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

...we present to you, JoeChat!

Buzzmaster: We're getting Joe!

I should hope to smile.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second question in, first "consistent."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah--okay.

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

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

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

Of course not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So who would be a good fit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help me. Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel has some serious mental issues, evidently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Joe Chat is Back!

YES!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FotM...Better Late Than Never!

Hey, folks!

I apologize for not getting back to this sooner, but jobs, deadlines and late night parties have kept me away for too long. We never got back to with the February Fucktard of the Month and now it is time for March's!

Along the way this month, we have also welcomed O'Hoolix into the mix and if it wasn't for him, this would have been a shitty month. Thanks, O'Hoolix for keeping us going this month. Not only are his posts funny, you can also take his picks to the bank (most days, sorry about Saturday and last night...).

Now back to the matter at hand.

We'll start with February's Fucktard of the Month Award. Our nominees were Bud Selig - Baseball's Fucktard Extraordinaire, Alex Rodriguez - Baseball's latest steroid poster boy, and ESPN - the world leader in shitty sports programming.

I am proud to say the we had a unanimous winner in our first monthly award. And our winner is...




Bud Selig!



Congratulations, Bud! The man is an infected boil on baseball's ass. This man has almost single-handedly dragged baseball from America's pasttime and the top sport in the USA to number two behind the NFL. Granted, the NFL has worked hard to become what it has and even though it seems to be trying to screw it up, it mostly gets it right. Bud Selig ignored the steroid issue until he no longer couldn't, allowed a tie in an All-Star game, dragged his feet on instant reply, and then tried to say the he had no idea that steroids were being used and it was not his fault. And this is why you have been given the FotM Award. Bud, something tells me I will see you back here again real soon.

And now that we have ushered in the month of April, that means it is time for another FotM Award and another batch of nominees.


1. Bob Kravitz

Bob, along with many other sports columnists, cannot seem to understand the NCAA tournament selection process. OK, so neither can we it seems. (Butler a No. 9 seed?) yet, the tournament selection committee does state that they look at the season as a whole AND only for the current season, i.e. we do not care how you did last year (Davidson) or how many championships you have won in the past (IU). And yet, here is Bob blasting the committee on Purdue's No. 5 seed, even though they won the Big Ten tournament. And here is Bob not saying a thing about Butler's No. 9 seed! Bob also wrote a piece on how the Big Ten deserved seven teams in the tournament because the Big Ten has had five different teams in the Final Four this decade, while the ACC and Big East only have had four "different" teams over that same period. Whahuh? Sadly, no one was not able to get to this piece in a timely manner. None the less, Bob is still a candidate for the FotM.

2. Jay Cutler

Man what a cluster fuck. I'm still having flashbacks of Jeff George and the Colts...must be the tequila (CaboWabo rules!). Every NFL quarterback has a good-sized ego. Jay's is probably three sizes to big. Therefore, Jay's ego was bruised when he heard the Josh McDaniel offered Cutler as part of a multi-team trade for Matt Cassel. So Jay decided to throw a tantrum and the Broncos' were forced to backpedal and try to smooth Jay's ego. Unfortunately, the whole episode blew up with accusations going back and forth, calls not answered, trades demanded and a gullible team to make a trade with. In the end Cutler was traded to the Chicago Bears and the Bears' overpaying in order to get a decent QB. We'll see how it all pans out next season, but Jay's tantrum nets him a FotM nomination.

3. ESPN (again)

Like Bud Selig and Bob Kravitz, ESPN will probably be a mainstay in the FotM nominations. I could probably just cut and paste last month's nomination here as it still mostly applies. Still not showing events in HD, shitty announcers, heavy East Coast biases, Joe Morgan, etc., etc., etc... I understand that they want to broadcast as much sports as they can, but I think they have tried to gobble up to much and they do not have the staff anymore to handle it. Most of the faces we had associated with ESPN, at least the ones I liked, are gone. The replacements do not hold a candle to their former associates and the quality of the programming continues to decline. Plus Joe Morgan is just consistently bad.

So post a comment or send us an email to vote for the March Fucktard of the Month. Remember, vote early and vote often!

Subtraction By Addition

Figuring that they didn't have enough idiocy on Sunday Night Baseball, ESPN decided to add Steve Phillips to the lineup of Jon Miller and the award-winning (!) Joe Morgan. Phillips is a former baseball general manager, and let's just say that having him analyze baseball is like having someone from AIG handle your 401k account.

So, on tonight's opening night broadcast of the Braves/Phillies:

Phillips (commenting on Brian McCann hitting cleanup for the Braves): "The fact that he's hitting 4th tells you something about their lineup. The Braves don't have an aircraft carrier--that big power hitter in the middle of their lineup. They don't have that guy--they will try to beat you with length and breadth of their lineup--no big home run hitter, but a bunch of guys with moderate power."

Literally a second after Phillips finished the sentence, McCann launched an upper-deck home run. Priceless.

I have a feeling this kind of thing will happen a lot this season.

--EDIT--

2nd inning: Phillips describing how excited the Braves' Jeff Francoeur was about the start of the season:

"He was so excited, he almost swallowed his earlobes."

Yep, we've got 6 months of this to look forward to.

