It’s true, the 3.90 ERA would be the highest of any pitcher enshrined, but Morris also pitched the second half of his career at the height of the steroids era.

Good thing we can cite his ERA+ of 105.

the Hall of Shame

How 'bout the Hall of Shamy?

It’s true, the 3.90 ERA would be the highest of any pitcher enshrined, but Morris also pitched the second half of his career at the height of the steroids era.

Wait what. I didn't rtfa, because the guy is clearly a moron, but is that actually in there?!? Since when does the hight of the steroids era start in 1985? That's beyond retarded...

But FWIW:
R/G
1992 4.12
2000 5.14

Jack Morris pitched a whooping 300 innings in what could be called the steroids era.

It’s true, the 3.90 ERA would be the highest of any pitcher enshrined, but Morris also pitched the second half of his career at the height of the steroids era.

Well, he should have armed himself.

Peter Gammons, one of the preeminent baseball writers of all time, talked on MLB Network about how he put Morris on the ballot the first three years he was eligible, but stopped because another baseball writer had displayed extensive statistical proof to him that Morris’ 3.90 ERA was “not because he pitched to the score” but rather because he lost a lot of leads.

Now Ned, them whores are going to tell different lies than you. And when their lies ain't the same as your lies... Well, I ain't gonna hurt no woman. But I'm gonna hurt you. And not gentle like before. But bad.

Right then I decided this coming year, the first time they are eligible for election to the Hall of Fame, I am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens or Sammy Sosa.

It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.

When he was in his mid-30s, Morris lost gas off his fastball, which Father Time mandates. He wasn’t barely touching 90 mph one season, and then throwing in the high 90s a couple years later as he reached 40, like Clemens.

Well, old Bob wasn't goin' to wait for Corky to grow a new hand.

I strongly feel this: If Morris gets in, it will still be the Hall of Fame. If Bonds, Clemens and Sosa are inducted, it would become the Hall of Shame.

What I'm saying is there ain't no whore's gold.

The summer afternoon in Cooperstown when Morris would give his speech would be reason to celebrate the game in all its glory.

Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.

Someone (hint, hint, Repoz) should be filing these columns away under two headings: "Will Vote For Bonds" and "Won't Vote For Bonds", with an occasional update as to which side has how many writers in its corner. It could also be done retroactively for past columns, and adjusted if any writers should change his mind.

That way, we'll have a better idea of how all these pinata posts might actually translate into percentages. So far I don't think I've seen anyone here say anything beyond "it wouldn't surprise me if" and "I doubt if", but that's probably because so far we're just getting these random opinions fed to us one at a time, with no idea how representative they are. AFAIC it would be a lot more original and interesting than just reading the same comments over and over about how stupid this writer is or how smart this other one is, yada yada yada.

...Gammons said Bagwell is like a hockey player (whatever that means) and was one of those 10-to-12 hour per day in the weight room guys, who lost weight later in his career (ala Pudge Rodriguez) because he had a shoulder injury that prevented him from lifting. It’s the type of thinking that was prevalent from many baseball writers during the steroids era. Always buying the story. Unfortunately, I was one of them. I’d like to think I’ve learned my lesson.

Does Gammons still vote? If so, does anyone know if he voted for Bagwell?

...Gammons said Bagwell is like a hockey player (whatever that means)

Probably that English is a second language.

Gammons said Bagwell is like a hockey player (whatever that means)

That he abused Sudafed in the '90s?

Wait what. I didn't rtfa, because the guy is clearly a moron, but is that actually in there?!? Since when does the hight of the steroids era start in 1985? That's beyond retarded...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cansejo01.shtml

Bagwell initially signed with the Red Sox. He is originally from Massachusetts. What I got out of it is that Gammons likes the guy - so he is a slam dunk Hall of Famer

Nice unprovoked out of nowhere slam at Gammons in the middle of a nonsensical diatribe.

