New Orleans, LA: Do you think there is a chance the Phillies will win the NL East?

Joe Morgan: Yes there is a chance, they are only a couple games behind. They are playing well now and the real problem for the Mets is if they end up in a tie, the Phillies win. Right now the lead says they are 1.5 ahead, but in my opinion they are only a .5 game ahead. If the Mets tie, they lose.

And then, a little while later…

Josh W NY, NY: Who is going to win the NL West - Arizona or San Diego?

Joe Morgan: Well I do not have a crystal ball. but the Dbacks have hung tough this long, so I will give them the nod. But anything can happen in the next 10-12 ball games. I have to say Arizona, with the Padres winning the Wild Card. But even if the Padres catch them Arizona could still win the Wild Card. So I think both team will be in the playoffs.

So the wildcard will come out of the NL West. Which means only one team in the NL East will make the playoffs. Which means that if the Mets and Phillies end up tied, the Mets do NOT lose the tiebreaker. The tiebreaker only applies if two teams end up tied for first in the division AND tied for first in the wildcard, meaning that both teams are going to the playoffs regardless. Then they look at the tiebreaker. So the only way the Mets’ 1.5-game lead is really only a half-game like Joe Morgan says is if both the Mets and Phillies make the playoffs. But we know they won’t, because he just told us both the Padres and Diamondbacks will make the playoffs.

Everyone knows predictions are often wrong; only Joe Morgan makes predictions in such a way that it is literally impossible for them to be correct.

Rob (Portland, OR): AS a former player, can you tell people just how tough ti is to get 200 hits in 7 straight seasons? Is Ichiro a hall of famer even if he doesn’t get 3,000 hits?

Joe Morgan: I cannot tell you how tough it is because I never got there. But I did play with Pete Rose who reached 200 hits in a season a couple times. The keys are you have to be a good hitter, avoid injuries, and be a guy who does not walk much. Which is something Rose did and Ichiro does. I think Ichiro will make the HOF even without 3,000 hits, because I think he will continue putting up his numbers for the next few seasons.

So according to Joe Morgan, there are three keys to getting 200 hits in a season:

1) Be a good hitter.
2) Avoid injuries.
3) Don’t walk much.

The first two are pretty much common sense. If you miss a healthy chunk of the season with injuries, you probably won’t get enough at-bats to reach 200 hits. If you are a lousy hitter, you definitely won’t get enough at-bats to reach 200 hits. But this third one … do you really have to choose between walks and hits? Let’s see:

Ichiro was the topic of the question, and he certainly doesn’t walk much, ranging from 30 to 68 walks per season, with an average of about 45. So yep, he fits the bill.

Pete Rose had 200 hits in ten different seasons, with an average of 66 walks per season. It’s not a ton, but it’s not “a guy who does not walk much.”

What about Wade Boggs? He had 200 hits in seven straight seasons, with an average of 103 walks per season.

Since 1960, there have been 193 instances of a player having 200 hits. In 69 of those, the player had at least 60 walks. Only 58 times did the player have fewer than 40 walks. Most of the time (119 out of 193), the player had between 40 and 80 walks. You know, about average. So yeah, if you’re going to walk 100 times a season, you better be as good a hitter as Wade Boggs if you want to get 200 hits. But you can definitely walk an average number of times and still get the magic number.

JC: What are David Wright’s chances for MVP? He’s been on an absolute tear the last couple of months…

Joe Morgan: This is a year when the NL MVP is very open. Usually you have a sure guy like Pujols, or Howard last year. It is really wide open this season and Wright has a great chance. Last year there was a debate between Wright and Reyes, but this year I think Wright is the best MVP candiate on the Mets. But there are still 20+ games to go, and if he finishes strong and the Mets win the East he would be a favorite.

Only in Joe Morgan’s world was Ryan Howard “a sure guy” last year. A lot of people (including me) think Albert Pujols had a clearly better season.

Oh, and Pujols? Morgan uses him as an example of “a sure guy,” but the only time he won the award, he only barely beat out Andruw “Look Ma, I Added A Second Dimension” Jones. What did Joe have to say that season?

Andruw Jones, Albert Pujols and Derek Lee — I mean, any of those guys could win it. And there could be a tie, that has happened before. I will clap for whoever gets it and feel bad for who doesn’t . So let’s hope for a tie … even a 3-way tie!

So anyway, not Joe’s worst chat ever, but a couple doozies. Now I will head over and read what Ken Tremendous had to say at FJM.

Today’s topic comes from Morgan’s chat on ESPN.com from Tuesday, August 7, 2007, which includes this exchange:

Rick SD: Do you think there is often too much weight and kudos given to individual stat data accomplishments in what is supposed to be a team sport?

Joe Morgan: Finally somebody that understands the game. You’re right. Statistics are overrated. What you do to help your team win is what it’s all about. These stats like OPS, it doesn’t tell you what you do for the team. To my opinion, to help the team, you drive in runs or score runs. That helps the team. That’s how you should be judged.

