Talk:Joe Morgan

A news item involving Joe Morgan was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 October 2020.

Section sizes Section size for Joe Morgan (19 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 3,472 3,472 Playing career 1,131 12,795 Houston Colt .45s/Astros 2,660 2,660 Cincinnati Reds 4,304 4,304 Later career 4,700 4,700 Post-playing career 25 3,831 Hall of Fame 942 942 Legacy 2,864 2,864 Broadcasting career 25 12,575 Local gigs and college baseball 1,724 1,724 ABC Sports 1,506 1,506 NBC Sports 2,822 2,822 ESPN 5,248 5,248 Other appearances 831 831 Return to the Reds 419 419 Personal life 3,056 3,056 See also 828 828 References 28 28 External links 3,963 3,963 Total 40,548 40,548

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Baseball: Hall of Fame / Reds / Phillies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hall of Fame task force. This article is supported by WikiProject Cincinnati Reds (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Philadelphia Phillies (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Texas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Mid-importance). California: San Francisco Bay Area This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

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]

Not only am I not going to respond to the last post here, but I am going to remove all mention of the attack blog from this talk page. It's archived to history. If you'd like to introduce reliably sourced material about criticism or Morgan's philosophy re: statistics, please do so - but stop inserting spammy links for the attack blog which has become so prevalent on this page. Otherwise, blocks for meatpuppetry will be coming soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so much for open dialogue. The links I inserted were not spam. Blogs are an alternative form of media. The ones I referenced were "serious", reliable sports blogs. You are doing the casual visitor of Joe Morgan's wiki page a disservice by painting an incomplete picture of Joe. Now I remember why I tell my students that citing Wikipedia in their term papers is a bad idea. Respectfully, NP Np99163 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps the most renowned sports-related blog on the internet has something to do with Joe Morgan, and that information is deemed unimportant enough to be a part of his entry? That's pathetic, and the defense of Morgan shows just as much bias as those who attack him. Chris Berman's page mentions Deadspin (which has its own Wikipedia page, to boot), and it's not even named after the man! Almost every movie page has a mention of criticism, as do many other pages. An entire, and successful, site was started primarily as criticism of Morgan and the mere MENTION of it isn't allowed? That's laughable. People come to this page to learn about Joe Morgan. A mention of Fire Joe Morgan is relevent to that.

What's worse is deleting any message about the subject in the discussion page. Fascism at its finest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.202.76 (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak argument...

1. FireJoeMorgan.com was speedy deleted as non-notable. Fire Joe Morgan was proposed for deletion for lack of notability and also died. It's not a notable web site ("perhaps the most renowned sports-related blog on the internet" is what's really laughable here).
2. Every movie page has criticism because movies are not living people. Read WP:BLP before you try that one again.
3. As for Chris Berman, thanks for the alert. I'll look to see if that needs some trimming posthaste.

—Wknight94 (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there must be a way of referencing the criticism of Joe Morgan -- which is certainly out there, even in more mainstream sources (a Bill James book passage comes to mind) -- while still keeping balance. The opening of the article refers to Morgan as an "Emmy-winning commentator." Certainly this implies a certain amount of support for Morgan's work. I simply think this should be balanced by the fact that his commentary is not liked by everyone. This article is not "neutral" if it presents the positive without the negative.

Also, I wholeheartedly disagree with the tactics of wknight94 here. To remove a relatively civil dialogue here on the talk page and call it "archiving" seems to be vandalism, however unintentionally. Talk pages are not like articles. You should not take it upon yourself to edit out an argument because you disagree with it. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2005/04/press-for-fjm.html