Joe Morgan - All-Star Game of Death

Lom Henn's favorite baseball commentator and turdmeister, Joe Morgan, puts in his two cents worth on the decline of Major League Baseball's All-Star Game.

Morgan: All-Stars of old had more fire

Joe Morgan looks at what has happened to the All-Star Game and doesn't like what he sees.

The Hall of Fame second baseman remembers when the top stars played all nine innings, when the All-Stars drew huge ratings.

Joe, your last All-Star game appearance was 29 years ago! I bet Ted Williams, Stan Musial and Jackie Robinson may have felt the same thing about your generation playing in the All-Star Game in 1979!

Not anymore.

"Part of the reason the game doesn't bring that energy is it's a different game now," he said Thursday. "Now it's considered an exhibition, whereas before it was considered life and death."

That's because it is an exhibition!!!!!!

Life or death??? That really would have been a game for the ages. I would have liked to have been there for the announcement of, "This year's MLB All-Star Game has been changed. The players on the losing team will be killed by the winning team's choice immediately following the game," and then watch the players drop a turd in their shorts. It's the MLB All-Star Game of Death!!!!!! You bet I'd tune in for that one.

Really, Joe, the decline in the All-Star Game is not due fully to the players playing the game now. I'll give you a few reasons why the decline is not due to just the players.

• When you played, the top-ranked TV shows had ratings in the 30s. Today, the top-ranked shows are lucky to make it into the 20s. Back in the 70's, the #30 ranked show had a higher rating than this year's top show, American Idol (16.1 rating).
• When you played, the only times the NL and AL players faced each other were in the World Series and the All-Star games. Since the inception of interleague play, we get to see teams from each league play each other roughly 18 times each year. While this has been a boon for the owners and generally regarded as a success by the average fan, many traditionalists continue to hate interleague play...but that is another story for another time.
• Giving the winner of the All-Star Game home-field advantage in the World Series probably has not helped, but I have not heard from the players what their take is on this one.
• The fans who elect the players to the game are mostly morons. Fans vote for their favorite player, not the most deserving player. I get that, but every year we see someone voted into the game that hasn't played all year do to an injury or is batting .125 and strikes out every other at bat. Although, the players were not any better this year in electing Jason Varitek to the 2008 All-Star AL team.

The last time the All-Star Game was at Yankee Stadium, in 1977, Morgan led off the game with a home run off Jim Palmer. A 10-time All-Star with the Cincinnati Reds and Houston Astros, Morgan's National League teams were a perfect 10-0 against the American Leaguers.

The All-Star Game has seen winnings streaks for both leagues. The National League won 11 in-a-row from 1972 to 1982 and won 19 of 20 from 1963 to 1982. The American League have won 10 of the last 11 with the odd one being the tie game in '02.

What does this really have to do with Joe's rant on the decline of this game? Oh, that's right, this is Joe Morgan.

"If you had Willie Mays and those guys with the attitude that they had playing now, you'd have that same awareness," Morgan said. "I don't say the players don't play hard. I'm saying that before, Willie Mays might play the whole game. Hank Aaron might play the whole game."

Mays went the distance in 11 All-Star Games and Aaron nine, according to the Elias Sports Bureau. When Carlos Beltran went all nine innings at Pittsburgh in 2006, it marked the first time a player had started and finished an All-Star Game since Ken Griffey Jr., Brady Anderson and Ray Lankford in 1997 at Cleveland.

Yes, there are probably times where a player may earn the right to play the entire game. But as we saw in 2002, the managers for each time seem to have this desire to make sure everyone plays in the game. I'm still somewhat irritated about the 2002 game where the managers had to make sure everyone got in the game, and when the game went extra innings, they had to cop out and call a tie. I understand WHY they called the game, but it should not have been an issue as there should have been at least one additional relief pitcher for each league available. If it was still tied after 12 or 13 innings, then you can call the tie.

The players are not noted for "playing" in the All-Star Game, they are noted for being "elected" to the All-Star Game. Obviously a player would prefer to play in the game and be in the spotlight, but I don't think it needs to be a requirement.

Morgan said having the game decide which league gets home-field advantage in the World Series, an innovation that began in 2003, doesn't help."

See bullet point above.

Unless the players buy into it, it doesn't matter what you say," he said. "You can say, 'This one counts,' you can say anything you want, but the players are the ones that make the game, not the marketing."

Yes, the drive to defeat the opposing league has waned over time, but I just can't place the blame fully on the players. The game has changed, the fans have changed, the owners have changed, the money has changed (OK, yes players are still paid in dollars, but they just get many, many, many more of them), TV has changed, the internet has come about, and so on and so on. The game IS an exhibition and with 500 channels and so much more available things to do, we should not be surprised that the ratings have declined. The Home Run Derby typically out draws the All-Star Game because it is more fun to watch. I don't know what can be done to raise the ratings for the All-Star Game, but we shouldn't be surprised by what has happened.

BTW - I am shocked that I did not see "consistent" or one of its variations anywhere in the article. Although, it could have been removed by the Tribune.

I Have Seen the 7th Layer of Hell...

...and it's Chris Berman interviewing Joe Morgan on Baseball Tonight.

God, stop playing skee-ball on the boardwalk and call Berman home already. Or at least call him away from the ESPN studios.