In Honor Of Michael Jackson, Farah Fawcett, and Billy Mays...

...we present to you, JoeChat!

Buzzmaster: We're getting Joe!

I should hope to smile.

K (philly): If Rollins doesn't start coming around, what do you do? Isnt it time to drop him in the order for an extended period if the benching doesnt work? Joe Morgan: They dropped him for a while and they thought he was OK. Since I'm not there to talk to him and see where his head is, it's hard for me to get a good reading. When I saw him in LA a couple of weeks ago, his enthusiasm was there, his passion for the game was still there. When those things are there, you'll usually get things turned around. It's like Big Papi. When a player loses his passion for the game, that's a problem.

And so the Phillies should do what...? Keep playing him? Move him down in the order? Hire a mariachi band to serenade him between innings?

I agree with Joe that losing passion for the game is a problem. But having passion alone doesn't make someone good at baseball. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that Alex Gonzalez has passion for the game. Does that mean he'll suddenly improve from his 11-year career line of .247/.294/.395? No, because having passion doesn't save Alex from the fact that he's not very good at hitting a baseball.

This response is another example of Joe Morgan Non-Analysis. No mention of what the Phillies should do if Rollins keeps under-performing. In looking at Rollins' stats, one thing that jumps out at me is that he's been caught stealing 5 times in 15 attempts this season, compared to only 3 times in 50 attempts last year. Perhaps Rollins has some sort of injury that he or the team is hiding. I'm speculating, but it would explain a lot.

Ruby (Seattle): Hi Joe--It seems like the Mariners finally have righted the ship. What is your take on the state of that franchise?

Joe Morgan: I've been disappointed in the Mariners, because I thought two years ago that they were going to be a pretty good team. They seem to be rounding into form, but I'm going to wait because we've seen this before. They're going to need more offense than they've been getting consistently. They have some good players there, so they should be able to do that.

Second question in, first "consistent."

Read his response again, and notice that he says nothing that could not be inferred from Ruby's (Seattle) question. She mentions that they may have "righted the ship;" he changes that to "seem to be rounding into form." Kringlebert Fishtybuns--who you may know here on Lom Henn.com as the "Football Guy"--could give the same answer to Ruby (Seattle). And Kringlebert has not watched a single baseball game this season!

Joe is correct that the Mariners aren't scoring runs--Baseball Prospectus has them 29th in MLB with 3.88 runs/game. But who does Joe think are the "good players" that will make them more "consistent" offensively? Ichiro has been outstanding as usual, leading the league in AVG at .372. But his BABIP (batting average on balls in play) is .391, which indicates he's been pretty lucky. I suspect his average will come back down a bit in the second half of the season when the luck evens out (his OBP his only .402, as he doesn't take many walks). Russell Branyan has also been phenomenal--.303/.400/.609--and with his BABIP at .358, he shouldn't have as much of a decline.

So who else? Adrian Beltre, who has OPS'd .664 so far in 2009 and is making Seattle wish they'd re-signed Raul Ibanez? I suppose it's possible--Baseball Prospectus projected Beltre to .272/.332/.456 this season, so maybe he'll have an upswing in the second half. Yuniesky Betancourt--.609 OPS? (I know he's a SS, but come on--.278 OBP with a .250 BA). BP has him projected to .277/.299/.385, so you likely won't see a lot of improvement there. Perhaps the Jack Benny-aged Junior Griffey: great story coming "home" to Seattle, but .218/.332/.409 is not enough from your DH.

The Mariners are 11th in the AL in OBP, 12th in HR, and 13th in SLG--this with Branyan and Ichiro performing at a high level. I'd say the Mariners need to make a trade to bring in another bat, but that's just me.

Joseph(Baltimore,Md.) [via mobile]: I am 42 yrs. old! Do you think the Baltimore Orioles will ever be contenders in my lifetime?

I can answer that: yes. The Orioles won the World Series in 1983--when Joseph from Baltimore was 17 years old.

Joe Morgan: Yeah, in your lifetime you will, but not before you're 44 or 45.

Joe's almost as funny as I am. Why do you think that, Joe? Doesn't Joseph(Baltimore, Md.) deserve to know why you think the Orioles will be better in 2-3 years? Or are you just saying that they'll suck for at least the next few years, after which maybe they'll be better? What kind of analysis is that? Oh, wait--it's Joe analysis.

Philip (Tampa, FL): Hey joe, it is an honor! I was wondering, as a Red Sox fan living in Tampa. Do you think the Rays are able to make a run in the AL East to catch up to the Yankees and Red Sox, or do you think they need to do something serious about thier bullpen and pitching in general?

Joe Morgan: Well, the real problem is they got off to a slow start. I expected that. When you're a young team and you have a lot of success, you just think things will fall into place and you'll get better. But it doesn't work that way. You have to work harder to prove that last year wasn't a fluke. Now they're starting to play well and clicking on all cylinders. I bet they wish they had Edwin Jackson still. I think they'll be in contention the rest of the way. Four or five games is not that far behind.

Edwin Jackson is a starting pitcher, which does not address Philip's question at all. Jackson is pitching well for Detroit this season (2.49 ERA in 16 starts), but here are the ERA+ numbers for the six starters the Rays have used:

Shields: 131
Garza: 123
Niemann: 113
Price: 113
Sonnanstine: 67
Kazmir: 61

Kazmir has been hurt--he just came back off the DL--and Sonnanstine has been sent back to Triple-A. Yeah, I suppose that Jackson would have helped the Rays with depth when Kazmir went down, but the Rays have plenty of good starters. They lost projected closer Troy Percival likely for the remainder of the season, so there are question marks in the bullpen. But don't expect Joe to know that.

Brian (Hudson, FL): Joe, Have you gotten a chance to watch Gordon Beckham? In the past 12 games he's hitting .300. What type of player do you see him turning into?

Joe Morgan: I have not had a chance to see him play. I've read that he's got all the ability. He was a high draft choice, so they thought a lot about him. The good thing is I haven't heard Ozzie criticize him. If he wasn't playing well, Ozzie would have already criticized him.

"He was a high draft choice, so they thought a lot about him." Emmy-award winning sports analyst, people!!

The only standard Joe uses to analyze Beckham is whether or not Ozzie Guillen, Beckham's manager, has criticized him publicly. Since Ozzie hasn't criticized Beckham, Joe assumes Beckham is "playing well." So how does that answer Brian's question as to what kind of player Joe sees "him turning into?"

joedog (minnesota): Do you think that right now maur is all star material

Joe Morgan: He's definitely All Star material. He's the best hitting catcher in the league. To say he's the best player, I can't say that. Even on his own team, Justin Morneau is the offensive force. But he is one of the best players in the American League.

Joe Mauer 2009: .386/.459/.670 OPS+ 202
"Twins Offensive Force" Justin Morneau 2009: .309/.389/.570 OPS+ 157

Yeah--okay.

Tanner Athens TN [via mobile]: Who is the biggest name to move before the trading deadline?

Joe Morgan: I think we'll see an active trading deadline. You have to remember that all the teams think they're still in it. So until we get to the end of July, we won't know who thinks they're in or out of it. But if it stays like it is, those teams won't want to make trades. Right now, the Dodgers have a real sizable lead but the Giants have a shot at the wild card. Until some of these teams start to fall off, I don't think you'll see many trades before the deadline.

Joe just contradicted himself in the same answer. Basically: "I think it will be an active deadline. But most teams think they're still in contention, so they won't make any trades. So I don't think you'll see many deadline trades." And what in the hell do the Giants and Dodgers have to do with this question? And could you at least say who you think is likely to be moved if/when trades happen?

Of course not.

SprungOnSports (Long Island): With Mark DeRosa now in the fold, do you think the Cardinals are contenders in the NL? What do you think about the Indians only getting a reliever?

Joe Morgan: They were already contenders. Any time you have Pujols on your team, you're a contender. DeRosa is a very good player. I've always liked him. He brings a good bat to the team and he can play a lot of positions. I think the Cardinals really helped themselves by bringing him in. I think they can contend for the NL title. But there will be some other moves made by other teams to determine who wins the NL.

Put Pujols on the Nationals and see if Washington becomes a contender this year.

Overall, this is his best answer of the day--which isn't saying much.

