Where does Jack Morris rank?
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
After talking about the whole 'pitching to the score' and Jack Morris, where does he rank among his peers?
First and foremost, the idea that Jack Morris was better than what his 3.90 ERA says...because he was often given big leads and thus pitched to the score by making sure his team won without regard to his ERA, is pure hogwash. It just isn't so, no matter which way you slice it. But for the ardent backers, if you simply don't even count all of his pitching with 4+ runs, then his ERA may drop to 3.85 instead of 3.90. I'm simply not going to beat this dead horse, as only zealots will continue with their stand on that topic. The 'pitching to the score' theory is simply a NON FACTOR in how good he was. Now....
Two ways of looking at the player ranking, his peak and his lifetime contribution. We will look at how MOrris compared to the average pitcher in his league during his peak and his career. We will use the best pitcher measurement that is easily available...PITCHING RUNS. Pitching runs is simply the number of runs a pitcher saved for his team compared to what a league average pitcher would do. A high number of IP is a positive for the pitcher in this measurement(as long as he gave up runs better than a league average rate). The numbers are park adjusted and defense adjusted(the ability of their defenders are taken into account.
Lets look at the peak by simply taking the pitchers BEST five seasons to get a sample of how good he was at his absolute best. This list is NON HALL OF FAME PITCHERS FROM MORRIS'S era.
Saberhagen 173
Guidry 159
Viola 157
Reuschel 150
Stieb 144
Gooden 137
Blyleven 122 ** This only counts From 1977 and on and doesn't even include his actual prime of the early 70's!!!!
D. Martinez 120
Rogers 113
Fernando 105
Tudor 105
Candy Man 103
Hooton 101
MORRIS 100
That is the list of actual contributions and value of the pticher. Based on the best five years, one can see where the players falll in runs saved, and who's Star Shined the brightest. Note Blyeven, not even counting is PRIME!!
Of coure, a player's career is more than five years, and you can't just discount the other part of their career. Some view the HOF as simply at their best, while others prefer longevity.
Using the same PITCHER RUNS measurement here are the rankings of some of MOrri's peers for their CAREER. Again ,the more IP over league ERA rate the better...
Blyleven 336
Saberhagen 253
Reuschel 202
Guidry 187
Stieb 178
Gooden 147
Hershiser 134
Viola 130
Tudor 129
Rogers 129
Candy man 129
John 127
Welch 91
Hooton 86
Fernando 40
Reuss 38
MORRISS 22
One can see why I first included the peak years as this career ranking says Morris is a little above average for his careeer. That is because he had about five years where his ERA was well below the league average AND he threw a lot of IP in those years...so that really dragged his career totals down.
IP below league average do have some value to a team, but the proper replacement level must be used, but if anyone thinks that playing five or six years at below league average rate is a positive thing to put on a Hall of Fame resume...well I don't know what to say. However, almost every pitcher in the Hall of Fame has gotten there on the merit of their dominanting ability vs. the league average pitcher in at least their prime, or at least during their LOOONG career. MOST have dominated in both their prime and career.
There are a coulple of questions in the formula used. 1). Rating the team's defense and assigning a value to it is sketchy. There is no doubt Morris had an above average defense, and that brought his runs value down a bit. Is it down too much? Possible. 2) Park factors aren't perfect either. 3) This isn't looking at bb/k ratios or SLG/OB% against. Usually those will say the same things, so it would be more work than necessary.
POST SEASON: Morris's fame is based on two post season games really. But we all know that the sample size is soo small that it doesn't mean much. Some people will never ever like to hear that, especially about their hero. They will contineu to think that they ahve this ability to morph into a superhuman player once it is Post Seaon. That is typically hogwash, but lets give Morris his post season as it stands.
Yes, Morris had a couple of good post season series, but his lifetime post season ERA is 3.80 as well. So it isn't as if he is as good as people are saying. Yeah, the '91 game was memorable. So memorable in fact that during Morris's next post season I knew a fella who lost upwards of Ten grand because he staked his money on Morri's 'big game' reputation and took a beating! You can't just forget about those performances. I warned the guy that past post season heroics do not equate to future ones!
