Jump to content

Talk:Joe Morgan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Np99163 (talk | contribs)
18 edits
Remove criticism and attacks inserted by attack blog meat puppets
Line 15: Line 15:
|blp=yes
|blp=yes
}}
}}
==Criticism Section==
I understand Wikipedia attempts to be neutral, but I don't really understand the Criticism sections actually includes a sentence suggesting what could be considered positive about Joe's broadcasting. I attempted to remove it but was called out on being biased. How is discussing Joe's "eloquent" speech appropriate for a criticism section? (One wonders if the Joe Defense Force actually has a member, albeit an anonymous one.) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joejerome|Joejerome]] ([[User talk:Joejerome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joejerome|contribs]]) 17:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==College degree==
Any information about his college degree? [[User:Monolith70|Monolith70]] 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

--[[User:129.137.84.165|129.137.84.165]] 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Famous Lawsuit?

I was wondering if anyone wanted to add information about the famous lawsuit in which Joe Morgan was unconstitutionally detained by the police at an airport. I'm a recent law school grad and it seems to have some degree of legal significance.

whoops, sorry...i'm new to this and i'm not sure how to make a separate heading

==HR 200 & Steal 500==
==HR 200 & Steal 500==
What year did Morgan score HR #200 & steal #500, which made him first player do to it? [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 07:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
What year did Morgan score HR #200 & steal #500, which made him first player do to it? [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 07:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
:Looking at www.baseball-reference.com, I think HR #200 came in 1978, and SB #500 came in 1976.--[[User:Priceyeah|Priceyeah]] 07:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:Looking at www.baseball-reference.com, I think HR #200 came in 1978, and SB #500 came in 1976.--[[User:Priceyeah|Priceyeah]] 07:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

==Fans opinion==
this guy is pretty much hated by baseball fans, especially Oakland, shouldnt this make an appearance in his page?
:What is he hated for? If you can find a reference, by all means include it! [[User:Phoenixrod|Phoenixrod]] 05:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
::He is hated for several reasons: his poor (and often nonexistent) analysis of games, his irrational hatred for <i>[[Moneyball]]</i> and his general lack of understanding of the book, his refusal to listen to any ideas about baseball from non-former players, and the list goes on. For further evidence, I invite you to visit the archives of the blog http://firejoemorgan.blogspot.com. I really think there should be something in here about how reviled he is, but I'm not sure how it should go.[[User:Texinian|Texinian]] 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

==firejoemorgan.blogspot.com==
I think the firejoemorgan.blogspot.com website is kind of ridiculous. While his distaste for statistics (and sabermetrics) should be mentioned, that website is a little extreme. I'm not defending him, but he focuses more on how the player plays the game rather than how a manager should.

I have no idea what you mean by a little extreme. They take excerpts of his from broadcasts and online chats with fans and tear them apart. This guy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about when it comes to baseball. I wish he was stuck with the Cleveland Indians during the 70s so he could still hit great and have a 1,000 less career RBIs and then by his standards we can call him a non-HOF caliber player.

I don't think firejoemorgan.com is great evidence of an "anti-Joe Morgan movement". He does have critics, so mention them, those who disaprove of his dismissal of sabermetrics. Besides that this section just seems like a lot of self promotion for the website. I think mention of such criticism should be condensed and merged with the moneyball section to one section, critics or maybe criticism. Either way I don't think firejoemorgan.com should have it's own section let alone be lone evidence of a movement of angry baseball fans against him. [[User:Jtolman|Jtolman]] 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He is widely disliked. Beyond the fact that his commentary is insipid, he is lazy, he shows up late to his online chats (when he can be bothered to show up at all) and his remarks about Moneyball have really pissed off the SABR types.