Paddy O (St. Louis, MO): Hey Joe, I know Pierre deserves to play more as he's earned it, and he was awesome last night, but I'd hate to see him go somewhere else as the Dodgers have shown they can utilize him if an outfielder goes down. If you were managing the Dodgers, how would you juggle the outfield, and also how cool is it that Doug Mientkeiwicz is still dressing and in the dugout even though he won't be back until September?

I'd hate to think Mientkeiwicz would sit in the dugout naked.

Joe Morgan: That's a very difficult question. That's why I've said they owe it to Juan Pierre to trade him. He has a lifetime average of over .300. He was never an extra man, the Dodgers made him an extra man. I don't think it's fair to him what they've done to him the last couple of years. If you have a lifetime average of over .300 in the major leagues, you should be playing every day somewhere. The Dodgers should get some value for him.

Perhaps this is why the Dodgers made Pierre an "extra man":

2005 Florida Marlins: OPS .680, OPS+ 84
2006, Chicago Cubs: OPS .717 OPS+ 82
2007, LA Dodgers: OPS .685, OPS+ 75
2008, LA Dodgers: OPS .655, OPS +73

Yes, Pierre is having an outstanding 2009--OPS .809, OPS+ 115--and I agree that you could get some value for him by trading him. Pierre's problem in the past has been that even though he's a decent hitter, he doesn't hit for power and he doesn't get on base enough. Other than this season, Pierre's highest OBP since 2004 was .331 in 2007--way too low for someone with no power.

And Joe thinks if you're a career .300 hitter, you deserve to play every day. But what if you commit 100 errors a season? Do you deserve to play every day then?

Hector Houston,TX [via mobile]: Do you think the Astros have a chance to make the playoffs?

"Hector Houston" sounds like the name of a Latino private eye.

Joe Morgan: The Astros are a weird team. Every year, they play poorly in the first half and well in the second half. Last year, I think they would have made it but they had to play those three gamees in Milwaukee instead of Houston against the Cubs. If they play well like they do in the second half, they have a chance.

The three "gamees" in Milwaukee against the Cubs was a shitty thing for MLB to do, IMHO. The Astros lost 3 home games and had a crazy travel schedule, along with the players dealing with the stress of worrying about their families with an impending hurricane. But even without all of that, would the Astros had definitely passed Milwaukee for the wild card?

It's illogical to think the Astros will magically play better in the scond half again--there are different players on this year's team from last year. More relevant is that the six teams in the NL Central are all 6 games apart in the standings, so any team which plays well in the second half has a chance.

Rob (Tampa): Are the Oakland A's trying to trade Matt Holiday? and if they are what place would be a good fit?

Joe Morgan: Well, they're not winning with him. It hasn't turned out the way they thought it would with him, Giambi, Garciaparra. If you look at him going some place, and I don't know what the A's would want in return, but there are a lot of places he could go. The Mets could use some help. But I do think the A's will trade him. They're still in last place and as the old saying goes, I can finish last with anybody.

So who would be a good fit?

Mark (Allentown): Joe, the Indians are inventing ways to lose. It is getting downright painful to watch. I don't believe the spiral is Wedge's fault, but I do not believe he has a solution. Might this be the year for a change at manager? and maybe the rest of the staff as well?

Joe Morgan: There's no doubt that Wedge is on the hot seat. But so should the GM and everybody there. The whole organization. It seems like every year the Indians are the darkhorse or the one to contend. But it doesn't happen. There's a problem there somewhere. They have to figure it out. It's hard for me to give a real definitive answer there, because I'm not there every day. I don't know if it's the front office's fault, Eric Wedge's fault or the players. My suspicion is that it's all three. My answer is, you're right, something needs to be done.

"There's a problem there somewhere." Grady Sizemore missed nearly a month on the DL and is OPS-ing .740 playing hurt. Closer Kerry Wood has 5.47 ERA--not good for a closer. Starting pitchers not named "Cliff Lee" on the Indians staff have 80, 60, 82, 71, 68 ERA+ numbers. So there are multiple problems in there somewhere, Joe.

Philip (Tampa, Fl): Do you think Big Papi is really coming back into his own, or has he definitely lost something and as classy of a guy and as good of a player as he was, should the Red Sox start looking in another direction?

Joe Morgan: You're going to have good stretches. And he might have another bad stretch, because you can't stay hot for a whole 162 game season. I've been saying that I don't think he's done. I think he's back. We might not see the same Big Papi that hit 45 home runs, but we'll see a guy that's very productive and a very good guy to have in the middle of that lineup.

Baseball Prospectus sees David Ortiz as .268/.373/.500 this season. That's a far cry from where he is now (.221/.316/.390), but if BP is right, Big Papi will have a good second half. Joe agrees--because he thinks Ortiz is "back."

Mike (Chicago): Joe, you played in Cincinnati. They tried to get DeRosa and failed but will they try again to make a big splash in a trade and if so who will they go after?

Joe Morgan: They definitely needed some offense and DeRosa is one of those guys that was available. I don't like to say who's available and who's not, because the GMs are the only ones that knows who's available. It's hard to say who are the bats available. I don't know of a lot of players out there right now that could step in and help. Offense is a problem for a lot of teams out there. The Cubs have had problems, the Mets. The offensive players are no longer enhanced, so we don't have as many great offensive teams as 5-6 years ago.

This is why we--and FJM before us--analyze these chats. "I don't like to say who's available and who's not, because the GMs are the only ones that knows (sic) who's available." Well no fucking shit.

It is Joe's job to provide analysis and insight. Sometimes, that requires talking to people within the game to get some information (like who may be available). Sometimes, that requires guessing as to who may be available based on contract information. Speculation is okay! He just can't do it, because that would require some sort of knowledge of players and teams, which Joe clearly does not have. There is absolutely nothing useful in his answer.

And I love the last line. Does that mean that there are no players worth trading for, since no one is "enhanced"? Or does that mean that teams are more even? Or does it mean anything?

Help me. Please.

Chris (Yorktown, IN): Joe, what do you think the Cubs will do to jump start their offense?

Joe Morgan: I've watched them play and done several of their games. They just don't seem like they've had the same approach as last year. They were aggressive when needed and patient when needed. This year, they're the opposite.

So they're aggressive and patient, just not at the right times????

They need Lee to get hot, Bradley hot and get Ramirez back. I've always felt that Ramirez was the key to their team. He's been out for a while. We'll have to wait and see what happens when he comes back. They're hope is that he can come back and jumpstart that offense. Bradley will get hot. He can hit.

Joe's answer for the Cubs' hitting issues: hit better. And according to Joe, that will happen magically on its own.

Daniel (Las Vegas, NV): Hey Joe love your work...

Daniel has some serious mental issues, evidently.

...is there any reason for the Mets to be buyers at this point? Seems like there's too many question marks as to who returns and how healthy they will be, should we just make do with what is available?

Joe Morgan: I don't think they can go with what they have. You are a New York team. You're fighting the Yankees for those dollars. You can't just wait for guys to come back. You have to show your fans you're trying to get better. You're going to have to do something to jumpstart this offense. If you're not going to get the injured guys back soon, then you need to do some trades. I just did the game on Sunday night and no one had an answer for when those guys were going to come back.

I agree with Joe, but could he have any dumber reason for the Mets to look for some trades to improve? Here's the reason the Mets need to try to improve: even with all of their injury problems, they are only 3 games out of first place and 3 1/2 out in the wild card. The right trade could make the difference for the Mets in the second half, regardless of when the injured players can come back.

But according to Joe, it's because the Mets have to compete with the Yankees. New York City has eleventy-gabillion people. Even with 75% of them Yankees fans, I think the Mets have a decent fan base.

Rob (Tampa): Joe, what you think about the playoff system only 8 out of 30 teams from make it. Do you think the system should be expanded?

Joe Morgan: If you look at all the sports, it is expanded. If you look at hockey, just about everybody makes it. The NBA, a lot of teams make it.

For the record, the same number of teams (16) qualify for the playoffs in the NHL and the NBA.

I wouldn't be against expanding it if you could shorten the season so you could get it in before the November rains like we got in Philadelphia last year. I would support it if we shortened the season.

Not a bad answer, though personally, I disagree--I don't want the number of teams expanded and I certainly don't want a shorter season (unless it went down to 154 games and we lost some Interleague play, then maybe).