The "attack blog" in question is very well-known and recognized by mainstream media (CNNSI, Newsday, NPR, among others) for both its remarkable style and its poignancy to current issues in sports journalism. Attempting to remove myself from the bias that I have as a subscriber, I find it hard to believe that it should be omitted from this particular wikipedia entry. As a broadcaster for the largest and most wide-reaching sports media company in the U.S., his opinions on sabermetrics have been heavily criticized, and thus deserve inclusion in his entry. Does a writer need to be paid by MSM to be "relevant?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.230.185 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this last comment, I checked the discussion history and see now that this argument is going nowhere. I strongly disagree with the censorship exhibited by this moderator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.230.185 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it is vandalism, and I also think WKnight does not show an ounce of maturity. Even if he is to claim that every Wikipedia page on a human entertainer should have no critism on it whatsoever. Is there a way to file a complaint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.225.150 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing any mentions of that certain Joe Morgan related sports blog is contrary to the entire mandate of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had existed in the 17th century, would you go and delete any mention of Galileo because it disputed the beliefs of the church? Thats the same thing you're doing. You don't believe what they say (FJM/Galileo) has any merit, so you've taken it upon yourself to prevent anyone else from having the ability to make that decision for themselves. Pathetic, disgusting, and offensive. Is this what Wikipedia is coming to, or is it one sad little man? 207.154.101.37 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Fire Joe Morgan is the best source of telling you what baseball really is. I can't believe that someone is stooping so low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.206.144.121 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just another contributor wondering why all mention of FJM has been stricken from this article. It's patently absurd, given the coverage of FJM by mainstream sources such at the NYT. Ridiculous. Leuchars (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark me up as another one flummoxed as to why FJM is insufficiently notable. Google Fire Joe Morgan. It's been covered all over the place. Beyond that, it's not really an attack blog aimed at Joe Morgan, despite the name. It's a journalism criticism site, and it's extremely reputable. Of course, it's no longer active, so that's a drawback, but it actually occupied a place in sports journalism history at this point, and saying it doesn't is patently absurd. Ginsengbomb (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FJM now has its own article on Wikipedia, it clearly now passes notability guidelines. Ginsengbomb (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources, and BLP issues trump everything anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it could be amusing in its irony - that they not only failed to get Joe fired, they also went belly-up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fairness, the purpose of the blog wasn't to get Joe fired (they make that clear in the About Us portion of the blog), and there's a difference between going belly-up and quitting :). Regardless, there's Moneyball-ish content in the article now anyway, and there are more reliable sources (ie major news media) than FJM to reference it, so I'm not even sure why I'm blathering on about this on the talk page here, hehe. FJM certainly doesn't pass the notability test. I know better. I just...like any fan of rational analysis of baseball, loved FJM! Ginsengbomb (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2009 (UT)

Well, okay, all the love for FJM by media elites and the fanboys on here aside, I doubt few outside that small circle has ever heard of the short lived FJM. It really *isn't* all that notable, but I see all the garbage about it is back on the page anyway.

Morgan, an Emmy-award-winning broadcaster for ESPN earned his bachelor's degree from California State University of Hayward in 1990.

The Baseball Hall of Famer and two-time National League "Most Valuable Player" accepted another honor-from academia-when presented with an honorary doctorate of Humane Letters from California State University, East Bay on June 14, 2008

Morgan, who promised his parents before signing a professional baseball contract that he would finish his college education when his playing career was over, got emotional when Cal State East Bay President Mo Qayoumi conferred the honorary doctorate degree upon him before the several thousand attending the commencement.

"I've always felt that the quality of your life is directly related to the quality of your education... If you continue your education, I believe you'll continue to improve the quality of your life." -Joe Morgan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.81.146 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the primary focus on Morgan as a ballplayer is laudable, I must admit that I was surprised to find no mention of his well-publicized comments regarding Billy Beane and Moneyball. I would have been bold and added them myself, but I thought there might be some conscious reason why Morgan's central role in the controversy surrounding Moneyball wasn't mentioned. Maybe this information was deleted wholesale with the FireJoeMorgan stuff? That would be understandable, though regrettable, since Morgan's outspoken distaste for sabermetrics and Lewis's book was the original basis for the blog.

Be that as it may, Morgan is widely known as perhaps the single most vociferous opponent of the book and of Billy Beane's approach, and this-- unless there is something I am not understanding-- seems to merit inclusion. A more thorough discussion may be more appropriate for the page on Moneyball itself, but it does seem that Joe Morgan's central role in the controversy surrounding this book should at least be mentioned. --Kajerm (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple - find a real source. All I've seen is nasty biased editorials and blogs. Another problem is that, of all people that have heard of Joe Morgan, I'd guess 98% know him as a great player and 50% know him as a great player-turned-ESPN commentator. Your assertion that he is "widely known" as anything related to Moneyball or sabermetrics or whatever has no basis in fact that I've seen. Even if you find some real source, it should only merit the smallest reference in this article, not the two or three entire sections that people are trying to claim here. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the rapid response. As it happens, I was adding a few sources as you were writing your comment, realizing that you had absolutely nothing to go on other than my unsupported "widely-publicized" and "widely-known". While this list is in no way comprehensive, I thought it was at least enough to merit a sentence or two in the article, perhaps under the heading about Morgan's career as an announcer.

