Joe Morgan admits importance of OBP!

[66-70-83-??]

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]

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-??]

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]

"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]

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

Exactly. He's willfully ignorant.

[RVAbird]

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]

"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-??]

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]

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

[Moose Milligan]

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-??]

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

What do you see being "defended" ?

[BaltimoreTerp]

I was just reading this 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]

I was just reading this 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]

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]

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?