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

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

BPP: Why do people still think Jack Morris pitched to the score?

When I was involved with the AMVETS for many years I saw a lot of Veterans Committee’s. They were usually drunk. So beware.

Every so often, I see tweets or articles from reputable sources repeating a long-since debunked myth. This one was posted about a week ago:

“Lyle Spencer: Games like Jered Weaver’s tonight, pitching to score, cost Jack Morris the Hall of Fame. Not good for ERA.”

Lyle Spencer, a writer for MLB.com, is no different than a lot of other veteran reporters or fans who keep repeating this idea that Jack Morris pitched to the score. Morris popularized the notion, I think, to bolster his Hall of Fame candidacy despite a lifetime 3.90 ERA. As far as Hall campaign strategies go, it’s probably been one of the more effective ones. Morris just missed induction through the writers ballot and may be a future Veterans Committee pick.

Never mind that Joe Sheehan picked apart the myth of Morris pitching to the score in a landmark 2003 piece for Baseball Prospectus. In the piece, which is long but worth a full read, Sheehan examined everyone of Morris’s 527 career starts and discovered that Morris put his team behind in roughly two-thirds of them. That Morris had 254 wins while allowing nearly four runs a game is largely a credit to pitching for one of the best teams of the 1980s, the Detroit Tigers and getting at least five runs of support in nearly half his starts.

Sheehan’s piece is easily found in Google, as are any number of related ones that have come since. It’s like the majority of people who follow baseball aren’t even reading them.

...People change, granted. Peter Gammons, among others, changed his mind on Morris pitching to the score after reading Sheehan’s piece. In time, maybe others will follow. But I suspect articles and tweets like the one above will keep coming and more people like me will keep writing pieces denouncing them until this issue, finally, is completely beaten to death. Trying to get people to see things differently seems like a fool’s errand sometimes. I know I often feel like I’m preaching to a choir of like-minded individuals.

The baseball world and the world in general remains so polarized. It’s a shame Jack Morris’s career has become a reminder of this. He was a fine pitcher, one of the best of his era and his work in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series was masterful. I agree with people like Joe Posnanski who’ve written that all this debate about him pitching to the score detracts from this.

Repoz Posted: September 02, 2014 at 08:34 AM | 44 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

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. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 02, 2014 at 10:28 AM (#4783581)
They don't. They never did. They just want to put him into the Hall of Fame because of Game 7 and because they liked him and thought he represented the last of the Golden Age When Men Were Men (that is, their own youth). But they have to say something when the baseball fans who don't give a #### about some old guy's fond memories say things like "yeah, but you do realize that by the statistical record Jack Morris is, like, the 15th best pitcher of his own era tops, right?"
   2. jdennis Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4783626)
I've said this before but I haven't seen the data. Valiant pitching to the score to me is getting shelled early, then stopping the other team cold despite that, allowing your team to come back. Are there any examinations of Morris doing this?
   3. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4783637)
Pitching to the score is a real thing, but one that was redefined by Jack's supporters to explain away his poor run-prevention record.

It means when you get a big lead, you don't #### around. It likely results in more solo homers, fewer walk-fueled big innings (what you really want to avoid with a large lead) and is ultimately a wash when it comes to overall runs allowed (if it weren't, it wouldn't be worth employing, since baseball is measured in runs and outs, not a clock).

   4. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4783662)
It means when you get a big lead, you don't #### around. It likely results in more solo homers, fewer walk-fueled big innings (what you really want to avoid with a large lead) and is ultimately a wash when it comes to overall runs allowed (if it weren't, it wouldn't be worth employing, since baseball is measured in runs and outs, not a clock).
This. Now, teams may "pitch to the score" in ways that involve allowing more runs; that's because when you have a big lead (or when you're behind by a lot) you use your crappier pitchers. Like when the Orioles took an 11-2 lead on Sunday and let Ubaldo Jimenez pitch. But that doesn't make sense for an individual starter, for the reason you mention.
   5. TDF, situational idiot Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4783663)
They don't. They never did. They just want to put him into the Hall of Fame because of Game 7 and because they liked him and thought he represented the last of the Golden Age When Men Were Men (that is, their own youth). But they have to say something when the baseball fans who don't give a #### about some old guy's fond memories say things like "yeah, but you do realize that by the statistical record Jack Morris is, like, the 15th best pitcher of his own era tops, right?"
I completely disagree.

