This is a joke, right? If not, his writing should preclude him from inclusion in an organization like BBWAoA. Wow, just wow.

{Edit} - I see that it is a translation of some sort, but the link is broken. I'll look for the appropriate link, but can someone fix it in the post?

I figured a 3.80 ERA in the postseason would more likely eliminate a pitcher than elect him.

The link doesn't work. This reads like it was written by a self-serious but not particularly bright thirteen-year-old. Or possibly by translation software?

Juan Vene is a BBWAA member (since 1988) and here is the untranslated bit..."Mi voto para Cooperstown será para un solo candidato"

Link

"¡Que haya suerte, Jack!"...sounds bad in any language!

If the sole purpose of spectator sport is to win enough who help their teams to reach the ball in October, and then excel in that particular activity, they deserve the vote to go to Cooperstown.

Jerry Koosman for the Hall of Fame!

DB

On reading the title I predicted his single vote would be for Morris.

Aaron Boone is my pick.

Why does it figure that a voter dumb enough to vote for one candidate on this year's ballot is dumb enough to cast that precious vote for... Jack Morris?

If the sole purpose of spectator sport is to win enough who help their teams to reach the ball in October, and then excel in that particular activity, they deserve the vote to go to Cooperstown.

Bernie Williams?

I apologize for my country.

When I was in college, the Eugene Emeralds featured a player named Jake Jacobs, who in my boundless creativity I dubbed Jake "The Jake" Jacobs because, well, why the hell not.

I served with Jake "The Jake" Jacobs, I knew Jake "The Jake" Jacobs, Jake "The Jake" Jacobs was a friend of mine. Senators, he was no Jack (The Jack) Morris.

Thinking about it, Vene seems more interested in stories and anecdote than the macro view. Which explains, but does not excuse, a Morris vote.

At least we won't have to keep searching to find the worst HOF ballot of this election.

I read that to my dog and he cried in Spanish.

What does Orel Hershiser have to do to attract any attention?

Well Dave Parker isn't even on the ballot anymore, so he doesn't have to worry about that one, at least!

At least we can conclude that sportswriter moronicy is a worldwide phenomenon and not restricted to the 50 states. Or is it just baseball that makes people stupid?

I think that blurb needs to go through the google translator a few more times before we can glean its true meaning.

Article works better if you imagine it being read out loud by Bumblebee Man. #arguablyracist

Also, assuming Morris eventually gets into the HOF- that means his performance in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series will have both (1) won his team a world championship and (2) propelled him into the HOF. Does that make it the single most significant performance in the history of team sports?

If the sole purpose of spectator sport is to win enough who help their teams to reach the ball in October

Is that the goal of every spectator sport? Because that seems a lot easier for football players. Send 'em all to Cooperstown!

help their teams to reach the ball

Out of context, this sounds super nasty. And Morris has an awful mustache. Connect the dots yourselves, people.

and conclude that one vote for Jack (The Jack) Morris, because without steroids

Allegedly.

Also, assuming Morris eventually gets into the HOF- that means his performance in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series will have both (1) won his team a world championship and (2) propelled him into the HOF. Does that make it the single most significant performance in the history of team sports?

The other day, I happened to stumble across an old copy of the 1992 Bill James Baseball Book, and I looked at what he wrote about Jack Morris, given the freshness of the 1991 World Series heroics. Keep in mind that, as of the moment he wrote the following words, Morris' career record was:

216-172, 3.71 ERA, 2143 Ks, 1178 BBs in 3,289 IP.

In the three years after the following was written, Morris went 38-24 (including a 21-6 season where he had an ERA+ of 102), with an ERA of 5.07, and an ERA+ of 85. James wrote in early 1992:

"The Twins have two players who are good HOF candidates...Jack Morris did more to improve his HOF position in 1991 than any other ML player. Entering the the season with 198 career wins and two straight losing seasons, he would have to be considered a HOF longshot. He left the year a very solid candidate."

