Ok, did I understand correctly that the point of this article is that Jack Morris should not be given special credit for Game 7 of the 1991 WS because Lonnie Smith made a running mistake?

I'll hold off on commenting until you guys confirm what I think I read.

I think the point is that no one game should result in "special credit" in any player's HOF case because a butterfly flapping its wings in South America can change a 10 inning shoutout to getting pulled in the 8th and taking a hard-luck 1-0 loss, with both possible outcomes coming as the result of the same quality of performance.

I think it was more along the lines of it was a solid game but Morris should've lost it so going nuts and putting him in the hall largely due to it is even sillier than THE FEAR Jim Rice put into pitchers.

I am surprised the writer didn't mention Rice & Sutter when it comes to voters picking story over facts as I feel it went 'Sutter is a great story, lets put him in due to his inventing something he actually didn't invent' then 'Jim Rice is a great story lets put him in for scaring pitchers even though he really didn't that much' and now 'Morris was a clutch pitcher, even though we only have one real example of that and it was partially thanks to a baserunning blunder'.

Very, very bizarre how writers are putting guys into the Hall who are extremely weak candidates despite having a surplus of superior ones available.

That's the way I read it. He's saying that Morris' candidacy is entirely from narrative, and that the narrative is very thin, demonstrated by it being one play away from being completely different.

2 & 3, thank you.

I strongly disagree with this article. Not because Morris should go into the HoF because of Game 7 of the 1991 WS, but because we are now falling into true pitfalls of absurdity when not only are we questioning narratives, but are discounting narrative of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED because of what COULD SHOULDA been.

I can understand somebody wanting to put special emphasis on record and statistics when choosing whether somebody should go into the HoF (and certainly, Morris should not go into the HoF based on his record), but good grief, if the HoF is not going to become the most boring place on Earth, YOU NEED some great events and narratives.

BTW - I strongly believe that the 1991 WS is the best ever, and I give thanks that I was of an age where I could truly appreciate it. It was a crazy ride by two from-the-bootstrap teams, with some of the most thrilling games of all time. Game 6 was insane, and Game 7 was better (to a large extent BECAUSE of Lonnie Smith's mental blunder).

Does that mean that Morris should be in the HoF? No, but you'd better believe that Kirby Puckett going to the HoF partially because of that WS, and I for one, don't mind that he is in.

The crux of the article is arguably this statement:

"...Morris is now a test case to see if a candidate with a strong enough narrative, no matter how groundless, imaginary, or overblown it might be, can make the Hall simply because his supporters repeated it so often and so loudly that one morning the world woke up and found it was true."

if the HoF is not going to become the most boring place on Earth, YOU NEED some great events and narratives.

Agreed, but that's what the museum wing of the HoF is for.

7, good point, but why should that (the fact there's a museum wing) mean induction in the HoF should not take great events and narratives into account?

Mind you, I'm not arguing for Morris. I'm arguing against this crazy idea that narrative of what happened should be discounted because of what COULD HAVE happened.

why should that (the fact there's a museum wing) mean induction in the HoF should not take great events and narratives into account?

Because as the article points out, the BWAA Election Rules specifically say that one game is not enough:

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

One game is fine for narrative to sum up a guy who already has a HOF career without the one ame. Babe Ruth calling his shot, Willie Mays' catch, etc. The Morris advocates are putting that in the wrong order: that the narrative of one game sums up his career. We're not putting Kirk Gibson in the HOF for his HR.

Should a Hall of Fame case be built entirely on narrative? In my opinion, no. Can a Hall of Fame case be bolstered by narrative? In my opinion, yes.

Baseball is a story, and people that played larger roles in that story (whether by being on great teams, or playing a part in big events) get extra credit. Not enough to help Don Larsen, but some extra credit. Is this fair? I don't particularly care.

I am not arguing for Morris, I am arguing for art and science to co-exist.

[6], well said.

Science and art can co-exist. Anti-science is not art. Falsehoods are not art.

He didn't know about Lonnie Smith's blunder until just now?

Falsehoods are not art.

There are no falsehoods afoot here.

Because as the article points out, the BWAA Election Rules specifically say that one game is not enough:

That's a strawman. I didn't write that a player should be inducted into the HoF BECAUSE OF great events or narratives.

I wrote that I see no reason why great events or moments should not be taken INTO ACCOUNT.

Very different point, which you ironically enough make in your second paragraph.

****

On this issue, I commented yesterday that I had strongly disagreed with Joe Sheehan in his latest podcast, because he argued that he bought into narrative being a plus for somebody who has a HoF or borderline HoF career. Sheehan then said that he would have approved the HoF induction of Jim Kaat, Luis Tiant and Tommy John if either one of them had (in addition to their careers) pitched a WS 1991 G 7.

