Joe Morgan Watch

During Sunday night's Phillies-Diamondbacks broadcast, Joe Morgan shared with his viewers his "keys for September." What will teams need if they want to capture a playoff spot? Surely, Joe would enlighten viewers with something special, right?

Of course, it's special because it's coming from a Hall of Famer. A rube like me (baseball career ended before high school) would never know that teams would need to get good pitching, good offense and "leadership."

So, to recap: contending teams will want to give up few runs, thus pitching is very important. Also, they'll want to score more runs than they give up, because as Joe Morgan pointed out "you can't win if you don't score enough runs," thus you need some offense (guys who can get on base? home run hitters? speedsters? Joe doesn't say, although I'll venture to say making outs will be bad and scoring runs will be good). Finally, you'll need players "who've been there before, or who at least know how to act when under the September pressure."

For example, the 2003 Marlins were LOADED with playoff experience... well, actually they weren't. They actually beat out the far more experienced St. Louis Cardinals and Houston Astros for the Wild Card, the defending National League champs in the Divisional series (led by postseason veteran Barry Bonds), and the Dusty Baker-led Cubs in the NLCS (a team led by vets like Moises Alou, Kenny Lofton, Eric Karros, Damian Miller, Mark Grudzielanek and Sammy Sosa). Oh, and they beat the mother of playoff-experienced teams (with leadership provided by the steady Joe Torre and Derrek Jeter) in the World Series.

But..... the Marlins did have the pitching and the hitting. In fact so did the Red Sox in '04, the Angels in '02, the Diamondbacks in '01, the Yankees in '96 and again from '98 until 2000, and the Marlins in '97.

Next, John Madden will list his keys to a good NFL season: a good defense that yields few points, an explosive offense that scores a lot of points, and a mistake-free special teams that scores points and allows none.

"All those years, I was the guy who said Pete [Rose] needs to be punished, and he has, for 16 years," Hall of Fame infielder Joe Morgan said in Wednesday's Philadelphia Inquirer. "If you are going to let people into the Hall who have done steroids, then you have to let Pete Rose in, because this [steroid scandal] has hurt baseball more than what Pete did.

Joe Morgan thinks that Pete Rose should go into the Hall of Fame if a steroid user does. Why? Well, I'm not sure exactly. He says that the steroid scandal has hurt baseball more than Pete's gambling did, but he doesn't really say how. Gambling on a sport by the participant calls the entire competitive aspect of the sport into question, and frankly, I don't see what could hurt a sport worse than that. But Joe thinks that if a steroid user gets into the Hall, that Rose's punishment is suddenly rendered too harsh. Well, here's the problem, baseball has it's own rules, and while 16 years seems like a long time, let's look at the rule governing gambling:

"Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." (Major League Rule 21)

Permanently ineligible? Sounds like Pete's got a long way to go on his sentence. If Joe wants to lobby to have steroids users banned from baseball permanently, that's fine with me. But every time he's asked what the punishment should be, he manages to dodge the question. Seems to me that Morgan's more concerned with getting his buddy into the Hall of Fame, than keeping steroid users out of it.

Fire Joe Morgan has the latest dissection of Joe Morgan's Friday chat session. No need for me to elaborate on what has already been picked apart so well.

But there is one matter I'd like to address.

TJ (Los Angeles, CA): Do you think that anybody was doing steroids during your era Joe?

Joe Morgan: No. The reason is they just weren't aware those things could help you. Same reason players didn't really lift weights before my era. They just didn't think it would help them.

KT: I will give anybody who reads this five hundred dollars for proof that somebody on the 1975 Reds did steroids, or anything of the kind. Go.

First, no, that was some other T.J. And no, I doubt Ken Tremendous will send me 5 c-notes in the mail (although I wouldn't refuse it either).

But forth comes Tom House, ex-Rangers pitching coach and former MLB pitcher in the 1970s:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Former major league pitcher Tom House used steroids during his career and said performance-enhancing drugs were widespread in baseball in the 1960s and 1970s, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday.

House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves' bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find in order to keep up with the competition.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey," House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s, when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."

House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs.

Take Tom House's word for it. Or not.

If you're a Cubs fan, you know about the Heckler, an Onion-esque free newspaper distributed around Wrigley Field

This was from late July. It's worth a chuckle or two.

