Heck, in many respects Kenny Rogers (1st ballot next year) has a better case than Morris.

Rogers was the only man to be the 2006 Cardinals juggernaut in the World Series. Seriously, his 2006 postseason was pretty sweet -- 3 starts and 3 wins, 23 IP, 0 runs, 9 hits, 7 BB, 19 K.

Rogers lead the league in games pitched in 1992 and in batters faced in 2000. That's an unusual combination, and makes me wonder if any other pitcher has matched it since the live ball era. A quick check shows that Feller did it, but when he led the league in games pitched it was with 43 and 44 (in 1940 and 1941), two of the lowest totals in the history of the AL (Joe Haynes had 40 appearances in 1942, and Eddie Plank had 43 in 1903). Point is that Rogers is the most interesting guy to do this, as he was a near-LOOGY in 1992 (80 games, 78.2 IP) and then a guy who made 34 starts and threw 227 innings in 2000. Feller was just a guy who made a lot of starts.

Several dead ball guys pulled off the feat -- Johnson, Mathewson, Ed Walsh, Joe McGinnity, Plank, Pud Galvin, Old Hoss Radbourn, and I stopped looking after that. Early guys tended to do both in the same year, as whoever made the most starts almost inevitably faced the most batters.

Any and all energies regarding the HoF should be channeled towards actually getting the good candidates in that need to go in, as opposed to opposing Morris.

It's the same thing- not even two sides of the same coin, it's the same side. The Hall of Fame is for the best players. He isn't one of the best. His getting in would lessen the honor*, just like Rice getting in lessens it, just like Trammell and Piazza being kept out lessens it (I'm not particularly fired up about Raines, love him though I did).

*"Lessen" in the context of these discussions. I doubt the players think this way, but I could be wrong.

Morris never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting.

But the BBWAA guys are so much smarter than the guys who vote for...

Never mind.

Best in class means a lot on the HOF ballot.

Let's look at the history of Jack Morris on HOF ballots

2000 - Blyleven, Gossage, Tiant, John, Kaat, Guidry all better pitchers. Bob Welch and Charlie Hough probably rank behind Morris. Morris #7
2001 - All above come back except Welch and Hough. Dave Stewart added but probably behind Morris. Morris #7
2002 - All above except Stewart return, Frank Viola added and I'd put him ahead of Morris. Morris #8.
2003 - Tiant and Guidry leave. Viola fails to get 5% Blyleven, Gossage, John and Kaat still there. Fernando comes on but I like Morris better. Morris #5
2004 - Kaat runs out of time but Blyleven, Gossage and John still available. Dave Stieb only gets 7 votes and he's much better than Morris. Morris #5
2005 - Blyleven, Gossage and John. Morris #4
2006 - Hershiser and Gooden added (Gooden < 5%). Morris #6
2007 - Saberhagen added and draws < 5%. Morris #6.
2008 - Saberhagen and Hershiser don't return. Gossage elected. Chuck Finley added. Morris #5.
2009 - John's 15th ballot. Cone debuts < 5%. Morris #4.
2010 - Appier debuts < 5%. Morris #3.
2011 - Blyleven elected. Kevin Brown debuts < 5%. Morris #3.
2012 - Radke debuts. Jack Morris is legitimately the best SP on the ballot.
2013 - Clemens, Schilling and Boomer Wells debut. Morris #4.

Jack Morris has been the best pitcher available on a Hall of Fame ballot once and only because the voters rejected nine better pitchers after he showed up. the 2012 ballot should have had Cone, Brown, Stieb, Hershiser and Gooden at a minimum but the BBWAA hates pitchers.

A few differences between Rice and Morris. One is black with a stache the other white with a stache.

Seriously. While the campaigns are similiar, Morris may be #### out of luck next season. Rice on his 14th ballot was at 72.2% and the only newcomer the following year was Rickey Henderson. Jack Morris is still under 68% and the ballot only gets tougher next year.

Because that's when the anti-stat side started taking his case more seriously. Before he cleared 50 percent, he wasn't seen as a terribly realistic candidate. There was always some refutation of the pitching to the score silliness and spotty anti-Jack commentary, but the growth in anti-Morris sentiment was in response to rising support, not a fuel for it.

