interesting that Joe stuck as an announcer and Reggie didn't. I'd have to see the games again on Classic or something to figure out the specifics of why they got on each other's nerves. It could have been a case of two egos unable to co-exist in the same room. Also, I think there was a little of Joe thinking Reggie was just a showman, whereas Joe was the real Baseball Man in the booth and Joe was going to make sure Reggie knew this.

I think if you asked 100 people on the street if knowing and understanding the basic principles of math and statistics would be a benefit to someone wishing to analyze a facet - ANY facet - of life, that all of them would say yes.

A fair majority might, but all of the them? No way, haven't you ever met a mathphobe? There are a lot of Joe Morgan's in every walk of life.

They don't like numbers, they are not good with math, and the claim by mathematicians/physicist scientists/statisticians that they can create models/accurately predict things in the real world alternatively scares them and pisses them off.

Joe KNOWS what a .300 average/100 rbis are and what they mean (or at least he thinks he does)- so do thousands upon thousands of ten year old fans- and for most of them their understanding does not advance beyond that point, not when they're 20, 30, 40... He and they simply do not want to hear about anything else.

Now, if nothing else there are 10 year olds who "intuitively know" what a .300 EQA means or a 150 OPS+, and for most of them that understanding boils down to .300 and 150 are real good, and their understanding won't really advance beyond that. And most of them will react the same way Joe has, if someone tries to use different stat 20 years from now- they will resent it.

#152

Would any of those 100 people on the street be baseball fans? There are still a lot of baseball fans who agree with Morgan regarding OPS, UZR, etc.

It seems that the venom about Joe Morgain is an ustated assertion that he perpetuates ignorance. You think that he is misguiding many people with the chats that he does. I think many of you feel that someone with the amount of power Morgan has (the power of the press) should take it seriously and learn about something rather than giving an uninformed opinion. These views are reasonable.

Now, to the question of how to quantify the ignorance he perpetuates. In other words, how much damage is he causing? How much is it? His chats reach thousands of people at most. Does anyone know how many people read an ESPN chat?

With those data, the next task is to judge whether the "old view" or the "new view" is winning. What is the level of public acceptance of the new stats? The new stats are getting publicized in my local papers. That's a good thing. I see OBP displayed on the TV and on the video screen at the ball park. I think the trend is for increased knowledge and acceptance of the new stats. I see Morgan's view getting pushed aside by the new view.

Then, if you think Morgan is really causing a problem, what to do about it? Solutions? Educate Joe Morgan isn't very practical. BBTF chats?

I think if you asked 100 people on the street if knowing and understanding the basic principles of math and statistics would be a benefit to someone wishing to analyze a facet - ANY facet - of life, that all of them would say yes.

Which street and where? Your survey is going to be great influenced by your sample location. The "average" person in a highly educated/professional area of the country is vastly different than the "average" person in a low educated part of the country.

The averages of the internet will fool you. The average person here on BBTF would probably fall in the upper 10% of the population. Just a guess.

It's OK; Cal Tech and UC-Berkeley are nothing to be ashamed of.

Nice. It was CMU and Binghamton.

What troubles me is that these beliefs are not founded on reason. As a result you get the President arriving at decisions this way: "God told me to invade Afghanistan and I invaded Afghanistan. God told me to invade Iraq and I invaded Iraq." (Source: Kevin Phillips)

I do not think Bush is above giving a pat answer to avoid further debate on the subject. It's very difficult to have much reasonable discussion about whether someone made a good decision if their justification is divine instruction.

I think there are pretty simple reasons why we really invaded Afghanistan (they were harboring the guy who was a ringleader for the two most recent terrorist attacks) and why we really attacked Iraq (to send a message to those we couldn't attack for political reasons or military reasons, like ally Saudi Arabia or nuke-holding North Korea). The first is pretty defensible and came up a few times (we're going to flush out Osama). The second is highly political gamesmanship and it's unlikely any politician would even admit to it.

The idea that Bush honestly believes that God spoke to him and directed him to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq is a little bit of a stretch, in my opinion. The idea that he would say that because he knows religion is a place you can't attack a person so he still gets to do what he wants is much more believable. And that's why I think Bush is actually smart, not stupid.

It all depends how you define idiot.

I don't know if everyone knows this, but idiot began as a clinical term, with a specific meaning. I worked with the mentally retarded for many years, and I would sometimes open up their old clinical reports to find this opening sentence: "John Smith is an idiot."