First, the BBWAA is pretty much by definition a bunch of "old guys" - first, the BBWAA has to admit you to the "club", then you have to be a member for 10 years before you get a vote for the HOF. So I don't think this is a "new vs. old" battle within the association.

Second, through his first 10 ballots Morris was never named on even half of the ballots (during an era when there were never more than 6.6 votes per ballot submitted) and only twice was named on as many as 2/3 of the ballots. So even if there was a battle, it wasn't much of one until the last 5 years.

What I really think is this: During the entire time Morris was on the ballot, the only SPs elected were the obviously worthy Maddux and Glavine, and Blyleven (who was much more deserving than Morris) who waited 14 years (Eckersley had most of his fame as a reliever). I really think it was just a blah time for starters and voters were looking for any way to justify a vote for ...someone.
   6. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4783668)
Sorry, TDF; I wasn't referring to the BBWAA with my "they." I was referring to the much smaller, but very loud, Jack Morris For President club, who are the only ones trying to sell that "Jack Morris pitched to the score and no other pitcher did" bullshit.
   7. nick swisher hygiene Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4783696)
#1 pretty much nails it; I'd even be crasser. what they are saying when they say he pitched to the score is something like
\"#### you nerd, sports are for men."
   8. Bob Tufts Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4783697)
If you alter your predetermined strategic approach to the game, your performance will suffer.

When you have a lead, you keep your foot on the other team's throat and do what got you to that point.

Pitching to the score is and always will be nonsense. You always want to throw first pitch strikes and you always want to avoid walking anyone. Low strikes first pitch (or high if to specific lefties), then a purpose pitch to a smaller location (in or out).

You do not change your approach to "I do NOT want to throw balls and I do NOT want to walk people" - a non-positive mindeset serves no purpose.
   9. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4783699)
"yeah, but you do realize that by the statistical record Jack Morris is, like, the 15th best pitcher of his own era tops, right?"
What? Don't you know he won the most games of the 1980s?
   10. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:51 AM (#4783700)
You do not change your approach to "I do NOT want to throw balls and I do NOT want to walk people" - a non-positive mindeset serves no purpose.


Are you saying no one does that, or just that it's ineffective? Because I played for coaches (one of whom pitched professionally) who sure as hell espoused the idea.
   11. Spahn Insane Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:54 AM (#4783708)
Sheehan examined everyone of Morris’s 527 career starts and discovered that Morris put his team behind in roughly two-thirds of them.

Yes, but was Sheehan's analysis granular?
   12. villageidiom Posted: September 02, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4783723)
Pitching to the score is and always will be nonsense. You always want to throw first pitch strikes and you always want to avoid walking anyone. Low strikes first pitch (or high if to specific lefties), then a purpose pitch to a smaller location (in or out).


I would try to understand what you wrote, but first I need MGL to look up your career stats and tell me if they meet an elite enough level that we can take your word over his. Because, y'know, MGL is an expert.
   13. Spahn Insane Posted: September 02, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4783759)
I would try to understand what you wrote, but first I need MGL to look up your career stats and tell me if they meet an elite enough level that we can take your word over his. Because, y'know, MGL is an expert.

To say nothing of whether or not a mere Princeton degree carries any weight in such a discussion.
   14. Spahn Insane Posted: September 02, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4783762)
BTW, Bob Tufts--I assume that photo on your bbref page is from Princeton (since it doesn't look like you were ever Pirates property--the hat looks like the Pirates' late 70s/early 80s striped hats)?
   15. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: September 02, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4783771)
What is the obsession with Jack Morris?
   16. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: September 02, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4783773)
What is the obsession with Jack Morris?


Mustache? That's all I got.
   17. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 02, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4783777)
What is the obsession with Jack Morris?


I'm not sure whose Jack obsession is strongest - the MSM's, the statheady blogger's or Repoz's.
   18. JL Posted: September 02, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4783780)
This. Now, teams may "pitch to the score" in ways that involve allowing more runs; that's because when you have a big lead (or when you're behind by a lot) you use your crappier pitchers. Like when the Orioles took an 11-2 lead on Sunday and let Ubaldo Jimenez pitch. But that doesn't make sense for an individual starter, for the reason you mention.


The one place where it could show up is where you leave a starter in who is struggling in an attempt to get the win.

