Joe Morgan's place in baseball history

[Fuzzy Bear]

The recent poll taken here puts Joe Morgan out in front as the greatest 2B of all time.

Now I think that Morgan is a great player; a HOFer for sure. To this, there is no question. But the greatest of all time?

There are several things I remember about Morgan during his initial years with the Astros.

One thing I remember is that he was not regarded as a superstar, or even much of a star, until he hit Cincy. He was an All-Star in 1966 and 1970 with Houston, but he was not regarded as the best 2B in the NL. That distinction went to Bill Mazeroski in 1966 and Glenn Beckert in 1970.

We now know things that we didn't know (or look at) then. We know that Morgan's walks and baserunning put him light years ahead of Maz and Glenn. We know that Morgan's park hurt him, while Beckert's helped him. We know about park effects today.

Still, when Morgan was traded to the Reds, he wasn't considered a superstar. He was treated as a minor star, one who might be an improvement over Tommy Helms. He was NOT thought of as a major star and he was NOT considered to be a good defensive player.

This is the revisionist history I have trouble with. Morgan became a defensive legend in Cincy, but Morgan was A LIGHTLY REGARDED DEFENSIVE PLAYER DURING HIS EARLY YEARS IN HOUSTON!!! This is never talked about, but this bad-defense rep disappeared.

The disappearance of the bad-glove rep and the winning of Gold Gloves didn't put Morgan in the HOF, but it did put him in the discussion on "Who's the best, ever?" I believe that Morgan would not be as highly regarded today if his defensive rep didn't get an upgrade.

Is this how history unfolded to you? Do any of you remember Joe's bad-defense label in Houston? Where did it come from? Was it well-founded, or unfounded.

If Morgan was, in fact, an average to below-average defensive player in Houston from 1965-71, I could not support the idea that he is the greatest ever at 2B. I want to hear what others think on this.

[SmedIndy]

Fuzz -

His range factors were all above average in Houston. His stats look real strong. He made a few too many errors early in his career, and that may have shaped his "rep", but he was making a lot of plays.

And Houston was kind of a baseball backwater back in the day. It was the place with the dome and where Jim Bouton got traded to in 1969.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Fuzz -

His range factors were all above average in Houston. His stats look real strong. He made a few too many errors early in his career, and that may have shaped his "rep", but he was making a lot of plays.

And Houston was kind of a baseball backwater back in the day. It was the place with the dome and where Jim Bouton got traded to in 1969.

I agree that Morgan was probably better than his bad-defense rep. But that bad rep was a REAL THING, even if inaccurate, and I am trying to fing out where it came from. It dogged him for his entire stay in Houston.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear


I agree that Morgan was probably better than his bad-defense rep. But that bad rep was a REAL THING, even if inaccurate, and I am trying to fing out where it came from. It dogged him for his entire stay in Houston.

Probably better?

His RCs were around or over the 5 range for most of his Houston tenure. Well above league average.

His bad D rep, that I don't know about. I wasn't reading the idiot sportswriters of the country when I was in nursery school. Just looking at our idiot sportswriters in Indiana.

And if he had a "rep", so be it. His fielding numbers speak for themselves, rep be darned.

[pathogan]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


Probably better?

His RCs were around or over the 5 range for most of his Houston tenure. Well above league average.

His bad D rep, that I don't know about. I wasn't reading the idiot sportswriters of the country when I was in nursery school. Just looking at our idiot sportswriters in Indiana.

And if he had a "rep", so be it. His fielding numbers speak for themselves, rep be darned.

Smed, doesnt playing on rugs actually help him?do the figures adjsut for turf vs. grass?

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by pathogan


Smed, doesnt playing on rugs actually help him?do the figures adjsut for turf vs. grass?

That's a good point, Pat...I don't think conventional defensive statistics can adjust for turf v. grass.

Turf v. grass is a double edged sword for infielders. You generally don't have to worry about bad hops, so your errors get cut down, but also, balls go through faster, so you get to less grounders, resulting in still fewer errors, but also a diminshed range factor.

[Craig S.]

It's interesting to hear that many people don't think Morgan was really a great player at the start of his career. To me, this just goes to show how truly great a player he was, in that he could improve his game to such an amazing degree.

I think one of the most impressive facets of Joe's game was his baseball intelligence. Maybe that's why he was able to develop beyond what people thought he would. You can still get a feel for his intelligence and aptitude for the game whenever you listen to him do color commentary on a game.

I don't know if I'd put Joe first, but I certainly can see why he got so many votes. During his playing days, he represented a lot of what was right with baseball.

[Slippery Pedro]

OWP TOP TEN 11000+ PA    
1    Ty Cobb                    .781   
2    Stan Musial                .753   
3    Honus Wagner               .749   
4    Tris Speaker               .748   
5    Mel Ott                    .743   
6    Willie Mays                .735   
7    Hank Aaron                 .722   
8    Frank Robinson             .721   
9    Joe Morgan                 .701   
10   Eddie Collins              .701   

That's impressive company.

Amazing that, as great as these guys were - quality and quantity - so few played for just one city in their career.

[sweaver]

Little Joe didn't really improve when he went to Cincinnati--he just went from the worst hitting park in the league to an average one, and with a better offense around him which raised his runs scored and RBI totals.

Also remember, reputation is not fact.

[pwdennis]

Morgan had brief stints in 63-64 playing in Colts Stadium, which I recall as having rough infield conditions. In 65 the Colt 45s became the Astros with the move to the Astrodome. The Astroturf that was used in the Astrodome underwent many refinements during the first few years it was used (I seem to recall the seams initially being very troublesome). The first two years as a regular Morgan made a lot of errors - after that the error rate dropped considerably. Some of that was due to Morgan's improvement as a fielder, but some of that may have been due to improvements in the turf itself

Certainly in the two years prior to joining Cincinnati, Morgan's fielding stats didn't begin to suggest that he was a poor fielder.