Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 09, 2012

Blyleven lobbyist not convinced Morris is worthy of HOF

No jack for The Jack!

Morris will return to the ballot a 14th year, which is how long it took Bert Blyleven to get elected. After his election, Blyleven thanked and credited an investment manager named Rich Lederer for lobbying for him. Lederer used baseball blogging site, BaseballAnalysts.com, to pump up Blyleven. He also contacted writers with Hall of Fame votes and shared the numbers he crunched on Bert’s behalf.

I talked to Lederer today after Larkin got in and Morris didn’t.

BS: Were you surprised Morris wasn’t elected?

RL: I would have been more surprised if he did get in. That would have required a humongous jump (in percentage of votes). I actually thought Larkin would get in. I have personal favorites. I think Alan Trammell should be in, and Tim Raines. I also would vote for Jeff Bagwell and Edgar Martinez.

BS: Game 7 of the World Series. Both Morris and Blyleven are in their prime and available. Who do you start?

RL: I know a lot of people would take Morris based on what he did in 1991. The one thing I got a kick out of is, the one time they faced each other in the playoffs, Bert won (6-3 in Game 2 of the 1987 ALCS between the Twins and Detroit Tigers). So I think that’s an interesting stat. I think your question would generate a lot of Jack Morris conversation. But when they did face each other, Blyleven won.

Repoz Posted: January 09, 2012 at 08:51 PM | 65 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, history, site news

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 09, 2012 at 09:23 PM (#4032696)
BS: Game 7 of the World Series. Both Morris and Blyleven are in their prime and available. Who do you start?

RL: I know a lot of people would take Morris based on what he did in 1991. The one thing I got a kick out of is, the one time they faced each other in the playoffs, Bert won (6-3 in Game 2 of the 1987 ALCS between the Twins and Detroit Tigers). So I think that’s an interesting stat. I think your question would generate a lot of Jack Morris conversation. But when they did face each other, Blyleven won.


So why isn't his answer to this simply, "Blyleven"?
   2. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 09, 2012 at 09:37 PM (#4032709)
So why isn't his answer to this simply, "Blyleven"?


Because unlike most of us who frequent this site, Mr. Lederer has a modicum of talent for tact and diplomacy.
   3. puck Posted: January 09, 2012 at 10:02 PM (#4032726)
Is there any push for Morris that is part of a backlash against Blyleven...sort of along the lines of "those kids in their basement got their spreadsheet guy in, so we're going to get our guy in, we saw him pitch."
   4. Brian C Posted: January 09, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4032747)
So why isn't his answer to this simply, "Blyleven"?

Because his actual answer is better?
   5. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 09, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4032753)
So why isn't his answer to this simply, "Blyleven"?


Because Morris did start a very famous Game 7 and gave one of the greatest recent performances, so to give a glib short answer makes you look like you don't follow baseball or are stupid, at least to a more casual fan.
   6. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 09, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4032757)
I didn't mean literally, a one-word answer, "Blyleven." I meant something more definitive. He never really says Blyleven unambiguously, leading me to wonder whether he really has the courage of his own convictions.

In fairness, though, reading the whole FA, Lederer comes off as thoughtful and diplomatic and that's likely most of what's going on.

If he truly isn't sure, he's essentially saying Morris's "playing ability" relative to his "playing record" is higher than Blyleven's -- which is relevant for HOF purposes, since those are the two critical factors to be considered by the voters.
   7. Brian C Posted: January 09, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4032762)
If he truly isn't sure, he's essentially saying Morris's "playing ability" relative to his "playing record" is higher than Blyleven's -- which is relevant for HOF purposes, since those are the two critical factors to be considered by the voters.

Um, what? Is this an attempt to make it look like someone who plainly doesn't agree with you actually secretly agrees with you?
   8. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 09, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4032773)
No, it's an attempt to figure out why he didn't say he prefers Blyleven to Morris in the hypothetical Game 7.
   9. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4032777)
Yeah, I certainly read his response to the game 7 question as "I don't want to answer that."
   10. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4032780)
Is there any push for Morris that is part of a backlash against Blyleven...sort of along the lines of "those kids in their basement got their spreadsheet guy in, so we're going to get our guy in, we saw him pitch."

