Team-Wide Trends Continue To Elude Joe Morgan

I’d like to apologize for the lack of content recently. I spent much of last week working on a large piece, hoping to post it on Friday. Then I sent it to the smartest person I know, who lived up to that billing by pointing out several problems with the argument and its lack of focus. So, licking my wounds, I’m returning to the drawing board with no estimated time of arrival. I’ve also started a new job working with middle schoolers to improve their literacy skills (those of you that have followed Fan Interference since its inception can feel free to shudder now). Although it’s only part-time, it requires a significant commute and some work outside the classroom, so finding time to post will become marginally more difficult. But, much like utilizing both sabermetrics and scouting, I’m confident that a balance can be found.

Today’s offering is meager but meaningful. One week ago, I posted a blurb about ESPN analyst Joe Morgan’s infamous reluctance to look things up before offering his opinion. Well, Morgan did it again in today’s chat:

Matt (St. Louis): Hi Joe, From the current playoff contenders which team do you think is the best well rounded?

Joe Morgan: I think St. Louis in the National League. They have excellent starting pitching. Good relief pitching. Until recently Ryan Franklin was great as a closer and I think he can be again in the playoffs. In the American League, I’ve been believing in the Yankees for the last month. But you have to wonder about their starting pitching. Sabathia will get the job done, but you have to wonder about Burnett. Pettitte has the shoulder problems and Joba is a star in the Yankees’ minds and no where else. But I guess all the good teams have some weaknesses. Philly doesn’t have a closer. Anaheim is just now getting their pitching in order, but you have to wonder about their power. Boston, their starting pitching, Lester and then Beckett, but he’s been struggling until recently.

Astute baseball fans will quickly notice Morgan’s incorrect assessment of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim’s perceived deficiency – lack of power. The Angels rank fifth in baseball in slugging percentage, 11th in home runs, 12th in triples, and 14th in doubles. Morgan’s argument for the St. Louis Cardinals is peculiar in two ways: (1) the Cardinals rank 12th in slugging, 15th in home runs, 19th in triples, and 11th in doubles and (2) his argument consists entirely of touting their pitching. I’m not sure the answer to Matt’s question is the Angels. But if Morgan is going to pass over the Angels because of their weak hitting, he can’t go for the Cardinals either.

The more interesting aspect of Morgan’s response is its relationship to the rest of the mainstream sports media. Traditionally, the sports media is slow to pick up on changes in a team’s style of play. I’ve written about this phenomenon before, in which people base their analysis on their perception of a team’s style (usually rooted in history) rather than what the data tells them. Good examples of this include last year’s persistent declaration that the Pittsburgh Steelers are a running team, even though they finished the season ranked 23rd in rushing. Or that the Minnesota Twins are built on defense and unselfish play (read: bunting), when in reality they rank 21st and 25th in those categories. It’s a pretty common practice.

Joe Morgan has consistently demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to evaluate each edition of each baseball team on its own terms. That much is unsurprising. What’s quite surprising – and more than a little disconcerting – is how he’s been left in the dust by even the most obtuse of his peers. I will refrain from naming names, because I still haven’t given up hope that a major sports media network will offer to buy this blog from me for millions of dollars (note: kidding), but I’ve consistently heard these members of the mainstream sports media admire the Angels’ sudden shift from a punchless team to a slugging one. I never thought I’d see the day when the talking heads aren’t praising the Angels for their headiness, grit, guts, baserunning, and timely hitting, but that day has come. The word is out, and everyone knows it: for the first time in years, the Angels can really, really hit. Everyone but Joe Morgan, professional baseball analyst, that is.

… And there goes my multimillion-dollar absorption.

As Surely As The Sun Rises In The East, Joe Morgan Will Not Look Up A Statistic

Rajai Davis is the only athletic Oakland Athletic, as judged by Joe Morgan

I’m working on a fairly large (or dense, depending on how it works out) piece for the end of the week, so in all likelihood, posts will be sparse until then. For now, I offer you this irresistible nugget that confirms three things: Joe Morgan still hates the Oakland Athletics, Joe Morgan still has no idea when he’s being baited, and Joe Morgan still doesn’t look anything up.