So if the Tigers are leading 9-3 after two innings, they keep sending Morris out there in an effort to get him to reach 5 innings, even if he gives up a couple of more runs. His "pitching to the score" is not the result of a change in his strategy, but rather him struggling but still being sent out there (where he might be pulled earlier otherwise).
   19. Ron J2 Posted: September 02, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4783793)
#18 As Greg Spira demonstrated (around a decade before the Sheehan article cited) Morris' record is an unusually good match to what you'd predict using his run support and runs allowed.

I'm really skeptical that the kind of thing you're talking about has any real impact on his W/L record.
   20. Booey Posted: September 02, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4783841)
#1 pretty much nails it


Agreed. I suspect that a lot of people that voted for him don't honestly think his numbers are Hall worthy. They voted for him cuz they WANT him to be in there, plain and simple.
   21. BDC Posted: September 02, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4783883)
Sheehan examined everyone of Morris’s 527 career starts and discovered that Morris put his team behind in roughly two-thirds of them

I'm having trouble figuring out what this means (a common problem with me). Does it mean that Morris's team fell behind at some point in 2/3 of his starts? His team went .574 in games he started. So in 33% of his starts his team never trailed, and in 24% of them they came from behind to win, and in the other 43% they lost? OK. It occurs to me that I have no idea whether that's good or bad or what without more context.
   22. BDC Posted: September 02, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4783894)
No, it's more complicated, because there are games where he left with a lead and his team lost. I'm confused.
   23. flournoy Posted: September 02, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4783905)
That sounds like one of those stats that broadcasters love, such as, "So-and-so is 68-3 when his team scores at least six runs," or "The Such-and-suches are 76-2 this year when leading by three or more after seven innings."
   24. JL Posted: September 02, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4783909)
#19 - I should have been clearer that I doubt it made much difference for Morris (or any other pitcher). I just used Morris as an example.

But I think it might be a situation where someone could see pitching to the score when it actually was not occurring.
   25. Moeball Posted: September 02, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4783982)
1. Jack Morris pitched a 10-inning shutout in Game 7 of the WS with no margin for error - had he allowed any runs at all we aren't having this conversation to start with.

2. He had a relatively high ERA for his time.

These two things are always interconnected in the whole "pitching to the score" meme. We think of a pitcher who hung tough and kept his team in the game when he didn't get great run support and who pitched just well enough to make sure his team got the "W" when he did get good support.

It makes for a great narrative, but it is also representative of a time gone by.

There was a time in my life when I would ask my dad about his favorite players and moments from when he was young. I often wound up having to correct him because we are in the data age where you can just look stuff up and he would say things and remember things that just never happened and I could prove it. After a while I stopped correcting him because it occurred to me that the important thing in this instance wasn't to get the facts straight, but for an old-timer to have fond memories from years gone by and a life well-lived.

When I was younger I might ask a player I met "Who was the toughest pitcher for you to hit?" The discussion and the reminiscing was a big part of the fun. Today I doubt any kids would ask such a question because you can just look it up and see how this hitter did against all the pitchers. He would probably remember it all wrong anyways.

I guess my point is that narrative itself isn't as much a part of baseball as it once was. I know that Josh Gibson didn't really hit a ball all the way from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia (or "Pitchboig" as old-timers used to say it when relating the tall tale). And I can appreciate that because of accurate statistical data we don't have to go through messes today such as the Cobb/Lajoie fiasco of 1910. But in our data-driven age I still can't help feeling that something has been lost along the way to accurate data. I guess it feels sometimes like some of the romance has been taken out of the game.

I heard a story about how Tim Raines struck out intentionally one time. He already had two strikes against him and the pitcher uncorked a really wild pitch that sailed and Raines swung at it anyways and immediately took off for first, knowing that the catcher had no chance to chase down the errant pitch and still have time to throw to first. Now there isn't any evidence from game descriptions that this play ever happened, so it's probably just another "urban legend" of sorts. But it's the sort of thing I could imagine Tim Raines doing. I'd like to think he was aware enough to think of doing something like that.

To tie it all back to Jack Morris - it's just another illusion. I've done the same research myself that Sheehan did - for that matter, today anyone can do that same research. There's this thing called the internet that makes it possible. So, no, he didn't "pitch to the score" any better than any other pitcher and we can factually prove it.