I would think that the people who would make this kind of push would already be voting for Morris.
   11. Brian C Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4032790)
No, it's an attempt to figure out why he didn't say he prefers Blyleven to Morris in the hypothetical Game 7.

Because it was a hypothetical, and because he's intelligent enough to know that one baseball game doesn't mean #### either way.

Like I said, his answer was better than the one you'd have him give.
   12. cardsfanboy Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:23 PM (#4032791)
Post 2, and 4 nailed it on the answer in my opinion. To be honest, I find it hard to believe anyone would take Morris over any other pitcher for one game. Now going into a season, and having a good offensive team, I could see some people taking the certainty of Morris endurance over other better pitchers, (not Blyleven, since Blyleven had better endurance, but maybe some other pitchers who had endurance issues)
   13. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4032793)
I find it hard to believe anyone would take Morris over any other pitcher for one game.

Including A.J. Burnett?
   14. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:29 PM (#4032795)
o be honest, I find it hard to believe anyone would take Morris over any other pitcher for one game.


Even over Don Larsen?
   15. Brian C Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4032801)
Even over John Smoltz? Oh wait
   16. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:36 PM (#4032803)
No, it's an attempt to figure out why he didn't say he prefers Blyleven to Morris in the hypothetical Game 7.

Roids.

I mean by Lederer.
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: January 09, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4032818)
You guys are right, I meant over any other well regarded pitcher. Morris strength is not individual games, it's the marathon season.
   18. Walt Davis Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:49 AM (#4032856)
Is there any push for Morris that is part of a backlash against Blyleven

Not a "backlash" as I would think of it ...

The two main things Morris had going for him was that it was a weak ballot with a weak set of debuts and, with Blyleven off, he was the best pitcher on the ballot. I expected him to go up 10+ points ... but probably not as far as he did ... based on "standard" HoF ballot "analysis."

And don't forget that there's a fairly large contingent who voted for neither of them. Some of those voters saw them as roughly equal and might have concluded "well, if they let Blyleven in, no reason Morris shouldn't be in." In the same way that Sutter and Gossage were pretty much stuck until Eck went in or the way that Trammell's numbers jumped this year as folks accepted that Larkin was going in. That has happened regularly through HoF history (although dependent on other ballot dynamics). We don't see Morris and Blyleven as being particularly similar but it's reasonably clear a good chunk of voters do.

But, consciously or no, I think there was an easing of the tension between the "B only" and "M only" camps such that some of the "B only" crowd crossed over as a "peace offering" if you will. That's still not a backlash, that's a "gracious winner" attitude.
   19. Howie Menckel Posted: January 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4033018)

http://jon-heyman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/33714192/34289845

Jon Heyman
#facepalm

"Morris' detractors generally point to one unextraordinary number, and while it's an important number, it should not define his career. His lifetime ERA of 3.90 would be the highest of any pitcher in the Hall of Fame, and his ERA plus of 105 is barely above average. But Morris pitched deep into his games and deep into his middle age, trampling his lifetime ERA. Morris is known by teammates to have pitched to the score, which enabled him to win more games than anyone else in the '80s and 254 games overall. (The leading winners in the seven preceding decades are all in the Hall.) In seven seasons, he received Cy Young votes. So he had plenty of great years."

He is known by his teammates have pitched to the score, so ignore any game-by-game analysis that empirically proves that "knowledge" wrong.
Sigh.

   20. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4033028)
Because it was a hypothetical, and because he's intelligent enough to know that one baseball game doesn't mean #### either way.


Oh yeah, I thought Game 7 of the World Series meant something.

My bad.
   21. Brian C Posted: January 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4033083)
Oh yeah, I thought Game 7 of the World Series meant something.

OK, fine, keep pretending like you're misunderstanding the point. That's sure to prove an effective tactic on a forum where your position is already roundly rejected by unanimous consensus.
   22. Fanshawe Posted: January 10, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4033089)
Oh yeah, I thought Game 7 of the World Series meant something.