During our Sunday Night telecast, I through (sic) out a theory on why players got hurt more than before even though they worked harder to stay in shape. In track you're taught that once you reach your peak, you can only stay there for long before you go down. With these guys staying in shape year round, maybe they're working too hard. There has to be something going on with the injuries. Think about it and let's talk about it next week on our chat.

"I through out a theory and it went threw a window!" Maybe Joe IS typing his chats...

I don't know a lot about fitness theory, but I don't think players are getting hurt because they're in "too good" of shape. Perhaps it's because baseball players aren't as diligent about stretching as players in other sports? That idea was brought up on a Cubs/White Sox game this past weekend--I can't remember if it was on WGN, Fox, or CSN (if I had to guess, I'd say Fox), but the analyst mentioned that baseball players take pre-game stretching as a joke. That to me would be a better reason than what Joe suggests for all of the injuries, besides just plain bad luck.

But Joe gave us a homework assignment, so we should all be good and do it in time for next week's JoeChat!

Oops, I Did It Again

No, I didn't go to a Britney Spears concert. Worse: I listened to sports talk radio.

Specifically, the program was "Cubs Postgame" on WGN 720 AM on Sunday evening. The hosts (I never got their names--in the 15 minutes I listened, they never gave them, and I couldn't find them after a cursory Internet search) were lamenting the Cubs 6-0 loss to the White Sox and the fact that the arch-rival Cardinals had just acquired former Cub Mark DeRosa in a trade.

The general consensus was that the Cubs are worse this season because they let DeRosa leave via free agency. A caller into the show described what DeRosa brought to the Cubs, namely "chemistry and gel."

Cubs clubhouse, 2008 season

The Cubs are getting ready for a big 3-game series against the Milwaukee Brewers. Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez are standing in front of their lockers.

Lee: I'm nervous, A-Ram. We need these games. I'm not sure I'm ready.
Ramirez: I told you to stop calling me A-Ram. And what do you mean that you're not ready? You won a world series in 2003--how can you not be ready?
Lee: I dunno--something's...missing.
DeRosa (coming into the locker room holding two boiling flasks): Guys! Guys!! Look what I came up with in my chemistry lab!
Ramirez: Looks a little strange to me.
DeRosa: It's "Win Sauce!" Four parts hydrochloric acid, three parts ammonia, one part Jeter sweat. Drink up!
Lee: Seriously?
DeRosa: Yeah! You want to win, don't you?
Lee and Ramirez (in unison): Uh-huh...
DeRosa: Then here you go. (Hands each a flask)
Lee (drinks): Pungent!
Ramirez: This tastes like iguana piss.
Lee: How do you know what iguana piss tastes like?
Ramirez: I'm just sayin'.
DeRosa: You know what else it tastes like? A Championship.
Lee & Ramirez (in unison): Let's go win one for Chicago!
DeRosa: Guys, you need any hair gel? I let Kerry Wood use some and he said his hair never looked better.
Ramirez: Dude, I'm bald.
Lee: Look at my head--I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
DeRosa: Oh.
Flourish. Exeunt. Curtain.

I think the Cubs miss DeRosa's 2008 line of .285/.376/.481 and his ability to play multiple positions much more than his "chemistry and gel." DeRosa has been a little worse with the Indians this year (.270/.342/.457), but he'd be one of the Cubs leading hitters right now. And with Aramis Ramirez missing the last two months with a separated shoulder, DeRosa could have filled in at third base every day and at least kept some stability there.

But could DeRosa have used his "chemistry" to help Geovany Soto's avoid his sophomore slump (.223/.330/.373)? Could DeRosa "gel" Milton Bradley to improve on his .232/.349/.367 line? Or help Kosuke Fukudome avoid his .177/.278/.253 June? And don't forget Alfonso Soriano's .232/.296/.427 line from the leadoff spot--if DeRosa was still a Cub, would Soriano magically be hitting better?

Yes, the Cubs would be better overall with DeRosa, but just a little bit so. The biggest problem is that the Cubs have just not hit well. The injury to Ramirez didn't help, either. However, with the exception of Derrek Lee and maybe Ryan Theriot, almost all of the Cubs have been much worse offensively compared to 2008. The pitching has been fine for the most part (3.96 team ERA this season vs. 3.87 last year)--the problem is the lack of hitting.

The Cubs don't need "chemistry and gel;" they need another good bat or two in the lineup. And maybe a round of Win Sauce for everyone.

Murray's Not So Magnificent, Either

It's been awhile since we've looked in on our friend Murray Chass...

NOT THE MAGNIFICENT METS
By Murray Chass

I've said this before, but it kills me that Chass has to add a byline to each story he writes on HIS OWN BLOG.

As the mid-point of the season approaches, the Mets do not seem prepared to attain the position they need to avoid a third consecutive late-season collapse.

This is painful. I mean, this is a mess of a sentence. And technically, it's wrong--the Mets are 1 1/2 games behind the Phillies in the NL East. If the Mets stay that way, they'll avoid a late season collapse by never being ahead.

Before the season began, I boldly proclaimed that the Mets could exorcise the Phillies from their shattered psyches forever more if they built an 18-game lead with 17 games to play.

Oh, so this is about your goofy prediction. Except that what you've written isn't much of a prediction, it's merely an obvious statement. If Chass had written "I boldly proclaimed the Mets would be happy if they won the NL East this season," he'd have said the same thing.

And would the Mets "exorcise the Phillies from their shattered psyches forever more" if they had a 25-game lead over the Phillies with 17 to play, or does it have to be an 18-game lead?

The 17-games-to-go juncture, after all, was the point of the schedule the Mets reached the last two years leading the National League East before they did their Phillies fade. They led Philadelphia by 7 games with 17 to go in 2007 and by 3 ½ games with 17 to go last year, and they finished first neither time.

Note the big 'ol [sic] that belongs with "neither."

I'll give Chass the point that blowing the 7-game lead with 17 to play in 2007 qualifies as a collapse, but losing a 3 1/2-game lead in 2008? I'd say that Chass was just using the 17-games to play mark as an arbitrary number to make 2008 identical to 2007, but the Mets' biggest division lead in 2008 was on September 10, with 17 games remaining.

But I will say that losing a 3 1/2 game lead with 17 left is not much of a collapse. The Mets went 7-10 over those final 17 games. Not exactly great baseball, but not a full-scale chokefest. The Phillies went 13-3 over their last 16 games to take the division. I know that media pundits like to focus on the negative and Chass is New York-focused, but I think the more accurate thing to say about 2008 is that the Phillies took the division, rather than the Mets having collapsed.

It seemed to make sense, then, that the Mets would have to take drastic action to avoid a three-peat; building an 18-game lead seemed to be pretty drastic. Right now it’s impossible, too.

Building an 18-game lead is not doing something "drastic;" it's a goal every team has. I mean, who wouldn't want to go 122-40 and eliminate the rest of your division before Labor Day?

And I know Chass is no slave to accuracy, but the Mets trail the Phillies by 1 1/2 games in the NL East with 89 games remaining. I think it's mathematically possible--i.e., the opposite of impossible, as Chass says--for the Mets to build an 18-game lead at some point.

Bruised, battered and broken, the Mets remain in the division race only through the generosity of the Phillies, who may be repaying past favors.

So Chass is suggesting that the Phillies are intentionally losing games?

For example, after losing two of three games to the Phillies 10 days ago, the Mets lost two of three games each to the Yankees and the Orioles and were in danger of falling so far behind that even with more than half the season to go they would have been hard pressed to catch the Phillies.

But the Phillies lost five of six to the Red Sox and the Blue Jays, enabling the Mets to gain a game on them, and the Mets gained yet another game Friday night, slicing their deficit to two games.

Yeah, those Phillies sure are underachieving! How can a team lose five out of six to teams like the Red Sox and Blue Jays? I mean, the Red Sox only have the best record in the American League. And the Blue Jays are well over .500--they'd be in the lead now in 4 out of the 6 MLB divisions.

Perhaps the Phillies aren't winning because the have their own set of problems. Closer Brad Lidge has been on the disabled list. Jimmy Rollins has been in a season-long slump. Even the Phillie Phanatic has been less phanatical. Yes, the Mets are fortunate, but it's not because the Phillies are waiting on them.

The Mets remain in the race despite encountering a multitude of problems, including a season-long siege of injuries, an offense too impotent to put teams away and a bullpen that is vastly improved over last year’s but still capable of relinquishing late-inning leads.