As for the Hall of Fame...it means different things to all people. But I know this for certain, if Morris is your candidate then you can't deny a whole bunch of others listed here from that same honor, as many are as much or more deserving.
First and foremost, the idea that Jack Morris was better than what his 3.90 ERA says...because he was often given big leads and thus pitched to the score by making sure his team won without regard to his ERA, is pure hogwash. It just isn't so, no matter which way you slice it. But for the ardent backers, if you simply don't even count all of his pitching with 4+ runs, then his ERA may drop to 3.85 instead of 3.90. I'm simply not going to beat this dead horse, as only zealots will continue with their stand on that topic. The 'pitching to the score' theory is simply a NON FACTOR in how good he was. Now....
Two ways of looking at the player ranking, his peak and his lifetime contribution. We will look at how MOrris compared to the average pitcher in his league during his peak and his career. We will use the best pitcher measurement that is easily available...PITCHING RUNS. Pitching runs is simply the number of runs a pitcher saved for his team compared to what a league average pitcher would do. A high number of IP is a positive for the pitcher in this measurement(as long as he gave up runs better than a league average rate). The numbers are park adjusted and defense adjusted(the ability of their defenders are taken into account.
Lets look at the peak by simply taking the pitchers BEST five seasons to get a sample of how good he was at his absolute best. This list is NON HALL OF FAME PITCHERS FROM MORRIS'S era.
Saberhagen 173
Guidry 159
Viola 157
Reuschel 150
Stieb 144
Gooden 137
Blyleven 122 ** This only counts From 1977 and on and doesn't even include his actual prime of the early 70's!!!!
D. Martinez 120
Rogers 113
Fernando 105
Tudor 105
Candy Man 103
Hooton 101
MORRIS 100
That is the list of actual contributions and value of the pticher. Based on the best five years, one can see where the players falll in runs saved, and who's Star Shined the brightest. Note Blyeven, not even counting is PRIME!!
Of coure, a player's career is more than five years, and you can't just discount the other part of their career. Some view the HOF as simply at their best, while others prefer longevity.
Using the same PITCHER RUNS measurement here are the rankings of some of MOrri's peers for their CAREER. Again ,the more IP over league ERA rate the better...
Blyleven 336
Saberhagen 253
Reuschel 202
Guidry 187
Stieb 178
Gooden 147
Hershiser 134
Viola 130
Tudor 129
Rogers 129
Candy man 129
John 127
Welch 91
Hooton 86
Fernando 40
Reuss 38
MORRISS 22
One can see why I first included the peak years as this career ranking says Morris is a little above average for his careeer. That is because he had about five years where his ERA was well below the league average AND he threw a lot of IP in those years...so that really dragged his career totals down.
IP below league average do have some value to a team, but the proper replacement level must be used, but if anyone thinks that playing five or six years at below league average rate is a positive thing to put on a Hall of Fame resume...well I don't know what to say. However, almost every pitcher in the Hall of Fame has gotten there on the merit of their dominanting ability vs. the league average pitcher in at least their prime, or at least during their LOOONG career. MOST have dominated in both their prime and career.
There are a coulple of questions in the formula used. 1). Rating the team's defense and assigning a value to it is sketchy. There is no doubt Morris had an above average defense, and that brought his runs value down a bit. Is it down too much? Possible. 2) Park factors aren't perfect either. 3) This isn't looking at bb/k ratios or SLG/OB% against. Usually those will say the same things, so it would be more work than necessary.
POST SEASON: Morris's fame is based on two post season games really. But we all know that the sample size is soo small that it doesn't mean much. Some people will never ever like to hear that, especially about their hero. They will contineu to think that they ahve this ability to morph into a superhuman player once it is Post Seaon. That is typically hogwash, but lets give Morris his post season as it stands.