But if Hall voters are going to be so picky about the career ERA of Jack Morris...

Yeah, because it's so insane to quibble about a minor detail like career freaking ERA when it comes to a HoFer.
This guy is wing-nut crazy. Take one throwaway comment, somehow make a leap to steroids,then just start running unconnected, absurd assertions around.

Wait what. I didn't rtfa, because the guy is clearly a moron, but is that actually in there?!? Since when does the hight of the steroids era start in 1985? That's beyond retarded...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cansejo01.shtml

I know you're joking, but if you assume that the steroid era started around the time Canseco had just entered the league, it hardly makes it the "height" of the era. That's like saying 1908 was the height of the automobile age.

...But if Hall voters are going to be so picky about the career ERA of Jack Morris, why not about possible PED use?

If Jack 'pitched half his career at the height of the steroid age', then I'm just going to assume he used.

Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.

I never understood that line. Of course Little Bill deserved it. He was one of the biggest pricks in cinematic history, right up there there with Edward the Longshanks and the Wicked Witch of the West.

Get a kick out of people complaining about it being a 'Hall of Shame' and stuff.

Lets see...
Morris gave up leads and while a solid pitcher wasn't the best at helping his team win via allowing fewer runs
Clemens did various drugs which were 'baseball legal' at the time and helped their teams via allowing fewer runs

So, Morris was the 'good guy' for not doing everything possible (and legal under baseball rules) to help his team win but Clemens was a bad guy for doing everything possible even if it could lead to health issues later in life.

Doesn't that kind of contradict what sportswriters tend to say - that a true team guy will risk long term injury to help their team win today?

Doesn't that kind of contradict what sportswriters tend to say - that a true team guy will risk long term injury to help their team win today?

Haven't you heard? Steroids are for losers! LOSERS!

He was one of the biggest pricks in cinematic history, right up there there with Edward the Longshanks and the Wicked Witch of the West.

Ironiclly (YES! I think it actually qualifies as irony!) Both Edward and the Wicked Witch are misunderstood, and get bum raps.

Ironiclly (YES! I think it actually qualifies as irony!) Both Edward and the Wicked Witch are misunderstood, and get bum raps.

don't know about Edward, but the Good Witch was probably the true villain, and the Wicked Witch was misunderstoond

don't know about Edward, but the Good Witch was probably the true villain, and the Wicked Witch was misunderstoond

Ironically again, my history reference does in fact come from Cracked.

Oh yeah?!

Well if Bonds, Clemens and Sosa aren't in Cooperstown then it will be the Hall of .... LAME!!

So there!!

...But if Hall voters are going to be so picky about the career ERA of Jack Morris, why not about possible PED use?

This is the strangest sentence I've seen in one of these articles.

I think it has become the Hall of Antidisestablishmentarianism.

For no real reason, other than to free us from the Tyranny of Rhyming. And sense I suppose.

For what it's worth, the Hall of Merit does have a pitcher with a 4.04 ERA.

This is the strangest sentence I've seen in one of these articles.

Iknowrite? I couldn't wrap my head around it. It's something a slick defense lawyer would say in closing arguments.

Someone (hint, hint, Repoz) should be filing these columns away under two headings: "Will Vote For Bonds" and "Won't Vote For Bonds", with an occasional update as to which side has how many writers in its corner.

I think there's a slight problem with this methodology, which is to say that writers who aren't voting for Bonds seem a lot more excited about telling everyone than the ones who are.

Girl: The columnists got a sign on saying he did use steroids.
Eastwood: They got a sign on him?
Girl: In front of Cooperstown.
Eastwood: A sign on him in front of Cooperstown?

What I don't get.

If you're crediting Jack Morris for pitching in the 'steroid era', don't you have to assume that he used steroids during his career?

Caputo is pretty bad even by the standard of Detroit-area columnist/sports talk screamer, but somehow he's passed himself on to (some) people in the area as actually being knowledgeable about baseball.

