Let's emphasize numbers that nobody ever emphasized before to justify not paying to attention to the main number that has been used for pitcher effectiveness for 100 years or so.

Teams thought he was good and he pitched a lot! Sure he gave up a lot of runs, but who cares!

Tainted.

Heyman's original comment on Morris:

2. Jack Morris: He defined workhorse and ace in the '80s and early '90s, yet he remains as controversial a non-steroid candidate as there is. He made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young for second most ever, behind only Tom Seaver, and was also the No. 1 pitcher of three World Series winners, clear evidence of his reputation and impact in his day. Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated had the stat that defines him: in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts. Detractors point to a less-than-glowing career 3.90 ERA, but his career is better summarized by a great decade (most wins of the '80s) and great moments (his Game 7 performance for his hometown Minnesota Twins was maybe the best pitching performance under the circumstances in decades). He was thought good enough to be the ace on teams that had Bert Blyleven and Dave Stewart, and to receive Cy Young votes in seven seasons. I can't allow his vast accomplishments to be re-evaluated downward by a new emphasis on different numbers.

The bolded part has been removed, presumably because he never played with Blyleven and was awful (6.19 ERA) the one year he played with Stewart. (H/T Calcaterra)

Heyman: Why Bonds Belongs in the Hall

It's probably easier just to promise not to vote any steroid users into the Hall. But I am not ready to wipe out an entire era. I can't prove that a majority of baseball players used steroids in that era, but the evidence suggests that many of the best players did. Just look at the MVP winners who have been linked to PEDs or have admitted using: Ken Caminiti, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, Alex Rodriguez.

The Hall already inducted spitball pitcher Gaylord Perry without a stitch of uproar. Perry wrote the book (literally) on how to deface baseballs to get hitters out. A case can be made that Bonds' type of cheating is worse. But unlike Perry, I'd say he did it at a time when many were doing it, and he didn't start doing it until he already had a Hall of Fame career. I don't admire Bonds as anything other than a ballplayer. But that's what he was -- a ballplayer, probably the best I or many of us have ever seen.

new numbers - ERA.
old numbers - in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts.

If you want to say that Jack Morris defined being a workhorse in that era, you've got a decent argument, though his innings pitched totals look much more impressive now than they did then.

But to say that a guy who ran up a career ERA+ of 105 defined being an ace in that era is silly. Morris salted in pretty average seasons in his resume in the prime of his career.

He worked to a pretty blah 4.18 era (99 ERA+)in 1980 as the Tigers were trying to rise to being contenders and Jack didn't give them ace work.

He worked to a mediocre 4.06 era (100 ERA+) in 1982 as the Tigers were *still* trying to rise to being contenders and still failing in some part because their "ace" Jack Morris wasn't turning in ace quality work.

He worked to a mediocre 3.94 era (97 ERA+) in 1988 as the Tigers were trying to get back to the playoffs they'd reached the previous year (and seen their ace, Jack Morris, get his ass kicked by the Twins).

He rolled up shitty 4.86 and 4.51 era's the next two years as the Tigers fell away from relevance as contenders.

Yes, all that time, Tigers Stadium was a good hitters park. But he had what were probably very good defenses around him with Chet Lemon in center, Trammell and Whitaker up the middle and Parrish behind the plate.

Morris was a guy who pitched a lot of innings at a pretty good clip overall. But only selective memory could lead anyone to say that he defined what it was to be an ace in that era. He was never the best pitcher in the majors or even the AL. His hall of fame case is sketchy at best. I wouldn't vote for him.

If only the BBWAA had worked half as hard at ferreting out the steroid story as they work at selecting and rotating Jack Morris data until it hits the light juusst right.

What does Biggio have to do to get in? The voters do realize he was a middle infielder, and not a DH, right?

He hit with power, hit for average, drew walks, stole bases, and played a helluva second base. What else is there?

Moustache, intestinal fortitude, mullet, "single handedly" winning 1 playoff game, and also having a moustache and saying lots of stuff about being gritty and gutting it out and hur dur pound some budweiser and also the moustache.

He hit with power, hit for average, drew walks, stole bases, and played a helluva second base. What else is there?