Almost EVERY bullpen is "capable of relinquishing late-inning leads." That sentence says nothing.

Chass then goes on to detail the Mets' injury woes this season. The beginning of the article sets the tone as if the Mets have underachieved all season; Chass then goes on to undermine the tone HE set and shows the very legitimate reasons the Mets have struggled.

Murray, ever hear of story unity?

In the meantime, while the Mets tread water awaiting the return of their injured starters, they need to figure out how to convert late-inning leads into victories. In the space of nine recent days, leading to the weekend, they lost four games which they led after the fifth inning.

After the fifth inning? That's barely half the game! That's like saying the Los Angeles Lakers can't finish because they've lost four games in which they led with 11 minutes remaining in the 3rd quarter.

The Phillies have lost three games in the last 10 days in which they led after the fifth inning. The Dodgers--who have the best record in baseball--lost two such games in the last 10 days. I know that I've only looked at two other teams, but I think it's enough to show that his "statistic" is not very informative. Especially when Murray's next line is this:

The losses resulted from a combination of their relief pitchers giving up runs and their hitters shutting down and not producing late-inning add-on runs.

I suggest that ALL losses for a team result from a combination of its pitchers giving up runs and its hitters not producing. Again, Chass says nothing meaningful in his analysis. This is a recording.

So what did we learn today? That the Phillies are still in first place, but not by much. That the Mets have had a lot of injuries. That the Mets would like to win a division title, which makes them no different than any other team (possible exception: the Washington Nationals). And that Murray Chass doesn't know a lot about baseball.

In other words: absolutely nothing.

The Decline Of Western Civilization, Part X

According to an article in MediaWeek by John Consoli, Fox Sports Chairman David Hill wants to expand the FoxSports.com website.

Fox Sports chairman David Hill believes the Internet is following the same evolutionary pattern as television. “When TV was in its infancy, it was basically run by the engineers,” says Hill. “Technology innovations were driving it, until finally the programmers began to take over. And that’s when television took off.”
Hill believes that for the past 10 years or so online media—particularly sports sites—have been overly controlled by techies, or engineers, as he calls them. And because the programming executives have for the most part gone along with this, just about every sports Web site looks the same or offers the same basic content and design.

Yeah, look at our site--definitely technology-driven!

“All of these sites, including our own, are dominated by highlights of games from the night before and interviews of players talking about games that already happened,” Hill says. “Everything is past tense.” And most of the sports sites feature a preponderance of sportswriters, rather than television sports commentators, he adds. While these sites do have some prognosticators who, via video, are discussing future games or longer-term trends, Hill believes there should be more cross-pollination of TV sports commentators on FoxSports.com. He also wants to inject a little more irreverence into the commentary to offer viewers a distinct destination.

Irreverence?? That would NEVER work on a website!

Hill is now putting together a plan to evolve it to reach more users and offer greatly expanded original programming. And he plans to immediately target men at work, who, research indicates, are viewing sports sites heavily during the workday. According to Media Metrix, 76 percent of users visiting sports sites do so during work hours. Fox’s own internal audience measurement data appears to confirm that 50 percent of FoxSports.com’s audience visits during lunch breaks.

"76% of users visiting sports sites do so doing work hours." What an amazing statistic. And we're surprised the economy is in the tank? No one is doing anything at work!

By the way, if you're reading this while you're at work, then good for you. Keep up the good...um, work.

Hill may not be a tech guru, but since taking charge of Fox Sports 15 years ago, he has made numerous changes to the network’s on-air sports telecasts. He introduced the Fox Box on NFL telecasts, the onscreen constant score and clock graphic with real-time stats fed into it directly from the stadium scoreboards. He instituted surround sound audio and an audio mixer that can open and close field mikes wherever the play is. And for baseball telecasts, he introduced the diamond and catcher cams.

Truly some good innovations. But can Hill really take credit for the idea of having the score and clock onscreen constantly during NFL games? I always thought that idea came from video games--specifically, the Madden football video games:



This is from Madden NFL '94, released during the 1993 season. Not exactly the same, but the idea is clearly similar to the initial FoxBox. And it's interesting to think about how much TV sports broadcasts look very much like video games now.

Back to the Media Week article. It goes on to talk about how much money Fox will spend in the changes to the FoxSports.com site, and how Hill would like to "bring more innovation to the site. Right now, most content on sports sites is past tense. We want to make it more forward thinking.”

We're okay so far. And then it gets weird:

While most of Hill’s ideas are currently in the development stage, he is already touting one show he wants to produce for FoxSports.com, involving former NFL star Tony Siragusa, who is a sideline reporter on Fox’s Sunday NFL telecasts. A 12-year NFL veteran, Siragusa, nicknamed “The Goose,” has the type of boisterous personality that Hill thinks will stir up football fans. “Tony Siragusa will become an Internet star,” predicts Hill.

"Tony Siragusa will become an Internet star."

Just let that sink in for a second.




Okay, that was a bad idea. But was it any worse than Hill's?

He could also team up on-air commentator Daryl Johnson, a former Dallas Cowboys running back, nicknamed Moose, with Siragusa the Goose. And Hill says former Baltimore Ravens coach Brian Billick, currently a commentator on Fox Sports game telecasts, is also in his sights to do some type of show online (even though Billick does not have a nickname ending in “oose”).

I've got it! "Goose, Moose, and Caboose." No? "Goose, Moose, Bill-oose." Hmmm. "Bri, Goose, and Moose." Er, "Letting Loose with the Billickooses."

I'll keep working on it, but if you ask me, the name is the least of their problems. I mean, the only thing that allows me to sleep at night during the NFL season is the fact that I know that I'll only see Tony Siragusa 4-5 times a season at most. Now he might be loose on the Inter-Webs with a creative show of some sort?

Start stocking up on canned goods and bottled water, for surely the end is near.

Rivet-ing Baseball

Congratulations to the Vincennes Rivet baseball (and to the girls basketball team) for a fine and exciting season that fell short in the Indiana Class A state finals. Vincennes Rivet was trying to be The Little Engine That Could in winning its first state championship in any sport. Considering Vincennes Rivet was founded in 1792, it has been a long wait for sure. The only other Rivet team to make it to a state championship final was the girls basketball team back in March.

Rivet is the smallest high school in Knox County with only 93 students and is the ninth smallest school in the state out of 400 schools. The Rivet baseball team had only eight players until the coach begged a few of the students to play in order to field enough players. This alone is a worthy story. However, it gets kicked up a notch when you learn that one of the 11 Rivet players is a girl, Emily Montgomery. Emily became the first girl to play in a state championship baseball final on Friday. Unlike one of our previous posts of the girl who wanted to play baseball and had to sue to IHSAA and the school for the right to play, Emily was asked, pleaded and begged to play for the Rivet team. Emily's brother Cory wanted a shot at a state title, but with only eight players on the team, they needed one more.

I'm saddened that the Vincennes Rivet Patriots fell in the final game. I was hoping they would win their first state title, regardless of having a girl on the team.

I was a bit infuriated when I see this headline on the Indy Star's website on Saturday morning.

Girl's baseball team falls in Class A title game

I understand the team had a girl on it and I'm sure she was a regular contributor on the team during the season. I just feel that the title is a slap in the face to the Rivet team. ESPN's story on the team focused on a team that just happen to include a the younger sister of one of the players. The Star's story is more "HEY! THERE REALLY IS A GIRL PLAYING BASEBALL HERE!" and oh, by the way, there just happens to be 10 other boys who also helped get this team to the state finals after a 10-11 regular season, but, "HEY, THERE'S A GIRL ON THE TEAM!"

I guess that is why I think the Star is such a shitty paper.

I hope the Patriots do not have to wait much longer for their first state championship. Just remember to keep on chugging along and eventually you will reach the peak!

Richard Griffin Is Clogging Up Your Toilet

Somebody get a plunger!

This is a short one from Richard Griffin's mailbag last week:

Q: Hi Richard,

In your opinion, what were the five worst contracts ever given out by the Jays? I'm thinking Wells' contract may end up being number one. Not only can't he hit when it matters, he is virtually untradeable unless we can buzz him into a Red Sox vs. Yanks commodity.

Martin Haurilak, Toronto

A: The Jays have given away some dandy contracts over the years. In my mind, here is the Top 7 in terms of squandered cash – relative to the time. I won’t put Wells on that list yet because the jury might still be considered out, given that he has time to regroup....

