BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: A Long Hall of Fame Review

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 12, 2012

A Long Hall of Fame Review

My predictions so rarely come true that I find it comforting, when I actually get one right, to pause and be awed by the sheer unlikeliness of it. This time around, I predicted that Jack Morris would take a huge jump forward in the Hall of Fame voting in 2012—I said his vote total could even get into the high 60s.

Well, sure enough, Jack Morris jumped from 53.5% of the vote in 2011 all the way up to 66.7% in 2012. High 60s. I was hardly the only person to make this prediction, but, again, I’m going to bask in it. I think Morris did enough this year—I really believe he will get elected to the Hall of Fame next year. I will get into all that in a few minutes.

First, I’m going to give you more than wanted to know about Hall of Fame voting. I find Morris’ climb in the voting—from a low of 19.6% in his second ballot all the way up to the shadow of the Hall of Fame in his 13th—absolutely fascinating. And it made me go back and look at some of the other players who climbed from low vote totals to the Hall of Fame. That led me to look at every Hall of Fame ballot since 1966, when the writers went back to voting every year. And THAT look back led me to break down the Hall of Fame votes player by player in a way that would get me locked up in a padded cell in most countries.

But, hey, I did it, so I might as well share what I found. I’ll warn you again: It’s more than wanted to know.

Getting down to brass tacks, Poz thinks only Morris(!) and Biggio will get in next year.

Rants Mulliniks Posted: January 12, 2012 at 09:42 AM | 51 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: general

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

1. DL from MN Posted: January 12, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4035252)

Morris and Biggio but NOT Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Schilling = does not compute

2. Shock of the Desert Posted: January 12, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4035268)

I find Morris’ climb in the voting—from a low of 19.6% in his second ballot all the way up to the shadow of the Hall of Fame in his 13th—absolutely fascinating.

When your case is based entirely on reputation and touchy-feely stuff, it really isn't a good sign that you only got 19.6% when memories of your play are freshest. It's different for guys whose cases are based on static objective analysis, but memories are extremely malleable and faulty to a fascinating degree, and when you are basing a case on someone on a 30-year-old memory, it says a lot when you can go back to when the memory is fresher and see what the opinion was then.

So yeah...it is interesting.

3. John DiFool2 Posted: January 12, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4035269)

Last season's chokefest by the Red Sox almost made me give up on this stupid ####ing game.

If the 15th best player on the ballot is inducted next year I might just say the hell with it all, for good.

4. The District Attorney Posted: January 12, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4035283)

Last season's chokefest by the Red Sox almost made me give up on this stupid ####ing game.

If the 15th best player on the ballot is inducted next year I might just say the hell with it all, for good.

That's weird, but it's your call.

5. TDF, trained monkey Posted: January 12, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4035302)

all the way up to 66.7% in 2012. High 60s.

Since it's the interweb.....

Morris received 382/573 votes, or exactly 66 2/3%. If we divide into "low", "mid" and "high", is this, in fact, "high" 60's or "mid" 60's?

6. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 12, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4035317)

it's in the high portion of the mid (or the low portion of the high)
(or both)

7. Downtown Bookie

Posted: January 12, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4035321)

IT'S SIX SIX [POINT] SIX!!!!!!

DB

8. and Posted: January 12, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4035387)

It is, in fact, exactly on the line between mid and high.

9. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 12, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4035395)

It is, in fact, exactly on the line between mid and high.

it's not so much ON the line as it IS the line

10. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 12, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4035402)

Winston Churchill:
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. Also, Jack Morris sucks. Now, where the white women at?"

11. Red Menace Posted: January 12, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4035434)

This is a dangerous neighborhood for us upper-lower-middle class types.

12. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: January 12, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4035450)

mid-60s. I would equate it to boxing where you have to decisively beat the champ. Getting to the dividing line doesn't get you to "high", you are "mid" until you are clearly not and I will fight anyone who disagrees (or at least frown momentarily then go back to considering what a ######### Terence Moore is).

13. Booey Posted: January 12, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4035676)

If the 15th best player on the ballot is inducted next year I might just say the hell with it all, for good.