Otto (CA): Hello Joe. What do the Oakland A’s need to do to be competitive again? Maybe Billy Beane should quit writing books and start acquiring some athletes.

Joe Morgan: Become more athletic. Sometimes, when I look at the A’s players, I think they’re playing softball. They have some big guys who try to hit the ball out of the ballpark. They strike out a lot. They just are not in position to make things happen on the basepaths. They’ve never really been a team to run or steal bases, bunt guys over or hit and run. They’ve always tried to hit the big home run. Now they have one guy in Davis. Their philosophy was working for a while, but now that philosophy doesn’t work any more. You have to be more athletic, steal some bases in order to be a well rounded team. You don’t have to steal a lot of bases, but you have to have the threat there.

The unathletic, basepath-clogging, stationary, one-dimensional Oakland Athletics have the fourth-most steals in Major League Baseball, having swiped 119 bags this season. Also, does anyone else find it weird that the only Oakland player that Morgan deems athletic is Rajai Davis, who just happens to be the only black position player on the team? Because I do.

Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel

I’m a little worn down from yesterday’s extra long post and a hectic day at work, so I’ve chosen to produce the easiest bit of content I know: a critique of a Joe Morgan chat. Enjoy these nuggets and – if you’re in New York City – stay dry.

Matt (New Jersey): Hey Joe. Other than Pujols, is there any better 1B than Justin Morneau? What a fantastic player he is…

Joe Morgan: You’re 100% correct, with the exception of Pujols. Justin Morneau for the last 3 years continues to improve. That’s the mark of a great player, that you continue to improve. 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.

Justin Morneau was born on May 15th, 1981, making him almost exactly seven months younger than Albert Pujols. I will bet you a popsicle that Joe Morgan thinks Morneau is five years younger than he actually is. Also, I’m pretty sure that Fielder and Morneau’s 1.000ish OPSes make them current stars at the first base position.

Michael (Houston): Do you think the Astros can really do it?

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.

If Joe Morgan thinks the Astros can make the playoffs, then they aren’t going to make the playoffs. After this anti-endorsement, I’m more confident about this than ever. For more detailed explanations about the Astros forthcoming failure, look here and here.

Matt (Jacksonville): Joe, the Cubs can’t seem to get on a consistent roll. Is there anyway for them to get consistency this year?

Joe Morgan: Last year there was something about the Cubs personality of the team. There was something different. They were a fun team to watch. I enjoyed watching them. 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.

The Cubs’ mediocre record has nothing to do with a change in team personality. It has everything to do with this:

• 2008: .354 OBP, .443 SLG, .797 OPS
• 2009: .323 OBP, .403 SLG, .726 OPS

Their offense has gone from one of the very best in baseball to one of the very worst. But yes, let’s waste an entire paragraph attributing the Cubs’ decline to “a different personality” and not the inability to hit a baseball.

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.

Carlos Quentin returned to the White Sox yesterday, as reported by Joe Morgan’s employer. He also played in last night’s game, going 1 for 4 with a single. But that’s okay, I’m sure Morgan’s professional responsibilities don’t include knowing about a 2008 MVP candidate’s recent return from an injury.

Time to grab some dinner, watch Sergio Mitre make his season debut, and wonder why the Yankees refuse to put Phil Hughes into the rotation. Until next time.

Joe Morgan’s Terrible Book: Part I

I’ve taken up the endeavour of critiquing a book called Baseball My Way. Why? It’s written by the namesake of our blogging idols, Joe Morgan. So far I’ve only managed to get through the appallingly written opening remarks. Here are some choice quotations: keep in mind this was published in 1976, the year after Joe won the National League MVP and the Big Red Machine won the greatest World Series of all time (Special K surely has bittersweet memories of the runner-up); astute followers of Joe and his ’stache will note salient Joe-themes emerging already. Lessons learned from the first section of Baseball My Way:

1. Short, simple sentences with short, simple words are good.

2. Small ball is sweet.

I think the single item I enjoy above all others is our scoring without the team getting a base hit or being charged with an at-bat – as when, for example, I walk, steal second, get bunted over to third, and score on a sacrifice fly.