He had the misfortune of being named the best player of the 90's by Bill James. The writers couldn't live that one down, if Bill James likes him, he must be a crappy player.

if morris gets in, how far is he from the bottom of the hof barrel? he's above marquard and.... ?

maybe if you heavily discount 19th century pitchers, he passes galvin? welch?

by my reckoning, here's where he falls on the depth chart (bunch of non-hof-ers, ruth, ward deleted from list obv)

(lemon)
(fingers)
(sutter)
(bender)
Al Spalding 181.7
Herb Pennock 177
Jack Morris 166.8
Mickey Welch 163.4
Jesse Haines 156.5
Burleigh Grimes 153.5
Jack Chesbro 139
Richard Marquard 117
Jim Galvin 111.5

note that there is an epochal diminution curve here (applied season-wise), and 19th century pitchers are heavily penalized. the factor for 1871 was 0.45 (raw positive multiplied by 0.45, raw negative multiplied by 1.55), today is 1.04 (raw positive multiplied by 1.04, raw negative by 0.96), basis is integration to dh in al, integration to 1989 in nl.

so morris is only above 6 full time pitchers, 2 of whom were 19th century, and none of whom pitched after 1940. by raw score, morris had a 160.6, and he only beat marquard, who had a 156. ruffing, who has the highest era in the hall right now, pitched in the 30s and basically had two careers, so you can rationalize his inclusion by separating the one from the other and considering him w/r/t his era. morris, however, never had a sub-3 era or sub 1.1 whip in any year of his career, and he pitched in the relatively low-offense 80s. he was a consistently slightly above average pitcher for contending teams. i'd call him an ace from 83-87. it seems like he is getting the kind of credit for his career that clemens got the one year he wasn't amazing for the yankees but went 18-3 and won the cy.

so, long story short, morris wouldn't be the worst pitcher in the hall, but the only one you can really firmly put him above is marquard.

He had the misfortune of being named the best player of the 90's by Bill James.

I think it was best player in the game in 1999. James had Bonds as the best player in the 90s.

Heyman is the guy who I have lost the most "respect" for during his time on MLB. I think all the other sportswriters who they have on are at least decent.

I think it was best player in the game in 1999. James had Bonds as the best player in the 90s.

Not sure. Now that I think of it, I don't think he said best player of the decade, but did a comparison between him and Griffey and said that Biggio was arguably better for the decade(this was when Griffey was listed as the player of the decade)

Ballots like his make ones head hurt. No room for Biggio, Trammell, Martinez, Walker or Lofton but space for Morris, Murphy, Mattingly, McGriff. Actually, there were 4 open slots but he decided to leave them blank. I guess if you aren't a 1B or OF you cannot be impressive enough for this voter.

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated had the stat that defines him: in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts.

I'll give Tom Verducci and Jon Heyman 20 bucks if either one of them can tell me how well Dave Stewart or Charlie Hough or Mark Langston or Dave Stieb or Fernando Valenzuela or John Tudor or Bret Saberhagen or any other non-Hall of Fame pitcher compares on this "stat."

The Hall already inducted spitball pitcher Gaylord Perry without a stitch of uproar. Perry wrote the book (literally) on how to deface baseballs to get hitters out.

I think that argument is a bit disingenuous, as Perry had to wait a few years to get in despite a first-ballot resume. I wasn't around at the time to know if there was media drama (I suspect not, since the internet has a way of bringing that out), but I can't think of any obvious reason why he'd have to wait 3 years besides writers punishing him for doctoring the ball.

FTFA:

My ballot
1. Tim Raines: The second greatest leadoff hitter of his era walked a lot and rarely was thrown out trying to steal (second best steal percentage for those with 300 steals). Works for those who want to see greatness (like myself) with seven superb years to start the career, but also for those who like career numbers since he hung around for 16 mostly good to very good seasons after the initial seven great ones. Should take a big jump and eventually get in ...

There was a stat called "quality start" that would get at the same thing, with the additional feature that the extra innings pitched weren't taking one for the team. It's not used commonly anymore. Probably for good reason. They could say he had 14 years in a row of 17 quality starts (may be true). Most of us would say isn't that special. But these writers are trying to invent a story that makes Jack Morris a Hall of Famer (and makes Roger Clemens not one). See posts 4 and 8.

I think that argument is a bit disingenuous, as Perry had to wait a few years to get in despite a first-ballot resume. I wasn't around at the time to know if there was media drama (I suspect not, since the internet has a way of bringing that out), but I can't think of any obvious reason why he'd have to wait 3 years besides writers punishing him for doctoring the ball.

I mentioned it in another thread but guys like Whitey Ford had to wait 2 years to go in. Perry was penalized by stronger players on the ballot. Bench and Yaz on his first one, Palmer and Morgan on the next. 300 wins was never a first ballot guarantee... Sutton took 5 tries to get in, Niekro also took 5, Early Wynn took 4. The writers really do take this first ballot business serious, at least for a short period of time. (Mays only got 94.7% of the vote)

There was a stat called "quality start" that would get at the same thing, with the additional feature that the extra innings pitched weren't taking one for the team. It's not used commonly anymore. Probably for good reason. They could say he had 14 years in a row of 17 quality starts (may be true). Most of us would say isn't that special. But these writers are trying to invent a story that makes Jack Morris a Hall of Famer (and makes Roger Clemens not one). See posts 4 and 8.

