Joe Chat, 7/21

Hey, were only a week late now! Cross your fingers and wish on the first star you see tonight and we might be able to get this week's Joe Chat up by tomorrow evening?

Buzzmaster

We're getting Joe right now!

Why can’t Joe ever be in front of his computer BEFORE his chat ever starts?

Joe Morgan

This Sunday Jim Rice and Rickey Henderson will be elected into Baseball's Hall of Fame. I've been thinking about the future of the Hall of Fame. I've been thinking about it because I'm Vice Chairman of the board and a Hall of Famer. I'm having a real problem with trying to decide with guys that have tested positive or admitted using performance enhancing drugs. I can't come to a definitive conclusion or solution to what should happen. I'm sure this is something that will continue to bother me until someone who has admitted to using performance enhancing drugs is put in front of the baseball writers. I guess the question is, what do you think the solution is?

i.e., please tell me because I can never come to a conclusion on my own…

Matt (New Jersey)

Hey Joe. Other than Pujols, is there any 1B better than Justin Morneau? What a fantastic player he is...

Joe Morgan

You're 100% correct, with the exception of Pujols.

OK, Joe, do you mean that Matt is 100% correct that Morneau is the best except for Pujols or that Morneau is the best player because you take exception to Pujols being better?

Justin Morneau for the last 3 years continues to improve. That's the mark of a great player, that you continue to improve.

Just because a player improves does not necessarily make him a great player. If I bat .200, .201 and .202 in successive years, I improved every year, but does that make me a great player? Fuck no! But I am to Joe by his definition.

He's considered an offensive player as much as anything. He doesn't run as well as Pujols, but he's a great hitter. Prince Fielder and Justin Morneau are the future stars at that position, though Pujols is still young.

Morneau is 28 and Fielder is 25, evidently 28 must be the cutoff for being a young future star because Pujols is only 29!

Michael (Houston)

Do you think the Astros can really do it?

What, get laid? Have sex?

OK, I think the Buzzmaster is getting a little lazy here or no one is sending in questions to Joe. This is the fourth time in the past five Chats that this question has come up.

Joe Morgan

Yes. I don't know what's the in water there in Houston, but it seems to energize these guys in the second half every year. I thought they could have made the playoffs last year, except for the hurricane that moved those three games from Houston to Milwaukee. I think they can make the run this year.

And this is the fourth time that Joe has given the same answer, including the games moved to Milwaukee comments. Well, at least he is “consistent.”

You know, I get that Houston was essentially penalized by having the series against the Cubs moved to Milwaukee, making it more a home series than an away series. But do you really think that with the aftermath of the hurricane and concerns of friends and family back home, that the Astros would have fared much better if the games had been held in Arizona or Atlanta? Most likely, no. So drop this line of reasoning, fucktard!

Matt (Jacksonville)

Joe, the Cubs can't seem to get on a consistent roll. Is there anyway for them to get any consistency this year?

JOE BAIT ALERT! JOE BAIT ALERT!!

Joe Morgan

Last year there was something about the Cubs personality of the team.

What kind of personality was it, Joe? Comical? Whimsical? Determined? Determined to fizzle out in the playoffs? Really, Joe, I want to know.

There was something different. They were a fun team to watch. I enjoyed watching them. (Only on Sunday night games he broadcasted.) I enjoyed talking to them. THere just seems to be a different personality of the team this year. In addition, the confidence level has fallen a little bit. The injury to Ramirez set them back. Everyone talked about DeRosa and he's one of my favorite players, but Jason Marquis is also gone. It's just a little different now. The answer is, I don't know if they'll be able to re-gain that consistency of last year, but they still have a shot at their division.

Damn, he almost made it without taking the bait, but his resistance waned in the last sentence and he had to put it in there.

Not only are players gone from last year’s team, but you added our favorite “gamer” and branded asshole, Milton Bradley. When Ramirez went down, no one stepped up offensively and the team struggled. When your team has fallen into fourth place in the NL Central with no signs of righting the ship and your team was expected to win the division and contend for a World Series title, personalities tend to turn sour. Throw in some gasoline named Milton Bradley and a match named Lou Pinella and you have a veritable firestorm ready to ignite.

Kevin (Rochester, NY)

With the trade deadline a little more than a week away, does the mood of a clubhouse change with the impending deadline? For teams that are likely to be sellers, such as my favorite team the Toronto Blue Jays, how does a manager keep morale up while familiar faces are being dealt?

Joe Morgan

That's an excellent question, because it's very difficult and a problem that goes throughout baseball every year. Players know that sometimes their tenure with that team is short. Or guys that have value know they can be traded. THe job of a manager becomes doubly tough, becuase they have to keep these guys focused and prevent their minds from wandering. Those kinds of things interfere with their concentration and focus. It's something that happens every year and you can't get away from it. To put Roy Halladay's name out there this early, I thought, was a mistake by the Blue Jays. But he's a competitor and he's kept it from changing his focus on the field. But he's a star, a big star. If the trade doesn't happen, you can't go back to him and just say you were kidding. So, Halladay has to be traded. It's unfortunate that it ends up like that.

It’s part of the business of baseball, dude. Players know that they may be trade bait or the underperforming player your team wants to dump. Putting Halladay’s name out there is not going to affect him as much as you think. It is not that the Jays don’t want him. The Jays would just prefer to get a ton of prospects and get rid of his salary. Halladay may not be thrilled, but it is not going to affect his game.

Ben (Greensboro, NC)

Now that the Braves have played more consistently after the All Star break, do you seem them being able to overtake the Phillies for the NL East title? If not, do you think they have a shot at the Wild Card spot?

JOE BAIT ALERT #2!

Joe Morgan

The Braves are a team that always seems to find good pitching and they're always lacking offensive punch. When Chipper Jones is healthy, he adds the punch that they need and the stabilizing force they need in the lineup. But any time he's injured, that lineup becomes offensively challenged. I just don't think they have enough offense to challenge the Phillies. THey have good pitching, but not enough offense. Pitching is great, but you still have to score runs to win.

OK, is this really Fremp at the helm this week? This is essentially something resembling an analysis and did take the Joe bait. This can’t really be Joe…this actually makes sense!

john (cincinnati)

joe, what are your thoughts on expanding replay after watching the bad call last night in twins/athletics game?

Joe Morgan

That's been my argument against instant replay in how they instituted it. They made it so that the home run is the only call they can look at. There are so many plays that affect the outcome of the game, more than just the home run. Two Sundays ago, we broadcast in Chicago and a ball was hit into the outfield and was trapped, but it was called an out. The bases were loaded and they could have scored two runs. So, my point is if you're going to put instant replay in, you have to expand it more than just home runs. THat's not the only play that changes the outcome of the game.

