Fire Joe Morgan: A Final Salute

This past November, in the dark shadows of other, more important world events, the baseball world was sadly forced to say farewell to its strongest supporter of VORP: the aptly named blog Fire Joe Morgan. VORP, for the uninitiated, is a sabermetric analytical tool used in baseball, and it stands for Value Over Replacement Player. For the sake of brevity, and because I don't think they're necessary for the purpose of this column, I won't explain the intricate details of how this statistic is calculated. Essentially the resulting number represents how valuable a given player's offensive numbers are compared to those of the average "call-up level" player at the same defensive position, expressed in runs produced over the course of the season. The stat is just one of many, and the fact that it doesn't reflect defensive abilities is a considerable one, but it is fairly critical stat because it successfully indicates a player's offensive value in terms of the most important result: runs produced.

As Billy Beane has repeatedly pointed out, contracts are based on what players have done in the past, not on what they will do in the future. When a player needs a new contract and GMs are figuring out just how much he's worth financially, VORP becomes invaluable. The accepted wisdom is that unless he's a stud, the average call-up level player is going to struggle at first. He's typically a kid in his early twenties who's produced in the minors but who's had very few major league plate appearances and thus is expected to door poorly in his first months or season facing major league pitching. But it's something that must be done for the long term benefit of the team. Now, if that player needing a new contract (or a free agent on the open market) has a VORP that is decent but not stellar, and he's on the wrong side of 30 years old, there's a good chance that it might save a team a substantial amount of money to simply call up that replacement player, sweat out his first season, and invest substantially less money in development to help him produce just as well in the majors as he did in the minors.

VORP is just one of a multitude of sabermetric statistics developed by the people at Baseball Prospectus, and they've become much more well known in the years since Michael Lewis's book Moneyball was published in 2003. Awareness and understanding of these analytical tools has grown exponentially among fans. And to a lesser extent, sabermetrics has also gained favor among the former players and journalists who are paid to discuss the ins and outs of baseball, and the commentators who enhance the TV and radio broadcasts of the games. And why shouldn't it? Sabermetrics does not supplant the tried and true statistics, it enhances and compliments them. To dismiss them as convoluted and impractical would be akin to dismissing the value of the electron microscope in favor of those 200x compound microscopes we all used in high school.

But, perhaps predictably, there are vocal detractors. Joe Morgan, who has been doing the color commentary for ESPN's Sunday night baseball for almost twenty years, is the most infamous critic of sabermetrics and inspiration for the aforementioned blog. Joe, a former player, is the kind of commentator who believes in intangible contributions. He favors words like "heart" and "character," and he believes that much of a team's success is attributed to disparate, unquantifiable, and almost imperceptible (unless you're Joe Morgan) factors. Minimizing the intangible factors, he would argue, ignores the soul of the game, the passion the players have for winning. Defenders, meanwhile, dutifully point out that these stats are not absolute predictors of success, merely helpful analytical tools, additional ways to dissect the games that add to -- not detract from -- the enjoyment of the game.

I can't knowingly speak to the specific demographic characteristics of the opposing sides of the sabermetrics debate, but at first glance it would appear that those who hail the system of analytical tools as a godsend are younger, while those who decry it as hogwash are older. As a fan, I sense a growing rift in the way baseball is discussed and appreciated. There will always be fans who admire the quiet leadership of Derek Jeter long after he's passed the prime of his career -- age is irrelevant. But I do get the distinct impression that more and more fans are learning about sabermetrics and are grateful to be able to evaluate their favorite player's and team's performance, both on the field and in the GM's office, in newer, more sophisticated ways. And it's more than likely that these are younger fans. I don't know how decisions surrounding commentary are made by the broadcasters (I'm talking specifically about Fox and ESPN), but I do suspect they approach their broadcasts from a lowest common denominator perspective. (This, I believe, is why the commentary in playoff games seems dumbed down -- but that's another column) And I think they're doing the fans a disservice by ignoring this growing demographic of sophisticated, knowledgeable fans. If the individuals making these decisions are avoiding complicated statistical analysis in order to garner as many new fans as possible, then they're underestimating the intelligence of the average fan, which is insulting. If they're actively working to squash sabermetrics, and are doing so simply for the sake of tradition, then they are simply out of touch. And if they're ignorant to the increasing sophistication of baseball's fans, well, then they're still out of touch.