I was at a wake Sunday evening, and caught only bits and pieces of Sunday's Cubs-Cardinals game on Sunday Night Baseball. I did catch one Joe Morgan faux pas, though.



Derrek Lee pulled a ball onto Waveland Avenue, and the third-base umpire originally ruled it a home run. After a brief argument from the Cardinals, the umpires conferenced. Morgan was right when he said just one other umpire would have had a good angle on the ball and it was the home plate umpire, Bruce Froemming. Froemming's name is pronounced "Fremm-ing" as this is a German name (sometimes his attitudes mimic his ancestors circa 1935 -- but that is a different story for a different day).

But Joe Morgan kept calling him Bruce "Fro-ming." Not once. Not twice, but at least four times during this conference which resulted in the home run call being reversed and ruled a loud foul.

Now if Froemming was a substitute ump, called up from duty in the International League to fill in for someone, this would be understandable. I'd even understand it if Froemming had only been around five or six years.

Problem is, Froemming is the senior umpire in Major League umpire. When the two leagues had separate staffs, Froemming was a National League umpire. His first season, 1971, was Morgan's last season in Houston before being traded to the Reds. Froemming umpired the 1973 and 1980 National League Championship Series and the 1976 World Series. Joe was on the field there. While Froemming never had the awe-inspiring presence of Doug Harvey (nicknamed "God" by National League players), he's been a part of the game for 34 years! You'd think Morgan would at least know who HE is.

Retrosheet is featured in this Wilmington (Del.) News-Journal article along with a few other Delaware-based baseball authors.

The founder of Retrosheet, Dave Smith, has some interesting stories of how he compiled all the game information spanning more than a century.

He also talks about his baseball theory.

"Joe Morgan was a great player, a wonderful combination of power and getting on base. But he didn't have a really high batting average, so conventional sportswriters sometimes disparage him. But as an announcer Joe Morgan himself talks all the conventional stuff. It's like he simply doesn't understand why he was a great player. It's heartbreaking."

Joe won't get a break here.

Sunday night, ESPN graced all Cubs and Cardinal fans with three hours of decent baseball, and three hours of non-sense from Joe. As part of a discussion of MVP candidates Derrek Lee and Albert Pujoles, Joe mentioned that players from teams that win divisions / pennants tend to win MVPs over players on teams that lose.

Joe cited Ernie Banks, stating that Banks won two MVP awards on "last place teams."

Patently false.

Banks won MVPs in 1958 and 1959. The Cubs finished tied for fifth in each of those years. This is just more Ernie Banks trashing on Joe's part to go part and parcel with the "Banks Boulevard" crap from a few weeks back. I don't know if Joe has a problem with Ernie Banks, the Cubs in general, or, just a blatant disregard for facts.

My bet is all three.

For what it's worth, the first MVP on a last place team was Andre Dawson in 1987. Why Joe didn't pick on Dawson is beyond me. Unless, Joe's just afraid Dawson will beat him to a pulp on the Cooperstown stage the year Dawson gets enshrined.

I've been a bit tied up the last few days, so I missed much of Joe Morgan's wisdom last night. I asked CT, Chuck and the Sloth to keep their ears open for any strange things Mr. Morgan might have said last night.

Meanwhile, I have changed the layout to an easier-to-read format. When I have more time, I'll jazz up the layout even more.

Looks like the Ghanian community is also fighting Joe Morgan.

Oh? Wrong Joe Morgan?

Adam Dunn has 151 home runs with the Reds. Joe Morgan has 152. Two more home runs and Joe is pushed further towards irrelevance.

It appears that they're not exactly fixtures in Cincinnati, outside of Tony Perez and Lee May, that is. Don't think that Joe's very beloved in the Queen City. From the Cincinnati Post's recent profile on Tony Perez.

Doggie, ever frown-proof, remains fond of a good laugh, which is why, when he's here, he hangs out with Lee May, a prolific supplier of them. He would see more of Johnny Bench were it not for golf. Joe Morgan comes to town only with a camera crew, George Foster when his inner-city baseball program is being saluted. Ken Griffey Sr. is a club employee of the elusive variety. Pete Rose is banned. Don Gullett has been fired.

The Great American Ballpark has a brewpub out in left field called the Machine Room Grille, and it celebrates the great Reds teams of the 1970s. Why just "Machine Room Grille" and not "Big Red Machine Grille?"

