One possibility is that Morris will get lost in the shuffle. As the Baseball Writers spread their votes out to the new candidates (voters can select up to 10, but most choose between 3-7), Morris might lose ground. Bonds and Clemens, with their very public trials over steroid use, are not going to get enough votes to make it. Piazza has only been rumored as a steroid user, but without any automatic numbers that voters seem to love (500 homers, for example), Piazza will likely have to wait just as Gary Carter did. Biggio, with more than 3,000 hits on his record and never a hint of controversy, should get enough support on his first ballot. But it’s unlikely writers who voted for Morris this year will not vote for him just because Biggio is on the ballot. Schilling is an interesting case – he will be compared to Morris, no doubt. Like Morris, Schilling didn’t win 300 games. Like Morris, Schilling’s best case for the HOF is his post-season resume and his durability and dominance over many seasons as a strikeout pitcher. Also like Jack, Schilling had a personality that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Morris was cranky and treated many sportswriters like dirt; Schilling was self-promoting and verbose. But there’s no question that both were pre-eminent hurlers of their times. Some voters may choose to hold back their votes for Morris with Schilling on the ballot if they feel that the latter is more deserving.
However, history shows us that Morris has a very good chance of being elected in 2013. In 2010, Bert Blyleven finished second in HOF voting, he was elected the next year in his 14th chance. Similarly, in 1997 Don Sutton was runner-up and was elected on the following year’s ballot, and in 1990 both Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins finished second in voting before earning induction on their next try. It’s quite possible that the 382 voters who checked the box next to Morris’ name on this year’s ballot will do so again in 2013. If history holds, enough voters who didn’t select him before, will be convinced by the majority to do so.
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.
According to B-R PI, since 1961, only Marichal, Gibson and Palmer won more games for a single team than Jack Morris did in seasons 3 through 12 of their careers. :)
Who oddly enough can also form a valid answer to this question:
Name 3 pitchers who were much better than Jack Morris.
If I were a Tigers fan (and still not a Morris fan)
this is what would bother me
Alan Trammell is not in the HOF and is not getting in by the BBWAA, he was more important to the Tigers than Morris and had a greater career
Lou Whitaker is not in the HOF and is not getting in by the BBWAA, he was more important to the Tigers than Morris and had a greater career
Chet Lemon was as valuable to those winning Tiger's teams in the 80s, he had at least an equivalent career, he's never ever gonnna sniff the hall
Lance Parrish was as valuable to those winning Tiger's teams in the 80s, he had at least an equivalent career, he's never ever gonnna sniff the hall
Kirk Gibson was as valuable to those winning Tiger's teams in the 80s, he had at least an equivalent career, he's never ever gonnna sniff the hall
Jack Morris is to the 1980s Tigers what Paul O'Neill was to the 1990s Yankees- I'm not trying to disparage/elevate either man
Morris's Tigers averaged 90+ wins over a 7-8 year period- he was the staff ace on those teams, but not once was he the best player, and some years he's wasn't the best pitcher
204. Booey
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4199185)
#203 - Where would Darrell Evans rank with that group? I'd imagine he'd be in the more valuable camp too...
1. Trammell, who should obviously be in.
2. Morris, who a good case can be made either way ans will probably get in.
3. Whitaker, whom WAR overrates, but who obviously didn't warrant a one and done.
4. Gibson, whose 2.5% and out was absurd.
5. Lemon
6. Parrish
All the Tigers are absurdly underrated, aside from Morris. Detroit is in the Midwest and isn't filled with blabbermouth writers who relentlessly promote guys (*), and none of the 80s guys were self-promoters, aside from maybe Morris whose outsized personality and mustachioed badass persona is helping him with HOF voters.
Another big problem is that the nucleus underachieved, as did the Lolich/Freehan/McLain, etc. nucleus before it, and the core guys of the 2006-12 teams have. Another 1984-type run in the spotlight would have been a big boost and cast this group in a different light -- look what 1991 did for Morris.
(*) OH, LOOK!!! IT'S GENERATION K!!!!!!!!
206. Booey
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4199212)
2. Morris, who a good case can be made either way ans will probably get in.
Still waiting to hear the good case for him...
I agree that WAR seems to rate Whitaker a bit high, but there's no way Morris is even close to him.
207. AROM
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4199216)
"#203 - Where would Darrell Evans rank with that group? I'd imagine he'd be in the more valuable camp too..."
Are we rating Evans for his whole career or just with the Tigers? With the Tigers he was just a 1b/dh, and rates well below the other members of their core.
208. Gonfalon Bubble
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4199223)
All the Tigers are absurdly underrated, aside from Morris. Detroit is in the Midwest and isn't filled with blabbermouth writers who relentlessly promote guys (*), and none of the 80s guys were self-promoters, aside from maybe Morris whose outsized personality and mustachioed badass persona is helping him with HOF voters.
A case can be made that Detroit Tigers have overperformed in awards balloting the last few decades... which makes Alan Trammell's tepid HoF support all the more strange. Of course, the difference is that a few extra votes here and there can't tilt a Hall of Fame election.
Haven't been able to find the terms of the bonus, or even to confirm it. Don't know how much harder I'm going to try.
Using a highly complicated and innovative research technique known as Google yields this article.
So 500K of the bonus was an unspecified number of innings and starts; given Morris's history, I suppose we could consider that easy.
The article also states that a 100K bonus would have been awarded if he were LCS MVP, which he wasn't - but I'd bet that bonus doubled for WS MVP, which he was. Ask Morris if that one was easily achieved.
Also, according to the article, the 3.65 in 1992 was not fully guaranteed when the contract was signed - it was 2M guaranteed, and the rest was added on as an additional bonus due to 1991 incentives.
Another article says that Morris had a 50K bonus for a 4th-place finish in Cy Young voting, which also can't exactly be considered routine, since he hadn't finished that high in the previous 7 years.
211. Big fan
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4199251)
Can I ask the Morris defenders a question? Sometimes when one talk abouts "my guy's" qualification they might bring up some point like "he is better han X and Y and Z and they are in the HOF."
If so, can you define the X, Y and Z in an argument for Morris? (and please note that the comparison should be other starting pitchers elected.)
My point being if you are arguing for someone who would be the WORST starting pitcher elected, maybe you are wrong.
Addendum to 209: This article says it was also 100K for the WS MVP. So it's 500K in statistical bonuses, 100 for the WS MVP, and 50 each for Cy voting and ASG selection.
Even if we consider whatever statistical benchmarks he needed to be easily achieved, that still puts his "base" salary at 3.5M, which is less than Langston's - at least assuming you aren't arguing that the Twins knew going into the year that he'd be an All-Star, finish 4th in Cy voting, and win WS MVP.
214. AROM
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4199280)
"Can I ask the Morris defenders a question? Sometimes when one talk abouts "my guy's" qualification they might bring up some point like "he is better han X and Y and Z and they are in the HOF."
That's a tough one. Bert Blyleven is not only the latest SP to get in, he's the first one to debut after the 60's. The guys just before him pretty much all won 300 games. The next group to get serious support has a bunch of 300 game winners.
It may well be that, besides the iconic 1991 playoff game, the main reason Morris eventually gets in is that his peers were, in a historic sense, uniquely unqualified to be in the Hall of Fame.
I think a lot of folks say, "Well, somebody from that mid-70s to mid-80s era has to get in. If not Morris, then who?"
It is the failure of guys like Dave Stieb and Ron Guidry to stick around long enough. McGregor. Flanagan. Norris. McCatty. Richard. Barker. Soto. Rogers. Leonard. Clancy. Either Forsch. Petry. Tudor. Tanana.
This is Morris' 13th year on the ballot. In these 13 years, the only starting pitchers who have even survived a single ballot from his era (defined very generously) are:
Fernando, for one year.
Dave Stewart, for one year.
Ron Guidry. Guidry got under 10% in Morris' first two years on the ballot, then failed to get 5% during Morris' third try.
Guidry is really the only one. There is nobody else from his era who has ever really been on the ballot, and I believe that is a big deal for a lot of voters...
It is the failure of guys like Dave Stieb and Ron Guidry to stick around long enough.
Guidry, maybe. Dave Stieb was the best pitcher of that period and his only failure was playing most of his career on a sucky team.
Also Nolan Ryan was pitching before Morris got started and retired the same year Morris didthe year before Morris did*, and was approximately a billion times better than Morris over that time.
Also, Dennis Martinez is a nearly exact contemporary of Morris and was much better.
Frank Tanana was a nearly exact contemporary of Morris and was better. He had the grievous failures of peaking the first few years of his career (similar to Hershiser; it made him widely remembered as the old rag-armed guy that got by with guile and location) and pitching for bad teams.
*I forgot about Morris's turn with the Indians in 1994. As I'm sure Cleveland fans tried to for a long time.
217. Kiko Sakata
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 10:25 PM (#4199400)
It may well be that, besides the iconic 1991 playoff game, the main reason Morris eventually gets in is that his peers were, in a historic sense, uniquely unqualified to be in the Hall of Fame.
I think a lot of folks say, "Well, somebody from that mid-70s to mid-80s era has to get in. If not Morris, then who?"
Morris is actually only 4 years younger than Bert Blyleven. It's just that Blyleven debuted at age 19, while Morris didn't crack the Tigers' rotation until he was 24, so they seem to be of different "generations".
218. Howie Menckel
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4199403)
iirc, Stieb was not just unlucky with run support, wasn't he "all-time" so?
that might mean that the Blue Jays' offensive ineptness when Stieb pitched is a key factor in why some will vote a Tigers/Twins hurler for the Hall.
I wouldn't think those Toronto ABs would be so relevant to Morris's case, but...
219. Jay Z
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4199433)
Guidry, maybe. Dave Stieb was the best pitcher of that period and his only failure was playing most of his career on a sucky team.
Morris had over 100 more starts and almost 900 more IP than Stieb. That's significant.
Also Nolan Ryan was pitching before Morris got started and retired the same year Morris didthe year before Morris did*, and was approximately a billion times better than Morris over that time.
No, he wasn't. Just looking at Win Shares, Morris had more during that time. And Morris doesn't score particularly high in Win Shares. Ryan had a great long career, but he was not a great peak value pitcher at any point of his career.
Also, Dennis Martinez is a nearly exact contemporary of Morris and was much better.
Martinez had his best years at the beginning and end of his career, and his worst seasons in the middle. Overall there isn't a lot of difference between them, except for the postseason stuff and Morris having a more consistent run.
Frank Tanana was a nearly exact contemporary of Morris and was better. He had the grievous failures of peaking the first few years of his career (similar to Hershiser; it made him widely remembered as the old rag-armed guy that got by with guile and location) and pitching for bad teams.
No, he wasn't better. Again, a different career shape. Maybe a better peak, but made up for it in other years. Pitched a little longer than Morris.
220. Booey
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4199434)
Are we rating Evans for his whole career or just with the Tigers? With the Tigers he was just a 1b/dh, and rates well below the other members of their core.
I was assuming we were talking about entire careers since we were discussing HOF worthiness, but if we're focusing only on their time in Detroit then yes, Evans isn't in the conversation.
Morris still isn't anywhere near the Trammell/Whitaker level.
221. DanG
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:01 AM (#4199448)
Morris is not among the worst players in the hall, so he is somewhere in the Grey Area. A player's case for the HOF should always be considered in the light of his candidate peers. We should always be looking to promote the best candidates for enshrinement. Let's make a peer cohort of starting pitcher candidates for Morris and try to see who's ahead of him in the pecking order.
First, let's confine our group to Expansion Era starters, pitchers who debuted in 1956 or later. Then look at the long-career guys; let's say within 1000 IP of Jack (2824+). Also you need a lot of wins; we'll say 175+. Finally, you should be above average, so a career ERA+ of over 100.
This gives us a group of 24 candidates, including Morris (who is 19th in career pitching WAR among the cohort):
What about peak? Who had the most seasons of 6.5+ pitching WAR?
Rk Yrs From To Age 1 Kevin Brown 4 1996 2000 31-35 2 David Cone 4 1993 1997 30-34 3 Dave Stieb 4 1982 1985 24-27 4 Chuck Finley 3 1990 1998 27-35 5 Frank Tanana 3 1975 1977 21-23 6 Mark Langston 2 1991 1993 30-32 7 Orel Hershiser 2 1988 1989 29-30 8 Frank Viola 2 1987 1988 27-28 9 Jim Kaat 2 1974 1975 35-36 10 Mickey Lolich 2 1971 1972 30-31 11 Vida Blue 2 1971 1976 21-26 12 Luis Tiant 2 1968 1974 27-33 '16 Jack Morris 0'
Who had the most seasons of 5.5+ pitching WAR?
Rk Yrs From To Age 1 Kevin Brown 5 1996 2000 31-35 2 Dave Stieb 5 1982 1990 24-32 3 David Cone 4 1993 1997 30-34 4 Frank Viola 4 1987 1992 27-32 5 Mark Langston 4 1987 1993 26-32 6 Orel Hershiser 4 1985 1989 26-30 7 Rick Reuschel 4 1973 1985 24-36 8 Luis Tiant 4 1968 1976 27-35 9 Jerry Koosman 4 1968 1979 25-36 10 Chuck Finley 3 1990 1998 27-35 11 Frank Tanana 3 1975 1977 21-23 12 Vida Blue 3 1971 1978 21-28 '16 Jack Morris 1 1979 1979 24-24'
Who had the most seasons of 4.5+ pitching WAR?