But it was a nice fairy tale while it lasted.

I don't think the concept of narrative is going to have any play in the media for much longer. Oh, there's the occasional Derek Jeter and David Ortiz, I suppose, but after a while there won't be any point in spinning tales any longer. People will just look it up and know everything that happened from that.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know - maybe a little bit of both?
   26. Sunday silence Posted: September 02, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4784013)
there's also another way that a stat e.g. ERA or ERA+ could be misleading other than this "pitch to the score" stuff.

That is the pitcher could be pitching in an environment that is offense friendly for that day, due to weather maybe, or maybe something else. Obviously ERA+ takes in park effects for a season or more so it's not that. But a pitcher could have say an ERA+ of 4.5 in a league that averages say 4.0/game and still have done well if say on those days he pitched the wind was blowing out, the air was dry etc.

I'm not saying that over a career it should make a difference, but possibly for a single season. Pitching data pts. being a smaller subset, it's possible that such an effect could happen during a season or two. POssibly Morris had a pretty good season that was diminished by local weather effects on those days he pitched.

Again not trying to promote MOrris for HoF; just trying to cover the bases of possibilities. I dont like this notion that every issue has been definitively resolved just because we have some metrics that cover that.
   27. Sunday silence Posted: September 02, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4784019)

Pitching to the score is and always will be nonsense.


But then what were LaRUssa et al. talking about when they say "pitch to contact?" REgardless of the score situation, isn't this an indication that teams will change their approach to pitching depending on the situation? Otherwise there'd be no reason to tell the pitcher that; 'pitch to contact" would be standard approach. But it's not.
   28. Karl from NY Posted: September 02, 2014 at 06:14 PM (#4784110)
Changing your approach with a big lead can make sense. You want to minimize OBP allowed, since multiple baserunners are necessary to put up a big rally comeback. You might minimize allowed OBP (walks) at the cost of allowing a bit more SLG (solo homers), perhaps allowing more 1-run innings and even a slight increase in total scoring but still maximizing your win expectancy by minimizing the chance of a big comeback inning.

Do the numbers bear this out? Can a pitcher consciously trade off SLG allowed for OBP allowed, and did Jack Morris do so? Those are the questions we'd need to answer.
   29. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 02, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4784113)
Do the numbers bear this out? Can a pitcher consciously trade off SLG allowed for OBP allowed


Yes, Tom Glavine did

and did Jack Morris do so?

no.

   30. Bhaakon Posted: September 02, 2014 at 06:21 PM (#4784115)
People think pitchers pitch to the score because 1) managers manage to the score, and it's hard to distinguish the two when you're just glancing at a box score, and 2) A lot of people vary how hard they're working based on the proximity of a deadline or evaluation, so they assume athletes do the same.
   31. cardsfanboy Posted: September 02, 2014 at 06:41 PM (#4784123)
People think pitchers pitch to the score because 1) managers manage to the score, and it's hard to distinguish the two when you're just glancing at a box score, and 2) A lot of people vary how hard they're working based on the proximity of a deadline or evaluation, so they assume athletes do the same.


People think pitchers pitch to the score, because they have seen it happened once in a while. Where the team has a big lead and the pitcher is pretty much throwing within the strike zone and the defense is playing "no doubles defense". But that is usually in blow outs, and isn't as common as people want to think it is. (add in the point brought up above about bringing in scrub relievers, and bench players and the feeling that the team is playing different is perceptible)

Still there is not really any strong evidence that Jack pitched to the score, simply because his record in low scoring games is not that impressive(nor is era or tons of other pieces of evidence to the contrary)

I don't doubt that on occasion pretty much every pitcher on the planet has thrown less stressful pitches up there and let the other team hit it, simply in an attempt to let the batter make their own outs (relying on babip gods) but that isn't something magical that Morris did on occasion more or better than anybody else.
   32. Bourbon Samurai Posted: September 02, 2014 at 06:51 PM (#4784132)

Mustache? That's all I got.


It's a great mustache though. Really top notch.
   33. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 02, 2014 at 06:59 PM (#4784137)
Do the numbers bear this out? Can a pitcher consciously trade off SLG allowed for OBP allowed


When his run support was 6 runs or better Glavine allowed more HRs and less walks than when he was given just 2 runs or less, his ERA when given 2 runs or less was 3.26, when given 6 runs or more it was 4.00, with RISP Glavine gave up a .252/.358/.356 line, with no one on: .256/.304/.384. So clearly depending upon the situation he was trading OBP for SLG so to speak.