Quality start is used frequently nowadays, heck it's a better stat than looking at wins for a pitcher(even with it's known flaws). In Morris's day, not such a great stat.

BBref has quality starts for pitchers, although apparently not in leaderboards, which makes comparisons difficult. Morris had 297 career quality starts, which seems like a lot, but his career QS percentage of 56% is not much over the league average of 52%.

I mentioned it in another thread but guys like Whitey Ford had to wait 2 years to go in. Perry was penalized by stronger players on the ballot. Bench and Yaz on his first one, Palmer and Morgan on the next. 300 wins was never a first ballot guarantee... Sutton took 5 tries to get in, Niekro also took 5, Early Wynn took 4. The writers really do take this first ballot business serious, at least for a short period of time. (Mays only got 94.7% of the vote)

Going by WAR, only Morgan was clearly superior. Yaz's WAR was a hair better, but not definitely so. Palmer wasn't close, and neither was Bench (though WAR has issues with catchers, so I'll cut some slack there).

Reposted from the Gizmo thread - Heyman on Clemens:

One of Clemens' legal mouthpieces recently chastised writers who might dare omit Clemens from the ballot. But I have news for him.

This isn't like his case where the lawyer gets to pick the 12 dummies who might fall for his courtroom BS. And even though Clemens' high-priced talkers somehow got him acquitted of perjury, that hardly erases the mountain of evidence that he's one of the greatest juicers in baseball history.

Going by WAR, only Morgan was clearly superior. Yaz's WAR was a hair better, but not definitely so. Palmer wasn't close, and neither was Bench (though WAR has issues with catchers, so I'll cut some slack there).

You are using a stat that didn't exist at the time, to compare two players relative to hof voting? War is ok stat to compare position players to other position players, but it's useless for pitchers, catchers, relievers, utility players etc. My point was that there wasn't a spitball faction keeping Perry out of the hall, it was normal voting patterns that kept him out. The writers at the time have shown consistently that they didn't recognize the value of pitchers on the first ballot.

2. Jack Morris: He defined workhorse and ace in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, yet he remains as controversial a non-steroid candidate as there is. He made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young for second most ever, behind only Tom Seaver, and was also the

Wait - you mean he's not even first in the silly opening-day-starts stat?

No. 1 pitcher of three World Series winners, clear evidence of his reputation and impact in his day.

Actually, clear evidence would be Cy Young or MVP awards.

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated had the stat that defines him: in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts. Detractors point to a less-than-glowing career 3.90 ERA, but his career is better summarized by a great decade (most wins of the ‘80s) and great moments (his Game 7 performance in 1991 for his hometown Minnesota Twins was maybe the best pitching performance under the circumstances in decades).

Heyman rings all the typical bells here.

He was good enough to receive Cy Young votes in seven seasons.

"Good enough to receive Cy Young votes" is now a Hall argument?

I can’t allow his vast accomplishments to be re-evaluated downward by a new emphasis on different numbers.

What different numbers? ERA, innings, and ERA+?

new numbers - ERA.
old numbers - in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts.

new numbers - innings
old numbers - he had 14 opening day starts

Frankly, I can see an ironclad case for Jack if he'd thrown 12 consecutive seasons of 7 2/3 or more innings in 59 percent of his starts or 15 non-consecutive seasons of 8 1/3 or more innings in 47 percent of his starts, but this 14 consecutive seasons of 8 or more innings of 52 percent of his starts just seems like one of those made-up stats.

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated had the stat that defines him: in 14 consecutive seasons, he pitched eight innings or more in 52 percent of his starts.

I figured I wouldn't find anything earth-shattering because I'm sure it would have been pointed out by somebody else if there was something there. But the Verducci stat did give me a bit of pause. Simply because there is all the "new" research about the difficulty going through a lineup a 3rd and 4th time. I don't know how you'd exactly give Morris HOF credit for it, but it would be interesting if part of the reason why his ERA was so bad was due to it being inflated in innings that other pitchers of his era were turning over to firemen.

So without doing anything other than going to b-ref, I looked at Morris' splits:




So much for that theory. It is kinda interesting how his 7th - 9th stats are better than the 1st - 6th. But nothing more than just kinda interesting.