Yeah, it's not like he asked "who would you want to start game 5 of the World Series" or some other meaningless game like that.
   23. Fanshawe Posted: January 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4033107)
I find it hard to believe anyone would take Morris over any other pitcher for one game.

Including A.J. Burnett?


Fun Fact: A.J. Burnett and Jack Morris have the same ERA+
   24. Brian C Posted: January 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4033109)
Fun Fact: A.J. Burnett and Jack Morris have the same ERA+

That's an important number, but it should not define AJ Burnett's career.
   25. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4033117)
OK, fine, keep pretending like you're misunderstanding the point.

No misunderstanding. If I'm asked, "You're about to play Game 7 of the World Series, who would you like to start," I pick the guy I think is the better pitcher -- as would anyone. Why would you pick Morris over Blyleven if you think Blyleven's a better pitcher?

You're adding entirely unnecessary complexity to a simple question.

Watch:

"World Series Game 7, you have your choice of Jack Morris or Jamie Moyer, who do you pick?" Jack Morris.
"World Series Game 7, you have your choice of Jack Morris or Charlie Hough, who do you pick?" Jack Morris.
"World Series Game 7, you have your choice of Jack Morris or Pedro Martinez, who do you pick?" Pedro Martinez.
   26. Brian C Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4033121)
Why would you pick Morris over Blyleven if you think Blyleven's a better pitcher?

Wait, what? Who said Morris?
   27. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4033123)
Wait, what? Who said Morris?

No one. Lederer punted the question. Why didn't he pick Blyleven?
   28. Brian C Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4033125)
No one. Why didn't he pick Blyleven?

So I repeat:
OK, fine, keep pretending like you're misunderstanding the point.
   29. Shredder Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4033127)
Game 7 of the World Series. Both Morris and Blyleven are in their prime and available. Who do you start?
I hate questions like this. First of all, the two pitchers involved are in the argument for the HOF because neither really had a "prime". They were both consistently pretty good for a long time. Second, when was the last time a team went into game 7 of the WS with two borderline HOF level pitchers rested and ready? Still, I though he answered it pretty well. There are plenty of arguments you could make for Blyleven in his prime, and really only one for Morris.
Why would you pick Morris over Blyleven if you think Blyleven's a better pitcher?
Because the question wasn't about who the better pitcher was. It was about who you'd pick for one game in their prime. It would have been great if he'd answered "In their prime? Kevin Brown". A non-HOFer, no longer on the ballot, for whom no one is making an HOF argument, who had an otherwordly peak season.

By the way, I must have missed it over the holidays, but what happened to the bookmark function?
   30. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4033129)
So we're arguing ... what, then?

Why Lederer didn't answer, "Blyleven" if he believes Blyleven was a better pitcher -- as he presumably does.
   31. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4033130)
By the way, I must have missed it over the holidays, but what happened to the bookmark function?


Jim did some system work. It was lost in the upgrade, though hopefully just temporarily.
   32. Fanshawe Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4033142)
Why Lederer didn't answer, "Blyleven" if he believes Blyleven was a better pitcher -- as he presumably does.


Because it's funnier to point out that Blyleven actually beat Morris head-to-head in the post season when the implication of the question is that Morris is a gamer who would obviously be better than Blyleven in the post season.
   33. Brian C Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4033145)
Why Lederer didn't answer, "Blyleven" if he believes Blyleven was a better pitcher -- as he presumably does.

And so I repeat again:
OK, fine, keep pretending like you're misunderstanding the point.

You are literally the only person mystified by Lederer's answer.
   34. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4033146)
Why Lederer didn't answer, "Blyleven" if he believes Blyleven was a better pitcher -- as he presumably does.


My guess is diplomacy.
   35. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4033147)
Because the question wasn't about who the better pitcher was. It was about who you'd pick for one game in their prime.