I've skipped Nos. 1-6--not really anything problematic there. But...

...7. Frank Thomas (’07-’08). 29 HR, 106 RBI. Two years, $18.1 million. The Big Hurt was as one-dimensional as you can get by the time he got to the Jays. Ricciardi signed him a year too late. He clogged the bases and the lineup and was released after he could no longer play every day.

(emphasis mine)

Depending on whom you believe, the phrase "clogging up the basepaths" was either coined by current Reds manager Dusty Baker or ESPN analyst John Kruk (along with former ESPN analyst Harold Reynolds). What does it mean? Basically, it is a derisive term that some baseball people use when they complain that big, lumbering sluggers take too many walks instead of driving in runs. When analysts use the term, they are typically criticizing players who are slow, but despite being slow they do a good job of getting on base in the first place.

Case in point: the example above. Griffin says that the Toronto Blue Jays' 7th-worst signing during their 32-year existence was Frank Thomas back in 2007-08, because Thomas "clogged the bases."

For the Blue Jays in 2007, 39 year-old Frank Thomas had a .377 OBP and slugged .480 in 155 games (.857 OPS). His OPS+ was 125, meaning that The Big Hurt was 25% better than the league average in 2007. This for a 39-year old! Thomas led the team in OPS (discounting Matt Stairs, who had a .917 OPS with only 405 plate appearances).

Thomas was not as good in 2008. He got off to a slow start with Toronto (.167/.306/.333 in 72 AB). The Blue Jays released him after 16 games, at least partly because Toronto didn't want to pay Thomas a $10 million bonus after he reached a certain number of plate appearances.

The point is, Frank Thomas was the Blue Jays' leading hitter in 2007. And the idea that Thomas was a "one dimensional player" who "clogged the bases" is idiotic. Thomas was a power hitter who got on base--which is exactly what he was his entire career. True, he probably didn't go first-to-third on a single too many times during the 2007 season, but that deficiency pales in importance to the idea of getting on base in the first place!

Perhaps Griffin would rather that Thomas had been more like Vernon Wells, who had a mighty .245/.304/.402 (OPS+ of 85) line in 2007. Wells did steal 10 bases, so presumably he did not clog the bases--when he was able to actually get on base.

Don't get me wrong--speed is great, and quite valuable. If I were putting together a baseball team, I'd want every player I had to be fast. But I'd rather that every player be good at getting on base--i.e., not making outs--and if I had to sacrifice speed for that, so be it. And I'm thinking my team would be pretty good.

Certainly better than any team Richard Griffin could put together.

I'm Positively Radiant About This Manny Ramirez Story

A quick hit on this Wednesday, thanks to a few-days old article from Bruce Jenkins:

Freedom comes early

Manny Ramirez is scheduled to begin his minor-league rehabilitation Tuesday...

Which he did, batting lead-off for the Albuquerque Isotopes. Manny went 0-for-2.

The Isotopes got their name from the made-up minor league team in the Simpsons: the Springfield Isotopes. And no, I'm not kidding.

As a nickname, "Isotopes" is a good one. I also like the Las Vegas Area 51s, the Caribou Caribou, and the Tacoma Saks. Two of those last three may not actually exist. Or do they....?

I'm sorry, where were we? Ah--

...joining the Dodgers' Triple-A lineup in Albuquerque, and with his 50-game suspension not ending until July 3, the question must again be asked:

Let me guess:

Will Manny wear a radiation suit when he plays?

Or, will Jon and Kate ever get back together?

No? Okay, Bruce--you go ahead.

If you're being penalized for the use of performance-enhancing drugs, how are you allowed to play anywhere? Why should the Dodgers get a sudden surge of revenue from the minor-league crowds flocking to see him? It's a suspension, not a vaudeville tour.

I think Manny Ramirez would be a great vaudeville act. He could go on between Topo Gigio and Petrushka the Dancing Bear.

Back to the question posed by Jenkins. Manny has been suspended for 50 games. The reason he's able to play in the minor leagues before his suspension is finished is so that he's ready to play when July 3 rolls around. If he were not allowed to play until then, it would take him a few days more to get back into playing shape. This would effectively amount to a 55-58 game suspension, depending on how long it took him to get his timing back.

The same thing is done with players on the disabled list--a player can start a minor-league rehabilitation stint before he's eligible to come of the DL (if you're not familiar with it, MLB has specific lengths to its disabled lists. Most commonly used are the 15-day, 30-day, and 60-day). Again, this is done so the player can be ready to play at the major-league level as soon as he is eligible to come back.

And the Dodgers are not doing this for a revenue boost. Two reasons: 1) See above. 2) The Dodgers don't own the Albuquerque Isotopes--the Isotopes are independently owned (as are most minor-league teams). So the Dodgers really don't gain anything revenue-wise, though the Isotopes surely do: attendance on Tuesday night was an Albuquerque-record 15, 321, and by all accounts, it was a radioactive atmosphere!! (Rimshot) EDIT-- joke changed to reflect nature of isotopes, as the original joke was better to suited to ions...because I am an idiot.

Sorry about that.

Some may argue that the rules should be different for players serving suspension versus injured players coming off the disabled list. Perhaps the idea is that since the suspended player got himself into this mess, it's his responsibility to train on his own to be ready to play when the suspension ends. I guess I can see that point a little bit, but I really don't see a problem with the way it is set up now. And with the fan turnout Tuesday--and by almost all accounts, fans cheered Manny--I'm sure the Isotopes aren't complaining about the increased revenue and short-term fan interest.

More to the point, the current penalty system was negotiated between MLB and the MLB Players' Association when random testing began in 2004. Do you think the MLBPA will give ground on this issue, with negotiations for a new labor agreement on the horizon? Yeah, I doubt it, too.

The bottom line--Manny is not really gaining by playing these "rehab" games in Albuquerque. He's not getting paid, and the stats don't count. The minor-leagues are separate from the major leagues, but if Bruce Jenkins paid any attention to that, he wouldn't get to be able to act high-and-mighty in his columns regarding the steroids/PED issue.

But now Bruce Jenkins can feel better about himself, and the rest of us can just not care.

JoeChat, Lom Henn Style

Zinglebert mentioned this a few weeks ago: baseball Hall of Famer and ESPN analyst Joe Morgan is again doing live chat sessions on ESPN.com. In the past, you had to be an ESPN Insider to access these gems, but now it's available to all of us cheapskates, too.

Why do we care? The good folks at FireJoeMorgan.com used to critique these chat sessions every week--and they were hysterically funny. And since FJM no longer does this and because we've ripped off 86.2% of this site from them anyway, we've decided to take up the cause--if we can consistently keep up with it week after week.

(And yes, for those of you who've followed it in the past, I used the word "consistently" on purpose.)

Also, if you'd like to see how FJM used to do it, follow this link to see the most recent JoeChat critiques. We make no promises that ours will be as good as theirs, so no getting your money back.

On with the show!

Buzzmaster: We're getting Joe Morgan right now!

Hooray!

Joe Morgan: The season continues to hold a lot of surprises. The Phillies as good as they looked two weeks ago is as bad as they look now, especially at home. I'm surprised that the Phillies look like they're the second best team in the NL, behind the Dodgers.

It took me 5 readings of the second sentence to figure out what he was saying. Initially, I thought he'd left out a word (common in these chats for Joe, or Fremp, or whoever types for him). But I think he means, "as good as the Phillies looked two weeks ago, they look just as bad now." Or something like that. But then he goes on to say that the Phillies look like the "second best team in the NL, behind the Dodgers." If they're playing so poorly, how can they "look" like the second best team in the NL--especially having lost 6 in a row and with Colorado having won something like 15 of their last 16???

Ugh. I'm already tired.

Vince (Pittsburgh): Will Albert Pujols, Adrian Gonzalez and Prince fielder all be all-stars?

Joe Morgan: Yes, I think they all should make it. The All Star lineup should be the best players in the league. They're supposed to be on the All Star team. It makes it difficult when you have as many good hitting first basemen that you have in the NL, but it was like that for years in the AL.

I agree with Joe here, and it's nice to see him give a definitive answer, as opposed to "I have no idea if all three will make it. How can I predict the future? There are many games to be played between now and then, and nobody knows what will happen."