Idiot (as well as moron) referred to the number of standard deviations from a normal IQ. We now call an idiot "profoundly retarded" and a "moron" mildly retarded. Actually, maybe they have new terms now -- it's been a while.

Joe Morgan is definitely not an idiot; he's not even a moron. I don't see the point of getting upset about what he says. He's still better than John Kruk.

We'll have to ask Nieporent to post his clinical chart to get the latest terminology.

Is "CSI viewer" on the chart somewhere?

Kidding! I kid!

The idea that Bush honestly believes that God spoke to him and directed him to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq is a little bit of a stretch, in my opinion

It's not an idea. He actually said it to a religious group in Pennsylvania about two years ago. Kevin Phillips is a Republican. Better, he is a stellar researcher and book writer. I trust that he got the quote right.

...if you think Morgan is really causing a problem, what to do about it?

Fire Joe Morgan.

The idea that he would say that because he knows religion is a place you can't attack a person so he still gets to do what he wants is much more believable.

Makes no sense. Of course you can attack a person based on religion. Happens every thread religion is brought up on BTF. Bush certainly made himself a target with that quote.

i stopped reading joe's chats when they went $$$ but i know in the old days he would never give any sort of answer to the - do you think the yankees will Go All The Way this year

agree that he refuses to EVER say that he made a mistake even when he makes an obvious one.

but i ALSO agree that the fjm people have taken this too far and they are no longer making any sort of really good points.

and i also think that most of the casual baseball fans don't really want talking about WARP vs VORP vs URP. joe most definitely HAS talked about getting on base and HOW you get on base and the value of a runner who hustles.

AND for all his faults joe is still WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY better than mccarver and buck and i would prefer to see them gone.

Even though Morgan (sometimes) sneaks in some decent analysis every now and then, I generally despise what he tries to pass off as "analysis." My biggest peeve is his stubbornness even when the visual evidence is overwhelming.

Here's an example of what might happen on Sunday night:

Renteria hitting, and he's facing Moyer. Moyer throws a good changeup, 3 inches off the plate and down. Renteria, although slightly fooled, leans out over the plate and hits it hard the other way.

Joe: "the problem with that pitch is that he left it out over the plate." The K-zone replay comes up which shows that the pitch was actually well off the plate and a good "pitcher's pitch."

Joe generally does not retract his statement even if K-zone and the video replay proves otherwise and that pisses me off like you wouldn't believe.

An actual analyst would retract his statement and say something like this:

"Well, guess I was wrong. It looks like Renteria was just sitting on that pitch or that location and he got it and handled it well." He could then point to HOW he was sitting on that pitch or location by noticing how Renteria's posture change or how he dove into the pitch or plenty of other indications. Or he could say that Renteria probably knows that Moyer likes to go to his changeup down and away with a 2-2 count or whatever....you get my point.


I detest listening to Hawk Harrelson and all but he impressed me one time. Frank Thomas was facing my favorite submariner. Bradford throws his typical down and in sinker that was actually off the plate in and down (a great pitch, really). Frank hits a missile into the left field stands....You can put it on the board....so annoying especially since it's against my guy.

The typical broadcaster says: "Well, Bradford left than sinker up and Thomas made him pay for it."

Hawk, while watching the replay, says something like: "Well, that wasn't a great swing. Frank just stepped in the bucket (stepped towards 3rd base instead of straight at the pitcher) and got his pitch."

In other words, Thomas guessed "sinker in", sat on it, got his pitch and hit it out. Very impressed with Hawk there.

Why does Joe very rarely say: "You know, sometimes good hitters hit a good pitch" and/or "sometimes pitchers get away with a bad one."

If you guys want, we can meet up at Game Chatter this Sunday and tear him a new one every time he says something ridicuous....I won't be bashful.

100% of UC Berkeley's graduate programs are ranked in the top five in the U.S. Stanford can't say that.

Hmm. This isn't true in my field of academia, though Berkeley is probably a top 10ish, and probably a slot or two above Stanford. Maybe they came out in top 5 across the board of one of the U.S. News surveys, but I highly doubt that they are anything like top 5 in every program. For example, they are ranked #8 among law schools, #8 among business schools, #8 in education, excellent but not top 5, in this year's US News.

It's not an idea. He actually said it to a religious group in Pennsylvania about two years ago.

It's called pandering.

Kevin Phillips is a Republican. Better, he is a stellar researcher and book writer. I trust that he got the quote right.

