Rick Reuschel was literally twice the pitcher Jack Morris was. And literally six times the pitcher Kent Tekulve was.

I go with Morris' mustache as the deciding factor. And that's iron-clad because no starting pitcher has ever had a greater mustache.

I go with Morris' mustache as the deciding factor. And that's iron-clad because no starting pitcher has ever had a greater mustache.

oh, really?

And that's iron-clad because no starting pitcher has ever had a greater mustache.

Walt Terrell says, "Dash it all! Confound it!"

#3: Morris still wins because his whiskers are composed of intangibles. I also account for grooming conventions of the era. Devlin probably had the third-best mustache in his own family.

It's a shame that Paul Reuschel didn't have more of a career. He looked exactly like Rick, except Paul wore horn-rimmed glasses. I half-suspected that they were the same guy, that Rick just wanted to pitch more, so he put on a pair of glasses and created Paul as his relief-pitcher alter ego.

I also account for grooming conventions of the era. Devlin probably had the third-best mustache in his own family.

true--Morris has a higher VORM

If you believe Jack Morris was better than Rick Reuschel -- ESPECIALLY if you believe this should not even be a discussion -- then throw our a framework that proves it. And then, let’s test it.

As always:

Morris was better and more highly-regarded in every ex ante test of value imaginable, and ex ante value is as valid a measurement of value as ex post.

Any analysis that fails to address and confront that reality is incomplete and flawed (*), notwithstanding its arrogance in insisting otherwise.

It's really that simple.

(*) Worse, actually. It's non-responsive.

EDIT: Didn't realize until further down TFA, but I passed something called the "Tango Challenge." Woo-hoo!!!!

The 1977 Topps "Big League Brothers" card with both of them was an epic moment.

Podcast on Reuschel Brothers '77 Topps card

What does this have to do with Joe Paterno?

Rick Reuschel was the best pitcher when I was a kid who I thought I could throw harder than. He may have thrown hard, but it certainly didn't look like he was.

I was known as "Big Daddy" in one place for about two months, and it may have been the greatest thing I ever achieved. Rick Reuschel was called Big Daddy all the time.

The 1977 Topps "Big League Brothers" card with both of them was an epic moment.

Awesome. That's some gross tonnage right there.

Note that the names are backward; Paul is the one wearing glasses.

Morris was better and more highly-regarded in every ex ante test of value imaginable, and ex ante value is as valid a measurement of value as ex post.

In other words, the only test of value SBB can imagine that existed in the 1980s was pitcher wins.

If you believe Jack Morris was better than Rick Reuschel -- ESPECIALLY if you believe this should not even be a discussion -- then throw our a framework that proves it. And then, let’s test it.

jack morris:
Black Ink Pitching - 20 (97), Average HOFer ? 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 193 (48), Average HOFer ? 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 122 (67), Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 39 (77), Average HOFer ? 50

rick reuschel:
Black Ink Pitching - 7 (336), Average HOFer ? 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 111 (183), Average HOFer ? 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 48 (284), Likely HOFer ? 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 31 (136), Average HOFer ? 50

In other words, the only test of value SBB can imagine that existed in the 1980s was pitcher wins.

Though Morris was better than Reuschel in the metric, pitcher wins are ex post.

Early in his career, Rick Reuschel threw pretty hard. But then he became more reliant on a sinking fastball, which really became his out-pitch during the 1980s.

I think that three factors hurt Reuschel's recognition:

*He was fat and generally perceived as being out of shape. He looked nothing like a dominant pitcher was supposed to look like.

*He moved around a lot during the second half of his career, from Chicago to New York, back to Chicago, and then on to Pittsburgh and San Francisco. His career had a lot of peaks and valleys.

*Finally, he didn't have much postseason exposure, in direct contrast to Morris.

He also pitched on teams with bad defenses. In fact, WAR scores the 1974 Cubs as the worst defensive team ever: -139 Rfield, -14.4 dWAR. Both are the lowest marks for any team ever.

That is only because RR did not inspire his defence to play better like JM did. Is that not obvious to everyone?

and ex ante value is as valid a measurement of value as ex post.

Any analysis that fails to address and confront that reality is incomplete and flawed (*), notwithstanding its arrogance in insisting otherwise.

Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but I can’t possible see how predictions are just as good as actual performance. If the predictions turn out right, or they turn out wrong because of an unreasonable amount of luck I can see the value in looking at them, but in the end value should be determined by actual results.