Nothing could ever make me stop liking baseball, but I might give up caring about the HOF altogether if this happens(and I suspect that it will). For the writers to have a ballot filled with at least a dozen no-brainer candidates and choose only one player who will be one of the WORST candidates on the ballot (minus the one and done courtesy newbies) shows either a complete lack of understanding about baseball and player value, or a total disdain for the system and the voters responsibility to represent the HOF with the most worthy players. Either way, it's just lunacy.

It's like if the voters for the NBA HOF had a ballot filled with all the players of the 90's - Jordan, Shaq, Olajuwon, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Barkley, Robinson, Drexler, Pippen, Payton, etc - and they pass them all up and select, I don't know, Kevin Willis or someone instead. Seriously, that's about what we're looking at with the 2013 BBWAA HOF ballot.

14. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 12, 2012 at 07:33 PM (#4035696)

I liked this blog post, especially the first half.

If the 15th best player on the ballot is inducted next year I might just say the hell with it all, for good.

At first I was going to respond that this is a little extreme, but man Morris really is a poor choice on that ballot.
He's the fourth best pitcher behind Clemens, Schilling and David Wells. Not that I think War is a good tool for pitchers, but sorted by career war he's 22nd on the ballot. I honestly think someone could go 15 deep on the ballot, ignore known(confirmed) roiders and still not end up with Morris on the ballot(1.Bagwell, 2.Schilling, 3.Walker 4.Edgar 5.Trammell 6.Biggio 7.Raines 8.Sosa 9.Bernie 10. Wells 11.Piazza 12.McGriff and your choices of Lofton, Murphy, Mattingly or Lee Smith)

wow a vote for Morris on that ballot is insane. I understand arguing that relative to his era, but there is no way to justify that vote except to say that the ballots aren't big enough and you think the better candidates will remain on the ballot.

15. John DiFool2 Posted: January 12, 2012 at 07:39 PM (#4035699)

Nothing could ever make me stop liking baseball, but I might give up caring about the HOF altogether if this happens(and I suspect that it will).

I watch the games and follow the elections because I want to enjoy the game.

If none of these activities does anything for me anymore, and in fact become singularly unenjoyable, I'll go find something else to obsess about.

16. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4035713)

wow a vote for Morris on that ballot is insane

Quite.

17. Kiko Sakata

Posted: January 12, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4035720)

At first I was going to respond that this is a little extreme

If anything, it's extreme the other way. I looked up next year's ballot by career WAR the other day. Mike Piazza is 14th on next year's ballot in career WAR (59.1), just below Sammy Sosa (59.7) (I had missed Kenny Lofton when I originally did this - he's at 65.3 and will be lucky to get 10 votes). I don't want to say BB-Ref's version of career WAR is the be-all, end-all of ranking systems, but to get Jack Morris as high as 15th on next year's ballot, you have to argue that he's better than, for example, all of Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, Bernie Williams, Fred McGriff. Heck, David Wells (50.1), Julio Franco (40.6), and Steve Finley (40.5) debut on next year's ballot with more career WAR than Jack Morris (39.3).

18. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 12, 2012 at 08:27 PM (#4035730)

I'm not a war fan for pitchers at all, anything that says Julio Franco had a better career than Morris, is quite clearly flawed. Of course the ridiculously high level for replacement that it uses for pitchers is the biggest part. It's a nice tool to compare similar positioned players from the same era, but it's a poor tool for comparing pitchers from one era to the next, and nearly completely useless for comparing pitchers vs outfielders.

But yes I agree, even with that caveat, it's hard to see Morris as a top 15 player on the ballot.

19. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 12, 2012 at 08:37 PM (#4035736)

I was just thinking(I was thinking about the flaws of war, and how it slightly uses dips in that the current era pitchers have a slight advantage due to the fact that strikeouts are more common now and dips rewards strikeouts---anyway different tangent)

Morris has a reputation of pitching to the score, and I was thinking about what trait you would expect to find in a pitcher who has that reputation, and it hit me(yes I'm slow sometimes) that non-strikeout, high win totals, pitchers(relative to era) probably get the pitched to the score compliment. But looking at Morris page that doesn't seem to hold true, I expected him to do well in seasonal strikeouts because of his high innings pitched, but also did well in k/9.... would of course prefer to see his rank in a meaningful stat like k%, but bb-reference doesn't list that, of course 5 top 10 finishes isn't really a hallmark of a true power pitcher.