Apparently, it's because of Joe Morgan. As much as I'd like to blame Morgan for all the ills in the world, I won't make anything up. This Knight-Ridder article from this week explains:

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that the oddly named Machine Room Grille wasn’t named The Big Red Machine because the team and former star player Joe Morgan are in a dispute over who owns the trademark for the famous nickname of the Reds’ great 1970s teams. The Reds say they always planned to give the grille the name it has.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported exactly that, and it sounds like the Reds wanted that great guardian of the game to allow them to use the nickname.

Tom Wellington, an attorney at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, is assigned to the case. He told me both sides are discussing a settlement.

"I don't want it to be portrayed that there's a head-knocking here," said Reds chief operating officer John Allen.

"'Cause there really isn't. I know that, in conversations with Joe, we're in agreement. The Reds should never have to pay to use that trademark."

The Reds originally owned the trademark, but they let it lapse when owner Marge Schott was in charge. Morgan applied for the trademark in 1997, and he got it.

Morgan has never spoken about this issue.

Bonds' assault on these cherished home-run records has been tarnished somewhat by all the accusations and innuendoes he's faced regarding steroid use.

So far, all the fingers are pointing at the sluggers, but we don't know how many pitchers or non-sluggers have used steroids. MLB needs to identify and discipline every player who uses steroids, not just the sluggers who are having their names dragged through the mud.

Well, MLB wasn't disciplining anybody in April 2004, but the leaks indicated Bonds' association with Victor Conte and BALCO. From 1900 through 1997, only two people managed to hit more than 60 home runs in a season, and those two players did it one time each, and each time benefited from having a career year at the same time the guy who hit behind him had a career year (Gehrig's 1927 was about as good as it was going to get for him as was Mantle's 1961).

Then came 1998, when Mark McGwire hit 70 while being protected by the immortal Ray Lankford and Brian Jordan and Sammy Sosa hit 66 while being protected by Mark Grace, Henry Rodriguez or Glenallen Hill! McGwire hit more than 60 one more season, and Sosa did it twice more: in 1999 (for a 95-loss team) and in 2001 (with Matt Stairs, Ron Coomer or a decaying Fred McGriff protecting him. Pardon us for raising our eyebrows, especially when we noted that McGwire and Sosa had acne you wouldn't wish on a high school sophomore, that their foreheads and forearms had grown so much you wouldn't recognize a picture of either of them from 1993.

And then came Barry Bonds, who destroyed McGwire's record and quickly picked up ground on the all-time home run list. Bonds never hit more than 46 home runs before 2000 (and he had only three seasons of 40 homers or more), yet here he was hitting home runs at a rate no one has before at an age when most people's skills deteoriate badly. (I could compare Joe Morgan at ages 35-40 to Bonds, but that's not fair.) So, Joe, we're just trying to do your bidding, protecting the game from those that want to tarnish the achievements of all your buddies.

He goes on to ramble about there needing to be a tougher policy (what he proposes is more lenient than what is now in place), but it can't be perfect overnight. Yawn. He concludes with a real head-scratcher:

Some argue that players who use illegal drugs should be banned, too. I understand such thinking, except that drug addiction has been demonstrated to be an illness, while steroids are used strictly to enhance performance. And illegal drugs usually harm on-field performance -- just look at the careers of Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry -- while steroids are taken specifically to better one's achievement. Of course, steroids can do serious harm to the body, but a player takes them with the idea of gaining an unfair and illegal advantage.

Why is drug use considered an illness while steroid use isn't? I'm not exactly sure, but it might be because society considers drug use an addiction. Drug use can destroy the user, while steroid use can do that and potentially destroy the game of baseball and its cherished records.

Without getting into any of the medical studies about addiction (which I would be just as unqualified to do as Morgan), you can ask how many times Ken Caminiti relapsed with cocaine, when it was clearly ruining his life. I don't think classifying addiction as disease excuses the behavior (especially the original drug use), but is that what Joe Morgan is trying to do for 'roids users?