MLB chose to allow replays for only home runs (fair/foul/left playing field) and fan interference. Similar to MLB’s long delay in implementing a steroids policy, MLB knew they HAD to implement something for instant replay or face another backlash from fans or Congress again. OK, they didn’t have to, but they knew they needed to do something. Home runs are the one play that you can definitively draw the line on. If you start trying to include other plays, where do you draw the line? I’m sure MLB will expand replay more in the future, but MLB believes in baby steps.

Ben (Lincoln, NE)

So Mr. Morgan, are the White Sox legit contenders? Because it seems most analysts still only think the Tigers or Twins have a real shot at the AL Central... and I'm not sure why they ignore the southsiders...

Joe Morgan

I definitely believe the White Sox have a chance. Any time you have Dye, Thome, Ramirez, you have a good team. I don't know when Carlos Quentin is coming back, but if they can get healthy, I think they definitely have a chance.

Yes, Joe, the Sox are a decent team, but how about some analysis on why you think they can overcome the Tigers and Twins? Come on, Fremp, so us your stuff!

john (cincinnati)

thanks joe, it seems like each team could be given challenges to use throughout a game on close calls.

What are the odds that the same person can get two questions on the Joe Chat within three questions? Well, he is from Cincinnati…

Joe Morgan

The only problem with that, the games would last 10 hours. Guys would use up their challenges just to use them. One problem with instant replay, let's say the bases are loaded and a player catches it, but the umpires say he didn't catch it and there are runners going everywhere. Then they go and look at it and they find he did catch it, so what do they do with all those runners that scored? The play continues. It's a very difficult thing to use replay in baseball. It's not like football. Football is segmented. Here's a play, here's a play. But baseball has one play following another. They have to go by the call that's made at that moment. It's very difficult to use replay. I just don't think replay works as well in baseball as in football. Are you going to use replay for balls and strikes? Replay will not work as well with baseball as it does with football.

FUCK THE HECK?!?!?!?!? Two questions ago he says they need to expand replay and now he says replay will not work?

Joe evidently does not watch much football and, therefore, does not know that in the NFL, each team gets only two challenges to start off with and can get a third challenge if the team was successful on the first two. MLB could give each team a specific number of challenges similar to the NFL. But, MLB would need to come up with a penalty for a failed challenge similar to football.

I am not sure where to begin with the statement, “Football is segmented. Here’s a play, here's a play. But baseball has one play following another.” Isn’t that the same fucking thing? In baseball, you do not have a “play” on every pitch, per se, but every pitch is segmented. Are you saying that if the runners ran and they should not have, you cannot have the players go back? You sure the fuck can! Now if the umpires called it a catch and it was a trap upon review, now you would have to come up with rules to handle this situation because the runners did not run.

Answers like this from Joe are the reason FJM and this site were created in the first place.

When did Joe and Fremp change places BTW?

Gary (Warren, MI)

To your comment about HOF admission of steroid players: When did the substances that they used become illegal within the sport? When McGwire was found with Andro in his locker, wasn't it being sold over the counter at nutrition stores? (Now, the lying is a different issue,) but if it was not illegal, should they have a legit shot at the HOF?

Joe Morgan

I agree with you 100% in the Mark McGwire case, because Andro was not illegal as far as our country's legal system. But to say that steroids weren't illegal in baseball is wrong, because steroids have been illegal in this country. McGwire's situation is different. I was talking about guys that have admitted to using or tested positive. That's what I was referring to. Not guys that we suspect or guys that we think might have done it. It's hard to convict someone without proof. That's why it's such a difficult task.

First off, steroids are not nor have they been illegal in this country. It is illegal to possess or take them if you do not have a prescription…now. Prior to 1990 with the enactment of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990, steroids were legal. Secondly, MLB did not have any rules in place to say if a player was found to have steroids in your blood, you broke their rules. They had rules for other drugs (cocaine, LSD, marijuana, etc.) but not for steroids until 2003. So you may have broken the law by takings steroids without a prescription, but you did not break the MLB rules because THERE WAS NO RULE!

I know that Joe cannot make up his mind on voting on someone who has admitted to taking or tested positive for steroids. Heaven help us what his stance is on players who were suspected of taking steroids, a la Mark McGwire.

Mike (LA)

In your opinion where is Halliday at years end?

Joe Morgan

Well, everyone seems to be talking about the Phillies. But I think the Phillies need him less than some other teams. The Phillies are widening their gap. And they don't need to give up their future prospects to get him. There are several teams that I think he could go to that would make them instant World Series contenders. The Yankees for one. Their starting pitching is suspect. Milwaukee. THey could get what they got from Sabathia. The Mets. There are several teams, the Dodgers, that would be instant World Series contenders. But I don't know who would be willing to part with their young players.

This must be tag-team day at the Joe Chat helm, because we are now have to be back to Fremp at the wheel. Not only did “Joe” give us a team, he gave us FIVE possible teams. This is not Joe. This can’t be Joe.

mike (chicago)

Joe, as to the HOF/PED question, since the hall is a museum of baseball history, simply not electing the best players of that generation seems like it's almost saying that era didn't happen. There were great players doing great things, it's part of baseball history, so I think the best answer is to elect the best no matter what and hold our collective noses, right?

Joe Morgan

That's the question. But you're correct in that it's a museum and it's here to chronicle the history of baseball. How do you cover that history, knowing that there were guys that enhanced their statistics with performance enhancing drugs? It's not easy. But your point is correct, that's it's a museum. Your solution might be to elect those that used steroids and put that on their plaque. But you're still putting them with guys who did not use, or admit or get caught using PEDs. There will be a lot of players on the border of being hall of fame players. If they had used, would they be getting into the hall of fame? You're putting in the guys that used and penalizing those that didn't. There's definitely not an easy solution.

Eventually, I am sure Cooperstown will add a section/wing for the steroids era. Not necessarily for the players elected during that time, but to chronicle that era of baseball. It happened, MLB did its best to ignore it and got burned for ignoring it. Purists and baseball writers feel that everything that happened during that era needs an asterisk next to it. They are also going to be hesitant to voting those players into the HOF, i.e. Mark McGwire last year and will most likely do the same to Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro when the come up for election in the next couple of years.

Joe Morgan

I'm looking forward to going to the hall of fame this weekend. I always have a good time and rubbing elbows with other hall of famers. I always have some good stories. Looking forward to sharing some with you next week.

And we’re looking forward to it as well!

Quick Hits

I'm back with another episode of "Quick Hits", items that need to pointed out, but not necessarily big enough to warrant their own posts.

Dan Dakich Show

I generally like the Dan Dakich show. It is nice to have a local sports radio talk show and Dan does a decent job of hosting the show. However, he had a couple of trip-ups on Friday's show.

Regarding perfect games in baseball, "Perfect games never happen." Uhh, Dan it has happened 16 times in the modern era and 18 times overall. So they do occur. Really.