First of all, I have to remind everyone about the time when Joe Morgan said this:

I like folks to have their opinions. We both deserve to have our own thoughts. Just don’t get upset if we don’t agree. We can disagree. That is what makes baseball and sports so much fun. There are varying opinions.

So while Morgan believes that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and that those differing opinions make baseball fun, he ALSO believes that Rick from San Dakota (South Diego?) is the only person (besides Joe himself, presumably) who “understands the game.” (Or, technically, “that understands the game,” but I generally only like to pick grammatical nits with people who don’t have other, more glaring, problems.) Sorry, Joe, but you are an arrogant liar. You say you like people to have differing opinions, but you belittle people whose opinions differ from yours. (In fact, only a few minutes before he wrote that declaration of tolerance, he had just said to someone who believed Joe Girardi should win Manager of the Year over Willie Randolph, “I can’t argue with people who don’t understand the game.” Read all about that chat here.)

But now that we have established that Joe Morgan is an arrogant liar (if I say it enough, maybe my website can become number one in Google on the term “arrogant liar”), let’s get to the meat of his argument: that OPS is a stat that “doesn’t tell you what you do for the team.” This is where he goes from being an arrogant liar to being a stupid arrogant liar. Let’s make this simple:

OPS is on-base percentage (”O”) plus (”P”) slugging percentage (”S”). On-base percentage tells how often you get on base. Slugging percentage tells, essentially, how many extra base hits you get. Joe Morgan would have us believe that these stats don’t mean anything, because all that really matters is how many runs you score and how many runs you drive in.

This part of the argument is where I start to feel bad, because I know that anyone with an IQ over 65 can make the logical conclusions. Do I believe that Joe Morgan’s IQ is under 65? No. I don’t think he’s a smart man, but I think he’s smart enough to figure this crap out on his own. Why doesn’t he? I think it goes back to arrogance. I honestly believe that Joe Morgan suffers from a condition called Self-Inflicted Stupidity — it’s not that he’s stupid, it’s that he won’t allow himself to be intelligent. So once I convince myself he ISN’T a mentally challenged little boy who it would be mean to pick on, I don’t feel bad going forward with “Statistics for Dummies”:

Two points:

1. No one ever scored a run without getting on base first.

   You’d think Joe Morgan would be a fan of on-base percentage; after all, his lackluster .271 career batting average is regularly overlooked due to his stellar .392 career OBP. He walked 1865 times in his career, good for fifth all time, which largely contributed to his 1650 career runs scored (30th all time, and 8th among players not in the 3000-hit or 500-homer clubs). He is a Hall-of-Famer in large part BECAUSE of his on-base percentage.

   You can’t score without getting on base. Just as importantly, you will have a tough time scoring no matter how many times you get on base if the guys hitting behind you are lousy. Once you’ve gotten on base, 90% of what you can do is done. Sure, you can steal a base here, tag up on a flyball there. But unless you’re stealing home, too, you still rely on the guys behind you to drive you in.

2. The more bases a player gets on a single hit, the more runners he can potentially drive in with that hit.

   It’s pretty simple. Let’s assume a player comes to bat with the bases loaded. If he hits a single, he drives in either one or two runs. If he hits a double, he drives in either two or three runs. If he hits a triple, he drives in three runs. If he hits a home run, he drives in four runs. In addition, the more bases the player gets on his own hit, the easier it is for the guys behind him to drive him in, which means he is more likely to score a lot of runs, which makes Joe Morgan happy.

Joe says that “statistics are overrated.” I have to believe that he just doesn’t understand them, because the very statistics he HATES are the ones with results he loves. Runs and RBIs are great statistics, except that they reflect a lot on a player’s teammates. Joe Morgan believes that team results are all that matter, and if we’re talking about teams, that’s correct. But one of the beauties of baseball is the personal accomplishment, the greatness of individuals; and one of the beauties of team baseball is the impact great individual players can have on the success of the team. It’s no coincidence that Babe Ruth holds the record for highest career OPS, with Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, Jimmie Foxx, and Hank Greenberg right behind him. This is a stat that is pretty darn accurate at measuring greatness, whether Joe Morgan wants to admit it or not.

And in this era of rampant free agency, statistics like these become even more important. Why? Because if you’re looking for a guy to bat leadoff or cleanup for your team, you’re going to want to know how well he will do on your team, not how well he did on some other team. And the only way to do THAT is to look at individual statistics. A couple examples:

Raul Ibanez drove in 123 runs in 2006, benefiting greatly from the presence of Ichiro on the bases. Barry Bonds drove in only 77 runs batting behind the anemic San Francisco offense. If you are the Yankees and you’re looking for a cleanup hitter, who would you rather have, Ibanez or Bonds?

Jimmy Rollins scored 127 runs last year with his .334 on-base percentage. Carl Crawford scored 89 runs with his .348 OBP. Could the presence of Ryan Howard in the Phillies’ lineup possibly have anything to do with Rollins’ 43% lead over Crawford, a better player on a lousy team?

Simply put: assuming the other seven players are all equal, a team with Carl Crawford and Barry Bonds will be significantly better offensively than a team with Jimmy Rollins and Raul Ibanez.