He also, in the individual player rankings, ranked Morris as the third-best AL starting pitcher, after Clemens and Finley. He wrote:

"Gives the Blue Jays back what they lost in Dave Stieb - a tough, smart veteran right-hander..."

Look, I'm not a Morris HOF guy, and I think he happens to benefit from the fact that his career coincides with arguably the weakest decade of debuting HOF-caliber pitchers in MLB history. I grew up on Bill James and his writing, and am very sabermetrically-inclined. When James says something, I put a lot of weight on it. But I don't take everything he opines as simple fact.

However, the father of sabermetrics, contemporarily felt that Morris was:
1) a very solid HOF candidate after the 1991 season, and
2) "a tough, smart veteran right-hander", one of the best couple of starting pitchers in the AL late in his career...in other words, a quote that could've easily been written by any of the Morris-for-HOF zealots we regularly ridicule at BBTF.

So, to answer #20's question with which I started this comment, Morris in Game 7 is almost certainly not the "most significant performance in the history of team sports", but it may be the single most influential game performance in the history of baseball, in terms of a single game being the difference between making the HOF and not making the HOF. In the same 1992 book (page 7) James suggests that Morris' game was arguably the greatest Game 7 pitching performance in history (Morris or 1965 Koufax). That's a big deal to a lot of people.

Kirk Gibson's HR was huge, too, but he didn't get a sniff of the HOF. Roger Maris had an iconic season (and two MVPs), and he never got close to the HOF. Don Larsen threw a perfect game for the Yankees against the Brooklyn Dodgers in the dreamy 1950s - and he didn't get close to the HOF.

Why? None of those guys were close enough through their career stats to have an iconic moment take them over the top. You could argue Bill Mazerowski rode Game 7 in 1960 to a Veteran's Committee nod many years later, but he didn't get elected, either.

If Morris gets elected in the next few years - and don't you get the feeling he will? - his election will be truly unique.

I was all set to post "at least it's not Pete Rose", but ####, this is worse. At least Rose wouldn't count.

Jack Morris did more to improve his HOF position in 1991 than any other ML player. Entering the the season with 198 career wins and two straight losing seasons, he would have to be considered a HOF longshot. He left the year a very solid candidate.

Not clear to me whether this is saying that he legitimately became a much better candidate in one year, as opposed to saying that he did more things that the writers would value. If it's the latter, then that's not an actual endorsement of his case. If I say Mitt Romney has the best chance to win the Republican nomination, that doesn't equate to saying I think he's the best candidate.

Not clear to me whether this is saying that he legitimately became a much better candidate in one year, as opposed to saying that he did more things that the writers would value.

I believe James meant the latter. Depending on context could be either. I'll usually pick a player or two after each season who did the most to enhance a future Hall of Fame case. Whether I'm noting a milestone reached or peak type season in each case somewhere in my subconscious mind I'm trying to guess how future voters will evaluate that player. In Morris' case James was correctly seeing a starting pitcher crossing the 200 win point and having a memorable playoff game both of which would later influence BBWAA voters.

James suggests that Morris' game was arguably the greatest Game 7 pitching performance in history (Morris or 1965 Koufax).

Koufax had a higher Game Score (88 to 84). 3 hits, three walks, 10 Ks in nine innings vs 7 hits, 2 BB, 8 K in 10. Of course after the 4th Sandy had a little more leeway for error than did Morris, but I'd still take his performance over Morris's. In fact, I'd probably take Smoltz's performance through the first seven innings of that 1991 game over Morris's; the Twins didn't have a real scoring threat while the Braves had legitimate chances in the third and fifth.

Babe Adams in 1909, on two days' rest (same as Koufax) was pretty darned good, too (GS 75, 6 H, 1 BB, 1 K, plus a HBP).

-- MWE

#25 and #26 are good thoughts, but keep in mind two things:
1) In the book, James discussed all the players on all teams that he thought might end up with a HOF case - he was definitely thinking more about viability in the eyes of future voters than he was about who should be in the HOF. So you are both correct on that front.
2) If you look at what he says about Morris, he is very positive about Morris. He thinks Morris is one of the best pitchers in baseball. He thinks his Game 7 performance is iconic, perhaps the greatest such performance in history.