Regarding the NL Central Division, "The (Chicago) Cubs are in first place because they are one loss up on the Cardinals." No, dickhead, the Cubs are not in first place. The Cards were 52-46 while the Cubs were 48-45 before Friday's games. You can't assume that just because the Cubs have played five fewer games that all of them would be won by the Cubs. If you look at the standings, the Cards have a winning percentage of .531 versus the Cubs .516. By every statistical rule I know of, this would put the Cards in first place, Danny.

All-Star Game

Yes, I know that the American League now has a thirteen game unbeaten streak, which is the longest such streak in the series. However, I am tired of hearing all of the pundits go on and on and on about the woeful National League. The NL may be taking it on the chin since 1996, but I have not heard any of them mention that the NL won eleven straight from 1972 to 1982 and won 19 of 20 from 1963 to 1982. I guess since that occurred over 25 years ago, no one ever thinks to look back that far.

Hall of Fame & Steroids

This will be a bigger post at some point, but I still take the stand that if a player took steroids before it was made illegal by MLB, then technically, he did not do anything wrong. Yes, there are numerous players that are suspected to have taken steroids and several that have tested positive or been identified. Did it give them an advantage? Most likely, otherwise, players wouldn't have been taking them. Did it give them an UNFAIR advantage? No, because at the time it was not illegal and therefore, not unfair. So no asterisks are needed for those records that were broken.

Now in the case of someone like Manny Ramirez, it does bring up an interesting discussion about players who have tested positive and been suspended by MLB for PEDs. Do you start putting asterisks on their records? Do you throw out certain seasons of statistics? Do you totally bar them from consideration? Makes you think.

All right, its late and I need to get up early to drive to Chicago for a Cubs game...sweeeeeeet! Now, if they win today (Sunday) and the Cards lose, then the Cubs WILL be in first place.

Catching Up With Joe

We're a little bit behind on the JoeChats, so we'll get caught up with this JoeChat from July 7. This week's JoeChat is coming soon to a LomHenn blog near you.

For now, two-week old JoeChat!

Buzzmaster: We're getting Joe Morgan right now!

Why is he not here? Is he in the bathroom?

Joe Morgan: Looking forward to next week's all-star game. It's a great time of the season. It gives a break in the season for the players and the fans. It's a great time.

I like the All-Star Game, but I disagree that the all-star break is a "great time." There is no meaningful baseball for three days!

Matt (Jacksonville): Joe, do you think the Cubs will be more consistent with Aramis Ramirez back?

Another first question "consistent." If there is anyone reading this who participates in the JoeChats, I ask that you stop Joe-baiting if you are doing so.

Joe Morgan: I definitely think they will be. He has been the key to their offense being consistent as far as I'm concerned. He's the most productive hitter on that team the last few years. With him back, I think they'll do beter.

Aramis Ramirez is the Cubs' best hitter. If he is at all healthy, he will help them in the second
half of the season. Joe is right as far as that goes.

But, according to Joe, Ramirez "has been the key to their offense being consistent as far as I'm concerned." The Cubs have been plenty consistent offensively this season: consistently awful. They don't need Ramirez to help them be more consistent; they need him to hit the living snot out of the ball and do what he's done the past five seasons (OPS 2004-2008: .951, .926, .912, .915, .898). If he does this, he will probably make whoever hits in front of him better (i.e. better pitches to hit), but he will actually be making the Cubs "inconsistent" with how they are hitting now.

Ed (Denver): Hey, Joe. I was wondering your thoughts on Marquis getting into the all-star game? Don't you think his 11 wins are the product of run support and not that that he's a good pitcher? Thanks!

Joe Morgan: That is an excellent point, Ed (Denver). As you point out, Wins are a terrible metric for evaluating a pitcher's performance, because that statistic does not necessarily reflect how well a pitcher pitched. For example, a pitcher who consistently gives up 6 runs a game may still get a lot of wins if his team consistently scores 7 runs a game, while a pitcher who gives up only 3 runs per game may still get a lot of losses if his team can only average 2 runs per game.That being said, Jason Marquis has a decent ERA (3.65) and his ERA+ is 120. He may not be the best choice, but he is certainly not the worst.

You didn't actually fall for that, did you? I did try to bait you with all the "consistentlys," but would you ever believe that Joe would give that answer? If that were Joe's actual answer, Zinglebert and I would organize a parade through the streets of Bonham, TX celebrating Joe Morgan and his awesomeness at analyzing baseball games. We would buy poster-sized portraits of Joe Morgan and hang them in our homes. I would also never critique another JoeChat.

Sadly, none of that will come to pass, as here is Joe's real answer to Ed (Denver), vis-a-vis Jason Marquis:

The name of the game, people always want to forget, for pitchers is wins and losses. If you beat a team 1-0, as he did recently, or 5-4, it doesn't matter. If you win, that goes on the team's side of the victory column. I'm not so much for a guy that has a low ERA and a losing record. That tells me that the other pitcher pitched better than he did, because that team scored more runs. Jason Marquis is a good pitcher. He's not a shut down pitcher, he's not a No. 1, but he deserves to be in the All-Star game.

You cannot assume that because a pitcher has a low ERA and a losing record, the other pitcher pitched better. As Zinglebert points out, you can throw a no-hitter and still lose because the other eight players on the team fucked it up for you with errors. Just ask Ken Johnson, who threw a no-hitter and lost 1-0 back in 1964.

Also, a pitcher cannot control how well the other pitcher performs. If you pitch well for a crappy offensive team, does that mean that the other pitcher was better than you, as Joe suggests? Not necessarily--your team's offense sucks. How can a pitcher control that?

Brian (Irvine,CA): I'm a Giants fan and I hope Mr. Sabean will make a trade for 2B or 1B? Do you agree with me?

Joe Morgan: They need another bat. Another consistent bat.

What if that bat is consistently dreadful?

Kunfu (sic) Panda is their most consistent hitter right now. They moved Aaron Rowand to the lead off spot after paying him all that money to be an RBI guy. Where that bat comes from, I think it has to be a first baseman. They definitely need an RBI guy.

First off, Rowand was signed by the Giants after posting a .889 OPS with Philadelphia in 2007. Here are his OPS numbers for the two seasons prior: .745 and .736. In 2008, Rowand had a .749 OPS and is going along at a .773 clip this season. So clearly, the Giants made a mistake in thinking that Rowand was going to set the world on fire. Yes, he did OPS .905 in 2004 with the White Sox, but that's the only other season he's been above .800.

Secondly, Babe Ruth reincarnated may not be an "RBI guy" on the Giants this season. The Giants have a team OBP of .308--dead last in MLB. For someone to be an RBI guy, there has to be someone on the bases--not likely with the Giants this year.

Oh, and two "consistents" in the same answer. Joe is himself today.

Matt (Boston): Is Tulo ever going to become a consistent, power-hitting SS?

Not that people aren't helping Joe be that way.