:Ok, I no one has pointed out any indication of a movement against him except one blog. Either way, by all means it should be mentioned in the article that he has critics, and what they dislike about him, but I just don't see what place an excerpt of a chat including (somewhat biased) commentary has in a wikipedia article. I don't care keep it in the article or whatever, just seems kind of petty and misplaced on a wikipedia article. [[User:Jtolman|Jtolman]] 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:I agree that too much of the article is discussing Morgan's critics, and their campaign against him. Placing that commentary in the midst of the article is in violation of NPOV, in my opinion. A simple statement that Morgan has critics who disapprove of XYZ. I'd echo Jtolman's statements in toto. [[User:CraigBurley|CraigBurley]] 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:Just to reiterate... from the guidelines... "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." I think on those grounds that the FJM stuff should be shortened and the excerpt definitely removed. Also, given that FJM tends to use a "sabermetric" or "Moneyball" approach to its criticism, I think it can be moved to the "Moneyball" stuff. Since this is a very small part of Joe Morgan's work but occupies most of the article, it can probably be cut down as well. I'll take a shot at an edit now. [[User:CraigBurley|CraigBurley]] 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::*To start off, I should say that I may be somewhat biased -- I'm a loyal reader of the Fire Joe Morgan blog. That said, I think it should have a little more coverage, though I'm not exactly sure how best to do it. Certainly all that had been in this article was excessive -- especially the exerpt -- but I think a little more should be devoted. Would it be better to have an article devoted to the blog itself that could be referenced here? They've gotten some press (written up in Sports Illustrated last summer, for instance). I'd have to check the notability policy to be sure if this qualifies, however. Thoughts? ~~ [[User:Meeples|Meeples]] 06:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It's just that it's almost completely irrelevant to the subject of Joe Morgan, is all. If you were writing a book-length biography of Joe Morgan, FJM might merit three lines out of two or three chapters on his broadcasting/media career. It's entirely irrelevant to his central achievements; yes, it's important to discuss that Morgan has critics, but that (and providing a link showing that criticism) really should be plenty. [[User:CraigBurley|CraigBurley]] 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't understand at all how it's irrelevent. Joe Morgan is a pretty flawed announcer and an irrational human being, and referencing an outlet - which I discovered through this article, by the way - that discusses his problems is a way to go about it. It shouldn't be the focus of the article, but it truly is relevent. There was an interview done with by a guy trying to find out why Morgan hated Moneyball. It was pretty fascinating, the guy is a nut job. I'll try and find it, but that article might fit the tastes here a little more. The content can be referenced and linked and the reader can decide. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/134.121.244.108|134.121.244.108]] ([[User talk:134.121.244.108|talk]]) 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

::::*Makes sense, though he isn't very good at his job (but comments such as that seem to go against the biography policy here). What about making a separate page for the site? I suppose this isn't the best place to ask that question, but it'd be nice to get some input. ~~ [[User:Meeples|Meeples]] 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I strngly suggest some of the editors here either move on from editing this article or just make suggestions here. The biases shown here are enough to make anyone look suspiciously at your edits. [[User:Trevor GH5|Trevor GH5]] 23:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

:::An earlier commenter said that FireJoeMorgan.com was "just a blog." I too am an avid reader of FJM and general supporter of their system of logic (i.e., empirical, positivistic). More importantly, I wish to point out that FJM is a fairly-well respected blog in baseball and sports communities. It is consistently ranked in the top 50 of all sports blogs by Ball Hype ([http://ballhype.com/blogs/]), a website that collects and compiles social network data (e.g., # of inbound links from other websites) on all registered sports blogs. On January 23, 2008, FJM was ranked 10th among all baseball blogs. (Essentially, a rank of "10" means its the tenth most popular/visited/"hyped" baseball blog.) I've seen it as low as 1 or 2 in recent times past. Also, I wish to point out that FJM won the 2007 Sports Blog of the Year by BustedCoverage.com (a website ranked #13 overall by BallHype on 1/23/2008). The award was based on fan voting; FJM won over Deadspin, ESPN's TrueHoop blog, The Big Lead, and other elite sports blogs. See: [http://www.bustedcoverage.com/?p=1376]

:::My point is, FJM is more than "just a blog." Its graphical design is weak and simple (much like google's or wiki's), but FJM is a well-respected blog in the sports community generally, and the baseball world specifically.

:::Joe Morgan's wiki page should include some mentioning of FJM. FJM was created in honor (or spite) of Joe Morgan, but more generally, FJM serves to illustrate a major philosophy of sport analysis. Its philosophy is positivistic; It favors empirical observation of the world (through quantifiable, systematically-collected data measuring athletic prowess). Other media sources (including other sports blogs) do not favor empirical analysis of sports, but rather, favor opinion, superstition, and "intuition".

