Morris was tremendously valuable, with about 250 innings per year of above average pitching for better than a decade. Doing that today, he'd probably make 17 million dollars per year.

Take Morris's career, make it slightly better, add a few average years at the front end and the back end, and you'd have a guy who took several ballots to get in and a lot of people thinking he wasn't deserving because the peak wasn't high enough.

I really like AROM's post. However, I think Sutton shouldn't be in. He's my border, I think.

Sugarbear, Roy White's numbers don't make me think we're overcompensating. Looking at ops+, his aging pattern is nothing out of the ordinary

I really like AROM's post. However, I think Sutton shouldn't be in. He's my border, I think.

I agree that this is a good comparison. You really need to be willing to accept a Hall of Fame at least as large as the real one and be willing to value a peakless career to even consider Jack Morris.

I agree that this is a good comparison. You really need to be willing to accept a Hall of Fame at least as large as the real one and be willing to value a peakless career to even consider Jack Morris.

I know I am a small Hall guy, and really havn't contributed muh to these threads (Rice, etc) because I don't think any of these guy deserve it.

I do enjoy the arguments based on what the Hall is now - I just think more people value what people like Heyman have said in the past, even though they roundly criticize it now.

Or, in far fewer words:... but being the best starting pitcher in the 1980s is a good reason to elect somebody to the Hall of Fame.

I think that is a terrible reason to elect somene to the HoF

It's better than many other reasons people have, but the I don't think Jack Morris was the best SP of the 80s- not any more than Grace was the best hitter of the 90s.

Morris had a good winning % due to his teams, he was better than average but little more.

To cut and paste from my own HOM post:

Yet another way to look at Morris' durability "advantage" is to subtract another pitcher's numbers from Morris' and see what's left:

Subtract Guidry's career from Morris and you get 1432ip and an ERA of 4.71* (ERA+ of 87)
Saberhagen: 1261 ip, era 5.23, 78 era+
Stieb: 929 ip, 5.64 era, 72 era+
Key: 1232 ip, 5.07 era, 80 era+
Gooden: 1023 ip, 4.46 era, 92 era+
Viola: 988 ip, 4.72 era, 86 era+
Hershiser: 694 ip, 5.02 era, 81 era+

Sure Morris pitched 1000 ip more than most of these guys- but what was the value of those 1000 extra ip? If Morris pitched 2800 ip exactly as well as Stieb- then threw another 1000ip where he was worse than Jose Lima how does that extra durability help him or his teams?

*I normalized everyone's ERA/ER to Morris league average of 4.08 first.

This is an elementary question -- probably ridiculously elementary to some -- but how does ERA+ adjust for home park (or does it)?

Take Jack Morris 1985. 3.33 ERA against a 4.07 league ERA. Comes out to 122, the same as his ERA+. Either Tiger Stadium was flat runs vs. league (highly unlikely), or there's no adjustment.

(And not to reinvent the wheel here, but a 3.33 ERA vs 4.07 league is WAY better than 22% better, the number inferred by ERA+. Standard deviation should somehow be included in the figure here.)

Take Jack Morris 1985. 3.33 ERA against a 4.07 league ERA.

I think the "4.07 league ERA" number is already adjusted for Tiger Stadium. The actual ERA for the 1985 American League was 4.15 (although I'm surprised that Tiger Stadium was a slight pitcher's park that year (Pitching Park Factor of 98)).

(although I'm surprised that Tiger Stadium was a slight pitcher's park that year (Pitching Park Factor of 98))

That was typical of the way Tiger Stadium played throughout the 1980s.

Morris' best three year stretch was 1985-87 where he pitched 250+ip each year and his ERA+s were 122, 127 and 126.
Othe rpitchers during that exact same span:

In 1985 Stieb had 265 IP with an ERA+ of 172, he had a rough stretch for 2 years where Morris was better.

Charlie Leibrandt pitched 230-240 ip each year and his ERA+ were 154, 103 and 134.

Saberhagen had a 235ip 145 ERA+ year followed by 156ip 102 ERA+, followed by 257ip 136 ERA+,

Jimmy Key threw 213, 232 and 261 IP with ERA+s of 142, 120 and 164

Blyleven threw 294, 272 and 267Ip with ERA+s of 134, 107 and 115

Hough threw 250, 230, 285ip with era+s of 128, 114, 119

Gooden, 277, 250 and 180 IP, 228, 126 & 119 era+

Hershiser: 240, 131, 263ip, 170, 90, 131 era+

Reuschel: 194, 216, 227ip: 158, 97, 131 ERA+

I've omitted a few, but that was Morris best three year stretch- he doesn't stand out except for his raw ip totals.

he doesn't stand out except for his raw ip totals.

But raw IP can have value. I like your analysis in post #105 here. But what exactly is a reasonable replacement level? I'm comfortable that 72 ERA+ is below replacement, so Morris is below Stieb, but I don't have a good feel for whether an ERA+ of 78 or 80 or even 92 has any value or not.

I think the "4.07 league ERA" number is already adjusted for Tiger Stadium. The actual ERA for the 1985 American League was 4.15 (although I'm surprised that Tiger Stadium was a slight pitcher's park that year (Pitching Park Factor of 98)).

You're right, my bad; the figure has a star next to it, meaning adjusted.

However ... That's the multiyear figure, whatever that means. For 1985 itself, it was 107/106. Under no circumstances that make any sense was Tiger Stadium ca. 1985 2% biased toward pitchers. However they came up with 98, they need to reassess.

All of which proves up my initial thought: Morris's 1985 (and other years, I'd presume) are really getting short shrift by the ERA+ measurement. Morris's 3.33 should be compared to a HIGHER figure than actual league, not lower, since Tiger Stadium was a pitcher UNFRIENDLY park, not friendly. (For the record, Tiger pitchers gave up 4.54 RPG at Tiger Stadium against 4.00 on the road, far and away the worst home ratio in the AL.)

We're losing scope of (implied?) scale if we say that a 3.33 in Tiger Stadium is 22 (or 30, or whatever) percent better than league. The ERA scale is not proportionate; a 3.00 ERA is more than 33% "better" than a 4.00 ERA.

But raw IP can have value.

It not only can, it does.

but I don't have a good feel for whether an ERA+ of 78 or 80 or even 92 has any value or not.

Using 2007 as a guide, #1 starters* have an ERA+ of 133,
#2 115
#3 102
#4 90
#5 76

*Take 150 SPs with most ip, divide into 5 groups by ERA

For my money once you drop below 4th starter territory you're fungible

I've omitted a few, but that was Morris best three year stretch- he doesn't stand out except for his raw ip totals.

And his win totals over a much longer period, which also get short shrift.

The primary object of a starting pitcher is not to not give up runs.

Using 2007 as a guide, #1 starters* have an ERA+ of 133,
#2 115
#3 102
#4 90
#5 76

*Take 150 SPs with most ip, divide into 5 groups by ERA

For my money once you drop below 4th starter territory you're fungible

That seems reasonable to me. If you set "replacement level" equal to "average 5th starter", then from #105, you can make a case that Morris was more valuable over his career than everybody you mention except for Stieb, right? That sort of leaves him hovering right on that borderline to me, then.

Oh, and glancing at BB-Ref, I'm inclined to agree with SugarBear. I think Morris might be getting unfairly knocked in his ERA+ calculation. From 1982-89, except for 1985 (which gets washed out in the 3-year calculation), Detroit has park factors in the 97-98 range or so, whereas before and after that, Detroit's got park factors more like 102-104, which seem more like what I always thought - that Tiger Stadium was a bit of a bandbox. Odd.

Using 2007 as a guide, #1 starters* have an ERA+ of 133,
#2 115
#3 102
#4 90
#5 76

Well, Jack Morris practically defines the term "#1 starter," and hit 133 once in his career (in what probably wasn't one of his top 5 seasons). So either something's changed between his era and 2007 or something needs to be done with ERA+.

Well, Jack Morris practically defines the term "#1 starter,"

How so? He always struck me as good but not great.

How so? He always struck me as good but not great.

Well, the 133 is an average for #1 starters, so, it's somewhat akin to what you'd expect from about the 15th-best starter in the majors (13th-best in Morris' time). Isn't that sort of what Morris was - one of the 15 best starters but not quite top 5 or top 10 - for something like 15 years?