Now I realize this is not the case in most businesses, but that is often because most businesses are lousy at evaluating talent both ex ante and ex post (in some cases because its hard, and in others just because they are lazy)... but in baseball, talent evaluation has come such a long way that this should no longer even be a discussion? What am I missing?

#14: Near as I can tell that "proves" that Reuschel isn't likely to make the HoF while Morris might have a shot. I don't think that was up for debate.

#16: The main thing that hurt him was pitching for mostly crappy teams which kept the win totals (and postseason appearances) down.

I'll be damned -- Reuschel's first name is Rickey! Separated at birth those two. From 1972-1980, Reuschel was just 11 games over 500 ... for a team that was 86 games below 500 (and their only good season was Reuschel's rookie year when he threw just 129 innings).

Run support per game:

Reushchel: 4.1 vs a league average of 4.3
Morris: 4.9 vs. a league average of 4.4

Of course we know that run support has nothing to do with how many games a pitcher wins or loses but just for kicks ... .7 runs per start (to keep consistent with league average) for Reuschel's 529 starts is about 380 runs or about 38 wins which would put Reuschel on 252 wins. Morris had 254 so clearly Morris was better.

Also, is that WAR based on FIP or ex post results? I seem to remember there being different WAR calculations along those lines.

Pitching in Wrigley Field in the 1970s was a good way to be underrated as a pitcher. Your teams were lousy and the park was a band box (in the late 80s when they added the boxes underneath the upper deck they helped tame the way the park would be when the wind blew out).

Reuschel was always considered the Cubs star pitcher when I was growing up, and he had the misfortune of getting hurt soon after he finally escaped the Cubs. Even a shell of his former self had big success with the Giants despite a fastball about 7 or 8 MPH slower than when he was a Cub.

I never had any doubt he was a better pitcher than Morris, who didn't have Reuschel's command nor did he change speeds as well. It was obvious that the different environments the two guys pitched in greatly affected how they were perceived, even as a kid. But looking at it now I feel like I gave Morris too little credit. I still think Reuschel was better, but not by much due to Morris' durability.

Why does Morris get so much more press than Hershiser? Hershiser has the Cy Young, the post season heroics, and the scoreless inning streak.

Of course, the question isn't really Morris vs. Reuschel or Morris vs. Hershiser, it's why Morris and not Reuschel, Hershiser, Blue, Stieb, Pappas, John, Kaat, Tiant, Brown, Saberhagen, Cone...

Morris was better and more highly-regarded in every ex ante test of value imaginable, and ex ante value is as valid a measurement of value as ex post.

Everyone congratulate the Phillies and Brewers on their ex ante division titles this year!

Of course, the question isn't really Morris vs. Reuschel or Morris vs. Hershiser, it's why Morris and not Reuschel, Hershiser, Blue, Stieb, Pappas, John, Kaat, Tiant, Brown, Saberhagen, Cone...

Maybe this is obvious (and a rhetorical questions), but my first guess is it is likely just the simple theory that most people have a very hard time letting facts get in the way of a good narrative. Most people learn or form opinions via narratives, not statistics or facts*. Even when confronted with the facts and they understand that they contradicts the narrative, the power of the narritive usually decides how people will think. Studies have shown that the best way to convince people they are wrong is to show the facts in a narrative form or a personal experience.

Someone with more knowledge of history would have to determine if this makes sense here, but the little knowledge I have of the way the press wrote about Morris suggests that his may be the case.

*For an excellent layman's book that deals with the science and experiments of this theory check out "Thinking Fast And Slow". (Actually i think this book should be required reading for all humans)

Even a shell of his former self had big success with the Giants despite a fastball about 7 or 8 MPH slower than when he was a Cub.

One of the many things that impressed me about Reuschel in his Giants' tenure was despite his old age and vast middle region, the dude could get off the mound and field his position like a cat. A remarkable athlete.

#16: The main thing that hurt him was pitching for mostly crappy teams which kept the win totals (and postseason appearances) down.

Crappy teams in the best hitter's park in the league, so he didn't even have good ERAs.

The big thing is that, as Dag says, WAR loves Reuschel because it think those Cub defenses were so bad, and I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that.

I should note that the "challenge", especially as Poz lays it out (and as quoted in #14), is silly. Poz goes with single stat criteria. With the possible exceoption of milestones like 300 wins, nobody believes there should be a single criterion for the HoF.