Rk Yrs From To Age 1 David Cone 7 1988 1999 25-36 2 Rick Reuschel 7 1973 1985 24-36 3 Dave Stieb 6 1980 1990 22-32 4 Luis Tiant 6 1968 1978 27-37 5 Kevin Brown 5 1996 2000 31-35 6 Mark Langston 5 1987 1993 26-32 7 Jerry Koosman 5 1968 1979 25-36 8 Dennis Martinez 4 1989 1995 34-40 9 Chuck Finley 4 1989 1998 26-35 10 Frank Viola 4 1987 1992 27-32 11 Orel Hershiser 4 1985 1989 26-30 '12 Jack Morris 4 1979 1987 24-32' 13 Vida Blue 4 1971 1980 21-30 14 Tommy John 4 1968 1979 25-36
Who had the most seasons of 3.5+ pitching WAR?
Rk Yrs From To Age 1 David Cone 10 1988 1999 25-36 2 Kevin Brown 9 1992 2003 27-38 3 Luis Tiant 9 1964 1978 23-37 4 Dave Stieb 8 1980 1990 22-32 5 Rick Reuschel 8 1973 1987 24-38 6 Chuck Finley 7 1989 2000 26-37 7 Dennis Martinez 7 1987 1995 32-40 8 Frank Viola 7 1984 1993 24-33 9 Tommy John 7 1968 1982 25-39 10 Mark Langston 6 1984 1993 23-32 11 Orel Hershiser 6 1984 1995 25-36 '12 Jack Morris 6 1979 1991 24-36' 13 Mickey Lolich 6 1969 1975 28-34 14 Jerry Koosman 6 1968 1979 25-36 15 Jim Kaat 6 1962 1975 23-36
I think it's safe to say that if a pitcher is equal to or better than Morris in every one of these measures, then he is ahead of Jack in the HOF queue. That gives us these guys:
David Cone
Kevin Brown
Luis Tiant
Rick Reuschel
Dave Stieb
Chuck Finley
Frank Viola
Orel Hershiser
Mark Langston
Jerry Koosman
222. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:14 AM (#4199481)
Martinez had his best years at the beginning and end of his career, and his worst seasons in the middle. Overall there isn't a lot of difference between them, except for the postseason stuff and Morris having a more consistent run.
Some will say that Dennis Martinez wasn't a staff ace like Morris. That doesn't really hold up. I had forgotten how good, durable, and consistent he was towards the end. He had 8 years as a rotation anchor, 1988-95, starting at age 33. The first 6 of those years he pitched at least 220 innings. The last 2, with Cleveland, were strike seasons, so the 170-180 innings represent a guy taking the ball every turn and pitching deep into games.
As for postseason, El Presidente pitched 43 innings with a 3.32 ERA. Not bad at all, he just didn't have a lot of opportunities. Most of those innings came after he was 40.
No, he wasn't better. Again, a different career shape. Maybe a better peak, but made up for it in other years. Pitched a little longer than Morris.
So, just to recap, he had a longer career and a better peak, but he wasn't better. Got it.
Morris had over 100 more starts and almost 900 more IP than Stieb. That's significant.
Not so much, when the 900 inning difference mostly consists of below-averageness on Morris's part. The last seven years of his career consist of 1400 innings, made up of one great* year, 1991, and a whole lot of poor pitching. And Stieb's peak is much better. There's some value in taking the ball every fifth day and only getting KO'd occasionally. But not nearly enough to make up for Stieb's huge peak advantage.
* By Jack Morris's standards, anyway. In the career line of even, say, Jim Bunning, Morris's 1991 doesn't look special.
My problem with virtually all of the arguments being made against Morris' induction (which I also oppose), like "Dennis Martinez was obviously better than Jack Morris," or even the thoughtful analysis done by DanG in #221, is that it is missing the core question about Morris' candidacy. I know why Morris gets traction (the playoff memories, being the horse for a couple of memorable teams, the longevity, etc.), but why haven't any other pitchers from his era - I mean, any - received any traction from the voters? Consider:
David Cone - 3.9%
Kevin Brown - 2.1%
Dennis Martinez - 3.4%
Rick Reuschel - 0.4%
Dave Stieb - 1.4%
Chuck Finley - 0.2%
Frank Viola - 0.4%
Orel Hershiser - 11.2%, then 4.4% and off the ballot
Mark Langston - 0%
Jerry Koosman - 0.9%
If you want to throw Tiant in the mix, who got 30.9% out of the shoot, but then never broke 18% again, that's fine, though I don't consider him a contemporary of Jack Morris.
We could produce a couple dozen of additional pitchers of this range, all of them complete non-factors in the HOF voting. People on BBTF keep trying to make an intellectual argument for why Morris shouldn't be in, when people like Dae Stieb were clearly better...but you've got to use the brain and the heart...and Morris connects with HOF voters in a way that none of his peers have even touched. Again, nobody else is even getting to year two of the voting, while Morris continues his slow march towards immortality. Yelling about WAR - as much as I agree with the argument - is clearly not getting it done.
Dave Stieb was the best pitcher of that period and his only failure was playing most of his career on a sucky team.
The Blue Jays averaged over 90 wins a season from 1983 to 1990 - at least 10 games over .500 each season. For most of Stieb's career, he pitched for very good teams.
Steib didn't pitch long enough to get himself in the conversation, and 176 wins with a 3.44 ERA is no great shakes. He wasn't durable enough and he wasn't that good. His career wasn't "better" than Jack Morris's under any sensible use of that term and his Hall of Fame case is nowhere near as good.
Worrying about Dave Steib is no more productive than braying at the moon.
228. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 09:58 AM (#4199603)
italics be gone. Well, I have no idea how to fix that.
229. CrosbyBird
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4199615)
Yelling about WAR - as much as I agree with the argument - is clearly not getting it done.
The reason Morris is getting notice that other pitchers aren't is primarily for three reasons:
1) He had a very memorable, high-performance playoff game.
2) He had a lot of wins (3 20+ win seasons, 42nd all-time in wins)
3) His contemporaries (viewed somewhat narrowly) are all lousy candidates.
The first reason perhaps should matter for a HOF candidacy as a great story, but as a push from borderline to in. I think people have blinders on to the fact that a merely very good player could have that sort of performance in a single game. There's a sense that a player has to somehow be a superstar to have been capable of that.
The second reason is the best part of his case, but there are a number of flaws with the win statistic, and a careful look shows that wins grossly overstate his value. Morris played on strong offensive teams that were strong fielding teams as well, often got more than his share of run support, and also lost a lot of games.
The third reason is what will ultimately get him in (whether through the BBWAA or the VC). Enough people will say "do we want to have nobody from the 80s?" There aren't any candidates that are remarkably better by the numbers (some who are a little better overall like Dennis Martinez, some who have much better peaks but weaker careers) and the guys that are close don't have memorable moments.
WAR shouldn't really enter the picture because anyone that values WAR in a HOF discussion already considers Morris to be a laughable candidate.
230. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4199624)
Dave Steib was only better than Morris at one thing - preventing runs. For his career he allowed about half a run fewer per 9 innings. He had 5 seasons (with 200+ innings) where his ERA was better than Morris's career best. Aside from preventing runs, he's got nothing on Morris.
Enough people will say "do we want to have nobody from the 80s?"
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but there are currently 2 HOF starting pitchers (plus Gossage) who played the entirety of the decade. Plus a two others who pitched every year but the last (plus Sutter), and one of them won 2 CYAs in the decade.
232. OCF
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:23 AM (#4199630)
Creating equivalent records from RA+ and IP, season by season:
Morris, career: 226-199
Stieb, career: 190-130
So the difference between those careers is 36-69, which is pretty clearly below replacement.
Morris, best five individual years: 18-11, 18-11, 18-12, 19-13, 16-11. Total 89-58
Stieb, best five individual years: 20-9, 20-9, 20-11, 20-12, 15-8. Total 95-49
Morris, best five consecutive years: 87-60
Stieb, best five consecutive years: 93-49
Morris, best ten consecutive years: 156-118
Stieb, best ten consecutive years: 156-99
233. Kiko Sakata
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:24 AM (#4199632)
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but there are currently 2 HOF starting pitchers (plus Gossage) who played the entirety of the decade. Plus a two others who pitched every year but the last (plus Sutter), and one of them won 2 CYAs in the decade.
Stieb would have to have put up an ERA+ of 73 in those 929 "missing" innings to match Morris in IP/ERA+
Ron Guidry lead the league in wins for a decade, 1977-1986
in that decade he pitched 2186 2/3 ip with an ERA+ of 121 (3.23)
Jack Morris famously lead the 80s in wins, in that decade he pitched 2443 2/3 ip with an ERA+ of 109 (3.66)
Morris had 257 extra IP, what would Guidry have need to pitch in 257 extra IP to match an ERA+ of 109 in 2443 IP?
An ERA of 6.58 (ERA+ of 59- also known as sub-sub replacement level- in fact during Guidry's decade no pitcher with 200+ innings (cumulative) was that bad, the worst was Dick Pole who put up a 70 in 221 IP).
Morris' decade was significantly worse than Guidry's.
Let's go to super-accumulator, Don Sutton, ERA+ of 108 in over 5000 IP
Morris would have needed an extra 1458 IP at an ERA+ of 117 to match Sutton
Morris best stretch was 1983-1987, where he through 1324 inning with an ERA+ of 120
basically to MATCH Sutton (Who is in the HOF- but gainst a shocking amount of resistance considering he won 300 games)- Morris would need to take his best 5 game stretch- and do it again IN ADDITION to his actual career.
Aside from preventing runs, he's got nothing on Morris.
And durability, a key component of his job description. He was like a 10,000 meter runner who ran too fast early on and didn't finish, or an F-1 driver who burned his engine on the 30th lap.
Stieb would have to have put up an ERA+ of 73 in those 929 "missing" innings to match Morris in IP/ERA+
And by 1992-93, when he was only 34, he obviously didn't have 929 innings of 73 ERA+ pitching still in the tank. If he'd pitched another 929 innings, he might have had an ERA+ of 10 or 20.
And by 1992-93, when he was only 34, he obviously didn't have 929 innings of 73+ pitching still in the tank. If he'd pitched another 929 innings, he might have had an ERA+ of 10 or 20.
Your phrasing of this makes it seem that 929 IP at 73 ERA+ is a good thing. It's not. Do you think Tim Lincecum is giving the Giants any value this year? How about John Lackey or Derek Lowe, or J A Happ last year?
And durability, a key component of his job description. He was like a 10,000 meter runner who ran too fast early on and didn't finish, or an F-1 driver who burned his engine on the 30th lap.
It's nothing like that. The purpose of a pitcher is to prevent runs, not accumulate 4,000 career innings. It's more like a hitter who gets 200 hits with a .400 batting average by Sep 1 and suffers an season ending injury. By the end of the season, he still has 200 hits, and you can't claim that someone with 170 hits and a .320 batting average was a better hitter just because he played the whole season. It is possible to pack more value into a shorter time period than someone who plays longer.
Of course it's not -- it borders on brutal. But Dave Steib wasn't even capable of that borderinng-on-brutal level of performance for 929 more innings.
The second point is inarguable. But I fail to see how that makes Morris a better pitcher. In what other aspect of sports does hanging around at a borderline brutal level of performance add value?
The "purpose" of Jack Morris and Dave Steib was not to pitch a no-hitter in their first game in the major leagues and then retire with a sore arm -- the reductio ad absurdum of this tired bromide.
But I fail to see how that makes Morris a better pitcher.
Because if Steib had pitched 929 more innings at the back end of his career, he would not have been better at "preventing runs" over his career than Jack Morris.
You're gifting Steib the 73 ERA+ that he was obviously and manifestly not capable of.
245. Ron J2
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4199711)
#104 First, best single year is a lousy way to look at peak. I happen to prefer Dale Stephenson's definition (best 5 years, need not be consecutive)
Second Peak and career are not the only way to evaluate a HOF candidacy. I prefer extended prime. For starting pitchers you can reasonably look at this as value accumulated in seasons with a 120 ERA+. Morris has 6 such seasons (it's reasonable to include 1981 I think. He couldn't have pitched any more than he did) -- a reasonable number for a fringe candidate (though he lacks a real high point)
Dave Stieb though did it 5 years running and an additional 2 times. Which is part of the reason a lot of people see Stieb as the better HOF candidate.
246. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4199715)
Of course it's not -- it borders on brutal. But Dave Steib wasn't even capable of that borderinng-on-brutal level of performance for 929 more innings.
It doesn't matter though, because you can always call up the next kid, or series of kids, from AAA and get that kind of performance or better.
Kirby Puckett finished his career batting .319. Steve Finley hit .271, but with 2000+ more at bats. For Kirby to match Finley, he would only have to have hit .111 (240-2153). Kirby at that point was not capable of batting .111, he was half blind. This does not make Finley a better hitter than Kirby, or make his career better than Kirby's.