I'm distinguishing, as the HOF criteria do, between playing ability and playing record. If I'm picking one game, I pick the guy with the higher playing ability. Presumably, Lederer understands the distinction -- it's not complicated.
   36. Randy Jones Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4033149)
Why do people continue to engage SBB when he is clearly trolling?
   37. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4033152)
Because it's funnier to point out that Blyleven actually beat Morris head-to-head in the post season when the implication of the question is that Morris is a gamer who would obviously be better than Blyleven in the post season.

Except that implication is entirely imagined. It's a simple question, free from guile.

To the extent there's anything implied, it's along the lines of, "Even though Blyleven had a better statistical record than Morris, do you really think he was a better pitcher?"
   38. AROM, Instagram Gangsta Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4033153)
Game 7 of the world series. Your choices for the start are Jack Morris and Orel Hershiser. They are at their peaks, so assume Jack is the pitcher he was from 1983-1987, and Orel is the guy he was from 1985-1989. Who do you take?
   39. bunyon Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4033154)
Yeah, I took the answer to be "Blyleven". I mean, he pointed out that when they faced each other in the postseason, Blyleven won. Why would someone take that to mean, "I don't know"?
   40. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4033156)
Why do people continue to engage SBB when he is clearly trolling?

I don't agree with him on Morris (or much of anything else, for that matter), but what's "trolling" about arguing in favor of a candidate (Morris) with widespread HoF support, if it's not "trolling" to spend just as much time arguing against another potential candidate (Ichiro) whose likely support is nearly unanimous?

BTW I'm not saying that those who are arguing against Ichiro are trolling, only that Sugar Bear's not, either. He simply represents a POV that few of us here subscribe to, but what's the big deal about that?
   41. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4033157)
Game 7 of the world series. Your choices for the start are Jack Morris and Orel Hershiser. They are at their peaks, so assume Jack is the pitcher he was from 1983-1987, and Orel is the guy he was from 1985-1989. Who do you take?


If it's one game for my life, Hershiser. He was better at his best than Morris.
   42. Randy Jones Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4033167)
Why do people continue to engage SBB when he is clearly trolling?

I don't agree with him on Morris (or much of anything else, for that matter), but what's "trolling" about arguing in favor of a candidate (Morris) with widespread HoF support, if it's not "trolling" to spend just as much time arguing against another potential candidate (Ichiro) whose likely support is nearly unanimous?

BTW I'm not saying that those who are arguing against Ichiro are trolling, only that Sugar Bear's not, either. He simply represents a POV that few of us here subscribe to, but what's the big deal about that?


He isn't doing that in this thread though. As post 37 points out, he is just intentionally ignoring what Lederer actually said.


Also, have you read his arguments for Morris? I have read a lot of posts from SBB, he is not stupid. The arguments he makes for Morris are not good arguments and I have never seen him take the positions he takes in favor of Morris for any other player in any other discussion. He is just being a homer about it because he really liked Morris when he was a kid or something, or he just likes trolling and found it to be a convenient opportunity.
   43. Brian C Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4033174)
He simply represents a POV that few of us here subscribe to, but what's the big deal about that?

His rank intellectual dishonesty. Same as any other argument he gets into here.

He's not arguing for Morris here, he's pretending to be baffled by a Lederer quote that no one else is having trouble deciphering. And he's taking the transparently bad-faith posture that Lederer secretly thinks that Morris was better than Blyleven and just won't admit it, when anyone can see that Lederer goes out of his way to take Morris down a peg.
   44. AROM, Instagram Gangsta Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4033176)
If it's one game for my life, Hershiser. He was better at his best than Morris.


Think Hershiser belongs in the Hall too? The difference in their careers is about an extra 700 innings of a 4.75 ERA, or an 82 ERA+.
   45. Brian C Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4033178)
Think Hershiser belongs in the Hall too? The difference in their careers is about an extra 700 innings of a 4.75 ERA, or an 82 ERA+.