The point about "if you're going to make up a framework to support Morris, that framework needs to be applied across the board" is a perfectly legit point. But the Morris supporter's made-up framework is more complicated than "254 wins" -- it is the mix of IP and CG and wins, most wins over X time period and "big game guy" (opening day starts, 1st game playoff starts, game 7). And of course such a framework doesn't necessarily rule out other pitchers citing CYA in their list of accomplishments, it simply means that Morris's generally poor CYA results don't disqualify him. That is the Morris supporter's proposed pro-Morris framework does not have to be an exhaustive list of all HoF criteria. But they are right that any pitcher which also meets the Morris standards would be inducted -- good luck finding one.

The "beauty" of the pro-Morris framework is that his supporters have had to dig so far into the arcana of his career to make him "unique." Opening day starts? Nobody's ever used this as a criterion before and nobody had any idea how many opening day starts Seaver had and nobody can show that it means anything other than (at most) the manager thought this guy was his best healthy starter at the start of the year. Most wins over this time period, consecutive 10-year periods leading in wins, etc. Again, who had ever heard such a criterion before Morris and what does it tell us other than (a) he won a good number of games which we already knew and (b) there weren't very many good starters during his era which we already knew.

And now the ex-ante/ex-post challenge in which, near as I can tell, we are asked to prove that Morris wasn't the pitcher "everybody" thought he was at the time without using Morris's actual performance as evidence.

The first big research project I did upon finding Retrosheet was look up pitcher run support. When adjusted for park & league, the worst support any 20-game winner had in the last 100 years is Rick Reuschel's 1977. You have to go back to Nap Rucker to find a 20-game winner w/ worse run support.

Awesome. That's some gross tonnage right there.

Note that the names are backward; Paul is the one wearing glasses.

Look at this one, (ostensibly) autographed by both brothers! They signed in the right place, too.

I don't think the case for Morris really the IP and the wins or the Big Game Guy or Game 7. I think it's mostly that he was considered a HoFer during his career and that he didn't collapse. Now the last third of his career was actually much worse than the first two, but that wasn't the perception at the time, so he doesn't get an Andruw Jones or Don Mattingly level devaluation for not maintaining his established level. And despite the fact that he was never really that great, in the early 80s when he peaked, there was a paucity of HoF pitching talent in its prime so his reputation then was bolstered unfairly.

One of the many things that impressed me about Reuschel in his Giants' tenure was despite his old age and vast middle region, the dude could get off the mound and field his position like a cat. A remarkable athlete.

It's kind of astonishing how often the fat pitchers end up being sneaky-good athletes, hitting and fielding really well for their position. Reuschel, Fernando, and Livan Hernandez are three who come immediately to mind. And of course the original of the type, Babe Ruth.

He also pitched on teams with bad defenses. In fact, WAR scores the 1974 Cubs as the worst defensive team ever: -139 Rfield, -14.4 dWAR. Both are the lowest marks for any team ever.

Games started by 1974 Cubs second basemen:
Vic Harris 50
Dave Rosello 33
Billy Grabarkewitz 29
Rob Sperring 27
Ron Dunn 18
Carmen Fanzone 5

Collectively, they committed 46 errors.

Let's say Mattingly wins the World Series this year and again in 2013. Does that get him in eventually?

Good pitchers on bad teams make an interesting subset of the HOVG or the HOPrettyG. Charlie Hough has career IP and ERA+ totals very similar to Morris's, and isn't about to get into any Hall of Anything. Hough's career, to extend Walt's point in #28, has a very different shape than Morris's; much of his value was accumulated as a reliever, and his peak years as a starter came late (even though he was every bit as good as Morris while they lasted). Add to that, his Ranger teams stunk, he had a .500 lifetime W%, his postseason record was meh out of the bullpen for three Series losers, he threw a knuckleball, and he resembled a Wednesday-night Bible-study leader more than a pro athlete. But he was a heck of a pitcher, still the Rangers' ace even when Nolan Ryan hit town. Nolan and I watched him throw a shutout on Opening Night in 1989, Ryan's first season here – as far as Opening Day starts go :)

Reading this makes it clear that with enough dogged determination and sufficient "repeat as necessary" application, Joe Pos will eventually rehabilitate himself to the point where he'll fit right in at BTF.