• Discussion of Morgan's comments in the postscript to Moneyball
• Discussion of Morgan's opposition to Moneyball from San Francisco weekly
• ESPN chat with Joe Morgan
• ESPN chat with Joe Morgan

I'm sure I can dig up more, but I thought that was a reasonable start.

I sense a note of irritation in your comment; understandable, considering the bile Morgan's comments have drawn from bloggers almost certainly must have touched this article. I must confess some sympathy; it was difficult wading through all of the blogs to find more credible sources. I will attempt to find a few more if necessary.

Regarding the amount of article space that should be dedicated to this discussion, I believe that at present about two sentences in the section on Morgan's ESPN career would be quite sufficient. If there is signficantly more sourced material, or some new developments in the Morgan-Moneyball controversy, this could of course change. At present, more in-depth discussion seems more appropriate for the Moneyball article than for this one. Unless I am mistaken, we seem to be in agreement on this.--Kajerm (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The four links you gave above are the same or similar to what's been mentioned in the past. The first is in the book itself so is inherently biased, the second is from a biased editorial, and the third barely mentions the book. The fourth is the most interesting but has still not been reported in any reliable third-party source so why would it deserve a mention here? By the same token, we could add two sentences for every response he gave in these two chat sessions, but that wouldn't make for a very good encyclopedia entry, would it? And yes, the almost fanatic bile from bloggers, etc., have touched both the article and the talk page here to a very significant degree. This talk page was itself turning into a Morgan-haters blog! Moreover, sportscasters in general have been villified throughout the system - I only have the energy to employ WP:BLP for a few of them at a time. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in the process of finding better sources. In spite of past chaos on this talk page and present chaos in the blogs, I do hope that you realize I've been acting in in good faith, and not out of any personal grudge against Joe Morgan. Sportscasters are indeed villified, sometimes justly, but as you point out, there is no place here for that.

That said, I see no reason why it would be defamatory or even remotely contentious to mention that Joe Morgan has been critical of the strategies espoused in Moneyball, and of the book itself based on the above sources. Nothing in WP:V or WP:NPOV seems to exclude the SF Weekly source, or indeed Moneyball itself as verifiable sources for this fact. To cite them as sources regarding Morgan's intelligence, competence, family life, or grooming habits would make their bias immensely important, but I have no intention whatsoever of using them for such purposes. The ESPN chats (particularly the second) establish that Morgan made those comments, and both Moneyball and the editorial establish that he has been singled out by others as a critic of the book. While your point regarding the chat is well-taken, I think you can agree that even given the bias of the present sources, none of Morgan's other lines from the chats have been given anywhere near the degree of third-party attention that ones about Moneyball have received. --Kajerm (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm listening and WP:AGF'ing. My biggest concern isn't even sources. Put simply, my biggest concern is "who cares?" We're talking about one of the greatest baseball players in history here. And that's not me saying that, it's the Hall of Fame, it's 10 All-Star games, 2 MVPs, 5 Gold Gloves, etc. I barely care that he works as a sportscaster at all. I certainly don't care about his opinion of one book! Frankly I'm shocked anyone cares about this. I'm guessing the folks fighting for this weren't around when Morgan was dominating baseball in the 1970s. This isn't the Bible we're talking about. You'd almost have to point out the ramifications of his opinion just to prevent readers from saying, "So what?" What's next? Give his opinion of Bill James Presents The Great American Baseball Statbook? Or Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits & How Baseball Got Big? Or Ball Four? Then why stop at Morgan? Let's add a section to every sportscaster's article, ==XXXXXX's favorite books== That's an awfully hard sell. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, very fair point, and one I'm in total agreement with at least the spirit of. Morgan is by any measure (including, ironically, sabermetrics) one of the finest players to have ever played the game, and that is what the article, by and large, should be about. It just seems to me that if we are to mention him as a sportscaster at all (which for the sake of completeness, we must), this is worth including, even if it is little more than a blip on the radar of a great career. If Jose Canseco saw fit to target Morgan so explicitly in Juiced, I might make the same argument for including a sentence about that, although Michael Lewis has rather better journalistic integrity (and a better reputation.) Moneyball is certainly not the Bible, but it has been quite an important book in recent baseball history, inspiring a fairly large body of independent writing that has nothing to do with slamming Joe Morgan, John Kruk, or any other ballplayer-turned-announcer. --Kajerm (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Kajerm in his latest post. Wknight94, that you do not care about his career as the #1 baseball sportscaster for the #1 American sports media organization is completely irrelevant. Your last post exhibits considerable bias for Joe Morgan the player, instead of Joe Morgan the man. What has been demonstrated is that Joe Morgan is a vocal, public opponent of sabermetrics, essentially a school of thought regarding the valuation of players' abilities. Let me repeat: he is the #1 baseball sportscaster for the #1 American sports media organization. It would be foolish to assert that his role as a sportscaster and his negative opinions of sabermetrics are mutually exclusive and thus, have no validity. It seems as though his playing accomplishments are removing him from criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHarnden86 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I thought such a thing merited inclusion in this article - which I don't - the fact has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction anyway. The way folks are pushing this issue, I would think it would be very easy to find unbiased third-party references to how Morgan is not so in love with Sabermetrics. And yet, none appear here. It leads me to believe that this is simply the slanted view of a bunch of editors here (or one editor using numerous accounts to increase volume) who are so in love with Sabermetrics that anyone who dare not share that belief are shunned and must live in shame with their Wikipedia article branded with POV. This is not a new idea - people have been trying to shove Moneyball references into every baseball article since my earliest days here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy. Watch Sunday Night Baseball. Look at the transcripts of, or even participate in, any of his chats on ESPN.com. He can rarely talk for 20 minutes without arguing about whether statistical analysis of baseball is valuable as a field, not the book. His opinion of individual books is not important; baseball statistics is an entire field that he derides, and it is a field that has helped to guide GMs who formed several of the sport's recent championship teams. While jacket quotes aren't worth mentioning, this is.