I never questioned the accuracy of the quote. I question only Bush's honesty when speaking the words.

Of course you can attack a person based on religion. Happens every thread religion is brought up on BTF.

I hope this is a joke, but in case it isn't, say we have a discussion about whether player A or B is better. Your argument for A is filled with statistical evidence, player quotes, scouting reports, whatever. Mine is "God told me B is better."

The discussion is now over. We're no longer arguing about whether A or B is the better player, but about my irrational position. I have removed any debate on the merits and turned it into a discussion of the person arguing.

Using religious "fact" as justification makes further argument pointless.

I love baseball-reference....

The bomb that I referenced earlier occurred on 6/1/04:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/pvb.cgi?n2=thomafr04&n1=bradfch01

I now wish I had that video...

Why does Joe very rarely say: "You know, sometimes good hitters hit a good pitch" and/or "sometimes pitchers get away with a bad one."

Some people have a certain mindset- if a pitch gets blasted it's a bad pitch, no matter where it was, speed, movement etc. If a pitch gets popped up it's a good pitch no matter where it was, speed, movement, how bad the batter swung, etc.

You can always tell an announcer with that mindset:
Good at bat: swing at ball one, take strike 3, pull an outside pitch for a groundball single just barely past the 3b and SS. ("way to go, aggressively went after pitches he could hit")

Bad at bat: 3-2 count, about 3 to 4 foul balls, hard groundball up the middle that the SS gets because there was a runner on 2nd and he was cheating that way ("missed opportunity there, had some good pitches to hit but didn't do much with them")

It's called pandering.

not flip flopping, and America deserves a President who knows the difference.

Some people have a certain mindset- if a pitch gets blasted it's a bad pitch, no matter where it was, speed, movement etc. If a pitch gets popped up it's a good pitch no matter where it was, speed, movement, how bad the batter swung, etc.

Exactly. Again, I hate to commend Hawk on that one comment, but you hear it so seldomly that it makes you wonder:

Didn't Joe ever miss a pitch down the middle?

Didn't Joe ever hit a good pitch hard?

I guess 9000 AB's is not enough experience....unreal

Was Joe Morgan better when he first started out? Does pure laziness contribute to it?

I've been surprised at how much I've liked certain young color guys - Leiter and Gwynn especially, also Keith Hernandez - but I can easily imagine that in 15 years it will be cliche city with those guys. (Less so Hernandez because he clearly thinks himself a baseball genius, and wrote a book that has a dozen pages on what the best count to hit and run on is.)

I'm sure this is the last post to this thread and no one will ever read but I want to say one more thing. I don't dislike Joe simply because he doesn't understand OPS and WARP etc... It's his attitude toward these stats. He's very dismissive of them and acts as if the people who think they are good measures are naive and inexperienced. He maintains this attitude while demonstrating at the same time that he doesn't understand why people who like them think they are good measures and improvements over more traditional statistics. Its not as if Joe has made any compelling case against any of these statistics. Not that he has to. If he's not into statistical analysis all he has to do is say that he looks at the game in a different way and that is not his area of expertise. Instead he just treats statistical analysis like the domain of a bunch of detached nerds and dismisses and even denigrates ALL WHILE NOT UNDERSTANDING IT. That is why his lack of understanding is so frustrating. I'm not out to insult someone merely because they don't understand something. And everyone who has said that announcers don't have to be expert performance analysts and sabermetricians is exactly right. But to completely lack understanding of it and at the same time denigrate and dismiss it is to invite these insults.

What I'm reading is that if Joe Morgan thought and talked about baseball the way some of you thought and talked about baseball -- if he came from the same socio-economic background and was college educated and spoke the lingo -- he'd be okay or at least tolerable.

With a announcing world filled with mediocrities and unbearable personalities, to pick out Joe Morgan for the brunt of attack says a good deal about the people attacking him.

There are valid criticisms to be made of Morgan and many of them have been made here, but it takes a narrow mindset to start and perpetuate something like FJM, or to focus on Morgan as the epitome of baseball announcing badness.

He does have a high-profile spot Jeff. I really find McCarver irritating also. McCarver and Morgan are the ESPN and FOX color guys. When people aren't watching their favorite team's local broadcast they are usually stuck with McCarver or Morgan. That's why Joe gets it. Personally I would have started with McCarver but I think the guys at FJM find Morgan a little bit easier to mock.

I understand that Morgan is high-profile, that he attacked a sacred cow of sabermetrics, that he's stubborn, that he spouts nonsense on occasion -- there are reasons to criticize him.