I figure that in the most recent era, that Maddux would probably have the reputation of pitching to the score, not sure if that is the way he was viewed though. In today's game I imagine Mark Buerhle would be a guy with the reputation of pitching to the score(assuming that moniker still exists)

20. Kiko Sakata

Posted: January 12, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4035738)

anything that says Julio Franco had a better career than Morris, is quite clearly flawed

I would probably put Jack Morris on my HOF ballot before Julio Franco (although the ballot would have to include 20 names to get to either one of them), but Julio Franco, in his prime, from 1985-91 was a middle infielder who played 150 games a year and put up an OPS+ of 120. He really was a hell of a player back in Jack Morris's prime. That and being an above-average hitter at age 46 deserves some consideration up against Jack Morris (who had been retired for 7 years when he was 46).

21. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 12, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4035756)

Not knocking Franco, but Morris in his best years was putting up 120 era+ and 260 ip, while not missing any starts and getting 5 top 5 finishes for the Cy Young, franco only got votes for mvp three times in his career.

Of course looking at war and Franco does better, which is my problem with it. I seriously can't appreciate a system that gives a pitcher with 126era+ over 266 ip, a war total of 4.9(or 4.7 as he got in '86 and '87).

22. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 12, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4035769)

23. Srul Itza Posted: January 12, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4035776)

He's going in.

Like Jim Rice.

While better players haven't, aren't, and never will.

Deal with it.

24. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 12, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4035793)

most of us know that Morris is pretty much a lock now. Doesn't mean we won't gnash our teeth and say uncomplimentary things when it does happen.

25. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 12, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4035797)

It's not really something that has to be dealt with. What it is, mainly, is embarrassing to the BBWAA that they're so clueless about the whole affair. People who aren't clueless can see that the writers are clueless; it reflects poorly on them, not us. And I say that as someone who thinks narrative has some importance in deciding which players make the cut and which ones don't. I'm pro Lou Brock as a HOFer, for example. Ultimately, it just means that more sabermetrically aware baseball fans don't consider HOF membership important in our evaluation of how good or important or significant a player's career was, or how much we like him. It would be stranger if we did--the HOF has been around for a lot longer than we have. But it is reasonable for us to feel frustrated with the situation, even though it's not actually harming us in any way. We like baseball, so we'd like for baseball's Hall of Fame to include a list of players that makes sense. The inconsistency and hypocracy of the voters are much more frustrating than merely disagreeing with us about on-field value evaluation would be if they weren't inconsistent and hypocritical about it.

26. Booey Posted: January 12, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4035813)

It's like if the voters for the NBA HOF had a ballot filled with all the players of the 90's - Jordan, Shaq, Olajuwon, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Barkley, Robinson, Drexler, Pippen, Payton, etc - and they pass them all up and select, I don't know, Kevin Willis or someone instead.

Robert Horry.

Yeah, I hear arguments for him all the time and I always shake my head at the stupidity. A guy who was league average (career high season 12 pts a game and nothing significant in any other statistic) during his best years and a bench player for the majority of his career. The "count the ringzzz!!!" nonsense without context in NBA evaluations is just mind boggling in its absurdity.

But even if the voters are dumb enough to vote him in, at least they have the common sense enough to do it AFTER all the real stars of the era are already in, not BEFORE and especially not INSTEAD of all of them.

27. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 12, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4035820)

Not knocking Franco, but Morris in his best years was putting up 120 era+ and 260 ip, while not missing any starts and getting 5 top 5 finishes for the Cy Young, franco only got votes for mvp three times in his career.

You cannot use the stupidity of the BBWAA voters as a defense against their stupidity. Franco had MVP votes in three years. He had a WAR of 5.2 or higher in three years. In 2 of the later, he got no MVP votes.

28. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 12, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4035823)

We like baseball, so we'd like for baseball's Hall of Fame to include a list of players that makes sense.

Why would you expect any institution that's been around for 80 years and has been continuously evolving to 'make sense'? The list of amendments to the U.S. Constitution isn't particularly coherent, nor is the list of Oscar winners, nor is the list of Nobel Prize winners. So what?

29. Booey Posted: January 13, 2012 at 01:06 AM (#4035878)

He's going in.

Like Jim Rice.

While better players haven't, aren't, and never will.

Deal with it.