Morris' splits show no such pattern, he wasn't at his best when given 0-2 runs in support, or when given 6+ runs in support he was at his best when given 3-5 runs support
with RISP Morris gave up a .249/.326/.386 line, with no one on: .241/.309/.374. So unlike Glavine he wasn't trading OBP for SLG.

   34. bobm Posted: September 02, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4784184)
I heard a story about how Tim Raines struck out intentionally one time. He already had two strikes against him and the pitcher uncorked a really wild pitch that sailed and Raines swung at it anyways and immediately took off for first, knowing that the catcher had no chance to chase down the errant pitch and still have time to throw to first. Now there isn't any evidence from game descriptions that this play ever happened, so it's probably just another "urban legend" of sorts. But it's the sort of thing I could imagine Tim Raines doing. I'd like to think he was aware enough to think of doing something like that.

Here are the only two strikeouts I could find on BR where Raines reached first base. Maybe a contemporary game article would corroborate the "intentional" part.

                                                                                             
Cr#         Date  Tm Opp     Pitcher     Score Inn RoB Out                   Play Description
322   1986-05-03 MON HOU  Nolan Ryan  tied 0-0  b1 ---   0 Strikeout Passed Ball Raines to 1B
375   1986-09-30 MON NYM Ron Darling ahead 0-1  b6 ---   2  Strikeout Wild Pitch Raines to 1B


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 9/2/2014.
   35. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: September 02, 2014 at 09:16 PM (#4784204)
his ERA when given 2 runs or less was 3.26, when given 6 runs or more it was 4.00

I would guess that a lot of this one, at least, was park effects, along with the sort of effect SS mentions in #26. Your team is likely to score more in high-scoring environments.
   36. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: September 02, 2014 at 09:42 PM (#4784218)
It's not just park effects. Some days the scoring environment is going to be different from other days for various reasons, even within the same park. I am not at all surprised to discover a pitcher tends over time to allow more runs when his team scores more runs.
   37. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 02, 2014 at 09:52 PM (#4784224)
Here are the only two strikeouts I could find on BR where Raines reached first base. Maybe a contemporary game article would corroborate the "intentional" part.


Cr# Date Tm Opp Pitcher Score Inn RoB Out Play Description
322 1986-05-03 MON HOU Nolan Ryan tied 0-0 b1 --- 0 Strikeout Passed Ball Raines to 1B
375 1986-09-30 MON NYM Ron Darling ahead 0-1 b6 --- 2 Strikeout Wild Pitch Raines to 1B



The latter is the only one that would fit, as it's pretty difficult for the batter to anticipate the passed ball to the backstop.
   38. Moeball Posted: September 03, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4784816)
It's not just park effects. Some days the scoring environment is going to be different from other days for various reasons, even within the same park.


I'm sure Cubs fans can verify this. I know that just in my limited experience, having been to Wrigley Field only 3 times - I have seen days where the wind was blowing out so hard that what looked like routine fly balls were still making it into the bleachers for HRs. I’ve also seen days where it looked like the wind was blowing in somewhat and the ball wasn’t carrying nearly as well. That can make a huge difference. Longtime bleacherites probably have similar stories to tell.
   39. Ron J2 Posted: September 03, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4784842)
#38 There was a Stats study years ago that showed that Wrigley played as 3 distinctly different parks depending on the prevailing wind.

With the wind blowing in it played as a strong pitcher's park, with a cross wind it played basically neutral -- slight pitcher's park -- and with the wind blowing out it played as an extreme hitter's park.

As Harold Brooks pointed out, this explains in part Wrigley becoming a less hitter friendly park with fewer day games. Different wind patterns. (There was also a couple of Bill James studies that showed power pitchers were quite a bit less effective in day games. Given the increased number of power pitchers this could easily be a big deal)

Generic park effects don't capture these issues.
   40. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 03, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4784944)
his ERA when given 2 runs or less was 3.26, when given 6 runs or more it was 4.00

I would guess that a lot of this one, at least, was park effects, along with the sort of effect SS mentions in #26. Your team is likely to score more in high-scoring environments.


