Should Jack Morris have been voted into the H.O.F.

[Inside Pitch]

This is the thesis statement on where SABR and the pure stats guys fail.

Morris was a stud, plain and simple.. guy had more complete games than a lot of guys had wins, lol

As said he just won.. didnt care about the score.. didnt care about his own shit.. just wanted to pitch 9 and get the win... nothing else mattered.

The statheads of the world have to stop watching box scores more than the games... they are the one killing it and creating all these selfish asshat players that care more for thier stats than anything else... they have to, or it costs them money and such... its a joke as far as im concerned.

Stats have their place.. i too am a stats guy, but there is more to the game than pure stats, period.

 

Some might argue that a pitcher arguing to stay in the game beyond the point of effectiveness is selfish -- or does that street only go One Way?

 

Everyone talks up the CGs -- but he ranks 180th all time in that department.  He led the league in the department all of ONCE.   That's not really a knock on him, it's just the usage of the day.  

 

Geoff Zahn had a career CG% of 29.25%  Ken Forsch was at 29.04%.   Morris' 33.20 % is impressive but really, not so much above guys like Zahn and Forsch to really go apeshit over.  Bert Blyleven completed 35.32% of the game he started and yet he manged an ERA+ of 118.  That for me is where the entire workhorse agurment starts to fall apart.  

 

If you look at the year top ten for CGs and compared it to the top ten ERA+ for the years Morris pitched, you'll see guys that were in both lists, including Forsch.  The other thing you'll see by looking at those years top 10 CG lists is how often guys broke down after heavy usage.  Dave Stieb was completing 40% of his games in dominant fashion until breaking down.  Rick Langford was completing nearly 69.75% of his games from 1979 through 1981 before his arm blew up -- his teammate Steve McCatty was completing near 50% of his starts over the same span with the same result.  Saberhagen was over 30% until he blew up..  

 

If Morris had one really awesome attribute it was his ability to avoid injury.  If they ever make a Hall of Healthy, then sure -- I'd vote for Morris.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ender]

Nope. He doesn't belong.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Ender

[ScottT]

No

[stormngt]

This is the thesis statement on where SABR and the pure stats guys fail.

Morris was a stud, plain and simple.. guy had more complete games than a lot of guys had wins, lol

As said he just won.. didnt care about the score.. didnt care about his own shit.. just wanted to pitch 9 and get the win... nothing else mattered.

The statheads of the world have to stop watching box scores more than the games... they are the one killing it and creating all these selfish asshat players that care more for thier stats than anything else... they have to, or it costs them money and such... its a joke as far as im concerned.

Stats have their place.. i too am a stats guy, but there is more to the game than pure stats, period.[/quote

Well Said!]

[stormngt]

Call me sexist but i thought it was funny. Remember that conversation occurred when women first entered locker rooms. I can see Morris point if view.

[mulwin444]

Like others said...Hall of Very Good...not Hall of Fame.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I would have voted for him. If Gaylord Perry got in...

[Ochocinco!]

No

[Inside Pitch]

I would have voted for him. If Gaylord Perry got in...

 

 

So then you're saying yes?   Gaylord Perry is a HOFer.   He also had a career ERA+ of 118 and managed 303 complete games.  He was a world better than Morris.

[Brent Maguire]

There's no way Morris is a HOFer. People can try to spin it anyway they want but the stats don't back him up whatsoever.

If someone has a compelling argument, I would like to hear it. Because I have yet to see an good argument for Morris making it.

[HaloMilliVanilli]

Seems to me that Jack Morris was a pretty good pitcher, potentially dominant for several seasons, who elevated his performance during the postseason.  Seems similar to Curt Schilling to me.  Both came up great in big games during post-season play, but whose career stats fall short of HOF-worthy.

[Mark68]

Seems to me that Jack Morris was a pretty good pitcher, potentially dominant for several seasons, who elevated his performance during the postseason.  Seems similar to Curt Schilling to me.  Both came up great in big games during post-season play, but whose career stats fall short of HOF-worthy.

Schilling was actually better...in the regular season and postseason.

 

But he doesn't make it, either IMO.

[Docwaukee]

not that WAR is a perfect way to look at a starting pitcher, it's a decent baseline for how good a pitcher was during the time he was pitching. 

 

Morris is tied at 133 all time with a WAR of 43.8

 

to get to a point in the rankings where just about everyone is a HOFer, you have to go to the low 40's so let's say there are 90 guys in between with where lock HOFer stops and Jack Morris begins.  There are about 20 guys in the HOF of that 90.  Leaving about 70 other players that have better numbers that didn't make it.  A bunch of which have much much better numbers. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

Seems to me that Jack Morris was a pretty good pitcher, potentially dominant for several seasons, who elevated his performance during the postseason.  Seems similar to Curt Schilling to me.  Both came up great in big games during post-season play, but whose career stats fall short of HOF-worthy.

 

I don't know what more Schilling should have done. I guess the 216 wins over 146 losses in a 20 year career isn't exactly 300 wins, but no one is reaching that milestone much anymore. 

