I haven't picked on Jack Morris for too long
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
The single only thing that Jack Morris did better than countless others who were better pitchers than he was but aren't in the HOF is hang around. He pitched more innings per season, and he pitched more seasons. I've said many times, often when discussing Yastrzemski or other all-time greats whose skills diminished as they got older, that 'hanging around" does have value, often a lot of value. That is, as long as the player who is hanging around doesn't suck.
Jack Morris pitched 3,824 innings in his career and allowed 3,567 hits, 1,390 walks, and 1,657 earned runs.
Ron Guidry pitched 2,392 innings in his career and allowed 2,198 hits, 633 walks, and 874 earned runs.
I think, at least I hope, that there is nobody here who thinks Morris was a better pitcher than Guidry; it's Guidry's shorter career that is the black mark against him that kept him out of the HOF while Morris was allowed to enter. But, does that actually make any sense?
The difference between Ron Guidry and Jack Morris is 1,432 innings, 1,369 hits, 757 walks, and 783 earned runs. A pitcher with those stats has an ERA of 4.92 and a WHIP of 1.48. That pitcher sucks. The argument that Jack Morris gets points for longevity simply doesn't work, because in all those extra innings, relative to Guidry, Jack Morris sucked.
And I started with Guidry out of an abundance of kindness.
The difference between Morris and John Candelaria is a pitcher with an ERA of 5.00 and a WHIP of 1.51.
The difference between Morris and Dave Stieb is a pitcher with an ERA of 5.34 and a WHIP of 1.45.
The difference between Morris and Bret Saberhagen is a pitcher with an ERA of 5.03 and a WHIP of 1.61.
The difference between Morris and David Cone is a pitcher with an ERA of 5.27 and a WHIP of 1.42.
The difference between Morris and Orel Hershiser is a pitcher with an ERA of 5.79 and a WHIP of 1.46.
and for the finale,
The difference between Morris and Kevin Brown is a pitcher with an ERA of 7.48 and a WHIP of 1.72.
All of these pitchers were eligible for the HOF before Morris got in, and the closest any of them got was Guidry with 11.2% of the vote; none of the others even cracked 4%. The message the HOF has sent these pitchers, and tons of others, is "don't retire - just hang around and suck, and if you suck long enough, then you'll be HOF material."
Jack Morris did exactly that. Jack Morris sucked.
Comments
Might as well do a dissertation on Jim Rice Sucking too lol.
I still remember what Jack Morris did to my Braves back in 91'.
This is for you Jack Morris...
Being a Twins fan, I should be taking this opportunity to stick up for "Black Jack" Morris.
Well, that's not going to happen.
The best I can come up with is he didn't SUCK, he was slightly above average year after year. But that's comparing him to all the players. If you are comparing him to HOFers, he kinda does suck.
In comparing him to Guidry, it's obvious who was better. 1977-81 (not so great in 1980) Guidry was a dominant pitcher. After that he became Jack Morris, although he certainly didn't last as long. Ron had 9 years of pitching at or near 200 innings and 2 years with over 100, plus a couple at the start of his career that were relatively meaningless and his final year where he pitched 56 innings.
Morris of course was a workhorse. 1432 innings more than Guidry is impressive (about 6 seasons) but he was not really great......ever. He was a solid pitcher who really pitched a LOT of innings for a LOT of years.
HOF? Not really in my mind. He would be a terrific #2 starter. He was not even the Twin's best pitcher in 1991 Kevin Tapani was, and it wasn't really close. He gets a lot of credit for game 7 in 1991, a game he should have lost by the way. Thank you Lonnie Smith!
I compare a guy like Guidry to a player like Tony Oliva. Both quite a bit better than guys already in the HOF, but even though they played long enough, they get "punished" for_ not_ playing long enough.
On the other hand, guys like Baines and Morris, who were both very nice players for a long time, get in.
If you are going to let good players who played for an exceptionally long time in, you should let exceptional players who played the required length of time to qualify, in as well!
If you are talking to anyone who says Morris was better than Kaat, move on; you are talking to an idiot. And yes, unfortunately, that does mean that the HOF vote is conducted by idiots. Kaat, by the way, is in a class of pitchers that I wouldn't put in the HOF, but it wouldn't bother me if they got in. What separates Morris from Kaat, using the same method as in my OP, is a pitcher who threw for 700 innings with an ERA of 1.03 and a WHIP of 1.06. In other words, if Morris had pitched three additional seasons at a level greater than anyone in the history of baseball then, and only then, would he have been as good as Kaat.