Creating equivalent records from RA+ and IP, season by season:
Morris, career: 226-199
Stieb, career: 190-130
Now there are, theoretically, ways to win more games than those equivalent records. If a pitcher throws 4 shutouts and follows with a 20 run shellacking, his ERA will look average but he still wins 80% of his games. That does not apply to Morris, as pitching to the score has been pretty well debunked and it's been demonstrated that he won about as many games as you expect given what he could control (most of runs allowed) and what he had exactly zero control over (team runs scored). If he got average support over his career, I don't think 226 wins gets him this far even with WS G7.
In 1984 Morris and Dave Steib were at the their peaks. Morris pitches 240 innings in 35 starts, 3.60 ERA, and a 19-11 record. Steib pitches 267 innings, 2.83 ERA, but a record of 16-8. That's a ton of no-decisions, but it doesn't reflect durability, like it would if one pitcher only went 5 and the other pitched complete games - Steib is the one who threw more innings that year. It's nothing more than timing and run support.
If you superimpose Jack's run support, on a start by start basis, over Steib's performance, Steib would have finished with a record of 23-7.
I prefer my HOF candidates to be the players who added most to their team's record, not those whose teams added the most to the player's record.
247. DanG
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:41 AM (#4199724)
The "purpose" of Jack Morris and Dave Steib [sp.] was not to pitch a no-hitter in their first game in the major leagues and then retire with a sore arm -- the reductio ad absurdum of this tired bromide.
Strawman. Your hypothetical pitcher has prevented maybe six runs more than a replacement pitcher in his career. Morris will pass that in five starts.
In reality, Stieb prevented more runs in his career than Morris, despite a shorter career. BB-Ref has them:
570 RAR Stieb
482 RAR Morris
248. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4199727)
OK, I should say Morris had almost no control over team run scoring. He was used as a pinch runner a few times early in his career, and scored 4 runs. On 7-10-83, he was the winning run on a Lance Parrish walk-off grand slam, being the runner on first. On 4-16-83, Morris scored on a 7th inning sac fly, he was the go-ahead run at that point, though the Tigers couldn't hold the lead. On 7-17, he scored the go-ahead run in the 10th.
249. Ron J2
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4199728)
#218 It's not just run support. I think you'll find a fair amount of bullpen sabotage. Before Henkes, the bullpen was a consistent problem for the Blue Jays.
250. Ron J2
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4199743)
Morris had over 100 more starts and almost 900 more IP than Stieb. That's significant.
True, but the difference (before adjusting for park -- Stieb pitched in a better place to pitch -- and defensive support) you only needed to get a 5.34 ERA in those innings.
In other words, Jack Morris= Dave Stieb + 928.2 innings of ~75 ERA+. If Stieb isn't a HOFER (he isn't), I'm unable to see how a bunch of bad bulk innings makes Morris one.
EDIT: Coke to Misirlou -- but a small one. I included the ERA+ estimate.
251. OCF
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4199746)
Let's go to super-accumulator, Don Sutton
By RA+ equivalent records:
Career: 320-267. So Sutton minus Morris is 94-68, which is quite a bit of value.
Best five seasons: 19-10, 19-11, 16-7, 18-11, 17-11. Total 89-50. Not great, but still beats Morris's 89-58.
Best five consecutive seasons: 89-58. Matches Morris's best five non-consecutive.
Best ten consecutive seasons: 163-116. Compare Morris at 156-118. And then note that deciding which ten years to take in Sutton's case is not obvious.
So, even as a low-peak "super-accumulator", Sutton had a higher peak and higher (and longer) prime than Morris.
252. Booey
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4199765)
Enough people will say "do we want to have nobody from the 80s?"
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but there are currently 2 HOF starting pitchers (plus Gossage) who played the entirety of the decade. Plus a two others who pitched every year but the last (plus Sutter), and one of them won 2 CYAs in the decade.
This argument has always confused me too. Even without including relievers, 80's pitchers are well represented in the HOF (and will be even further within the next 5 years or so). Most these pitchers may have peaked in the 70's or 90's, but it doesn't change the fact that they were still going (strongly, in some cases) in the so-called unrepresented decade as well.
Did I miss anyone? Either way, the "we need SOMEONE from the '80's" argument for Morris just doesn't hold up. Even if Clemens never makes it, there's still between 7-10 HOF starters active each season of the decade.
I prefer extended prime. For starting pitchers you can reasonably look at this as value accumulated in seasons with a 120 ERA+. Morris has 6 such seasons (it's reasonable to include 1981 I think. He couldn't have pitched any more than he did) -- a reasonable number for a fringe candidate (though he lacks a real high point)
Dave Stieb though did it 5 years running and an additional 2 times. Which is part of the reason a lot of people see Stieb as the better HOF candidate.
1977-1994 (Morris career)
Seasons 120 ERA+ (162+ IP)
Roger Clemens 8
Dave Stieb 7
Frank Viola 6 Jack Morris 6
Jose Rijo 6
Bert Blyleven 5
Bob Welch 5
Bret Saberhagen 5
Dennis Martinez 5
Jimmy Key 5
Mark Langston 5
Orel Hershiser 5
Steve Rogers 5
Tom Seaver 5
Charlie Leibrandt 4
Danny Jackson 4
David Cone 4
Doug Drabek 4
Floyd Bannister 4
Geoff Zahn 4
Greg Maddux 4
John Candelaria 4
Kevin Appier 4
Nolan Ryan 4
Ron Guidry 4
Steve Carlton 4
Tom Candiotti 4
of course 120 is not a HOF type season
130 or more:
Roger Clemens 8
Jose Rijo 6
Bret Saberhagen 5
Dave Stieb 5
Frank Viola 5
Jimmy Key 5
Orel Hershiser 5
Bert Blyleven 4
Dennis Martinez 4
Chuck Finley 3
Danny Darwin 3
Danny Jackson 3
David Cone 3
Greg Maddux 3
Kevin Appier 3
Larry Gura 3
Mark Langston 3
Nolan Ryan 3
Rick Reuschel 3
Ron Guidry 3
Steve Carlton 3
Tom Seaver 3
Alejandro Pena 2
Bill Swift 2
Bob Welch 2
Bruce Hurst 2
Burt Hooton 2
Charles Nagy 2
Charlie Leibrandt 2
Dennis Eckersley 2
Doug Drabek 2
Doyle Alexander 2
Dwight Gooden 2
Ed Whitson 2
Fernando Valenzuela 2
Jim Abbott 2
Jim Palmer 2
John Candelaria 2
John Tudor 2
Mario Soto 2
Mike Boddicker 2
Mike Mussina 2
Randy Johnson 2
Rick Rhoden 2
Steve Rogers 2
Teddy Higuera 2
Tom Glavine 2
Tommy John 2
Alex Fernandez 1
Allan Anderson 1
Atlee Hammaker 1
Ben McDonald 1
Bill Wegman 1
Bob Knepper 1
Bob Ojeda 1
Bob Stanley 1
Bob Tewksbury 1
Britt Burns 1
Chris Bosio 1
Craig Swan 1
Curt Schilling 1
Dan Schatzeder 1
Dave Goltz 1
Dave Rozema 1
Dave Stewart 1
David Wells 1
Dennis Leonard 1
Don Robinson 1
Don Sutton 1
Frank Tanana 1
Greg Swindell 1
J.R. Richard 1 Jack Morris 1
Jerry Koosman 1
Jerry Reuss 1
Jim Clancy 1
Joaquin Andujar 1
Joe Magrane 1
Joe Niekro 1
John Denny 1
John Smoltz 1
Jon Matlack 1
Jose DeLeon 1
Jose Guzman 1
Juan Guzman 1
Ken Hill 1
Kevin Tapani 1
Kirk McCaskill 1
Mark Gubicza 1
Mark Portugal 1
Matt Young 1
Melido Perez 1
Mike Caldwell 1
Mike Dunne 1
Mike Flanagan 1
Mike Moore 1
Mike Morgan 1
Mike Norris 1
Mike Scott 1
Mike Witt 1
Pascual Perez 1
Pat Hentgen 1
Pete Vuckovich 1
Phil Niekro 1
Richard Dotson 1
Rick Honeycutt 1
Rick Sutcliffe 1
Ricky Bones 1
Roger Erickson 1
Rudy May 1
Scott Erickson 1
Scott Garrelts 1
Steve Avery 1
Steve McCatty 1
Tim Belcher 1
Tom Candiotti 1
Tom Hume 1
Wilson Alvarez 1
Zane Smith 1
In other words, Jack Morris= Dave Stieb + 928.2 innings of ~75 ERA+.
That's the wrong way to look at it. If a guy goes out at Usain Bolt speed for the first 100 m of an 800 m race, he could run the last 700 m at well under replacement-level speed and still win. But the first 100 m makes him unable to do so.
The relevant "race" for our purposes here was Morris's number of innings, not Steib's. Steib was borrowing from his future production during his career, and there's simply no reason to comp him with 973 innings of production at a level he was not capable of. For all we know, Morris could have outpitched Steib if he had operated at Steib's pace. Eckersley changed his pace and morphed from meh starter to lights-out reliever.
I'm refusing to give Morris credit for pitching like a sub-replacement level pitcher.
He didn't.
257. OCF
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4199782)
That's the wrong way to look at it. If a guy goes out at Usain Bolt speed for the first 100 m of an 800 m race, he could run the last 700 m at well under replacement-level speed and still win. But the first 100 m makes him unable to do so.
I think that Sugar Bear is arguing that Morris was a far greater pitcher than Sandy Koufax. But not nearly as good as Jim Kaat or Tommy John.
This argument has always confused me too. Even without including relievers, 80's pitchers are well represented in the HOF (and will be even further within the next 5 years or so).
Without including relievers, there's a huge gap between the greats of the Seaver-Carlton-Ryan generation, and the greats of the Clemens-Johnson-Maddux generation. By birth year half-decade:
1940-1944: 2 Inner Circle (Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton), 1 HoF (Ferguson Jenkins) 3 HoVG (Luis Tiant, Tommy John, Jerry Koosman)
1945-1949: 0 Inner Circle, 3 HoF (Nolan Ryan, Jim Palmer, Don sutton), 1 HoVG (Rick Reuschel), 1 HoF mistake (Catfish Hunter)
1950-1954: 0 Inner Circle, 1 HoF (Bert Blyleven), 1 HoVG (Ron Guidry)
1955-1959: 0 Inner Circle, 0 HoF, 2 HoVG (Orel Hershiser, Dave Stieb), 1 HoF mistake (Jack Morris)
1960-1964: 2 Inner Circle (Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson), 3 HoVG (David Cone, Bret Saberhagen, Dwight Gooden)
1965-1969: 1 Inner Circle (Greg Maddux), 4 HoF (Tom Glavine, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, John Smoltz), 1 HoF oversight (Kevin Brown), 1 HoVG (Kevin Appier)
Steib was borrowing from his future production during his career
No, you ####### retard, he wasn't.
When it comes down to it, Jack Morris owes his eventual induction to Ernest Riles, who bowled over a still-excellent Dave Stieb at first base in 1991, effectively ending Stieb's career and allowing deluded Morris fanboys to pretend he was the best pitcher of his era. As an added bonus, it allowed Morris to be lined up to pitch game seven of the 1991 World Series, which more than likely wouldn't have happened if Toronto had its ace taking the ball in the ALCS instead of Tom Candiotti.
260. DanG
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4199795)
If a guy goes out at Usain Bolt speed for the first 100 m of an 800 m race, he could run the last 700 m at well under replacement-level speed and still win. But the first 100 m makes him unable to do so.
So in this hypothetical, Stieb is unable to finish the race. Yet, we know he still finishes ahead of Morris; Stieb doesn't run as long as Morris but he still covers more ground. When Jack finally quits he still has not reached the point at which Stieb quit the race.
261. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4199801)
That's the wrong way to look at it. If a guy goes out at Usain Bolt speed for the first 100 m of an 800 m race, he could run the last 700 m at well under replacement-level speed and still win. But the first 100 m makes him unable to do so.
The relevant "race" for our purposes here was Morris's number of innings, not Steib's
No, it isn't the relevant races is how many more wins Stieb got for his teams over what they otherwise would have gotten than what Morris got for his teams.
It is not a fixed 800m race where Usain Bolt loses because he blows out his knee at 200m
And if you were right, there are 12 pitchers ahead of Morris in that race- including one of my childhood faves, Jerry Koosman- for whom I am not going to make a HOF case for- but it's a piece of cake to make as good of one- if not better, for him as it is Morris.
When it comes down to it, Jack Morris owes his eventual induction to Ernest Riles, who bowled over a still-excellent Dave Stieb at first base in 1991, effectively ending Stieb's career and allowing deluded Morris fanboys to pretend he was the best pitcher of his era.
Not only did Steib borrow against his future production, but he borrowed WAR from the 1992 Blue Jays who had $3.25 million tied up in a 96 IP, 5.04 ERA pitcher. They could have spent the $3.25M on other players.
Which points out the following principle: "Preventing runs" really isn't the appropriate description of a pitcher's "job." A pitcher's job is to meet the expectations of his organization, within reasonable tolerance bands. The model being proposed is appropriate only for a world of unlimited payrolls and risk-free, immediately obtainable replacement-level production. But that's not the real world. When the Blue Jays made Morris the highest pitcher in baseball, they weren't paying for five shitty starts in April 1992, a move to the bullpen, and 125 innings of 170 ERA+ middle relief.