Joe Morgan: That's a very good question. He had such a great rookie year and they gave him a long term contract and he hasn't performed well since. I think the jury's still out on how good he can be, will be. When you play in Colorado, the ball carries better and it's easier to get hits and HRs. They were thinking he'd be one of the guys one of these days. Eventually, they were looking to be that slugger. But I'm not sure he's going to be that guy. We'll have to wait and see. That's a very good question.

Or: "Maybe. It's easier to hit home runs in Colorado. Maybe."

In other words, nothing.

Nick (Boston, MA): Who do you feel should be the starter for the AL at the All-Star Game?

This is easy, right? Just pick one. Maybe pick the best starting pitcher so far this season, but this is simply asking for Joe's opinion.

Joe Morgan: Hmmm. Another good question. I would say either Greinke or Hernandez. I think Hernandez would be a big story because of his age and Greinke had the good start to the season and has cooled off a little.

So, Greinke may not be the best choice...?

Also, as I've mentioned previously, Joe cannot be typing these any more, if he ever did. Would he actually type "Hmmm?"

The game seems to be now more about buzz. I think you'd get a bigger buzz with a guy like Hernandez because he's a power pitcher.

Fair enough.

Brandon (Albany): What do you think the chances are the Astros can make another 2nd half surge and get the wild card only being about 4.5 games out right now? Joe Morgan: The Astros are a very complicated team. Every year, I think they can't make a run and they do. Last year, I think they could have made the playoffs other than those three games in Milwaukee against the Cubs. But until they stop making second half runs, I'll say they can do it again. Carlos Lee is still getting back from injury. Oswalt seems to be rounding into form. I will definitely not disagree that it can happen.

The best thing going for the Astros is that they play in the weak NL Central. In fact, Baseball Prospectus gives the Astros an 8% chance of winning the division, but only a 1% chance of winning the NL wild card. Getting Lee back helps, but their hitting is likely to stay pretty much where it's been all season. Their pitching has had some bad luck, as the team BaBIP was 15 points above the league average at the All-Star break. So it's possible that Houston's pitching will get better.

For the record, I love the assumption that because a team has done something in previous seasons, it is likely to do so again this season.

Matt (St. Paul, MN): Joe, who's your midseason AL MVP? I'm just assuming that Pujols is the NL candidate?

Joe Morgan: There's no doubt that he's the NL MVP. The American League is a little more complicated. Originally, I would look to someone from Boston, because they have the best team, but I don't see anyone. Youkilis was doing well and Pedroia isn't having the same kind of season as last year. Same thing for the Yankees. Right now, Justin Morneau, Miguel Cabrera are having good seasons. Their teams have a chance at winning. And I like Tori Hunter because of his defense. He plays CF and that's a tough position to play. But thre are a lot of other guys having good seasons as well.

The idea that the MVP has to come from a winning team (or as Joe suggests, the best team) is ridiculous. But that's what it seems to have come down to when it comes to voting.

Youkilis is 5th in the AL with a OPS+ of 151. Morneau is 2nd with 164. Cabrera's: 132--not in the top 15. Hunter: 138--14th.

WARP3 numbers (which take into account fielding): Hunter--7.9, Morneau--8.1, Cabrera--6.2. Joe Mauer leads the AL in OPS+ at 177 and has an 8.2 WARP3, so he might be a better choice.

K (philly): Were you ever involved in a game like last nights Phils/Reds ?

Joe Morgan: No. Sparky would never let us to beat someone that badly. As an example, I drove in 7 runs in the first few innings and we were up 12-1 or something like that and he took me out of the game. I looked at the 8-9 inning last night and the regulars were still playing. Sparky would have never let that happen. When we got way ahead, he would take the regulars out.

According to the box score and the play-by-play, the Phillies scored 16 runs in the first four innings, including 10 runs in the first. And guess what: Charlie Manuel took both Chase Utley and Ryan Howard out of the game during the 4th inning. Including Matt Stairs, who pinch-hit in the 8th, the Phillies used 11 position players--8 starters and 3 subs. The Phillies only have 13 position players, since they also carry 12 pitchers on their roster. In other words, Manuel left only two players on his bench, one of whom was the backup catcher (who you typically don't want to use because catcher is such a difficult position, and if the backup comes into the game and gets hurt, you're out of catchers). True, the Phillies scored 6 runs in the 8th, but they weren't running up the score. Even backup players want to get hits, so it's not realistic to think that the Phillies batters stopped trying after the 5th inning.

The other point that Joe makes here is that "Sparky would never let" a game like this happen. According to this boxscore from April 25, 1977, the Reds beat the Braves 23-9. If you take a look at it, you'll notice that the Reds had six players come off the bench in the game, which seems to make Joe's point. However, you'll also notice that each of those bench players have exactly one plate appearance. None of the subs got into the game until after the Reds had put up all 23 runs. Sparky didn't sub at all before that, so Joe's idea that Sparky "would never let that happen" is ludicrous. Of course Sparky didn't run up the score, but he didn't sub until the Reds were safely head by 19 runs.

And is it interesting to anyone else that Joe assumed that he'd be on the winning side? The Reds were the losers in the game the question referred to.

Brian (Hamden,CT): what do you think of John Smoltz so far, do you think he will be a big part of the red sox plans in Sept/Oct

Joe Morgan: I'm actually surprised that he's pitched as poorly in both games. I thought he might pitch poorly the first game, because it had been a while. But last night he didn't pitch well again. We're going to have to wait and see if there's anything he can contribute to that team. It's not easy to pick up as a pitcher where you left off.

We have to "wait and see" before you can tell us what you think Smoltz will be able to do the rest of the season?

Bawb (Fairview, UT): Who do you think is the biggest snub from the All Star rosters?

Joe Morgan: I don't know if the word snub is the right word. They added one more player to each team. It used to be a 25 man roster and it was tough. Now it's more of an exhibition and they're adding more players. We just keep adding players. Maybe soon it will be a 40 man roster. I'm surprised that No. 1 Ian Kinsler was not on the team. He's leading his team in RBI and at the time his team was in first place. Dustin Pedroia is not having the same year production wise. The biggest snub for me is Jermaine Dye. He puts up big numbers every year. He's an all star to me and he's not on there. In the NL, they have four first basemen. All of them may deserve to be there, but there are other positions where there are multiple guys that could be there, but aren't. And all four guys can't play another position. I'm not saying any of them don't deserve to be there. This is the All-Star game and the best couple at each position deserve to go. But they have four 1B, which means another position someone got squeezed out. Kung Fu Panda in San Francisco deserves to be there. I'm not saying which one of those guys shouldn't be there, but there is definitely too many first basemen.

Leading one's team in RBI is not a valid criterion for All-Star status. Also, Joe's case for Jermaine Dye is that he "puts up big numbers every year." What about this year? Dye wouldn't have been a bad choice--he was hitting .302/.375/.567 at the break. Perhaps that's a better argument than what he's done in previous years.