It may be true in Joe Morgan’s world that getting on base and getting extra base hits don’t help the team, but it isn’t true anywhere in the real world.

NOTE: I started writing this several weeks ago, and while I have tried to update all the references to time, I may have missed one or two. So if something doesn’t flow right, that’s why.

In mid-June on Sunday Night Baseball, Joe Morgan said the following (paraphrased):

You know I think wins are the most important stat to judge a pitcher by. There’s a big difference between pitching just well enough to win and pitching just bad enough to lose.

Then in his June 26th chat on ESPN.com, he had these two gems:

Bob (Brooklyn): What’s more important to evaluate a pitcher: Wins or ERA?

Joe Morgan: I’ve always believed that an ERA is like a batting average. It’s a personal thing. For instance, a guy could hit .300, but not be as valuable as a guy that hits .270. A guy that makes 7 outs out of 10 with guys on base, he’s not that valuable. But if you’re clutch, but hit .275, you’re more valuable. That’s why I think wins are better. It’s just as tough to win a game 7-6 as it is 1-0. The only thing that matters at the end of the year is how many games did we win.

Kyle (Kansas): What is the most overated stat in baseball?

Joe Morgan: Batting average and earned run average and this OPS stuff they do. OPS doesn’t tell you anything except about the individual. The same as the other stats. It doesn’t tell you anything about the team. A .300 average doesn’t help you win games, run production does.

Joe Morgan: I’m not saying those numbers don’t mean anything, I’m saying they’re overglorified.

I knew there were people out there who actually believed these things (based on the results of postseason awards voting), but it still surprises me to actually see someone put it that way. I want to address a couple things:

There’s a big difference between pitching just well enough to win and pitching just bad enough to lose.

That’s absolutely true, Joe. Unfortunately, you don’t actually find out where that fine line is for a given game until the game is over. So in the case of non-clairvoyant pitchers, the fact that this “big difference” exists does absolutely no good and makes no difference. The bottom line is this: a guy who pitches a no-hitter but loses on three errors by his teammates pitched a better game than a guy who gave up eight runs in five innings and wins 14-13. Sure, the one guy pitched well enough to win, but only because his teammates scored 14 runs. Wins and losses are a team statistic, and they are a very poor standalone judge of a pitcher’s effectiveness.

It’s just as tough to win a game 7-6 as it is 1-0. The only thing that matters at the end of the year is how many games did we win.

Now, Joe, you just took your true-but-pointless statement from above and ran it into the ditch of flat-out stupidity. First of all, no two 7-6 games are alike, just as no two 1-0 games are alike. So to lump them all together like that is silly. But more to the point, this statement is just false. In a 7-6 game, a pitcher can give up six runs. He may have felt just as much pressure as he would have in a 1-0 game (depending on when the runs were scored, etc.), but the bottom line is that he didn’t pitch as well, and if his team didn’t come through with the seven runs, he would have lost.

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation for a minute. Let’s say Josh Beckett pitches a complete game three-hitter with a dozen strikeouts and one run allowed. That’s a great game, right? Let’s say he pitches that exact game two starts in a row: the first time, the Red Sox don’t score, and Beckett loses 1-0; in the second game, the Sox pull it out and win 2-1. Beckett pitched the exact same excellent game both times, but he gets one win and one loss. Without doing anything different! Joe Morgan would have us believe that Beckett actually pitched better in the second game, because he pitched “just well enough to win,” whereas in the first game, he pitched “just bad enough to lose.” Those of us with brains can see that this is a stupid, ridiculous argument.

As for his point that wins are all that matters at the end of the season, that’s absolutely true — for a team. And the best way a pitcher can be a good team player is by putting his team in position to win every time out — by allowing as few runs as possible.

When I asked Rob Neyer if he was allowed to admit that Joe Morgan is a moron, he said:

I certainly wouldn’t say that Joe is a moron. He’s wrong about this, though. And frankly, I don’t think he really believes it. Just like you or me, he’d take [Johan] Santana over [Dan] Haren every time.

I want to believe that’s true. I really do. But at this point, I see no reason to think that Joe Morgan doesn’t actually believe that the guy with the best win/loss record is the best pitcher in the league. I’m sure it baffles Neyer, just as it baffles me, that anyone could actually be so dumb, but the only alternative is that Joe Morgan is some genius who is perpetuation the myth of his own idiocy for some reason that we mortals can’t quite grasp. Occam’s Razor tells me which is true.

I often rip on Joe Morgan for being an idiot, because he often is. In reading the transcript of his chat from yesterday, though, I have to give credit to him for making at least one intelligent observation.

Joey, FL: Joe…SOMEONE has gotta ask about A-Rod. Bold prediction for his future? Seems unlikely he’ll leave NY, right?

Joe Morgan: I think he stays in New York, because if he goes anywhere else, it will look like he’s quitting. I think he’ll stay in New York, and he’ll have a good year. Everyone forgets that he was the MVP last year. Every player, no matter how great, has an off year. I don’t even think his year was that off.

I never thought I’d say this, but … wait for it … wait for it …

Joe Morgan just took the words right out of my mouth.