Oh, and glancing at BB-Ref, I'm inclined to agree with SugarBear. I think Morris might be getting unfairly knocked in his ERA+ calculation. From 1982-89, except for 1985 (which gets washed out in the 3-year calculation), Detroit has park factors in the 97-98 range or so, whereas before and after that, Detroit's got park factors more like 102-104, which seem more like what I always thought - that Tiger Stadium was a bit of a bandbox. Odd.

It was a bandbox. Tiger hitters and pitchers (essentially the same guys), it appears, were very inconsistent year-to-year in home/road performance, skewing the park factor numbers. In 80 and 85 they pitched bad and hit well at home; and in the other 80--87 years they didn't. There's no rhyme or reason to it at all. The only consistency was that they were at or near the top of the table in overall RS almost every year in this era ... which is why Jack Morris won a lot of games with a relatively high raw ERA.

ERA+

Dave Stieb - 122
Jack Morris - 105

WHIP

Dave Stieb - 1.25
Jack Morris - 1.30

IP

Jack Morris - 3824
Dave Stieb - 2895

Morris pitched for a few more years, had better run support, and pitched a shutout in a world series game 7.
Overall, he just wasn't as good as Stieb.

What I don't understand here is all the hate and negativity towards Morris.

How so? He always struck me as good but not great.

He was the ace every year of arguably the best overall team in the AL from 1980-88, rarely missed a start, pitched a lot of innings, started opening day every year, was never remotely overmatched by any other starting pitcher, won a lot of games, and put up stats worthy of an ace on a good team in a hitters' park.

Pitched a no-hitter and was terrific in the World Series.

Quite truthfully, I'm not sure what one points to (other than misleading raw ERA or the fact that he wasn't Pedro, Rocket, or Koufax) for the proposition that he didn't define the term #1 starter.

Well, the 133 is an average for #1 starters, so, it's somewhat akin to what you'd expect from about the 15th-best starter in the majors (13th-best in Morris' time). Isn't that sort of what Morris was - one of the 15 best starters but not quite top 5 or top 10 - for something like 15 years?

Much closer to top 5/top 10 than top 15. Look at the Cy Young votes in the 80s for starters (starting pitchers, that is.)

What I don't understand here is all the hate and negativity towards Morris.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he was a slightly above average starter who happened to pitch for a long time.

If he doesn't win that ONE particular game this isn't even a discussion.

If not for one bad day in Washington ...

25. Mark McGwire. A clear Hall of Famer on his accomplishments. If anyone says otherwise, it's a complete copout. However, without the condo-like body (and the steroids), I seriously doubt he would have hit 70 home runs in a season.

Some will claim that he hasn't been proven to have taken performance enhancers, but almost three years later I can think of no other reason why he stonewalled Congress and refused to answer questions under oath about "the past'' after previously claiming he didn't partake in the hard stuff. It's true he helped save the game, but I suspect he did it for himself, not the game.

Can someone please explain why the media savaged R Palmero (rightfully) for his arrogant finger pointing before congress, yet McGwire is getting attacked for not doing what Palmero was ripped for? This makes no sense. McGwire's story to me is rather simple. He used Andro, clearly a powerful PED, before anyone banned it, US Government or MLB. Once it got mass media attention showing the drug was in fact a powerful PED, McGwire dropped it.

Big Mac should be the case where we start to draw a line a little bit. Players pre 2002 should be looked at a bit differently than those busted after 2002-2003, when PED testing started.

Why do we still have our foot on Big Mac's throat? Why is he being treated like Palmero, who failed a legit roid test once MLB made it clear PEDs were unnacceptable?

What I don't understand here is all the hate and negativity towards Morris.

This drives me nuts. Who here hates Jack Morris?

Not thinking that someone is a Hall of Famer is a pretty far cry from "hating" them. Harold Baines was probably my favorite player growing up. I don't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame. I definitely don't "hate" the guy.

ERA+

Dave Stieb - 122
Jack Morris - 105

WHIP

Dave Stieb - 1.25
Jack Morris - 1.30

IP

Jack Morris - 3824
Dave Stieb - 2895

Morris pitched for a few more years, had better run support, and pitched a shutout in a world series game 7.
Overall, he just wasn't as good as Stieb.

Wins and winning percentage ... Jack Morris in a landslide.

At some point, you have to attribute pitcher longevity to something other than random chance. Maybe a guy like Morris kept going because he was able to adjust to losing a little bit physically, whereas a Dave Steib couldn't and didn't. And at that point, since makeup and guile and intelligence and pitch variety is an important part of pitching, isn't it more than a little possible that maybe Jack Morris was able to pitch very effectively until a much later age than a guy like Dave Steib for the simple reason that he was a better pitcher than Dave Steib?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he was a slightly above average starter who happened to pitch for a long time.

If he doesn't win that ONE particular game this isn't even a discussion.

This has now gotten ridiculous. Anyone who thinks Jack Morris was a "slightly above average starter" needs his head examined. That evaluation is so far off, it hardly merits discussion.

Oh, and he won more games than any pitcher in baseball between 1980 and "the Game."

This drives me nuts. Who here hates Jack Morris?

My attempt at humor failed. I was just joking here after being accused the other day of hating Jim Rice because he doesn't meet my standards and I think there are many better outfielders outside the hall.

Oh, and he won more games than any pitcher in baseball between 1980 and "the Game."

Fun with arbitrary endpoints!

This drives me nuts. Who here hates Jack Morris?

Not thinking that someone is a Hall of Famer is a pretty far cry from "hating" them. Harold Baines was probably my favorite player growing up. I don't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame. I definitely don't "hate" the guy.

Just for the record, I can't bring myself to put him in either, though it's a much closer call than the writers' vote, IMHO. Upon this reevaluation, I'm having a tough time figuring out why I don't think he should go in and remain convinced that if his career had been 1968-83, he'd have won 20 games a bunch of times and would be a shoo-in.

He was the most consistent starting pitcher in baseball for a long period of time on really good teams, pitched in a bandbox, and had big postseason moments and excellent postseason performance. That means more than a little.

It goes without saying that he should be in before Jim Rice.

Fun with arbitrary endpoints!

Not really, since it was addressed to the preposterous idea that "the Game" is what's giving Morris even his underweighted chance to get in.

Can someone please explain why the media savaged R Palmero (rightfully) for his arrogant finger pointing before congress, yet McGwire is getting attacked for not doing what Palmero was ripped for? This makes no sense. McGwire's story to me is rather simple. He used Andro, clearly a powerful PED, before anyone banned it, US Government or MLB. Once it got mass media attention showing the drug was in fact a powerful PED, McGwire dropped it.

Big Mac should be the case where we start to draw a line a little bit. Players pre 2002 should be looked at a bit differently than those busted after 2002-2003, when PED testing started.

Why do we still have our foot on Big Mac's throat?

If all McGwire ever took throughout his career was Andro, and he never took it after it was banned, than all he had to do was say THAT. But of course he didn't say that, he said he didn't want to talk about the past because he didn't want to perjure himself. I personally find it hard to believe all Big Mac ever took was Andro.

For the generation born between Roger and Bert, 1952-1961:

Jack has the most wins, 254

Dennis Martinez is second at 245-193, his ERA is 20 points better. He pitched a few more innings too. They are pretty close in a lot of numbers. Frank Tanana, Bob Welch, and Orel Hershiser are the others topping 200 wins. Eckersley is probably the best pitcher of this group. Then there's Key, Langston, Candelaria, Viola, Steib, and Fernando.

The next generation has more star power, but if they pitch Clemens #1, this generation can always counter with Dave Stewart.

Not really, since it was addressed to the preposterous idea that "the Game" is what's giving Morris even his underweighted chance to get in.

Actually, the two biggest arguments I hear for Morris are -

1 - 1991 Game Seven
2 - Winningest pitcher of the '80s.

Neither of those are particularly convincing arguments to me. I do agree he has a better argument than Rice, though.