I have problems with that position, too, but this article espouses an even worse position - that a great event or moment should not be taken into account because Gosh darn it, it could have been different.

To use your example of Kirk Gibson, let's take a borderline HoF player. Let's say somebody like Andre Dawson, who seemed to have been well liked (no "Fear" B.S.). And let's say that Dawson, who also had gamey knees, had hit the Kirk Giblson HR in the WS 1988 G 1 off of ECkersley.

In that hypo, yes, that HR should have pushed Dawson over the edge into the HoF (which he did reach, though he probably shouldn't have).

But this article seems to be arguing, in essence, that Dawson should not be credited for a HR because the batter in front of him got on base because of a throwing error.

And I don't agree with that one bit.

(I'm too tired to build a narrative around the 2011 WS, but you could make similar arguments in re - say - Lance Berkman and his HoF changes due to his tying game 6 of that series in the 10th. But I supppose that under this line of reasoning, the fact that the RFer dropped Freese's liner discounts everything after that).

The Morris advocates are putting that in the wrong order: that the narrative of one game sums up his career.

I am not a Morris advocate, but this is very clearly NOT what they are doing. The Morris case is: he won 254 games, plus several hugely important and dramatic post-season games. You can chip away at that case if you want, but that is his case. What other pitcher in baseball history has won 250 games and has been the ace pitcher on two World Series winners? (Winning two games in each series, and leaving his other 1991 start with the lead.) Not very many, I can assure you, and they are likely all in the Hall of Fame.

Again, you can chip away at this case and find it wanting. But please don't suggest that this is some sort of silly case. It is not. People who vote for Jack Morris are not morons.

Should a Hall of Fame case be built entirely on narrative? In my opinion, no. Can a Hall of Fame case be bolstered by narrative? In my opinion, yes.

How many borderline players don't have a narrative that can be used to boist their candidacy? If someone wanted to find a narrative, they always could. Sure some are bigger and more obvious, but nearly all good to great players have a story of some sort.

That's why 600 people vote, and all 600 of them have their own opinions as to which narratives matter. If it were all just science, you would only need one person to vote.

I wrote that I see no reason why great events or moments should not be taken INTO ACCOUNT.

I agree with you. But that's not the point of the article or the point that Morris supporters the article is arguing against are making.

The Morris case is: he won 254 games, plus several hugely important and dramatic post-season games. You can chip away at that case if you want, but that is his case.

But 254 wins is not good enough on it's own, so the narrative must be leaned on heavily. That's what the article is arguing against.

People who vote for Jack Morris are not morons.

I never said they were. I think they're wrong, but they're not idiots. The author of the article might though.

If it were all just science, you would only need one person to vote.

You would need one person to vote, and peer reviewers, and funding from some agency, and some post-docs you hire for said funds, and then you would need a bunch of grad students to do the actual work.

18, I think that IS the point of the article.

Check this out: "But here's the thing about that narrative: Jack Morris should have lost Game 7 of the 1991 World Series."

That's it, because otherwise, what's the point of revisiting the game and writing how shucks, Lonnie Smith had a brain cramp?

People who vote for Jack Morris are not morons.

Probably most of them haven't paid much attention to baseball for twenty years, though. Except for the once a year they get to vote on it.

Probably most of them haven't paid much attention to baseball for twenty years, though. Except for the once a year they get to vote on it.

Ultimately, this comment summarizes why Jack Morris (and Rice before him) will enter the Hall of Fame. Because the arguments for them are misunderstood and mocked rather than politely engaged. So they just march on.

Some arguments deserve mockery.

In either case, I was rather not mocking but rather serious. A few years ago it was revealed that a frightening volume of voters do not cover baseball on a regular basis.

If it were all just science, you would only need one person to vote.

What nonsense.

18, I think that IS the point of the article.

I feel like we're splitting hairs here. We both agree that great moments and narrative are part of what makes a HOFer a HOFer. The point of the article is that Jack Morris' great moment and its narrative is the entirety of his HOF candidacy.

That's why 600 people vote, and all 600 of them have their own opinions as to which narratives matter. If it were all just science, you would only need one person to vote.

I'm fairly certain that nobody on any of these hof threads, is arguing for a strict statistical guidelines, but they are arguing for some realistic high level of standards. Many on here argue for Dick Allen, I actively oppose his inclusion. I'll argue for Jim Edmonds when his time comes up, and others are going to oppose that. There are different ways to look at it, but looking at Morris, his case is so weak that the narrative has to be created that overcomes logic.

And 600 people can be wrong. I'm a fan of the wisdom of the masses, but that is of course assuming league average intelligence, the bbwaa participates in a lesser league than the masses.

Ultimately, this comment summarizes why Jack Morris (and Rice before him) will enter the Hall of Fame. Because the arguments for them are misunderstood and mocked rather than politely engaged. So they just march on.