I never understood that line. Of course Little Billdeserved it. He was one of the biggest pricks in cinematic history, right up there there with Edward the Longshanks and the Wicked Witch of the West.

In context, maybe. But look at his way: he's the sheriff of a town in a very lawless land, using an iron hand to stamp it out. He does some bad things, but the final ledger would reflect far more negatively on William Munny, killer of women and children, than on an overly zealous lawman.

Someone (hint, hint, Repoz) should be filing these columns away under two headings: "Will Vote For Bonds" and "Won't Vote For Bonds", with an occasional update as to which side has how many writers in its corner.

I think there's a slight problem with this methodology, which is to say that writers who aren't voting for Bonds seem a lot more excited about telling everyone than the ones who are.

I'm not saying that it'd be a scientific sampling, but if a running total were posted (say) once every month or two it'd be better than having to remember every column and keep track of it ourselves. And if we could compare the votes we know about it advance to the actual total on next year's ballot, we'd know how to make better mental adjustments on subsequent ballots. Anyway, what's the downside?

Number 4? That's a Primey.

Haven't you heard? Steroids are for losers! LOSERS!

Users are losers!

Haven't you heard? Steroids are for losers! LOSERS!

My belief is that the borderline-irrational hatred some people have for steroids comes from their association with capital-C Communism, back when Communists were our biggest enemy.

To wit, those dirty Commies started using steroids in the '50s or '60s; they won a bunch of gold medals that we were used to winning; we passed it off as "cheating" (which, I suppose, it was) and not the end of American dominance; then we conveniently conflated steroids with Communism on the "evil" side of the Cold War morality ledger.

Most of the writers who refuse to vote for Bonds and Clemens came of age at a time when the world was clearly divided (at least for impressionable young minds) into good and bad; capitalist and communist; Kennedy and Kruschev; Rocky Balboa and Ivan Drago; Nikolai Volkov and Hulk Hogan.

If you looked at the attitudes towards steroids of baseball fans in their 20s vs. those in their 40s and 50s (and older), I suspect the younger fans are MUCH more tolerant, because they grew up in a world with more shades of gray and don't have these strong "steroids = Communist = evil" associations.

I strongly feel this: If Morris gets in, it will still be the Hall of Fame.

If Bonds, Clemens and Sosa are inducted, it would become

(Yanks out Rogers’ Dictionary of Cliches ~ Looks for entry form)

the Hall of Shame.

If Morris gets in and they dont, it will be the Hall of Lame. No dictionary necessary.

And Little Bill was a tough sheriff in a tough town. I'm pretty sure his law abiding constituents appreciated his rigorous commitment to maintaining order.

This guy is wing-nut crazy. Take one throwaway comment, somehow make a leap to steroids,then just start running unconnected, absurd assertions around.

The anti-steroids crusaders show how crazed they are with each new column.

I'm not saying that it'd be a scientific sampling, but if a running total were posted (say) once every month or two it'd be better than having to remember every column and keep track of it ourselves. And if we could compare the votes we know about it advance to the actual total on next year's ballot, we'd know how to make better mental adjustments on subsequent ballots. Anyway, what's the downside?

That Repoz would do a lot of work for nothing?

After reading the story about how the Good Witch was really a bad person...and then reading how Sauron was a good guy in the Lord of the Rings... I definitely have to vote for Bonds

I think it has become the Hall of Antidisestablishmentarianism.

For no real reason, other than to free us from the Tyranny of Rhyming. And sense I suppose.

If you really believe we should see it through that prism.

Next season, it's a matter of timing. You've hit it on the nose.

If you looked at the attitudes towards steroids of baseball fans in their 20s vs. those in their 40s and 50s (and older), I suspect the younger fans are MUCH more tolerant, because they grew up in a world with more shades of gray and don't have these strong "steroids = Communist = evil" associations.

Probably more that younger fans grew up when cheating at things wasn't such a big deal.

Just sayin'.