At some point, you have to attribute pitcher longevity to something other than random chance. Maybe a guy like Morris kept going because he was able to adjust to losing a little bit physically, whereas a Dave Steib couldn't and didn't. And at that point, since makeup and guile and intelligence and pitch variety is an important part of pitching, isn't it more than a little possible that maybe Jack Morris was able to pitch very effectively until a much later age than a guy like Dave Steib for the simple reason that he was a better pitcher than Dave Steib?

Huh??? Dave Stieb was a much better pitcher than Jack Morris, and I watched both of them A LOT.

If you give each guy league average run support and remove that ONE GAME this isn't even a discussion.

If someone says how many WINS a pitcher had one more time I'm going to freaking puke.

This has now gotten ridiculous. Anyone who thinks Jack Morris was a "slightly above average starter" needs his head examined. That evaluation is so far off, it hardly merits discussion.

A 105 ERA+ isn't slightly above average???

Actually, the two biggest arguments I hear for Morris are -

1 - 1991 Game Seven
2 - Winningest pitcher of the '80s.

Neither of those are particularly convincing arguments to me. I do agree he has a better argument than Rice, though.

That's probably true, but to me "Game Seven" doesn't mean Game Seven alone, but instead puts an exclamation point on his wins total until then by ratifying the idea -- loudly -- that winning games isn't random chance. When he could give up 3-4 runs and win games in the Tiger Stadium bandbox he did that extremely well ... and when he needed to pitch a shutout for 10 innings in Game Seven of One of the Best World Series Ever, he could do that, too.

Game Seven is the "here's why" accompaniment to the "winningist pitcher of the 80s" meme.

A 105 ERA+ isn't slightly above average???

When the metric doesn't reflect the reality, I look first to the metric for explanation.

And it's been explained quite well above.

A 105 ERA+ isn't slightly above average???

When the metric doesn't reflect the reality, I look first to the metric for explanation.

And it's been explained quite well above.

OK, let's make it 110. How about 122 compared to 110?

Huh??? Dave Stieb was a much better pitcher than Jack Morris, and I watched both of them A LOT.

If you give each guy league average run support and remove that ONE GAME this isn't even a discussion.

You can't even begin to talk about run support without taking team offense and ballpark into consideration. Jack Morris won games. Winning games isn't random chance.

Puke away, if you will.

I watched them both a lot, too. Jack Morris pitched longer, better than Dave Steib. In every no year between at least 1979 and 1987 (and probably after that) would the Tigers have traded Jack Morris for Dave Steib (unless, of course, over money). Nor should they have, as Jack Morris was better.

That's probably true, but to me "Game Seven" doesn't mean Game Seven alone, but instead puts an exclamation point on his wins total until then by ratifying the idea -- loudly -- that winning games isn't random chance. When he could give up 3-4 runs and win games in the Tiger Stadium bandbox he did that extremely well ... and when he needed to pitch a shutout for 10 innings in Game Seven of One of the Best World Series Ever, he could do that, too.

Sample size....dude. Ever heard of BABIP? One game means virtually nothing.

Winning games isn't random chance.

Yes it is.

Because you guys made me curious:

Rice vs Morris: .301/.344/.458/.802

They faced each other alot. Personally, I like Rice better than Morris. But he's my favorite son candidate.

Sample size....dude. Ever heard of BABIP? One game means virtually nothing.

For losers, it doesn't ... dude. For winners, it does.

Having seen Jack Morris for many years before Game Seven, some of us understood that Jack Morris was probably the most likely guy around to pull a Game Seven like that. We don't use slide rules and pocket protectors as our sole method of player evaluation.

Contemplate that while you're reliving Dave Steib's 0-2, 4.26 postseason record and his fade to oblivion at age 33.

That's probably true, but to me "Game Seven" doesn't mean Game Seven alone, but instead puts an exclamation point on his wins total until then by ratifying the idea -- loudly -- that winning games isn't random chance.

So winning a single game 1-0 can ratify an idea "loudly?" So, if we take your pro-Morris arguments and sub in OBP for ERA and sub in RBI for Wins and take Joe Carter, we get, "So what if his OBP wasn't that good. RBIs should count for more than they're given credit for. Hitting a walkoff homerun in Game 7 of the World Series ratifies those RBIs--loudly!"

Yes it is.

Oh please. Where's Backlasher when we need him? He kept ridiculing the "its all luck" crowd in the Rice thread when nobody had even mentioned luck. I have heard of BABAR though.

He was the king of all elephants.

Game Seven is the "here's why" accompaniment to the "winningist pitcher of the 80s" meme.

Then what does the 1987 ALCS say about him? Or the 1992 postseason?

Jack Morris wasn't a particularly dominating postseason pitcher. You really have to cherry-pick his postseason starts to put together the case that he was.

But teams only have 1 starting CF. They have 4-5 SP when Morris play. It would be like saying the best infielder over a 15-year period doesn't deserve entry.

Teams also carry two catchers. Should they be twice as represented than other positions? Very few pitchers who weren't the staff ace are HOFers.

Backup catchers almost never play. #2 and #3 starters get almost as many starts as others. There's a reason why Cooperstown has almost 60 SP but the position with the most inductees (SS) is barely over 20.

Is it true that non-aces are very rarely HoFers?

Plank-Bender-Waddell. Pick who you want as the ace, it could only have been one. Two non-aces.

Keefe-Welch. Third non-ace.

Koufax-Drysdale. Fourth.

McGinnity-Mathewson. Fifth.

Gomez-Ruffing. Sixth.

Lemon-Wynn. Seventh. (lucky for them both Feller was a part-timer pitcher for the most part after WWII).

Chesbro was an ace for one year, but that was about it. Heckuva year, but that was about it. Eighth.

Sutton was no one's idea of an ace. I'm sure you can find an individual year here or there when he was an ace, but by those standards, there's hundreds of guys who should be in. Ninth.

Eppa Rixey, Burleigh Grimes, Rube Marquard, Herb Pennock, Vic Willis, Waite Hoyt, Jesse Haines.

I'd say about 16 non-aces. I'm sure if you looked it up, some would pass a decent ace test, but since there's only 58-59 starters in Cooperstown, I'd say a non-ace getting in is not all that rare.

For losers, it doesn't ... dude. For winners, it does

Dude, it's almost 2008, the arguments you are making are 1960ish.

If you really believe that a ML pitcher can to that degree control what happens in ONE GAME, why did Greg Maddux get hammered during the last week of the 2007 season when the Padres desperately needed a win?

BABIP dude. Unless Morris struck out 20 that day (he didn't) it was at least 50% luck.

Contemplate that while you're reliving Dave Steib's 0-2, 4.26 postseason record and his fade to oblivion at age 33.

So if the Jays had scored 10 runs in each of those games, and Stieb had a 2-0 post season record would you have a different opinion of him?

Keefe-Welch.

I'm sure Jack Keefe will be very happy to know that you consider him to be an ace.

Some losers who lost World Series Game Sevens:
Walter Johnson
Whitey Ford
Bob Gibson
Christy Mathewson (*Game 8)
Waite Hoyt (*twice... once in Game 8)
Don Newcombe
Mariano Rivera

Using 2007 as a guide, #1 starters* have an ERA+ of 133,
#2 115
#3 102
#4 90
#5 76

I figured it for 2005-6 and came out a little differently at top, but about the same later. A fifth starter was around 78-80, so that's replacement level. And that was all four leagues over the two years. I also had 90 ERA+ as fourth starter. From memory (too lazy to go to primate studies and look up my own article) I had:

#1 118 ERA+
#2 103
#3 96
#4 89
#5 78

In 2005-6, John Lackey was the typical ace, Jeff Suppan the #2, Josh Fogg the #4. There was no #5 able to keep his job that long and I forget who was #3.

People expect an ace to be higher than 118, because aces are supposed to be great, but there's aonly so many greats to go around, and some get injured.

Oh, and he won more games than any pitcher in baseball between 1980 and "the Game."

Fun with arbitrary endpoints!

Not quite. He was actually the winningest pitcher in 7 consecutive 10-year stretches. His winningest pitcher of the 1980s represents his combination of quality and quantity. It's different from "most hits of the 1990s" Mark Grace, who only has that one ten year period to his name.

