Bloops: Mike Schur’s take on Joe Morgan
Posted by Andy on December 20, 2010
Mike Schur, once the proprietor of FireJoeMorgan.com and now executive producer of the television show Parks & Recreation gave an interview over at Fanhouse.com primarily about what was wrong with Joe Morgan.
I find it interesting to read stuff like this when it's tailored for the mainstream. Also, you gotta love Morgan saying that the K-Zone is wrong.
December 20th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
To be fair, those strike zone things aren't all that accurate. I mean, I guess I can't speak for K-Zone directly, since I almost never watch the ESPN games (mostly due to not being able to stand the broadcasting actually), but the local ones they have, which I assume are pretty much the same, sometimes are just really really bad. Inaccurate. They'll show the replay, and the ball just didn't go where their strike zone indicator said it did. I mean, maybe this is noticeable 10% of the time - I haven't studied it in depth - so it's not a huge deal, but it's SOMETIMES wrong. Happy that Morgan's gone though - not that I'm trying to be mean, I just didn't appreciate him as a commentator.
December 20th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
I enjoyed Joe Morgan. He said dumb stuff, but his voice was relaxing. 🙂
December 21st, 2010 at 12:50 am
This reminds me when I used to play in an APBA league. Pitchers were graded A, B, C or D, A being the highest grade. A friend of mine got so mad that Jack Morris only got a B one year for 21 wins with the Jays (he thought he should have got an A). However, the rest of his stats showed that he didn't pitch that well; he was a recipient of generous run support. APBA taught me to look beyond the wins and strikeouts.
December 21st, 2010 at 1:11 am
@1, agreed. I'm not sure Mike Schur using K-Zone is the best example to illustrate Joe Morgan's weakness when it comes to sabermetrics. K-Zone is not sabermetrics, and indeed I'm more inclined to listen to Morgan's opinion on K-Zone than on other topics.
December 21st, 2010 at 1:46 am
An odd thing about this is that Morgan's career looks more impressive under the sabermetrics light than traditional measures. How could he say someone walked too much, Joe walked a lot.
December 21st, 2010 at 4:09 am
@5
Yup. Sabermetricians have always loved Joe Morgan the Player. He walked a ton. His SB% was very high. He's got boatloads of WAR. Park effects boost his early Astro seasons. He's the type of player that statheads used to use as an example of someone who was "even better than you thought he was".
December 21st, 2010 at 4:19 am
I was really surprised when I heard that ESPN fired Joe and John from 'Sunday Night Baseball' I never really had a problem with the way those two broadcasted games. I believe they're both inducted in Cooperstown....feel free to correct me if I'm wrong....I do know John is in the HOF as a broadcaster, and I thought Joe was there as a player. Anyway, it's too bad about the situation.
December 21st, 2010 at 8:25 am
IMHO, the worst thing about FJM was that it created a lot of FJM wannabes in the blogging arena.
For those not aware, “FJM” was a blog “dedicated to analysis and critique of the sports media.” Or, as they shared in their final post at FJM, they were a bunch of guys with a “borderline-sociopathic joy for meticulously criticizing bad sports journalism.”
Realted, last January, Dayn Perry left a comment at BBTF where he said: "I’d really appreciate it if bloggers would retire the FJM approach to engagement."
And, IMHO, Perry was dead on here.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the concept of constructive criticism. But, there’s also the element of “putting someone down” to make yourself feel like you’re in control or more powerful (and perhaps cover up your own insecurities as well) at play here too. And, related, these “put downs” tell you a lot more about the party who’s making the comments than anything else, at least in my opinion.
OK, that's just my two cents on this. And, it's the same two cents that I think of every time someone brings up FJM.
December 21st, 2010 at 10:03 am
@7, re: HOF -- Joe Morgan was indeed inducted as a player, on the first ballot.
Miller did receive the HOF's 2010 Ford C. Frick Broadcasting Award. But there are no broadcasters or writers "in" the Hall of Fame, as Rob Neyer recently reminded us. The money lines:
"They're not enshrinees (into the Hall of Fame), but rather honorees (by the Hall of Fame).... [T]he Hall of Fame is very careful to make the distinction in its literature and displays. ... You know those "wings" everybody talks about? The "broadcasters wing" and the "writers wing"? ...