There, I said it. I feel dirty, but I stand by it. I’m gonna go take a shower now.

Last week, I talked about a few things that Steve Phillips could have done better in his chat on ESPN.com. But let’s face it, my bread and butter is talking about how stupid Joe Morgan is. And I happen to have two weeks of chats to support my opinions. Let’s do this.

From last week’s chat, we have a few items:

Alex (nyc): Joe fantastic work as always, Do you feel Jose Reyes can be as good and prolific as Ricky Henderson was?

Joe Morgan: No, but I think he could be close. I think Ricky Henderson was perfect as a leadoff hitter. He could walk, he could steal bases, he could hit .300. Reyes doesn’t walk. He doesn’t have the on-base percentage that Rickey did. I think it’s something that you have, taking pitches, I don’t think you can learn it. Jose Reyes is going to be a great player, but he’s not going to walk as much as Rickey. That’s the only difference. After that, you’re right, he could be a clone of Rickey.

I agree with the general sentiment here, that Jose Reyes has a long way to go to be Rickey Henderson, and his 44 walks in about 600 plate appearances are not up to Rickey’s standards. The part I take issue with is saying Rickey Henderson “could hit .300.” Well yeah, he COULD, and he did seven times in 25 seasons. But Joe says it like it’s something Rickey did on a regular basis. It reminds me of when Ryne Sandberg referred to himself in his own Hall of Fame speech as someone who “could hit 40 home runs.” Yeah, you did it once, Ryno, but it’s not like you could do it any time you wanted to. And Henderson was a career .279 hitter who had a few seasons at .300 or higher, but he wasn’t a .300 hitter.

Marc (East Rockaway, NY): Braves are 19 games out. Can you even remember a time when they were this out of it?

Joe Morgan: No, but you have to remember, they are 19 behind the Mets who have the best record in the NL. But look to where they would be if they were in the West or even the Central. They’re just in the division with the best team in the NL.

I’m not sure what Joe’s point is, but at the time that he wrote this, the Braves would have been seven games out of first in either the Central or the West (not to mention 15-1/2 back in the AL East, 19-1/2 in the AL Central, and 13 in the AL West). So while it’s true that the Braves wouldn’t be as far back in the other NL divisions, to paint the picture as if they would be contending in the Central or West is just plain wrong.

kevin cali: Who is the best man to call a baseball game, if you had to pick one? (It’s a shame that baseball fan ouside of LA cannot listen to Vin S. everyday, he is the best.)

Joe Morgan: Well, I don’t think you’re alone. I think a lot of people think Vin’s the best, maybe ever. He used to do national broadcasts on TV. But I think he’s better on radio than on TV.

Vinnie’s style is to be the same whether he is on TV or on the radio; in fact, the first three innings of games he calls are generally “simulcasts,” going out over the TV and the radio at the same time. So Joe, if you like him more on the radio, close your eyes, because it’s exactly the same. (Coincidentally, I like Joe Morgan more when he is on the TV and Vin Scully is on the radio drowning him out.)

Dave (Florida): Todays pitchers are supposed to be stronger than pitchers 25-30 years ago, but in your day they threw 20-25 complete games a year. Now a days pitchers cant even get into double digits, why did that change?

Joe Morgan: Well, it changed because we started babying pitchers. By that I mean that we didn’t force them to finish what they started. Things are more specialized. Gibson, Koufax went out there to win. Now I see headlines where a guy goes five and gets the win. We don’t push the pitchers like we did before. They say they do to save the arms, but we have as many arm injuries as we had before.

I am so tired of Joe Morgan thinking everything was so much better back in the old days. First of all, it is rare for a pitcher to get a win in a game when he only pitches five innings. Does it happen more than it did in the 60s? Sure. But it’s not like it happens every day.

As for Joe’s assertion that “we have as many arm injuries as we had before,” well, that’s just not something he can prove. The only thing we can look at is the life expectancy of a pitcher, and even that is hard to look at because current pitchers are, well, still playing. But let’s look at these numbers from 1900 on. These are the average career lengths (in years) of pitchers who debuted in each of these decades:

1900s: 3.01
1910s: 3.57
1920s: 3.77
1930s: 4.73
1940s: 4.16
1950s: 4.86
1960s: 5.16
1970s: 5.37
1980s: 5.74
1990s: 4.47

Keep in mind that 20 of the 710 pitchers who made their debuts in the 1980s are still active, and 214 of the 1026 who debuted in the 1990s are still going, so the numbers for those decades will be higher (significantly higher, in the case of the 90s). What we are seeing is a steady upward trend in “life expectancy” for pitchers. It’s not proof of anything, but it’s better than any proof Joe Morgan can provide that limited workloads for starting pitchers don’t do any good.

That brings us to yesterday’s chat, which had a couple doozies.

Michael (Pittsford, NY): Hi Joe, Quick question about Robinson Cano. I think he’s going to be an amazing hitter. He sprays the ball around, and has a lot of power. I’m unsure about his fielding. Have you had much opportunity to watch Robinson Cano play the field? On the one hand, he looks very smooth, and makes some exceptional plays. On the other hand, he drops some routine balls, and seems to be a little non-chalant. What’s your opinion on Cano’s ability to play second?