They are going into the hof because the people who vote for them won't bother engaging in a legitimate debate for their guys. When Blyleven was on the ballot, the people who refused to vote for him said 'he didn't feel like a hofer' and that was the extent of their argument against, occassionally you would get non-voters to put out a semi-coherent argument for not including Blyleven, but the voters didn't try. And those same voters are putting out similar arguments for Morris. They will put up silly comments like pitched to the score, when they see all the studies proving that is false, they go with a gamer who won when his team needed him, again another demolished argument, and then they'll say he was an ace and felt like a hofer, while ignoring that only 19% of the voters felt that way 5 years after his retirement etc. Ultimately it comes down to 1. one game 2. most wins in a decade 3.anti-stat backlash.

Oh, if only baseball writers were as smart as baseball message board commenters, this whole thing would be so much more civil.

23, maybe, but if so, Bernhardt wrote a terrible article, because he seems to be writing something else completely (check the perception of 2 above of what the article is trying to say).

Oh, if only baseball writers were as smart as baseball message board commenters, this whole thing would be so much more civil.

Maybe not more civil, but probably more rational.

I don't think y'all are giving this article nearly enough credit. I think it represents a good-faith attempt to examine the pros and cons of Morris' case, and it's well-written. Summarizing its 6,000-plus words as "Morris was lucky to even win that game!" isn't fair to its content, IMO.

(One thing it points out is that Morris did in fact cut a certain figure, and did -- contrary to what has sometimes been claimed here -- have the Jack Morris Reputation when he was playing. It's true that people didn't think he was one of the best pitchers in the league; the Cy voting shows that. But did they think he was a winner, bulldog, etc.? Yeah, they did.)

Ultimately, this comment summarizes why Jack Morris (and Rice before him) will enter the Hall of Fame.

Wait a minute, I thought it wasn't all about the Hall of Fame! Why can't we just talk about the players??

Mark, I'm with you. For what it's worth, I think you're making the most sense of anyone here.

I would not vote for Morris either, but I can understand why some would. At one point, he was the most desired pitcher on the free agent market, but collusion came about. He played an important role on multiple championship teams. If he makes the Hall, it won't ruin my day.

I'm much more interested in building a positive case for Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso, and Ted Simmons to MAKE the Hall of Fame.

Well, Bernhardt does say this:

In the absence of any other compelling reason, a Hall of Fame bust should not be awarded because Lonnie Smith lost his helmet

And he's quite right.

Although, I see JRVJ's point. Last October (I am just dealing with the trauma enough to talk about it) I saw Josh Hamilton hit an incredible home run that should have won a World Series. But in the reality of baseball history, the Cardinals won the Series, and Hamilton doesn't get to join the same narrative world as Morris and Carter and Mazeroski. At a certain point, the amount someone added to a win expectation is not as meaningful as the result of a game itself.

Now, this has nothing to do with Morris's HOF case, as everyone but the Bear agrees. Heck, John Lackey won a Game Seven, and people would be lying down on the streets of Cooperstown to keep him out of the Hall :)

...we are now falling into true pitfalls of absurdity when not only are we questioning narratives, but are discounting narrative of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED because of what COULD SHOULDA been.


That's exactly what the steroid hardliners and discounters have been doing all along. Making up their own numbers based on what they assume would've/could've/should've happened if said player hadn't juiced rather than going off statistical facts of what actually DID happen.

And yes, true absurdity is as good a way of describing it as any I've heard.

Jack Morris = Joe Carter

Both were slightly above average players for a long enough time that they racked up some fairly impressive (but nothing fantastic) career numbers in a couple of high profile counting stats (AKA compilers). And they even both have signature World Series moments that define their careers.

The difference is, Carter dropped off the ballot after one shot. How voters are seeing enough of a difference in Morris that he's on the doorstep of induction is beyond me...

Morris is a better candidate than Joe Carter though.

Ultimately, this comment summarizes why Jack Morris (and Rice before him) will enter the Hall of Fame. Because the arguments for them are misunderstood and mocked rather than politely engaged. So they just march on.

I thought the argument for Morris is the wins, and the counterargument is that the disparity between Morris's ERA/ERA+/whatever and his won/loss record can be largely explained by Morris' run support (in other words, his teammates) rather than anything intrinsic to Morris. The counter-counter-argument is pitching to the score, the counter-counter-counter-argument is that nobody has found anything to suggest Morris bought himself that many extra wins pitching to the score. Am I missing something here?

Morris is a better candidate than Joe Carter though.

He is, but not by too much. Who would be the offensive equivalant of Morris? Harold Baines?

I am not a Morris advocate, but this is very clearly NOT what they are doing.

