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.

JoeChat, Lom Henn Style

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

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

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

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

On with the show!

Buzzmaster: We're getting Joe Morgan right now!

Hooray!

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

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

Ugh. I'm already tired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Joe has to do is give his opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JoeBait #2, perhaps?

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

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

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

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

Votto returned today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know--Albet Pujos.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Playoffs...we don't need no stinking playoffs!

Our apologies for the lack of posts this month. Some of us have been in mourning after Slut's post below on FireJoeMorgan.com and others are still busy with their jobs. We'll now it is time to get back to posting.

How fitting is it that our first post is about our "favorite" journalist - Bob Kravitz. While everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, Bob's opinion that there should not be a college football playoff is valid. Unfortunately, his justification for it is absolutely absurd, as usual.

No playoff is fine with me

On college football and other nonsense:

I belong to a very distinct minority, a population smaller than the one that claims ownership of a Jamaal Tinsley jersey and a David Harrison bobblehead.

Or the Mike Vanderjagt fan club or Panic City. We all know you definitely do not belong to the Good Writers Association!

I don't want a college football playoff.

As mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion. And being a sports columnist, this is a good start to an article. Score one for Bobby.

Well, it's not that I don't want one in the sense I don't want the whooping cough or a third eye in the middle of my forehead, but honestly, I could do quite well to continue living without it.

Why?

Because we already have a college football playoff system in place.

Oh, really? Yes we do, but it is in the lower levels of college football. But the last time I checked we do not in the BCS.

It's called the regular season.

What?!? Hey, shit-for-brains! A regular season in not a playoff!

Every week, every game involving a Top 25 team is, in its own way, a playoff game. It's not necessarily a one-and-done, but it serves essentially the same purpose.

While games involving Top 25 teams CAN be exciting, that is not always the case. Granted, a loss during the season can end a college teams chance at the National Championship, that is not always the case. In a playoff, you ARE one and done!

One of the reasons college football's popularity has soared in recent years is because every regular-season game matters and matters deeply. When USC loses early in the season at Oregon State, it's tantamount to a first-round playoff loss. When Texas Tech knocks off Texas, it's a playoff game.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

It is not a playoff game you half-witted, hack of a journalist! It is a regular season conference game that did have consequences to the loser and benefits to the winner. But both teams have to play out their seasons to see if either can reach a BCS game or even the National Championship. Also, the game was the game of the season at that point. But if Texas and Texas Tech both lost two or three games over the remainder of the season, then the game's importance suddenly fades and becomes a footnote.

Also, most teams in the Top 10 do not play each other during the season unless they are from the same conference. Penn State, Alabama, USC, Texas Tech, and Florida State do not play each other during the regular season. How can you fairly say Alabama is more worthy than Texas Tech unless they play each other in playoff game, or in current terms, a bowl game?

Everything we do in sports these days serves to devalue the regular season, which is pretty precious considering how ticket prices have continued to soar for those increasingly meaningless games. The NFL has six playoff teams from each conference. Baseball went to the wild card. In hockey and basketball, the only teams that miss the playoffs are the Washington Capitals and Los Angeles Clippers.

God, the absurdity just keeps getting better and better! (Or worse and worse depending on how you look at it.)

# of teams making the playoffs/# of teams in league

Baseball - 8 out of 30

Football - 12 out of 32

Basketball - 16 out of 30

Hockey - 16 out of 30

Say what you want about the NBA and NHL. Over half the teams make the playoffs each year. But how can you say that the Super Bowl and World Series DEVALUE the regular season! The whole point of playing the season it to see who makes it to the playoffs and then who can make it to the championship.

By Kravitz's argument, the championship should have been handed over to the New England Patriots at the end of the regular season last year. No need for the playoffs, the Pats were a perfect 16-0, hand them the Lombardi trophy.

Yet, the Pats lost in the Super Bowl. We have the playoffs to have the best teams from the regular season play each other because many times they do not get always get to play each other during the regular season.

Bowl games, other than the championship game, are essentially meaningless. Conference basketball tournaments are nothing more than raw money grabs that devalue the regular season. They provide bad to average teams with second and third chances they don't deserve.

Yes, bowl games other than BCS games are meaningless in the grand scheme. However, they are a financial reward for the teams playing in them and usually a fun trip for alumni and fans.

I will agree that conference basketball tournaments are there just for the money and for mid-major and lower level teams, the tournaments do devalue the regular season. For those conferences, unless you are a Butler or Gonzaga, your conference only gets one bid and that goes to the conference tournament champ. So you can go 15-1 in your conference, lose in the finals and get to watch the tournament from home. So that's two for Bob...and two hundred against.

I like the fact that with one bad performance, Penn State's claim to a national title is all but dead.

Unless Texas Tech, Alabama, etc. all lose a game, then Penn State could resurface.

It's difficult to quantify, but there is surely value in the continual "who's No. 1?'' debate in college football.

Yes, it provide shit-fucks like you an excuse to blab your mouth on why you think Northeast Central Kansas Polytechnical A&M should be #1 this week. However, the whole poll system is subjective and as we have seen previously, is subject to influence within conferences. The BCS works when only two teams are undefeated at the end of the year. But when three or more teams are undefeated or all have one loss, the system does not work.

There is a college football playoff system.

It's called the regular season.

There is a term for journalists like you - fucktard!

There is never going to be a perfect answer to the college football playoff. The BCS IS flawed, but better than the old system of just the AP and Coaches Polls. Even if the NCAA institutes an eight team playoff, people will still be arguing which eight teams should be in it and who got snubbed. Hell, we do that with the 64-team basketball tournament!

Slut and I continue to be amazed at the fact that Kravitz can reach the correct conclustion or have a valid point, but the way he gets there or the justification for his point is so totally wrong or off-base that it kills us.

I do not fault Bob for his opinion. But man his reasoning is so fucking far off-base that you have to wonder what the man is thinking (or not) sometimes. I think working for the newspaper and co-hosting a radio show are too much for Bob and his teeny, tiny brain to handle.

A Sad Day

It's just sad.

I'm not surprised, given the infrequency of their posts recently. But still...sad.

LomHenn.com looks and feels a lot like Fire Joe Morgan. And that's not coincidence. FJM is one of the inspirations of this blog, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. While we may not be as good as FJM, we're damned sincere, that's for sure.

We salute Ken T., dak, and Junior for all of their effort and their wonderful posts. Thank you for showing us that there are other dorks out there.

Good luck with everything, and I hope we see you posting again sometime.