Joe Morgan: I won’t use the word non chalant but he does look a little too relaxed. You have to attack the ball in the field just like you do at the plate. I agree 100 percent about him as a hitter. The ball really jumps off his bat. That is how I view a hitter. He has power and can hit to all field. He is just a little too relaxed out in the field.

First of all: “I won’t use the word non chalant” is one of my favorite things anyone has ever written. If you don’t know why, we can’t be friends.

Second: what does nonchalant (or non chalant) mean if not “too relaxed”?

And now, get ready for this…

Rick (NYC): Is it possible for Joe Girardi to win Manager of the Year and get fired? Is Loria out of his mind?

Joe Morgan: I don’t think he will win Manager of the Year. What about Willie Randolph? He has been without Pedro and Glavine and dealt with so many injuries yet they have the best record in the league. How could Girardi be Manager of the Year with a .500 record? I don’t understand that.

It’s easy, Joe. One team was expected to win 60 games, and they are on pace to win 82 and make a push for the playoffs; the other team was expected to win 95 games and win their division, and they are on pace to win 100 games and win their division. I’m not saying Willie Randolph doesn’t deserve consideration for Manager of the Year, but dismissing Joe Girardi’s candidacy like that demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of some fundamental aspects of the game of baseball. But the debate went on. Check out this next one (try to ignore the unrelated first part about Derek Jeter):

Jenny (WVa): Then what is Jeter’s weakness? Also, Why would Willie Randolph win Manager of the Year when he is more or less a caretaker of an already stacked team?

Joe Morgan: How is the team stacked when they were without Cliff Floyd and all those injuries! I can’t argue with people who don’t understand the game. Just because you have talent doesn’t mean you will win. The manager has to put that talent to good use. Has Joe Torre been a caretaker his whole career? Of course not.

Here is Joe Morgan’s subtlety: make true statements and pretend they support the opinion he is presenting. It’s true that talent doesn’t automatically equal wins. It’s true that a manager has an important role. But it’s ALSO true that it is easier to win with great talent than with 20 rookies, which means that Willie Randolph exceeding expectations by five wins with a stacked team (and no matter how much Joe Morgan mentions Cliff Floyd, the Mets still have Delgado, Wright, Reyes, and Beltran on offense) might not be as impressive as Joe Girardi exceeding expectations by 20 wins with a rookie roster.

And “I can’t argue with people who don’t understand the game”??? I feel like saying that to Joe Morgan all the time.

A bit later, someone made about the same point I made above:

Joe (Detroit): How many wins did you have the Marlins slated for at the beginning of the season with a 14 million dollar payroll ? The Mets payroll is how much ? Girardi should be manager of the year hands down.

Joe Morgan: So the way you vote is on expectations from analysts before the season? What was the projection for the Mets? Didn’t most people pick the Mets to finish third with all that talent? If Girardi is Manager of the Year then Cabrera should be MVP. That’s not how you pick Manager of the Year. A lot of people want him to win but he won’t. But don’t get me wrong, he has done an outstanding job.

I’d be interested to find one expert who picked the Mets to finish third this season. A few may have picked them to finish second behind the Phillies, but the vast majority of people who know anything picked the Mets to win 95+ games and finish in first place.

And is Joe Morgan really saying that judging how well a manager does with the team he is given is not a good way to judge how well he did as a manager? Really???

And finally, Joe Morgan ended the chat with this:

Derek (CT): Hey everybody, stop being so hard on Joe Morgan! Everyone is entitled to their opinions, particularly a two time MVP and World Series champion!!

Joe Morgan: Thanks, Derek. But I like folks to have their opinions. We both deserve to have our own thoughts. Just don’t get upset if we don’t agree. We can disagree. That is what makes baseball and sports so much fun. There are varying opinions.

In other words: “Please forgive my evil twin for saying, just nine minutes ago, that Jenny from West Virginia doesn’t understand the game of baseball just because she disagrees with me. I am a moron.”

I generally read all the baseball-related chats on ESPN.com (except the Fantasy Baseball ones). I don’t usually participate while they are going on, what with having a job and all, but I always read them, and I often find myself wishing I were the one doing the answering. It’s not that I think I know everything; I just think I know more than Joe Morgan and Steve Phillips.

I often have issues with these chats, generally when the chatter agrees with (or doesn’t vociferously disagree with) a stupid question. Other times, the questions are fine and it’s just the chatter who is stupid. In reading today’s chat with Steve Phillips, I came across a couple question/answer combos that merited my attention.

Matt (Philly): would 62 homers by Ortiz or Howard be recognized in the public eye as the single season record?

Steve Phillips: Great question. Yes, some would probably recognize that. Some would still say Sosa because we don’t have any real evidence at least not like with McGwire, Bonds. I do think a lot of people would recognize 62 as the record.

