Joe Morgan admits importance of OBP! [Archive]

View Full Version : Joe Morgan admits importance of OBP!

rolliefingers

08-26-2007, 11:14 PM

scOtt

08-27-2007, 12:37 AM

Well, getting on base, most of the time, means getting hits. Which pads the most important stat of all, BATTING AVERAGE!

:p

bobmc

08-27-2007, 06:37 AM

As I watched the game last night, I couldn't help but notice the ex-O's facing each other. Of course, John Maine stood out but he was only average. David Wells actually had a little left in the tank, including a bunt base hit and run scored. Aging, fading Niner played first for the Mets and Jon Miller, an ex-O of sorts, tried to give him props for playing on winning ballclubs as seasons end. Lastings Milledge or Loney, either of whom we should have gotten in return for RLo or Trax (;) ), shows promise.

It's a sad day as the season winds down and we are nowhere once again and even the guys we had (except for Miller) are mediocre. :002_ssad:

But as Joe mentioned, Jose Reyes is really good! :)

DrungoHazewood

08-27-2007, 07:39 AM

Just now, during the Dodgers/Mets game on ESPN, Morgan commented that Jose Reyes was doing his job by "getting on base and making things happen".

Of course, he then took pains to mention that "I'm not much of a stats guy..." :rolleyes:

Really, Joe? Then how would you know if Reyes is really getting on base?

His eyes, obviously. The only thing you can trust. If it's a number it's been written down or typed and probably manipulated by someone else, someone who probably has an agenda, someone who probably couldn't play Major League Baseball themselves and wants revenge by bringing the whole system crashing down upon itself.

DREKTUNES

08-27-2007, 10:37 AM

www.firejoemorgan.com

Just sayin......

Boy Howdy

08-27-2007, 02:40 PM

rolliefingers

08-27-2007, 02:49 PM

square634

08-27-2007, 02:53 PM

Joe Morgan?

He of the .417-.406-.427-.466-.444-.417 OBP's from 1972-77 & .392 over a 22-year MLB career.

I'd say he's able to judge pretty clearly whether somebody's doing a good job getting on base or not.

It is interesting that Morgan is someone championed by those who favor sabermetrics as underrated, yet seems to reject any statistics more complicated than average and RBI.

DrungoHazewood

08-27-2007, 02:56 PM

Joe Morgan?

He of the .417-.406-.427-.466-.444-.417 OBP's from 1972-77 & .392 over a 22-year MLB career.

I'd say he's able to judge pretty clearly whether somebody's doing a good job getting on base or not.

You clearly haven't read or listened to much he's said since he retired. It's almost as if he wished he'd actually been a wild-swinging, insanely-agressive-stealing, bunt-happy player. Check out the link DREKTUNES posted. Hilarious stuff.

Boy Howdy

08-27-2007, 04:32 PM

You clearly haven't read or listened to much he's said since he retired. It's almost as if he wished he'd actually been a wild-swinging, insanely-agressive-stealing, bunt-happy player. Check out the link DREKTUNES posted. Hilarious stuff.

Look, I'm well aware of the site and the anti-Morgan sentiment.

I just get sick of it when people actually start taking things he said that were correct & twisting them to fit their world view that he's a round-the-clock bumbling idiot.

All people all the time are somewhere within the sliding scale of perfection & imperfection. I understand that's he's paid handsomely to analyze ballgames, and that criticism comes with the territory, but honestly I don't think he's as bad as most of the announcers I hear.

Put anyone next to Jon Miller & they will look bad. Pretty much any announcer that doesn't follow a team day-by-day will look like an idiot if you examine their proclamations deeply enough. Listen to any ex-ballplayer (except perhaps Palmer) talk about their playing days and you will find a host of errors when you try to match it up with retrosheet.

If you listen to Morgan (or any other broadcaster) and take it as gospel, you're a fool. But I can enjoy listening to the guy for the most part while understanding very well why somebody else considers him a bag of hot air. I'm neither more right or more wrong than the other point of view.

sakata_catching

08-27-2007, 05:01 PM

Look, I'm well aware of the site and the anti-Morgan sentiment.

I just get sick of it when people actually start taking things he said that were correct & twisting them to fit their world view that he's a round-the-clock bumbling idiot.

All people all the time are somewhere within the sliding scale of perfection & imperfection. I understand that's he's paid handsomely to analyze ballgames, and that criticism comes with the territory, but honestly I don't think he's as bad as most of the announcers I hear.

Put anyone next to Jon Miller & they will look bad. Pretty much any announcer that doesn't follow a team day-by-day will look like an idiot if you examine their proclamations deeply enough. Listen to any ex-ballplayer (except perhaps Palmer) talk about their playing days and you will find a host of errors when you try to match it up with retrosheet.

If you listen to Morgan (or any other broadcaster) and take it as gospel, you're a fool. But I can enjoy listening to the guy for the most part while understanding very well why somebody else considers him a bag of hot air. I'm neither more right or more wrong than the other point of view.

Make no mistake, Morgan courts the scorn he receives. He has consciously and vociferously established himself as the mouthpiece for anti-new-stats, anti-Moneyball, old school baseball fundamentalism, especially frustrating because, he a) like most zealots, demonstrates a clear-cut and total ignorance of the concepts he regularly attacks (for example, continuing to insist that Moneyball is all about OBP); and b) he fails to recognize that the aptitudes that made him extraordinary as a ballplayer are exactly the same as the ones extolled by the people he holds in such contempt.

Listen, I enjoy hearing former ballplayers reminiscing about their playing days. I also enjoy learning about the continually evolving statistical analysis of the game. There is a happy medium to be found there. Not so for Joe.

DrungoHazewood

08-27-2007, 07:55 PM

Look, I'm well aware of the site and the anti-Morgan sentiment.

I just get sick of it when people actually start taking things he said that were correct & twisting them to fit their world view that he's a round-the-clock bumbling idiot.

All people all the time are somewhere within the sliding scale of perfection & imperfection. I understand that's he's paid handsomely to analyze ballgames, and that criticism comes with the territory, but honestly I don't think he's as bad as most of the announcers I hear.

Put anyone next to Jon Miller & they will look bad. Pretty much any announcer that doesn't follow a team day-by-day will look like an idiot if you examine their proclamations deeply enough. Listen to any ex-ballplayer (except perhaps Palmer) talk about their playing days and you will find a host of errors when you try to match it up with retrosheet.

If you listen to Morgan (or any other broadcaster) and take it as gospel, you're a fool. But I can enjoy listening to the guy for the most part while understanding very well why somebody else considers him a bag of hot air. I'm neither more right or more wrong than the other point of view.

Morgan is actually a fairly entertaining guy when he's paired up with Miller and just telling old stories. He really needs to stay away from anything that resembles analysis.

When he said "I've never read Moneyball, I never will, and I completely disagree with it" I knew he was way off course.

Baltimoron

08-28-2007, 12:24 AM

Exactly. Morgan is a talented announcer, he is just a baseball moron. More superficial sports fans might like Morgan more because he is smoother, more confident, and less obviously silly. That's the thing with Morgan, if you were just a casual fan you would think he is a great announcer. Baller player, great stories, everybody gives him the freedom to be "Joe."

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

The problem is that Morgan just believes, says and reiterates things that are completely wrong about the game of baseball - emphatically.

I often wish I could just push the "stop Joe" button to save him from himself.

He also does dumb stuff like calling Shea Hillenbrand "Sean" twice in like 30 seconds Sunday night. He also made sure, many times over, we were all aware that Jose Reyes is "exciting" and "consistent." And shortly after one of these friendly reminders, JM dropped this insightful pearl of wisdom: "Sean Hillenbrand hasn't been as consistently exciting as Jose Reyes this season."

66-70-83-??

08-28-2007, 07:21 PM

Make no mistake, Morgan courts the scorn he receives. He has consciously and vociferously established himself as the mouthpiece for anti-new-stats, anti-Moneyball, old school baseball fundamentalism, especially frustrating because, he a) like most zealots, demonstrates a clear-cut and total ignorance of the concepts he regularly attacks (for example, continuing to insist that Moneyball is all about OBP); and b) he fails to recognize that the aptitudes that made him extraordinary as a ballplayer are exactly the same as the ones extolled by the people he holds in such contempt.

Listen, I enjoy hearing former ballplayers reminiscing about their playing days. I also enjoy learning about the continually evolving statistical analysis of the game. There is a happy medium to be found there. Not so for Joe.

"Zealot" ???

Joe Morgan a zealot ?

LOL.

Zealot - fervent and even militant proponent of something

While I agree JM can be a bumbling idiot and I am not much of a Morgan fan- a heck of a lot of "statheads" deserve the "zealot" label looooooong before Joe Morgan does.

Many SABR/Stat-head types shout down any who disagree. Many think they are the end of the discussion, not a part of it.

Just look at the zeal and/or arrogance in this thread alone:

he is just a baseball moron

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

I often wish I could just push the "stop Joe" button to save him from himself.

He has consciously and vociferously established himself as the mouthpiece for anti-new-stats, anti-Moneyball, old school baseball fundamentalism, especially frustrating because, he a) like most zealots, demonstrates a clear-cut and total ignorance of the concepts he regularly attacks

I have never heard Joe Morgan call any Moneyball believer a moron.

Back in the day I read every Bill James Abstract as soon as it came out. I was a charter member of BP.com and have read all thier stuff since their inception. And I had every Elias Analyst that came out, etc....

BUt, I haven't swallowed everything whole and taken it as gospel like so many have.

Stats (old or new) are just tools to be used together. No one stat tells the whole story. Again, stats are tools, not "weapons" used to kill discussion or debate.

I also enjoy learning about the continually evolving statistical analysis of the game.

See, that is why I don't buy into every new "fad" stat that comes down the pike. Stats-of-the-day come and go. The be-all/end-all stat today may be gone tomorrow. Or, like other "perfect" stats, it might be revised next year, and again 3 years later, and again......

I know- like JM, Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. And Billy Beane is a genius. Who has a ring though?

I agree with BoomBoom, the "in crowd" is out for bear with Joe Morgan and will mock him no matter what he says. At the end of the day- if the stat crowd picks a team and the oldschool baseball morons pick a team- 80% or more of the players will be the same selections.

Sorry to break the bad news to the more fervant faithful of the church of WARP(rev 3) - as long as baseball remains a TEAM game played by human beings- traditional stats will still have a place and intangibles will play a part in player evaluation.

Baltimoron

08-28-2007, 07:45 PM

66-70-83-??

08-28-2007, 08:03 PM

Wow, what an airball.

Couple quick ideas:

That there are other people who are zealots does not preclude Joe from being one himself.

That you may think other people are arrogant does not preclude Joe Morgan from being arrogant.

Your background with "stats," as well as your perception that some people dogmatically and ignorantly use "stats", does not have anything to do with Joe Morgan's competence or knowledge or intellect.

Yes, people other than Joe Morgan act out of ignorance and are blowhards. This doesn't preclude Joe Morgan from doing the same.

The first line was predictable.

You are very good at dishing out criticism and namecalling, but completely incapable of receiving an opposing opinion, let alone criticism or insults.

The rest of your post I agree with and didn't contradict in my post. In fact I wrote that JM is a bumbling idiot.

I was just commenting on the attack JM mentality that has gone overboard.

My background in "stats" is like my background in "religion".

I read, research, and learn. I believe in what makes sense to me.

But, I don't feel the need to "preach" or convert and condemn to hell all those who don't believe in my religion. That is the way some on this board are with their use of "stats".

Maybe someday I will be "saved" and enlightened.

rolliefingers

08-28-2007, 08:10 PM

Just make sure you don't let your hatred of "stats people" cause you to make arguments you wouldn't otherwise make.

66-70-83-??

08-28-2007, 08:27 PM

Just make sure you don't let your hatred of "stats people" cause you to make arguments you wouldn't otherwise make.

Hatred ?

Wrong word. Why would you choose that word ? Are you trying to provoke something ? Or did I write something that was "hateful" ?

I don't hate anyone.

I like stats, too.

But, I don't feel like I am "superior" to fans who think like Joe.

Nor do I feel inferior to the snarky BP crowd who think that whatever they espouse IS the end of the discussion and you are a complete dolt if you even dare to question them.

The "Stats" people covers a diverse group.

Most of the SABR crowd does good honest work. Much of it is good and interesting.

Then you have the BP types who have agenda's and do questionable work.

ledzepp8

08-28-2007, 09:59 PM

"Zealot" ???

Joe Morgan a zealot ?

LOL.

Zealot - fervent and even militant proponent of something

While I agree JM can be a bumbling idiot and I am not much of a Morgan fan- a heck of a lot of "statheads" deserve the "zealot" label looooooong before Joe Morgan does.

Many SABR/Stat-head types shout down any who disagree. Many think they are the end of the discussion, not a part of it.

Just look at the zeal and/or arrogance in this thread alone:

I have never heard Joe Morgan call any Moneyball believer a moron.

Back in the day I read every Bill James Abstract as soon as it came out. I was a charter member of BP.com and have read all thier stuff since their inception. And I had every Elias Analyst that came out, etc....

BUt, I haven't swallowed everything whole and taken it as gospel like so many have.

Stats (old or new) are just tools to be used together. No one stat tells the whole story. Again, stats are tools, not "weapons" used to kill discussion or debate.

See, that is why I don't buy into every new "fad" stat that comes down the pike. Stats-of-the-day come and go. The be-all/end-all stat today may be gone tomorrow. Or, like other "perfect" stats, it might be revised next year, and again 3 years later, and again......

I know- like JM, Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. And Billy Beane is a genius. Who has a ring though?

I agree with BoomBoom, the "in crowd" is out for bear with Joe Morgan and will mock him no matter what he says. At the end of the day- if the stat crowd picks a team and the oldschool baseball morons pick a team- 80% or more of the players will be the same selections.

Sorry to break the bad news to the more fervant faithful of the church of WARP(rev 3) - as long as baseball remains a TEAM game played by human beings- traditional stats will still have a place and intangibles will play a part in player evaluation.

It's not that Joe dismisses sabermetrics...cause I really couldn't care less about that. The point is he's supposed to be an emmy award winning sports analyst and he regularly says things that just aren't accurate. It's obvious that he does no research and just says things off the cuff, which I'd say 99.9% of the time are completely false. Just read the critiques of his chats on the firejoemorgan.com blog. He continually proclaims that he can't answer certain questions because he doesn't watch said team/player/etc enough. For such a great baseball player and someone who seems like an all around nice guy, he's basically a moron who for all measures refuses to learn.

rolliefingers

08-28-2007, 10:06 PM

he's basically a moron who for all measures refuses to learn.

Exactly. He's willfully ignorant.

RVAbird

08-29-2007, 01:30 AM

Before I begin, a quick disclaimer: My signature is basically an appreciation of a hilarious FJM entry that both referenced an absurd Sartre play and at the same time dissed Morgan-esque ignorance. I was reluctant to post in this thread because I didn't want anyone to think I was a "zealot," or that I constantly got my kicks off of criticizing people who were more important and held in higher esteem than I.

That being said...I would consider Morgan's (and others') constant refusal to even give the slightest consideration to modern thought and objective analysis detrimental to the game of baseball. It is odd to me that a player who's "baseball IQ" was among the best in history (Ref: BP's "Baseball Between the Numbers" and Bill James' "Historical Baseball Abstract) could so stubbornly denounce the statistics that make him hall-of-fame worthy (OBP in particular, hence the irony of this thread).

He has a lengthy track record of saying things that are downright false, refusing to read books about baseball, denying the idea that he could learn anything from anyone who has not played the game of baseball, lying about his history in baseball, and, worst of all, being inable to answer valid baseball questions for no other reason than the fact that he does not watch baseball games on a regular basis. Seriously. He is one of the most respected analysts on the leading sports network in America. It's just ridiculous.

sakata_catching

08-29-2007, 07:08 AM

"Zealot" ???

Joe Morgan a zealot ?

LOL.

Zealot - fervent and even militant proponent of something

While I agree JM can be a bumbling idiot and I am not much of a Morgan fan- a heck of a lot of "statheads" deserve the "zealot" label looooooong before Joe Morgan does.

Many SABR/Stat-head types shout down any who disagree. Many think they are the end of the discussion, not a part of it.

Just look at the zeal and/or arrogance in this thread alone:

I have never heard Joe Morgan call any Moneyball believer a moron.

Back in the day I read every Bill James Abstract as soon as it came out. I was a charter member of BP.com and have read all thier stuff since their inception. And I had every Elias Analyst that came out, etc....

BUt, I haven't swallowed everything whole and taken it as gospel like so many have.

Stats (old or new) are just tools to be used together. No one stat tells the whole story. Again, stats are tools, not "weapons" used to kill discussion or debate.

See, that is why I don't buy into every new "fad" stat that comes down the pike. Stats-of-the-day come and go. The be-all/end-all stat today may be gone tomorrow. Or, like other "perfect" stats, it might be revised next year, and again 3 years later, and again......