You mean, "700 innings of pitching to the score."
   46. BDC Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4033186)
neither really had a "prime". They were both consistently pretty good for a long time

Given that "prime" is so hard to define here, you could do a more detailed comparison and ask who you'd really have chosen in a given year. From 1970 through '78, it's Blyleven. Morris was really good in 1979, but Blyleven was in fact a tough postseason pitcher for a World Champion that year, so I'll go with Blyleven on experience and postseason chops. Then, till about 1988, there's no reason to choose Morris in any year; Blyleven was always equally good, very durable, always the more wily veteran. I'll pick Morris in 1988, because Blyleven stunk that year, but reverse course in 1990, when Morris stunk. From 1991-93 I'll go with Morris. No postseason in 1994 :)

So yeah, Blyleven.

EDIT: OK, Morris in 1982, too, when Blyleven missed most of the year.
   47. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4033188)
Think Hershiser belongs in the Hall too?

I wouldn't have been troubled by his election. The 4.4% he got in his second year was a joke.

I don't have a one-size-fits-all solution, but players who did their best work during Hershiser's peak aren't being properly evaluated. The TTO era, with its more easily obtainable outlier seasons, is primarily at fault.
   48. AROM, Instagram Gangsta Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4033190)
You mean, "700 innings of pitching to the score."


I know you're being sarcastic, but once again I might as well point out the record. Jack allowed earned runs (and I assume total runs) at a rate 5% better than the league. He got run support 11% better than the league - 4.9 per game vs a 4.4 league average on BB-ref.

That's an expected winning % of .578. His actual was .577.

Edit: or .573 if I use pythagenpat instead of 2 for an exponent. Close enough. He won the games you should expect given his great offensive support (which he literally had nothing to do with in the DH league) and his good pitching.
   49. Bad Doctor Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4033192)
My guess is diplomacy.

Yeah, when you get thanked by a Hall of Famer in his induction speech because you got the enlightened masses of the BBWAA to buy your statistical arguments, and when reporters come to you with this question in the first place because of such skill, it stands to reason that you're good at winning friends and influencing people and getting more flies with honey, etc.

Internally I would answer the question "Blyleven," but I'd like to think I would give a reporter an answer similar to Rich's here. That's good communication. Because even a reasoned and Morris-sympathetic answer that ends up saying you'd take Blyleven is likely only going to raise the hackles of Morris supporters and end your argument right then and there: "What are you crazy? Get your head out of a spreadsheet and watch a game sometime!"

This is a question that is asked to get a certain response, to make a certain point, and a well-reasonsed response to the contrary is going to turn off the question asker. (Not altogether unlike asking whether Player X or Derek Jeter was more likely to have used steroids.)
   50. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4033234)
Also, have you read his arguments for Morris? I have read a lot of posts from SBB, he is not stupid. The arguments he makes for Morris are not good arguments and I have never seen him take the positions he takes in favor of Morris for any other player in any other discussion. He is just being a homer about it because he really liked Morris when he was a kid or something, or he just likes trolling and found it to be a convenient opportunity.


I guess it boils down to the fact that I must be a "Small Troll" guy who thinks that there's a fine line between intellectual dishonesty and intellectual confusion, and just because it seems to be the former in the eyes of those reading it doesn't mean that it was intentionally written just to irritate---and that's what I consider "trolling".

Is Ray "trolling" when he spends hours (and sometimes days) on end claiming that man-made global warning is a "hoax"? Are people "trolling" when they make the claim that white people are more likely to be victims of racism these days than black people? Maybe so, but it's also entirely possible that they actually believe their own gibberish, and to me that latter attribute removes a person from the "troll" category, however annoying they can often be.

And I don't really see that what SBB is doing is all that fundamentally different, even if his repetition and his selective use of facts sometimes gives him the appearance of simply trying to argue for argument's sake.
   51. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4033249)
George: ". . . WELL IT WAS A BIG SALAD. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS, HOW DOES A PERSON WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIG SALAD CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT SALAD AND ACCEPT THE THANK YOU UNDER FALSE PRETENSES - AH - AH?"

Julie: "George, all I did was hand someone a bag."
   52. RJ in TO Posted: January 10, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4033265)
Why do people continue to engage SBB when he is clearly trolling?