 

More than 80 WAR in his career depending on which way you want to calculate it, in 3261 innings, so it's not like the guy didn't go deep into games. He finished in the top ten in innings pitched 7 times in his career, along with leading the league in complete games 4 times. Opposing batters hit just .239 off of him for his career, holding them to a .198 average in 1992. 15th all time in strikeouts. That's not even getting into the post season performances. 

[YouthofToday]

This is a troll thread.

[disarcina]

well, I don't think of Morris as a HOF guy --

 

never a real dominate pitcher.......did win games, did help Twins win some big games........

 

but to me, it's sort of like Blyleven........and I know some disagree here (imagine that!) but some of these longevity guys that have put up pretty good career stats.......well, they still did not dominate during the era (s) -- because some of these guys spanned era's -- in which they played........

 

Morris NO.

 

BIGGIO -- YES.

[Brent Maguire]

Blyleven was a WAY better pitcher than Morris. 

 

His career WAR was twice as high as Morris' WAR. 

[NrM]

I honestly think Morris compares well with biggio. Both very long and consistent careers. Never one of the best players, but very good.

Like other posters have said, it's not the hall of good, it's the hall of fame.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Poozy

[happybat4]

Was biggio not the best NL second basemen in his era

[NrM]

Was biggio not the best NL second basemen in his era

Depends how you look at things. You can easily argue that Kent was better.

[YouthofToday]

Was biggio not the best NL second basemen in his era

Not good enough. Is Bobby Grich in the Hall?

[happybat4]

Did bobby grich get 3,000 hits, 600+ doubles, 400+ SB, nearly 2,000 runs play catcher for a few seasons as well,

[happybat4]

I for one think Grich should have been a HOF. I also feel Lout Whitaker belongs.

[AngelsLakersFan]

well, I don't think of Morris as a HOF guy --

 

never a real dominate pitcher.......did win games, did help Twins win some big games........

 

but to me, it's sort of like Blyleven........and I know some disagree here (imagine that!) but some of these longevity guys that have put up pretty good career stats.......well, they still did not dominate during the era (s) -- because some of these guys spanned era's -- in which they played........

 

Morris NO.

 

BIGGIO -- YES.

 

I think Blyleven had trouble because he played so long. The guy's career spanned 23 years. For most he seems like a compiler, because that's what he had become by the end. It's hard to remember but Bert was dominant when he came up. He had accumulated over 37 bWAR by the end of his age 24 season. To put that in perspective, our lord and savior Mike Trout is on pace for about 50, if he can keep it up.

 

He didn't seem to get the recognition in those days either, with just one year in the 70's earning him Cy Young votes, despite constant finishes near the top of the league in WAR, ERA, ERA+, & K's. The problem was his win totals weren't high enough. Lots of 15's, 16's and 17's. The one year he did get Cy Young votes was the one year he won 20 games. 

[Inside Pitch]

I think Blyleven had trouble because he played so long. The guy's career spanned 23 years. For most he seems like a compiler, because that's what he had become by the end. It's hard to remember but Bert was dominant when he came up. He had accumulated over 37 bWAR by the end of his age 24 season. To put that in perspective, our lord and savior Mike Trout is on pace for about 50, if he can keep it up.

 

He didn't seem to get the recognition in those days either, with just one year in the 70's earning him Cy Young votes, despite constant finishes near the top of the league in WAR, ERA, ERA+, & K's. The problem was his win totals weren't high enough. Lots of 15's, 16's and 17's. The one year he did get Cy Young votes was the one year he won 20 games. 

 

This is an excellent take.  Through 1985 Bly was an excellent pitcher -- a career ERA of 3.01, ERA+ of 127, 200 CG, 51 Shutouts, 2875 Ks, but he had a weak 212-183 W/L record.  We are talking about a guy who had been nearly 30% better than the league for 16 years at that point and had played in all of two all star games.  The mentality in those days being that Wins for SP meant something.  So he played on, got closer to that supposedly instant in number of 300 by going 75-67 from 86-92, putting up a Morris like ERA+ of 98 and IMO hurt himself by pitching at a much lower level.

 

It's interesting to me that Blyleven was looked at as a compiler due to the teams he played on over those years vs. a competitor ala Morris -- they were essentially the same pitcher from 86 through the end of their respective careers, the big difference was Morris played on winning teams vs Bly pitching on the Twins and Angels.  Had he not missed a full season due to injury over that time (91 season), he may have been able to get the 13 wins he needed to get to 300 wins and been an instant in.  It's also worth noting that the one season his team did make the postseason during that span, (1987), Blyleven posted a 2.77 ERA in the WS -- his overall postseason ERA was 2.47 with a 5-1 record over 47 innings (6 starts).  

 

Morris for all his hype about being a big game pitcher was essentially the same pitcher he had been over the course of his regular season career.... he compiled 7-4 record with  a 3.80 ERA over 92 innings and 13 starts..  Universally praised for his 91 WS with the Twins where he posted an ERA of 1.17 over three starts in the WS, he followed that up with an 8.44 ERA in two starts in the 92 WS, losing both games.  His ALCS in 92 wasn't any better as he posted a 6.57 ERA over two starts.  He was in fact winless the 92 post-season and responsible for 3 of the total of 4 Blue Jays losses that entire post-season.   Still, the perception was he was Reggie Jackson on the mound when it came to the post-season.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Inside Pitch