#1 118 ERA+
#2 103
#3 96
#4 89
#5 78

So this further validates Stieb being an ace, and Morris being a borderline 1/2.

I rest my case.

On Morris:

Speaking of the 1987 Tigers: A lot of folks have taken a lot of time and effort to demonstrate that Jack Morris doesn’t deserve to be elected to the Hall of Fame. Baseball Prospectus’ Michael Wolverton and Joe Sheehan (evidently scratching sweaty, inimically literate itches about his career) put together convincing cases why he doesn’t measure up.

The trouble is, when you go to so much effort knocking somebody down a notch, you tend to miss what made him special. I’m here not to make a Hall of Fame case, but rather demonstrate what a superb big game pitcher was Jack Morris. For everybody who points to his 1992 playoff performance with Toronto as proof that he wasn’t always amazing, it’s good to look more closely at precisely what was transpiring.

To do so, we have to rewind a few of years prior to ‘92. Now consider:

In 1989, at age 34, he missed two months with a right elbow injury. Despite that, of his 24 starts, 13 exceeded 110 pitches, seven topped 120 and he had a pair of 130+ pitch outings. After his return July 24, it didn’t take long for his workload to resume its normal levels. Of those 13 long outings, eight were among the 14 starts he pitched after he came back (including six of his seven 120+ pitch games). He had a four-start block in August where he notched 468 pitches, and he finished the season throwing 506 pitches over his final four turns, 278 in his final two starts.

In 1990, at age 35, he threw 249.2 innings and topped 110 pitches 16 times and had starts where he threw 146, 134, 132, 127, 123 and 122 pitches. He had four straight turns where he threw 502 pitches another four consecutive starting assignments of 489 pitches and finished the year with 697 pitches over his final six outings.

In 1991, at age 36, Morris logged 246.2 innings and had 10 starts of more than 120 pitches and 20 over 110. He had six straight turns in August where he threw a total of 709 pitches (and one was an outing of just 84). He had four consecutive September starting assignments with a total of 473 pitches. He capped it off with 36.1 postseason frames, which included three World Series starts culminating in the epic 10-inning shutout against the Atlanta Braves.

In 1992, at age 37 he tossed 240.2 innings and topped 110 pitches 17 times and 120 five times (including a 144-pitch effort opening day); in July-August he had five straight turns with a total of 574 pitches. After three starts of between 83-102 pitches, he had five more in a row where he tossed 563 pitches.

Are you starting to get the picture? After a nasty elbow injury that cost him about two months in 1989, Jack Morris started 124 games and averaged a bit over seven innings and 105 pitches per start. That works out to a 133 pitches per nine innings pitched between July 24, 1989 through the end of the 1992 regular season. When you factor in the number of sliders and split-fingered fastballs/forkballs he must have thrown, it's not hard to see that this was a right arm that was angry and not going to take it anymore.

At this point he had thrown 3,530 regular season innings, 69.1 postseason frames and X number of spring training innings. He had walked 1,290 and struck out 2,339 (regular and postseason) batters with 170 complete games.

After the 1992 postseason, Morris pitched two more seasons with an ERA of 5.91 and retired.

What appears to have happened is that Morris’ arm had nothing left—ever—possibly at the end of the ’92 regular season or Game 1 of the ALCS, where he threw a complete game on 119 pitches. That may have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn’t that he “choked” in the postseason; every pitcher reaches a point where his arm says: "No Mas!" and that evidently was Morris' moment.

Simply put, come October 1992, the fork was inserted and the bread had popped golden brown and was ready for the jam. The pitcher formerly known as Jack Morris could now be referred to in the past tense. The spirit was willing but the right arm was dead, buried, saponified, fossilized, dug up by archeologists and displayed in a museum not located in upstate New York.

Probably, you’re thinking: “O.K. Einstein—what’s your point?”

It’s this: Jack Morris unquestionably was an elite big game pitcher. Some notes: His career ERA in September was 3.26. Of course, not every September was a pennant race. However when his teams (Detroit, Minnesota and Toronto) were in the hunt, Morris was even stingier—his ERA in his five races for October (1984, '87, '88, '91, '92) was 3.02. Toss in his work in the postseason (before his arm gave out) and it drops even further to 2.96. (If you wish to include the first game of the 1992 ALCS, this ERA is 2.98 in 322.2 IP). I know it’s easy to discount 1984 due to the Tigers' amazing 35-5 start, but guess what? Morris was a major reason for that; in April and May that year, Morris went 10-1 with a 1.88 ERA, tossing seven complete games, throwing a no-hitter and pitching nine innings of an extra-inning affair where he got a no-decision.

Jack Morris—before his arm gave out sometime in October 1992—pitched 322.2 innings of 2.98 ERA (138 ERA+) of very high-leverage pennant race/ALCS/World Series baseball. Say what you will about his overall career, but if you wanted a guy to pitch for you down the stretch and into the postseason, you definitely would want the man in your rotation.

Not saying it makes him a HOFer ... I am saying he was a helluva big game pitcher even without game 7 of the 1991 WS.

Best Regards

John

He was actually the winningest pitcher in 7 consecutive 10-year stretches.

puking ----> mouth

Jack Morris—before his arm gave out sometime in October 1992—pitched 322.2 innings of 2.98 ERA (138 ERA+) of very high-leverage pennant race/ALCS/World Series baseball.

So this is a sample size of 1.5 years. Do you know how good Bronson Arroyo has been given a window this small?

When you factor in the number of sliders and split-fingered fastballs/forkballs he must have thrown, it's not hard to see that this was a right arm that was angry and not going to take it anymore.

What happens when an angry arm that won't take it anymore faces the most feared slugger who makes the owners of angry arms wet their pants?

Sort of contemporaries of Morris who are just as good or better: Charlie Hough, Dennis Martinez, Rick Reuschel, Orel Hershiser, Frank Tanana, Bret Saberhagen, Dave Stieb.

Edit: And Blyleven, of course.

Sort of contemporaries of Morris who are just as good or better: Charlie Hough, Dennis Martinez, Rick Reuschel, Orel Hershiser, Frank Tanana, Bret Saberhagen, Dave Stieb.

A voice of sanity.

Oh please. Where's Backlasher when we need him? He kept ridiculing the "its all luck" crowd in the Rice thread when nobody had even mentioned luck.

I'd be a lot more grateful if Backlasher would get off his soapbox and find some skill in starting pitchers winning games beyond runs allowed and run support. I went looking a while back, and I couldn't find anything.

So this is a sample size of 1.5 years. Do you know how good Bronson Arroyo has been given a window this small?

1.5 seasons of high leverage innings--pennant races/post season.

A slight difference than 1.5 seasons of low leverage work.

Best Regards

John

People expect an ace to be higher than 118, because aces are supposed to be great,

I think that's because to many of us, an "ace" means more than merely being a #1 starter, and a few fortunate teams can sometimes have more than one ace. Saying who's an "ace" and who isn't sometimes is very subjective, and unfortunately the roster can easily change from year to year, and often from month to month. Curt Schilling and Andy Pettitte are two perfect examples of that last thought.

On that list of yours in #150, for example, at a minimum Koufax/Drysdale, Gomez/Ruffing, Lemon/Wynn, and Plank/Bender/Waddell were all considered "aces" during a great part of their careers, regardless of whether or not they happened to be the "#1 starter" at the time---a term which doesn't really mean all that much in many cases, since the best pitcher on a staff often doesn't get the most starts.

To me the term "ace" is reserved for pitchers who have repeatedly demonstrated that they're capable of almost always pitching up to their talent level with the biggest stakes at hand, and of going deep into the game with consistency. And at any given point, there may be but a tiny handful of these pitchers in the Majors. There ain't no quota system here, and it isn't only dependent on how many games you win, either.

On that list of yours in #150, for example, at a minimum Koufax/Drysdale, Gomez/Ruffing, Lemon/Wynn, and Plank/Bender/Waddell were all considered "aces" during a great part of their careers, regardless of whether or not they happened to be the "#1 starter" at the time---a term which doesn't really mean all that much in many cases, since the best pitcher on a staff often doesn't get the most starts.