I would also like to know the answer to this question.
   53. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 10, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4033301)
I would also like to know the answer to this question.

FBI man 1: Tell you what, Mr. Simpson, from now on your name is Homer Thompson,at Terror Lake. Let's just practice a bit, hmmmm? So when I say hello Mr. Thompson, you say hi.

Homer: Check!

FBI man 1: Hello, Mr. Thompson.
[Homer stares blankly]

FBI man 1: [pause]

FBI man 1: Now, remember, your name is Homer Thompson.

Homer: I gotcha!

FBI man 1: Hello, Mr. Thompson.
[again Homer stares blankly]

FBI man 1: [FBI men stare at each other]
[hours pass by]

FBI man 1: [frustrated] Argh... Now when I say "Hello Mr. Thompson" and press down on your foot, you smile and nod.

Homer: No problem.
[stepping hard on Homer's foot]

FBI man 1: Hello, Mr. Thompson.
[Homer stares blankly again for a few seconds]

Homer: [whispering to the FBI man next to him] I think he's talking to you.
   54. OsunaSakata Posted: January 10, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4033338)
Lederer's answer that Blyleven beat Morris in one postseason game is worthless to statheads, sample size and all. But if the Morris supporters were to say,"That's just one game," that would undermine their 7th game of the 1991 World Series argument. So Lederer is answering in the logic of the Morris supporters.
   55. weiss-man Posted: January 10, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4033342)
How about actual head to head regular season starts? There are 9 starts of Morris v. Blyleven from 1983 to 1992. Jack's teams won 5, Bert 3. Jack was 5-2, Bert 2-3. However, in those games, Bert had a 4.28 era to Jack's 4.84.
   56. JPWF1313 Posted: January 10, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4033429)
And I don't really see that what SBB is doing is all that fundamentally different, even if his repetition and his selective use of facts sometimes gives him the appearance of simply trying to argue for argument's sake.


Have you seen some of the Jack Morris/HOF threads he's hijacked? He's invented words to describe Morris' ability to win for pete's sake.
   57. AROM, Instagram Gangsta Posted: January 10, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4033453)
He's invented words to describe Morris' ability to win for pete's sake.


After awhile it's just amusing. But you don't need to attribute mystical powers to him to explain any of Morris's success. His ability to win is exactly what you'd expect from a pitcher 5% better than average combined with offensive support 11% better than average.
   58. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4033467)
I don't agree with him on Morris (or much of anything else, for that matter), but what's "trolling" about arguing in favor of a candidate (Morris) with widespread HoF support, if it's not "trolling" to spend just as much time arguing against another potential candidate (Ichiro) whose likely support is nearly unanimous?
What's trolling about it is making bad faith arguments that he doesn't believe and doesn't expect anybody else to believe, but just tries to get attention for himself.
   59. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4033475)
Jon Heyman
#facepalm

"Morris' detractors generally point to one unextraordinary number, and while it's an important number, it should not define his career. His lifetime ERA of 3.90 would be the highest of any pitcher in the Hall of Fame, and his ERA plus of 105 is barely above average. But Morris pitched deep into his games and deep into his middle age, trampling his lifetime ERA. Morris is known by teammates to have pitched to the score, which enabled him to win more games than anyone else in the '80s and 254 games overall. (The leading winners in the seven preceding decades are all in the Hall.) In seven seasons, he received Cy Young votes. So he had plenty of great years."

He is known by his teammates have pitched to the score, so ignore any game-by-game analysis that empirically proves that "knowledge" wrong.
Sigh.


I also like how Heyman whines that Morris had to pitch through his decline years, which no other Hall of Famer ever had to do.

I don't agree that it "trampled his lifetime ERA," either. Morris had a 110 ERA+ in his 20s, and a 111 ERA+ from 30-34. From 35-39 he took a hit to the tune of a 93 ERA+, but we were talking about a 110 ERA+ pitcher to begin with. It's not like Morris was at 125 and then got dragged down.
   60. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4033487)
BTW I'm not saying that those who are arguing against Ichiro are trolling, only that Sugar Bear's not, either. He simply represents a POV that few of us here subscribe to, but what's the big deal about that?