If you look to the left, you'll see an honor roll of blogs, most of them Cubs-related, most of them featuring our posters here (such as CT's View from the Bleachers, the Uncouth Sloth by the Sloth, Ivy Chat by Corey Patterson for Mayor chairman Chuck Gitles). You'll also see Desipio.com, the brainchild of Andy Dolan. All sites are worth a read, especially if you follow the trainwreck known as the Chicago Cubs. (If you've noticed, many of our postings have had a Ryne Sandberg vs. Joe Morgan tilt, and Morgan's one-way feud with Ryno has helped escalate my distaste for Morgan.)

You'll also see the groundbreakers in Morgan-bashing at firejoemorgan.blogspot.com. This site is definitely worth a read, although they have obviously broadened their horizons and have called out others.

Yesterday, they linked us to the New York Daily News' recap of Sunday night's Karl Ravech-Joe Morgan discussion of Rafael Palmeiro and steroids. The Daily News story, and firejoemorgan.blogspot.com are worthy reads.

CT unearthed a gem from 1996, but, as this Joesph Reaves column in the Arizona Republic points out, Morgan's shot at Sandberg was not isolated.

One week after Sandberg's surprise retirement [in 1994], Morgan was asked whether he thought the Cubs second baseman had a shot at the Hall.

"He's a great player, but not a cinch for the Hall of Fame," Morgan said in what was a fair assessment.

But then he took a few personal swipes at Sandberg.

"He was kind of quiet, and his teams never won anything," Morgan said. "He never showed me that kind of leadership. When things are going bad, you don't just walk away, do you?"

His teams never won anything. Sure Sandberg's Cubs won two divisional titles, but never made it to a World Series. Is this the threshold? Let's look at Morgan, then.

As I said before, there's no doubt that he was a great player, a Hall of Famer for sure. He played in four World Series: 1972, 1975 and 1976 for the Reds; and 1983 for the Phillies. But let's look at the Reds team he joined. Cincinnati won 102 games in 1970 before struggling in 1971. But the nucleus of the team (Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, Dave Concepcion, George Foster, Pete Rose and a young pitching staff) remained. Along with Morgan came starting outfielder Cesar Geronimo (who filled in nicely for Foster, who was injured for most of 1972) and new ace Jack Billingham.

The Big Red Machine won 95 games and the NL Pennant in 1972, but bigger things were yet to come. They won 99 games in 1973 (losing to the Mets in the NLCS), 98 games in 1974 (finishing second to the Dodgers), then 108 and 102 games (along with two World Series titles) in 1975 and 1976. The Reds managed one more division title in 1979 before Morgan re-joined Houston as a free agent. (We'll talk about Houston in a moment).

In 1975 and 1976, Morgan was National League MVP, and the Reds were most successful. Let's compare Morgan's supporting cast in 1975 and 1976 to Sandberg's in 1984. Here's Sparky Anderson's lineup for Game 1 of the 1975 World Series next to Jim Frey's lineup for Game 1 of the 1984 National League Championship Series

1. Pete Rose 3b Bob Dernier cf
2. MORGAN 2b SANDBERG 2b
3. Johnny Bench c Gary Matthews lf
4. Tony Perez 1b Leon Durham 1b
5. George Foster lf Keith Moreland rf
6. Dave Concepcion ss Ron Cey 3b
   
7. Ken Griffey Sr. rf Jody Davis c
   
8. Cesar Geronimo cf Larry Bowa ss
9. Don Gullett p Rick Sutcliffe p

Ignoring the obvious fact that the Reds' first four hitters are Hall of Famers (if you include Rose, who even Morgan concedes is a Hall of Fame calibre player) and the first seven were among the best in baseball at their position, let's methodically compare the two lineups offensively and defensively.

Sandberg and Morgan both hit in the No. 2 slot for most of their careers, so I won't even consider them. As far as leadoff hitters go, I'll take Pete Rose (and Pete would take the over on the money line) over Bobby Dernier, Bench over Gary Matthews, Perez over Durham and George Foster over Keith Moreland. Cey could hit for better power, so I suppose I'd take him as a better No. 6 hitter than Concepcion, but give me Ken Griffey and Cesar Geronimo, and it looks like the Reds have a 6-1 advantage over the '84 Cubs.

Defensively, I like Bench over Davis, Durham over Perez (barely), Concepcion over Bowa, Cey over Rose, Foster over Matthews and Griffey over Moreland. I'll say Dernier and Geronimo are a wash. That's a 4-2-1 Cincinnati advantage.