Heyman rings all the typical bells here.

Not all, Ray: He left out the "pitch to the score" myth this time.

Going by WAR

Maybe not the most reliable indicator of perceived value in the late 80s. :-)

The Jim Palmer love was undeniable if not explainable. He easily outpolled Morgan receiving 93% of the vote. He did win 3 CYAs but Perry won 2 so it was more than that. Bench and Yaz rightly blew Perry out of the water.

There may have been enough "make him wait for throwing the spitter" to keep Perry out (he came very close in year 2) but it was more than just that. In addition to debuting with Bench and Yaz followed by Morgan and Palmer, he also debuted with Jenkins and you had Bunning on the ballot as a 74.2% backlogger. Those 4 newcomers used up 3.1 spots per ballot (plus Kaat another .2) and you had Bunning. Following that with Palmer/Morgan and then Carew/Fingers (66% in his debut -- ridiculous) was the first ballotgeddon. Bunning got destroyed.

Anyway, it is easier to quibble that on a ballot with Perry, Jenkins and Bunning Palmer was over-rated than it is to say that Perry should have sailed in. I'd say that with the possible exception of Palmer on the 1st ballot that they navigated that stretch just fine. Evil didn't start until 92 with the election of Fingers and the debut of Perez at 50%. Since then the voters have gone downhill and been pretty inconsistent.

Seriously, isn't the lack of Cy Youngs and MVPs damning to the whole "he defined workhorse and ace, 14 opening day starts, No. 1 pitcher of three World Series winners, I was there he had a reputation" thing?

So much for that theory. It is kinda interesting how his 7th - 9th stats are better than the 1st - 6th. But nothing more than just kinda interesting.

In the 1st-6th he let them score, then pitched to it in the 7th-9th.

So much for that theory. It is kinda interesting how his 7th - 9th stats are better than the 1st - 6th. But nothing more than just kinda interesting.

I suspect it's the result of:

1) He isn't allowed to pitch the 7th-9th unless he's already pitching well; and
2) He will tend to get pulled at the first sign of trouble in the late innings.

And something to do with his mustache.

This Gaylord Perry discussion is interesting. I started following baseball in 1981 and by that time Perry was already a gray-haired old man bouncing from team to team with his "does he or doesn't he?" schtick. So I always thought of him as just "one of those guys who pitched forever" -- like Don Sutton, Tommy John or Jim Kaat -- and not as an elite pitcher. Looking at his stats now, I see he was considerably better than that.

For those of you who are older than me, what was the contemporary opinion of Gaylord Perry in his prime? I know he won two Cy Young awards, but the second one looks like it was a "no better options" vote, as he and Ross Grimsley (84 K in 263 IP!) were the only 20-game winners in the NL. He made "only" 5 All-Star teams in 22 seasons, which seems relatively low. He had his best years with some bad, forgettable Cleveland teams in the '70s -- probably a lot of fans didn't even notice.

Was he generally considered an "ace"? How about a "future Hall-of-Famer"?

Most guys do better in their 7th-9th splits, presumably for the reasons Ray notes.

But b-r gives splits by times faced:

1st PA 682 OPS
2nd PA 703
3rd PA 707
4+ PA 676

So not a lot of variation for Morris in that regard. If little variation is "good", Morris is probably better than usual. For comparision, here's Dennis Martinez:

1st PA 670
2nd PA 690
3rd PA 719
4+ PA 742

Yes, those are just as SP. Jack did have about 600 more PA of 4+ so it's unlikely to be random variation.

On CYA, the "telling" stat is that he received only 6 first place votes in his career. He was almost never considered by anybody to be the best pitcher in any single season.

Martinez and Tanana received none. Stieb received 5 (all in 82), Reushcel received 9 (8 in 87), Hershiser won one and Saberhagen won two.

As to Verducci's magic stat -- just look at the freaking complete games dude, it's essentially the same damn stat. Or innings per start. Morris was tops of his era but paled in comparison to the era before him but of course looks much better than the era after him. Pitching usage is in regular flux, usually declining except for the 60s/70s freaks.

In terms of durability, Mnrris was just a guy caught in-between eras and he was the only guy to survive it.

Anyway, 1965-1995, number of starts (not percentage, too much trouble) of 8+ innings:

Perry 377
Carlton 359
Niekro 341
Seaver 337
Jenkins 318
Blyleven 317 (oops)
Ryan 314
Sutton 292
Palmer 289
Morris 248
John 243
Hunter 237
Gibson 235
Koosman 224
Tiant 219
Lolich 219
Tanana 216
....
Martinez 189

Blyleven did it in 46% of his starts; Morris in 47% of his starts. Hunter a smidge under 50%, Jenkins 53.5%, Palmer 55.5%.