Because even he does not subscribe to the POV he represents?

Heyman's bad arguments are better than what SugarBear is spewing forth.
   61. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4033497)
I think SBB sincerely believes the stuff he writes. I think he does a lot of poor analysis with his selective "big games" stuff and whatnot but I think he, like that Ron Guidry guy, sincerely believes what he is saying.
   62. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4033509)
I think SBB sincerely believes the stuff he writes. I think he does a lot of poor analysis with his selective "big games" stuff and whatnot but I think he, like that Ron Guidry guy, sincerely believes what he is saying.


The problem is the other cases in which he's taken extreme WTF? positions. Such as when he argued in defense of Andy's copyright infringment by making up the case law as he went.
   63. Randy Jones Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4033516)
I think SBB sincerely believes the stuff he writes. I think he does a lot of poor analysis with his selective "big games" stuff and whatnot but I think he, like that Ron Guidry guy, sincerely believes what he is saying.


I don't buy that. The Guidry guy was Tommy in CT. In his non-Guidry posts he came off as uninformed and unintelligent. The opposite is true of SBB, and that is why I believe he is just trolling.
   64. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4033543)
What's trolling about it is making bad faith arguments that he doesn't believe and doesn't expect anybody else to believe, but just tries to get attention for himself.

Well, if that's all he's doing, he's certainly succeeded. (smile)

But what evidence is there that he doesn't believe what he's saying? Has he admitted this**, or are you just reading his mind? I guess I'm just saying that bad arguments by themselves, no matter how loopy they may seem to anyone else, aren't the equivalent of trolling.

**Here I'll admit that I haven't read every post of his on the subject of Morris, so if you can quote me where he admits he's just saying things for shock value I'll drop my defense of him.
   65. AROM, Instagram Gangsta Posted: January 10, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4033559)
SBB gets anti-troll points from me for answer my question in #41 without some excruciating twist of logic. Sure he's a homer for Jack, but he recognizes that Orel was better.

I wouldn't have a problem with the Morris support if guys like Hershiser/Cone/Saberhagen/Brown got more support instead of being one and done.

The Blyleven comparisons are silly, but I think they came about more for the two guys being the best pitchers on recent ballots. Blyleven is comparable to Sutton, to Perry, to Robin Roberts, and even to Nolan Ryan. Jack Morris is a quite a few levels lower than that.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(656 - 4:49pm, Oct 31)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4893 - 4:47pm, Oct 31)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogMLB.com - In pursuit of Maddon, Cubs dismiss Renteria
(12 - 4:46pm, Oct 31)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogAP: Sandoval, Shields Among 121 Free Agents
(13 - 4:42pm, Oct 31)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(34 - 4:42pm, Oct 31)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogBoston.com: Youk Retires
(13 - 4:39pm, Oct 31)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFree Agency Contract Calculator - Beyond the Box Score
(1 - 4:38pm, Oct 31)
Last: fra paolo

NewsblogSending Gordon | Joe Blogs
(26 - 4:24pm, Oct 31)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(138 - 4:22pm, Oct 31)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogRelix: Watch the Exact Moment the Phish Crowd Found Out the Giants Won the World Series
(1 - 4:17pm, Oct 31)
Last: vortex of dissipation

Newsblog2014-2015 MLB free agent power ranking
(2 - 4:16pm, Oct 31)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogDeadline: World Series Ratings: Game 7 Scores Home Run For Fox
(33 - 4:11pm, Oct 31)
Last: BDC

NewsblogGabe Kapler to the LA Dodgers Front Office? Misadventures in Twitter Direct Messages
(1 - 4:03pm, Oct 31)
Last: asinwreck

NewsblogStatcast: Gordon stops 90 feet from tying Game 7
(17 - 4:02pm, Oct 31)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogAFL Saguaros at Rafters
(3 - 3:30pm, Oct 31)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

Page rendered in 0.7105 seconds
52 querie(s) executed