I didn't see this as a hatchet job at all - I thought it was a pretty good article, and surprisingly unbiased coming from someone who obviously doesn't buy into the JP philosophy. Allemang gives credit in appropriate places, acknowledging the payroll cuts, the longterm plan, and the brilliance of the Kielty-Stewart deal. He quotes Ash, sure, but he quotes Billy Beane far more extensively. I enjoyed it.

Oh, and Ash is just sad - he's the Peter Principle in the flesh, a talented man who simply had no idea how to run a baseball team. Apparently he's bitter, too.

I'm sure I won't be the only one initially misled by "[Ricciardi] hit .214 and .178 in two seasons", thinking that he had played in the majors. Ricciardi played for a couple of years in the Mets' organization, but not at the major league level.

I agree with S.K., the article is good and the way is presented here is misleading, Ash comments are not the main story. Ash should not be a GM, and the ones that hired him were clueless. His comments about self prom maybe out of place, but the HS kids thing and the stolen bases, and the bullpen weight, the defence importance, etc. are going on discussions far from being solved...

I liked the comment about the media.....

At first, I wished I could have had an hour to explain things to people but, after you've been in this job, you say, 'I don't give a shit about these guys.

With all the attacks on him, I can see why he feels that way now.

Ash seems to be of the same opinion as Joe Morgan--that Beane wrote "Moneyball".

Coach, it's really not a hatchet job at all. I don't even think "Captain Crunch" was meant to be disparaging.

Plus, Ash is undoubtedly right about there being a lot of "ego" going on in Moneyball...but "self-promotion" does seem to attribute the book to Beane.

Lay off Joe Morgan already! To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "he didn't say half the things he said."

Aside from the very minor error attributing KL's graduate degree to Harvard, I thought this was an exceptionally good article. Allemagne takes pains to present both sides of the story, and furnishes good quotes from multiple sources ranging from Ricciardi (debunking the racism flap) to Ash (presenting the contrary viewpoint about ego in Moneyball) and even Jonah Keri of Baseball Prospectus (about JP's advanced understanding of assets). I see this piece taking the view of the patient observer waiting to see if JP's plan will work. I might be more confident than the author, but I liked his presentation of the facts.

Lay off Joe Morgan already! To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "he didn't say half the things he said."

Heh. Sorry, no way. Morgan did say a whole bunch of things, then twisted himself in knots trying to tell people he didn't say things he had. He changes his tune to suit his situation, then when he gets called on his contradictions he tries to pretend that the reader misunderstood. What a fraud.

I don't particularly care about him, so I don't complain about it. But I hate the idea that we should let it slide.

Joe Morgan is one of my favorite broadcasters. It's ironic that on Sunday night baseball recently Jon Miller described himself as an on-base guy and Morgan as a tools guy. As a player, Morgan was a high-OBP player with power who was underrated because of his relatively less impressive batting average and RBI numbers (though he still rightly made the Hall of Fame). Morgan's way of thinking was obviously very successful as a player and I find it fascinating to listen to his comments during a game (even though his comments are not always logically consistent and I don't always agree with them). I don't read his written columns, and I'm not convinced he would be a good general manager. He'd be a significant improvement in the Jays TV booth (but I'm sure he's not interested).

My only point to add is this: I don't know if Ash by times says what he says out of bitterness and pettiness or just isn't knowledgeable about the actual components of the OBP-Oakland way? Because, last year in one of his empty TSN columns and on a TSN broadcast, Ash made the claim that Ricciardi was undermining Buck Martinez by not including him in personal decisions.

Whether Gord Ash knew it or not this was no surprise as Oakland upper management had always had a small group of four/five decision makers calling the shots, and the manager plays who he gets. The information was out there because Jeff Blair wrote about this exact Oakland facet in his winter '01 article when Tosca was brought in to coach, and Blair was suggesting his hiring was there in place for a potential Martinez firing later on down the road.

Either way, thankfully he's gone. He was left running the show way way too long while the results were continually poor. If the Shannon Stewarts and Delgado's were to never experience "winning" in Toronto, it won't have been J.P. Ricciardi's fault. It's Gord Ash's. His poorly constructed 'championship calibure' teams wasted all their early seasons, filling the talent in around them with bunk.

