From his latest ESPN.com article, which one has to pay for in order to read:

In re: the Wild Card:

It has accomplished exactly what Selig wanted it to accomplish -- that is, the wild card has kept baseball in the headlines in September. Before '94, when the division races were decided early, football came to the forefront and baseball lost its fans until the playoffs started.

Okay. A decent point. Let's see how Joe expands on it.

Today, more and more teams are involved in the wild-card races, so sports fans across the country retain their interest in major-league baseball. Without the wild card, too many fans lost interest from late August until October. With the success of the wild card, MLB remains a major part of the sports scene down the stretch -- it no longer gives September to football.

I did not just cut and paste that paragraph again, folks. That is indeed the follow-up paragraph. He almost literally wrote the same exact thing twice. Read them again.

Then, regarding the things teams need in order to reach the playoffs, he writes...

I've said this 100 times, and the Astros are a good illustration: Pitching without hitting is like hitting without pitching.

That is a brilliant analogy. How illuminating. X without y is like y without x. I understand x and y so much better now.

Pitching alone doesn't win games down the stretch. Some people get enamored with pitching and say it's the key to a winning baseball team. But we're seeing that isn't true. The teams that prosper score runs to support good pitching.

Once again, Joe Morgan is using his decades of experience as a player and commentator to explain to us, the naive viewing public, that you can't just field a team of 25 great pitchers and hope to win games. You also need some players to use bats, and you need to have those players swing the bats at the balls that the other team's pitchers throw to them, and you need them to try to reach base safely in some kind of succession in order to tally "runs" (points, in other sports), because otherwise, you will just lose like 1-0 in 34 innings every time, and it will get really frustrating.

Give me good pitching and good hitting any day over exceptional pitching and poor hitting.

Now, hang on, Joe. This is controversial. You're saying you would like a well-rounded team that excels in every aspect of the game, more than you would like a unidimensional team? One that only does one thing well and the other thing poorly? You fool! You maverick! Society will not accept this! You'll be drummed out of the institution for your hair-brained theories!

The Oakland Athletics are an example: They can win 2-1, like they did Tuesday night over the Angels, or they can win by scoring double-digit runs (as they have in four of the past five games). Of course, like any other team, Oakland could hit a slump. But with the way the A's are scoring runs and winning games (seven straight), I see them winning the AL West. By way of comparison, the A's are sixth in the majors in runs scored. The Astros are 26th. Enough said.

Yeah. Nobody in the world thinks the Astros offense is as good as the A's offense. But thanks for the sarcastic "in my face" snizz-ap. That was ice cold, Joe. Hey, by the way, who do you think wins the NL WC?

In the NL, I expect the New York Mets to win the wild card.

Why?

I have a feeling about them.

Okay. Great. Thanks. At least you have a good reason. What's your feeling based on?

The Mets have Pedro as their ace, and they haven't gotten much from Carlos Beltran this season (.267-14-62). But if Beltran gets hot, the Mets can win the wild card.

So...your feeling is based on a fact (that Pedro is their ace) and a negative thing (that Beltran stinks). Cool. Any final, random, and misguided thoughts about Jason Giambi?

...he's shown a lot of character to be able to take all the spears and arrows that have been thrown at him and still keep his head on straight enough to be a productive member of the Yankees.

It has been a difficult season for Giambi. The offseason publicity storm surrounding his leaked testimony to the grand jury in the BALCO case meant that Giambi was connected to steroids in the court of public opinion, even though he didn't actually test positive. But he has responded with a solid season (.277-25 HR-64 RBI) -- including four home runs in two days earlier this week.

Didn't actually test positive? Do you really believe, after reading that testimony, that Giambi didn't take steroids? Then, what was he apologizing for in that press conference? What is the point of mentioning that he didn't test positive? He took steroids. End of story.

I think Joe Morgan might be delusional. I'm serious.