Well, as I stated I think part of his rise to being an electable candidate was a response by a segment of the MSM to the devaluing of wins as a stat, specifically when new-stat types began saying they weren't as important as previously believed and guys started winning the Cy with 13-15 wins a year. Morris became the candidate for the old guard that wanted to prove wins were still valuable (pitching to the score and so on). That all was going on and discussed widely (beginning in 2008 when Lincecum won the Cy with 15 wins, cresting when Felix won in 2010 with 13 wins, which a lot of people went nuts about) at the very same time Morris was making his major rise from the 35s-40s to where he is today.

The players who gain votes don't just gain votes because that's what players do (many do not) - it's a combination of momentum, familiarity, their numbers getting explained in new and exciting ways, narrative, outside forces (Lederer for Blyleven being the perfect example), etc. I think perhaps we're agreeing in a way - I agree that the growth in anti-Morris fervor was a response to his rising support. And I think part of his rising support was due to other battles that were going on in the stat-anti stat "war" - the valuation of wins to be exact and specifically a reaction to the big win-devaluation that was going on in the late 2000s. The argument became about Morris, but at its root it's a conglomeration of several arguments. And again, I don't think this is the massive majority of his support - I said 5-10%. Small but not insignificant.

It's possible there's some anti-stats backlash behind his vote. It's an entertaining narrative, no doubt, as it thrusts us right into the action. But making it involves considerable mindreading, which I find is best left in the hands of the professionals (DiPerna, mostly).

I don't think you have to work too hard to find anti-stats backlash in many MSM American baseball writers i.e. HOF voters, in fact you have to work incredibly hard not to. I mean, I get that we're all just a bunch of snot-nosed kids who just want to be noticed, but THE story in baseball over the last ten years has been some version of new stats and steroids, and the confluence of the fact that many of the biggest roiders were lumbering high-OBP, high-power sluggers i.e. new-stat favorites. That HOF voters would not have SOME reaction to the new stats wave, both good and bad, seems both extremely unlikely to me and not in keeping with basic human behavior. We react (and overreact) to just about everything.

anti-stats backlash

It's not anti-stats. It's anti-value stats. They LOVE stats like wins and complete games and RBI and batting average. They just don't like stats that actually tell you if the guy was any good.

When I said "Best in class means a lot on the HOF ballot", that was preceded by the unspoken phrase "Being perceived as...." IOW, the class of most career Wins.

When I said "Best in class means a lot on the HOF ballot", that was preceded by the unspoken phrase "Being perceived as...."

I've been there Dan.

class of most career Wins.

Even then Blyleven and John were there for nearly every ballot.

Ben Lindbergh and Sam Miller brought up an interesting point on their podcast today. They realized that they couldn't recall ever reading a voter explaining why he switched from voting "no" on Jack Morris to voting "yes." It seems as though voters who write columns every winter explaining their choices just have Morris magically appear one year and spew out some explanation of dominance, intimidation, grit, etc., without saying why they changed their mind. This impression strikes me as accurate, although I suppose it's possible that voters rarely bother to explain their switch from "no" to "yes" explicitly, or that I haven't carefully read enough Morris-for-HOF columns. Can anyone else recall reading such an explanation?

Many voters take cues from the previous year's results. They vote for players whose pcts are increasing and, to a lesser extent, withhold votes from players whose pcts are decreasing. This is undoubtedly a psychological issue probably named the "bandwagon" effect in academic journals.

It seems as though voters who write columns every winter explaining their choices just have Morris magically appear one year and spew out some explanation of dominance, intimidation, grit, etc., without saying why they changed their mind. This impression strikes me as accurate, although I suppose it's possible that voters rarely bother to explain their switch from "no" to "yes" explicitly, or that I haven't carefully read enough Morris-for-HOF columns. Can anyone else recall reading such an explanation?

I've seen a small handful say that early on his career ERA (3.90) bothered them, but since then they've seen perfectly good pitchers post ERAs higher than 4.00 so Morris' wasn't as bad as they thought...

so on the one had they recognize that it was much harder for a pitchers in the 90s-00s to post "good" ERAs (by historical standards) and are they're adjusting in their heads what a good ERA is, but OTOH they are applying those new standards back in time when they shouldn't.

That pretty much is the only explanation I've ever seen from someone who switched to vote yes, the impression I get from most vocal Morris supporters is that they are trying to create the impression that they always supported him

so on the one had they recognize that it was much harder for a pitchers in the 90s-00s to post "good" ERAs (by historical standards) and are they're adjusting in their heads what a good ERA is, but OTOH they are applying those new standards back in time when they shouldn't.