Ash made the claim that Ricciardi was undermining Buck Martinez by not including him in personal decisions.

Well, if JP wanted to plan a vacation to Disneyworld for his family, I don't think he needed to run it by Buck, despite what Ash thinks. ;-)

Lay off Joe Morgan already!

Um, that's a joke, right?

"Joe Morgan" (or somebody signing his name on ESPN articles and chats) did write a lot of crazy crap (particularly about Beane writing "Moneyball"), and then accuses people of putting words in his mouth when they quote it. Great ballplayer (and a sabermatician's dream), but lousy analyst--and he's only getting worse.

Mike's Baseball Rants has made it a personal obsession to detail all his follies. Check him out at http://mikesbballrants.blogspot.com/

In my opinion, Gord Ash wasn't a particularly good GM when he got the job, did a poor job at the end of his tenure, was fired at just the right time, and was nowhere near as good at his job as J.P. has been. (Had Ash remained in Toronto, Alex Gonzalez would still be the shortstop, and Raul Mondesi would still be the right fielder.) But, I claim somewhat heretically, Ash was a reasonably good GM during the middle years of his reign.

He kept the Jays on the fringes of the wild card race during 1999 and 2000, despite having even less money to spend than J.P. does now, and despite being forced to trade two of his best players (Green and Clemens) to the teams of their choice. He worked hard at trying to find bargain-basement players - and some of them actually worked out, such as Craig Grebeck, Frank Castillo, and the multiple incarnations of Tony Fernandez. Ash also resisted the temptation to trade his Grade-A prospects for short-term help: remember when every media cheesehead in Toronto wanted him to trade Roy Halladay for Fernando Vina?

And, as Ash points out himself in this article, many of the Jays' young prospects were signed and developed on his watch (Wells, Phelps, Hudson, Halladay, Escobar, and others).

So, where did El Gordo go wrong? In my opinion, two major things. First, he was just too nice (too Canadian?) to be a GM. He gave his players too much security: many of the Ash-era regulars had long-term contracts, and knew that the club couldn't afford to replace them, so they stopped giving all-out effort. Ash also trusted his fellow GM's too much - I can't imagine another GM who would have taken Mike Sirotka in a trade. Ash was too accomodating to the players who demanded to be traded. (Can you imagine what would have happened if Roger Clemens had demanded that J.P. trade him? He probably would have wound up in Tampa Bay.) And, lastly, Ash was too generous with his money when he had some, blowing it on players like Randy Myers, Benito Santiago, and Raul Mondesi.

(Aside: the whole Clemens situation was a comedy of errors from the beginning. Ash and Beeston should not have offered Clemens his infamous out clause. And Clemens should have been smart enough to realize that a lineup built around Orlando Merced and Otis Nixon was not likely to win anything.)

Ash's second weakness was that he just didn't have enough baseball experience to evaluate talent. I can't imagine Ash being able to sort through the Gonzalez/Lopez/Izturis/Bush/Lawrence/Hudson situation in the middle infield, or determining how to get Vernon Wells in the lineup, or the other things that J.P. has done. (Of course, Ash would not have traded Paul Quantrill, who would look really good in a Jays uniform right now.)

Having said all this, I still think Ash was a little unlucky. Had Halladay, Carpenter and Escobar gotten good all at once, the Jays might have made it to the postseason at least once during the Interbrew era, and Michael Lewis might have wound up writing a book about Gordo instead of Billy Beane. (Ash's story would make an interesting read: how many other GM's were once in charge of ticket sales and the grounds crew? How many other GM's are so conspicuously unathletic, to put it kindly?)

Um, that's a joke, right?

No, it's sincerely not a joke. I mean, even if Morgan would flunk out of the College of Walks, Power and Analysis, I really don't understand the rancour that he provokes. His very name has become not just a euphemism for stupidity, but a synonym for it in sabrmetric circles.