I agree that it is a very thought-provoking question, and I have to believe that a lot of people WOULD recognize it as some sort of unofficial record if Howard or Ortiz hit 62 homers. My problem is with Steve’s answer, where he implies that we have more “real evidence” of steroid use against Mark McGwire than Sammy Sosa. Ummm, Stevie, the only evidence we have of McGwire’s steroid use is this: he didn’t deny using them. But one thing that everyone forgets in the rush to condemn McGwire for his testimony to Congress is that he started his testimony by saying, in effect, “If I say I didn’t take steroids, people will call me a liar; if I say I did, people will call me a cheater; so I am choosing not to answer the question.” His silence was no more an admission of guilt than it was a declaration of innocence; it was simply silence.

Other than that silence, we have no “real evidence” of cheating by McGwire. On the contrary, we have the fact that he hit 49 homers as a relatively skinny rookie. Sosa, on the other hand, never did anything offensively until he suddenly buffed up, and his stats went downhill very quickly once MLB started the steroid testing. That evidence seems just as real to me as McGwire’s silence.

John (Hopewell Jct, NY): Steve, why hasn’t David Ortiz’ name come up in the performance enhancing drug conversation? Here’s a guy who never had more than 20 HRs and 75 RBIs in any season but doubled those numbers and raise his slugging pct by over 100 points when he got to Boston.

Steve Phillips: I’ve never heard of donuts being referred to as PEDs. I think Ortiz is explainable by his great plate discipline. He did show it early in his career, but like most good hitters it takes time to recognize which pitch in which count they can look to to drive it out. It has just taken him time to develop the power.

I don’t think Steve’s donut joke does nearly enough to mock the stupidity of this question. First of all, John from Hopewell does the classic moronic move of comparing raw numbers instead of percentages. “He never had more than 20 HRs and 75 RBIs in a season” blah blah blah. In his last two years in Minnesota, Ortiz’s averages per 600 plate appearances were 28 homers and 91 RBI; in his first three years in Boston, those averages went up to 38 and 124. Yes, that is quite an increase, but it’s not the same as what John was implying, which was that Ortiz had no power as a Twin. Of course, Steve Phillips did nothing to alleviate the problem when he confirms that it just took Ortiz some time “to develop the power.” Hey guys, the power was always there! Know what wasn’t there? The ability to hit left-handed pitchers!

And then there’s the obvious reason this was an absolutely ridiculous question, the one Phillips was trying to make with the lame donut joke: The great-hitting David Ortiz of the Red Sox is physically identical to the lousy-hitting David Ortiz of the Twins. So John, here’s the short answer to your question of why Ortiz’s name doesn’t come up in steroid discussions: because most people in the world are more intelligent than you are.

Sometimes I think Joe Morgan only does his ESPN.com chats to give me material. Anyway, a couple points from today’s chat:

First of all, we have this exchange:

Dave, Sacramento: Hi Joe, I love your work, but I’m wondering why you won’t read “Moneyball?” It’s short, readable, and the pages won’t bite, I promise.

Joe Morgan: I haven’t read a lot of books. I didn’t read Canseco’s book or Game of Shadows. I’m not sure the last baseball book I read. I form my own opinions because I played the game and have 40 years of experience in the game. There isn’t much that others can teach me about the game. I’ve been taught by the best .. the players I played with and against. I know what it takes to win out there. I’ve seen players who are winners and just good players. I don’t get enjoyment out of reading baseball books. I’d rather watch a sci-fi movie on TV.

Now, “I don’t like to read baseball books” is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable answer. But “I already know everything there is to know”? Come on, Joseph. I know you dazzled me last week when you spent two full minutes explaining that the reason submarine pitchers are hard to hit is because they pitch from a different angle (I mean, talk about insight~!), but there must be SOMETHING you don’t know already.

And then it gets better. Apparently, Joe Morgan recently said on a telecast that he would take David Ortiz over Albert Pujols because of Ortiz’s postseason success. A chatter called him on it:

Phil (Stl,MO): Last night you chose Ortiz over Pujols due to success in the post-season. I would encourage you to look at the numbers as it’s Pujols who comes out as the much better post-season performer.

Joe Morgan: Go look at the numbers! Pujols was OK in the World Series but Ortiz is a big game player. There is an element of luck involved but you have to be the guy who comes to the plate in big situations and come through. I say he is the best big game hitter in baseball but Pujols is the best overall hitter by far.

Now Joe, when your response to “look at the numbers” is your own “look at the numbers,” you should probably, ya know, make sure the numbers support your argument. Here is a table with postseason stats for both Albert Pujols and David Ortiz:

So Ortiz has more games played, at-bats, doubles, and RBIs, and strikeouts. Pujols has more runs, hits, homers, and walks, and a significantly higher batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. If you allow the fact that two of Ortiz’s series were when he played for the Twins and he was one of the worst hitters in baseball, then maybe the stats almost even out. But there is absolutely nothing that even Joe Morgan could misconstrue as clear dominance by Ortiz in these numbers. Of course, Joe Morgan has never actually looked at the numbers. Why does he need numbers? He played with Dave Concepcion!