If a lot of this is "park effects" then virtually all pitchers should show this split to some extent-
Glavine goes from 3.26 when given 2 runs to 4.00 when given 6+
Morris went from 3.98 to 4.24 (ERA of 3.54 when given 3-5 runs)
Buehrle goes from 4.29 to 3.69
Kershaw 2.45 to 2.50
Sabathia 3.79 to 3.60
King Felix 2.77 to 3.53
Moyer 4.08 to 4.40
Maddux 3.01 to 3.28
   41. cardsfanboy Posted: September 03, 2014 at 07:17 PM (#4784965)
If a lot of this is "park effects" then virtually all pitchers should show this split to some extent-


Why pick individual pitchers? take a range of Morris career, look at the league splits for that time frame.

From 1977 - 1994.

Split             From   To     G  ERA     W     L W-L%

0-2 Runs Scored   1977 1994 22423 3.96  2507 16813 .130
3
-5 Runs Scored   1977 1994 29052 3.87 10870  8888 .550
6
Runs Scored    1977 1994 22173 4.26 12978  1375 .904 


Vs Morris for his career.

Split W L W-L% ERA

0-2 Runs Scored 17 109 .135 3.98
3-5 Runs Scored 97 64 .602 3.54
6+ Runs Scored 137 9 .938 4.24

Morris 3-5 runs support is an aberration compared to league norms. (and arguably the first minor piece of evidence that could actually support the pitch to the score argument, in that he was Morris if his team didn't score, a little bit stingier than "Morris" in moderate scoring games and "Morris" again in games in which his team scored a lot of runs. Not the best piece of evidence obviously, and it's not something I subscribe too, but if you squint real hard, you can see something resembling evidence)
   42. cardsfanboy Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:09 PM (#4784995)
3-5 Runs Scored 97 64 .602 3.54


This is really the primary discrepancy, and if you plug in the league .550 winning percentage in to his record, you get 88-73...so his pitching to the score, might have added 9 more wins to his resume. (roughly of course this doesn't list his team record in that situation, so it's incomplete data)
   43. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:17 PM (#4785093)

I will say, having visited Cooperstown a couple of weeks ago for the first time since I was a kid - if you went through the museum exhibits and skipped the plaque room, you would *think* Jack Morris was a Hall of Famer. There is a huge photo of him in the section on the 1980s Tigers. You then see him in the early-90s Blue Jays exhibit (even though he was terrible in the 1992 playoffs and 1993 season). I'm sure there was something in there on the 1991 World Series although I don't specifically remember it.

I guess what I'm saying is, I can understand why some guys fight for his enshrinement. But his role in baseball's history is already amply represented, and he just wasn't a HOFer. I was just a kid in the 1980s and even back then I knew he was overrated by his W-L record.
   44. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:27 PM (#4785100)

Also, the fact that Morris spent his last two, terrible seasons with very good offensive teams at a time when the overall league offensive environment was increasing probably skews those numbers a bit.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1150 - 1:25pm, Nov 27)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(5025 - 1:22pm, Nov 27)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogDave Cameron: A proposed three-way swap for Red Sox, Mariners, Nationals
(36 - 1:22pm, Nov 27)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

NewsblogWhat's cooking? MLB shares Turkey Day recipes | MLB.com
(3 - 1:20pm, Nov 27)
Last: Mike Webber

Newsblog[Cricketer NOT baseball player] Phil Hughes dies after “pitch” to the head
(6 - 1:09pm, Nov 27)
Last: Astroenteritis

NewsblogNotable Players Available In The Rule 5 Draft - BaseballAmerica.com
(9 - 1:08pm, Nov 27)
Last: boteman

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(24 - 12:45pm, Nov 27)
Last: Arbitol Dijaler

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(34 - 12:32pm, Nov 27)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(56 - 11:56am, Nov 27)
Last: Patrick W

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(14 - 11:39am, Nov 27)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogJon Lester has plenty of options in addition to Red Sox - Sports - The Boston Globe
(6 - 11:28am, Nov 27)
Last: Darren

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8709 - 9:43am, Nov 27)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1140 - 7:27am, Nov 27)
Last: GregD

Newsblog2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com
(32 - 5:30am, Nov 27)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogDarvish cleared to throw « Postcards From Elysian Fields
(9 - 2:30am, Nov 27)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

Page rendered in 0.5617 seconds
57 querie(s) executed