Those are just metaphors.... Each honoree's name is engraved on a plaque that hangs in a small room just outside the Hall of Fame's research library."
(http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6653/change-in-halls-2011-program).
December 21st, 2010 at 11:17 am
Dayn Perry left a comment at BBTF where he said: "I’d really appreciate it if bloggers would retire the FJM approach to engagement."
Hey Perry, Mystery Science Theatre wants their concept back...Like FJM invented what they were doing. Coming from a group of people who wrote for The Office. Which of course they invented. And have not at all copied that style when it comes to Parks (which I love as a show, really great). What an arrogant thing to say. He'd "appreciate it". Screw you.
December 21st, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I'm glad ESPN got rid of Jon Miller as their baseball play-by-play TV announcer.. That guy just wouldn't shut up. He constantly talked and talked and talked. I felt sorry for Joe Morgan having to be stuck with him.
December 21st, 2010 at 1:05 pm
When I first saw FJM I found alot of what I read ignorant and offensive.
It took some time, but once I realized the point of the site and what the writers were attempting to accomplish I could read it with an open mind.
We have a group of people trying to establish themselves as writers, specifically comedy writers, in Hollywood. What better way to do that than with a website?
Pick a topic, create some fake names to write under, and write the most outrageous stuff you can think of.
The entire site was based on fiction and satire.
Once Schur and the others reached their goals, they shut the site down despite its cult-like following because they didn't need it anymore.
December 21st, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I guess, but they weren't trying to establish themselves, they were from harvard and were already writing for the Office. It was a funny site no doubt, but they don't own the concept of satire.
December 21st, 2010 at 1:27 pm
@11 - Funny, for me it's completely the opposite, I always felt bad for Miller. I thought he was a perfectly competent announcer who got stuck in a booth with a pompous, ignorant, self-righteous nincompoop.
Buck and McCarver on the other hand, those two deserve each other.
December 21st, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Just a side note regarding Morgan: to saber heads he is one of the all-time great second basemen, dwarfing the likes of Richardson. Yet in the most important games of his career, the playoffs, he sucked. He had one good series against the Yankees in 1976, otherwise he was .182-.323-.348 in over 200 plate appearances. Richardson? .305-.331-.405, with 3 excellent world series showings. It reminds me of what Casey said long ago in regards to Jackie Robinson as compared to Billy Martin -to paraphrase the Old Perfessor -my guy out played him everytime -and as the man said-you can look it up.
December 21st, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Morgan had the World Series winning hit against the Red Sox in the forgotten game 7 of that series.
December 21st, 2010 at 3:05 pm
@6 DavidF
Back to the "better than you thought he was" - the guy that has surprised me when looking at him from saber perspective is Mike Schmidt. He was one of my favs growing up but never thought of him as one of the best of the best, too many strikeouts, low batting average. . . But his WAR and OPS+ and other advanced stats put him up a few notches. Definitely the top of his generation (70's-80's).
December 21st, 2010 at 5:52 pm
#15/ Bill Parks Says: "Just a side note regarding Morgan: to saber heads he is one of the all-time great second basemen, dwarfing the likes of Richardson. Yet in the most important games of his career, the playoffs, he sucked. He had one good series against the Yankees in 1976, otherwise he was .182-.323-.348 in over 200 plate appearances..."
I hope that you are not suggesting that Bobby Richardson is REMOTELY comparable to Joe Morgan; Richardson's best year (1962?) is nowhere as good as Morgan's _average_ year. If you wish to compare their postseason records (without throwing out Morgan's best performance), they are pretty compareable:
.331/.323 OBA and .405/.428 SLG (Richardson/Morgan).
Even subtracting for poor post season performance, Joe Morgan goes from one of the top three second basemen of all-time to... one of the top three second basemen of all-time.
December 21st, 2010 at 9:54 pm
@3 Kenh, major shout-out for Apba!
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:32 am
@15 - Just to pile on a little more, regardless of what Mr. Stengel said, you don't honestly believe that Billy Martin was a better player than Jackie Robinson, do you?
@17 - Top of his generation? Try best 3B of all time, hands down!
December 22nd, 2010 at 2:15 am
@20, Justin --
Schmidt best 3B of all time? Agreed.