As a "yeah, but he was so consistent, he added value every year for a long time!" argument, Johnny Damon is as good a Hall of Fame candidate as Jack Morris. Probably better.
265. Moeball
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4199832)
In other words, Jack Morris= Dave Stieb + 928.2 innings of ~75 ERA+
I'm refusing to give Morris credit for pitching like a sub-replacement level pitcher.
He didn't.
So, just out of curiosity, what era+ level would generally be considered "replacement level"? 80?
So, just out of curiosity, what era+ level would generally be considered "replacement level"? 80?
Morris never pitched at a 73 or 80 for any period of time in the real world. Those numbers only came into the conversation based on the fallacious idea that grafting Dave Steib's partial career onto Morris's actual career made any sense.
A pitcher's job is to meet the expectations of his organization, within reasonable tolerance bands.
Even conceding for arguments that that is a reasonable description of a pitcher's job, it is not a reasonable description of a HOF pitcher. If it were, there would be hundreds of deserving HOF pitchers on the outside looking in. Jason Marquis is a perfect example of meeting the expectations of his organization. That doesn't make him a HOF candidate.
Even conceding for arguments that that is a reasonable description of a pitcher's job, it is not a reasonable description of a HOF pitcher.
Of course not.
But, then again, I'm not the one insisting that a pitcher's sole purpose and job is preventing runs. Dave Steib's job in 1992 was not simply preventing runs. He was expected to do, and was paid to do, far more than that. (Not to pick on him in particular.)
270. Squash
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4199841)
Not only did Steib borrow against his future production, but he borrowed WAR from the 1992 Blue Jays who had $3.25 million tied up in a 96 IP, 5.04 ERA pitcher. They could have spent the $3.25M on other players.
I assume this is a standard being held to every other baseball player history.
271. Manny Coon
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4199842)
David Cone - 3.9%
Kevin Brown - 2.1%
Cone and Brown being one and done while Morris gets serious consideration is just crazy. It's lot Cone didn't also have postseason success and Brown was just way better.
272. Booey
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4199845)
Without including relievers, there's a huge gap between the greats of the Seaver-Carlton-Ryan generation, and the greats of the Clemens-Johnson-Maddux generation.
It is interesting that if the voters hadn't finally come around on Blyleven, there would be no HOF starters born in the 1950's (unless you count Eckersley as a starter).
Still, I don't think it's really relevant to someone's HOF case though, cuz whether they were all really old or really young during the 80's, there were still plenty of HOFers pitching each year during the decade.
273. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4199846)
Not only did Steib borrow against his future production, but he borrowed WAR from the 1992 Blue Jays who had $3.25 million tied up in a 96 IP, 5.04 ERA pitcher. They could have spent the $3.25M on other players.
Pretty terrible. But more tolerable than having 5.4 million locked up in a 152 inning, 6.19 ERA pitcher the following year.
The idea that Steib "borrowed against his future production" needs to stop. It is silly to think that "taking it easy" or playing to less than 100% of your ability will necessarily mean you have more to offer in the unpredictable future.
In Steib's case, if his injury resulted from a collision on the bases and not overuse on the mound, it is especially silly.
The idea that Steib "borrowed against his future production" needs to stop. It is silly in that "taking it easy" or playing to less than 100% of your ability will necessarily mean you have more to offer in the unpredictable future.
Then why are the Nationals limiting Strasburg's innings this year, and why did they limit Zimmermann's innings last year?
The ability of a pitcher to stay healthy and manage himself and his health are important components of the job. Yes, of course, sometimes the pitcher has no control of his health and health issues aren't necessarily their "fault," but the essence of the job is an unnatural athletic motion with an extra-normal risk of injury.
Of course he did. From opening day 1989 through Jul 17 1990 (45 starts 308 IP) he gave up 173 ER for an ERA of 5.06 and an ERA+ of ~ 76
From opening day 1993 through the end of his career (50 starts 294 IP) he gave up 193 ER for an ERA of 5.91 and an ERA+ of ~ 76 again.
That's over 600 IP (2/3 of his career advantage over Steib) as a sub replacement pitcher in the real world.
You could have cherry-picked 600 innings of his worst starts and come up with an even better number.
The last 973 innings of Morris's career included Game 7, ace status for two world champions, a CYA-4, and a CYA-5. Something tells me that the teams paying him for those innings would vouch that they got their money's worth.
277. bobm
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4199863)
A "1980s quota" for Morris? At least Ron Santo's supporters had more than a claim about underrepresented third basemen.
278. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4199865)
For all we know, Morris could have outpitched Steib if he had operated at Steib's pace.
Morris did pitch at the same volume Steib did. From 1982-85, Steib averaged a ridiculous 275 innings per year, facing 1125 batters. Those same years, Morris averaged 264 innings, facing 1101 batters.
Morris had more stamina and survived longer, Steib was the better pitcher during those years, but we already knew that.
Do you think that Steib was exerting some extra effort to keep his ERA down while Morris was not, making easy pitches to let runs score and preserve his arm for the future?
I find that hard to believe, given the generally accepted characterization of him as a competitor. If he had been capable of handling that workload while also allowing fewer runs, he'd have won 23-24 games in his best years instead of 19 or 20. If Jack was coasting then he certainly cost Detroit a 1988 playoff spot (1 game back), and could have made 1983 or 1986 (6 games, 8 games) a bit closer.
279. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4199870)
Then why are the Nationals limiting Strasburg's innings this year, and why did they limit Zimmermann's innings last year?
Irrelevant to the topic. The Tigers did no such thing with Jack Morris. And there's no guaranty that the Nationals are doing the best thing for their long-term interest here. Ask the Yankees how their limits with Joba have worked.
The "'80s gap" likely has quite a bit to do with sports medicine, which did not keep pace with the advent of full-time, well-paid, well-conditioned athletes training their asses off instead of smoking in the dugout. ACL injuries that would be simple 6 month rehabs today ended and badly stunted careers then (Billy Sims, Bernard King, etc.) I'd have no problem adjusting for that and if Stieb's knee problems would have been cured quickly and easily with 2012 techniques, that's part of his story and his case.
Irrelevant to the topic. The Tigers did no such thing with Jack Morris.
But the null is: "Did Jack Morris do it with himself?"
Do you think that Steib was exerting some extra effort to keep his ERA down while Morris was not, making easy pitches to let runs score and preserve his arm for the future?
I don't know and none of us know. I'm confident in my "pennant race" data with Morris and there's certainly anecodatal evidence that he approached some games differently than others.
Do you think that Steib was exerting some extra effort to keep his ERA down while Morris was not, making easy pitches to let runs score and preserve his arm for the future?
I don't know and none of us know.
Of course we do. No one does that and it's extremely likely Morris did.
I'm confident in my "pennant race" data with Morris and there's certainly anecodatal evidence that he approached some games differently than others.
Your pennant race data was a joke, and was thoroughly de-bunked the last 2 times you brought it up. I'm not interested in rehashing that one.
Nah, SugarBear has a sort of insane creativity in his arguments. He's willing to say anything, and contradict himself baldly in the space of an hour, that really separates him from the Tommy in CTs of this world. I keep checking in on this thread in part just to see what ludicrosity he'll put forward next.
My favorite SSBism was from the last page:
And his value looking forward was pretty much always higher than his "value" looking backward.
He says things that aren't just wrong, but are in fact logically impossible. I don't think I could come up with arguments this perfectly bad if I tried. It's sort of wonderful.
286. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4199888)
I don't know and none of us know. I'm confident in my "pennant race" data with Morris and there's certainly anecodatal evidence that he approached some games differently than others.
I figure Morris was a very good pitcher who sometimes had great games and sometimes had crappy ones. If he truly had top-tier great ability when he wanted, like he showed in 1991, then maybe he should have approached the 87 and 92 playoffs with a bit more intensity.
Whether he didn't pitch better all the time by choice or because he just wasn't as good as Blyleven/Mussina/Schilling, either way ends up the same. I think I'd respect him less if he truly fell short in some playoff series or pennant races (1988, 1983 - first half is where it was lost) because he just didn't care enough.
287. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4199893)
And his value looking forward was pretty much always higher than his "value" looking backward.
That really is a classic. And very amusing to see in the context of a HOF argument. I made the joke about Brandon Wood earlier, but that's the sort of thing that would best describe a look at players of great potential who never made it. Rick Reichart, Eric Davis, Mark Prior, Clint Hurdle, Gregg Jefferies, Rick Ankiel, etc.
Obviously a lot of variation in there, Davis accomplished much more than Hurdle di, but hopefully you know what I mean.
I'm not the one insisting that a pitcher's sole purpose and job is preventing runs.
The only baseball player I've ever known of having a "sole purpose" was Reggie Jackson and that purpose was to kill the Queen. Also, it lasted about a game.
That really is a classic. And very amusing to see in the context of a HOF argument. I made the joke about Brandon Wood earlier
Which is which:
Player A in A: .251/.322/.404
Player A in AAA: .277/.341/.510
Player A in MLB: .186/.225/.289
Player B in AA: .279/.328/.401
Player B in AAA:.345/.401/.509
Player B in MLB: .247/.290/.356
Both are SS, both were ranked prospects, Player A reached as high as #3 in BA's list, player B reached 94...
Wood of course had his big year in the Calif league, but the league was at .286/.357/.452 and Rancho was a hitters park on top of that. Outside of that 40 homer year in the Calif league, Wood hit like a poor man's version of Kila Ka'aihue (.279/.410/.500 in AAA)- of course since Wood has considerably more defensive value/talent that Kila, Wood still could have had a career had he hit as well as Kila in the MLB (.221/.305/.382)
Player B is Ronny Cedeno...
Josh Barfield hit .337-16-128 in the Calif league one year, I think that the playing conditions in the Calif league are so extreme- that #s from that league are- not useless- but so vastly inflated... Or as Bill James said about the PCL in the 1980s- there's a lot of air there.
Which brings me back to what one writer said a few months ago abut Morris, "I used to look at his ERA, 3.90, and say, gee that's terrible, now I watch teams play, and most team's would love to have a guy reliably get under 4.00"
Jeesus Christ, Morris did not effing pitch NOW or in the 1994-2010 period or in the equivalent of the California League (i.e., Coors), he pitched 1977-94, and 3.90 WHEN AND WHERE he pitched was not great, and Any Petitte having a 3.90 doesn't mean that Morris 3.90 is now good enough.
291. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4199952)
Wood's 2005 numbers were greatly inflated by his league, but he was only 20 years old. I can't speak for others, but I never thought that season was any better than a 220/280/400 level MLB season. My hope was that given his age, he'd grow from there and turn into a good major league hitter. He just never got any better, his MLE was about the same the next year in AA and the following 3 in AAA, and then in the majors he couldn't even do that.
Now he's hitting 252/302/404, back in the PCL at age 27, playing in Colorado Springs of all places. By this time next year I hope he shows more of a knack for selling financial products or new cars than he has for hitting breaking pitches.
Cedeno never hit at all below AA. He did hit much better than Wood in the same PCL league though. If these guys had developed as hoped, they would be very different players. Cedeno a high average guy, Wood low to medium average, strikeout prone guy with 30 homers.
Interesting to compare Mark Trumbo's numbers at the same stops in the Angel system as Wood, with Trumbo generally being 2 years older when he began each level than Wood was. He's turned out all right. It's a tough game trying to predict player development.
292. Jay Z
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4199953)
Without including relievers, there's a huge gap between the greats of the Seaver-Carlton-Ryan generation, and the greats of the Clemens-Johnson-Maddux generation. By birth year half-decade:
1940-1944: 2 Inner Circle (Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton), 1 HoF (Ferguson Jenkins) 3 HoVG (Luis Tiant, Tommy John, Jerry Koosman)
1945-1949: 0 Inner Circle, 3 HoF (Nolan Ryan, Jim Palmer, Don sutton), 1 HoVG (Rick Reuschel), 1 HoF mistake (Catfish Hunter)
1950-1954: 0 Inner Circle, 1 HoF (Bert Blyleven), 1 HoVG (Ron Guidry)
1955-1959: 0 Inner Circle, 0 HoF, 2 HoVG (Orel Hershiser, Dave Stieb), 1 HoF mistake (Jack Morris)
1960-1964: 2 Inner Circle (Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson), 3 HoVG (David Cone, Bret Saberhagen, Dwight Gooden)
1965-1969: 1 Inner Circle (Greg Maddux), 4 HoF (Tom Glavine, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, John Smoltz), 1 HoF oversight (Kevin Brown), 1 HoVG (Kevin Appier)
I have presented pro Morris data/arguments here. My main point is that the narrative for him is not implausible. It's not a stretch to consider him the best starting pitcher of the 1980s. In Win Shares, only Stieb is better for 1980-89, and Morris actually has more career Win Shares that Stieb.