At BBTF, most of us regularly ding Morris through our skepticism that Morris was ever really seen as a premier pitcher while he was pitching. After the 1991 season, Bill James - and most others - saw Morris an ace-quality pitcher, #1 starter material. Consider what James wrote in the 1986 Abstract about Morris:

"It is not that he has done anything spectacular that immediately projects him forward...but that he is picking up something almost every year...if he continues to do the things he has done regularly since 1979, he will make the HOF."

Again, he is not saying in that excerpt that Morris should make the HOF, but that he would if he kept trucking along. Whatever you think of Morris, you'd have to say: he kept trucking along when nobody else of his generation could.

1979-1985 (following what James said): 119-80, ERA+ of 113
1986-1992 (the rest of his productive career, the same length of time as the pre-James comment): 114-82, ERA+ of 106.

Add in the Game 7 1991 heroics, two more 20-win seasons, three more times in the top 5 in Cy Young voting, three times in the top 20 in MVP voting...you'd have to say he pretty much did in the back seven seasons what he did in the front seven seasons. I think James is saying he thinks Morris is going to the HOF, in the midst of said career...

Also, after 1991, Morris had over 3000 innings at an ERA+ of 109 and was coming off a good season. Even the Great Bill James could very easily fall into the trap of projecting that kind of performance forward (and not remembering the three crappy years that preceded it). It's a mistake we all make from time to time and Bill James is no different.

Instead of continuing at that level, however, he was basically replacement level for the rest of his career. From a sabermetric perspective, nothing that happened after 1991 added anything to Morris' resume; if anything, those three years hurt his case.

To call Morris the third best pitcher in the AL at that time is particularly insane. Mark Langston was clearly better. Kevin Appier was young but pretty obviously better. Heck, Jack McDowell was better.

So: after one of the best seasons of Morris' career, you might be able to credibly include him as one of the 5 or 6 best pitchers in the league.

It's also a pretty silly game to focus precisely on 1991. Dave Stewart, Stieb, and a few other guys were winding down slightly ahead of Morris - while young guys like Mussina were coming in and were clearly far better in 92 and beyond.

All of this is to say: Bill James is by no means infallible. In this case, he seems to have both overstated the case AND got it wrong. If the point is merely that even Bill James fell somewhat victim to the Morris-philia, well, okay. I don't really see why that makes the contemporary HOF argument for the guy any more reasonable.

If only the process to get into (and stay in) the BBWAA was so strict...

Vene, Vidi, Vomiti

Well, this has been said for many players. There are many players who were considered "future Hall of Famers" during their careers that ultimately fell short once all the dust settled. Guys like Darryl Strawberry, Will Clark, Jack Clark, Keith Hernandez, Dave Parker, Jose Canseco, Fred Lynn, Don Mattingly, Jim Rice (ha), Dale Murphy, Steve Garvey, Eric Davis, and George Foster. Pitchers would include Bret Saberhagen, Dave Stieb, David Cone, Luis Tiant, Orel Hershiser, Ron Guidry, John Tudor, Dwight Gooden, Vida Blue, and Fernando Valenzuela.

The point is that Jack Morris is in this large group somewhere. Indeed the Hall of Fame case for several of the above is likely better than for Morris. It seems to many that the 1991 WS Game 7 is elevating Morris far above where he "deserves" to be.

Some part of the legend of Morris as a post-season pitcher may come from the 1984 WS. What sets his performance off there isn't so much his own performance as the low level of what was going on around him.

Morris pitched two games, both complete games. 9 IP per game, RA of 2.00, average game score 71.

The other Tiger starters (Petry, Petry, and Wilcox) averaged 4.7 IP per start and had an RA of 5.14 and an average game score of 39.7.

But the real story was the Padre starters. In five games, they averaged 2.1 IP per start and had an RA of 14.81 and an average game score of 32.6. Only one Padre started wen 5 innings (Thurmond in the first game); two of them (Whitson in the 2nd game and Thurmond in the 5th game) were gone within the first inning. (The Padres did get some solid long relief from Hawkins and Harris).