While I'll never support Morris's election, it wouldn't bother me so much if it happened on a ballot that wasn't so loaded with clearly superior candidates. I voted for 9 players on the BTF HOF ballot, but all of them were holdovers from previous ballots, so if they were elected when they should have been, the 2012 ballot would have been left with the likes of Morris, Mattingly, Murphy, Lee, Gonzalez, etc, plus a group of mediocre newcomers headlined by Bernie Williams. If those were the writers only choices, I could understand why they might feel that Morris was the best option and I wouldn't be so opposed to his election.

But to pick him and only him from a ballot featuring at least a dozen of the top 100 players of all time (while Morris himself isn't even close)? It feels insulting to anyone that actually bothers to follow the game and pays attention to statistics. I've been a die hard follower of the HOF and it's elections since I was 8 years old, but it's gonna be hard to continue to care if this kind of stupidity and/or pettyness continues.

30. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 13, 2012 at 01:50 AM (#4035885)

You cannot use the stupidity of the BBWAA voters as a defense against their stupidity. Franco had MVP votes in three years. He had a WAR of 5.2 or higher in three years. In 2 of the later, he got no MVP votes.

I'm not using the writers comments as a defense of their stupidity, I'm using it as a defense of the stupidity of war for pitchers. war is a great stat for position players(not counting catchers, first base) and is beyond useless for pitchers. It's attempt to be a cross stat is completely negated by it's insistence on using an extremely high replacement level, and leveraging the relief pitchers. Nobody should use pitchers war in any argument, ever. I mean war for pitchers makes wpa appear to be sensible. And no one with a functioning brain thinks WPA is useful for anything.

31. MelOtt4 Posted: January 13, 2012 at 03:45 AM (#4035905)

He won't be the first undeserving player and he won't be the last.

Candy Cummings may have invented a pitch

Ray Schalk was one of the clean players for the 1919 White Sox.

Tommy McCarthy got in because he was the weaker part of a late 19th century duo.

Frankie Frisch had an open house letting in his former teammates like Chick Hafey.

Rick Ferrell not even the most deserving player in his family got in for some reason.

Jim Rice was clean and played for the Red Sox.

The thing is it's not just cranky old voters. There's people with PED users on their balllot planning on voting for Jack Morris.

32. something like a train wreck Posted: January 13, 2012 at 05:49 AM (#4035915)

the writers are clueless; it reflects poorly on them, not us. And I say that as someone who thinks narrative has some importance in deciding which players make the cut and which ones don't.

Why are the Brock and Morris narratives so different that Brock is a good choice and Morris a sign of cluelessness?

33. Rants Mulliniks Posted: January 13, 2012 at 07:38 AM (#4035928)

Brock has 3000 hits, which in and of itself doesn't mean a whole lot, but when he retired he was 12th on the all-time list. That means something to most voters, saber-friendly or not (not that there were any such voters when Brock got in). He also had the single season and career SB records, which had stood since Cobb. This was also before Rickey completely redefined the leadoff position. In hindsight he's certainly not what we think of as a first ballot type, but he's not a bad choice at all, given the information available at the time.

34. something like a train wreck Posted: January 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4036202)

My comment is directed to the 'clueless." Morris also has a narrative that distinguishes him from many statistical comparables. I'm not saying "if Brock, then Morris," or that Morris should be in (he shouldn't). But I don't think that only a moron could think differently; especially once "narrative" is considered relevant.

35. Bourbon Samurai stays in the fight Posted: January 13, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4036250)

At least Morris had a cool moustache and fun quotes and stuff.

36. Booey Posted: January 13, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4036444)

Why are the Brock and Morris narratives so different that Brock is a good choice and Morris a sign of cluelessness?

I'm not saying Brock is necessarily worthy, but his narrative includes a major milestone (3000 hits) and former records in a significant category (career and single season stolen bases). Morris's narrative revolves around 1 game and a meaningless nonsensical distinction (most wins of the 80's). Big difference.

It's like comparing Roger Maris (former single season HR champ) to Mark McGwire (former single season HR champ plus 583 homers plus single season rookie HR record plus the highest HR percentage of all time).

37. Fanshawe Posted: January 13, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4036483)

Morris's narrative revolves around 1 game and a meaningless nonsensical distinction (most wins of the 80's). Big difference.

And that 14 times his manager thought he was the best pitcher on the team before the team had played any games.

38. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 13, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4036527)

And that 14 times his manager thought he was the best pitcher on the team before the team had played any games.

And he had an 8-6 record (.571) in those special games.
He started the first game of the season 14 times out of 18 seasons.

Brad Radke started the first game of the season 9 times out of 12 seasons.
He had a 4-2 record (.667) in those special games.

39. Tippecanoe Posted: January 13, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4036541)

When Brock was elected, there was an assumption that 3000 hits was enough if you had something else to go with it, which he clearly did.

I think Brock's narrative is stronger than Morris'. Jack M's narrative is primarily around his WS performances, which Brock has too. Also of narrative importance is Brock's identification with a single franchise, while Morris' most famous moment came with his second team.

Brock's narrative includes his place as a pivotal figure in the famed 1964 pennant race. It includes multiple times when he was in the national spotlight even outside of the World Series as he chased records and milestones.

When elected in the mid '80's, with Whiteyball at its apex and Henderson running wild, Brock was perceived as having been an influential player in how the modern game was played.

40. Booey Posted: January 13, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4036732)

And that 14 times his manager thought he was the best pitcher on the team before the team had played any games.

Playing on teams with weak pitching staffs (or having managers that overrated his ability) shouldn't increase Morris's HOF chances. And again, that's the problem; his entire HOF case is based on how good people mistakenly THOUGHT he was, and not how good he ACTUALLY was.

41. Baldrick Posted: January 13, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4036779)

Brad Radke started the first game of the season 9 times out of 12 seasons.

Yep, Radke's HOF case is just about as good as Morris'. Which is to say: neither of them are HOFers. Neither is really even a clear HOVGer, though they would probably get inducted eventually.

42. Adam B. Posted: January 13, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4036796)

Side question, but I don't know where else to ask it: did Bill Conlin submit an HOF ballot this year?

43. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: January 13, 2012 at 10:18 PM (#4036831)

Neither is really even a clear HOVGer, though they would probably get inducted eventually.

I don't feel Jack Morris should be a Hall of Famer, but comments like this baffle me. In fact, I think it's actually more reasonable to consider Morris a HOFer than to deny he is a HOVGer.

If nothing else, when Morris is elected I will enjoy the collective conniption of all those that have denigrated Morris' career unfairly. Not a Hall of Famer, I totally agree. But some folks have gone overboard in their zeal to slam his candidacy.

44. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 14, 2012 at 02:45 AM (#4036936)

I don't feel Jack Morris should be a Hall of Famer, but comments like this baffle me. In fact, I think it's actually more reasonable to consider Morris a HOFer than to deny he is a HOVGer.

If nothing else, when Morris is elected I will enjoy the collective conniption of all those that have denigrated Morris' career unfairly. Not a Hall of Famer, I totally agree. But some folks have gone overboard in their zeal to slam his candidacy.

and this is an absolute silly comment. We are talking about a guy who is basically an inning eater above average pitcher. Who has never once posted what could be called a Cy Young season(note: a Cy Young season doesn't mean, a season in which you win or deserve the Cy Young award, it means a season in which you are considered a legitimate candidate regardless of the competition... by definition it means a 140 era+ while posting at least 19+wins.

45. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: January 14, 2012 at 05:48 AM (#4036953)

and this is an absolute silly comment.

We can disagree without saying negative stuff can't we?

We are talking about a guy who is basically an inning eater above average pitcher.

Heck, GMs are out there every off-season trying to acquire either/or. Pitching a) a lot of innings at b) an above-average level is the kind of thing that makes you an All-Star. Do it for 15 years and you've had a hell of a career.

Who has never once posted what could be called a Cy Young season(note: a Cy Young season doesn't mean, a season in which you win or deserve the Cy Young award, it means a season in which you are considered a legitimate candidate regardless of the competition... by definition it means a 140 era+ while posting at least 19+wins.

So what? The man won 254 games (42nd all-time), threw 3,824 IP (50th), and struck out 2,478 (32nd). And, of course, he authored what is likely the most celebrated Game 7 performance in WS history. Integral post-season contributor to two world champions and a 20-game winner for a third.

That fellow isn't worthy of being in a mythical "Hall of the Very Good"?