I think a lot of similar sentiment was ultimately behind Jim Rice. 1970-85 was not a great period for "slugger" types - players who played 1b, LF, RF and were going to lead in HR, RBI, maybe even BA for a number of years. You had a whole long run going back to Ruth, then Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg, then Dimag/Williams/Musial, then Mays/Mantle/Aaron, then some of the mid-late 60s guys like McCovey and Stargell. In the early 1970s you did have Jackson, but he clearly wasn't as good as most of what came before, and a big falloff after Jackson. Then in 1975-85 you had all of these guys who would win an MVP or maybe too and flame out - Garvey, Lynn, Burroughs, Foster, Murphy, Mattingly, Baylor, Parker. Bill Madlock, 4 batting titles, third baseman, not a candidate. Yes, there were good players at other positions, but no consistent slugger types. (Eddie Murray was very consistent, but so consistent that he hardly ever led the league in anything.) The sentiment behind Rice was to have at least one rep of a peak-value type slugger from that era. The "feared" stuff was BS, and it bothered me, but he might have been the best of the flameouts, and I understand the sentiment behind the push. As I do with Morris.
Well put. Eddie lasted and all the other guys either got hurt or did drugs.(*) Even Eddie was an all-star once after the age of 30. Primes really did used to end when players hit their early 30s.
Poor sports medicine and approach, philosophy, and conditions that dampened extreme performance are the defining characteristics of the era. They aren't being properly accounted for in HOF balloting.
(*) The list of pitchers is equally long and includes the oft-mentioned ones in these parts -- Steib, Saberhagen, etc. One approach is to credit Morris for overcoming those obstacles and that probably isn't fair to the rest of the group.
294. AROM
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4199984)
Poor sports medicine and approach, philosophy, and conditions that dampened extreme performance are the defining characteristics of the era.
Poor sports medicine compared to 2012, but better than what any player before that had to deal with.
Poor sports medicine compared to 2012, but better than what any player before that had to deal with.
True, but the players were working themselves harder, both in and out of season. They weren't stealing a puff in the dugout (Dick Allen, famous SI cover) or in practice (George McGinnis) and working the hardware store or selling insurance in the offseason. There was a lag between the inception of the modern athletic era and sports medicine fully adapting, and that lag falls squarely in the time period at issue.
Ignoring the age difference, Trumbo hit .283/.329/.553 in Rancho, league was .273/.340/.412 (OPS+ 131)
when Wood hit .321/.381/.667 in Rancho, league was .286/.357/.452 (OPS+ 154)
Wood was better, but not as massively as it first appears- had they been teammates when they put up those respective number Wood's OPS+ advantage would have been 43 points rather than 23.
Trumbo's .301/.368/.577 AAA line in 2010 is good for a 139 OPS+ (note he's gaining against league as moving up- THAT IS HUGE- see also Will Middlebrooks- his minor league numbers were generally unimpressive- but they were trending the right way)
Woods' .272/.338/.497 line in the PCL in 2007 was against a league of .279/.346/.437 (OPS+ 111)
Woods' .296/.375/.595 line in the PCL in 2008 was against a league of .277/.348/.444 (OPS+ 142)
Woods' .293/.353/.557 line in the PCL in 2009 was against a league of .272/.341/.418 (OPS+ 137)
So Wood was 23 points better than Trumbo in A+, in AAA (ignoring Wood's first year hiccup there), they were essentially even, then
in MLB...
When playing tougher competition Wood began to fall back Trumbo actually surged- you can see that with many players AFTER the fact
At the time- if both come up at the same time, one would be more likely to say that Trumbo was less likely to succeed- sure he'd hit as well at AAA as Wood- but Wood had a longer track record of success
Josh Barfield a 2b was great in the low minors so was Brent Butler- but Brent went from .937 to .873 to .768 to .694 as he was getting promoted- Chase Utley went .827 to .746 to .813 to .907
Their overall minor league numbers were no far apart, but Brent was a bust and Utley a star.
In hindsight, Trumbo was obviously still growing and improving as a hitter- Wood was never an ounce better than when he was 20- it happens- Claudell Washington was never an iota better than when he was 20- but fortunately for him that was good enough to have a career- Al Kaline was never better than when he was 20, but in his case that was good enough to reach the HOF (yes barring catastrophic injury, Trout's DOWNSIDE may be Al Kaline)
In Wood's case, beating up class A+ pitchers in possibly the best hitting environment on earth- didn't mean he was an MLB caliber hitter already- he still had to get better- he didn't.
It's not a stretch to consider him the best starting pitcher of the 1980s. In Win Shares, only Stieb is better for 1980-89, and Morris actually has more career Win Shares that Stieb.
Win shares? Really. Well, I suppose when you have nothing, grasp whatever straw you can.
298. Kiko Sakata
Posted: August 03, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4200028)
Poor sports medicine compared to 2012, but better than what any player before that had to deal with.
But in terms of pitchers, the "Jack Morris" generation looks worse, in terms of durability, not just compared their modern comps - Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Mussina, etc. - but also to the generation right before them - Carlton, Seaver, Ryan, Sutton, Niekro, Palmer, Jenkins, Perry. Blyleven gets unfairly lumped into that earlier group when really, age-wise, he's the only guy from the "Morris" generation who survived and thrived with a 1970s-era workload. Most of the younger guys - Valenzuela, Gooden, Stieb, Saberhagen - broke.
Morris, to his credit, didn't really break; he just wasn't as good a pitcher as most of these other guys (before they broke).
Upon further review, I'm leaning toward the philosophy that the best way to evaluate a baseball player is by giving a .85 or .90 weight to what he did between the ages of 22 and 33 (*), when they're at their athletic peak. If he's precocious like Kaline or Trout, adjust accordingly. If a guy has a late peak, I'm starting to lean toward simply saying "tough ####\" -- he was either lucky or a historical anomaly. Getting your ACL put back together the right way, when Dave Steib or Mickey Mantle couldn't, or your elbow's UCL when guys in the 50s and 60s couldn't is every bit as out of the player's control as BABIP.
Upon further review, I'm leaning toward the philosophy that the best way to evaluate a baseball player is by giving a .85 or .90 weight to what he did between the ages of 22 and 33 (*), when they're at their athletic peak. If he's precocious like Kaline or Trout, adjust accordingly. If a guy has a late peak, I'm starting to lean toward simply saying "tough ####\" -- he was either lucky or a historical anomaly. Getting your ACL put back together the right way, when Dave Steib or Mickey Mantle couldn't, or your elbow's UCL when guys in the 50s and 60s couldn't is every bit as out of the player's control as BABIP.
Well, it's better than rating them on one great game, how well they did when their team was within 10 games of first in Aug/Sep, and how much money they made late in their career.
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.
He only ranks third here, but contemporary baseball minds agreed: If you had to pick one guy to lose a game for you, you picked Jack Morris.
Who oddly enough can also form a valid answer to this question:
Name 3 pitchers who were much better than Jack Morris.
If I were a Tigers fan (and still not a Morris fan)
this is what would bother me
Alan Trammell is not in the HOF and is not getting in by the BBWAA, he was more important to the Tigers than Morris and had a greater career
Lou Whitaker is not in the HOF and is not getting in by the BBWAA, he was more important to the Tigers than Morris and had a greater career
Chet Lemon was as valuable to those winning Tiger's teams in the 80s, he had at least an equivalent career, he's never ever gonnna sniff the hall
Lance Parrish was as valuable to those winning Tiger's teams in the 80s, he had at least an equivalent career, he's never ever gonnna sniff the hall
Kirk Gibson was as valuable to those winning Tiger's teams in the 80s, he had at least an equivalent career, he's never ever gonnna sniff the hall
Jack Morris is to the 1980s Tigers what Paul O'Neill was to the 1990s Yankees- I'm not trying to disparage/elevate either man
Morris's Tigers averaged 90+ wins over a 7-8 year period- he was the staff ace on those teams, but not once was he the best player, and some years he's wasn't the best pitcher
1. Trammell, who should obviously be in.
2. Morris, who a good case can be made either way ans will probably get in.
3. Whitaker, whom WAR overrates, but who obviously didn't warrant a one and done.
4. Gibson, whose 2.5% and out was absurd.
5. Lemon
6. Parrish
All the Tigers are absurdly underrated, aside from Morris. Detroit is in the Midwest and isn't filled with blabbermouth writers who relentlessly promote guys (*), and none of the 80s guys were self-promoters, aside from maybe Morris whose outsized personality and mustachioed badass persona is helping him with HOF voters.
Another big problem is that the nucleus underachieved, as did the Lolich/Freehan/McLain, etc. nucleus before it, and the core guys of the 2006-12 teams have. Another 1984-type run in the spotlight would have been a big boost and cast this group in a different light -- look what 1991 did for Morris.
(*) OH, LOOK!!! IT'S GENERATION K!!!!!!!!
Still waiting to hear the good case for him...
I agree that WAR seems to rate Whitaker a bit high, but there's no way Morris is even close to him.
Are we rating Evans for his whole career or just with the Tigers? With the Tigers he was just a 1b/dh, and rates well below the other members of their core.
A case can be made that Detroit Tigers have overperformed in awards balloting the last few decades... which makes Alan Trammell's tepid HoF support all the more strange. Of course, the difference is that a few extra votes here and there can't tilt a Hall of Fame election.
Using a highly complicated and innovative research technique known as Google yields this article.
So 500K of the bonus was an unspecified number of innings and starts; given Morris's history, I suppose we could consider that easy.
The article also states that a 100K bonus would have been awarded if he were LCS MVP, which he wasn't - but I'd bet that bonus doubled for WS MVP, which he was. Ask Morris if that one was easily achieved.
Also, according to the article, the 3.65 in 1992 was not fully guaranteed when the contract was signed - it was 2M guaranteed, and the rest was added on as an additional bonus due to 1991 incentives.
If so, can you define the X, Y and Z in an argument for Morris? (and please note that the comparison should be other starting pitchers elected.)
My point being if you are arguing for someone who would be the WORST starting pitcher elected, maybe you are wrong.
Even if we consider whatever statistical benchmarks he needed to be easily achieved, that still puts his "base" salary at 3.5M, which is less than Langston's - at least assuming you aren't arguing that the Twins knew going into the year that he'd be an All-Star, finish 4th in Cy voting, and win WS MVP.
That's a tough one. Bert Blyleven is not only the latest SP to get in, he's the first one to debut after the 60's. The guys just before him pretty much all won 300 games. The next group to get serious support has a bunch of 300 game winners.
I think a lot of folks say, "Well, somebody from that mid-70s to mid-80s era has to get in. If not Morris, then who?"
It is the failure of guys like Dave Stieb and Ron Guidry to stick around long enough. McGregor. Flanagan. Norris. McCatty. Richard. Barker. Soto. Rogers. Leonard. Clancy. Either Forsch. Petry. Tudor. Tanana.
This is Morris' 13th year on the ballot. In these 13 years, the only starting pitchers who have even survived a single ballot from his era (defined very generously) are:
Fernando, for one year.
Dave Stewart, for one year.
Ron Guidry. Guidry got under 10% in Morris' first two years on the ballot, then failed to get 5% during Morris' third try.
Guidry is really the only one. There is nobody else from his era who has ever really been on the ballot, and I believe that is a big deal for a lot of voters...
Guidry, maybe. Dave Stieb was the best pitcher of that period and his only failure was playing most of his career on a sucky team.
Also Nolan Ryan was pitching before Morris got started and retired
the same year Morris didthe year before Morris did*, and was approximately a billion times better than Morris over that time.Also, Dennis Martinez is a nearly exact contemporary of Morris and was much better.
Frank Tanana was a nearly exact contemporary of Morris and was better. He had the grievous failures of peaking the first few years of his career (similar to Hershiser; it made him widely remembered as the old rag-armed guy that got by with guile and location) and pitching for bad teams.
*I forgot about Morris's turn with the Indians in 1994. As I'm sure Cleveland fans tried to for a long time.
Morris is actually only 4 years younger than Bert Blyleven. It's just that Blyleven debuted at age 19, while Morris didn't crack the Tigers' rotation until he was 24, so they seem to be of different "generations".
that might mean that the Blue Jays' offensive ineptness when Stieb pitched is a key factor in why some will vote a Tigers/Twins hurler for the Hall.
I wouldn't think those Toronto ABs would be so relevant to Morris's case, but...
Morris had over 100 more starts and almost 900 more IP than Stieb. That's significant.
No, he wasn't. Just looking at Win Shares, Morris had more during that time. And Morris doesn't score particularly high in Win Shares. Ryan had a great long career, but he was not a great peak value pitcher at any point of his career.
Martinez had his best years at the beginning and end of his career, and his worst seasons in the middle. Overall there isn't a lot of difference between them, except for the postseason stuff and Morris having a more consistent run.
No, he wasn't better. Again, a different career shape. Maybe a better peak, but made up for it in other years. Pitched a little longer than Morris.
I was assuming we were talking about entire careers since we were discussing HOF worthiness, but if we're focusing only on their time in Detroit then yes, Evans isn't in the conversation.
Morris still isn't anywhere near the Trammell/Whitaker level.
First, let's confine our group to Expansion Era starters, pitchers who debuted in 1956 or later. Then look at the long-career guys; let's say within 1000 IP of Jack (2824+). Also you need a lot of wins; we'll say 175+. Finally, you should be above average, so a career ERA+ of over 100.