And it's more than an intellectual judgment; many have a moral problem with him. It's like the pro-war types' view of France: "It would be one thing if you disagree with us. But it's quite another that you dare try and stand in our way." (Craig, I don't mean you; your indifference has been duly noted).

I don't mean to pick on Mike from Mike's Baseball Rants, but since Jurgen pointed it out and since he has indeed taken it upon himself to monitor Joe chat-by-chat...Mike seems to have four basic issues with Morgan's commentary.

1) Small ball. Joe's made the argument that on-base percentage isn't everything; you need to be able to move runners around and knock them in -- as evidence, he says the last three champs (Anaheim, Arizona and the Yankees) play "NL-style baseball."

I think this is something of a facile point; you can't win a championship on the ability to manufacture runs alone. On the other hand, it's at least plausibly arguable that an utter inability to manufacture runs might be a liability against the excellent pitching that you're more likely to encounter in the postseason. Not saying he's entirely right, just saying that his lesser included point is arguable.

2) Generation gap. Mike criticizes Joe for the whole "we were better in my day" routine, and Morgan has made assertions about juiced balls and implications about juiced players. I'm not comfortable with his point here, but it's quite understandable considering the source, isn't it?

We all like to think things were "better" in our day -- I've seen so many demonstrably false statements about music being "great" in the eras of our youth that I've stopped counting. It makes us feel better about how we conducted ourselves.

3) Stating the obvious. Geez, you'd think the guy was an ex-athlete with extended exposure to the modern sports media culture.

4) Factual sloppiness. Morgan will make a comment like "X is a .300 hitter, year-in and year-out," and Mike jumps in with "He hit .287 in 1998!" as I picture him firing a pistol into the air, Three Amigos-style.

Mike often describes Joe Morgan as if he's a freak of nature -- a man capable of brilliant insight and unspeakable idiocy. Isn't it more reasonable to describe him as an intelligent former ballplayer with sound in-game insights, but with predictable biases in favour of his generation's substance and style?

Mike D.

I think you've completely underestimated the extent of Morgan's inanity.

As Aaron Gleeman says, "At one point is it fair to call Joe Morgan an idiot?"

The other Mike's problems with Joe Morgan are completely reasonable--Morgan's no less an idiot than Richard Griffin, and the consensus here seems to be Griff's fair game. Mike might nit pick in places, but it's not inconsequential. People are asking him questions, and trust his opinions. If his opinions are based on false assumptions, or if he doesn't bother to check his facts, then it's worth criticisizing him for it because it's spreading disinformation. Rather than your ".300 average" example, here's a better one:

Sam (Ypsilanti, MI): Joe, I'm a big fan! In your column about the AL West, you note that the A's "Big 3" have been more vunerable than in the past. But look at their ERAs - Hudson 3.08, Mulder 3.26, and Zito 2.92. Struggling? These three are what is holding this team to a good record! Zito's 7-5 record overshadows that he is 1st in the AL in BAA (.197). What gives?

Joe Morgan: I don't think I said struggle.. I said they were more vulnerable. ERA's are just a personal thing. Wins and losses are what the game is all about. BA and BAA are personal stats. Those guys don't walk out and win three games in a row anymore.

[Mike: Ypsilanti from the old Border League? Yes, ERA's a personal thing. Personally Joe dislikes ERAs. Wins are what matter to Joe. Don't explain to Joe that the A's have won one more game than last year to this point. Don't tell Joe that Mulder is having the best year of his young career and has three more wins than he did at this time last year. Don't tell Joe that Tim Hudson was 5-6 at this point last year. Don't even tell Joe that as he was writing this the A's were preparing to win their seventh—not third—straight.

Look, the Big Three and still the Big Three. Their strikeout ratios are all down but besides that there are no possible complaints.]

And that's only the "bad". From the same chat, here's a sample of the "Ugly":

Stevie Ridzik (D.C.): Dig your work Joe...But one bone to pick, how can you say "the Blue Jays rely mainly on home runs." when they lead the league in BA-SLG-OBP-OPS-RUNS-RBI and are only 3rd in taters?

Joe Morgan: Listen to what I say and do not put somebody else's words in my mouth. I said they have a chance of winning because they have a great offense. I'm not sure where you got that. It seems that people want to put words in my mouth.