Yes, Morris had a couple of good post season series, but his lifetime post season ERA is 3.80 as well. So it isn't as if he is as good as people are saying. Yeah, the '91 game was memorable. So memorable in fact that during Morris's next post season I knew a fella who lost upwards of Ten grand because he staked his money on Morri's 'big game' reputation and took a beating! You can't just forget about those performances. I warned the guy that past post season heroics do not equate to future ones!
As for the Hall of Fame...it means different things to all people. But I know this for certain, if Morris is your candidate then you can't deny a whole bunch of others listed here from that same honor, as many are as much or more deserving.
0
Comments
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
However, I believe Smokey Joe Wood is also NOT in the HOF. Very short time in the bigs, did win 114 games lost only 69, a winning pct. over 62 %, lifetime ERA of 2.03, had a monster year in 1912: 34-5 , with 3 wins in the WS
The Hall is now filled with lesser talents than either of these two pitchers, times have changed.
~"There are a coulple of questions in the formula used. 1). Rating the team's defense and assigning a value to it is sketchy. There is no doubt Morris had an above average defense, and that brought his runs value down a bit. Is it down too much? Possible. 2) Park factors aren't perfect either. 3) This isn't looking at bb/k ratios or SLG/OB% against. Usually those will say the same things, so it would be more work than necessary."~
I am glad you mentioned these points, especially #3 as I am curious about one thing. I find it interesting that in your opinion the best measurement to evaluate hitters is OPS+ and the best method to evaluate pitchers is the amount of runs that they saved relative to the league average. If your main criteria for evaluating hitters is OPS+ should that not be your main criteria for evaluating pitchers? Should it not stand to reason that era is dependent on a lot of factors other than how well a pitcher pitched much like RBI's or runs. If there is really no way to determine a hitter is "clutch" can we not assume the same thing about pitchers being "clutch"?
Take three pitchers:
Pitcher A
211 IP 151 H 44 ER 11 HR 62 BB 185 K's ERA+ 211 OBP .261 SLG .284 OPS .545
Pitcher B
217 IP 159 H 68 ER 19 HR 47 BB 208 K's ERA+ 148 OBP.252 SLG.334 OPS .586
Pitcher C
222 IP 188 H 59 ER 17 HR 41 BB 171 K's ERA+ 174 OBP .268 SLG .348 OPS .616
By ERA+ and runs saved Pitchers A and C are clearly superior to B, especially since according to the numbers Pitcher B has a superior defense. However, it could be argued that he pitched in worse luck. He had the most K's, keeping the ball out of play the most, the lowest OBP against and the second lowest OPS.
Dennis Martinez (903)
Tom Glavine (901)
Bob Gibson (885) *
Luis Tiant (873)
Red Ruffing (861) *
Chuck Finley (859)
Amos Rusie (859) *
Burleigh Grimes (855) *
Bob Feller (855) *
Jim Bunning (854) *
Looksd like he is in some good company.
Steve
<< <i>If Jack Morris had the same stats with the Yankees, Mets, or Red Sox, he would have been a first ballot HOFer, with no questions to his status in. As I said before on a previous thread a couple times, his tenure with the Tigers does not make him one in the eyes of voters. But before I hear any talk about Mike Mussina or Pedro Martinez being in or not, I would expect to hear the Jack Morris name on the breath of others! Why not do some comparisons of Mike Mussina, Andy Pettite, Roger Clemens, and Pedro Martinez compared to their peers, year in and year out! ERA is an overinflated stat, that can vary by year, team played for, player talent field, and the ballpark one pitches in. Jack Morris has pitched many games in the old Tiger Stadium, well known as a hitters park, I bet that alone can scrape a good 1/2 to full point off his career ERA average. Based on his whole career, Jack Morris deserves to be a HOFer! >>
Skinpinch's anaysis already takes into account which parks each pitcher he listed pitched in. If old Tiger Stadium added half a run (it didn't, but even if it did) then that is already completely reflected in the numbers he calculated. Runs scored in old Tiger Stadium were fairly high, but then runs scored in every stadium were pretty high when there was a Tigers pitcher on the mound. Having a bad pitching staff is not the same thing as having a "hitter's park".