Joe, ESPN, Fox, it's time to embrace VORP. Fire Joe Morgan may have decided to end their passionate deconstructions of your various tirades against sabermetrics, but they won many, many converts over the past few years, and their straightforward manifesto is an enduring rally cry.

Comments

[RCZ6]

I think you are combining two things that do not need to be combined. Sabermetrics is all about evaluating talent and being able to put a number to and predict a players performance from a GM's perspective. Joe Morgan is there to provide insight into the game as it is being played, and give a players perspective into the game you are watching. No one is asking him to try and build a team on a payroll, only to give you a glimpse into what the players might be thinking. So they are two different vantage points to approach the game from.

Also I have to say, I am a joe buck fan. He is the only good thing about fox sports. Not saying too much from the people that bring you Frank Caliendo every week.

[Tom Roberge - Huffpost Blogger]

I wouldn't attack Joe Morgan if he didn't specifically attack sabermetrics, Billy Beane, Michael Lewis, and Moneyball. I agree that it's mostly valuable for determining salaries and who to field, but there's no reason the numbers shouldn't be used when discussing an individual player's performance leading up the all-star game, or the MVP award - these are things that agents (try to) use to get their clients more money, and things that often get players contractual bonuses. If an undeserving player is getting more money, as a fan, I'd like to know, if only because (in theory, mind you; the following does not apply to the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, or Cubs) over-paying one player may lead to an inability to sign another, perhaps making for a flawed team.

Also, I had assumed that everyone had agreed that Joe Buck was an monomaniacal puritan years ago, and didn't even bother mentioning him for that reason.

[SaraNader]

"Baseball is a game. Game's are supposed to be fun."

" Jack Elliot (Tom Selleck)
from Mr. baseball

[HeresJohnny]

Umm, much ado about nothing? I can see the value of VORP as a tool (one among many) for measuring a player's value, I can see Joe Morgan's point that measurable factors are not always the most important when determining a player's contributions. To give a blog that title over a relatively minor dispute seems a bit over the top. Stats are great, but Joe Morgan played the game, and played at a very high level. He knows of which he speaks, one reason why I love to hear him call a game.

Why we're arguing about this, and not even mentioning Joe Buck's single handed quest to destroy baseball, is beyond me. That guy is an absolute disgrace. For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Richard Gere of play-by-play men is still calling baseball games. Please, get me somebody, ANYBODY, who knows how to reflect the drama in the game.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Who puts more butts in seats: VORP or Derek Jeter?

On the other hand, I celebrate when any low-budget team wallops the Yankees.

I fancy myself a quant jock, but I appreciate jock jocks.

[pfc1369]

Bill James is a wizard, and an enjoyable read for baseball fans.

At the same time, Joe Morgan has always been a pleasure to listen to, and he does a whole lot more than just talk about heart and desire and such.
He knows the game inside and out, and you'll learn a whole bunch listening to Joe Morgan (who in his playing days was also a joy to watch).

[SamEllison]

How long before pitchers and catchers?

Lies, damn lies and statistics!

[Citizen54]

P.S. I'd vote to fire Joe Buck.

[Citizen54]

Great piece. You might be right about the age angle, but let me point out that the master of sabermetrics, the living legend of sabermetrics, the man who popularized sabermetrics and the data-based analysis of players is the great Bill James. I suppose he's younger than Joe Morgan, but he's not a whippersnapper either. His ability to debunk assumed truths is incredible.

The Red Sox hired James as a consultant a few years ago and it seems to be working.

Man, I wish it were baseball season.

[ebrann]

The first major advocate of Bill James work The Baseball Abstract was Tony Kubek. Kubek, who teamed with Bob Costas on NBC in the eighties, was very straightforward and a pleasure to listen to. I always learned something when he called a game.

Perhaps it is not age but outlook that inclines one toward statistical analysis. Kubek is very much a liberal. Maybe that's why he likes facts over opinions. Facts have a known liberal bias.

[Tom Roberge - Huffpost Blogger]

I think there's more to it than age, certainly, but I'm wary of assuming too much when it comes to perspective and intelligence levels. As much as it irks me to talk to them about sports, I do have intelligent friends who discuss sports on a purely abstract level, citing things like motivation and pride and whatnot with no thought to actual statistics and strategy.

The bottom line is more and more of us prefer stats-based commentary to emotion-based commentary, and I wish the powers-that-be would take the hint.