And outside of Rick Sutcliffe and Lee Smith, does anyone really believe the Cubs pitching staff matched up with the Reds, or that Jim Frey would be able to match wits with Sparky Anderson (if only for a couple breaks and more prudent managerial moves in San Diego, Frey would have had his chance in 1984)?

It's laughable to think Morgan in his prime could have led the Cubs any further than a before-his-prime Ryne Sandberg did in 1984.

But let's look at the second-best team Morgan played on, the 1980 Astros. That's right, I doubt you'd get an argument from Morgan that the 1983 Phillies weren't quite as good as the 1980 'Stros, who fell to Philadelphia 3 games to 2 in one of the best league championship series in history.

Let's compare the Astros' Game 1 lineup from the 1980 NLCS to the Cubs' Game 1 lineup from the 1989 NLCS. Scratch that. Morgan didn't play in Game 1, and Houston lost. Think about that. A Hall of Fame second baseman, given the day off in Game 1. I couldn't find an explanation for this, although perhaps he sat since Steve Carlton was starting for Philadelphia (Morgan was .264 lifetime with 1 homer in 104 at bats against Carlton). But while Houston lost Game 1, Morgan enjoyed the view from the visitor's dugout at Veterans Stadium.

Anyway, Sandberg played in just 10 postseason games to Morgan's 50, so Morgan had a good chance to establish himself as a money player, a Mr. October of sorts. Want to know his numbers next to Sandberg's?
G AB H R 2B 3B HR RBI SO BB AVG OBA SLG OPS
Morgan 50 181 33 26 9 3 5 13 19 37 .182 .323 .348 .671
Sandberg 10 39 15 9 5 1 1 6 6 6 .385 .457 .641 1.098

Extrapolated over 50 games, here are Sandberg's vitals next to Morgan's:
G AB H R 2B 3B HR RBI SO BB AVG OBA SLG OPS
Morgan 50 181 33 26 9 3 5 13 19 37 .182 .323 .348 .671
Sandberg50 195 75 45 25 5 5 30 30 30 .385 .457 .641 1.098

Tell me who you'd rather have in the postseason?

I think it's also fair to consider how Sandberg wound up never winning anything while Morgan lived a charmed life.

Sandberg was traded from the Phillies to the Cubs as the throwaway piece in a deal that the Phillies made to move a disgruntled Larry Bowa. Cubs' GM Dallas Green, the Phils' manager the year before, knew what he was getting in Sandberg, even though few others did. Sandberg joined a team that went 38-65 the year before, and Sandberg brought just six Major League at bats with him. A shortstop his whole career, he learned to play the outfield and third base in spring training 1982 before making the club as the Opening Day third baseman. By September of 1982, the Cubs groomed Sandberg to play second base.

What were the circumstances of Morgan's move from his hometown Houston Astros (where he had played his whole career) to Cincy? Morgan's trade is explained here on Astros Daily (where this trade is listed among the franchise's worst). But why make such a large multi-player team within your division with the one team that tied you for fourth (the Reds and Astros were both 79-83, 11 games out of first in the NL West in 1971)?

Additional speculation about this trade centers around management's desire to "split up" Morgan and Jim Wynn, who were friends and party-goers and may have been considered a risk to get into trouble.

Who sounds like the team player here?

You know, sometimes Joe just writes this stuff himself. We could probably print nothing in this blogspace but Joe's ironic quotes, without any further commentary to make him look stupid. So let's jump into the wayback machine to 1996:

In the final days of the 1996 season, Morgan was in Chicago to broadcast a Sunday night game when veteran sports writer Dave Van Dyck asked him how he felt with Sandberg about to break his record.

"I've never been introduced as 'Joe Morgan, the guy with the most home runs as a second baseman,' " he said. "I'm introduced as 'Joe Morgan, Hall of Famer.' "I don't think about individual stuff. I was a team player."

Now I know I've heard Morgan say on Sunday Night Baseball that he could calculate his batting average in his head on the way down to first base, but never mind that. I guess it never occurred to Joe that he got into the Hall of Fame based on his individual achievements

Maybe he should just be introduced as "Joe Morgan, pompous ass".