Expanding the search Clemens leads the modern guys with 232, about 1/3 of his starts. Johnson is close to Clemens in percent, Maddux at 29%.

I suspect it's the result of:

1) He isn't allowed to pitch the 7th-9th unless he's already pitching well; and
2) He will tend to get pulled at the first sign of trouble in the late innings.

Also, I'd imagine a pitcher is more likely to reach the 7-9th innings against weaker hitting opponents.

I suspect it's the result of:

1) He isn't allowed to pitch the 7th-9th unless he's already pitching well; and
2) He will tend to get pulled at the first sign of trouble in the late innings.

Also, I'd imagine a pitcher is more likely to reach the 7-9th innings against weaker hitting opponents.

See this is exactly what Heyman is talking about. You take a classic, well respected stat like consecutive-seasons-in-which-a-pitcher-pitched-8-innings-or-more-in-at-least-52%-of-his-starts and ruin it with all your new age sabermetric mumbo jumbo.

See this is exactly what Heyman is talking about. You take a classic, well respected stat like consecutive-seasons-in-which-a-pitcher-pitched-8-innings-or-more-in-at-least-52%-of-his-starts and ruin it with all your new age sabermetric mumbo jumbo.

True. Why cook up VORPies when you can use something simple like CSiwaPP8IOMiaL52oHS's?

He was good enough to receive oung votes in seven seasons.

What's defining about Morris is how pathetic his Cy Young showing was. He got virtually no support for the Cy in any season of his career. How many HOFers did worse?

Cy Young did worse.

From 1965 to 1995, as Starter, (requiring IPouts>=24), top 20 greatest number of games, sorted by winning pct

                                                          
Rk           Player        #Matching   W  L W-L%  ERA WHIP
1     Steve Carlton   359 Ind. Games 274 57 .828 1.84 1.01
2      Mike Cuellar   207 Ind. Games 155 34 .820 1.70 0.95
3        Don Sutton   292 Ind. Games 203 47 .812 1.60 0.87
4        Tom Seaver   337 Ind. Games 232 56 .806 1.65 0.90
5        Tommy John   243 Ind. Games 169 43 .797 1.57 0.97
6     Juan Marichal   199 Ind. Games 144 40 .783 1.85 0.92
7        Jim Palmer   289 Ind. Games 201 58 .776 1.75 0.96
8    Fergie Jenkins   318 Ind. Games 231 67 .775 2.01 0.91
9         Vida Blue   210 Ind. Games 145 43 .771 1.80 0.97
10    Jerry Koosman   224 Ind. Games 150 45 .769 1.71 0.99
11       Luis Tiant   219 Ind. Games 151 51 .748 1.73 0.93
12   Catfish Hunter   237 Ind. Games 167 58 .742 1.90 0.91
13    Mickey Lolich   219 Ind. Games 152 53 .741 1.98 1.02
14       Nolan Ryan   314 Ind. Games 203 78 .722 1.83 1.03
15       Bob Gibson   235 Ind. Games 160 63 .717 1.86 1.00
16      Phil Niekro   341 Ind. Games 217 87 .714 2.01 1.01
17    Gaylord Perry   377 Ind. Games 240 99 .708 1.87 0.96
18    Bert Blyleven   317 Ind. Games 191 84 .695 1.92 0.97
19      Jack Morris   248 Ind. Games 150 74 .670 2.38 1.03
20     Frank Tanana   216 Ind. Games 129 65 .665 1.81 0.95

Bobm - so those are a pitcher's starts in which he went at least 8 innings?

This ballot is probably the worst I've seen (Chass doesn't count). How in God's name can someone justify Mattingly over any of the players other than Lee Smith in his #7-13 spots? I'd love to hear it.

Cy Young did worse.

Are you retarded? He was Cy Young every year of his career. Even Clemens couldn't say that. I suspect steroids.

How in God's name can someone justify Mattingly over any of the players other than Lee Smith in his #7-13 spots? I'd love to hear it.

You've got to be a peak voter in a big way AND you have to believe that Mattingly's peak was superior to those players. I think it's fair to say that at the very least Mattingly was perceived from '84-'86 to be superior to Trammell.

Not saying I'd vote that way but that is the only logic argument I can think of that gets me there.

Are you retarded?

I am not casting a Hall of Fame ballot this year, if that's what you were asking.

Bobm - so those are a pitcher's starts in which he went at least 8 innings?

Yes.