Shut Up Joe

[TellItToTheDA]

Oh, not you Joseph. Joe Morgan.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/baseball/archives/223369.asp

People are saying (Felix) Hernandez should win. I'm not saying he shouldn't. But how are you going to judge what he would have done if he was on the Yankees. It's tougher to pitch for the Yankees and win or the Twins than it is Seattle. All individual awards are team awards. My MVP awards were won because my team helped me. … I think the problem I have, though, with some statistics is we start to individualize the players. I don't want that. It's still a team game. ... When you start to individualize things like that, it takes away the team concept from the game. It's like a pitcher who goes out and pitches five innings every game and doesn't give up anything. Is he better than the guy who pitches nine innings and loses one every once in a while? The guy who pitches nine innings helps the bullpen. The guy who pitches nine innings makes it easier on the manager for the next few games. There are so many things that are involved other than just throwing a number on something. If people think I'm not for that, then they're right. Because I still think it's a team game.

[JosephC]

Mr. Joe,

Explain to me how the heck Felix was suppose to get run support like the Yankees give C. C? Don't you think that perhaps the fact since never GETS ANY run support it makes him a STRONGER candidate for the Cy Young Award?
It's easy for a player like C. C. to go and pitch well since he is pitching for a world series. On the other hand, pitchers like Greinke and Felix pitch every game knowing that they might lose should a team score a run against them.
Also the last time I looked Mr. Joe, the Cy Young wasn't awarded to a team... it was awarded to a pitcher. Thus, I think it SHOULD be on an individual player.

Should he not win the cy young award, teams better watch out. He'll be back in 2011 with nastier stuff than he's shown in 2010. He's that kind of player.

[clarknova]

What he's implying is that individuals who do not play for good teams should not be eligible for individual awards. I wonder if he thinks that Greinke didn't deserve his last year. The fact is that historically the Cy Young and MVP awards each year for each league generally tend to go to players for post season (or close) eligible teams. The MVP Awards are actually a little skewed in my opinion because the award is supposed to go to "the oustanding" player in each league. The thing that creates what little controversy there is with that award is the definition of the word "valuable". The Cy Young award is a little more clear. It's simply for the "best pitcher". If Joe Morgan had his way there would be no way a pitcher could win a Cy Young award on a crappy team, no matter how well they pitched. There are already several team awards for great team efforts. They're called the Division and League Penants and the World Series Championship. What about Rookie of the Year Morgan? Does that rookie have to play for a winner? Isn't that an individual award too? Gold gloves? Silver Sluggers?

Joe Morgan won two NL MVP awards playing for the Cincinnati Reds (The "Big Red Machine") in the late 1970's. I'm wondering if what he's saying is that he would not have been as good of a player as it took for him to win those awards if he'd played for another team. That doesn't sound like he's very confident in his own ability to hit a baseball. His team won a multitude of team and individual honors. I wonder if he would feel the same if he'd put up those same lines with the 1975 and 1976 Montreal Expos (the worst team record-wise during that era... Besides the Mariners, but they didn't exist when he won his MVPs). Joe Morgan usually hit 3rd for those teams in a line up that went Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose as their 1,2,3 and 4 hitters. 4 hall of famers (I'm including Pete because it's his own stupidity that's keeping him out, not his numbers). So, he's saying he only deserved the MVPs because he played for arguably the most fearsome line up outside of the famed "Murderer's Row" of the Yankees? Ok, then fine Joe, you can't have it both ways. You weren't the most valuable player, you were the best statistical player on the best team in baseball. And you weren't even that! In 1975 Pete Rose had more hits, plate appearances, runs scored, doubles, total bases, and had a better OBP AND batting average that you, and only hit 4 less extra base hits. You had a better WAR and hit more home runs.

I think that's why Joe Morgan doesn't want Felix to win. It'll open the door for people to look back and question the viability of the other awards won throughout history and will make his look less impressive. I think it's a selfish thing to do. I don't think he's just "all about the team". Like The Big Red Machine was good because what, they wouldn't have been good players otherwise? If you were only an MVP caliber player because you played on the Reds, then you kind of suck Joe. There's just so much dumb about that, because he WAS an awesome player and he did deserve his accolades, awards, and his enshrinement in the hall. Don't try to take it away from Felix JUST because the M's are the Big Blue Disappointment.

[JosephC]

Interesting point on why he might take such a view. Like I said above, unless the award is suppose to be to the entire team, there is no reason Felix should not win this award. If I was a voter I would assure you Felix would be my pick. Last year it was pretty hard not to vote for Greinke. This year, it's Felix hands down.

[georgmi]

MVP is a very different award than the Cy Young or the Hank Aaron award. MVP is, by its very name, all about context--A-Rod was clearly (OK, OK, arguably) the best* player in the AL in 2003, but his value to his team was minimal that year--the marginal wins he brought them made absolutely no difference. Even though there were 9.1 (!) of them.

By contrast, Cy Young and Hank Aaron are--again by definition--about the best pitcher and hitter in each league. Context does not matter.

Also, it always amazes me that Joe Morgan knows so little about the game he played. I wish http://www.firejoemorgan.com were still active.

*Effects of steroid use ignored, because the voters in 2003 did not have access to that information.

[clarknova]

MVP is a very different award than the Cy Young or the Hank Aaron award. MVP is, by its very name, all about context--A-Rod was clearly (OK, OK, arguably) the best* player in the AL in 2003, but his value to his team was minimal that year--the marginal wins he brought them made absolutely no difference. Even though there were 9.1 (!) of them.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It SHOULD be very different. Context shouldn't matter, but it does, and pretty much always has. The problem we're running into (well, ok, Felix and vicariously us) is that people look at it like it's the pitching MVP. Not only that but, like you're saying "value" is arbitrary. Was A-Roid more valuable to the Rangers in 2003 than Manny Ramirez was to the Red Sox? If you look at it like anything less than a playoff appearance = failure, then A-Roid leading the league in Wins Above Replacement basically means nothing. Historically that 2003 MVP is an anomaly. Most of the time, it didn't really matter how well you played, if the rest of your team stunk, you weren't going to win any MVP's or Cy Young Awards. The Cy Young has sort of become the reason why pitchers don't win MVPs unless they re-write history. Since 1956 (the first year the Cy Young was awarded), there have been 5 AL pitchers to win the MVP and 3 NL pitchers. In 54 years. You can look back and see numerous occasions where a pitcher was clearly more "valuable" toward winning games than the hitter that won the MVP that year. in 1978 Ron Guidry won 25 games for the Yankess and posted a 1.74 ERA. Jim Rice won the MVP. In 2008 Dustin Pedroia won the AL MVP, Cliff Lee won 22 games for Cleveland with a 2.54 ERA. The Cy Young has become the pitcher's MVP, and it really hasn't been that. It's the reason why I would bet that almost zero casual fans could even tell you what the Hank Aaron award is for.

Here is a breakdown of the NL League leaders in 1984 for pitchers. I'm using this as an example because I heard a story about it on the radio comparing it to the Felix/C.C. debate. Take a look at it and try to guess based on who was the best statistical pitcher who the 1984 NL Cy Young award winner was.*

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...-leaders.shtml

I see a sea change happening. The old timers or "traditionalists" are going to fight it because so much of past awards were dependent on your team's performance, then the rest on "gut". Now that people are calling that out as unreasonable and unfair, they're coming up with absolutely stupid reasons to fight the logic (like Joe Morgan) of defining "value" and "best" or even as the MVP award states "most outstanding". The MVP award definition does not say "value is based on contribution to a winning team."

*It was Rick Sutcliffe who led the league in winning percentage and no other category.