I even agree with him that the All Star lineup should be the "best players in the league." But that's never been the case, since fans vote for the starters and due to the rule that each team has to have at least one All-Star (which will definitely benefit Gonzalez, even though he deserves to be an All Star with his 3rd-in-the NL OPS of 1.020). Case in point: a distant second place currently in All Star voting for NL first basemen: Ryan Howard (5th among NL 1B in OPS).

Ken (Fairfax): Do you see the Phillies making big moves in their bullpen with Lidge coming off the DL and Madson blowing 2 saves this last week?

Other than Lidge resuming his closer role? Isn't that big enough?

Joe Morgan: I think their concern should still be their starting pitching. Lidge should be OK when he's back. And Madsen is a setup man, not closer. I think they need starting pitching to make that staff complete.

True enough, but it won't hurt to have bullpen depth so that there is more flexibility in regards to switching out starters. But I agree that 82 year-old Jamie Moyer is probably someone you'd like to replace in your starting rotation.

SprungOnSports (Long Island): Joe, when a team like the Mets sustains so many injuries, how can't the team's medical staff and strength and conditioning coaches be the ones to blame? Who do you think is at fault, or is it just bad luck?

Joe Morgan: I think it's more a case of bad luck. If you think about it, each year it happens to different teams. There are teams now that have guys injured. The thing I admire the most about players these days is that they stay in shape year round. So I'm surprised by how many guys get hurt each year. But things happen. I wouldn't blame the medical staff or the strength coach. Look at the teams that have all the injuries. It seems the injury bug has become more prevalent than before.

I agree that it's probably luck. But could it also depend on the type of injuries? I would assume that most major league teams and trainers have similar regimens, but do they really? Could there be a trainer or two who is not as good as the others?

I really don't know, and like I said, it probably is just bad luck.

And this is a really boring chat so far in regards to analyzing Joe.

John (CA): What are your thoughts oin Tommy Hanson so far?

Joe Morgan: I haven't seen him, and I havent read a lot about him, but everything I hear about him on TV, he's going to be a star. But I don't use other peoples' judgements on players, I like to see them. I don't follow the lead of others in terms of rating players. I like to do it myself.

Tommy Hanson is one of the top pitching prospects in all of baseball. He is a stud. Yet Emmy Award winning baseball analyst (I wish I was making that up) Joe Morgan has YET to see him, despite the fact he's been in the majors for a couple of weeks and it's Joe's JOB TO ANALYZE BASEBALL GAMES. You'd think he'd take the time to check out Hanson, especially since Joe doesn't "follow the lead of others as far as rating players."

Perhaps Joe will get around to seeing Hanson when the Braves next play on Sunday Night Baseball. Of course, even when that happens, there will only be a 1 in 5 chance that Hanson will be the Braves' starter, so it may not be until 2011 until Morgan can rate Hanson.

Mike (Chicago): Did Joey Votto hurt his all-star chances be being out for so long? He comes back tonight in Toronto with his .357 avg with 8 HR. Can he push the Reds to a playoff berth?

The answer to the first question is, "of course!!" He's missed almost half of the season thus far. Even though he's been good, in the games he's played, he hasn't played enough.

Joe Morgan: He definitely has been hurt by the injuries for his all star chances. If he stays hot, maybe he gets picked. With him, I am starting to believe the Reds can make the playoffs. Votto would be the one to lead them. There's still a chance for that. That division is still wide open.

Injuries? Votto has been out with "stress." I think it's obvious Joe doesn't know that--he is probably not even sure who Votto is and guessed about the injury, since Mike(Chicago) mentioned Votto had been out.

For the record, I'm not making light of Votto's situation by putting "stress" in quotation marks--that was how MLB listed him on the disabled list. In fact, here is a story where Votto talks about everything he has been battling.

And the Reds only have a chance to make the playoffs because they play in the piss-poor NL Central. According to Baseball Prospectus, the Reds have a 9% chance of making the playoffs. Votto will need to hit like he did in the 39 games he has played for the Reds to have any chance.

Ben (Lincoln, NE): Joe, what's your take on the White Sox?

Joe Morgan: That's a team that I just can't figure out. Every time I think they're going to go down and they should start rebuilding, they win a few games ago. Contreras came back and looks great. They look good for a moment and then they fall back. So, I can't figure them out. They have some young players and veteran players, but I just can't figure them out. They could turn things around and win the division or they can fall deeper toward the bottom of the division.

So you're saying you can't figure them out? There is absolutely not one shred of analysis in Joe's response. Nothing about their hitting, their pitching (other than Contreras, who has looked good in his 3 starts since coming back). Just that Joe can't figure them out. How about the fact that Chicago's offense has been dreadful this season (3rd to last in the AL in runs scored)? How about that their pitching has been very good--second in the AL in ERA? Could that explain why the White Sox are hovering around .500?

It's not hard--it took me about 3.1 seconds to look that up.

Silvy (NY, NY): Will Manny's return to the Dodger lineup give LA the consistency that they need to run away with the division? Thought they've been winning, it seems like that offense hasn't been as consistent as it needs to be.

Joe Morgan: They already have the best record in baseball. He can improve their chances of winning in the playoffs. Right now this is the best team in baseball. I'm still interested to see how the team plays when he gets back. THey've played so well with Pierre at the top of the order. We'll see how they do with someone like Furcal at the top.

This could be a JoeBait--anytime someone uses the word "consistency" in a question, you have to wonder--but I'm not sure. Silvy (NY, NY) felt that he had to include that NY is in NY, so he may not be that sophisticated.

Juan Pierre has indeed played well this season: .337 BA/ .392 OBP/ .433 SLG. However, Pierre isn't typically a guy who gets on base very much (he has only 16 BB so far this year), so if some of his BA luck runs out, he won't be as an attractive an option as Furcal.

Jason (DC): Joe, Is Magglio Ordonez toast, or will he rebound in a big way?

Joe Morgan: That's a puzzling situation for me, because Jim Leyland said he's benched indefinitely. I don't know if I've heard that phrase used before with the benching of a star. Something is going on there, and we don't know what it is. I find it hard to think that a guy that has had success and can just disappear. My first thought is that he needs a wake up call and this is what that is. Maybe he just needs a good ol' fashioned kick in the pants and this is it.

Sigh. The question is, "do you think Ordonez is done?" Of course, Joe cannot say one way or the other, because no one knows for sure, and it could be something but maybe not, and who knows what the future holds?

All Joe has to do is give his opinion.

Mike (Houston TX) Hi Joe Thanks for taking my question. You are once of the best of all time !I had the privledge of seeing the you play in the 1975 series vs. Boston. I was at the famous Game 6. Was that game the greatest game you ever played in and what do ou recall the most from that game? For me it was Dwight Evans catch and Carbo's Home run.

When I first read this, I thought, "why would Joe think Game 6 was the greatest game he ever played in? The Reds lost." Especially because Joe drove in the winning run in Game 7. But I suppose it's a fair question...

Joe Morgan: It wasn't the greatest game I ever played in, because I lost. I know Pete Rose said it was the greatest game for him. I would say Game 7 was the greatest game for me, because we won and won the series.

Let's just say I was completely unsurprised by his answer.

ben (los angeles) if you were the manager of the Dodgers what would you do with Pierre when Manny returns? It doesn't seem productive or fair to bench him.

Joe Morgan: I finally found someone who agrees with me. I said this on Sunday Night Baseball. You're not talking about a bench guy in Pierre. You're talking about a guy with a lifetime average of over .300. If I'm the Dodgers, instead of benching him, I'd try to trade him for a good starting pitcher. Don't make a mistake about it, the Dodgers as good as they are need another starting pitcher. But thanks for agreeing with me. I like people that agree with me. Though I like people that disagree with me so I can explain my side.

Okay, there are a few things odd about Joe's answer. First off, his notion that Pierre isn't a "bench guy." I think I know what he means, but if a guy isn't starting, isn't he a "bench guy" by definition?

The second thing: perhaps it's just because he did the game two days ago and it's fresh in his mind, but Joe knows that Pierre is a lifetime .300 hitter (.301 to be exact). Joe normally treats numbers like they have Swine Flu, so this is a step in the right direction.

Third, I somewhat agree with Joe that the Dodgers should try to trade Pierre, who has high value right now. However, I think it would be fine to keep him as insurance in case one of their other outfielders gets injured.

Finally, Joe likes people who agree with him. He also likes people who don't agree with him. Joe likes everybody!!