If that Padre performance wasn't the worst showing by a team's starting pitchers in the WS, I don't want to know what was worse. One way to read a narrative is that the Tigers had one solid starter in Morris and the Padres had no one.

James suggests that Morris' game was arguably the greatest Game 7 pitching performance in history (Morris or 1965 Koufax).

Koufax had a higher Game Score (88 to 84). 3 hits, three walks, 10 Ks in nine innings vs 7 hits, 2 BB, 8 K in 10. Of course after the 4th Sandy had a little more leeway for error than did Morris, but I'd still take his performance over Morris's. In fact, I'd probably take Smoltz's performance through the first seven innings of that 1991 game over Morris's; the Twins didn't have a real scoring threat while the Braves had legitimate chances in the third and fifth.

I'd take the gutty performance of a just-turned 23-year old who had half a century's weight of history on his back over all three of them, even if his game score was "only" 73.

Look, I'm not a Morris HOF guy, and I think he happens to benefit from the fact that his career coincides with arguably the weakest decade of debuting HOF-caliber pitchers in MLB history. I grew up on Bill James and his writing, and am very sabermetrically-inclined. When James says something, I put a lot of weight on it. But I don't take everything he opines as simple fact.

However, the father of sabermetrics, contemporarily felt that Morris was:
1) a very solid HOF candidate after the 1991 season, and
2) "a tough, smart veteran right-hander", one of the best couple of starting pitchers in the AL late in his career...in other words, a quote that could've easily been written by any of the Morris-for-HOF zealots we regularly ridicule at BBTF.

Well, James is not the best guy to give a sober, objective analysis of current players. Exhibits A and B are him rating Craig Biggio as the 35th best player ever in the NBJHBA, and Mark McGwire as the 31st (and 3rd all time first baseman, behind only Gehrig and Foxx.

The players were rated as of the end of the 1999 season. Mac was coming off back to back 65+ HR seasons, and Biggio was having a brilliant run. Neither player was ever as good again, Mac had a mere 2 half seasons left before he retired, and Biggio immediately became a league average hitter (OPS+ for the rest of his career was 95). I'm sure his ratings of them were a reflection of his anticipation that they would continue to be as productive.

How come Hershiser doesn't get the Morris magic.

Probably the single most amazing run of pitching in my lifetime was Hershiser's 1988.

For those who don't know, he closed out that season with 59 consecutive scoreless innings. That included 5 complete game shutouts in September plus his last start of 10 innings in which he gave up no runs but the Dodgers managed to lose in 16 innings. In his last 9 starts that year, he threw 82 innings. He was the unanimous Cy Young choice.

Then, in the NLCS ... he finally proved he was human. In Game 1 he threw 8 shutout innings (so the streak stood at 67 innings) but did give up 2 in the 9th which tied it and the Dodgers lost the game (Howell got the loss). With a rainout, Hershiser was able to go again in game 3 on 3 days rest. That didn't work out so well, 7 IP, 3 R (1 ER). Dodgers lost (Pena).

So, the next day in game 4, he picks up the save in the 12th.

In game 7 he throws a complete game shutout.

All told 3 starts, 1 win, 1 save, 24.2 IP, 1.09 ERA (plus 2 UER)

In the WS he threw a complete game shutout in game 2 and a complete game, 2-run in game 5, winning both.

So to summarize --

Sept, 55 IP, 0.00 ERA, 5-0
NLCS, 24.2 IP, 1.09 ERA, 1-0 with 1 save
WS, 18 IP, 1.00 ERA, 2-0

Just because it makes a nicer number, we'll add in the 4 shutout innings at the end of August to give us:

101.2 IP, 5 ER, 8-0 with 1 save

to lead one of the least likely WS winners of the divisional era.

Funny that one great game is remembered more than that.