This gives us a group of 24 candidates, including Morris (who is 19th in career pitching WAR among the cohort):
Rk Player WAR ERA+ W L IP From To SO ERA BA OPS+1 Rick Reuschel 64.6 114 214 191 3548.1 1972 1991 2015 3.37 .264 92
2 Kevin Brown 64.5 127 211 144 3256.1 1986 2005 2397 3.28 .249 79
3 Luis Tiant 61.8 114 229 172 3486.1 1964 1982 2416 3.30 .236 88
4 David Cone 58.2 121 194 126 2898.2 1986 2003 2668 3.46 .232 82
5 Tommy John 56.9 111 288 231 4710.1 1963 1989 2245 3.34 .265 94
6 Chuck Finley 54.3 115 200 173 3197.1 1986 2002 2610 3.85 .255 91
7 Dave Stieb 53.5 122 176 137 2895.1 1979 1998 1669 3.44 .239 81
8 Jerry Koosman 53.1 110 222 209 3839.1 1967 1985 2556 3.36 .252 93
9 Frank Tanana 52.6 106 240 236 4188.1 1973 1993 2773 3.66 .254 97
10 Orel Hershiser 48.0 112 204 150 3130.1 1983 2000 2014 3.48 .249 89
11 Mark Langston 46.9 107 179 158 2962.2 1984 1999 2464 3.97 .246 93
12 Dennis Martinez 45.1 106 245 193 3999.2 1976 1998 2149 3.70 .256 93
13 Mickey Lolich 43.7 104 217 191 3638.1 1963 1979 2832 3.44 .246 95
14 Frank Viola 43.7 112 176 150 2836.1 1982 1996 1844 3.73 .260 93
15 Milt Pappas 43.2 110 209 164 3186.0 1957 1973 1728 3.40 .252 92
16 Vida Blue 41.3 108 209 161 3343.1 1969 1986 2175 3.27 .237 89
17 Jim Kaat 40.4 108 283 237 4530.1 1959 1983 2461 3.45 .264 97
18 Bob Welch 39.9 106 211 146 3092.0 1978 1994 1969 3.47 .249 95
19 Jack Morris 39.3 105 254 186 3824.0 1977 1994 2478 3.90 .247 89
20 Jim Perry 35.0 106 215 174 3285.2 1959 1975 1576 3.45 .252 94
21 Charlie Hough 34.8 106 216 216 3801.1 1970 1994 2362 3.75 .233 90
22 Claude Osteen 33.6 104 196 195 3460.2 1957 1975 1612 3.30 .263 100
23 Doyle Alexander 30.5 103 194 174 3367.2 1971 1989 1528 3.76 .261 98
24 Rick Wise 28.5 101 188 181 3127.1 1964 1982 1647 3.69 .267 99
What about peak? Who had the most seasons of 6.5+ pitching WAR?
Rk Yrs From To Age1 Kevin Brown 4 1996 2000 31-35
2 David Cone 4 1993 1997 30-34
3 Dave Stieb 4 1982 1985 24-27
4 Chuck Finley 3 1990 1998 27-35
5 Frank Tanana 3 1975 1977 21-23
6 Mark Langston 2 1991 1993 30-32
7 Orel Hershiser 2 1988 1989 29-30
8 Frank Viola 2 1987 1988 27-28
9 Jim Kaat 2 1974 1975 35-36
10 Mickey Lolich 2 1971 1972 30-31
11 Vida Blue 2 1971 1976 21-26
12 Luis Tiant 2 1968 1974 27-33
'16 Jack Morris 0'
Who had the most seasons of 5.5+ pitching WAR?
Rk Yrs From To Age1 Kevin Brown 5 1996 2000 31-35
2 Dave Stieb 5 1982 1990 24-32
3 David Cone 4 1993 1997 30-34
4 Frank Viola 4 1987 1992 27-32
5 Mark Langston 4 1987 1993 26-32
6 Orel Hershiser 4 1985 1989 26-30
7 Rick Reuschel 4 1973 1985 24-36
8 Luis Tiant 4 1968 1976 27-35
9 Jerry Koosman 4 1968 1979 25-36
10 Chuck Finley 3 1990 1998 27-35
11 Frank Tanana 3 1975 1977 21-23
12 Vida Blue 3 1971 1978 21-28
'16 Jack Morris 1 1979 1979 24-24'
Who had the most seasons of 4.5+ pitching WAR?
Rk Yrs From To Age1 David Cone 7 1988 1999 25-36
2 Rick Reuschel 7 1973 1985 24-36
3 Dave Stieb 6 1980 1990 22-32
4 Luis Tiant 6 1968 1978 27-37
5 Kevin Brown 5 1996 2000 31-35
6 Mark Langston 5 1987 1993 26-32
7 Jerry Koosman 5 1968 1979 25-36
8 Dennis Martinez 4 1989 1995 34-40
9 Chuck Finley 4 1989 1998 26-35
10 Frank Viola 4 1987 1992 27-32
11 Orel Hershiser 4 1985 1989 26-30
'12 Jack Morris 4 1979 1987 24-32'
13 Vida Blue 4 1971 1980 21-30
14 Tommy John 4 1968 1979 25-36
Who had the most seasons of 3.5+ pitching WAR?
Rk Yrs From To Age1 David Cone 10 1988 1999 25-36
2 Kevin Brown 9 1992 2003 27-38
3 Luis Tiant 9 1964 1978 23-37
4 Dave Stieb 8 1980 1990 22-32
5 Rick Reuschel 8 1973 1987 24-38
6 Chuck Finley 7 1989 2000 26-37
7 Dennis Martinez 7 1987 1995 32-40
8 Frank Viola 7 1984 1993 24-33
9 Tommy John 7 1968 1982 25-39
10 Mark Langston 6 1984 1993 23-32
11 Orel Hershiser 6 1984 1995 25-36
'12 Jack Morris 6 1979 1991 24-36'
13 Mickey Lolich 6 1969 1975 28-34
14 Jerry Koosman 6 1968 1979 25-36
15 Jim Kaat 6 1962 1975 23-36
I think it's safe to say that if a pitcher is equal to or better than Morris in every one of these measures, then he is ahead of Jack in the HOF queue. That gives us these guys:
David Cone
Kevin Brown
Luis Tiant
Rick Reuschel
Dave Stieb
Chuck Finley
Frank Viola
Orel Hershiser
Mark Langston
Jerry Koosman
Some will say that Dennis Martinez wasn't a staff ace like Morris. That doesn't really hold up. I had forgotten how good, durable, and consistent he was towards the end. He had 8 years as a rotation anchor, 1988-95, starting at age 33. The first 6 of those years he pitched at least 220 innings. The last 2, with Cleveland, were strike seasons, so the 170-180 innings represent a guy taking the ball every turn and pitching deep into games.
As for postseason, El Presidente pitched 43 innings with a 3.32 ERA. Not bad at all, he just didn't have a lot of opportunities. Most of those innings came after he was 40.
So, just to recap, he had a longer career and a better peak, but he wasn't better. Got it.
Not so much, when the 900 inning difference mostly consists of below-averageness on Morris's part. The last seven years of his career consist of 1400 innings, made up of one great* year, 1991, and a whole lot of poor pitching. And Stieb's peak is much better. There's some value in taking the ball every fifth day and only getting KO'd occasionally. But not nearly enough to make up for Stieb's huge peak advantage.
* By Jack Morris's standards, anyway. In the career line of even, say, Jim Bunning, Morris's 1991 doesn't look special.
David Cone - 3.9%
Kevin Brown - 2.1%
Dennis Martinez - 3.4%
Rick Reuschel - 0.4%
Dave Stieb - 1.4%
Chuck Finley - 0.2%
Frank Viola - 0.4%
Orel Hershiser - 11.2%, then 4.4% and off the ballot
Mark Langston - 0%
Jerry Koosman - 0.9%
If you want to throw Tiant in the mix, who got 30.9% out of the shoot, but then never broke 18% again, that's fine, though I don't consider him a contemporary of Jack Morris.
We could produce a couple dozen of additional pitchers of this range, all of them complete non-factors in the HOF voting. People on BBTF keep trying to make an intellectual argument for why Morris shouldn't be in, when people like Dae Stieb were clearly better...but you've got to use the brain and the heart...and Morris connects with HOF voters in a way that none of his peers have even touched. Again, nobody else is even getting to year two of the voting, while Morris continues his slow march towards immortality. Yelling about WAR - as much as I agree with the argument - is clearly not getting it done.
The Blue Jays averaged over 90 wins a season from 1983 to 1990 - at least 10 games over .500 each season. For most of Stieb's career, he pitched for very good teams.
Subtract Steib's career IP and ER from Morris's and you are left with 929 IP at a 5.34 ERA. That's a dubious advantage at best.
Worrying about Dave Steib is no more productive than braying at the moon.
The reason Morris is getting notice that other pitchers aren't is primarily for three reasons:
1) He had a very memorable, high-performance playoff game.
2) He had a lot of wins (3 20+ win seasons, 42nd all-time in wins)
3) His contemporaries (viewed somewhat narrowly) are all lousy candidates.
The first reason perhaps should matter for a HOF candidacy as a great story, but as a push from borderline to in. I think people have blinders on to the fact that a merely very good player could have that sort of performance in a single game. There's a sense that a player has to somehow be a superstar to have been capable of that.
The second reason is the best part of his case, but there are a number of flaws with the win statistic, and a careful look shows that wins grossly overstate his value. Morris played on strong offensive teams that were strong fielding teams as well, often got more than his share of run support, and also lost a lot of games.
The third reason is what will ultimately get him in (whether through the BBWAA or the VC). Enough people will say "do we want to have nobody from the 80s?" There aren't any candidates that are remarkably better by the numbers (some who are a little better overall like Dennis Martinez, some who have much better peaks but weaker careers) and the guys that are close don't have memorable moments.
WAR shouldn't really enter the picture because anyone that values WAR in a HOF discussion already considers Morris to be a laughable candidate.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but there are currently 2 HOF starting pitchers (plus Gossage) who played the entirety of the decade. Plus a two others who pitched every year but the last (plus Sutter), and one of them won 2 CYAs in the decade.
Morris, career: 226-199
Stieb, career: 190-130
So the difference between those careers is 36-69, which is pretty clearly below replacement.
Morris, best five individual years: 18-11, 18-11, 18-12, 19-13, 16-11. Total 89-58
Stieb, best five individual years: 20-9, 20-9, 20-11, 20-12, 15-8. Total 95-49
Morris, best five consecutive years: 87-60
Stieb, best five consecutive years: 93-49
Morris, best ten consecutive years: 156-118
Stieb, best ten consecutive years: 156-99
plus Dennis Eckersley
Damn. I knew there was another reliever. Just couldn't think of him.
Stieb: 2895 IP, 122 ERA+ (3.44)
Morris: 3824 IP, 105 ERA+ (3.90)
Stieb would have to have put up an ERA+ of 73 in those 929 "missing" innings to match Morris in IP/ERA+
Ron Guidry lead the league in wins for a decade, 1977-1986
in that decade he pitched 2186 2/3 ip with an ERA+ of 121 (3.23)
Jack Morris famously lead the 80s in wins, in that decade he pitched 2443 2/3 ip with an ERA+ of 109 (3.66)
Morris had 257 extra IP, what would Guidry have need to pitch in 257 extra IP to match an ERA+ of 109 in 2443 IP?
An ERA of 6.58 (ERA+ of 59- also known as sub-sub replacement level- in fact during Guidry's decade no pitcher with 200+ innings (cumulative) was that bad, the worst was Dick Pole who put up a 70 in 221 IP).
Morris' decade was significantly worse than Guidry's.
Let's go to super-accumulator, Don Sutton, ERA+ of 108 in over 5000 IP
Morris would have needed an extra 1458 IP at an ERA+ of 117 to match Sutton
Morris best stretch was 1983-1987, where he through 1324 inning with an ERA+ of 120
basically to MATCH Sutton (Who is in the HOF- but gainst a shocking amount of resistance considering he won 300 games)- Morris would need to take his best 5 game stretch- and do it again IN ADDITION to his actual career.
And durability, a key component of his job description. He was like a 10,000 meter runner who ran too fast early on and didn't finish, or an F-1 driver who burned his engine on the 30th lap.
and BTW, Eckersey's best years as a starter were better than Morris'
he's got 3285 IP at an EAR+ of 116
And by 1992-93, when he was only 34, he obviously didn't have 929 innings of 73 ERA+ pitching still in the tank. If he'd pitched another 929 innings, he might have had an ERA+ of 10 or 20.
Your phrasing of this makes it seem that 929 IP at 73 ERA+ is a good thing. It's not. Do you think Tim Lincecum is giving the Giants any value this year? How about John Lackey or Derek Lowe, or J A Happ last year?
Of course it's not -- it borders on brutal. But Dave Steib wasn't even capable of that borderinng-on-brutal level of performance for 929 more innings.
It's nothing like that. The purpose of a pitcher is to prevent runs, not accumulate 4,000 career innings. It's more like a hitter who gets 200 hits with a .400 batting average by Sep 1 and suffers an season ending injury. By the end of the season, he still has 200 hits, and you can't claim that someone with 170 hits and a .320 batting average was a better hitter just because he played the whole season. It is possible to pack more value into a shorter time period than someone who plays longer.
The second point is inarguable. But I fail to see how that makes Morris a better pitcher. In what other aspect of sports does hanging around at a borderline brutal level of performance add value?
The "purpose" of Jack Morris and Dave Steib was not to pitch a no-hitter in their first game in the major leagues and then retire with a sore arm -- the reductio ad absurdum of this tired bromide.
Because if Steib had pitched 929 more innings at the back end of his career, he would not have been better at "preventing runs" over his career than Jack Morris.