Fair enough, but going back to the reason I made that list, what I said stands. Misirlou compared a second best pitcher on a team to a back-up cather. There are plenty of second best pitchers who are in the HoF or ought to be. Playing time for a second best pitcher is different than for a second string position player.

1.5 seasons of high leverage innings--pennant races/post season.

A slight difference than 1.5 seasons of low leverage work.

Best Regards

John

Why?

Having seen Jack Morris for many years before Game Seven, some of us understood that Jack Morris was probably the most likely guy around to pull a Game Seven like that. We don't use slide rules and pocket protectors as our sole method of player evaluation.

You were arguing a case for Morris very eloquently earlier in the thread, so I don't know why you resorted to combative cliches here.


I don't fully gather whether you're actually arguing to put Morris in the HoF or whether you're arguing that he's a great pitcher worthy of consideration. On the latter, I dont have a hard time agreeing, but if it's the former, I think he comes up a little short. (That being said, I'm also a small hall guy.)

Why?

Well, the post was about making a case that Morris was a big game pitcher. You'll note I didn't say he was a HOFer, but rather, when the chips were down he upped his game a notch.

Let's reverse this--we'll give Morris a career ERA+ of 140 leaving the rest of his numbers static. His pennant race/post season numbers (in over 300 IP) is 7.29 ERA and he cost his teams a lot of important games.

How much weight do you give his lack of big game prowess? Do you toss it aside and say he's still a HOF lock despite consistently melting down in big games?

Best Regards

John

Jack Morris—before his arm gave out sometime in October 1992—pitched 322.2 innings of 2.98 ERA (138 ERA+) of very high-leverage pennant race/ALCS/World Series baseball. Say what you will about his overall career, but if you wanted a guy to pitch for you down the stretch and into the postseason, you definitely would want the man in your rotation.

Here are two other pitchers on this year's HoF ballot:

Jose Rijo's career Sept/Oct/playoff numbers: 2.46 ERA in 343.1 innings.

Bert Blyleven's career Sept/Oct/playoff numbers: 2.96 in 939.1 innings

Here are two who got knocked off the ballot last year:

Orel Hershiser's career Sept/Oct/playoff numbers: 2.92 in 693.2 innings

Bret Saberhagen's career Sept/Oct/playoff numbers: 3.39 in 478 innings, and 12 innings of shutout Game Seven baseball in 1985

Asked without a preconceived answer: If you had a rotation of Morris, Rijo, Blyleven, Hershiser, and Saberhagen, all at their respective peaks, who would be the ace? Who'd be fifth?

Well, the post was about making a case that Morris was a big game pitcher. You'll note I didn't say he was a HOFer, but rather, when the chips were down he upped his game a notch.

Let's reverse this--we'll give Morris a career ERA+ of 140 leaving the rest of his numbers static. His pennant race/post season numbers (in over 300 IP) is 7.29 ERA and he cost his teams a lot of important games.

How much weight do you give his lack of big game prowess? Do you toss it aside and say he's still a HOF lock despite consistently melting down in big games?

Best Regards

John

John,

Where I disagree is that I don't think that as a general rule a ML pitcher has the ability to pitch significantly better in a "big game"

The one exception would be a Nolan Ryan type pitcher who can crank it up a notch and strike out 12+ batters in a game.

I don't recall how many K's Morris had in his game 7 victory, but I don't think pitching a shutout in that ONE game really means anything. Just as easily there could have been a pop fly single followed by a very good hitter making great contact on a "good pitch"

I think sports like football and basketball are much more likely to lead to "clutch" or "big game" performances.

When BABIP plays such a huge factor in term of a pitchers success or failure in the short term, it's pretty naive, IMO, to subscribe to the "big game pitcher" theory.

I could be wrong.

Morris's September innings mentioned were the ones when the Tigers were in a pennant race.

Again, I wasn't making a HOF case. I was saying that Morris's "big game" reputation was warranted--hence just the pennant race/post season innings were used.

Best Regards

John

Let's reverse this--we'll give Morris a career ERA+ of 140 leaving the rest of his numbers static. His pennant race/post season numbers (in over 300 IP) is 7.29 ERA and he cost his teams a lot of important games.

Without looking anyone up, I'd bet that any starting pitcher with a full 15-year career and a 140 ERA+ would be a lock for the HOF, barring steroids/gambling. (Proceeds to look up career leaders in ERA+)

<quote>1. Pedro Martinez (35) 161 R
2. Lefty Grove+* 148 L
3. Walter Johnson+ 147 R
4. Dan Quisenberry 146 R
Ed Walsh+ 146 R
Hoyt Wilhelm+ 146 R
Joe Wood 146 R
8. Brandon Webb (28) 144 R
9. Roger Clemens (44) 143 R
Roy Oswalt (29) 143 R
11. Jim Devlin 142 R
Addie Joss+ 142 R
Al Spalding+ 142 R
14. Johan Santana* (28) 141 L
15. Kid Nichols+ 140 R
16. Mordecai Brown+ 138 R
Randy Johnson* (43) 138 L
Cy Young+ 138 R
19. John Franco* 137 L
20. Bruce Sutter+ 136 R</quote>

Pedro is active but hit by a truck tomorrow a lock for the HOF. Quisenberry is a relief pitcher. Wood pitched in 7 ML games after his 8th season. Webb and Oswalt haven't entered the decline phase yet so it's a tad early. Clemens is a lock if not for steroid issues. Devlin pitched in 3 seasons. RJ is almost certainly a lock. Franco is a reliever.

Orel Hershiser's career Sept/Oct/playoff numbers: 2.92 in 693.2 innings

I was about to say something about him.

1988: He had that scoreless inning streak late in the season (the Dodgers did win the division by a comfortable margin).

NLCS Game 1: Hershiser versus Gooden. Dodgers carry a 2-0 lead into the 9th. Hershiser gives up a single and double, and leaves with one out, still ahead 2-1 with a runner on second. Jay Howell then blows the game.

NLCS Game 3: (somewhat short rest). Hershiser pitches 7 innings giving up 3 runs (1 earned). He leaves for a successful PH, but the bullpen blows it again. Mets up 2 games to 1.

NLCS Game 4: With the Dodgers up 5-4 in the bottom of the 12th and the bases loaded, Hershiser comes in in relief and gets McReynolds to pop out to end the game. Series tied 2-2.

NLCS Game 7: With everything on the line, Hershiser pitches a complete game shutout, game score 80.

WS Game 2: Dodgers ahead 1 game to 0. (You may remember that one). Hershiser throws a complete game shutout, game score 87. Also goes 3 for 3 at the plate with two doubles, a run, and a RBI.

WS Game 5: Dodgers already up 3 games to 1. Hershiser pitches another complete game, giving up 2 runs this time, game score 76. Dodgers win game 5-2 to close out the series.

Hershiser was the World Series MVP and the NLCS MVP.

Is that coming up big in the postseason or what?

I don't recall how many K's Morris had in his game 7 victory, but I don't think pitching a shutout in that ONE game really means anything. Just as easily there could have been a pop fly single followed by a very good hitter making great contact on a "good pitch"

It isn't a hypothetical in Morris' game. If Gagne and Knoblauch don't fake out Lonnie Smith, Morris loses.

I was saying that Morris's "big game" reputation was warranted--hence just the pennant race/post season innings were used.

Well, I won't calculate them all. But here's Orel Hershiser's September-October-playoff numbers, only for the seasons when his teams finished in first or second place:

CAREER: 2.63 in 434.2 innings
1983 through 1991: 1.09 in 206 innings (*)

(*goes up to 1.33 in 278 innings, if you add in 1995)

Hershiser finished 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 4th in the Cy Young voting. Morris finished 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 7th, and 9th. Hershiser received 4.4% of the vote last year and dropped off the ballot.

Addendum:
Hershiser's Sept/Oct numbers in pennant races from 1983 through 1991, MINUS the 1988 scoreless streak: 1.49 in 151 innings.

Can anyone who knows leverage give me an approximate leverage factor for Hershiser's 1/3 of an inning in the 1988 NLCS game 4? Ahead by one run, 2 out, bottom of an extra inning, bases loaded. (And a #5 or #6 hitter at the plate.) Any kind of out wins it immediately; most kinds of hit lose it immediately.