It’s no secret that while I respect Joe Morgan’s abilities as a Hall of Fame second baseman, I find his analytical skills as color commentator for ESPN’s baseball broadcasts a bit lacking, to put it mildly. When I see him lined up for a chat on ESPN.com, I generally check it out — mostly for the sake of humor. I was a bit surprised to see this question and answer yesterday:

Tim D (Chicago): Why is everyone so hung up on on-base percentage? I think doing the little things and playing hard is more important. What do you think Joe?

Joe Morgan: Very good question. OBP is very important, BUT it is important for certain players and not so much for others. Mark McGwire couldn’t do a lot of things on the bases and hit a lot of HRs. It’s not as important as someone like Posednik who can do things when he is on base. People have fallen in love with OBP to prove the worth of players but it is more important for some players than others.

Remember, OBP, if it is not tied to run production, is not a big deal. Run production is how you should judge a player. Certain players at the top of the order should have high OBP because that is their job, to get on base. Guys in the middle of the lineup should be driving in those runs.

I guess, in keeping with tradition, I should start by pointing out a few things that reinforce my opinion that Joe Morgan is clueless (which also reinforce my opinion that any wisdom he shows is accidental):

First, the question is absolutely idiotic, but Joe Morgan validates it by saying “Very good question.” This is, no doubt, because Joe Morgan is very biased against on-base percentage and anything else that can be considered a Moneyball stat. In case you aren’t aware, Joe Morgan’s reaction to Moneyball was strong and vituperative, despite overwhelming evidence that he hadn’t actually read it. In an ESPN.com chat in 2003, not long after the release of Moneyball, Joe Morgan said this about the excerpt he had read in the New York Times:

It’s typical if you write a book, you want to be the hero. That is apparently what Beane has done. According to what I read in the Times Beane is smarter than anyone else. I don’t think it will make him popular with the other GMs or the other people in baseball.

In case any of you are unaware, Moneyball was written by Michael Lewis, and it was ABOUT Billy Beane. Several readers pointed that out to Joe Morgan, but a week later, someone asked him what he would do to improve the A’s if he were Billy Beane. Joe Morgan’s response? “I wouldn’t be Billy Beane first of all! I wouldn’t write the book Moneyball!”

So it is apparent that Joe Morgan was upset about the book, and it is more apparent that he didn’t read it. Kind of makes his opinions on it somewhat obsolete. So let’s get back to the question this post is about. Why do I say it is idiotic? Well, this guy touts the value of “doing the little things” over on-base percentage. Which little things are you referring to, Tim D? “Little things” is an abstract concept, which is why it’s easier to talk about than things with actual definitions, but I venture a guess that ANY definition of “doing the little things” would include taking a walk when your team needs one — you know, one of the key elements of on-base percentage. Is OBP something that Tim D just doesn’t understand? Is it just some term that means nothing to him other than “a statistic that people didn’t care much about until recently”? I hate to tell you this, Tim D, but OBP isn’t something that was invented by Billy Beane or anyone else in the last decade. I remember as a kid, the most amazing thing about Wade Boggs wasn’t his great batting averages, but the fact that he had a great eye and drew about 100 walks a season, which led to 11 different seasons in which his OBP was over .400. Ted Williams played in 12 complete seasons, and his lowest OBP was .436, with seven seasons of .490 or better. No matter how much you argue, you can’t tell me that a guy who gets on base 48.2% of the time (as Williams did) is not more valuable than someone who gets on base 29.5% of the time (as Giants’ “prospect” Lance Niekro did last year). Even if Ted Williams had never hit a single home run in his career, he would have been a Hall of Famer based on that ridiculous on-base percentage.

So yes, this was a stupid question, but Joe Morgan said it was a very good question. And then he used a Mark McGwire vs. Scott Podsednik example to make the point that OBP is more important for some people than for others. You know those guys — McGwire and his .394 career OBP, Podsednik and his .345 OBP. Could Joe Morgan have come up with a better example to use here? Sure, but only if he thought about it for three seconds.

So now let’s get to the Accident Wisdom of Joe Morgan. He said this:

Remember, OBP, if it is not tied to run production, is not a big deal. Run production is how you should judge a player. Certain players at the top of the order should have high OBP because that is their job, to get on base. Guys in the middle of the lineup should be driving in those runs.

This point is pretty accurate, and it was driven home to me as I was watching the Dodger game on Monday. The Dodgers were getting beat by the Braves, and as they were trying to mount a comeback, Jeff Kent took a walk with a runner on second. Nice, Jeff, except that Olmedo Saenz is batting behind you, and he has already struck out three times this game, looking terrible each time and leaving seven runners on base. In that situation, it would help the team much more if Kent can foul off a couple borderline pitches and get the pitcher to make a mistake, groove one a little, and give Kent something to drive into the outfield to drive in the run. In that situation, Kent’s job is not to take a walk — it is to get that run in.

If on-base percentage really was the only thing that matters, then either Barry Bonds wouldn’t get all those intentional walks, or Giants fans wouldn’t whine about them. The fact is, opposing teams like to take away from Bonds the opportunity to drive in runs, because that’s what his job is, and that’s what he excels at.