You're gifting Steib the 73 ERA+ that he was obviously and manifestly not capable of.
Second Peak and career are not the only way to evaluate a HOF candidacy. I prefer extended prime. For starting pitchers you can reasonably look at this as value accumulated in seasons with a 120 ERA+. Morris has 6 such seasons (it's reasonable to include 1981 I think. He couldn't have pitched any more than he did) -- a reasonable number for a fringe candidate (though he lacks a real high point)
Dave Stieb though did it 5 years running and an additional 2 times. Which is part of the reason a lot of people see Stieb as the better HOF candidate.
It doesn't matter though, because you can always call up the next kid, or series of kids, from AAA and get that kind of performance or better.
Kirby Puckett finished his career batting .319. Steve Finley hit .271, but with 2000+ more at bats. For Kirby to match Finley, he would only have to have hit .111 (240-2153). Kirby at that point was not capable of batting .111, he was half blind. This does not make Finley a better hitter than Kirby, or make his career better than Kirby's.
Now there are, theoretically, ways to win more games than those equivalent records. If a pitcher throws 4 shutouts and follows with a 20 run shellacking, his ERA will look average but he still wins 80% of his games. That does not apply to Morris, as pitching to the score has been pretty well debunked and it's been demonstrated that he won about as many games as you expect given what he could control (most of runs allowed) and what he had exactly zero control over (team runs scored). If he got average support over his career, I don't think 226 wins gets him this far even with WS G7.
In 1984 Morris and Dave Steib were at the their peaks. Morris pitches 240 innings in 35 starts, 3.60 ERA, and a 19-11 record. Steib pitches 267 innings, 2.83 ERA, but a record of 16-8. That's a ton of no-decisions, but it doesn't reflect durability, like it would if one pitcher only went 5 and the other pitched complete games - Steib is the one who threw more innings that year. It's nothing more than timing and run support.
If you superimpose Jack's run support, on a start by start basis, over Steib's performance, Steib would have finished with a record of 23-7.
I prefer my HOF candidates to be the players who added most to their team's record, not those whose teams added the most to the player's record.
In reality, Stieb prevented more runs in his career than Morris, despite a shorter career. BB-Ref has them:
570 RAR Stieb
482 RAR Morris
True, but the difference (before adjusting for park -- Stieb pitched in a better place to pitch -- and defensive support) you only needed to get a 5.34 ERA in those innings.
In other words, Jack Morris= Dave Stieb + 928.2 innings of ~75 ERA+. If Stieb isn't a HOFER (he isn't), I'm unable to see how a bunch of bad bulk innings makes Morris one.
EDIT: Coke to Misirlou -- but a small one. I included the ERA+ estimate.
By RA+ equivalent records:
Career: 320-267. So Sutton minus Morris is 94-68, which is quite a bit of value.
Best five seasons: 19-10, 19-11, 16-7, 18-11, 17-11. Total 89-50. Not great, but still beats Morris's 89-58.
Best five consecutive seasons: 89-58. Matches Morris's best five non-consecutive.
Best ten consecutive seasons: 163-116. Compare Morris at 156-118. And then note that deciding which ten years to take in Sutton's case is not obvious.
So, even as a low-peak "super-accumulator", Sutton had a higher peak and higher (and longer) prime than Morris.
This argument has always confused me too. Even without including relievers, 80's pitchers are well represented in the HOF (and will be even further within the next 5 years or so). Most these pitchers may have peaked in the 70's or 90's, but it doesn't change the fact that they were still going (strongly, in some cases) in the so-called unrepresented decade as well.
1980- Ryan, Blyleven, Palmer, Perry, Sutton, Carlton, Seaver, Niekro, Eckersley, Jenkins
1981- Ryan, Blyleven, Palmer, Perry, Sutton, Carlton, Seaver, Niekro, Eckersley, Jenkins
1982- Ryan, Blyleven, Palmer, Perry, Sutton, Carlton, Seaver, Niekro, Eckersley, Jenkins
1983- Ryan, Blyleven, Palmer, Perry, Sutton, Carlton, Seaver, Niekro, Eckersley, Jenkins
1984- Ryan, Blyleven, Palmer, Sutton, Carlton, Seaver, Niekro, Eckersley, Clemens*
1985- Ryan, Blyleven, Sutton, Carlton, Seaver, Niekro, Eckersley, Clemens*
1986- Ryan, Blyleven, Sutton, Carlton, Seaver, Niekro, Eckersley, Clemens*, Maddux*
1987- Ryan, Blyleven, Sutton, Carlton, Niekro, Eckersley, Clemens*, Maddux*, Glavine*
1988- Ryan, Blyleven, Sutton, Carlton, Clemens*, Maddux*, Glavine*, Smoltz*, Schilling*, Johnson*
1989- Ryan, Blyleven, Clemens*, Maddux*, Glavine*, Smoltz*, Schilling*, Johnson*
Did I miss anyone? Either way, the "we need SOMEONE from the '80's" argument for Morris just doesn't hold up. Even if Clemens never makes it, there's still between 7-10 HOF starters active each season of the decade.
I'm not gifting Steib anything. I'm refusing to give Morris credit for pitching like a sub-replacement level pitcher.
1977-1994 (Morris career)
Seasons 120 ERA+ (162+ IP)
Roger Clemens 8
Dave Stieb 7
Frank Viola 6
Jack Morris 6
Jose Rijo 6
Bert Blyleven 5
Bob Welch 5
Bret Saberhagen 5
Dennis Martinez 5
Jimmy Key 5
Mark Langston 5
Orel Hershiser 5
Steve Rogers 5
Tom Seaver 5
Charlie Leibrandt 4
Danny Jackson 4
David Cone 4
Doug Drabek 4
Floyd Bannister 4
Geoff Zahn 4
Greg Maddux 4
John Candelaria 4
Kevin Appier 4
Nolan Ryan 4
Ron Guidry 4
Steve Carlton 4
Tom Candiotti 4
3 seasons? 12 pitchers
2 seasons? 40 pitchers
1 season? 81 pitchers
of course 120 is not a HOF type season
130 or more:
Roger Clemens 8
Jose Rijo 6
Bret Saberhagen 5
Dave Stieb 5
Frank Viola 5
Jimmy Key 5
Orel Hershiser 5
Bert Blyleven 4
Dennis Martinez 4
Chuck Finley 3
Danny Darwin 3
Danny Jackson 3
David Cone 3
Greg Maddux 3
Kevin Appier 3
Larry Gura 3
Mark Langston 3
Nolan Ryan 3
Rick Reuschel 3
Ron Guidry 3
Steve Carlton 3
Tom Seaver 3
Alejandro Pena 2
Bill Swift 2
Bob Welch 2
Bruce Hurst 2
Burt Hooton 2
Charles Nagy 2
Charlie Leibrandt 2
Dennis Eckersley 2
Doug Drabek 2
Doyle Alexander 2
Dwight Gooden 2
Ed Whitson 2
Fernando Valenzuela 2
Jim Abbott 2
Jim Palmer 2
John Candelaria 2
John Tudor 2
Mario Soto 2
Mike Boddicker 2
Mike Mussina 2
Randy Johnson 2
Rick Rhoden 2
Steve Rogers 2
Teddy Higuera 2
Tom Glavine 2
Tommy John 2
Alex Fernandez 1
Allan Anderson 1
Atlee Hammaker 1
Ben McDonald 1
Bill Wegman 1
Bob Knepper 1
Bob Ojeda 1
Bob Stanley 1
Bob Tewksbury 1
Britt Burns 1
Chris Bosio 1
Craig Swan 1
Curt Schilling 1
Dan Schatzeder 1
Dave Goltz 1
Dave Rozema 1
Dave Stewart 1
David Wells 1
Dennis Leonard 1
Don Robinson 1
Don Sutton 1
Frank Tanana 1
Greg Swindell 1
J.R. Richard 1
Jack Morris 1
Jerry Koosman 1
Jerry Reuss 1
Jim Clancy 1
Joaquin Andujar 1
Joe Magrane 1
Joe Niekro 1
John Denny 1
John Smoltz 1
Jon Matlack 1
Jose DeLeon 1
Jose Guzman 1
Juan Guzman 1
Ken Hill 1
Kevin Tapani 1
Kirk McCaskill 1
Mark Gubicza 1
Mark Portugal 1
Matt Young 1
Melido Perez 1
Mike Caldwell 1
Mike Dunne 1
Mike Flanagan 1
Mike Moore 1
Mike Morgan 1
Mike Norris 1
Mike Scott 1
Mike Witt 1
Pascual Perez 1
Pat Hentgen 1
Pete Vuckovich 1
Phil Niekro 1
Richard Dotson 1
Rick Honeycutt 1
Rick Sutcliffe 1
Ricky Bones 1
Roger Erickson 1
Rudy May 1
Scott Erickson 1
Scott Garrelts 1
Steve Avery 1
Steve McCatty 1
Tim Belcher 1
Tom Candiotti 1
Tom Hume 1
Wilson Alvarez 1
Zane Smith 1
That's the wrong way to look at it. If a guy goes out at Usain Bolt speed for the first 100 m of an 800 m race, he could run the last 700 m at well under replacement-level speed and still win. But the first 100 m makes him unable to do so.
The relevant "race" for our purposes here was Morris's number of innings, not Steib's. Steib was borrowing from his future production during his career, and there's simply no reason to comp him with 973 innings of production at a level he was not capable of. For all we know, Morris could have outpitched Steib if he had operated at Steib's pace. Eckersley changed his pace and morphed from meh starter to lights-out reliever.
He didn't.
I think that Sugar Bear is arguing that Morris was a far greater pitcher than Sandy Koufax. But not nearly as good as Jim Kaat or Tommy John.
1940-1944: 2 Inner Circle (Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton), 1 HoF (Ferguson Jenkins) 3 HoVG (Luis Tiant, Tommy John, Jerry Koosman)
1945-1949: 0 Inner Circle, 3 HoF (Nolan Ryan, Jim Palmer, Don sutton), 1 HoVG (Rick Reuschel), 1 HoF mistake (Catfish Hunter)
1950-1954: 0 Inner Circle, 1 HoF (Bert Blyleven), 1 HoVG (Ron Guidry)
1955-1959: 0 Inner Circle, 0 HoF, 2 HoVG (Orel Hershiser, Dave Stieb), 1 HoF mistake (Jack Morris)
1960-1964: 2 Inner Circle (Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson), 3 HoVG (David Cone, Bret Saberhagen, Dwight Gooden)
1965-1969: 1 Inner Circle (Greg Maddux), 4 HoF (Tom Glavine, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, John Smoltz), 1 HoF oversight (Kevin Brown), 1 HoVG (Kevin Appier)
No, you ####### retard, he wasn't.
When it comes down to it, Jack Morris owes his eventual induction to Ernest Riles, who bowled over a still-excellent Dave Stieb at first base in 1991, effectively ending Stieb's career and allowing deluded Morris fanboys to pretend he was the best pitcher of his era. As an added bonus, it allowed Morris to be lined up to pitch game seven of the 1991 World Series, which more than likely wouldn't have happened if Toronto had its ace taking the ball in the ALCS instead of Tom Candiotti.
Well done. Excellent presentation to show the changing of the guard.
No, it isn't the relevant races is how many more wins Stieb got for his teams over what they otherwise would have gotten than what Morris got for his teams.
It is not a fixed 800m race where Usain Bolt loses because he blows out his knee at 200m
And if you were right, there are 12 pitchers ahead of Morris in that race- including one of my childhood faves, Jerry Koosman- for whom I am not going to make a HOF case for- but it's a piece of cake to make as good of one- if not better, for him as it is Morris.
Not only did Steib borrow against his future production, but he borrowed WAR from the 1992 Blue Jays who had $3.25 million tied up in a 96 IP, 5.04 ERA pitcher. They could have spent the $3.25M on other players.
Which points out the following principle: "Preventing runs" really isn't the appropriate description of a pitcher's "job." A pitcher's job is to meet the expectations of his organization, within reasonable tolerance bands. The model being proposed is appropriate only for a world of unlimited payrolls and risk-free, immediately obtainable replacement-level production. But that's not the real world. When the Blue Jays made Morris the highest pitcher in baseball, they weren't paying for five shitty starts in April 1992, a move to the bullpen, and 125 innings of 170 ERA+ middle relief.
So, just out of curiosity, what era+ level would generally be considered "replacement level"? 80?
I just want it recorded that this is the kind of argument Morris apologists are using.
Morris never pitched at a 73 or 80 for any period of time in the real world. Those numbers only came into the conversation based on the fallacious idea that grafting Dave Steib's partial career onto Morris's actual career made any sense.
Even conceding for arguments that that is a reasonable description of a pitcher's job, it is not a reasonable description of a HOF pitcher. If it were, there would be hundreds of deserving HOF pitchers on the outside looking in. Jason Marquis is a perfect example of meeting the expectations of his organization. That doesn't make him a HOF candidate.
Of course not.
But, then again, I'm not the one insisting that a pitcher's sole purpose and job is preventing runs. Dave Steib's job in 1992 was not simply preventing runs. He was expected to do, and was paid to do, far more than that. (Not to pick on him in particular.)
I assume this is a standard being held to every other baseball player history.