I think you have the opinion I'm making a HOF argument.

I'm not.

I used the 140 ERA+ HOF example for the sole reason that if that was his career total he would likely be in the Hall of Fame (if his other numbers remained as they were) but would he be were he a wuss in big games?

Let's toss the HOF out the window and start over. The HOF no longer exists for the remainder of this post.

Now then....

I am of the opinion that Jack Morris was a legit big game pitcher.

Am I wrong in thinking this?

If you think I'm wrong--explain to me why. Use small words and don't be afraid to talk to me like a three year old.

Jack Morris: big game pitcher? Yay or Nay. Vote and if you vote nay--that he was around average in that regard--please explain why you feel Jack Morris was not a big game pitcher.

One question in a world where the HOF does not exist. Was Jack Morris a big game pitcher?

Best Regards

John

He was no Orel Hershiser.

If you think I'm wrong--explain to me why. Use small words and don't be afraid to talk to me like a three year old.

Jack Morris: big game pitcher? Yay or Nay. Vote and if you vote nay--that he was around average in that regard--please explain why you feel Jack Morris was not a big game pitcher.

One question in a world where the HOF does not exist. Was Jack Morris a big game pitcher?

Best Regards

John

There are three general ways to answer this, two related, and you get a different answer depending on your approach.

First: Of course he is: He pitched great in big games. He had a 140 ERA+. If you agree with the methodology of determining a "big game" and understand he pitched in more than a handful, that's all you need to know. You are what your record says you are.

Second: Yes. He pitched extremely well in "big games and much better in "big games" than he did overall. Unless you utterly reject the notion that the gravity of the game has any impact on players' psychology and physiology, you understand that "bigger" games impact different players differently. Some will be crushed by the moment, some will be emboldened by the moment. Jack Morris's personality and approach is of the type you would think would be more likely to be emboldened. Accordingly, not only was he a big game pitcher, but we have a good idea of why.

Third: No. We can not prove through statistical inference with any meaningful level of confidence that 1.5 seasons of 140 ERA+ for a pitcher with a 110+ ERA overall is not the product of random chance.

I subscribe to the second approach as I have no doubt at all of its premises having been a competitive athlete of (very) minor renown, hearing what big time golfers say about the effect of pressure/nerves/big moments (golf being the only sport where the ethos does not discourage open discussion of such things), and seeing a world in which Steve Blass and Rick Ankiel become so psyched out that they were rendered unable to ever again even throw the ball over the plate (see, also, Ian Baker-Finch).

That said, the third approach is statistically valid and correct and essentially impossible to disprove. Anyone who would use that template of evaluation is not going to be dissuaded by the paragraph above and all you can say is vive le difference. My only additional editorial comment would be that some very fair-minded people shy away from approach 2 because some who use it go too far and attribute positive character attributes and a higher level of general worthiness to athletes who respond more favorably to pressure.

Can anyone who knows leverage give me an approximate leverage factor for Hershiser's 1/3 of an inning in the 1988 NLCS game 4? Ahead by one run, 2 out, bottom of an extra inning, bases loaded. (And a #5 or #6 hitter at the plate.) Any kind of out wins it immediately; most kinds of hit lose it immediately.

According to Studes' Win Expectancy spreadsheet, the LI of the situation was 4.3 and Hershiser's WPA was .255 - definitely a lot, but not earth-shatteringly so. It wasn't even in the top 1000 of WPA results for 1988. The leverage index barely makes the top 2000 for 1988. If there was only one out when Hershiser came in with the bases loaded, the LI would have shot up to 10.0 due to the fact that the Mets had two chances to win the game.

It was a bandbox.

People often confuse a park being a good home run park with it being a good hitter's park. They do that with Camden Yards all the time, and they did it with Tiger Stadium in the 1980s.

He was the ace every year of arguably the best overall team in the AL from 1980-88, rarely missed a start, pitched a lot of innings, started opening day every year, was never remotely overmatched by any other starting pitcher, won a lot of games, and put up stats worthy of an ace on a good team in a hitters' park.

He was the ace because he rarely missed a start and pitched a lot of innings, not because he was the guy most likely to shut down the other team. Among Tiger pitchers (so we don't have to worry about any questions of park effects) who started at least 20 games, he was:

1980: 3rd on the team in ERA+, with Dan Petry being first.
1981: 3rd on the team, with Dan Petry being first.
1982: 4th on the team, with Dan Petry being first, and being much better.
1983: 1st (because the leader, Juan Berenguer, only got 19 starts).
1984: 3rd, with Dan Petry being first.
1985: Tied for 1st, with a 1 point difference separating him from Petry

(See a pattern? Petry, not Morris, was the ace of the Tigers, if "ace" measures quality of pitching.)

1986: 1st, by a large amount
1987: 1st, by a large amount
1988: 2nd, way behind Jeff Robinson.

This is when he really becomes the ace. Not from 1980-1988. (And incidentally, the Yankees won more games than the Tigers from 1980-1988, so I don't know why the Tigers are "arguably the best overall team" in that time period. Each team won 2 division titles.)

Having seen Jack Morris for many years before Game Seven, some of us understood that Jack Morris was probably the most likely guy around to pull a Game Seven like that. We don't use slide rules and pocket protectors as our sole method of player evaluation.

Or neurons, apparently.

Well, here's my study project for tonight.

As I see it, Jack Morris had three chances to pitch "big" September games: in the second-half of 1981, when Detroit finished 1.5 back; in 1987, when they won by 2 games; and in 1988, when they lost by 1. Plus, of course, the postseason.

(EXTRA: In 1994, Cleveland lost by 1, but he'd been released in August. In 1992, Toronto won by 4 games; Morris pitched pretty well.)

In Sept./Oct. 1981, Morris was 4-3 in 8 starts, with a 3.51 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, and 59 IP.

In Sept./Oct. 1987, Morris was 3-4 in 8 starts, with a 3.08 ERA, 1.42 WHIP, and 61 IP.

In Sept./Oct. 1988, Morris was 3-1 in 6 starts, with a 3.46 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, and 42 IP.

In the playoffs, Morris was 7-4 in 13 starts, with a 3.80 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, and 92 IP. (Eliminating his crappy 1992 numbers, his line is much spiffier: 7-1 in 9 starts, with a 2.60 ERA, 1.10 WHIP, and 69 IP.)

In 1981, Morris pitched well but lost a 2-1 must-win game to Pete Vuckovich and the Brewers on the next-to-last day of the season. Milwaukee eliminated Detroit with this game. Working backwards through his previous four starts, he'd won 14-0, lost 8-6, won 5-1, and lost a brutal 10-inning, 2-1 duel to Dennis Eckersley in which both men had complete games.

In 1984, the Tigers weren't challenged until the playoffs. Morris began an easy ALCS sweep of the Royals with an 8-1 win; he pitched well. He was 2-0 in a five-game World Series. Game One was a great Morris performance: a 3-2, complete game victory that set the tone. Game Four was a second complete game win, with Morris throwing a 4-2 five-hitter.

In 1987, Detroit won 8 of its last ten games to win the division by a game. Morris pitched the next-to-last game of the season, when both teams were tied for first place. He lasted 9 innings, but the game was tied 2-2; Toronto's Mike Flanagan would pitch 11 innings for a no-decision, and the Blue Jays would lose in the 12th. Morris gave up a first-inning SF and never led in the game. Working backwards, he'd lost 3-0 to Baltimore, lost 4-3 to Toronto and Flanagan, lost 11-4 to Milwaukee, beaten Boston 4-1, and lost to Milwaukee 11-2. Morris was smacked around in his only postseason start, losing 6-3 to (of all people) Bert Blyleven. The loss put Detroit in an 0-2 hole, and that was that.

In 1988, Morris won each of his last three starts, 6-2 against Cleveland, 2-1 against Baltimore, and 6-2 against New York on the final Friday. Before that, he had a terrible 2-inning ND against Baltimore, a 9-4 loss to New York, and a mediocre ND versus That Man Flanagan again. The 2-1 win was a great performance: 9 IP, 1 H (a seventh-inning single), 2 BB, 8 Ks, 1 unearned run, and the Tigers didn't win the game until the ninth.

In 1991, Morris had his first pressure start in Game One of the ALCS. He gave up 4 runs in 5 innings, but Tom Candiotti was awful and the Twins' bullpen preserved a cheap 5-4 win. Morris was far better in his second start, a 9-3 Game Four win; Morris went 8 and allowed 2. In Game One of the Series, Morris pitched 7 very good innings before walking two in the 8th, and won 5-2. He had a no-decision in Game Four; he was lifted for a pinch hitter in the 7th, leading 2-1, but the Twins bullpen let it slip away. Game Seven, we know about.

As a Blue Jay in 1992, Morris was 0-3 in 4 starts; the only other Toronto loss that postseason belonged to David Cone. Morris pitched decently in the 4-3 Game One loss: a complete game 6-hitter, but allowed the winning run in the 8th. He wasn't too bad in Game One of the World Series, either.

If I'm counting right, that's about a 13-9 record in 26 important starts (or counting 1992, 13-12 in 30). I'm seeing two huge performances here: Game Seven of the 1991 World Series, and Game One of the 1984 WS. He had another very good win in each of those Series.

Some of his bad items are mitigated: he lost the 1981 elimination game, but it was a Smoltzian loss. He pitched poorly down the stretch in the tight 1987 race-- probably the worst demerit on his "clutch" record, but he recovered for his last regular season ND.

The evidence is clear that Morris has a strong record in big games. But it's by no means clear that he's any better or more consistent than Hershiser, or David Wells, or Dave Stewart, or Orlando Hernandez, or even guys like Jimmy Key or Bruce Hurst on a per-inning basis. Of course, that's not fair; Morris had several crucial starts of 8 or more innings, which is his strongest calling card.

1980: 3rd on the team in ERA+, with Dan Petry being first.
1981: 3rd on the team, with Dan Petry being first.
1982: 4th on the team, with Dan Petry being first, and being much better.
1983: 1st (because the leader, Juan Berenguer, only got 19 starts).
1984: 3rd, with Dan Petry being first.
1985: Tied for 1st, with a 1 point difference separating him from Petry

Wow. That's amazing. Great bunch of facts there. I knew he was more quantity than quality, but I had no idea it was by that much.

Let's see . ..

in 1980, Petry had 105 ERA+ in 164.7 IP, Dan Schatzder [sic] had 103 ERA+ in 192.7 IP and Morris had a 99 ERA+ in 250 innings. Well, they're really tightly packed in at ERA+, and Morris does have a frickin' huge lead in IP. I wouldn't call him an ace because no one with a sub-100 ERA+ deserves that title, but they were realy close.

In 1981, Sch-r had a 126 ERA+ in 141 IP, Petry was at 125 ERA+ in 166.3 IP and Morris was at 124 ERA+ in 198 IP. That's a photo finish in ERA+, with Morris having a huge lead in IP. Morris was the ace.

In 1982, well, this year it really isn't even close. Petry has a 26 point advantage in ERA+ to counteract Morris' 20 IP lead. Two other guys are in between. Morris was an innings eater extraordinare, but he was their #4.

In 1983, he was #1. Berenger had the lead in ERA+ (by 8 points), but Morris had a 136 IP lead. That was Berenger's best season as a starter. Even if he hadn't gotten hurt, he likely would've trailed off.

In 1984, Dan Petry was again unquestionably the ace. Berenguer had a four point lead in ERA+ while Morris threw 72 more innings.

In 1985, he's tied for first with a guy who only threw 137.3 IP, and didn't qualify for the ERA title. Morris again led in counting stats, giving him the extra edge.

Given how close the ERA+s often were, and how huge his leads in IP were, I'd say he was the #1 or #2. almost every year. Not 1982, he sucked that year.

One other thing here - just eyeballing it, it looks like Dan Petry gave up a lot more UER in these years.

Jack Morris, 1980-5: allowed 652 runs, 49 of which were unearned. That's 7.5% of all runs.

Dan Petry, 1980-5: allowed 551 runs, 55 of which were unearned. That's 9.98% of all runs. Was he a grounball pitcher or something? The Kevin Browns of this world allow more UER. Petry did strike out far fewer batters (4.7/9IP instead of Morris's 5.5/9 in those years). Those extra balls in play led to more errors.

Let's see what happens when you shift from ERA to RA. Petry, in 1290 IP allowed 3.84 RA. Morris, in 1505.3 IP, allowed 3.90 RA. Yeah, Petry has the edge, though it's narrow. By annual RA+, Morris would lead in 1981, 1983, and 1985, and loses in a photo finish in 1980. Given his ability to handle more innings, he probably was their ace most of those years after all.

Actually, looking at everyone who had at least 10 starts for them from 1980-5, only Dan Sch-r allowed a smaller percentage of UER than Morris.

Reminds me of how Curt Schilling supposedly has the lowest % of UER allowed of any major starting pitcher in history.

Well, this post didn't end up where I expected it to. I still think Jack Morris is overrated and would be a bad addition to Cooperstown, but he's a hair better than his ERA+ because of UER, and the man had a lot of value becuase he was a beast at eating innings.

It’s this: Jack Morris unquestionably was an elite big game pitcher. Some notes: His career ERA in September was 3.26. Of course, not every September was a pennant race. However when his teams (Detroit, Minnesota and Toronto) were in the hunt, Morris was even stingier—his ERA in his five races for October (1984, '87, '88, '91, '92) was 3.02. Toss in his work in the postseason (before his arm gave out) and it drops even further to 2.96. (If you wish to include the first game of the 1992 ALCS, this ERA is 2.98 in 322.2 IP). I know it’s easy to discount 1984 due to the Tigers' amazing 35-5 start, but guess what? Morris was a major reason for that; in April and May that year, Morris went 10-1 with a 1.88 ERA, tossing seven complete games, throwing a no-hitter and pitching nine innings of an extra-inning affair where he got a no-decision.

First, I don't know about simply excluding the postseason time that doesn't match the big-game narrative.

Second, if we weight Morris' performance in pennant race years more heavily, shouldn't we give those entire years more emphasis rather than just the last couple months?

In 1988, for example, Morris had a 5.33 ERA in his first 20 starts. He then put up a 2.33 ERA in his final 14 starts. If his good and bad starts had been more evenly distributed throughout the season, would his team's playoff chances have been affected? If not, why focus on his strong second half?

It’s this: Jack Morris unquestionably was an elite big game pitcher. Some notes: His career ERA in September was 3.26. Of course, not every September was a pennant race. However when his teams (Detroit, Minnesota and Toronto) were in the hunt, Morris was even stingier—his ERA in his five races for October (1984, '87, '88, '91, '92) was 3.02. Toss in his work in the postseason (before his arm gave out) and it drops even further to 2.96. (If you wish to include the first game of the 1992 ALCS, this ERA is 2.98 in 322.2 IP).

I'll grant that postseason games count more, but even if I were willing to concede that games in September/October counted more -- they don't -- this is a big distortion.

First, the minor point; his ERA in those 5 years in September/October was 3.05, not 3.02.

Second, if you want to show he was a so-called big game pitcher, you don't get to toss out big games where he pitched badly. That means not only the "first game of the 1992 ALCS," but the entire 1992 postseason. (I like the "his arm gave out" defense. Uh, that's part of the problem, not a defense. Also, there's not a lot of evidence from September 1992 that his arm had given out. You don't get to attribute his good pitching to his psychology and his bad pitching to his health.)

Third, if you want to show he was a so-called big game pitcher, you have to look at big games. Neither 1984 nor 1991 saw a pennant race; the Tigers/Twins had big September leads those years. He didn't pitch a meaningful game in those months. So toss those out.

So what we actually see is a 3.48 ERA in 248.1 IP. Certainly not bad, but not nearly as impressive as it was made out to be.

Well, this post didn't end up where I expected it to. I still think Jack Morris is overrated and would be a bad addition to Cooperstown, but he's a hair better than his ERA+ because of UER, and the man had a lot of value becuase he was a beast at eating innings.

I don't disagree with that, but I think that's precisely the point: Morris was deemed an ace, was The Winningest Pitcher of the 80s™, etc., not because he was a great pitcher, but because he was a good pitcher who pitched a lot. And because of a game in 1991.