[Mike:That's horrible! Your own words are so much more edifying. Observe:

Joe Morgan: "This is in contrast to the Toronto Blue Jays, who rely mainly on home runs" (from Joe's June 19th ESPN article).

[Mike: It was a direct quote for goodness sake.

Look people change. As years go by, their opinions change and sometimes contradict earlier beliefs. But this was one day!]

Joe Morgan: I guess once a year I have to remind people to listen to what I say and not hear what you want to hear. I never said the A's were "struggling". I never said the "Blue Jays rely on HRs." All I ask is you listen to what I say and don't put words in my mouth! ; )

Those seem fair game to me. I think you even have to give Mike credit for not just picking and choosing what he responds to, but goes through everything Morgan says in those chats.

I think the fact that Morgan has focused much of his "criticism" against Billy Beane for "writing" "Moneyball" is the reason the SABR community has taken him to task, and I think it's completely justified. Morgan might not be the biggest idiot on TV, but he's certainly one of the highest profile personalities covering the game. And, let's face it, it's hard not to feel betrayed by the fact Morgan was a sabermatician's dream as a player, but as an analyst he keeps preaching Wins and BAs.

It's a bit late, so I apologize if this is incoherent...

Jurgen, I don't mean to be annoying about this, but by using the "gotcha" tactic of Mike's Baseball Rants, I can see just by reading the excerpts you quote that while you accuse Joe Morgan of "preaching BAs," he himself writes off batting average as a "personal stat" of secondary importance. It's right there in the passage you quote!

It's not like his criticism of the value attached to OBP was a defense of batting average; instead, it was more a defense of "small ball," the running game, and RISP hitting. I thought his OBP article swung his analysis pendulum way too far in the "NL baseball" direction for my taste, but he certainly wasn't glorifying batting average.

I also find it curious that you use the word "disinformation" rather than "misinformation." That implies knowledge of the truth, and a deliberate intent to mislead his readers. Do you really think he had an intimate knowledge of the Big Three's ERA and peripherals, but hoped nobody would notice? Or do you think he saw Zito's record stream across the ESPN ticker and figured he was struggling? Seems obvious that it's the latter.

"Disinformation" is conducted by those with an agenda. To whatever extent Morgan has a vested interest, it's in glorifying the style of play of the Big Red Machine and defending his peers and teammates from the statistical onslaught of the 90's and beyond. But it doesn't permeate his in-game analysis for the most part, and it hardly seems like a conspiracy to me. When I think of writers prone to journalistic "disinformation," I think of the likes of Griffin or Damien Cox -- who sometimes seem to ooze enmity toward certain of their frequent subjects.

Sometimes he's misinformed, no doubt about it. But the only objective standard by which he's an "idiot" is his failure/unwillingness to buy into the sabrmetric philosophy wholesale (to the extent that anyone can describe that as demonstrably "idiotic").

Who is he "betraying" by disagreeing? He played the game. For all we know, he might credit his walk totals to a picture of his wife he glued to his batting glove -- who knows? Our job as informed, modern baseball junkies is to try to predict how players will perform, and which attributes are important in roster construction. The players' job, though, is to still pick up the spin on the curveball, read the hops off the infield grass and slide around the tag.

I'm with Stephen T. Don't make him the GM, but do grant him his right to his player's opinion.

But the only objective standard by which he's an "idiot" is his failure/unwillingness to buy into the sabrmetric philosophy wholesale (to the extent that anyone can describe that as demonstrably "idiotic").

Or his claims that when people quote back exactly what he's written to him they're putting words in his mouth, or his insistence that his apparent nemesis Billy Beane actually wrote Moneyball--your pick.

I used "disinformation" provocatively, to be sure, because of Morgan's SABR approved baseball career on the field. I mean, it's not like he had Joe Carter's (or Tim McCarver's) career. You called me on it, and I'll concede that perhaps I overstepped my bounds.