Cone and Brown being one and done while Morris gets serious consideration is just crazy. It's lot Cone didn't also have postseason success and Brown was just way better.
It is interesting that if the voters hadn't finally come around on Blyleven, there would be no HOF starters born in the 1950's (unless you count Eckersley as a starter).
Still, I don't think it's really relevant to someone's HOF case though, cuz whether they were all really old or really young during the 80's, there were still plenty of HOFers pitching each year during the decade.
Pretty terrible. But more tolerable than having 5.4 million locked up in a 152 inning, 6.19 ERA pitcher the following year.
The idea that Steib "borrowed against his future production" needs to stop. It is silly to think that "taking it easy" or playing to less than 100% of your ability will necessarily mean you have more to offer in the unpredictable future.
In Steib's case, if his injury resulted from a collision on the bases and not overuse on the mound, it is especially silly.
Then why are the Nationals limiting Strasburg's innings this year, and why did they limit Zimmermann's innings last year?
The ability of a pitcher to stay healthy and manage himself and his health are important components of the job. Yes, of course, sometimes the pitcher has no control of his health and health issues aren't necessarily their "fault," but the essence of the job is an unnatural athletic motion with an extra-normal risk of injury.
Of course he did. From opening day 1989 through Jul 17 1990 (45 starts 308 IP) he gave up 173 ER for an ERA of 5.06 and an ERA+ of ~ 76
From opening day 1993 through the end of his career (50 starts 294 IP) he gave up 193 ER for an ERA of 5.91 and an ERA+ of ~ 76 again.
That's over 600 IP (2/3 of his career advantage over Steib) as a sub replacement pitcher in the real world.
From opening day 1993 through the end of his career (50 starts 294 IP) he gave up 193 ER for an ERA of 5.91 and an ERA+ of ~ 76 again.
That's over 600 IP (2/3 of his career advantage over Steib) as a sub replacement pitcher in the real world.
You could have cherry-picked 600 innings of his worst starts and come up with an even better number.
The last 973 innings of Morris's career included Game 7, ace status for two world champions, a CYA-4, and a CYA-5. Something tells me that the teams paying him for those innings would vouch that they got their money's worth.
Morris did pitch at the same volume Steib did. From 1982-85, Steib averaged a ridiculous 275 innings per year, facing 1125 batters. Those same years, Morris averaged 264 innings, facing 1101 batters.
Morris had more stamina and survived longer, Steib was the better pitcher during those years, but we already knew that.
Do you think that Steib was exerting some extra effort to keep his ERA down while Morris was not, making easy pitches to let runs score and preserve his arm for the future?
I find that hard to believe, given the generally accepted characterization of him as a competitor. If he had been capable of handling that workload while also allowing fewer runs, he'd have won 23-24 games in his best years instead of 19 or 20. If Jack was coasting then he certainly cost Detroit a 1988 playoff spot (1 game back), and could have made 1983 or 1986 (6 games, 8 games) a bit closer.
Irrelevant to the topic. The Tigers did no such thing with Jack Morris. And there's no guaranty that the Nationals are doing the best thing for their long-term interest here. Ask the Yankees how their limits with Joba have worked.
The "'80s gap" likely has quite a bit to do with sports medicine, which did not keep pace with the advent of full-time, well-paid, well-conditioned athletes training their asses off instead of smoking in the dugout. ACL injuries that would be simple 6 month rehabs today ended and badly stunted careers then (Billy Sims, Bernard King, etc.) I'd have no problem adjusting for that and if Stieb's knee problems would have been cured quickly and easily with 2012 techniques, that's part of his story and his case.
But the null is: "Did Jack Morris do it with himself?"
Do you think that Steib was exerting some extra effort to keep his ERA down while Morris was not, making easy pitches to let runs score and preserve his arm for the future?
I don't know and none of us know. I'm confident in my "pennant race" data with Morris and there's certainly anecodatal evidence that he approached some games differently than others.
I was about to point out... but Misirlou beat me to it.
Then SBB came back with 276
Notice how he has a response for everything? Notice how he doesn't care how one argument he makes contradicts another?
Been there, done that.
Of course we do. No one does that and it's extremely likely Morris did.
Your pennant race data was a joke, and was thoroughly de-bunked the last 2 times you brought it up. I'm not interested in rehashing that one.
My favorite SSBism was from the last page:He says things that aren't just wrong, but are in fact logically impossible. I don't think I could come up with arguments this perfectly bad if I tried. It's sort of wonderful.
I figure Morris was a very good pitcher who sometimes had great games and sometimes had crappy ones. If he truly had top-tier great ability when he wanted, like he showed in 1991, then maybe he should have approached the 87 and 92 playoffs with a bit more intensity.
Whether he didn't pitch better all the time by choice or because he just wasn't as good as Blyleven/Mussina/Schilling, either way ends up the same. I think I'd respect him less if he truly fell short in some playoff series or pennant races (1988, 1983 - first half is where it was lost) because he just didn't care enough.
That really is a classic. And very amusing to see in the context of a HOF argument. I made the joke about Brandon Wood earlier, but that's the sort of thing that would best describe a look at players of great potential who never made it. Rick Reichart, Eric Davis, Mark Prior, Clint Hurdle, Gregg Jefferies, Rick Ankiel, etc.
Obviously a lot of variation in there, Davis accomplished much more than Hurdle di, but hopefully you know what I mean.
The only baseball player I've ever known of having a "sole purpose" was Reggie Jackson and that purpose was to kill the Queen. Also, it lasted about a game.
Lots of ballplayers have a special purpose though.
Which is which:
Player A in A: .251/.322/.404
Player A in AAA: .277/.341/.510
Player A in MLB: .186/.225/.289
Player B in AA: .279/.328/.401
Player B in AAA:.345/.401/.509
Player B in MLB: .247/.290/.356
Both are SS, both were ranked prospects, Player A reached as high as #3 in BA's list, player B reached 94...
Wood of course had his big year in the Calif league, but the league was at .286/.357/.452 and Rancho was a hitters park on top of that. Outside of that 40 homer year in the Calif league, Wood hit like a poor man's version of Kila Ka'aihue (.279/.410/.500 in AAA)- of course since Wood has considerably more defensive value/talent that Kila, Wood still could have had a career had he hit as well as Kila in the MLB (.221/.305/.382)
Player B is Ronny Cedeno...
Josh Barfield hit .337-16-128 in the Calif league one year, I think that the playing conditions in the Calif league are so extreme- that #s from that league are- not useless- but so vastly inflated... Or as Bill James said about the PCL in the 1980s- there's a lot of air there.
Which brings me back to what one writer said a few months ago abut Morris, "I used to look at his ERA, 3.90, and say, gee that's terrible, now I watch teams play, and most team's would love to have a guy reliably get under 4.00"
Jeesus Christ, Morris did not effing pitch NOW or in the 1994-2010 period or in the equivalent of the California League (i.e., Coors), he pitched 1977-94, and 3.90 WHEN AND WHERE he pitched was not great, and Any Petitte having a 3.90 doesn't mean that Morris 3.90 is now good enough.
Now he's hitting 252/302/404, back in the PCL at age 27, playing in Colorado Springs of all places. By this time next year I hope he shows more of a knack for selling financial products or new cars than he has for hitting breaking pitches.
Cedeno never hit at all below AA. He did hit much better than Wood in the same PCL league though. If these guys had developed as hoped, they would be very different players. Cedeno a high average guy, Wood low to medium average, strikeout prone guy with 30 homers.
Interesting to compare Mark Trumbo's numbers at the same stops in the Angel system as Wood, with Trumbo generally being 2 years older when he began each level than Wood was. He's turned out all right. It's a tough game trying to predict player development.
I have presented pro Morris data/arguments here. My main point is that the narrative for him is not implausible. It's not a stretch to consider him the best starting pitcher of the 1980s. In Win Shares, only Stieb is better for 1980-89, and Morris actually has more career Win Shares that Stieb.
I think a lot of similar sentiment was ultimately behind Jim Rice. 1970-85 was not a great period for "slugger" types - players who played 1b, LF, RF and were going to lead in HR, RBI, maybe even BA for a number of years. You had a whole long run going back to Ruth, then Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg, then Dimag/Williams/Musial, then Mays/Mantle/Aaron, then some of the mid-late 60s guys like McCovey and Stargell. In the early 1970s you did have Jackson, but he clearly wasn't as good as most of what came before, and a big falloff after Jackson. Then in 1975-85 you had all of these guys who would win an MVP or maybe too and flame out - Garvey, Lynn, Burroughs, Foster, Murphy, Mattingly, Baylor, Parker. Bill Madlock, 4 batting titles, third baseman, not a candidate. Yes, there were good players at other positions, but no consistent slugger types. (Eddie Murray was very consistent, but so consistent that he hardly ever led the league in anything.) The sentiment behind Rice was to have at least one rep of a peak-value type slugger from that era. The "feared" stuff was BS, and it bothered me, but he might have been the best of the flameouts, and I understand the sentiment behind the push. As I do with Morris.
Poor sports medicine and approach, philosophy, and conditions that dampened extreme performance are the defining characteristics of the era. They aren't being properly accounted for in HOF balloting.
(*) The list of pitchers is equally long and includes the oft-mentioned ones in these parts -- Steib, Saberhagen, etc. One approach is to credit Morris for overcoming those obstacles and that probably isn't fair to the rest of the group.
Poor sports medicine compared to 2012, but better than what any player before that had to deal with.
True, but the players were working themselves harder, both in and out of season. They weren't stealing a puff in the dugout (Dick Allen, famous SI cover) or in practice (George McGinnis) and working the hardware store or selling insurance in the offseason. There was a lag between the inception of the modern athletic era and sports medicine fully adapting, and that lag falls squarely in the time period at issue.
AKA Andy Marte disease
Ignoring the age difference, Trumbo hit .283/.329/.553 in Rancho, league was .273/.340/.412 (OPS+ 131)
when Wood hit .321/.381/.667 in Rancho, league was .286/.357/.452 (OPS+ 154)
Wood was better, but not as massively as it first appears- had they been teammates when they put up those respective number Wood's OPS+ advantage would have been 43 points rather than 23.
Trumbo's .301/.368/.577 AAA line in 2010 is good for a 139 OPS+ (note he's gaining against league as moving up- THAT IS HUGE- see also Will Middlebrooks- his minor league numbers were generally unimpressive- but they were trending the right way)
Woods' .272/.338/.497 line in the PCL in 2007 was against a league of .279/.346/.437 (OPS+ 111)
Woods' .296/.375/.595 line in the PCL in 2008 was against a league of .277/.348/.444 (OPS+ 142)
Woods' .293/.353/.557 line in the PCL in 2009 was against a league of .272/.341/.418 (OPS+ 137)
So Wood was 23 points better than Trumbo in A+, in AAA (ignoring Wood's first year hiccup there), they were essentially even, then
in MLB...
When playing tougher competition Wood began to fall back Trumbo actually surged- you can see that with many players AFTER the fact
At the time- if both come up at the same time, one would be more likely to say that Trumbo was less likely to succeed- sure he'd hit as well at AAA as Wood- but Wood had a longer track record of success
Josh Barfield a 2b was great in the low minors so was Brent Butler- but Brent went from .937 to .873 to .768 to .694 as he was getting promoted- Chase Utley went .827 to .746 to .813 to .907
Their overall minor league numbers were no far apart, but Brent was a bust and Utley a star.
In hindsight, Trumbo was obviously still growing and improving as a hitter- Wood was never an ounce better than when he was 20- it happens- Claudell Washington was never an iota better than when he was 20- but fortunately for him that was good enough to have a career- Al Kaline was never better than when he was 20, but in his case that was good enough to reach the HOF (yes barring catastrophic injury, Trout's DOWNSIDE may be Al Kaline)
In Wood's case, beating up class A+ pitchers in possibly the best hitting environment on earth- didn't mean he was an MLB caliber hitter already- he still had to get better- he didn't.
Win shares? Really. Well, I suppose when you have nothing, grasp whatever straw you can.
But in terms of pitchers, the "Jack Morris" generation looks worse, in terms of durability, not just compared their modern comps - Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Mussina, etc. - but also to the generation right before them - Carlton, Seaver, Ryan, Sutton, Niekro, Palmer, Jenkins, Perry. Blyleven gets unfairly lumped into that earlier group when really, age-wise, he's the only guy from the "Morris" generation who survived and thrived with a 1970s-era workload. Most of the younger guys - Valenzuela, Gooden, Stieb, Saberhagen - broke.
Morris, to his credit, didn't really break; he just wasn't as good a pitcher as most of these other guys (before they broke).
Upon further review, I'm leaning toward the philosophy that the best way to evaluate a baseball player is by giving a .85 or .90 weight to what he did between the ages of 22 and 33 (*), when they're at their athletic peak. If he's precocious like Kaline or Trout, adjust accordingly. If a guy has a late peak, I'm starting to lean toward simply saying "tough ####\" -- he was either lucky or a historical anomaly. Getting your ACL put back together the right way, when Dave Steib or Mickey Mantle couldn't, or your elbow's UCL when guys in the 50s and 60s couldn't is every bit as out of the player's control as BABIP.
(*) Or their first full/real year and 33.
Well, it's better than rating them on one great game, how well they did when their team was within 10 games of first in Aug/Sep, and how much money they made late in their career.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main