Opening day starts? Nobody's ever used this as a criterion before and nobody had any idea how many opening day starts Seaver had and nobody can show that it means anything other than (at most) the manager thought this guy was his best healthy starter at the start of the year.

Actually, "most opening day starts" was a list you used to see a lot. It obviously went nowhere as a criterion -- maybe because Bert Blyleven had 12 -- but it got a disproportionate amount of attention. Now it gets almost none.

Don't know if it was covered earlier, but in the SI article that got Reggie suspended, he offered this:

"No. No, no, no, no," Jackson said. "Blyleven wasn't even the dominant pitcher of his era, it was Jack Morris."

What is "his era" there for Morris? 79-83? Certainly by 85 he wasn't the "dominant pitcher" anymore.

It's kind of astonishing how often the fat pitchers end up being sneaky-good athletes, hitting and fielding really well for their position. Reuschel, Fernando, and Livan Hernandez are three who come immediately to mind. And of course the original of the type, Babe Ruth.

Babe Ruth the pitcher was not fat. You'd think God would know that.

One of the many things that impressed me about Reuschel in his Giants' tenure was despite his old age and vast middle region, the dude could get off the mound and field his position like a cat. A remarkable athlete.

Reuschel and Jose DeLeon were teammates in Pittsburgh for a couple of years, and I always thought of Reuschel as the anti-DeLeon. Reuschel was a terrific fielder, very fast delivering the ball to the plate, was a good hitter and bunter. DeLeon had no skills to support his terrific arm, and so was in trouble every time he put a man on base.

That said, the 23rd anniversary of the game in which DeLeon faced the minimum over 11 innings is coming up on Thursday. A game worth a mention.

It's kind of astonishing how often the fat pitchers end up being sneaky-good athletes, hitting and fielding really well for their position.

Carlos Zambrano is not small, and does both things well. Not sure about Sabathia's fielding, but he's hit well in limited opportunities.

WAR loves Reuschel because it think those Cub defenses were so bad, and I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that.

Why not? I mean, single-season worst ever may be a stretch -- one thinks of the 1962 Mets, 1899 Spiders, etc. -- but is there any reason to disbelieve the general point that those Cub defenses were terrible?

Why does Morris get so much more press than Hershiser?

Clearly Hershiser should have played for a large media market team like Detroit instead of the media backwater of Los Angeles.

Why does Morris get so much more press than Hershiser?

Wins. Innings pitched. I mean, Morris is not at the surefire HOF cutoff in either category but he's in the not implausible category. Hershiser is below that, even if he was undoubtedly a greater pitcher.

Above Morris' 254 wins, every eligible 20th century pitcher is either in or at least was vaguely in the conversation: Jim Kaat hit the 20s a bunch of times in HOF votes, Tommy John hit 30%. Looking at Morris' slot there, you'd expect him to at least get 20-30% of the vote; he started at 22%.

On Innings Pitched, it's more mixed: You get Jack Quinn and Sad Sam Jones and Jerry Koosman and Dennis Martinez and Frank Tanana who got basically no support. But still most of the people who are eligible above him are in.

In both categories, the worm turns between Morris and Hershiser. There are some guys who got in with totals closer to Hershiser's than Morris', but many--and close to Hershiser the vast majority--didn't.

So Morris defines the bottom line of what you need to do to get considered if you are considered something less than super lights out.

Why Hershiser never got the lights-out bonus that he might have--he was truly great at times--is a different story. Given his Cy Young, his famous record, and his postseason exploits, you'd wonder why he didn't.

ex ante value is as valid a measurement of value as ex post.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Todd Van Poppel and Brien Taylor, Hall-of-Famers!

OT: Crazy ending to Tigers/Royals game. Umps looked at replay of two-out possible 3-run HR by Delmon Young; foul call stood.

Possibly, reuschel was better;
Arguments in favor: run and defensive support
Tend to be the kind of factors overlooked,
Easier to stick with wins,
Runs allowed, the like.
Never appreciated in his time, while Morris
Overrated, then and now.

Babe Ruth the pitcher was not fat. You'd think God would know that.

Big time. Next he'll be telling us that Noah put every pair of gnats into an ark.

Re 1974 Cubs, eye balling the B-Ref stats show a number of players who were bad defensively, but godawful bad with the Cubs in the mid -70s. This certainly suggests some sort of house effect. Reuschel was a hell of a pitcher. At his peak, better than Morris. But if a stat shows that he was vastly superior to Morris over his career, something is wrong with the stat.