(On the other hand, you can’t discount the effect that a high OBP from a power hitter has on his teammates. For example, look at Fernando Tatis in 1999. The only great year he ever had happened to be the only year that he spent most of the year batting behind Mark McGwire. The vast majority of pitchers are not quite as effective from the stretch as they are from the windup, so you have to think that those 215 times that McGwire got on base with something other than a homer probably contributed to Tatis getting better pitches to hit.)

What Joe Morgan and Tim D are missing here is that no one looks at OBP as the end-all, be-all of statistics. It is MUCH more common to see value places on OPS, which is on-base percentage (O) plus (P) slugging percentage (S). And when you think about it, OPS does a pretty good job of taking those roles into account: it values OBP for people like Scott Podsednik or Ichiro (a better choice for Joe Morgan’s previous example), and it values slugging for guys like Mark McGwire or Vladimir Guerrero.

So yes, Joe Morgan makes a good point about how OBP alone can’t tell you the true value of a player, but I think his bias against the “new age” statistics does him a disservice when it comes to analysis.

Three things about myself that never cease to amaze me: how cute I was as a kid, how small my size 13 feet look compared to the rest of my body, and the lengths I will go to to prove Joe Morgan wrong. Today’s lesson in The Idiocy of Joe Morgan 101 is entitled, “Things Joe Morgan says because he is an ‘expert’ and he is pretty sure no one will take the time to check his facts.”

First, let’s give a little background for any readers who may only know Joe Morgan as a Hall of Fame second baseman and, therefore, still respect him. Joe Morgan is currently a color commentator for ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball. The first time my mom ever made no-bake oatmeal cookies, I was four years old, and I happened to be developing appendicitis at the time. I ate one, and then I threw up because of the appendicitis, but my mind associated it with the cookie, so I didn’t eat another one for years. That’s the way I feel about Jon Miller these days: I am sure I would like him, but whenever I hear his name, all I can think of is the fact that he is Joe Morgan’s broadcast partner, which makes me want appendicitis again.

(Before I go too far, let me add that Joe Morgan is the anti-Madonna. You know, people like Madonna, Fabio, Moses, Shaq, etc., who only need one name to be identified. I can’t bring myself to refer to Joe Morgan simply as “Morgan,” even if I have already typed his full name in the same sentence. He is ALWAYS “Joe Morgan,” so don’t let it bother you.)

A couple of Joe Morgan’s logical gems from over the years:

• A few years ago, he explained why Greg Maddux is such a great pitcher: because he throws so many strikes. He followed up with, “And the reason you want to throw strikes is simple: the more strikes you throw, the fewer pitches you throw over the course of a game, so you can pitch later in the game.” This is classic Joe Morgan, because it is either very simple or pretty stupid. On its most basic level, sure, the more strikes you throw, the fewer pitches you will throw. But did ESPN hire a Hall of Famer to explain things that a 10-year-old could figure out? And when you take it a little deeper, I can think of a situation or two where you would throw a lot of strikes, throw very few pitches, and NOT be a great pitcher. Like if the first ten pitches you threw in a game were hit for homers: very high percentage of strikes, very few pitches, very crappy pitcher. So really, all Joe Morgan was doing was over-simplifying the things that made Greg Maddux the best pitcher of the 1990s.
• The greatest one ever: Joe Morgan explained that there are more groundballs hit to the right side of the infield because “the field is sloped a little bit that direction.”

Which all brings us to the one that has been bugging me for months. In July or August, Barry Bonds was intentionally walked leading off the 10th inning of a game, and Joe Morgan said: “A lot of times, teams will intentionally walk Bonds to lead off extra innings, and he comes around to score the winning run.” This is exactly the sort of thing Joe Morgan loves to say, because if the listener doesn’t question it, it seems reasonable. If you just assume that Joe Morgan has actual stats he is looking at when he says this stuff, you just believe it. But me, I don’t believe that Joe Morgan has ever looked at a stat sheet in his life. So when I heard him say that, I wrote it down and committed to, someday, prove that he is an idiot.

It took me a few months, but now that I have a new job and a new baby and it’s the Holidays and stuff, I have plenty of time to do useless research for no reason. And here is what I have discovered:

In the six seasons beginning with 1999, how many times has Barry Bonds been intentionally walked to lead off an extra inning and come around to score the winning run that inning? Twice. Two times. Dos veces.

In Joe Morgan’s defense, the two occurrences DID happen within two weeks of each other, in May of 2004. But even if they had happened on the same day, twice in six seasons is NOT “a lot of times.” It is twice. That means that there have been about 970 games in which that did NOT happen. Now, 970 is a lot. Two is not.

Joe Morgan would have been a little more correct if he had pulled something less specific out of his butt. There are three other times (once each in 2002, 2003, and 2004) when Bonds walked to lead off extra innings and scored the winning run, but the walk was not intentional. Of course, Joe Morgan didn’t know that when he said it. All he knew is that he was being paid good money to say something that sounded smart.

Well, that’s the bell. Have fun at recess, and remember the things you have learned today in Idiocy of Joe Morgan 101.