Morris was a "good" pitcher for about the period of time required to qualify, and he was an absolutely putrid pitcher for the remainder of his long career. My question - or rather my disgust, since I actually have no question - is why the HOF considers it a HOF-worthy accomplishment to suck for 1,000 innings. Because sucking for 1,000 innings is all that separates Morris from Guidry (and Candelaria, etc.). Sucking for only 500 or so innings is all that separates Morris from Kevin Brown, who was so much better than Morris that I refuse to believe anyone here can't see that.
YES! Don't get me started on Kaat.
Certainly better than Morris. Neither were dominant pitchers.
If you want to talk about toughness (Morris was supposed to be tough), Harmon Killebrew told a story about Kaat. Batter hits a line drive into Kaat's face, Kaat picks up the ball ant throws to Killebrew at first for the out and Harmon notices there are pieces of Jim's teeth stuck in the ball!
I believe Kaat did not miss his next start.
THAT'S TOUGH!
Is Morris really any worse than Catfish Hunter?
Kevin Brown was world's better than Morris.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Serious question: Jamie Moyer had the same type of career as Morris but longer and better. Is he a HoFer?
Yes he did. He once said he was proud of his fielding, but didn't figure he deserved them every year.
P.S. on the above story the shortstop might have thrown the ball to first base.
Played 7 years longer yet only pitched 200 more innings. Longer, but not better. ERA higher as well as WHIP.
If Moyer goes in dallas will have an aneurysm.
Morris, Hunter, and Moyer were all essentially the same pitcher. You may include in that group Frank Tanana, Danny Darwin, Charlie Hough, Dennis Martinez, Jim Perry, Bob Welch, Tim Wakefield, Mickey Lolich, Claude Osteen, Kenny Rogers, Bob Friend, and others.
Hunter is in the HOF because he had great teammates on two different teams; there is no other reason. Morris is in the HOF because of a single WS game; there is no other reason.
Jack Morris being in the HOF must be particularly galling to Mickey Lolich. They were, as I said, essentially the same pitcher for careers of essentially the same length. But, Lolich pitched in three WS games, completed all of them, and won all of them (and hit a home run!), to earn his WS MVP. The only (feeble) argument ever trotted out to defend Morris being in the HOF is how great he was in the post-season (not mentioning that he sucked in the playoffs, and was average in the WS outside of that one great game). But I'm sure nobody would dare make that argument if Mickey Lolich (career postseason ERA: 1.57, 46 IP in 5 games) was in the room. A coherent argument that Jack Morris belongs in the HOF but Mickey Lolich does not simply can't exist.
I always thought the argument for Morris was that he had the most wins in the '80s.
In his first 5 World Series starts, Morris was 4-0 with a 1.54 ERA. He not only wasn't average, he was great. If you exclude the one game 7, he was still 3-0 with a 2.03. If you count all of his first six starts, which was that "quality start" (exactly 3 ER in 6 IP) that most of us hate, he was 4-1 with a 1.91 ERA. He had exactly one bad game in the World Series - game 5 against Toronto in 1992 where he got lit up for 7 in 4-2/3 IP.
Kaat was better than Morris but let's not pretend he was all that special. Career ERA of 3.45 with the vast majority of his innings coming in the dead ball 60s and pre-DH AL of the early 70s. His career ERA+ is 108. Yeah, his career ERA is a lot better than that of Morris but that doesn't really provide full context. Kaat finished top 10 in Cy Young voting just once, topping out at 4th in 1975. Morris had 7 top 10 finishes, his best being 3rd twice , both of which are pretty well-deserved. You could argue that he was better than the actual winner in 1983 (lower ERA, higher ERA+, more IP) but 3rd is about where he deserved to be. Kaat is hurt in this area a little by some of his best years coming in the single-CYA era where Sandy Koufax was winning unanimously every year.
NOTE: Not making a case for Morris as a HOFer, just trying to bring the Kaat talk down to earth a little bit.
Yes, Morris is the winningest pitcher of the 1980s. He simply had a productive part of his career encompass the entire decade.