That's a good point. Morris is very lucky that the offensive explosion basically began right after his career ended. Back in his day, the idea of a "3.90 HOF pitcher" would have just been laughed at. Anything over 4.00 and you weren't even considered good. But writers' standards for a "good ERA" have moved upward since then.

Can anyone else recall reading such an explanation?

Yes, although not in detail and maybe not in recent years. I recall them as usually being something like "Tom Verducci's column about Jack Morris last week made a strong case for him, including the amazing fact that he went 27 straight starts without taking a crap, so I've added him to my ballot this year."

While it obviously helped Blyleven a lot more, I think Lederer's campaign indirectly helped Morris as well. There were a lot of voters out there who saw neither as HoF worthy but roughly similar pitchers. Once convinced to vote Blyleven, a lot added Morris (I'm guessing). Morris may have picked up some anti-Lederer backlash votes but I tend to doubt there were very many of those.

Re-doing DL's list:

2000: debut, 22%, #3 starter in the vote
2001: #3 returning, drops to #4 behind Blyleven
2002: #4 returning, stays #4 but John, Kaat, Blyleven and Morris basically all in a bunch
2003: #4 returning, no progress, Blyleven #1, Kaat leaves
2004: #3 returning, rises with Blyleven to #2, 9 points behind Blyleven
2005: #2 returning, rises with Blyleven, 8 points behind
2006: #2 returning, rises with Blyleven, 12 points behind
2007: #2 returning, falls with Blyleven, 10 points behind (Ripken, Gwynn)
2008: #2 returning, small jump but big for Blyleven, 19 points behind
2009: #2 returning, stagnant with Blyleven, 18 points behind
2010: #2 returning, big jump but less then B, 22 points behind
2011: #2 returning, Blyleven in, stagnant
2012: #1 returning, big jump
2013: #1 returning, Schilling added, small jump

The unusual bits are:

a) getting passed by Blyleven which happened early
b) when John and Kaat fell back to Morris and Blyleven, passed by both
c) when Blyleven added 9 points to his lead on Morris

It's really Blyleven's transition from the #4 SP in the 2000 vote (3rd year on ballot) to the #1 SP in the 2003 vote with 12% more than 2000 while going up against the same 4 pitchers which is hard to explain. Once Blyleven was #1, things flowed fairly normally for him except for the big jump in 2008. And once Morris was #2, things flowed pretty steadily.

Next year he will be the #1 returning starter but certainly the #2 and likely the #3 starter in almost every voter's mind. For some voter's, even supporters, he could be as low as #5. As has been noted by others, if the voters had given Blyleven that last little push in 2010, Morris would have had the ballot to himself for two years and likely would have grown more. Being stagnant in 2011 really did him in.

I've seen a small handful say that early on his career ERA (3.90) bothered them, but since then they've seen perfectly good pitchers post ERAs higher than 4.00 so Morris' wasn't as bad as they thought...

so on the one had they recognize that it was much harder for a pitchers in the 90s-00s to post "good" ERAs (by historical standards) and are they're adjusting in their heads what a good ERA is, but OTOH they are applying those new standards back in time when they shouldn't.

That pretty much is the only explanation I've ever seen from someone who switched to vote yes, the impression I get from most vocal Morris supporters is that they are trying to create the impression that they always supported him

That sounds right to me, although it smells like a rationalization for what's ultimately just a bandwagon vote.

While it obviously helped Blyleven a lot more, I think Lederer's campaign indirectly helped Morris as well. There were a lot of voters out there who saw neither as HoF worthy but roughly similar pitchers. Once convinced to vote Blyleven, a lot added Morris (I'm guessing).

I hadn't heard this explanation before, but I like it a lot. It would certainly seem to account for the dramatic way in which both came back from the depths of 20%-ish vote totals mostly simultaneously.

Mussina: 270-153, 3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+, 3563 IP, plus 3.42 ERA in 140 postseason IP
JMorris:: 254-186, 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+, 3824 IP, plus 3.80 ERA in 92 postseason IP

this would be obvious kryptonite for Morris, except:
- Morris started on opening day a lot
- Morris has the Game 7 magic
- Morris went 7-4 and Mussina went 7-8 even though Mussina had the better career postseason ERA

The 2014 ballots that list Morris but not Mussina will be fun, though. Mussina will be denied entry, I guess, because he didn't inspire his batters as well as Morris did in the postseason, and that makes up for a spectacular regular season shortfall when both often pitched on winning teams.