Ryan (VA): Hey Joe is Chipper Jones a 1st ballot Hall of Famer if he doesnt reach the 500 homerun mark?

Joe Morgan: Being honest with you...that's a great question. I don't normally answer those questions because I'm on the Board and I don't want it to look like I'm pushing for a player while he's still playing. however, I think that Chipper will end up in the Hall of Fame.

For those of you who have never experienced a JoeChat before, this is a quite typical response from Joe for this question. Joe seems to think that giving his opinion about a player's worthiness for the Hall of Fame is the same as campaigning for that player. Joe could have easily said, "I think Chipper is worthy" or "I will vote for him" or even given a reason for why he thinks Chipper should get in. All Joe has to do is give some sort--any sort--of analysis. And of course...nothing.

Mike (Brooklyn, NY): Joe do you think Joe Girardi has been a good fit for the yankees thus far?

Joe Morgan: I think he's done a good job because he didn't let them fade away while A-Rod was gone. It's still a question of who's a good fit for that team. It's a hard team to manage because of the outside influences and the Yankees are expected to win each year. I don't know who is a good fit for that team, but he has done a good job of keeping them in the race while A-Rod is out.

Girardi took a thick rope and threw it to his team and screamed, "hang on!!" He then tied the other end of the rope around Monument Park at Yankee Stadium and pulled the team back up until A-Rod came back.

Or, perhaps it's because Mark Teixeira has been hitting the snot out of the ball for the past 6 weeks (to the tune of 1.085 OPS since May 1) and the Yankees pitching being a little better than it was the first month. Joe is right that there are some challenges to managing the Yankees, but I think it's a little easier to manage a team with a lot of talent than it is to manage a team like, say, the Washington Nationals.

Rory (Arlington, MA): How about Joe Mauer. Hes been the most consistent hitter in the MLB as of yet. Do you think he will finish the year batting .400 or above?

Joe Morgan: I don't think he can hit .400. He's been the most consistent hitter. We have so much specialization in the game. What you're going to see is him facing lefthanded pitching all the time. He handles it well, but to hit .400 it's otherworldly.

JoeBait #2, perhaps?

Joe seems to think that teams will only start left handed pitchers against the Twins in an effort to stop Mauer. As if the Blue Jays will say, "fuck starting Roy Halladay tonight--we need a lefty to thwart Joe Mauer and his otherworldly average! Is John Cerutti still alive?"

Hitting .400 is obviously very difficult to do, since no one since Teddy Ballgame in 1941 has done it. But "otherworldly?" Was Ted Williams from Saturn?

Justin (Ohio): Hi Joe, was curious about your thoughts of Dusty Baker's job with the Reds this year. Seems like he is holding this thing together with duct tape at this point.

Joe Morgan: Obviously he's done a fabulous job considering the position they're in. They've lost Votto for a while.

Votto returned today.

He's done a great job with the young guys, Jay Bruce, Phillips. He's done a great job with the bullpen, pitching staff. But he's one of the best managers in the game, I wouldn't expect anything less. That's why I'm not surprised when Bobby Cox, Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre lead their teams to doing well.

Brandon Phillips has been a full time player for three seasons and will turn 28 this Sunday. He's not old, but to call him a "young guy" as if Dusty has somehow discovered him is a little much. And while the Reds have been a good pitching team--7th in ERA in all of baseball--that's a little misleading. The Reds are 6th in ERA in the National League, but two of the teams better than them are in their division: the Cardinals (4th in the NL) and the Cubs (3rd in the NL). Still, their pitching has been their strength, as the Reds are 12th in the NL in runs scored. Sure, some of the offensive problems have been due to injuries or missed time, but how much imput does Dusty have in personnel decisions? You think the Reds would like to have Adam Dunn's .931 OPS somewhere in their lineup?

Chris (PA): Joe what do you think the Yankees should do with their starting pitching? Hughes seems to have finally come around and his confidence is sky high. Should they re-visit the discussion of moving Wang or Chamberlain to the bullpen?

Joe Morgan: The question is, who are their starters? They have CC, who has proven he's a big time starter. Andy Pettitte. Joba, the jury's still out. Burnett, he had a great year last year, but he has not been able to win the big games. Then you're deciding on Phil Hughes, Wang. The only ones I know for sure that are big time winners are Sabathia and Pettitte. I think they need to get starting pitching, but most teams are in that position. I don't think they can win with their rotation now. Well, let's put it this way, they can't beat Boston with that rotation.

Burnett was 18-10 last season, but his ERA was 4.07, and his WHIP 1.34 (after having a 1.24 WHIP in 2006-7). Burnett's problem is not that he "hasn't been able to win the big games," but rather he's allowed too many baserunners (WHIP this year: 1.44; ERA: 4.24).

I know the question was about pitching, but it's refreshing to see Joe discuss the Yankees without mentioning Derek Jeter, A-Rod, or "clutch hitting."

Wyatt Kirkhove (Aledo,IL): Does it feel great to be in the hall of fame?

Joe Morgan: I don't think you can describe the feeling of being selected into the Hall of Fame. It's like the first day I put on a major league uniform. Putting on that uniform for the first time was the most exciting thing for me. Now, once you make it, you want to be a good player for a long period of time. Making it into the Hall of Fame says that you did that. The day I stood up there with Ted Williams, Musial, all those great players sitting behind me. That was just fabulous.

This is just cool. I left this in here because I want to take the opportunity to say that Joe Morgan the player was an absolute badass. His career line is .271 BA/.392 OBP/ .427 SLG--great numbers, especially for a middle infielder. Joe played for 22 seasons. In 1975 his OPS was .974, including a .466 OBP! He followed that up by OPS-ing 1.020 in 1976. It is not a stretch to say Joe Morgan revolutionalized the second base position.

As a player, Joe was all the stuff we look for in great players today--when we talk about on-base percentage being a good thing, Joe Morgan is a great example of that. When we talk about stealing bases only being good for the team when you succeed more than 75% of the time, Joe is a great example of that, too (81% success rate for his career, with 689 total steals).

Without a doubt, Joe Morgan the Player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Joe Morgan the Analyst should not be allowed with 75 miles of Cooperstown.

chauncey (teaneck): Is Pujos the best player in the game?

You know--Albet Pujos.

Joe Morgan: I don't know if there is anybody that's close to him. I think he's by far the best player in the game. Alex Rodriguez, Joe Mauer, all those guys are great players, but I think Pujols by far is the best player. He hits, he plays good defense, runs the bases well. He's by far the best player.

Interesting that Joe mentions Mauer here. Mauer is having a great season, but this is the first year that he has demonstrated any power. I wouldn't put Mauer in that class...yet.

And Pujols is a monster. Why would you ever pitch to him at this point?

Joe Morgan: I've said this before and I'll say it again. People talk about how great teams' bullpens are, but starting pitching is the key to winning championships. You have to have starters to pick up a lot of those innings. You can't have your bullpen picking up 12-13 outs a game. Starting pitching is the key.

Yeah, the Braves teams of the 90s proved that, right? With all of those years of dominant starting pitchers and not-so-dominant bullpens, the Braves brought home World Series title after World Series title--oh, wait--they only won one World Series!

That's not completely fair, because I agree with Joe in a sense. Starting pitching is important... and I think it's more important than a great bullpen. But there are more keys to winning championships than starting pitching. And who cares how many outs your bullpen gets, as long as you're getting the outs and outscoring the other team? Sure, you'd love to have 5 starters that can go 250 innings over the course of the season, but with the way the game is played now, 6 good innings from your starter is usually enough.

So, overall, not bad for the first one of these. I'm not convinced that Joe is actually typing these anymore, since there are very few typos and misspellings. However, this is only one chat--we'll see if this trend continues after we've done a few of these. Tune in next week!

Unnamed Source Says: Ed Werder Is Still a Douchebag

I cited a source, so it must be true, right?

We have a back log here on LomHenn.com, and I apologize. I'll save the excuses, because there really aren't any. However, I can tell you that there will definitely be more activity here over the next couple of weeks.

And with people like ESPN's Ed Werder on the loose, there should be plenty of things to discuss.

I'm sure you've heard about the latest Werder fiasco involving some obscure, Canadian Football League draftee named Brett Favre. In case you have been blissfully unaware, Favre may again come out of retirement (which he's never really entered, I suppose) to play for the Minnesota Vikings. Favre has had some arm/shoulder trouble, and really the only thing stopping him from declaring a return is that he wants to make sure he's healthy enough to play.