:::It should at least be pointed out that Joe Morgan's viewpoints are often met with staunch criticism from a LOT of people in the sports community (not just FJM and its supporters). FJM symbolizes the "branch" of thinking in the sports community, that players and accomplishments should be based on empirical data, not opinion or popularity. Indeed, it is ironic FJM won the 2007 blog of the year award. [[User:Np99163|Np99163]] ([[User talk:Np99163|talk]]) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

==Sabermetric critics==
We're back to more of this stuff about Morgan's fight with his sabermetric critics. This stuff is not in any way relevant to Joe Morgan. There is too much emphasis in the article on this stuff, instead of his very substantial impact as a player. This material should be cut down... long quotes and extensive discussion of attitudes towards sabermetric dogmas should be reduced almost completely. Would whoever is adding this stuff please let us know his/her view on why it's useful? [[User:CraigBurley|CraigBurley]] 14:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
:Again, you say it's irrelevent. You're wrong, completely. It is. It's not the most important thing in the world, but his relatively large base of critics is certainly relevent to his career as an analyst. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/134.121.244.108|134.121.244.108]] ([[User talk:134.121.244.108|talk]]) 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:*Morgan has gained large notability in current baseball culture as an analyst. He's also gained a lot of critics. I agree that there should not be an overemphasis on this criticism here, but if it can't be mentioned here and an article on such criticism (such as firejoemorgan.com) is apparently non-notable, where is such material to be placed? ~~ [[User:Meeples|M]]<font color="green">[[User:Meeples/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Meeples|eples]] <small>(<font color="green">[[User talk:Meeples|talk]]</font>)(<font color="brown">[[Special:Emailuser/Meeples|email]]</font>)</small> 17:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::Not for nothing, but given that firejoemorgan.com won Sports Illustrated's 2006 Media Award for best noncorporate sports website, doesn't that make them notable? [[TheyCallMeBruce|TheyCallMeBruce]]

:::I removed some of the info again, apparently some people refuse to believe that Morgan is not famous or well-known among the general public for his little feud with sabermetricians. [[User:Trevor GH5|Trevor GH5]] 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that Joe Morgan disagrees with Sabermetric supporters. SABR (the Society of American Baseball Research) has over 7,000 dues-paying members ([http://www.sabr.org/sabr.cfm?a=cms,c,67,35]) including Commisioner Bud Selig, sports historians, researchers, academics, ex-players, etc. An above commenter suggested more attention should be paid to Joe Morgan, the baseball player. While Joe's "master status" is that of a Hall of Fame baseball player, he also has made a considerable career out of offering sports commentary. Because of his post-playing-career success and popularity, it is worth mentioning that Joe Morgan "the commentator" disagrees with some members of SABR, an organization of baseball afficianados and experts. His philosophy of analyzing baseball is in direct contrast to the philosophy of Sabermetrics. Joe Morgan consistently makes arguments and statements that have little empirical support. FireJoeMorgan.com calls him on his methods of analying the game of baseball. The above argument that his "feud" with with sabermetricians is not well known among the general public is due to the fact that ABC and ESPN are not going to cover stories that present criticisms against a guy who works for them. Does wiki only want to inform the reader of mainstream media depictions of Joe Morgan, or should it offer a more "fair and balanced" perspective?