Nuance - which is welcomed - can make the cases closer, I think, but can anyone vote for Morris and not Mussina?

I don't know why people think Maddux is getting in next year when Morris hasn't gotten in. Consider:

Opening Day Starts: Morris 14, Maddux 9

10-inning Game 7 shutout WS performances: Morris 1, Maddux 0

Number of times leading the '80s in wins: Morris 1, Maddux 0

Number of mustaches: Morris 1, Maddux 0

Number of times referred to as a workhorse: Morris 2,443,134, Maddux 0

Number of times beating out Dan Petry, Juan Berenguer, Walt Terrell, and Frank Tanana for the Opening Day Start: Morris 14, Maddux 0

Number of mustaches: Morris 1, Maddux 0

I think Maddux gets at lest .25 mustaches for this.

Why do we assume all anti-stat support for Morris only began after he cleared 50% (i.e. when stat guys started disavowing his election)? The mid-late 2000s ballots when guys like Sutter and Rice were getting elected and Morris was starting to pull big numbers were an orgy of "the fear" and "beyond the stats" and "old school numbers" sentiment, and was right in the peak of the stats-anti stats war in all the baseball media. Remember the uproar from old school guys in 2008-10 when pitchers started winning Cy Youngs with Win totals in the mid-teens? That's right when Morris started getting his big bumps and "pitching to the score" and "most wins in the 80s" took center stage.

ISTM that the rise of Morris in the MSM / anti value-stats movement are also a backlash by proxy against the decline in traditional media's stranglehold on sports analysis. There must be plenty of Morris supporters who hate the internet and its resulting democratization of news dissemination and sports analysis, bloggers like Chass aside. The attention drawn by Repoz and the Gizmo and BBTF epitomize the good (for the thinking fan) and the bad (for the impotent has-been sclerotic writer of cliches).

Ben Lindbergh and Sam Miller brought up an interesting point on their podcast today. They realized that they couldn't recall ever reading a voter explaining why he switched from voting "no" on Jack Morris to voting "yes."

I've told this before but a few years ago Hal Bodley and Murray Chass were on the YES Network for a HOF roundtable thingee...Bodley said he was only going to vote for one player (I think it was Rickey...gotta check my records). A vein-throbing Murray Chass started severely browbeating-up Bodley into voting for Jack Morris (Bodley had NEVER voted for Morris before this). An overwhelmed/scared Bodley then promised Chass he would add Morris top his ballot.

Bodly has now voted for Jack Morris every election since...and has the ####### ball-less balls to question why Morris hasn't been voted in previously.

Hal Bodley: Morris' body of work worthy of Hall inclusion

" That said, it boggles my mind how they've dropped the ball so dramatically when it comes to Jack Morris.

Morris should have been elected years ago. Hopefully, this injustice will be corrected when results of the 2012 balloting are announced Monday.

That he has not received more support in previous years is a mystery to many voting members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America."

The mind ####### reels.

[71] I cannot find the video but was it this appearance?

http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/05/good-as-gold/

I caught the YES Hot Stove show last night.  The panel featured veteran newspaper men Hal Bodley, Murray Chass and Jack Curry.  It has become all too easy to call out Chass which is a shame because he was so good for so long.  So I won’t pile on but he really didn’t come off well.  He monopolized the conversation and what he said…oy.  Bodley was fine if somewhat bland and Curry was good as usual. And our pal Steve Goldman distinguished himself in an oddly-conceived segment as the “Interweb Expert.”

I don't know why people think Maddux is getting in next year when Morris hasn't gotten in. Consider:

Opening Day Starts: Morris 14, Maddux 9

10-inning Game 7 shutout WS performances: Morris 1, Maddux 0

Number of times leading the '80s in wins: Morris 1, Maddux 0

Number of mustaches: Morris 1, Maddux 0

Number of times referred to as a workhorse: Morris 2,443,134, Maddux 0

Number of times beating out Dan Petry, Juan Berenguer, Walt Terrell, and Frank Tanana for the Opening Day Start: Morris 14, Maddux 0

But did Jack Morris ever piss on Larry Herndon in the shower? There are still many unanswered questions. Wait a year.

I cannot find the video but was it this appearance?

Yeah, that was it.

I think Goldman wasn't in the room with them and would cut to him for factual stuff.