"Hands down," though? Three points:
1. Eddie Mathews is within 10% of Schmidt in WAR (98.3 - 108.3). And I just don't think we can say with confidence that WAR's margin of error is less than 10%.
2. Both Mathews and Chipper Jones are within 5 points of Schmidt's 147 OPS+, with very similar career length. Also, many people think that OPS and OPS+ undervalue the OBP component; adjusting the formula would boost both Chipper (OBP 18% above league average) and Mathews (15%) relative to Schmidt (13%).
3. Postseason play knocks Schmidt down a smidge and nudges George Brett into the conversation. Brett had a 1.023 OPS in 43 postseason games, including 10 HRs. Schmidt had a .690 OPS in 36 postseason games, 218 points below his regular-season mark, with 4 HRs. He had a good WS in 1980, but was awful in '83 WS (1 for 20, no runs, ribbies or walks), also very poor in 1977-78-80 NLCS (combined 0 HRs, 4 runs, 3 ribs in 13 games).
Again, I'd take Schmidt #1 every day. But let's not treat the next 3 like poor relations.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:43 am
Of course I am not implying that Martin was better than Robinson, or that Richardson was comparable to Morgan. But in games that counted the most, and head to head (52,53,55,56) Martin outperformed Robinson. And Richardson had some terrific World Series (60,61,64), so when it counted the most he performed quite admirably. They both contributed greatly to several championship teams.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:31 am
World Series games are not the games that count most. They are actually the games that count least. They don't show up in the standings, they don't count as part of the player's career record. They're exhibition games. It's like focusing on a player's record in the all-star game. I don't think it really matters at all, just always a small sample size in action with random variations. Or do you want to pretend that Lloyd McClendon is an all-time great?
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:37 am
"It's like focusing on a player's record in the all-star game."
Yes, because the all-star game is as important as the WORLD FRICKIN SERIES. I just can't agree with that comment. I believe showing up on the big stage does matter, and for some it does define their career (fairly or unfairly). Winning the WS is kinda the whole point of the baseball season. It's a little more important than an exhibition game.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:39 am
Don't worry, Sabu...we all bugged out when we read #23.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:40 am
Alright alright, I'm calm.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:40 am
#21/ John Autin Says: " @20, Justin --Schmidt best 3B of all time? Agreed.
"Hands down," though? ..."
Believe it or not, well into the 1990s (after Schmidt retired), the discussion for "Best 3Bmen ever" focused on either Brooks Robinson or Pie Traynor, not Schmidt. If Brooks' fielding superiority didn't end the discussion, people went for the guy with all the .300+ BA/11+ RBI seasons, who was by reputation a great fielder (Traynor). Most people didn't understand that that made him a good but not outstanding hitter for the 1920s/30s, no better than Craig Nettles.
Schmidt and Brett would come up in the discussion, with Mathews an afterthought ("Oh yeah, he was really good..."). It wasn't until the last decade that the consensus emerged of Schmidt/ Brett/ Mathews.
At some point in the future we'll probably consider A-Rod a third baseman instead of a shortstop, and it would be hard NOT to call him the #1 3Bman.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:44 am
#27/ Sorry, it should read ".300+ BA/100+ RBI seasons"
December 22nd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Arod will be tough to pin. I guess assuming he plays another 3 years or more at third, he will have >50% of his games at third base, and <50% at SS, so he will show up as a 3B on the most common stat searches, and not as an SS.
One really interesting possibility -- what if he playes another ~2 years at third, and then because he slows down a bit or has durability problems, ends up DHing, or getting stuck in at first for another couple years before retiring?
He could well end up having <50% of his games at shortstop, *and* less than 50% of his games at third.
So if you fired up standard lists of top 3b or top SS, he wouldn't make *either list*, even though he is one of the best ever at both positions.
December 22nd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Interesting, I guess I think of him as a 3b at this point. In most cases I tend to forget that he was a SS. Probably Yankee bias taking over my psyche.
December 22nd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I don't know, I just can't agree that winning the World Series is the point of the season. The point of the season is to play the games and enjoy the situations as they evolve, the efforts involved, the strategies that play out. Why look at the players if the whole thing that matters is "2010 - San Francisco Giants." I can tell you who won every World Series in history, but the thing is - it means nothing. The all-star game means nothing. The World Series means nothing. These are just promotions. The odds of seeing a great game in the World Series are no higher than at any other point in the season. "Coming through on the big stage" is a silly thing to say when every game these guys plays occurs on a big stage, in front of tens of thousands of people live and hundreds of thousands on TV. Every game is a big stage.