I don't know how else to effectively argue that FJM, or at the very least, some small section on general criticisms of Joe Morgan, should be mentioned in an encyclopedia page that claims to represent who this man is and what he has done in his life. Please see my comment in the FireJoeMorgan section above for more. [[User:Np99163|Np99163]] ([[User talk:Np99163|talk]]) 06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== Moneyball ==
Honestly, this section should be removed since it isn't relevant in anyway. We should also remove the Wiki's assertion that "small ball" has been refuted by many people as well. Everything is refuted.--[[User:Fayettehelle,NC|Fayettehelle,NC]] 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Ironically"... let me repeat that it is NOT "ironic" that Morgan was a good "saber" player but doesn't believe in sabermetric orthodoxy. Irony is a literary/rhetorical device. It has nothing to do with this. See wikipedia's entry on [[irony]] if you want to understand why. Morgan's stance against sabermetric dogmas is not itself ironic and is not intended ironically. If you mean that it's ironic in a tragic sense, to describe it as such would violate NPOV because it would assume that sabermetric dogmas are true and Morgan's views are false. I'm changing it back. [[User:CraigBurley|CraigBurley]] 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:*Perhaps you could explain to me how this instance does not fit into "situational" irony. I highly doubt anyone took the phrase in a literal, "tragic" sense. ~~ [[User:Meeples|M]]<font color="green">[[User:Meeples/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Meeples|eples]] <small>(<font color="green">[[User talk:Meeples|talk]]</font>)(<font color="brown">[[Special:Emailuser/Meeples|email]]</font>)</small> 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::*The section completely violates the NPOV undue weight policy-look it up. His little known (to the general public) feud with sabermetricians is covered in almost greater detail than his entire playing and broadcast career. Please look up NPOV undue weight policy.[[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 15:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor point: sabermetrics are almost entirely arithmetically derived, not based on complex calculus equations.[[User:129.79.38.5|129.79.38.5]] 15:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with Fayattehelle, Craug, Quad, et al about the moneyball info. Get a blog to post your angry rants people! [[User:Trevor GH5|Trevor GH5]] 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


It's a shame that any information on Joe's wiki page about Moneyball was removed. Please see my comments in the FireJoeMorgan section above for an explanation of this claim. [[User:Np99163|Np99163]] ([[User talk:Np99163|talk]]) 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== "Second Greatest Second Baseman?" ==
I have a problem with the statement that Morgan is "considered by many as the second greatest second basemen to have played the game, Ryne Sandberg being the best." Morgan is almost universally considered better than Sandberg:

-Bill James rates Morgan as the greatest second baseman ever (2000)
-Total Baseball rates Morgan well ahead of Sandberg (20 wins above an average player) (1998)
-SABR rated Morgan well ahead of Sandberg in a pool of the greatest baseball players ever (conducted in 1999)
-The MLB All-Century Team voting placed Morgan third among all second basemen, with Sandberg not making the top 8 (1999)
-The Sporting News placed Morgan among the top 100 players of all time, but not Sandberg (1998)

That statement just needs to be removed. [[User:Caspian88|Caspian88]] 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you ever look at [[Rogers Hornsby]] on MLB.com he was actually finishing ahead of Babe Ruth in slugging percentage for many years. He hit .401 over a 5 year period. If anything his career took a downward turn for many years and he still hit .358 over around 8,000 at bats.

That's before we ever talk about the achievements [[Jeff Kent]].

Admitted all of that is irrelevant, but there's substantial argument (not evidence) that Morgan is not in the top two ever. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] 03:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
==Houston info removed==
I removed the following unsourced material, per [[WP:BLP]]:
*Morgan has always been a critic of [[Houston Astros]] [[second baseman]] [[Craig Biggio]]. Although Morgan has never publicly admitted as to why he chooses to criticize Biggio, it is blatantly obvious anytime he calls a [[Houston Astros]] game. An example of Morgan criticizing Biggio was seen during a 2006 broadcast of [[ESPN]] Sunday Night Baseball. The subject of Biggio being a future member of the [[Hall of Fame]] came up and Morgan went out of his way to strongly disagree with Biggio being inducted. Many feel that Morgan has always been jealous of Biggio's success at [[second base]] and uses his personal dislike for the [[Houston Astros]] organization against him. It should be noted that even though Morgan does not approve of Biggio being inducted into the [[Hall of Fame]], Biggio has better statistics in almost all major categories in 19 [[MLB]] seasons than Morgan does in 22 [[MLB]] seasons. Most baseball fans living outside of Houston would consider this criticism of Joe Morgan an obvious example of exaggeration by an Astros fan, however. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:33, 24 January 2008

HR 200 & Steal 500

What year did Morgan score HR #200 & steal #500, which made him first player do to it? Trekphiler 07:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at www.baseball-reference.com, I think HR #200 came in 1978, and SB #500 came in 1976.--Priceyeah 07:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Morgan&oldid=186569778"