Chass no like.

Nuance - which is welcomed - can make the cases closer, I think, but can anyone vote for Morris and not Mussina?

No, but only because Mussina went 20-9 in his last season rather than 19-10.

(Kenny) Rogers a "poor man's (Jack) Morris."

Ladies and gentlemen, the last two starting pitchers to win a World Series game for Detroit.

- Morris has the Game 7 magic
- Morris went 7-4 and Mussina went 7-8

Mussina was obviously a better pitcher than Morris, but that one factor, however small a factor, does tip to Morris. Unlucky or whatever, Mussina spent eight years with the New York Yankees and won no rings. They won the World Series the year before he got there and the year after he left. Just a glitch in the cosmic order of things, but it happened …

So if Morris does eventually get in, either next year or at some later date via a VC, is he going to invite Lonnie Smith to introduce him?

#78: Knoblauch and Gene Larkin.

So if Morris does eventually get in, either next year or at some later date via a VC, is he going to invite Lonnie Smith to introduce him?

Drew Coble

These two.

Ray, 68 is wonderful. Thanks for the laugh.

This whole discussion almost makes me not like Morris. And then I remember 1991. Game seven was magical. The whole series was. Jack Morris will always have a spot in my sports heart. I don't want him in the HoF, but if that is the price I pay for Game seven then it is a small price.

82, not saying this is you, but I really get the feeling that some anti-Morris-for-the-HoF types cross the line so as to dislike Morris the person (or at least don't try to differentiate the HoF candidacy of Morris from Mr. Morris, who may be a douche, a regular dude or the salt of the Earth).

I've found myself feeling that way sometimes and I was always a fan of Morris, heck I even liked Jim Rice (never feared him though).

82, not saying this is you, but I really get the feeling that some anti-Morris-for-the-HoF types cross the line so as to dislike Morris the person (or at least don't try to differentiate the HoF candidacy of Morris from Mr. Morris, who may be a douche, a regular dude or the salt of the Earth).

Another drawback to the pervading obsession with the HOF as a baseball topic.

JRVJ, yes, but I also see some reaction against the messengers. The pro-Morris types (posters and writers) are not the most popular here and tend to provoke reactions that likely spill over onto poor Mr. Morris.

It is hard to say someone is not worthy of HoF without occasionally forgetting (not mentioning) that they are fine ball players in any event.

I really get the feeling that some anti-Morris-for-the-HoF types cross the line so as to dislike Morris the person (or at least don't try to differentiate the HoF candidacy of Morris from Mr. Morris, who may be a douche, a regular dude or the salt of the Earth)

In fairness to those you consider line-crossers, Morris certainly comes off as a douche whenever he's quoted about the HOF.

Mussina was obviously a better pitcher than Morris, but that one factor, however small a factor, does tip to Morris. Unlucky or whatever, Mussina spent eight years with the New York Yankees and won no rings. They won the World Series the year before he got there and the year after he left. Just a glitch in the cosmic order of things, but it happened …

I think something similar happened with Donnie Baseball.

82, not saying this is you, but I really get the feeling that some anti-Morris-for-the-HoF types cross the line so as to dislike Morris the person (or at least don't try to differentiate the HoF candidacy of Morris from Mr. Morris, who may be a douche, a regular dude or the salt of the Earth).

I don't dislike Morris the person - indeed I've never met him - and I don't have a sense that what he's said publicly about this issue has been annoying. I don't have a wide sense of what he's said, but at most he's been guilty of believing his press clippings. Big whoop.

Now I do think Gossage is a douche.

Ladies and gentlemen, the last two starting pitchers to win a World Series game for Detroit.

Petry started Game 5 in 1984 (can't remember whether he was the winner, don't think he was). It was in Game 4 that Morris made the Padres look like Little Leaguers.

In an HoM thread a few days ago, I called Rogers a "poor man's Morris." There are a lot of similarities, including that both have actual W-L records that are much better than their neutralized RA+ based records, and by about the same amount. But Morris does have a career length and durability advantage over Rogers, and should rank ahead of him.

A lot of that, though, can be attributed to Rogers pitching out of the pen until his age 28 season.

"That he has not received more support in previous years is a mystery to many voting members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America."

The mind ####### reels."

That Morris had not received more support in previous years must have been especially and utterly baffling to the supermajority of BBWAA voters who had decided not to vote for Morris.