Dan (FL): Do you think GMs will think twice about giving Japanese pitchers big money after seeing most of them don't live up to expectations? Thanks.

Joe Morgan: They should think twice about giving any foreign players a lot of money because they haven't peformed in the big leagues. You asked about pitchers, but what about Fukudome and other position players? I don't think you can compare Japanese baseball to Major League Baseball. Fukudome is a platoon player at best right now. Matsui was Godzilla and was supposed to hit 40-50 home runs. No one has lived up to expectations, with the exception of Ichiro. It's not just Japanese players, it's foreign players overall. Dice-K has not been worth the $100 million they had to spend on him. I think they have to look closer on how they evaluate foreign players. I remember when Irabu came over, he was the next Nolan Ryan, because that's what he looked like in Japan. But he never lived up to those expectations. In some cases, we've done the same thing with some of the Cuban players. This latest left handed pitcher to defect is supposed to be the next Randy Johnson, but I don't know how we can say that until he plays against MLB players.

Notice he only mentions Japanese players by name. Does Joe know any of the Cuban players?

That's not to say that they don't make mistakes on American players as well. But I think more mistakes are made on foreign players on giving them money before seeing the production here.

Perhaps it's because there aren't that many Japanese players, so there's much more focus on them when they sign. I think the success rate is probably the same regardless of where the player comes from.

Also, Japanese players aren't like amateur players here from high school and college. Japanese players are already playing professionally before they come over to the United States, so you have to pay them more to provide incentive to sign. Why would any player leave his homeland--where he is most likely a star player--for the same amount of money he's making? Of course MLB teams have to pay more to lure them here.

David (WA): Hello Joe, What are the odds that the Mariners get another bat and be more competitive in the AL West race?

Joe Morgan: They're going to have to get some more bats or a big bat in order to be competitive in that division.

The Mariners are already competitive. Three games behind the LA Angels of Anaheim (California, USA) at the All-Star Break competitive.

They're headed in the right direction, but they still need a more consistent offense to beat the Angels and Texas. The Angers are starting to play well. They're going to have to make a move soon if they're going to stay in that race.

Yes, David (WA) said as much with his question, which was: what is the likelihood the Mariners will get this much-needed bat? And Joe's answer:

Dooty.

Burt (IL): Do you think Piniella was fair with Milton Bradley? I see Youkilis blowing up all the time and nobody disciplines him.

Joe Morgan: I have some of the smartest chat guys I've had in a while today. If you're Milton Bradley, your history is always in front of people. What you've done in the past comes up all the time. People forget that when Manny Ramirez was there and he and Kevin Youkilis got into it, he came into the dugout saying things throwing things and that's what, according to Manny, led to them pushing each other. But Youkilis doesn't have the history. Make no mistake about it, Bradley has earned his reputation, but you should treat each situation as its own. We've seen some blowups from Zambrano and other players. Part of it was because that's how their manager was, his personality. But you have to stop if you're going to be a good team and just play the game.

But is there a double-standard? It's probably not fair to expect that Joe would get into racial bias here, but could a factor be that Youkilis is white and Bradley is black? I mean, pretty much everyone thought Jeff Kent was an asshole, but most reporters never called him out on his behavior. Bradley is thought of by a lot of people in the media as a borderline-lunatic.

Again, I'm not saying that's what's happening here, and I'm not going to take the time to get into that discussion now. It's just something to think about.

Joe Morgan: I'm looking forward to this year's home run derby because we have more bona fide sluggers than last year. Josh Hamilton saved the event last year, because of his great round, but Justin Morneau won it. This year, with some of the stars we'll have, I think it will be a great home run derby.

It will only be a great home run derby if Chris Berman is at Yankee Stadium without a microphone while the home run derby is taking place at Busch Stadium in St. Louis.

Letting You Do the Work For Us

We've tried very hard here at LomHenn.com to have our own identity in the 14 months or so that we've had this blog. We've also made it no secret that we are fans of the late FireJoeMorgan.com, and a lot of what we do has been influenced by that great site.

And now yet another thing we can take from FJM: Gallimaufry!! As defined from FJM, gallimaufry is a "hodgepodge of reader emails cobbled together" to make a post when the blogger is feeling lazy. This post is technically not gallimaufry, since I'm only going to use one reader email (as opposed to a hodgepodge). But you get the idea.

The reader in this case is William S., who sends us this juicy article by Darren Everson from the Wall Street Journal. I've included William's critique of the article. Anything I interject will be preceded by SB; otherwise the criticism will be William's--unedited by me.

So, heeeeere's William S.!

Baseball's Winning Glue Guys
The Gritty, Gutty Players Who Hold Teams Together—and Help Them Succeed

Already starting out great with that title.

There are aces, closers, sluggers and Gold Glovers. And then there are the really important people in a ballclub: the glue guys.

Really? You know, I think I'll take the aces, closers, sluggers, and Gold Glovers (granted that they aren't of the Derek Jeter variety). Also, I think I will crush you with them.

“Glue” guys, in baseball parlance, are the players whose oft-overlooked performance quietly holds winning teams together—and without which, presumably, the team would fall apart. Statisticians don’t buy that they exist, but psychologists do. And players and managers swear by them.

"Presumably," hmm... You presume that. I presume that the aforementioned aces, closers, and generally awesome baseball players would continue to be generally awesome baseball players and keep winning without David Eckstein...I mean glue guys.

“He’s the scrapper,” says Charlie Manuel, manager of the defending World Series-champion Philadelphia Phillies. “The guy who plays every day. Who gets big hits. Hustles. He’s the guy who, in his own way, whether it’s quiet or spoken or whatever, he leads.”

C'mon, you know you wanna say Eckstein, just do it. By the way, "The guy who plays every day. Who gets big hits." That sounds awfully like, oh, I don't know…good ballplayers? Not scrappers. But what do I know? Also, I think whiteness factors into how scrappy a guy is. Eckstein, nearly albino. Guy I saw in the movie line the other day, either the scrappiest motherfucker I've seen, or he was a goth. Either way, I'll take him on my team. I bet he can out-grit those sluggers.

Jason Bartlett is a glue guy. Before he joined the Rays last season, Tampa Bay had baseball’s worst record in 2007, due greatly to having the majors’ worst defense. Then Mr. Bartlett came over from the Twins and took over the shortstop position. The Rays’ defense became the best in baseball last season and they reached the World Series.

You sort of eliminate your whole glue guy argument by acknowledging that he significantly enhanced their defense statistically. If there was any justice in baseball, he would fall into the "Gold Glover" category that you so casually discarded earlier. Also, he missed over 30 games, thus deviating from the "guy who plays every day" description, not to mention the "gets big hits" description (.690 OPS last year). Side note: he's generally crushing the ball this year to the tune of a .930 OPS. I'm absolutely certain this has nothing to do with his .393 BAbip.