But none of that tells us anything about whether he will be in the HOF someday. However good or mediocre a pitcher one may think Morris was, there are undeniably worse pitchers already in the HOF (not many, but there are some). If the standard for membership is being better than the worst member then Morris can get in that way. But, then, Hooten and the Candy Man also deserve to be in by that reasoning which was skinpinch's point.
Your point about Morris getting in if he had played for NY is probably correct; NY is the source of the only two pitchers I can think of off the top of my head who are in the HOF who were not as good as Morris.
If this particular analysis made or broke Morris, then I think we need to really think about putting Saberhagen in the HOF since he excelled in this analysis.
Saberhagen does not have those magic round career numbers, but he did win 2 CY Youngs and has been a nasty pitcher when not injured.
Not many mention David Cone, Dwight Gooden or Kevin Brown for the HOF, let alone Saberhagen. If Morris is out because of this analysis, then there is very little reason to vote against Saberhagen.
I think more angles might be needed to really place Morris among the pitchers of his era.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
You hit upon a point that has merit, and that is the luck factors that are out of the pitchers control. Pitcher A gives up a bloop single, and pitchers A same bloop ball is caught. That is luck and pitcher A pitched just as well as B in that at bat. Or it was better defense.
You have to really dig deep to figure how much is attributed to the pitcher and how much to luck/bad luck. There are things to look at, and this is really important when you are trying to find a pitcher who had bad luck the previous year and is better than what his RUns allowed showed...and vice versa, to stay away from the guy who had given up less runs than what he really should have. This is the key to projecting a pitchers performance the next year. Of course, projections can run into other problems even if you nail this area correctly.
FOr the purpose of measuring a career? Given time, the luck usually would balance out in this regard. If you studied hard the OPS against for the pitchers and measured it vs. what I did, the lists will end up looking very similar.
One of the factors that can change what a pitcher *should have* given up as opposed to what *he did* give up is the defense. That is accounted for in the measurement, albeit isn't concrete.
PITCHER RUNS. The ultimate goal for a pitcher is to prevent runs. The measuring of it is very simple, he gives up three hits to equal a run, he gave up the run. Plain and simple one run. Another guy gives up three singles and strands them on base. HE gave up zero runs. These are directly credited toward the pitcher. IS the guy who stranded the runners considered clutch? That is another discussion. For the purpose of measuring what happened, ERA+ doesn't care if he is considered clutch or not(he stopped the runs and that is what counts). OPS+ does care. Personally, situational baseball is a big part of the puzzle of what actually happened, and I like to credit it(as long as there is enough samples), in both pitching and hitting.
WINPITCHER, those baseball reference SIMILARS are strongly tied into the amount of WINS, and we already know the pitfalls of that. In reality, he is much more closely related to the pitchers listed above. He isn't even in the same UNIVERSE as Gibson or Feller. I'd be happy to dissect that another day.
Clemens 628
Maddux 445
Pedro 428
Unit 415
Schilling 301
Mussina 288
Glavine 275
Smoltz 273
Brown 263
Granted, it is about 15%(or more) easier to separate oneself from their league average peers in this era, compared to MOrris's era.
Also, it is tougher in this era(for STAR PITCHERS) to pitch below league average level due to the inflated league ERA(because of many bad pitchers introduced into baseball for various reasons). Many of these current guys may avoid the 'OLD MAN' NEGATIVE years that guys like Morris went through that really brought his number down.
Seaver 425
Blyleven 336
A HOST OF MANY(TOO MANY TO LIST)
Morris 22
Yeah, another angle of looking at it could put Morris higher, but when you are that far behind in the most prominent measurement, come on.
Though all of Morris's worst years weren't old man years, as three came age 33-35. The other two were at 38-39. And Morris was among the highest paid pitchers during these bad years, and THAT is why longevity can be a major negative to a team.