Joe indeed had the plate discipline and base-stealing ability to utilize this strategy. But it’s clear that he prefers this style of play to, you know, hitting home runs. Also, that’s two outs for a run. We are supposed to be comfortable with this exchange rate. Is this why the dollar is so weak?

3. Baseball is not the same as hockey.

4. His Most Valuable Player award was good for the game because he was such a complete player.

5. Joe is a hypocrite.

I feel everyone should learn to do as many things as possible, rather than confine himself to any one area. That goes not only for baseball but for life.

I guess that doesn’t include becoming educated about points of view different from your own – especially when they are backed up by evidence.

6. A player can help his team in many different ways. In order for a team to be good, it has to have players who get on base, players who can move people along, and players who can drive in runs.

Congratulations, you made a point and didn’t mess up horribly.

Others can learn to bunt and move runners along.

Never mind.

7. Players who are good fielders can help just by being good fielders and fielding their positions well.

So they field well is what you’re saying.

8. Joe Morgan foresaw the respective careers of Darin Erstad and David Eckstein. He unloads these next quotes in three separate, unrelated paragraphs.

When people ask me, “How can a little guy like yourself do so many things so well?” my answer is that baseball is a game of skill and not of strength and size. Baseball, more than any other sports, offers a place for the little guy.

In baseball, if a fellow works to do as many things as he possible can, his size doesn’t matter.

The MVP award in 1975 proved that there’s room for a 5-foot-7, 150-pounder in big league baseball.

9. Joe admires other players.

One of the people I admire is Willie Stargell, because of his consistency. To me, Stargell is the only real, legitimate home run hitter left.

I read this on June 25 2007, a week after Sammy Sosa hit his 600th home run. Barry Bonds might be in St. Louis next week when he hits career home run 755 (please please please please). There are about eight others within striking distance of 500.

Steve Garvey is another player I admire because of his consistency.

Joe likes the word consistent. It’s his bliss.

I admire Lou Brock for his endurance.

I admire Lou Brock for his supreme overratedness. And his delectable, ivory-skinned trophy wife.

And he’s got to have a shout-out for the other cogs in the Big Red Machine.

Another player I admire is Tony Perez who, to me, is the best clutch hitter in the game today. Having played with Perez, I think he’s more consistent in the clutch than any player I’ve ever seen.

I admire Johnny Bench for his natural ability.

I admire Pete Rose and his desire to excel, his determination always to do a good job.

Tom Seaver is admirable just for being himself.

You ran out of things to say, didn’t you?

I admired Bob Gibson, the greatest competitor I’ve ever seen or played against on a baseball field.

I like this one for some reason . . . .

10. Joe’s pre-game ritual often included three hours of fielding practice and a nap in the clubhouse.

Okay, after the Cardinals beat the Mutts, I must read the section where Joe teaches us how to field. God help us all.

Live-Blogging . . . A Book?

Today and tomorrow are my off days from work. I was perusing the vast library of baseball books my step-dad own, and came across this book.

This is my promise to you, loyal reader (I’m pretty sure there’s only one of you): I will read this entire book in the next 48 hours and write regular updates reporting its content.

Wish me luck.

Thoughts On Yankees vs. Red Sox, Part I

Obviously, it’s hard to be completely happy about being swept by the Red Sox. The goal is always to win, and going 0/3 is clearly not good. So yes, I am unhappy.

But…

I can’t be completely unhappy. I’ll go game-by-game here. The first game was obviously pretty devastating. The Yankees were cruising until a deadly combination of epic Joe Torre mismanaging and Bad Mariano showed up. That was a rough loss. The second game was also close, despite Jeff Karstens’ best efforts to give the game to the Red Sox. Tonight was competitive as well, with the bulk of the Red Sox’ scoring coming on ridiculous back-to-back-to-back-to-back home runs against Chase Wright. Altogether, the games were pretty close and competitive.