I don't disagree with that, but I think that's precisely the point: Morris was deemed an ace, was The Winningest Pitcher of the 80s™, etc., not because he was a great pitcher, but because he was a good pitcher who pitched a lot. And because of a game in 1991.

Yup. I came away from that whole digging thinking Morris was 1% better than I thought going in. He needed more than that to get my support.

He was the ace because he rarely missed a start and pitched a lot of innings, not because he was the guy most likely to shut down the other team. Among Tiger pitchers (so we don't have to worry about any questions of park effects) who started at least 20 games, he was:

1980: 3rd on the team in ERA+, with Dan Petry being first.
1981: 3rd on the team, with Dan Petry being first.
1982: 4th on the team, with Dan Petry being first, and being much better.
1983: 1st (because the leader, Juan Berenguer, only got 19 starts).
1984: 3rd, with Dan Petry being first.
1985: Tied for 1st, with a 1 point difference separating him from Petry

If you're comparing pitchers on the same team in the same year, ERA+ tells you nothing ERA doesn't (if none of the pitchers changed teams).

What you're saying, which apparently needs to be explicitly pointed out, is that the starting pitcher with the lowest ex post ERA in a year is the staff ace. If that thoroughly reductionist idea floats your boat, fine.

While we're at it, let's just give the Cy Young award to the starter with the lowest ERA+ in a year. And, hey, why bother with Hall of Fame ballots for pitchers? If you have 330 career starts with an ERA+ of 130 or better, you're in!!

I don't disagree with that, but I think that's precisely the point: Morris was deemed an ace, was The Winningest Pitcher of the 80s™, etc., not because he was a great pitcher, but because he was a good pitcher who pitched a lot. And because of a game in 1991.

No, he was a great pitcher. Not HOF great, but great nonetheless.

Second, if you want to show he was a so-called big game pitcher, you don't get to toss out big games where he pitched badly. That means not only the "first game of the 1992 ALCS," but the entire 1992 postseason. (I like the "his arm gave out" defense. Uh, that's part of the problem, not a defense. Also, there's not a lot of evidence from September 1992 that his arm had given out. You don't get to attribute his good pitching to his psychology and his bad pitching to his health.)


If you come to the end of the line because of age and because your arm blows out, that's "part of the problem"?

What problem?

Some of his bad items are mitigated: he lost the 1981 elimination game, but it was a Smoltzian loss. He pitched poorly down the stretch in the tight 1987 race-- probably the worst demerit on his "clutch" record, but he recovered for his last regular season ND.


In 1981, he was up 1-0 in I think the 7th at Milwaukee. The Brewers got a guy on, the Tigers royally f/ed up two simple sac bunts, the Brewers pushed two across, Fingers came in, and it was lights out. The two runs Morris gave up were "earned" only in the most technical of senses.

Worse than that... it was 1-0 Tigers in the bottom of the eighth. And Fingers had already come in to get the last out in the top of the eighth.

In the ninth, Sparky let Rick Leach (.193/.320/.289 in 83 at-bats) stay in the game to hit, then brought in Champ Summers (.255/.339/.358 in 165 at-bats) to pinch-hit for Tom Brookens. Basic righty-lefty stuff, and it's not like Sparky had a slew of options: Al Cowens, maybe, or John Wockenfuss.

Looking at the '81 Tigers, I see that Lance Parrish led the team with 10 HRs, and Steve Kemp was first with 49 RBI. A strike year, I know, but ugh.

What you're saying, which apparently needs to be explicitly pointed out, is that the starting pitcher with the lowest ex post ERA in a year is the staff ace. If that thoroughly reductionist idea floats your boat, fine.

No, actually, what I'm saying, which apparently went over your head, is that Dan Petry consistently pitched better over a multiyear period. Now, if you think that reducing one's evaluation of a pitcher to how well he prevented runs is too "reductionist," I'm sure there's a less complicated sport for you to follow, like tic tac toe.

While we're at it, let's just give the Cy Young award to the starter with the lowest ERA+ in a year. And, hey, why bother with Hall of Fame ballots for pitchers? If you have 330 career starts with an ERA+ of 130 or better, you're in!!

As opposed to what? Giving it to the guy a bunch of stupid people thought was the best pitcher even though he didn't pitch as well?

No, he was a great pitcher. Not HOF great, but great nonetheless.

No, he was a good pitcher. We're talking about a guy with virtually no black ink -- most of what little he had was for pitching a lot (IP, starts, complete games), not for pitching well. (Yes, to forestall the trite response, you have to pitch reasonably well to be allowed to pitch that much.) We're talking about a guy who, over his career, was barely above average in preventing runs. We're talking about a guy whose peak years were just not particularly impressive -- not just for all-time, but for his own time, as he finished in the top ten in ERA+ only 4 times, with a peak of 4th place.

Even sportswriters were never that impressed with his performance, no matter how much they gushed about his grittiness or aceitude; he never came close to a Cy Young award. (He had a few top 5 finishes, but at no point was he ever close to actually finishing first on the ballot.) For a guy who was allegedly an ace for all that time, you'd think more than 3 sportswriters in at least one season would have thought he was the best pitcher in the league.

If you come to the end of the line because of age and because your arm blows out, that's "part of the problem"?

What problem?

That the team couldn't rely on him in that postseason. What possible difference does it make to his value what the reason was? And what's with the BS about him "coming to the end of the line because of age"? He pitched perfectly effectively during the season, and August and September were his best two months. Do you think all the other pitchers who pitched badly in a postseason did so because they were mentally weak, but The Great Jack Morris could only pitch badly because of health?

Whoa, a Concepción/standard deviations thread I missed! Sorry to jump in at such a late date, but here are my responses:

1. My latest numbers have Concepción, Killebrew, and McCovey virtually tied.

2. I support Concepción strongly, but he is a borderline candidate. Trammell is an absolute all-time elite player, among the 50 best MLB position players of the century, in a completely different class. The presence of Ripken, Yount etc. has absolutely no effect on my assessment of Trammell, since I calculate replacement levels by looking only at the worst 3/8 of regulars at a position, after adjusting for standard deviation. The league standard deviation was no higher in the 1980's than in the 1970's, and the replacement level at SS was only modestly higher (and that only in the latter part of the decade). You simply had three historically great players sharing the same position in the same league. The closest analogs are Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg and ARod/Jeter/Nomar.

3. Michael Humphreys' Defensive Regression Analysis also finds Concepción's fielding extraordinary.

4. The critical question is indeed distinguishing between leagues that were actually easy or difficult to dominate from mere star gluts/droughts. This is why I do not use the actual league standard deviation, but rather a forecast standard deviation produced from a regression equation, based on factors like expansion, run scoring, etc. This method makes it possible to isolate league conditions without making reference to the actual talent in the league. So the argument that great outliers increase the stdev and the average does not apply.

5. I have indeed done standard deviation studies of the 1980's, and find a similar pattern: IP were already falling from their 1970's highs, but the stdev of ERA+ had not yet risen to 1990's levels, creating a "phantom" star drought.

6. Concepción's case rests on 1. low SS replacement level 2. low forecast standard deviation 3. superlative fielding 4. a bit of baserunning.

7. Sorry, Morris sucks. The (at least partially) 80's starters who got in or will do so are Clemens, Carlton, Blyleven, Niekro, Ryan, Sutton, Stieb, and Saberhagen. The unelected one I supported strongly was Rick Reuschel, and I gave down-ballot support to Gooden because I think his 1985 has a claim as the greatest pitching season ever. Morris is nowhere close.

8. There have been countless debates over what caused the drop in SS rep level starting in the late 1960's. My view is that it was a "real" change and not just a random fluke, and that it was caused by a mixture of the advent of turf fields and the mega-expansion of the 1960's, which exposed the shallowness of SS relative to other positions.

9. I definitely support Ashburn for the Hall of Merit. Again, rank among peers matters nothing to me. I'd be happy to elect half the starters at a position in a league if they all happened to be great at the same time. My criteria are forecast standard deviation-adjusted wins above replacement, where replacement is determined by the average of the *worst* regulars in the league.

10. My pick for the '83 AL Cy would have been Stieb.