So long as we're aggregating Joe Morgan's idiocy, there's no reason not to catalog this piece from last week. On his most recent ESPN.com chat, Joe Morgan was asked this:

Travis (Indy): What did you think of Ryan Sandberg's induction speech? I thought there was a good message for players of this era.

Joe's response? Typical:

Joe Morgan: (10:06 AM ET ) I actually didn't get to see the speech but I saw all the reaction to it. Sometimes we have to be careful, myself included, in how we approach today's player and how we deliver a message to them. Sometimes they take it the wrong way and take it as pure criticism as opposed to constructive criticism. We'll have to wait and see how they take it.

So, to cut through to what Joe really said: Sandberg did a lousy job delivering a message to today's players. Joe avoids addressing Sandberg's point about playing the game the right way. Playing the game the "natural way." Playing the game with respect. I guess when the person saying these things has better stats than Joe Morgan, the choice is to bash the speaker and ignore the issues raised.

Joe Morgan isn't just a bad broadcaster. He's not just a poor baseball analyst. He's a bitter old man now that younger, better players are breaking his records.

That he, as the Vice Chairman of the Baseball Hall of Fame, refuses to address issues raised by the newest member of that Hall, is a disservice to the organization which he represents.

Baseball deserves to know if the Vice Chairman of its Hall of Fame endorses the induction comments of its enshrinees.

Read this recent piece in SF Weekly on Joe Morgan and his strange aversion to the book Moneyball. Morgan claims he never read the book (although he read an excerpt in the New York Times when the book was released in 2003), but he thinks most of the tenets of the book are wrong. The article's an interesting read, and if you didn't mind Joe Morgan before, you'll loathe him now. (You don't even have to agree with any of the principles in Moneyball either).

Interestingly enough, Morgan was part of a group that sought to buy the A's in the late 1990s. Morgan's group beat out a number of other suitors (one group included former Cubs TV analyst Steve Stone, with whom Morgan has feuded), but Morgan had to drop out of the group, which never consumated the transaction. Is Morgan's dislike of all things Billy Beane tied to this failed bid?

During Sunday night's Cubs-Mets broadcast, the subject of Rafael Palmeiro's "accidental" steroid ingestion came up. While Palmeiro's contention that it was all an accident seems laughable now, what if someone actually, honestly took steroids unknowingly?

We all know what the NFL would do. But Morgan was concerned about the equity of it all, since many players spend their offseasons in their home countries, where items banned by the FDA are legal. Shouldn't some mechanism be in place, Morgan asked, for foreign players who might make an honest mistake?

Can someone explain to Morgan that some of MLB's banned substances are available over-the-counter in the United States?

Let's get one thing straight. I never played Major League, minor league, NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA, high school or American Legion baseball. Primarily because I never enjoyed an at-bat in MLB, I cannot claim ownership of the game. As Joe Morgan said during tonight's Cubs-Mets game, "the game doesn't just belong to the current players; it belongs to yesterday's players." The context of the comment was the tired argument on steroid use. But Morgan's point of view bypassed the people who mattered most: the fans. It instead was about how it has screwed people like Joe Morgan and his buddies like Tony Perez and Johnny Bench.

Omitting the fans from the discussion is no accident with Joe Morgan. One of his favorite devices when losing an argument is falling back on the fact that he was a Hall of Fame second baseman who played on the Big Red Machine, blah, blah, zzzzzzzzzz.

Let there be no doubt that Morgan was a Hall of Fame player. He was a big part of the Reds in the 70s, the 1980 Houston Astros and the 1983 NL champion Phillies.

But this isn't about Joe Morgan the player.

This isn't the first, and it certainly won't be the last web site dedicated to critique baseball analyst Joe Morgan. He's hated by baseball purists, baseball modernists, current players, ex-players, front office types, sportswriters, fellow baseball analysts and all people of common decency.

Why? Two reasons. The first reason is that Morgan is the "A" color analyst for ESPN, so besides Sunday Night Baseball, Morgan is on hand for a couple other games during the week, All-Star festivities and the playoffs. If you're a baseball fan, you can't avoid him. The second reason is that Morgan is a bitter old dolt and his analysis is often based on false information.

The aim of this site will be to expose Morgan's poorly-constructed arguments, to review the pissing matches he picks with various baseball people (seemingly only to serve Morgan's purposes), and to refresh Morgan's memory about various things he might or might have witnessed during his storied career.