Of course, the sports media world has been eager to engage in FavreWatch 2009: A Sequel to FavreWatch 2008! ESPN, which has never been known to over-hype anything, has led the charge and sent Dallas Cowboys team mascot Ed Werder to cover the Favre saga.

A couple of weeks ago, Werder--using two unnamed sources--reported that the Vikings and head coach Brad Childress had given Favre a deadline of the beginning of the team's OTAs to report or the Vikings would "move on." Favre did not show up to the team's OTAs. Also, Childress said on a sports radio talk show (on KFAN-AM in Minneapolis) that the team never gave Favre a deadline. Werder's reaction to that was to call Childress a liar.

Next, Favre appeared on the first episode of HBO's Joe Buck Live last Monday night, during which Favre said that the Vikings did not give him a deadline. Werder's reaction? Favre is a lair, too!

Werder's justification is that a) Childress doesn't want to admit to imposing a deadline because it would cause divisiveness in the locker room (?) and b) Favre didn't want to say that Childress had imposed a deadline because he didn't want to call Childress a liar. In other words, whenever his story is shown to be wrong, Werder just makes excuses and rationalizations by saying that everyone is lying, with the exception of his unnamed sources.

Here's the deal: you don't get to call everyone involved with a story a liar if you have no proof of it. And, unnamed sources DO NOT count as "proof." In one of the video stories, Werder laughably says that his sources have been "very reliable about this story."

Really? Here's a list of facts Werder has gotten right about this story:

1. A trainer for the Vikings went down to Mississippi to check on Favre's arm and suggest rehabilitation exercises.
2. Favre used to play for the Jets and the Packers, which most people older than 4 already know.
3. Werder's network is indeed called "ESPN."

Here's a list of things Werder has gotten wrong:

1. Vikings Coach Brad Childress imposed a deadline on Favre making a decision (Childress, Favre, and Favre's agent deny this)
2. The Vikings arranged for Favre's surgery (according to Favre, the first time the Vikings were directly involved was when the trainer came to Mississippi to check on his progress)
3. Werder's sources actually exist
4. Favre won an Academy Award for his performance in There's Something About Mary (although Favre deserved the Oscar by many accounts, it went to James Coburn for Affliction in perhaps the tightest race in Academy Award history)
5. Minnesota Coach Brad Childress REALLY IS Gerald McRaney (I know it's been done, but I had to go with the obvious)

(Points #4 and #5 may have been made up by me)

ESPN's reporters clearly don't care if their stories are right or not--they just run the stories with absolutely no accountability from the network. Ed Werder and Chris Mortensen are openly mocked by players, coaches, and media critics (like us) for not being accurate, yet ESPN does nothing to make its reporters more accountable.

Someday--and I hope I'm around to see it--someone will call ESPN out on this horseshit and sue the network for a million-zillion-gagoogly dollars. Perhaps then, when it affects its bottom line, will ESPN care about the integrity of its reporters.

6/9 Picks

Last Picks (1-1)
Total NBA/MLB 36-36-1 (-1.5 units)

O'Hoolix has taken a break lately and will be a bit sporadic in the following months, but tune in for some great gems to cash in on. On to today's picks:

MAGIC - 4.5: O'Hoolix likes the Magic in the home spot here
TWINS -105: Not sure why Oakland is the favorite here, maybe the home field. I like the Twins in this spot.

Good Luck

No, Tony, They Don't Really Like You.

Our friends at AwfulAnnouncing.com had this little piece on our 2008 FotY winner Tony Kornheiser that I wanted to share with you.

Look, I'm not one to kick someone when they're down, and Tony Kornheiser has certainly received his share of criticism, but this quote from his latest appearance "On The DL" just cracked me up....

And us too...

“I am absolutely gratified and buoyed by the street reaction that I have gotten where people say to me ‘we really liked your work, we’re really going to miss you.’ Total strangers, people I don’t know, seem to have responded very well to what I did on Monday Night Football. That thrills me. I didn’t expect that.

Well, Tony, this is what happens when you run into crackheads on the street.

Actually, as we mentioned previously on the site, we are going to miss you. You gave us sooooo many things to post on we will have to work harder now.

“You know, I thought that critically I was crushed, and internally, maybe, at ESPN there were a lot of people who didn’t like me -- I mean, I don’t know that, but I sense that every once in a while -- but I think there are just people who don’t like me. But the average guy on the street, at least the one who wants to talk to me, is so kind in what they’ve said and I’m very grateful for that.”

The average guy on the street isn't going to walk up and call you a colossal fucktard and beat the living shit out of you. The average guy is thinking that, but the average guy will not act upon it. And you should be very grateful for that!

And it is a rule here on LomHenn.com that we must end any TK posting with...

KORNHEISER SUCKS! KORNHEISER SUCKS! KORNHEISER SUCKS!

Z's Picks - 6/5

OK, I a decent day going 4-2 since the Cubs/Braves game was washed out. My pick for the Cardinals and Albert Pujols to have an offensive explosion did not come to fruition, but they did beat the Reds. And my pick for the Magic to tromp the Lakers in six is looking shaky at the moment after losing by 25 last night. Oh well, that is why I am not the odds maker O'Hoolix is.

Last night: 4-2

Overall: 13-9


Cubs/Reds: Cubs -120 and over 9.5 runs - An extra night for the Cubs will aid Zambrano and change in venue to the Ohio River will help the Cubbies spill some Reds blood. Look for a three game sweep by the Cubs this weekend!

Rockies/Cardinals: Cards -175 and over 8.5 runs - So my prediction was one night off. Tonight will be the night Pujols rocks the Rockies!

Angels/Tigers - Tigers -165 and over 8.5 runs - Verlander is ready to open a can of whoop-ass on the Angels.

Brewers/Braves - Braves - 110 and under 8.0 runs - Nothing here really. Just want the Brewers to lose.

Good luck for those of you brave enough to bet!

Z's Picks - 6/4

Sorry for the lack of posts lately. O'Hoolix has been busy at Mascot U. training a new batch of mascot recruits. Slut and I have been busy at the Oolitic Kanuter Valve plant. Mrs. Bembledack has been chasing Hortencia and Hildegard. Kringlebert and Oswald are their typical MIA. And Lom is who knows where at this point. We promise to be like Metamucil and post more regularly.

On with tonight's picks.

Last picks: 6-1 [I was en fuego!]

Overall: 9-7

Cubs/Braves: I like Zambrano pitching, but the bats will be silent tonight unfortunately. The sprit of Jobu will wake up the bats this weekend when Slut and I road trip to Cinci to GAB and watch the Cubbies bloody the Reds! Braves - 140 and under 8.0 runs.

Red Sox/Tigers: Sox -120 and under 10 runs.

Reds/Cards: Cards -175 and way over 7.5 runs. Chris Carpenter is back and Pujols will be rocking Busch stadium with 8 RBI all on his own!

Magic/Lakers: Magic +6 and under 206 pts. I know all the hype is for the Lakers but my gut feeling is the Magic will take this series in six. Or it might be the fiesta taco salad from Taco Bell coming back to get me...

Good luck!

Joe Chat is Back!

YES!!!!!

I was beginning to suffer withdraw symptoms from a lack of 'Chat with Joe Morgan' on ESPN.com. Phew! That was a close one. Evidently ESPN felt it was lacking another online baseball chat and called ol' Joe out of semi-retirement. Here is this week's chat. Enjoy!

Buzzmaster: (11:00 AM ET ) Joe will be here in a second!

Buzzmaster: (11:13 AM ET ) Hang in there everyone, we're trying to track Joe down.

Buzzmaster: (11:27 AM ET ) OK, Joe's on his way. There was a little problem with the phone, but it's being fixed. He should be here shortly.

Buzzmaster: (11:50 AM ET ) Sorry for the mixup everyone!

Buzzmaster: (11:54 AM ET ) Joe's going to start his chat next week. Sorry for the confusion.

Whahuh?!? Not only does Joe have difficulty explaining anything related to baseball, he seems to have developed a case of Griswolditis. You haven't heard of Griswolditis? It is the inability to dial or operate a phone. Well, I guess I shouldn't have expected anything less. Sadly, this was one of Joe's better chats!

Sorry folks, we're just going to have to wait until next week. Hopefully the shakes will not start up again before then.