I know- like JM, Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. And Billy Beane is a genius. Who has a ring though?

I agree with BoomBoom, the "in crowd" is out for bear with Joe Morgan and will mock him no matter what he says. At the end of the day- if the stat crowd picks a team and the oldschool baseball morons pick a team- 80% or more of the players will be the same selections.

Sorry to break the bad news to the more fervant faithful of the church of WARP(rev 3) - as long as baseball remains a TEAM game played by human beings- traditional stats will still have a place and intangibles will play a part in player evaluation.

Wow, grandstand much?

Are you denying that Morgan is a "fervent believer" in the superiority of traditional stats and intangibles over new ones? Please, feel free to substantiate with examples of Joe's fairplay and open-mindedness.

While we're waiting, I'll show you an example of my own -- which would never have been in question had your argument been substantial enough for you not to have to resort to quoting me out context:

Listen, I enjoy hearing former ballplayers reminiscing about their playing days. I also enjoy learning about the continually evolving statistical analysis of the game. There is a happy medium to be found there. Not so for Joe.

So, do you often pick arguments with people who essentially agree with you?

Feel free not to answer that.

66-70-83-??

08-29-2007, 07:26 AM

Wow, grandstand much?

Are you denying that Morgan is a "fervent believer" in the superiority of traditional stats and intangibles over new ones? Please, feel free to substantiate with examples of Joe's fairplay and open-mindedness.

While we're waiting, I'll show you an example of my own -- which would never have been in question had your argument been substantial enough for you not to have to resort to quoting me out context:

So, do you often pick arguments with people who essentially agree with you?

Feel free not to answer that.

Wow, get defensive much ?

I didn't quote anything out of context. I liked your quote and used the part of it about learning the continuing evolving statistical analysis to further a point about it.

DrungoHazewood

08-29-2007, 07:50 AM

Not since Eli have I seen such an impassioned defense of the indefensible.

Moose Milligan

08-29-2007, 08:24 AM

Not since Eli have I seen such an impassioned defense of the indefensible.

Well, that hasn't been long now has it?

66-70-83-??

08-29-2007, 05:46 PM

Not since Eli have I seen such an impassioned defense of the indefensible.

What do you see being "defended" ?

BaltimoreTerp

08-29-2007, 06:05 PM

I was just reading this (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/label/jon%20heyman) post on FJM about a John Heyman mailbag and thought of this thread here.

And the day I consider VORP is the day I get out of the business.

Enthusiasts of sabermetrics often get accused of zealotry. This, my friends, is zealotry of the highest level. Doesn't this sentence sound like some Sinn Fein IRA terrorist **** or something? "The day I break bread with the Protestants, Danny, is the day my bonny Irish heart stops beating." Or something. I don't know anything about Ireland.

rolliefingers

08-29-2007, 06:33 PM

I was just reading this (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/label/jon%20heyman) post on FJM about a John Heyman mailbag and thought of this thread here.

Wow, Jon Heyman is an idiot, too. I've never seen him say anything that stupid before, but once is enough.

rolliefingers

09-11-2007, 10:45 AM

Anyone see John Kruk on BBTN last night? God, I wish I had a transcript. The ignorance flowed like Natty Lite at a frat party.

For those who didn't witness the gloriousness, Kruk not only said that wins were the most important stat for determining the Cy Young winners (which, while unnecessarily traditional, is probably true for CYA voters), but freely admitted to not knowing what WHIP meant, or even what the PHRASE "peripheral stats" meant.

Mind-boggling.

BaltimoreTerp

09-11-2007, 09:35 PM

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/label/mike%20pagliarulo

Anyone want to see FJM eviscerate the single worst piece of baseball writing (or writing in general) ever posted on the internet?

rolliefingers

09-12-2007, 12:23 AM

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/label/mike%20pagliarulo

Anyone want to see FJM eviscerate the single worst piece of baseball writing (or writing in general) ever posted on the internet?

I really liked Mike Pagliarulo when he was an Oriole.

*sad face*

rolliefingers

09-22-2007, 04:57 PM

Anyone else want to make this the official "Baseball pundits/announcers saying stupid crap" thread? :D

In that spirit: During the Mets/Marlins game, Tim McCarver was referring to Byung Hyung Kim shaking off his catcher during the 2001 World Series, but he claimed that the catcher he shook off was Jorge Posada. Really, when did Kim pitch for the Yankees, buddy?