SB: Never mind that the Rays did a bit more than just add Jason Bartlett from 2007 into 2008. Perhaps some guy named Evan Longoria (.874 OPS) and a very good pitching staff had more to do with it than just adding Bartlett.

Tim Wakefield, the Red Sox’s knuckleball pitcher, is a glue guy. As Boston’s pitching staff has evolved over the past 15 years—with youngsters coming, veterans going and pricey additions like Daisuke Matsuzaka not always delivering—the dependable constant has been Mr. Wakefield, a first-time All-Star this year at 42 who has made at least 15 starts each season.

Wakefield is good at what he does, which is basically giving you average to above-average pitching over about 180 innings. There's value in that. Not Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, and '08 Dice-K value, but not terrible for $4 mil a year. Also, hate to rip on him in small sample sizes, but where has the glue been in his last five playoff series, in which he hasn't posted an ERA below 6.75? Does it dry up in October? *rimshot*. Okay, that was a lame joke.

As baseball enters the second half of the season Thursday, the top contenders all have a glue guy or two whom they attribute part of their success to. With the Tigers, it’s All-Star third baseman Brandon Inge, who not only has a surprising 21 home runs but is also hitting .348 in close, late-game situations. With the Yankees, as usual, it’s shortstop Derek Jeter, who owns the highest on-base percentage among the American League’s starting shortstops despite being its oldest (35). And the Phillies insist slugger Ryan Howard is a glue guy—despite not fitting the tag’s small, scrappy stereotype—because he quietly never takes a day off.

Ah, glue guy means "surprising player." Also, no one cares about your close, late-game situations stat. What's that? Some people do? Well they're idiots who don't understand sample sizes and statistical fluctuation. His career OPS in those situations is .616, 26% lower than his normal OPS. Barry Bonds doesn't even think that's an impressive OBP. But he's also a dick, so whatever. Inge's drastically improved value this year primarily stems from 19.4% of his flyballs leaving the park. His career number is 8.4%. Reply to Derek Jeter: He's a good baseball player. This is fairly simple. Good? Yes. Overrated? Hell yes. Glue guy? I don't really give a shit. You know who has a higher OBP? A-Rod, who was also a (better) shortstop. He wears eyeliner and changes positions for inferior egotistical shortstops, so he can't be a glue guy, right? I mean he can't even "stick" to one position. . .get it?

I've covered this paragraph enough, so I'll just say that Everson left the word "white" out of this selection, "[T]he Phillies insist slugger Ryan Howard is a glue guy—despite not fitting the tag’s small [white], scrappy stereotype." Fixed.

“They’re the reliable guys,” says Braves president John Schuerholz, “who, in the toughest of circumstances, in the biggest of moments, deliver the goods.”

You're just defining good players again. Are you sure you're trying to prove the existence of glue guys?

Michael Jordan famously said in a 1997 Nike commercial that he’d missed 26 potential game-winning shots. “He’s probably been successful about 50 times,” then-Bulls coach Phil Jackson said at the time. But when Mr. Jordan retired from the Bulls in 1999—seven months after making his iconic shot to beat the Jazz for the championship—the total number of game-winning shots he’d hit was 25.

He was the greatest god-damn basketball player of all-time. He's going to take more game-winning shots, and, roughly at the same pace as his shooting percentage, he's going to make more game-winning shots. That's like saying Mariano Rivera gets a lot of game-saving strikeouts. No shit, are you gonna give the ball to Jose Veras instead? Or John Havlicek? (Side note: I totally want to see Havlicek close out a game)

SB: Me, too.

This paragraph contributed nothing.

Skeptical about whether winners exist, statistician Scott Berry of Berry Consultants studied the matter in 2005. Taking the statistics of more than 14,000 players who had played in Major League Baseball, he created a formula to find the ultimate winner: the player whose teams exceeded their win-loss expectations the most when he happened to be on them.

I am totally convinced this statistical study will confirm their existence. . .and that they are small, scrappy guys that use grit and guts more than the average man.

The winners’ winner? Dennis Cook, a journeyman lefty reliever in the 1990s. Several players whom fans widely regard as winners and glue guys did fare well: Mr. Jeter, the Yankees shortstop, was in the 97th percentile, and David Wells, a noted big-game pitcher in the 1990s and 2000s, was in the 99th. But the presence of the relatively unknown Mr. Cook at the top, Mr. Berry says, proves his point. “Announcers refer to players who just have the will to win,” he says. “The fact that he comes out on top pokes fun at that notion.”

You've got Dennis Cook and two guys that played for the fucking Yankees in the late nineties. Glue guys, all the way.

But Mr. Cook does believe in glue. Although he admits he was lucky to bounce from one winner to the next—including the 1996 division-winning Rangers, the 1997 world-champion Marlins and the 2000 National League-winning Mets—Mr. Cook says his teams won in part because they invested in overlooked roles like middle relievers.

He was also let go after the '96, '97' and '00 seasons. RESISTING..."STICKING"...WITH...TEAM...JOKE.

“A long man who eats up 100 innings a year, he saves the rest of your pitching staff,” he says. “Those guys don’t get recognized, but they’re every bit as important. Baseball people see that, but number-crunchers don’t.”

Fuck you, Dennis Cook. "Baseball people see that, but number-crunchers don't." They're not mutually exclusive. Aside from that, you're obviously not familiar with number crunchers. I'll sure as hell recognize a reliever that pitches 100 innings in a year, as that is pretty impressive, granted that he doesn't suck out loud during those 100 innings.

SB: In fact, "number crunchers" tend to give more value to middle relievers than traditional "baseball people." Old-timey baseball people like to look at Wins and Saves as be-all, end-all stats to evaluate pitchers. Number crunchers look at things like ERA+ and even Holds to evaluate pitchers, which tend to give more value to middle relievers.

Psychologists say there is indeed a spill-over effect with glue guys that helps their teams win, one which goes beyond quantifiable contributions. John F. Murray, a sports psychologist in Palm Beach, Fla., says that teams are much like fraternities or high schools in that players spend a massive amount of time in close proximity to each other. Because of this, “they’re constantly influencing one another,” he says. “One of the keys to confidence is social support and modeling. If you have some outstanding role models who deal with pressure effectively, that glue is going to spill out of the bottle and help everyone.”

You would say that, John F. Murray, your entire profession depends on it.

In my Dennis-Cook-induced rage I failed to note that he exceeded 100 innings three times...all of them when he was a starting pitcher. The most he pitched as a reliever was 70.1 with the previously mentioned '96 Rangers. Way to not even match your hypothetically underrated, douchebag reliever, Cook. Also, guess how many relievers exceeded 100 innings last year. 0. The year before, 0. In fact, since 2000 only 6 pure (no start) relievers have had 100 innings in a season. Some were good, like Guillermo Mota in 2003, posting a 1.97 ERA and a .990 WHIP. Others were Steve Sparks. Steve Sparks was bad enough to be released by the 2003 Tigers. They won 43 games, obviously because their front office didn't know to keep glue guys like Sparks. What’s that? He was 0-6 with a 4.72 ERA? Never mind.