Glavine, Smoltz and Brown are not at all ridiculous arguments as other pitchers who have to be at least given the time of day for a thorough analysis as to their HOF candidacy.
The analysis you use for Morris is probably not used by the baseball writers in electing, which is why Morris is still getting heavy support on the ballot. Mattingly may be undersupported because we ran all kinds of analysis on him including the fact that a Bill James analysis puts him in the HOF.
You probably opened up reasons to look at Blyleven once again.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Almost everyone falls prey to simple misinformation or just plain lack of it. Jack Morris pitching to the score is perfect. If EVERY fan knew that his ERA wouldn't change if you didn't even count his IP with big leads, then how could they reasonably go around saying that his ERA is higher because he had big leads to work with often? Only the zealots would hold on for dear life.
The Hall of Fame voters take in a variety of factors. You have to remember that some believe in sabremetrics and would welcome the numbers provided. Others, are more old school and place a high value on wins, winning percentage, strikeouts and straight earned run average and their own personal opinions from watching the players. When the original players were voted in the writers were not aware of park affects, OPS+ (heck probably not even OBP or SLG), and other newer evaluations. They based their selections on wins and era, homers, rbis and total hits. In Bill James book about the Hall of Fame he clearly shows what Hall of Fame voters like based on their selections. Remember it is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistics. Putting up perceived great numbers, performing in the post-season, being a good interview, having highly regarded former players speak up for you, all come into play.
Morris has begun to get more votes on his Hall of Fame quest. At this point the writers view him as the second best candidate among starting pitchers on the ballot after Bert Blyleven. If you look at the runs saved analysis he is not close to a Hall of Famer. However, the voters see a durable pitcher, who pitched a lot of innings, won a total of 254 games, pitched in a hitters park, and has a couple of big post-seasons on his resume. Are they sophisticated enough to see through these things and realize that he had big run support, a high era even relative to his peers, and had some truly bad post-season performances? Time will tell.
Mattingly on the other hand has seen his voting percentage drop from a high of 28.6% in his first year to his current 12.3%. His best chance is for the veterans committe to vote him in after he is done on the ballot. I am not certain that Bill James has done any projects where he cites Mattingly is a Hall of Famer. His Hall of Fame monitor, which evaluates what statistics writers value highly, has Mattingly as a Hall of Famer but that is distinctly different from a James analysis. That monitor is supposed to project, based on past Hall of Famers and writers voting patterns, who is likely to get elected in the future. It is not James advocating his selection. The player probably whose careers mirrors Mattingly the most, Jim Bottomley is in the Hall but he was selected by his cronies on the veterans committee.
<< <i>I will say this again, and it will be the 100th time said! IF Jack Morris WAS at any length of time, a Yankee, a Met, or a Red Sox player, he would have been a FIRST BALLOT Hall of Famer. I will never listen to an argument about Mike Mussina's qualifications, without hearing Jack Morris on one's breath. I even hear all this talk about Mariano Rivera being a definite, and he is a closer! Why is that so, because he is a Yankee, and I suppose Trevor Hoffman is chopped liver as a closer, cannot make an argument about eras either, because they both have pitched on the same wavelenght. Where is the Trevor talk, he has been just as dominant over the past decade as Mariano! The thing is, one is a Yankee, one is a player on a secondary team in the league. If one cannot use the post seasons of Jack Morris as bearing, then nobody can use the post seasons of Mariano Rivera either. The Hall of Fame voting is as laughable at times, as the voting for any seasonal award is. So one stat, an ERA, is the only thing that keeps Jack Morris out of the Hall, a stat, that for a whole career, is not quite that bad, 3.90 as is Jack's. BTW, he started out as a starter, then became a closer, but Dennis Eckersley's career ERA is not all that impressive either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is in!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>
If anything you said was correct and not just another whining attempt at NY bashing then Ron Guidry would already be in. Nothing taken away from Morris, but he was nowhere near the pitcher Guidry was, and playing in NY didnt give him automatic entrance to the hall that you babble away about.