If you are going to vote for someone from the 1984 Tigers, why must it be Morris? For him it was a fairly middling year (2.3 WAR, tho I am at a loss as to how this was only 2.3 and 1985, say, was 4.8). He did win 19 games, which you think would have made for good copy. He as 7th in the Cy, and had no votes for the MVP. For Trammell it was his 3rd best year, and, for the hell of it, Whitaker's 8th best (3.9: shockingly, Whitaker only got MVP votes in one year, 1983). If you asked just about any voter (who presumably would know nothing about WAR etc.) they'd probably agree that these were typical seasons for Morris and Trammell (it was a very close match for Morris' record in seasonal notation-2 fewer innings 7 fewer runs). So why does Trammell rate a 9th place MVP vote, Morris a big zero, but when it comes to Hall voting 27 years later Morris is now favored?

Trammell also had a very good World Series that year.

This year's ballot is relatively weak, and it's a good idea to decrease the number of yea votes, rather than allow Hall inflation. That's how Rice, Dawson and other flawed candidates have squeaked in. 1 or 2 yea votes is reasonable for this year, but that wouldn't include a pitcher with final career numbers like Morris. Blyleven had an erratic career but his final numbers were Hall worthy.

.... Probably the single most amazing run of pitching in my lifetime was Hershiser's 1988....

The most dread I've ever felt as a fan was prior to the 1988 NLCS, as it became increasingly clear the Dodgers were going to play the Mets for the penant, and knowing the Mets were going to be facing Hershier as many as three times. It was actually a little worse than the '86 series against Houston and Mike Scott, and that was really bad.

As for James, he does come up with goofy stuff from time to time. I remember around 1990 spending a couple of hours flipping through the 80s abstracts and noticing James was by no means especially prescient regarding player's future performance; in several instances he made some outright howlers.

I'd take the gutty performance of a just-turned 23-year old who had half a century's weight of history on his back over all three of them, even if his game score was "only" 73.

Podres was kind of lucky, wasn't he? He gave up 8 hits and two BBs, and Mickey didn't play. In fact, in '55, Mantle only played in something like two games.

If you are going to vote for someone from the 1984 Tigers, why must it be Morris? For him it was a fairly middling year (2.3 WAR, tho I am at a loss as to how this was only 2.3 and 1985, say, was 4.8). He did win 19 games, which you think would have made for good copy.

He had a nohitter early in the year when the Tigers were running away with the division. It was the Game of the Week. Wasn't he one of the early splitfingered fastball guys? I seem to recall people talking about how Roger Craig got some of the Tigers to try the pitch with success. Of course, it helped they they had a great keystone kombo and lush infield grass.

Rhetorical question, but if Lou Whitaker ever got enshrined, would he celebrate? He and Chet Lemon are Witnesses.

(and 3rd all time first baseman, behind only Gehrig and Foxx.

And just ahead of "Pass."

Vene: My vote for Cooperstown will prove I am an idiot in two different languages.

Fixed.

if Lou Whitaker ever got enshrined, would he celebrate? He and Chet Lemon are Witnesses.

We are all witnesses.

44 wins, hands down. This thread is closed.

Please do keep in mind that every one of us has special "feelings" for certain players, and Bill James is no exception. And, being strongly opinionated, James also goes to the extreme as regards certain players. The Baseball Community owes Bill James a ton of thanks, but he is not the saviour or something.

Jack Morris is married.

Trammell also had a very good World Series that year.

WS MVP, in fact. Poz has gotten this wrong in at least one Morris column in the past, saying that Jack had won the '84 award as well.

Resolved -- the only valid form of baseball knowledge is post hoc statistical analysis. All other information exists only to illustrate the abject stupidity of those who consider it. We know as much about Gaavy Cravaath as Jorge Posada, and as much as comtemporaneous baseball insiders knew about either of them.

The only relevant counter-argument from the Morris haters is to identify specific forms of non-statistical information that is relevant to evaluating Morris.

As context: (1) I don't think that Morris is a HoFer; (2) the linked article is inane; and (3) I've been reading Bill James for 30 years (makes my wife crazy when I re-read the 82 Abstract every year or so) and believe that sabermetric analysis is extremely valuable.