*In all seriousness, he was one of their more effective pitchers, for no obvious reason, as his peripherals sucked. Their pitching was laughably bad.*

A huge hole in the reasoning of glue believers is that it’s impossible to know in retrospect how teams would have fared without their glue players. For example, the Rays won 58% of their games (11 of 19) earlier this season when Mr. Bartlett, their slick-fielding shortstop, was out with an injured ankle. They’ve won 54% overall. But the first-place Phillies’ abundance of glue, according to both them and their opponents, appears to be what’s put that franchise over the top—just a few years after it had a reputation for underachieving. “It’s not about just one guy,” says All-Star second baseman Chase Utley.

You're not helping your case with the Bartlett situation, and I'm sure the Phillies' emergence had nothing to do with having 7 regulars OPS+ over 100. Catcher was the only weak position and that’s a position where few people care about offense. Chris Coste was great (for a catcher) as their backup. Jamie Moyer pitched like he was 38 again and Cole Hamels had the best year in his career (so far). Oh yeah, their bullpen had a 3.22 ERA. Brad Lidge didn’t blow a single save, but closers can’t be glue guys, according to your opening sentence. The bullpen came into 145 save situations. They blew 15 saves. Middle relievers are more prone to statistical fluctuation, and this bullpen fluctuated towards fucking awesome. It happens. They didn’t do it because of glue guys; they did it because they were damn good.

The Phillies’ most-talented players also happen to be their glue guys, including Mr. Utley, who has led the majors the past two years in times hit by pitch, and Mr. Howard, who has played in 362 of Philadelphia’s last 363 games. Unlike many left-handed hitters over the years, he even refused to take a day off against Randy Johnson once last season.

“He’s definitely a leader, just by keeping his mouth shut,” Mr. Manuel says. “I call him the Big Piece. As in the big piece of the puzzle.”

If he'd done this when Randy Johnson was throwing 99, snapping off a slider that often struck righties in the back foot AFTER they swung at it, and striking out 13 per 9 innings, I might have appreciated it. 44-year old, topping out at 92 mph Johnson, not so much.

SB: It also helps that Howard OPS'd .882 last season. If Howard had a .675 OPS, nobody would have cared if he had taken a day off, and they would have tied him to the bench when Randy Johnson was starting against the Phils--in fact, earlier in 2008, Howard did not start against Johnson, probably because he was hitting well under .200 heading into that game.

Incidentally, Howard went 0-for-3 against Johnson on the night referred to by Everson and is hitting .187 against lefties (.574 OPS) in his career. So perhaps Howard, as a glue-guy, should "stick" to the bench once in awhile against lefties.

Yeah, I was feeling left out with the glue jokes.

In conclusion, I guess I’m saying that your article has very little merit.

SB: Or, very little "Stick-to-it-ness." I know...enough.

What memo?

Hello and welcome Joe Morgan fans to another weekly edition of Joe Chat here on LomHenn.com. It is sad to say that we live for these moments as they normally justify the reason we created this site. So once again, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Joe!

Buzzmaster (1:04 PM)
We're tracking down Joe, everyone!

Buzzmaster (1:20 PM)
Still working on tracking down Joe, everyone!

Buzzmaster (1:33 PM)
Hey everyone, it looks like we'll have to cancel for today. Sorry for that, and we'll try to reschedule.

Well, evidently Joe did not get the memo for this week's Joe Chat. Damn, and I was looking forward to some wicked analysis on All-Star games and see if he felt the consistency of the AL would lead them to another All-Star victory and home-field advantage in the Series. This was a prime Joe-bait day wasted!

I should also point out that the 'Chat with Joe Morgan' was not even listed on the SportsNation Chat schedule for today, so Joe must have taken the day off to visit the Bowling Hall of Fame near Busch Stadium in St. Louis.

Well, I guess we'll see you here next week - same Joe time, same Joe station!

And next time, Jack, write a God damn memo!

Sorry, we're closed!

In case I offend anyone for this post, let me apologize now. It is not my intent to offend anyone regarding the death of Steve McNair or to make light of the tragedy, but this article from the IndyStar.com yesterday had me banging my head on my desk...

Fans disappointed McNair visitation is closed casket

People were disappointed that McNair’s casket was closed during the visitation.“I wanted to view him — I didn’t want to view a casket. I think everybody expected to see him,” said Jackie Smith, who stopped by before going to work at the U.S. Postal Service.

Smith described herself as a Pittsburgh Steelers fan, “but I enjoyed that Air McNair.” She said the reality of McNair’s death finally kicked in yesterday when she saw his obituary in the newspaper, “but still I’d prefer to view the body to have some closure.”

I understand that people may want or even need to see the body in order to have closure when someone passes. OK, fine. Let's jump back to the story of Steve McNair's death after it was determined it was a murder-suicide.

"And we believe that Kazemi shot him in the right temple, then shot him twice in the chest and then shot him a final time in the left temple."

The man has two gun shot wounds to the head, people! Yes, funeral home beauticians can do wonders with makeup, but the man has two holes in his head!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe they CAN cover it up and make him look natural but FUCKING COME ON!!!!!!

Do you really think they intended to have an open casket at the visitation?!?!?!?!?

Maybe if he was being buried in his helmet, you might open the casket, but who the fuck am I kidding. Good grief fans, use that empty thing on top of you neck and get a fucking clue will you.

Alright, nothing to see here, keep moving!

Simon Says - "You're an Idiot!"

Any All-Star sporting event that is fan-voter driven typically has the problem of fans voting players who do not deserve to be All-Stars due to their popularity or based on their career stats and not their current year production. The MLB All-Star voting generally is no exception. How many times has a player that has been injured the entire season gets enough votes to be an All-Star without even playing a single game! Five? Ten? Twenty? Honestly, I do not know the answer and frankly I do have the time to research that one, but you get my point.

I ran across this interesting tidbit earlier this week, I just have not been able to post it yet. Mark Simon in his "Simon Says" section noticed that the following players we're left off the All-Star rosters this year.

ESPN researcher Mark Simon digs deep, looking for the night's best baseball numbers.

Tonight, he takes a look at the All-Star rosters and notices a rather large omission. Not a single player in the top 10 for career home runs among active players is headed to St. Louis for this year's All-Star Game.

Staying Home Most HRs, active players
Ken Griffey Jr. - 621
Alex Rodriguez -567
Jim Thome - 554
Manny Ramirez - 534
Gary Sheffield - 509
Carlos Delgado - 473
Chipper Jones - 417
Jason Giambi - 407
Vladimir Guerrero - 396
Andruw Jones - 381

When I first read this, I thought Mark was trying to say that these players were woefully snubbed by being left off this list, i.e. how can you leave the Top 10 active HR hitters off the All-Star rosters? If this is the case then, Mark, you are one ignoramus fucktard! Upon reading a few times more, now I'm not so sure. Since I do not know what Mark's take is on the data he uncovered, it seems to be that he has found an interesting gem of data. One that shows that voting fans may be getting, not necessarily smarter, but more knowledgeable of the game.