-- Yogi Berra
Glynnperson, there is no such thing as a 'post season player'. It is simply a guy getting hot or cold at the right/wrong time. HOWEVER, if one insists to hang their hat on it, then Morris's lifetime post season ERA is 3.90. Like I said, he cost somebody I know well upwards of TEN GRAND in the '92 post season. He was bad! You can't just remember the good and just forget the bad that comes...and the bad eventually comes to ALL players who play in enough post seasons(enough where it will even out their performances equal to their regular season performances.)
If one still insists to hang their hat on Jack Morris as being the best 'post season' pitcher of his era, then they would be wrong anyway. Orel Hershiser simply dwarfs him! So Orel is better than Morris in peak measurement, career measurement, AND his so called 'post seasonsness'. Heck, Fernando is better in post season.
Knowing the ignorance of the writers, I'm not going to take a firm stand on who belongs in the Hall of Fame, but it should be obvious on who was actually the better player, and that is what counts. It should be the Hall of Merit. The numbers I posted aren't philosophical, they are the players worth to a team in the games currency...RUNS.
You are simply ignoring his BAD moments in the post season and trying to create a mythical creature that simply does not exist. Even if you still cling to this mythical creature, he still isn't the best post season pitcher of his time(as stated in a post), as Orel Hershiser CLEARLY has that distinction over Morris.
As for the post season, I suggest you study it a little more carefully. I follow that closely too, and every year there is a guy that is labled as a post season player, or 'stepping it up' and eventually, he will have failures to equal his successes, and in the end he isn't any different of a player than what we already know based on the thousands of at bats or IP he has done in the regular season.
There is a reason why all the post season leaders in the percentage categories are the ones who have limited at bats or IP, because there hasn't been enough time to even out their performance that inevitably comes. The list goes on and on.
Tim McCarver almost blew a load lamenting over the 'big gameness' of Livan Hernandez...only to watch him get his t!ts ripped a couple of times.
If there was a profesional MLB player that could all of a sudden morph himself into a better player when the calendar turns Octboer, then why doesn't he do it more often(in the regular season) and get his team to the POST SEASON EVERY YEAR?? Jack Morris must be one hell of an idiot then if he has some hidden ability that he only saves for a few starts in his career. Why wouldn't he prevent runs at the same rate during EVERY ONE of his regular season games then? WHy?
Once he starts logging the post season innings, he runs into the bad outings just like he does in the regular season, AND HE DID run into it in the post season(cost a friend of mine close to TEN GRAND in '92). He gave up runs at the same rate as in the regular season. Some guys have post seasons where they haven't given up the same rate, simply because they haven't pitched enough innings to run into those type of stretches.
A quick exercise for a dimwit, is to past the leader boards on April 13th and you will get something along the lines I am talking about.
This area has been looked at, and PAST post season heroics is not an indicator of future post season heroics. It is simply an exceptional athlete doing his absolute best, at the most opportune time.
Had Bernie Williams retired after his first few post seasons, he would have gone down as the best 'clutch' player ever. But what happened? He played in enough post season games where he would go trhough the ups and downs...and eventually settling in at his true level(which we ALREADY KNOW BASED ON THE THOUSANDS OF SAMPLE SIN THE REGULAR SEASON).
I can't help it if you have short comings and have to cling to some hero just to take yourself through life(I understand it, but I can't change it for you).
The numbers I ran are pretty telling. If you are going to draw a conclusion based on five starts(like you are), then you shouldn't be calling anybody a fool.
Jack Morris IS a Hall of Famer, he was a great pitcher, without any regard to what an overanalyzed stat pertains!!!!!
You guys still believe that he pitched to the score, and all the other garbage, and that is shown to be totally wrong. It isn't over analyzing, it is simply providing the information on what happened.