Just for fun, I ran a comparison of Morris and KBrown in terms of seasons where they were in the top 10 of certain categories:
Top 10 in wins: Morris (12) vs KBrown (5)
Top 10 in Strikeouts: Morris (8) vs. KBrown (6)
Top 10 in WAR for pitchers: Morris (5) vs. KBrown (6)
Top 10 in ERA+: Morris (4) vs. KBrown (7)
The last two categories are considered more important to sabermetricians, while the first two are more traditional categories. I understand that Morris represented a longevity player who compiled some impressive stats. He was healthy enough to be above average for a long time when compared to the league. With that said, I do not think Cone or KBrown should be punished for having shorter careers. Afterall, they both have a very colorful resumes, accolades, and WS fame.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
This is 100% correct. It is the people who can't see this obvious truth to whom all of my Jack Morris posts are directed. Jack Morris is a clear step below pitchers who were not all that special.
And yes, Jack Morris did have the most wins in the 1980's, with 162; in second place was the best pitcher of the 1980's, Dave Stieb with 140. Playing on a better team, Jack Morris got average support of 4.6 runs from his team, while Stieb got 4.1. If you count "wins" as a pitcher stat, which would be dumb, then Morris is #1 for the decade. But if you count it correctly as a team stat, and credit the pitcher instead with a pitcher stat, like WAR, then you get this:
Stieb 45.2
Welch 35.1
Valenzuela 34.8
Blyleven 34
Hershiser 32.8
Clemens 32.3
Ryan 30.8
Gooden 30.2
Tudor 29.7
Saberhagen 29
That's the top 10 for the 1980's and you won't find Jack Morris' name on it; he's 12th, also behind Charlie Hough.
I was not trying to elevate Kaat to HOF status. He was a very good pitcher for a very long time.
Maybe a better conclusion is that only idiots care about the hall of fame.
The concept of a hall of fame can never work as anything but either a a popularity contest or a political knob polishing.
The game changes too much over 100 years for players to compare . People being voted in in 1920 might not even get to play now , people who play now might not get to play in 1920 .
Its always going to be a slice of the present compared to the whole of the past.
As for the voters , the BBWA ? have any of them even played little league?
is being a baseball writer still a job? Newspapers don't even exist anymore
This article https://cooperstowncred.com/jack-morris-deserves-his-hall-of-fame-plaque/ purports to convince that Morris deserves his honor. Instead it convinced me that it is possible to make a reasonable sounding argument for just about anyone who played eight seasons to make the HoF.
I didn't read the article because it would just annoy me, but I assume that your conclusion is correct. Any argument that places Jack Morris in the HOF places hundreds of others there as well (yes, hundreds). What is more annoying is that the HOF appears to be changing in a way that the result will be exactly that. With Morris, and now Baines, the message to players is that if they just hang around long enough, no matter how much they suck while they do it, the HOF awaits.
BBWA writers choose!
If you read the twitter take a look at some of the garbage the average baseball writer types post.
These losers should be lined up and shot
When ya understand that the Hall of Fame, a long time ago, became more about the money than anything else, then you'll understand why these type of players get inducted.
I have no idea why you would expect that, some solid methodology with newly invented stats and a 30-50x multiplier pulled out of thin air
If you wanted to invent a category called “Rings Above Replacement” (how many rings did a player help his team’s win), Morris probably deserves two. The ’91 Twins absolutely positively won the Fall Classic because of Morris. The ’92 Jays might not have made the playoffs without Jack on the hill for his 21 wins. The ’84 Tigers were a superteam (they won the A.L. East by 15 games) so the loss of any one player wouldn’t have kept them out of the playoffs. However, it’s an unknown if the team would have won the World Series without Morris’ two complete games (won by scores of 3-2 and 4-2). So, let’s give him one “Ring Above Replacement” for his essential role in ’91 and half a “Ring Above Replacement” for his post-season contribution in ’84 and his regular season contribution if ’92.
A lot of Hall of Fame voters look upon post-season heroics as “extra credit” for a Cooperstown resume. I put much, much more stock into October baseball. For me, his 1991 Game 7 ten-inning shutout was worth 30 to 50 regular season wins.
Come on, man... Take a few deep breaths and re-center yourself. Lined up and shot is a BIT extreme.
Any argument that puts Gene Tenace and Ron Fairly in the HOF for their WS heroics has my support! But I'm sure your argument is of little comfort to Mickey Lolich. But if this standard, created solely for Jack Morris and applied to nobody else ever, was universal, we would have so many HOFers nobody would even notice that Jack Morris was in there.
Not my argument, straight from the article.
My bad, and now I'm doubly glad I didn't read that article.