I threw in the BA critique, when I shouldn't have (albeit it's valid), because the thrust of that quote was about pitchers and "wins". Of course, it comes down to wins. Nobody's praising the A's because they're saving a lot of money. It's that they happen to be winning when the Seligs of the world insist they can't. Joe's right that everything else is just personal stats, and that's where his defence of small ball comes in--players doing the things to help to your team win. It just so happens the SABR work is also trying to figure out what are the things that a player does that can help his team win. How Morgan and Jamesian sabermaticians explain what those things are, however, are vastly, vastly different.

Morgan's fine as an in-game announcer--he's no worse than others, I guess--but his attempts as an ESPN.com analyst are crap.

To be fair to Morgan, nobody comes off well in chats.

I agree that Morgan is a very good in-game analyst, and I certainly respect his opinions - when I can be sure what they are. Morgan himself changes them constantly, in order to show himself in a better light depending on the situation. That's why I say he's a fraud.

I don't care that he disagrees with things I think, or not much, even though it sometimes makes him look stupid/misinformed/take your pick. But I can't respect someone who isn't willing to stand up for the things he says, or has the gall to take two opposing points of view and refuse to admit it when it's called on him.

The "ballplayers were better in the 60s and 70s" thing is just irritating, and everyone falls into that trap. It's a stupid thing to say, but saying it doesn't make you stupid.

http://mikesbballrants.blogspot.com/
Wow, I would never have imagined Joe's first amendment rights would be the center of a raging debate.

First, I have to say that my Joe Morgan chat day reviews are basically carefree romps in the Elysian Fields of Joe's mind. They're just burlesques with tongue planted firmly in cheek, except when they are not. But it's all good clean fun.

Morgan says an incredible amount of things that make you go "Hmmm?" But I know he is not purposely spreading disinformation as some sort of baseball fascist, but wouldn't it be more fun (and wouldn't his chat sessions make more sense) if it were the case?

To Mike D,

To quote Sgt. Hulka from Stripes, "Lighten up, Francis." You and the rest of the Beastie Boys need to get back in the studio and put together an album already. It's been four years since "Hello Nasty" for goodness sake. And by the way, if you think I'm too tough on Joe, you should read how picky some people who email me "gotcha"-ing my "gotchas". [By the way, I was joking in implying that you are currently or have ever been a member of the Beastie Boys. I just wanted to make that perfectly clear in case you though I was serious.]

Dave,

I think thats the best and certainly the fairest assessment of the Ash era I've read. I think El Gordo gets a bit of a rough ride on da Box.

I don't think Joe is an especially good TV man. I gave up listening to him this season when a runner was thrown out at home plate, and afterwards Joe said he shouldn't have been sent. Watching the play unfold, I thought the player had to have been sent, and afterwards I expected a 'that was an awesome throw' comment.

Instead, Joe claims he wouldn't have sent him. And I guarantee if he hadn't been waved home, Joe would have vilified the third base coach. That's pretty unacceptable in my opinion.

Ash was a reasonably good GM during the middle years of his reign.

He kept the Jays on the fringes of the wild card race during 1999 and 2000, despite having even less money to spend than J.P. does now


I missed this earlier.

No way that Ash had less money to spend than Ricciardi does now. Yes, the budget in 1998/99/2000 was about $47 million, less in absolute dollars than the $52 million or so now. But in relative dollars, there's no comparison.

The Jays' April 2003 budget of $51,279,000 ranked 21st in baseball and was 73.1% of the average team salary.

1998-2001 comparison:

1998 $48.7 million, 12th in MLB, 121% of average
1999 $44.5 million, 18th in MLB, 94% of average
2000 $46.2 million, 22nd in MLB, 83% of average
2001 $75.8 million, 10th in MLB, 118% of average

It's no comparison. The budget is far tighter now than it was in the Ash years.

Add to that Delgado's really big money deal kicking in after the 2000 season and that it's STILL in effect this year and next despite the Jays reducing budget by almost $23 million between 2002 and 2003. In fact, in 2001 with a $75 million payroll, the Jays only had to pay Delgado about $10 million plus about a quarter of his $4.8 million signing bonus. So JP is most definately dealing with the backloaded portion of a contract which is taking up nearly 40% of his payroll.