Nothing wrong with feeling he is a Hall of Famer, but then tell Cooperstown to bring some hammer and nails as there are plenty of other guys from his era that deserve it as much or more. Include Morris, then those guys must be included too!
After all, I contend that Bo Jackson was better than Ted Williams. He could run faster, hit it further, throw better, and play better defense. Plus he had a better attitude.
P.S. The friend that lost the cash was betting on the 'BIG GAME' premise that Morris held. The fool would not listen, as I say again, past Big Game heroics do not equate to future big game heroics. The post season has the same ups and downs as the regular season. In the end, given enough games, it tends to even out. Just like it did for Morris.
P.S. I always find it humerous when people say numbers are analyzed too much etc... THEN THEY GO AHEAD AND USE A NUMBER FOR THEIR ARGUMENT. Most wins is a number...a very crummy number to use when juding who was best, but a number nonetheless.
You see, the players who choke under pressure get weeded out before they even make it to MLB. It is pressure enough just to get there. The regular season is pressure enough to sustain their existence there. To say that after going through the pressure rigors of exceling at the highest level around and then all of a sudden not be able to do it is crazy. The only thing laughable is your ignorance of what has happened.
Even look at Mr. October. If he were some player that had the ability to rise to the occasion based on the post season game, then how in the world does he have SEVEN CRUMMY POST SEASON SERIES UNDER HIS BELT? If a guy had that ability, he should be able to consistently do it. BUT NOBODY DOES. They have their good times, bad times, and so so times. I say it again, given enough post season games, a players perforamnce always starts to revert to his regular season ability.
As for my personal traits of being callled geeky, we've been through this on this board before. When somebody says that, it is the first sign that they are simply dwarfed in knowledge, and have no other recourse. I understand that, so no offense is taken on that. However, I have watched and played more baseball than you can imagine. I have been successful in parlaying my information into other meaningful gains. I would be as far from your classificatin as humanly possible. The truly geeky trait is one who has to hinge his own personal meaning onto a professional athletes supposed ability to rise to the occasion...especially a pressure that they have risen through time and time again on their path to become a MLB player.
Glynn, you may be the one who tends to see what they want to believe. Or, someone who falls under the category of "things people say without really looking at the evidence." I can't make Carl Everett believe in dinosaurs because he refuses to look at the evidence presented and just goes by his belief. If you have ever sat in a room with him and heard him maybe you would understand. You are welcome to continue to believe in the myth of a post season professional MLB player, more power to you. But it would beehove you to look at alll the information before you draw your conclusions.
P.S. Do you really think Jose Offerman is more 'clutch' than Ted Williams?? After all he has a lifetime .400 batting average in a WHOPPING 53 post season plate apperances. "Momma says, WOW!" Ted Williams checks in at .200. You would be the fool who the following year would rather have Jose Offerman in the 'big series' instead of Ted Williams. Kind of like the idiot GM's who sign players to more money than they deserve after they have a post season seemingly better than their real ability. By the way, real ability is another topic. I dare not enter that on here.
As MR. ROgers would say, "BOys and girls, the term we need to learn is SAMPLE SIZE."
Darn it Atlas, I said quit shaking, now you are spilling my orange juice!
Morris pitched 8 seasons - 5 with Detroit (81, 83, 86. 87, 88), 2 with Toronto (92,93) and 1 with Minnesota (1991) where his teams could be considered fighting for the pennant in those 8 seasons his record from August to the end of the season:
777 2/3rd innings 53 wins 31 losses 3.16 earned run average. It is even better if you take away his last season with Toronto when he went 2-5 with a 4.77 earned run average in 77 innings.
In games where he faced the team directly ahead or behind in the standings his record:
6-4 with one no decision
88 2/3 rd innings 3.45 earned run average. In those 11 starts he pitched 8 or more innings on 8 occasions.
Morris was a notoriously slow starter (although I do recall him throwing a no hitter in early April in 84) so his career earned run average from August to the end of the season is 3.56 but when they were not in a pennant race his era was 4.06.