I take heart for several reasons. First, the Yankees are a wreck right now. An absolute wreck. They have quite possibly the worst in-game manager in baseball today, a pitching staff in shambles, an overworked bullpen, and a lineup missing (for this series, at various times) Matsui, Damon, and Posada. Considering all that, the Yankees being outscored 21-17 in three games is vastly more acceptable.

The primary reason that I’m not all that upset concerns Boston’s pitching. All I heard this past winter – particularly after the Matsuzaka signing – was how amazing Boston’s starting pitching would be this year. There are several links to articles and columns on ESPN.com about the forthcoming dominance of Schilling, Beckett, and Matsuzaka. And you know what – small sample size and all – the Yankees handled them very well:

• Game 1 (Schilling): 7 IP, 8 H, 5 ER, 1 BB, 5 K, 2 HR
• Game 2 (Beckett): 6 2/3 IP, 9 H, 4 ER, 2 BB, 7 K, 0 HR
• Game 3 (Matsuzaka): 7 IP, 8 H, 6 ER, 1 BB, 7 K, 1 HR

This makes me very happy. Again, to be fair and consistent in my analysis, this was a small sample size. Three games do not a season make, with respect to the quality of the Red Sox’ starters. But it certainly was nice to get 15 runs in 20 innings against the best of their (unreasonably) acclaimed rotation. This was also without various combinations of Posada, Damon and Matsui.

A few notes before my final thoughts:

• Note to Red Sox fans: please stop giving standing ovations for mediocre pitching performances. This occurred both with Josh Beckett and Daisuke Matsuzaka. Beckett, well, maybe. Maybe, but probably not. Matsuzaka? No way.
• Those four straight home runs were sick. I chuckled after the fourth. To quote Ron Burgundy in Anchorman, “I’m not even mad; that’s amazing”.
• Note to Jon Miller and Joe Morgan: the last time a team hit four straight homers was last year. I say this because right after the fourth, Morgan said “I can’t remember ever seeing that before”.  Jon Miller said something to the same effect (see previous post). Of course, it’s their job to know the last time something this rare and amazing happened.
• Jon Miller, Josh Phelps is not a rookie. He is 30 years old and has played for multiple major-league teams. Look at the sheets of paper in front of you (if, in fact, you managed to bring some).
• I cannot stress enough how irritated I was at Miller and Morgan all night, particularly about their alarming lack of criticism regarding Matsuzaka. He did not pitch well. Morgan very quietly attributed this to him choosing not to use all 8 of his pitches, preferring rather to limit his arsenal and not expose his entire repetoire. That crafty Asian. Miller also quietly attributed Matsuzaka’s ineffectiveness to the pressure of the rivalry, especially playing at home. That’s funny, because analysts and writers crucified A-Rod for succumbing to this same pressure last year, yet it’s a viable excuse for Matsuzaka.
• Matsuzaka did not pitch well. He had iffy control of his slider, little movement on his fastball, and was particularly vulnerable pitching out of the stretch. Again, little-to-no criticism from our dear broadcasters about this performance. As irritated as I am about the ESPN hype machine (so far) not acknowledging its potential exaggerations, I am heartened that the Yankees will get to face Matsuzaka again.
• Lastly, I thought it was very appropriate that the Red Sox honored Jackie Robinson today, a few days after every other team did (because of weather-related scheduling problems so far). As you may or may not know, the Red Sox were the last MLB team to integrate because of resistance from their owner and manager. The Red Sox (and Boston as a whole) are also somewhat notorious for racism occasional intolerance and homogeneity. Anyway, I thought it was funny.

That’s about it. I think I am being honest with myself when I say that this is not merely me rationalizing a rough weekend of baseball, or being overcome with denial. Sure, 0/3 is not good. It is bad. But all things considered (it’s also only April), this was not an awful weekend. Indeed, I am heartened. Until next weekend, go Yankees.