Joe Morgan on OBP

[Gastric ReFlux]

Yah, secondary average is a cool stat. When James introduced it was with the idea of trying to bring to the surace a method that would roughly correspond to batting average, in terms of similar appearance, but measure all those things that batting average leaves out.

It's a strange and fascinating game that has many points of entry towards analysis. Some of the things the ballplayers say are valuable, but the statheads too. I liked some of what Morgan had to say in the post that started this, but there were some things which weren't supported. And I'm not going to let him slide on that just because he played the game so well for so many years.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Yeah - the irony of this thread is that Morgan didn't say anything approaching his usual heights of stupidity.

[sixfour210]

Originally posted by Dwolfson20
All I will say is that the problem is not a lack of respect.

I wouldn't walk up to a hall of famer and call his ideas "pure and utter crap" becasue that WOULD be disrespectful.

[Dwolfson20]

Originally posted by sixfour210
I wouldn't walk up to a hall of famer and call his ideas "pure and utter crap" becasue that WOULD be disrespectful.

Respect does not mean believing someone's ideas are correct just because of their reputation. In fact, it has NOTHING to do with the argument that a person has. Respect has to do with not insulting people or taking their argument personally.

If someone like Stephen Hawking were to tell you that the sun revolves around the earth, would you tell him that he was wrong? Or would you believe what he says, without testing it out for yourself, out of "respect" for his abilities in the realm of physics?

[sixfour210]

Another thing I don't understand is why you all aren't doing anything with your vast knowledge of the game of baseball. Why aren't you out as a correspondent for ESPN or a special assistant to a GM somewhere if you seem to know everyting there is to know about baseball.

I think what's really going on here is the "naive teenager thinks they know more than the parents" situation. You all think you know so much more than the actual guys who have devoted their entire lives to living and breathing the game. They've logged more hours and spent more time observing trends and skill levels yet just because you have access to baseballreference.com, you are a baseball god.

As I've said before, take a step back and take more in than you're spitting out and you just might get somewhere.

[sixfour210]

Originally posted by Dwolfson20
Respect does not mean believing someone's ideas are correct just because of their reputation. In fact, it has NOTHING to do with the argument that a person has. Respect has to do with not insulting people or taking their argument personally.

If someone like Stephen Hawking were to tell you that the sun revolves around the earth, would you tell him that he was wrong? Or would you believe what he says, without testing it out for yourself, out of "respect" for his abilities in the realm of physics?

I didn't say being respectful meant agreeing with a person based on their stature. But it certainly means how you come accross to them. There are ways of saying you disagree such as "I don't agree with them, here's why" and not "that's pure and utter crap". That's disrespectful to me. And it also comes off as arrogant when you think you know more than a hall of famer who has been in the game probably since before you were even born.

[sixfour210]

Let me add that statistics don't make you an authority of the sport of baseball. If that were true, the Red Sox would win every championship as long as they employ Bill James. It takes true experience and baseball knowledge, not knowledge of statistics, to become an authority of the game.

Maybe Ted Williams couldn't manage a team because he didn't have personal skills but he damn sure could preach about hitting all day and I'd listen to him.

[Dwolfson20]

Originally posted by sixfour210
I didn't say being respectful meant agreeing with a person based on their stature. But it certainly means how you come accross to them. There are ways of saying you disagree such as "I don't agree with them, here's why" and not "that's pure and utter crap". That's disrespectful to me. And it also comes off as arrogant when you think you know more than a hall of famer who has been in the game probably since before you were even born.

OK, I'll give you that the "pure and utter crap" statement wasn't absolutely necessary. But that doesn't address the argument that Morgan is wrong, which you have yet to do. If Morgan refuses to believe what statistics and studies have proven to be true, then I don't really know how saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about constitutes arrogance, because he clearly doesn't. Also, as has been argued in this thread, actually playing baseball and statistically analyzing baseball are two totally different things.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally posted by sixfour210
Another thing I don't understand...

Ah, yes......

[Dwolfson20]

Originally posted by sixfour210
Let me add that statistics don't make you an authority of the sport of baseball. If that were true, the Red Sox would win every championship as long as they employ Bill James. It takes true experience and baseball knowledge, not knowledge of statistics, to become an authority of the game.

Maybe Ted Williams couldn't manage a team because he didn't have personal skills but he damn sure could preach about hitting all day and I'd listen to him.

Winning a championship takes a lot more than hiring one consultant, even if he is Bill James, so making that statement is fallacious at best. Billy Beane is easily the best GM in baseball, but he has not won a championship yet. It takes a lot more than that (namely luck), to win a championship; having a great GM is just one of the main components.

[sixfour210]

Originally posted by Dwolfson20
OK, I'll give you that the "pure and utter crap" statement wasn't absolutely necessary. But that doesn't address the argument that Morgan is wrong, which you have yet to do. If Morgan refuses to believe what statistics and studies have proven to be true, then I don't really know how saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about constitutes arrogance, because he clearly doesn't. Also, as has been argued in this thread, actually playing baseball and statistically analyzing baseball are two totally different things.

I see exactly what he's trying to argue and I agree with him. That not one statistic can spell success for a team and that it's a good combination of a lot of them. Secondary average does not make you an automatic winner either.

And I would listen to Joe Torre lecture about winning over Bill James anyday.