Before anyone else objects to those players left off the rosters, let's look a little deeper shall we?

Four of the players on the list, Griffey, Jr., Thome, Guerrero and Andruw Jones, are all designated hitters in the AL and since the All-Star game is hosted in St. Louis, a National League city, there is no DH. So none of the players are going to get enough votes at a fielding position and have been left off the roster.

A-Rod and Manny's steroids issues relegated both of them to the cheap seats for the '09 All-Star game. Not many fans are very tolerant of steroids it seems anymore.

So that leaves us four of the top ten that had a viable chance of making the rosters this year.

Mets outfielder Gary Sheffield in 2009 is batting .259/.394/.455 with 5 HRs. Not horrible, but currently ranks below all of the other current NL All-Star outfielders.

Hawpe - .327/.401/.584 - 13 HRs
Pence - .300/.368/.485 - 11 HRs
Braun - .324/.407/.556 - 16 HRs
Ibanez - .312/.371/.656 - 22 HRs
Beltran - .336/.425/.527 - 8 HRs
J. Upton - .291/.369/.532 - 15 HRs

So I do not feel that Sheff was snubbed by getting left of the NL roster.

Carlos Delgado, the Mets 1B, (.298/.393/.521 - 4 HRs) may be All-Star worthy, but probably the unfortunate loser in that four other Mets are on the roster. Delgado lags way behind Pujols (.331/.459/.725 - 31 HRs) and Fielder (.309/.431/.611 - 22 HRs), but you might have an argument for Delgado against Howard (.252/.328/.520 - 21 HRs) and Gonzalez (.256/.398/.543 - 24 HRs).

Chipper Jones, 3B for the Braves, is also having a decent year like Delgado (.292/.408/.472 - 9 HRs). Unlike Delgado however, Chipper seems to be a victim of the fact that David Wright (Mets) won the 3B voting and the other 3B is Ryan Zimmerman, the "token" National to make the team, since all teams must be represented. Carlos and Chipper are probably the most All-Star worthy in the Top 10 among those that did not knowingly test positive for steroids.

That leaves us with Yankee 1B Jason Giambi (.195/.331/.371 - 11HRs). Do I really need to make a point on this one?

Frankly, I do not have a problem with any of these players getting left of the All-Star rosters. Congrats to the voters this year for not committing the "career player honoring" voting that tends to plague All-Star rosters.

OK, so Simon may not be an idiot...maybe...but it has shown us that the fans may not vote for just the most known person at that position anymore. Here hoping that the trend continues.

Have a great weekend all!

Another Kurk-Gem

I turned on "The Herd" with Colin Cowherd on ESPN-U in the middle of Colin's segment with Tim Kurkjian. Apparently, Tim and Colin were talking about Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Palmer's complaints regarding his overuse by Hall of Fame manager Earl Weaver (Palmer has said that his arm was frequently sore and that he thought Weaver abused his pitchers).

I didn't catch all of the discussion (though I'm sure Cowherd probably complained that today's pitchers are babies or something of the like), but I did catch that Tim this: "Weaver must have known what he was doing, since he won all of those World Series titles."

Earl Weaver won ONE world series title with Baltimore in 1970. He made it to the World Series 3 other times.

Typically, I like Tim Kurkjian and I think he gets it. But he seems to be doing what a lot of analysts do regarding Earl Weaver--deifying him. Weaver was undoubtedly a great manager, but he was not infallible. And there has been a lot of criticism--not just from Palmer--about Weaver having overused his pitchers.

In any case, as the ESPN baseball numbers "expert", Tim really should have his facts straight when talking about one of the most famous managers of all time.

Swing and a Miss

OK, I understand that the game of baseball has changed since the beginning of the 20th century and it can be difficult to compare players over different eras, to a certain degree. We've gone from putting the ball in play and stealing bases to smacking home runs back to speed and getting on base to chicks digging the long ball and now to hitting for power while also striking out a lot, which Tim Kurkjian wants to point out to us.

Swinging hard ... and missing often

Players are definitely striking out much more often than their baseball ancestors of yester-year. A price they are paying for aiming over the wall on every at bat. Whether you want to blame that on SportsCenter, steroids, Mark McGwire or David Eckstein, I really do not care.

You can be mad like Timmy that current players have become numb to striking out 100+ times, or even 200+ times, every year. But before you hop on the Kurkjian bandwagon, let's understand a few things first.

• Tim likes to compare the everyday player to Joe Dimaggio, Babe Ruth, and Slut's all-time favorite baseball player, Ted Williams. Not exactly a fair comparison, but I understand the point he was trying to get across.



• As he points out, during Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak, he faced 53 different pitchers. Now a batter can face a different pitcher in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings. In 1941, the year of the streak, Major League pitchers had 1,027 complete games between the 16 teams. In 2008, we had a whopping 136 complete games with 30 teams. In 1941, there were 1,331 home runs. So there were nearly as many complete games pitched than there were home runs!



• Adam Dunn is the poster child for striking out.



• The ultimate kicker is this:

It's also rising because of today's emphasis on on-base percentage, working deep counts and taking walks. Granted, Ruth and Williams were walk machines, but they are the two greatest hitters of all time, and they were way ahead of their time. Dunn is a perfect example of today's hitter. He is in his ninth season, and he has, by a healthy margin, more strikeouts than Williams and DiMaggio combined. But he also has a career on-base percentage of nearly .400 thanks to all his walks.

Yes, you heard it hear from Tim Kurkjian first - strike outs are rising because of On-Base Percentage. The dreaded OBP! So tell me Tim, how does an emphasis on having a better OBP result in more Ks?!?!?!?

And if Adam Dunn is the poster child for striking out, then why do you praise him as the perfect example of today's hitter? While Dunn strikes out more than most, he has hit at least 40 HRs each of the last five years and still is in the Top 10 or 20 in OBP each year. He gets on base which is what players are SUPPOSED to do. If Dunn's OBP was hovering around .300, then you have a better argument. But the fact his lifetime OBP is .382 and his OPS is .901, I would seriously consider having him on my team.

And just exactly how were Ruth and Williams ahead of their time? Not that Tim gives us an explanation of how they were ahead. Were the initial players who used steroids ahead of their time as well?

This article is very Kravitz-ian in that he has a valid point regarding players are striking out more than ever, but like Kravitz, he is either wacky on how he backs up his point (OBP is causing more Ks?!?) or has issues making a point (Dunn sucks because he strikes out too much, but his high OBP makes him the perfect example of today's hitter).

Tim, why don't you go back to your day job! Oh, wait...this is your day job. Aww, shit. Sucks to be you!