Criticism is not an attack. This article presents an incomplete, biased picture of Joe. Plenty of articles about baseball commentators and athletes include discussions of criticisms and controversies, with sourced references. Why not do that with Joe? We do it with Manny Ramirez and Joe Buck. Look at their "Controversy" sections, and I bet you can write up a similarly fair one about Joe. Finally, Morgan has now spent almost as long as a broadcaster (1984 - Pres., off and on) as he did playing in the bigs (1963 - 1984), and yet the section on his playing career is twice as long. How is this balanced or NPOV?

XINOPH | TALK 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he's old school, not a figger filbert. I'm reminded of Bert Blyleven, who often criticizes the 100 pitch count as the guide for when to yank a pitcher. So someone needs to find something that points out that he puts down heavy reliance on stats - and maybe as an observation rather than as criticism, because there's a lot more to the game than stats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For such a great guy, it sucks that theres a whole section on the lawsuit, which is a minor and insignificant part of his life. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To reiterate like I said above, that LAPD section was pretty misleading and informative. It was a small piece of trivia that was made into its own section. If anyone thinks they can rework this info subtlety back into the article, here is the removed text:

  In 1988, Morgan was detained at Los Angeles International Airport, being accused as a drug dealer. ^[1] He was released when the Los Angeles Police Department realized their mistake in identity. Morgan filed a civil suit when he was denied the opportunity to file a formal complaint against the police department and was awarded $800,000 in 1993 by the Los Angeles City Council.

  smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the information in question doesn't deserve a separate section. If anyone decides to re-insert the text, the citation is in Smooth0707's comment. It isn't visible unless you click the edit tab. -Phoenixrod (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the purpose of the long quote about Bill James and Roger Hornsby is supposed to prove. James bias against Hornsby is widely known to have nothing to do with sabremetrics except for some isolated fielding metrics, and is mainly related to stories of Hornsby being a complete prick. In statistical circles he is also long considered to have been some kind of personal grudge against Hornsby. I distinctly remember James saying that Hornsby was perhaps the biggest "horse's ass" in baseball history. Quadzilla99 (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Morgan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fangsbites.com/2009/10/1st-ever-fangs-bites-mlb-tv-awards/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fangsbites.com/2010/11/2nd-annual-fangs-bites-mlb-tv-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Joe Morgan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)