FJM and a 170+ thread devoted to commenting on the comments on a Joe Morgan chat -- one of numerous such threads over the years -- is overkill.

And overkill is almost always more about the killer than his target.

It's venting. But then someone has to criticize you for it and it just gets going. Honestly though I like complaining about Joe Morgan. I have to put up with him every Sunday night so I have a lot of built up criticism. I think FJM is funny. I will probably tire of it some day soon but that day is not here yet.

50% of the populations is below average. That is a fact, you can look it up.

Nope. 50% of the population is at or below the median. That, Mr. Daly, is something you can look up.

FJM and a 170+ thread devoted to commenting on the comments on a Joe Morgan chat -- one of numerous such threads over the years -- is overkill.

Half of these 170+ posts are complaining about the commenting on the comments on a Joe Morgan chat.

Nope. 50% of the population is at or below the median. That, Mr. Daly, is something you can look up.

That was Quilvio, man.

I believe that the Fire Joe Morgan people are, on the whole, better at the job they have taken up (being Internet ######## making fun of somebody)

Sure. That's an easy job; being Internet ######## making fun of somebody. Even David Brennan had his moments.

50% of the population is at or below the median.

That depends on how fine you slice the cheese to get the median.

If you cannot slice it fine enough, you may have a case where the median is X, and 8% are exactly at X. Then 46% are above median, 46% are below median. The same with mean.

Jeff Wilson needs to be educated about what socio-economic background I came from.

And the one Joe Morgan apparently thinks he came from.

Marge: "You know, Homer, it's easy to criticize..."

Homer: "Fun, too!"

Sometimes, being mean and unfair is the best way to get a laugh.

Surely TeeVee would never stoop to such levels.

*cough* JonSeda *cough*

Upon reflection, I should, however, commend him on his recognition of that forms of prejudice exist in our world besides racism. The actions of the 104th Congress, and the rhetoric framed during its unspeakable campaign of self-promotion made horribly clear the scourge of prejudice against the poor that afflicts our nation. That scourge, it is true, overlaps significantly with racism in that many Americans--of all races--seem to equate "poor" with "non-white." But racism was not the only culprit, for the campaign was also riddled with smear imagery of "trailer trash," "welfare queens," and "lazy freeloaders," aimed for the most part at midwestern and southern whites.

Morgan, of course--whatever his upbringing--now considers himself to be among the rich if his political undertakings are to be read accurately. But even that is irrelevant to an observer's criticism of laziness and idle stupidity. Grammar and book-learning are not the exclusive province of any one socio-economic class, and if a person cannot be troubled to acquire them--especially when he is in a position to be heard and believed my millions, who look to him for a certain type of education--he gets no indulgence on that count from me.

And Bill Clinton, the vicious traitor who signed it all into law, claimed to be one of them. Of course, a huge number of them voted for a lemur six years later.

I believe that the Fire Joe Morgan people are, on the whole, better at the job they have taken up (being Internet ######## making fun of somebody) than Joe Morgan is at his, at least when he's not actually calling a game. It's important to find your niche.

thats a stretch of humongous proportions, this is a group that has one agenda and thinks that by repeating the same tired lines over, and over, without any wit, intelligence and a limited amount of humor that they are going to make their point.

It was funny the first time I read it, it was ok the second, it was tired the third and now it's Joe Morgan like, in that it doesn't even really try to criticize, and instead attempts to make itself look smart. Seriously the website jumped the shark a long time ago, and is pretty piss poor, this particular "article" had one good point(maybe) and about 7 repeated points, and a couple of crappy analysis that Joe Morgan would laugh at the stupidity expressed by these guys (hey I'm a freaking idiot I think a teams pyth record is the sole basis for judging the quality of a team, next thing you know the fjm crew will be walking around with "2006 world champs, NY METS" t-shirts)

This group is basically the american idol of website criticism, long time ago they figured out their successful niche and instead of trying to improve the quality, have basically emulated joe morgan and kept their low knowledge level to the point where they refuse to improve.

Their goal isn't, as far as I can tell, the dissemination of high-level analysis. It's cruel mockery, and they're doing it pretty well. Sure, they repeat a lot of points -- that's because the people they complain about do the same thing every time. That's the point.

This is where our opinions diverge--I think they are absolutely atrocious at this job, and I think that mockery, critique and satire are more than just calling a fat man "fat", endlessly.