December 22nd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I didn't know I was arguing with Nietzsche. "The game means nothing. The World Series means nothing."
"The odds of seeing a great game in the World Series are no higher than at any other point in the season."
I don't recall mentioning anything about a "great game" and when it takes place.
And no not every game the Kansas City Royals play is "on the big stage". Actually I can't remember the last time they played a game on a stage bigger than a major college football game. Most baseball games are only broadcast locally, vs the world series which is broadcast nationally. Do we really need to look up and compare ratings to prove this point?
December 22nd, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Joe Morgan wasn't annoying because he wouldn't embrace Sabermetrics. He was annoying because he treated the fan like they were idiots and stated the obvious throughout the game. He added zero to the game, except to annoy anyone watching.
"He just stole that base so he could be in scoring position. Now if the hitter gets a hit, he can score a run"
Really, Joe? Thanks for letting us idiots know.
December 22nd, 2010 at 4:56 pm
HA! Take that Joe Morgan!
December 22nd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I've known Joe Morgan as broadcaster since his "GiantsVision" work back in late 80's. For a period of time, he was very informative. I learned a ton about baseball from his color commentary. But by the time he landed on ESPN, wow, he had just deteriorated into pompous wind-bag territory. I was amazed (often multiple times every game) at how graciously Jon Miller weathered Morgan's sour, angry gripes and insults. Morgan is simply incapable of listening or engaging in any sort of entertaining debate. Instead he tosses out thoughtless insults to any person or idea that does not perfectly correlate to his tightly held beliefs. There is a reason why the late sports broadcasting commentary website was named FJM.
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
As someone who enjoyed the team of Morgan & Miller, when I came across a reference to a web site called FireJoeMorgan.com, I thought it referred to the "other" Joe Morgan, who was either the Red Sox's manager at the time or had actually been fired already.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Alex Rodriguez is a great offensive player and would be considered so regardless of what position he plays.
He is not, however, a great third baseman.
I have a tough time considering him a good third baseman.
December 23rd, 2010 at 3:15 am
Just have to add my two cents on MrBryan's remarks about the World Series.
The WS is not incidental to the season. It is the ultimate point of the entire season. Ask the players on the winning team, the losing team, the teams that got knocked out in the playoffs or in the final weeks of the season.
That doesn't mean it's the be-all/end-all of the MLB season. Nor does it mean that a player's record in a small sample of WS (or postseason) games is more important, as important, or even 1/4 as important as his regular-season performance.
But it does matter.
To me, postseason performance is something that can lift a borderline HOF player over the top -- say, John Smoltz or Curt Schilling. In some cases, repeated poor performance in the postseason could turn my thumbs down on a borderline HOF player. But it doesn't significantly alter my opinion of a player.
Bobby Richardson and Billy Martin did have some fine WS performances, just as I'm sure they had many great regular-season games that helped their teams win. Overall, though, they were bit players in the Yankee dynasty. The fact that Martin outperformed Jackie Robinson in the WS is a drop in the bucket compared to how much better Robinson was over 154 games. With any generic 2B in place of Martin, the Yankees win the same number of pennants; with a generic player in place of Robinson, the Dodgers don't.
December 23rd, 2010 at 6:12 pm
So my last comment made me wonder who might be in that category already (great player, but no defined position). So I did a search, and looked at the top 10 guys by WAR who did not play *any* position for more than 49% of their games.
#1 was Frank Robinson, #2 is Rod Carew, #3 is Pete Rose. Then we get Paul Molitor, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Reggie Smith, Gary Sheffield, Dick Allen and Harmon Killebrew, with Andre Dawson as a bonus #11.
Frank R, Reggie Smith, Sheffield and Dawson were all outfielders, who would show up as outfielders in a more general search.
Manny, Thome, and Molitor DHd for at least a third of their games. So of the guys who count as playing 2 different positions in the way we normally think about positions (i.e. LF/RF being similar enough to count together), the #1 guy would be Rod Carew, followed by Rose, Allen and Killebrew.
Looks Alex will top this list (by WAR) if he ends up on it, which seems like a pretty decent bet.