No, Joe was willfully ignorant, a living caricature of the sabr counter-revolution. He was an ostrich with his head in the sand from whose ass hung a neon ‘kick me’ sign. His open hostility, shown in the SF Weekly quote, is why FJM had to be.

McCarver may say 20 things 100 times more mind-bogglingly idiotic, but he doesn’t flaunt it like Joe did.

All said, though, it’s sad to see him go. He made one helluva Snidely Whiplash.

The subject of Moneyball was basically that the A’s exploited market inefficiencies to level the playing field. That is a valuable lesson for anyone in a front office, but not really relevant for a color commentator describing what is happening on the field. I am pretty sure Joe Morgan understands the value of getting on base.

In [14] you wrote “Blocking off a large segment of the world …”, which I though was meant to describe Morgan. Sorry if I misunderstood.

We are going in circles here, so I am not sure how else to explain it, but knowing Win Shares doesn’t make you objective. If Morgan believes sacrifice flies determine the best hitter, he’s free to have that opinion, and you are free to disregard it. Just because he doesn’t agree with your or my opinions doesn’t make him willfully ignorant.

Finally, who said a color commentator’s job is tell us who is a better player? I know I don’t want them to do that. Strategy is definitely a part of the job, but so too is relaying what it is like to be on the field. Morgan was strong on the latter, and for that reason I could always tolerate his weaknesses. As for the comp to an investment bank, I really don’t think that’s the model a color man should be following. I read that quantitative analysis every day and would blow my brains out if baseball telecasts adopted the same tact.

I know I am probably coming off as a fan, but I am not. I am glad he was replaced. I do not, however, see a reason for all of the hatred expressed toward him.

[21] What Moneyball said wasn’t pertinent to Joe Morgan’s job?? It sure was. I don’t follow you.

Finally, you said Morgan was ignoring a large segment of the baseball world, not reality.

No, I didn’t. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Again, why does Joe Morgan have to know anything about Win Shares, WAR or any other subjective form of objective analysis? He shouldn’t have to…at least not anymore than you or I should have to know what it’s like to play the game at the major league level.

If someone’s job is to understand and explain which players are better and which players are worse, which plays are better to call and which are worse, and so on, then the reason he should know about objective analysis (again, I have no idea what a “subjective form of objective analysis” is), is that these provide evidence the ignoring of which is practically guaranteed to result in bad answers to the question you’re supposed to be answering.

Why should an investment banker pay any attention to quantitative analysis? Well, he will be very bad at his job if he doesn’t. Is this because quantitative analysis is “infallible”? Of course not. So infallibility is a red herring.

[18] I don’t fully agree that statistics are objective. I see your point, but disagree enough that I feel there is a substantive difference. I’m not a logician/philosopher enough to explain it succinctly. Sorry.

[18] You are referencing a 2005 article though. At the time, a lot of people thought what Morgan did. If he still insisted the same things today, he’d be delusional. Instead, it seems more like he was misinformed, which again, isn’t a crime, especially on a subject that really wasn’t pertinent to his job.

I am all for looking at “objective statistics”, but that assumes the statistics are objective. Take WAR for example. There are two versions based on a different set of subjective criteria. Also included in both metrics are a series of components (fielding metrics, park factors, replacement value) that have subjective elements. In an ultimate case of irony, many defensive metrics are actually based on observed data. So, it comes down to a case of trusting your eyes or someone else’s.

Finally, you said Morgan was ignoring a large segment of the baseball world, not reality. Win Shares may (or may not) constitute a large component of reality, but it is a very small part of the current baseball landscape.

Again, why does Joe Morgan have to know anything about Win Shares, WAR or any other subjective form of objective analysis? He shouldn’t have to…at least not anymore than you or I should have to know what it’s like to play the game at the major league level. Both perspectives are valid, but neither so infallible that they require that the other take notice. I prefer to be more well rounded, but don’t think everyone else must. Being narrow minded might make a person less interesting, but it hardly makes them a villain.

But to pick up on what I meant was that Morgan would attack more fundamentally proven facts about baseball, such as the one where high OBPs lead to higher run scoring. I don’t expect him or any other announcer to cite correlation figures, but that understanding is pretty damn basic, and should be no more up for argument than the discussion of whether or not the earth is round.

Plus he gives me a strong example of (contraversion of) Objective Reality from (Fire) Joe Morgan:

“They (Red Sox) cannot beat them (Rays) by outscoring them.”

OK. I’ll accept that reality

I just cannot understand the attitude that’s displayed by the question, “who has cornered the market on objective reality?” What is that even supposed to mean? I don’t think I really have to explain to either of you (Noam, William) why it’s important to look at quantified records and well-defined measures rather than just stick with “I know what my eyes tell me.” Since I’m certain you don’t mean that, I can’t for the life of me figure out what you mean by asking about whether statistics are objective.
Also, I hope you understand that the fact that some large segment of the baseball pundit community pays no attention to, say, win shares, is not a good reason to think that by ignoring win shares they aren’t ignoring a large segment of reality. That inference would just be absurd.

Which leads me to:
[15] Again I’m going to agree with William. Where is this objective reality of which we speak? Who has cornered the market on objectivity? Remember, scientists still call something that they feel is proven a *theory*. I feel that that shows proper humility in a seemingly infinitely complex universe.

[14] Why is that offensive? There are lots of books I wont read because they are about topics in which I have little interest. If I was not inclined toward statistics, I wouldn’t read such books either.

Besides, Morgan really isn’t blocking off a large segment of the baseball world. Sabermetrics still occupies a relatively small space. Morgan is more mainstream than his critics.

Again, what are the objective realities Morgan should accept? Who defines them? And, are they really objective? It’s grossly unfair to say Morgan stood for a kind of “know nothingness” just because he didn’t know the things you wanted him to.

I’m with Jay, and with Emma. I don’t hate Morgan. But I think Emma put it well. The idea that you would just refuse to read something because it was a book about a computer that gives computer numbers, I find that not just wrong but offensive. Blocking off a large segment of the world (as Jay says, hostile to objective reality) because it doesn’t fit comfortably into the story you tell yourself and your audience about baseball, that’s just bad.

As I said in [2], he (and Miller) have redeeming qualities, no doubt about it, and sure, it’s natural to get defensive when you’re the centerpiece of a certain brand of criticism. But Morgan stood for a kind of know-nothingness that offends me deep, and I’m glad to see him go.

And, while I be at it, I have to listen to REMDog. That be torture. Don is great, though.

Good post, Emma!