I thought the argument for Morris is the wins

I might be off-base, but I honestly disagree. It seems very much the case to me that Morris strikes the people who vote for him as seeming like a hall of famer, both because of the aura surrounding him (and his performance in game 7) and because they remember him as a very good pitcher, afterward those people go back, see he won a good number of games and decide that 254 is enough in his case when it wouldn't generally be in many others.

"He is, but not by too much. Who would be the offensive equivalant of Morris? Harold Baines?"

Take Jim Rice's career and add Joe Carter's homer, and you've got it.

Morris's WS heroics do trump Carter. If Carter doesn't hit that homer, it's 50/50 that the Jays win game 7. Morris's pitching turned a 95-99% sure loss (when his team can't score for 9 innings) into a win. And let's not slight his pitching. Even though Lonnie made the big baserunning mistake, Jack still had to get out of a 2nd & 3rd, nobody out jam.

It's funny. A team wins a bunch of games with Hall of Famers (or close) at second, short, third, and very good players at catcher and center field. And who gets the votes? The pitcher.

Serious question: rank the Hall of Fame candidacy of the following players...

Parrish, Whitaker, Trammell, Evans, Lemon, Morris.

Is Morris third? Fourth? Is he actually ahead of Lemon and Parrish?

What other pitcher in baseball history has won 250 games and has been the ace pitcher on two World Series winners?

The problem with this is that Morris doesn't qualify here either. Morris was NOT the ace of the 1991 Twins. Nor the 1984 Tigers. Erickson and Petry both got more votes for the Cy Young. The writers misremember their own narrative because Morris stayed around longer than Erickson and Petry, but both of those pitchers were thought BY THE WRITERS to be better than Morris in 1991 and 1984 respectively.

Serious question: rank the Hall of Fame candidacy of the following players...

Parrish, Whitaker, Trammell, Evans, Lemon, Morris.

Don't know about Hall of Fame, but I can give you Hall of Merit.

Trammell: Elected, easily. Subsequently ranked 15th among elected SS. Considered essentially tied with Ozzie Smith.

Whitaker: Elected, easily. Subsequently ranked 15th among elected 2B.

Evans: Elected, first ballot in a backlog year. Subsequently ranked 14th among elected 3B.

Morris: Has drawn votes. Example: one 12th place vote (out of 40 voters) in 2009 election; no votes in 2010, 2011 or 2012. Draws a few scattered votes in BBTF mock HoF elections.

Parrish: I don't think he's drawn any votes, but I'm not sure.

Lemon: Has drawn no support.

So to answer your question: 4th.

Kirk Gibson's story is one of the better ones of my lifetime: led LA to the WS and hit that home run off of Eck in Game One. WHere's the love for him? 13 votes in '01.

The writers misremember their own narrative

That's the problem I have with the Morris camp. At least Jim Rice was actually overrated when he played. Morris wasn't; he was properly regarded as a very good pitcher, but not an elite ace. It's only 20 years later that he's being touted as something he wasn't perceived as at the time.

What other [non-HOF] pitcher in baseball history has won 250 games and has been the ace pitcher on two World Series winners?

Nobody that I can see (I admit I was hoping that Gus Weyhing had kicked butt in the Temple Cup or something, but apparently not :)

OTOH, Andy Pettitte won 240 and David Wells won 239, and both will have uphill struggles for the Hall (Wells might not get 5% next year, given the ballot crowding). The 250 mark is pretty arbitrary.

Actually, if Wells should get less than 5% while Morris gets 66% or more, the results will just be weird. Wells, like Morris, is your basic HOVG pitcher, and had a darn good mustache, too. It will show that the voting goes mostly by waistline.

It will show that the voting goes mostly by waistline.

Height, too. I suspect Rock Raines relative shortness is costing him some votes.

Mind you, I'm not arguing for Morris. I'm arguing against this crazy idea that narrative of what happened should be discounted because of what COULD HAVE happened.

I wouldn't vote for Morris, but OTOH I wouldn't particularly care if he made it into the Hall.

That said, I think you're discounting the fact that with Lonnie Smith on 1st in a tie game with nobody out, Jack Morris gave up a gap double that would have scored Smith 999 times out of 1000. The giving up of that hit was the only part of that play that was in Morris's power to influence. That he did give up that hit is indisputable, as is the fact that without a flukish baserunning mistake, Morris would have lost the game. 999 of 1000 times Morris loses that game, and the narrative now becomes one for John Smoltz to bask in.

No question that after that, Morris pitched out of a jam with a spectacularly gutty performance, given the full context of the situation. He deserves complete credit for that, and everything that came before and after. Not to mention that only giving up 1 run in a complete game 7 of the World Series is a hell of a feat in itself. But that doesn't negate the fact that it was only a flukish play that prevented the box score from reading "LP-Morris". And poof, there goes much of Morris's HoF narrative.

Wells is the same height as Morris. I can see the perception being different since Wells is also 75 inches wide.