[sixfour210]

I don't know where this luck stuff is coming from but it certainly doesn't hold up with me. It wasn't luck that the Yankees won 4 out of 5. It wasn't luck that the Diamondbacks won it in 2001 and it wasn't luck that the Angels won it last year. It was great managing mixed with great talent.

[Dwolfson20]

Originally posted by sixfour210
I see exactly what he's trying to argue and I agree with him. That not one statistic can spell success for a team and that it's a good combination of a lot of them. Secondary average does not make you an automatic winner either.

And I would listen to Joe Torre lecture about winning over Bill James anyday.

That's the problem: nobody is arguing with that! Morgan created a false controversy by implying that there are people out there who don't agree that it takes proficiency in several statistics to win, when in reality there are not. Just because you can support an argument that nobody disagrees with does not mean you know anything.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally posted by sixfour210
Let me add that statistics don't make you an authority of the sport of baseball. If that were true, the Red Sox would win every championship as long as they employ Bill James. It takes true experience and baseball knowledge, not knowledge of statistics, to become an authority of the game.

Maybe Ted Williams couldn't manage a team because he didn't have personal skills but he damn sure could preach about hitting all day and I'd listen to him.

Once more, for the record:

No one here is asserting that they can show a player how to become a better player. For that, I'd seek out a good hitting or pitching coach first, then a skilled player such as Morgan or Williams.

However, in the same way that analyzing numbers doesn't make a person able to play baseball, playing baseball doesn't make one able to analyze numbers. There are some statistical truths involved here - asserting that the walk is unimportant or that batting average is a better indicator of runs created than secondary average is simply WRONG. It's like saying that Pierre, South Dakota is the capital of our country.

So - let me see if I can spell this out. If Joe Morgan or some other Hall of Famer said, "Look at that young player's batting stance. I think he's going to really have a breakthrough in terms of contact hitting," I think that would be worth listening to. He has a level of understanding of the REAL-LIFE SKILLS involved that I don't have.

On the other hand, if Joe Morgan said, "Player A created more runs for his team than Player B," this is a historical fact that can be proved or disproved through analysis of the numbers. Now, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt in close cases, but Joe Morgan saying the walk is unimportant doesn't make it so.

Let me in turn add that being able to hit home runs doesn't make you an authority on statistical analysis. The truth is, to predict a player's future performance (isn't that really what this is all about?), you need two types of people: the number-crunchers who can tell you what's likely to happen in the future based on what's happened in the past, and the experienced coach who can see small changes in a player's performance and predict their likely effects. There is always some tension between the groups, which is why members of one group often deride the other's abilities.

As for Joe Morgan himself, his career as an announcer has shown that he is a windbag who is a member of neither group. Since games are not tests of clutch performance, character or leadership, I wouldn't look to him for enlightenment in any event.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally posted by sixfour210
I don't know where this luck stuff is coming from but it certainly doesn't hold up with me. It wasn't luck that the Yankees won 4 out of 5. It wasn't luck that the Diamondbacks won it in 2001 and it wasn't luck that the Angels won it last year. It was great managing mixed with great talent.

Where the "luck stuff" is coming from:

Everyone knows that if a team wins 90-100 games over the course of a year, that is a good team. However, even if they do so, they will likely have stretches where they lose a significant number at a stretch. Since superior clutch performance is likely a fallacy (and even if it does exist it is maybe .0001% as important as sportscasters would have you believe), there is an element of luck to a good team winning a given stretch of four out of seven games from another good team.

This is controversial, and different people would value the "luck factor" in different ways. But certainly luck plays a part. Put it this way: it's not luck that the Angels made the playoffs last year - that was because they were a good team that won 99 games. But the fact that they got hot at just the right time against other good teams was largely due to luck.

Or, as we Angel fans call it, divine intervention.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Or, as we Angel fans call it, divine intervention.

It was that rally monkey. I tried to sell the idea of a rally sloth to the Phillies, but they wouldn't buy.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

"Feel the wrath of the sloth....."

I like it....

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by sixfour210
How can you say that everyone in baseball has a different theory on postseason success and then bash Morgan for having one. His theory seems very logical to me in that teams who rely on the home run and walks generally don't succeed in the postseason but teams that play NL style ball and manufacture runs do.

Because there are lots of teams who have won the world series while focusing on walks and homeruns, many more than who played little ball.

If what Joe Morgan said were true, you would expect to find Gene Mauch among the all-time greats in postseason success, and Earl Weaver among the all-time failures. In reality, neither is true.

Jason

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by Aadik
On topic, I think EQA might be a better stat than RC. Discuss amongst yourselves.

I'll see your EQA and raise you some Win Shares.

Jason

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by Eckstein 4 Prez
As for Joe Morgan himself, his career as an announcer has shown that he is a windbag who is a member of neither group. Since games are not tests of clutch performance, character or leadership, I wouldn't look to him for enlightenment in any event.

My favorite Bill James quote:

We are supposed to believe that athletes are athletes not merely because they are fast, strong, quick, and well conditioned, but because there is something special inside them, this "character" that comes to the fore in the crucible of athletic competition. They are athletes, in other words, because they are better people than the rest of us.

If anyone would like to get into an argument about how Darryl Strawberry's immense character led to the postseason success of the Mets and Yankees teams he played for, I'm all ears.

Jason