He's not a Hall of Famer in my view because the ERA was too high, too often. And the much ballyhooed "clutch" argument doesn't hold water. But, c'mon, fair is fair. If there were really such a thing as a HOVG it would be for guys like Morris.

46. Something Other Posted: January 15, 2012 at 03:28 AM (#4037283)

If nothing else, when Morris is elected I will enjoy the collective conniption of all those that have denigrated Morris' career unfairly. Not a Hall of Famer, I totally agree...

Yup. He's no Andy Pettitte. That's for sure.

Morris is a HoVGer, though.

Actually, Morris wasn't in Pettitte's zip code as a pitcher. 105 to 117 in ERA+. Huge edge to Pettitte in winning percentage. Pettitte has more CY shares in fewer years. Pettitte's postseason ERA is almost identical to Morris's, but Pettitte pitched in a much higher run scoring environment. He keeps almost that exact 117 to 105 ERA+ edge in the postseason, but in almost three times as many innings.

To have credibility a Morris voter would have to admit Pettitte should go into the Hall first well ahead of Jack.

47. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: January 15, 2012 at 07:58 AM (#4037301)

Side question, but I don't know where else to ask it: did Bill Conlin submit an HOF ballot this year?

Conlin's sole vote was a write-in for Ed Bouchee. Interesting choice.

48. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4037318)

Yup. He's no Andy Pettitte. That's for sure.

Morris is a HoVGer, though.

Actually, Morris wasn't in Pettitte's zip code as a pitcher. 105 to 117 in ERA+. Huge edge to Pettitte in winning percentage. Pettitte has more CY shares in fewer years. Pettitte's postseason ERA is almost identical to Morris's, but Pettitte pitched in a much higher run scoring environment. He keeps almost that exact 117 to 105 ERA+ edge in the postseason, but in almost three times as many innings.

To have credibility a Morris voter would have to admit Pettitte should go into the Hall first well ahead of Jack.

Pettitte is actually the pitcher that Morris supporters claim Morris was. I'm not saying Pettitte is a HOF, but he has a better case than Morris.
He at least had a real peak, although they were spread out, but his entire career was one big prime. Other than his 98 ERA+ in 2008, he never had an ERA+ under 100 and only two other years under 110 in 16 seasons.
That's pretty damn impressive.

49. Something Other Posted: January 15, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4037578)

Pettitte is actually the pitcher that Morris supporters claim Morris was. I'm not saying Pettitte is a HOF, but he has a better case than Morris.

He at least had a real peak, although they were spread out, but his entire career was one big prime. Other than his 98 ERA+ in 2008, he never had an ERA+ under 100 and only two other years under 110 in 16 seasons.

That's pretty damn impressive.

That's an excellent point. Give Pettitte one Game Seven studliness, and with Pettitte's overall much superior postseason record you have the pitcher Morris supporters think Morris is. Pettitte pitched in the shadow of Sabathia, Clemens, Mussina, Cone, even David Wells and Black Jack McDowell, all pitchers (certainly the first four, and in their better seasons the latter two) who were clearly superior to Morris. In fact, on a lot of those Yankee teams Morris would have been the very durable, slightly above average third starter (and in a few years, the fourth starter). Nothing wrong with that, but no manager going by quality pitches Morris ahead of Ace, then Pettitte.

Maybe a Yankee fan can summarize Pettitte's postseason highlights?

.
.
The Hall doesn't work this way, but if it did, by electing Morris you must elect Pettitte.

50. .

Posted: January 15, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4037597)

Nothing wrong with that, but no manager going by quality pitches Morris ahead of Ace, then Pettitte.

Nope. Cito designated Morris the #1 in the '92 playoffs over Cone in his prime, Key in his prime, and a filthy young Juan Guzman.

51. Something Other Posted: January 15, 2012 at 07:39 PM (#4037602)

Nothing wrong with that, but no manager going by quality pitches Morris ahead of Ace, then Pettitte.

Nope. Cito designated Morris the #1 in the '92 playoffs over Cone in his prime, Key in his prime, and a filthy young Juan Guzman.

...no manager going by quality pitches Morris ahead of Ace, then Pettitte.

But keep on pitchin', SBB. As you noted in another thread, if a Vets Committee eventually selects Morris, we'll find out in 2034 or so how he feels about all this. No shame in that.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, January 12, 2012

A Long Hall of Fame Review

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics