Options
Jack Morris-Big Game Pitcher?
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Bill James just completed a 10 part series on big game pitchers. It's behind a paywall. One conclusion:
Jack Morris became famous as a Big Game pitcher based on
a) four good starts in the 1991 post-season, and
b) the fact that the people who wanted to put him in the Hall of Fame had to have something they could say, so they claimed that he was a Big Game pitcher.
But other than those four starts in the 1991 post-season, there is nothing there. His record in Big Games, other than the 1991 post-season, isn’t good; it is actually very poor. Yes, he did win some Big Game; every pitcher who has a real career does, even Frank Tanana. Jon Lester has won far more Big Games in his career than Jack Morris did, in a career that isn’t yet half as long. Doyle Alexander was 0-5 in the Post Season—but he still won more Big Games than Morris did.
If you want to advocate for a pitcher being in the Hall of Fame based on his performance in Big Games, advocate for Ron Guidry, or Jim Kaat, or Mickey Lolich, or Mike Mussina.
Jack Morris became famous as a Big Game pitcher based on
a) four good starts in the 1991 post-season, and
b) the fact that the people who wanted to put him in the Hall of Fame had to have something they could say, so they claimed that he was a Big Game pitcher.
But other than those four starts in the 1991 post-season, there is nothing there. His record in Big Games, other than the 1991 post-season, isn’t good; it is actually very poor. Yes, he did win some Big Game; every pitcher who has a real career does, even Frank Tanana. Jon Lester has won far more Big Games in his career than Jack Morris did, in a career that isn’t yet half as long. Doyle Alexander was 0-5 in the Post Season—but he still won more Big Games than Morris did.
If you want to advocate for a pitcher being in the Hall of Fame based on his performance in Big Games, advocate for Ron Guidry, or Jim Kaat, or Mickey Lolich, or Mike Mussina.
0
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
As pointed out previously with Reggie Jackson and his 'big game' heroics in the World Series.
If he indeed had an ability to rise to the occasion in the big game, then why didn't he rise to the occasion during the ALCS where he had a .227 AVG, .298 OB%, .380 SLG%??
1)Is he dumb? Does he not realize that those games are also very big, and that rising to the occasion in those games means MORE big games in the World Series?
2)Is he psychic? Does he already know that his team will advance, therefore he doesn't need to try?
3)Is he lazy? Does he only 'try' at the end?
Same goes for pitchers, and in this case, Jack Morris, in that he didn't do well in other 'big games', games that would have insured MORE Post Season games. Those same three things apply to Morris as well.
Or, it is just a matter of randomness that occurs when elite of the elite face off against each other, where there are swings and bumps, ebbs and flows, all the time.
Kind of like any other week in the regular season where a hitter bats .097, or a pitcher goes 0-2 with a 8.76 ERA....or on the other end of the spectrum some week a hitter hits .430 with four HR's, or a pitcher goes 2-0 with a 1.50 ERA.
Yeah, I heard it before, some people get nervous in pressure situations and some remain cool. Players that reach elite status in the pros have already proven they can handle those moments, or they wouldn't be there to begin with. The ones who don't keep their composure are lucky to make their High School teams.
So if ones argument is that big game players like Reggie do have that trait of excelling under pressure better than other elites, then I point to again...why so bad in those other big games? Reason 1, 2, or 3??
p.s. did james discuss what constitutes a "big game"? can a "big game" occur only in the playoffs? can there be a regular season "big game"? >>
He explained it in great detail. Big games can occur in the regular season.
<< <i>
If he indeed had an ability to rise to the occasion in the big game, then why didn't he rise to the occasion during the ALCS where he had a .227 AVG, .298 OB%, .380 SLG%??
1)Is he dumb? Does he not realize that those games are also very big, and that rising to the occasion in those games means MORE big games in the World Series?
2)Is he psychic? Does he already know that his team will advance, therefore he doesn't need to try?
3)Is he lazy? Does he only 'try' at the end?
-----
So if ones argument is that big game players like Reggie do have that trait of excelling under pressure better than other elites, then I point to again...why so bad in those other big games? Reason 1, 2, or 3?? >>
It is not a question of having a trait that allows him to excel under pressure. All that matters is whether he did or did not excel in the most important situations. The World Series games were more important that the games in May or August. And Reggie Jackson did very well in those games, the difference between the team winning the Series and losing on more than one occasion
-----
Just as those World Series hits were Big Hits, the 100+ outs in the ALCS were Big Failures. Asking if that means he is dumb, psychic or lazy are both the wrong questions to ask and extremely stupid questions. The only question that matters is 'How much did all those successes and failures help his team?'
Derek Jeter, as a result of some very good Yankee teams, been on the national stage more often in recent history than just about any other player. As a result he has had more exposure to more fans who remember plays he has made while ignoring and/or forgetting the failures. Throw in a lazy sports media that's more interested in selling sensationalism than in actual reporting and you have th combination in place to make 'clutch' hitters.
As was already mentioned if players had this innate ability to perform when it matters most why do they fail? Why wouldn't they tap into this ability all the time?
<< <i>
It is not a question of having a trait that allows him to excel under pressure. All that matters is whether he did or did not excel in the most important situations. The World Series games were more important that the games in May or August. And Reggie Jackson did very well in those games, the difference between the team winning the Series and losing on more than one occasion
-----
Just as those World Series hits were Big Hits, the 100+ outs in the ALCS were Big Failures. Asking if that means he is dumb, psychic or lazy are both the wrong questions to ask and extremely stupid questions. The only question that matters is 'How much did all those successes and failures help his team?' >>
Wrong.
When people use those instances to say certain players were better than other players who didn't happen to have a hot streak in a small sample size(World Series), then they are wrong, as are you for believing that.
Those three questions are dumb questions...because the premise is dumb that elite players do have that trait. Sometimes a dumb question is needed to get down to a dumb premise.
When you say somebody is the "best" big game pitcher, or is a better "big game" pitcher than someone else, you are in essence suggesting that they do possess that trait. As pointed out, if they did posses that trait, yes, those three questions need to be asked as to why they don't use it in other games that may be 97% as big!??
<< <i>
<< <i>
It is not a question of having a trait that allows him to excel under pressure. All that matters is whether he did or did not excel in the most important situations. The World Series games were more important that the games in May or August. And Reggie Jackson did very well in those games, the difference between the team winning the Series and losing on more than one occasion
-----
Just as those World Series hits were Big Hits, the 100+ outs in the ALCS were Big Failures. Asking if that means he is dumb, psychic or lazy are both the wrong questions to ask and extremely stupid questions. The only question that matters is 'How much did all those successes and failures help his team?' >>
Wrong.
When people use those instances to say certain players were better than other players who didn't happen to have a hot streak in a small sample size(World Series), then they are wrong, as are you for believing that.
Those three questions are dumb questions...because the premise is dumb that elite players do have that trait. Sometimes a dumb question is needed to get down to a dumb premise.
When you say somebody is the "best" big game pitcher, or is a better "big game" pitcher than someone else, you are in essence suggesting that they do possess that trait. As pointed out, if they did posses that trait, yes, those three questions need to be asked as to why they don't use it in other games that may be 97% as big!?? >>
Skin is spot on and 100% correct, imo.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I'd feel comfortable having Jack Morris start a big game for me
MJ >>
Hopefully you'll get the '84 or '91 Morris and not the '87 or '92 Morris.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'd feel comfortable having Jack Morris start a big game for me
MJ >>
Hopefully you'll get the '84 or '91 Morris and not the '87 or '92 Morris. >>
I try not to over think questions like this. I tend to put more weight on a WS game 7 with zero margin for error. Morris exuded confidence so I would take my chances trotting him out in a similar situation. There are big games and then there are BIG games.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'd feel comfortable having Jack Morris start a big game for me
MJ >>
Hopefully you'll get the '84 or '91 Morris and not the '87 or '92 Morris. >>
I try not to over think questions like this. I tend to put more weight on a WS game 7 with zero margin for error. Morris exuded confidence so I would take my chances trotting him out in a similar situation. There are big games and then there are BIG games.
MJ >>
He did pitch a masterful Game 7 in the 1991 World Series, no question, and I suppose that one game is the primary reason he is considered a big game pitcher. But good thing the Jays didn't need him to step up for the 1992 World Series the following season, as he did all he could to dispel that reputation going 0-2 with an 8.44 ERA during that series.
When all was said and done, Morris' career postseason ERA of 3.80 was one tenth of one run lower than his career regular season ERA of 3.90.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'd feel comfortable having Jack Morris start a big game for me
MJ >>
Hopefully you'll get the '84 or '91 Morris and not the '87 or '92 Morris. >>
I try not to over think questions like this. I tend to put more weight on a WS game 7 with zero margin for error. Morris exuded confidence so I would take my chances trotting him out in a similar situation. There are big games and then there are BIG games.
MJ >>
Like Grote said, I'm sure the Blue Jays felt the same way as you in the following post season
Morris was a better than average MLB pitcher, so of course there should be a positive level of confidence whenever he was pitching...however, your reasoning above is suggesting that he somehow was able to put on a cape based on the game, and since he had a great game 7, you feel that you would be confident that he would be the perfect pitcher for future big games.
However, as we saw the next year, it could just as easily go the other way in a small amount of games.
Which leads to the three questions again:
1)Was Morris stupid for not thinking the 1992 WS games were big games? Were they not as important as 1991?
2)Was he psychic? Did he alreaady know that the Blue Jays were so good, therefore he didn't need to exude that confidence and try as hard?
3) Was he lazy? Therefore he just didn't care to try hard?
He has 3,800 innings pitched in the highest level elite competiition on the planet to tell you how good a pitcher he was...yet you use just 10 innings from one game to come to your conclusion?? Furthermore, why those 10 'important' innings? Why not use the 10 World Series innings on Oct 17(the pivotal first game) and 22(the clinching game) in 1992 where he gave up 10 runs? He must have been psychic.
Or, how about his first five innings in the 1991 playoffs where he gave up four runs? Did he pitch poorly on purpose so he could come to the rescue later on, knowing there would be a game 7 heroic possibility?
There are 3,800 innings that tell you all you need to know, all of which are high stakes. If he truly did have some extra confidence in that game 7(that other elite pitchers must not have), then why didn't he use it more in those other 3,800 innings?
I guess Len Barker's teams' really messed up by not pitching him on July 22 more often
It is a good thing nobody sought Ray Knight after his WS MVP...oh wait, Baltimore did! Not sure why Knight didn't use those big game heroics, and use them for the Orioles the next year. Not sure why he couldn't call upon himself to do better than an OPS + of 83. Or maybe Knight was just waiting for the Orioles to get to the playoffs before he would decide to show them what he REALLY could do!
Finally, it is one thing to say a player "had a big performance in a big game," but it is quite another to then proclaim him a "big game player" based on that performance.
Morris HOF? Falls a little short for me. Big game pitcher? Id say so.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>There is nothing like a game 7. Everything is amplified. Game 7 is all 170+ games up to that point rolled up into one. Nothing like it.
Morris HOF? Falls a little short for me. Big game pitcher? Id say so.
MJ >>
LOL, you are welcome to that stance, even though it makes zero sense based on all the evidence.
Then you are saying that Morris is either;
1)Stupid
2)Psychic
3) Lazy
So in your faulty adjective of "Big game pitcher", you get to choose one of those three that must accompany it
You should find a team to bring Len Barker out of retirement, and just pitch him on July 22nd, lol.
Morris HOF? Falls a little short for me. Big game pitcher? Id say so.
MJ >>
Who should I believe. You say he is a big game pitcher because of game 7 of the 91 WS. I do not know your credentials.
OTOH,we have Bill James, a man who revolutionized the way many people look at the game. He makes his living being right about baseball. He has made contributions to a team that has won three WS in ten years. He did an in depth study of big game pitchers. His conclusion:
OK, we have come, at last, back to the can opener which opened this particular can of worms, which is the question: Was Jack Morris, in fact, a Big Game Pitcher?
He was not.
He had the one brilliant post-season, of course, but other than that one three-week period he absolutely was not; it is not questionable, it is not debatable, it is not unclear. It does not seem likely that the conclusion could be altered by studying the question in a different way. Jack Morris did not have a great or even good record in Big Games, and the people who believe that he did believe that because they believe that, but not because there is any actual evidence for it.
Of course, he could be wrong. I will balance the two arguments and try to decide which is more credible.
Question-Was Ralph Terry a big game pitcher because he won game 7 of the 62 WS 1-0 with a complete game 4 hitter,or was he a choking dog because he gave up Maz's HR (the only batter he faced) in game 7 of the 60 WS? Is Morris even in the discussion of a big game pitcher if Lonnie Smith had not make a base running error, and had scored?
<< <i>When people use those instances to say certain players were better than other players who didn't happen to have a hot streak in a small sample size(World Series), then they are wrong, as are you for believing that. >>
You love making straw man arguments.
Like the vast majority of people I simply believe some situations are bigger than others. Hits that happen in the biggest situation can be called Big Hits, like Reggie Jackson in the 1977 World Series. Likewise, game seven of the 1991 World Series was a Big Game and Jack Morris pitched well that day
Now please come up with something completely different from what I wrote and explain why a position I don't have is wrong
<< <i>
Finally, it is one thing to say a player "had a big performance in a big game," but it is quite another to then proclaim him a "big game player" based on that performance. >>
NVBaseball,
The above is my quote. If you are agreeing with that, then I don't have anything to say about it, as there really is nothing to say...other than also noting that today is Saturday.
However, if one is saying the stuff that Justacommonman is saying, that is a whole new ballgame.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Finally, it is one thing to say a player "had a big performance in a big game," but it is quite another to then proclaim him a "big game player" based on that performance. >>
NVBaseball,
The above is my quote. If you are agreeing with that, then I don't have anything to say about it, as there really is nothing to say...other than also noting that today is Saturday.
However, if one is saying the stuff that Justacommonman is saying, that is a whole new ballgame. >>
I agree with you-I had the same reaction. Is there a cause and effect; can it be proven (or disproven)? Back to Ralph Terry-hero or a choking dog? Or perhaps he's just a pitcher who pitched well one day, and not so well the other day? Reggie Jackson struck out in a high leverage situation to end the game early in the series (don't remember if it was 1 or 2 ). Jackson struck out a lot, and hit lots of HRs. Given enough opportunities, he will do some of each. If Reggie had not been so pathetic in the LCSs, he might have been in more WSs.
The history of the post-season is full of marginal players who did well-Mark Lemke, Rick Dempsey, Kiko Garcia, Billy Hatcher, Al Weiss, David Freese, David Eckstein, and one of the Doyle brothers. Does that make them big game players? Not to me.
<< <i>
Finally, it is one thing to say a player "had a big performance in a big game," but it is quite another to then proclaim him a "big game player" based on that performance. >>
Holy picking nits out of sh-t
<< <i>
<< <i>
Finally, it is one thing to say a player "had a big performance in a big game," but it is quite another to then proclaim him a "big game player" based on that performance. >>
Holy picking nits out of sh-t >>
If you think that is nitpicking, I believe this discussion is waaaaaay over your head. I believe that distinction is the heart of the issue.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Finally, it is one thing to say a player "had a big performance in a big game," but it is quite another to then proclaim him a "big game player" based on that performance. >>
Holy picking nits out of sh-t >>
If you think that is nitpicking, I believe this discussion is waaaaaay over your head. I believe that distinction is the heart of the issue. >>
Agreed. That is the entire premise of the debate, or lack thereof.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Not all of us have man crushes on Bill James.
MJ >>
No, just a crush on common sense, evidence, and logic.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Finally, it is one thing to say a player "had a big performance in a big game," but it is quite another to then proclaim him a "big game player" based on that performance. >>
Holy picking nits out of sh-t >>
Then you must be in the same camp as Justacommon man, and believe in this mythical ability that Jack Morris had, an ability he failed to call upon in 98% of his outings. Seems to me, if I had that ability, I would use it far more than he did
Yes he had a bad 92 WS. Still was on the winning team. He was pretty good in the 84 WS.
Again, I would have no issue starting him in a big game. Of course if Bill James was available I would start him instead.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Let's see. Morris is 2-0 in argueably the best World Series of all- time. In game 7 he pitches ten innings of shut out baseball vs John Smoltz ( big game pitcher) and WINS 1-0. He has like 4 rings and started more opening days then anybody ever I believe. WS MVP and somehow he is just an above average pitcher. Ok got it.
Yes he had a bad 92 WS. Still was on the winning team. He was pretty good in the 84 WS.
Again, I would have no issue starting him in a big game. Of course if Bill James was available I would start him instead.
MJ >>
I don't think anyone here is trying to take away what Morris did in the '91 World Series. No question he was brilliant that series. But if you look at his career numbers, his postseason ERA of 3.80 all time is essentially the same as his career regular season ERA of 3.90. And therein lies the crux of the issue--that given a large enough sample size, a pitcher's stats and performance will revert to his personal mean. The entire concept of a "big game" or "clutch" pitcher is really just a fallacy, but in sports, fans love its romantic notion, which is understandable given our personal connection to the game on many levels. But factually, the concept truly has no basis. Most good pitchers are like Ralph Terry (and Jack Morris, for that matter)~they will put up some very impressive performances (which fans will fondly recall) and some very below average performances (which fans will try and forget). And no one here (I believe) is saying that Morris was not a very good pitcher, if not a "big game" one..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Let's see. Morris is 2-0 in argueably the best World Series of all- time. In game 7 he pitches ten innings of shut out baseball vs John Smoltz ( big game pitcher) and WINS 1-0. He has like 4 rings and started more opening days then anybody ever I believe. WS MVP and somehow he is just an above average pitcher. Ok got it.
Yes he had a bad 92 WS. Still was on the winning team. He was pretty good in the 84 WS.
Again, I would have no issue starting him in a big game. Of course if Bill James was available I would start him instead.
MJ >>
Then you would lose as I would start Morris. Morris' ERA over the course of his career was barely better than the league average. You can have him.
His post-season ERA is virtually the same as it is for the regular season. FWIW, he does not have four rings, nor does he hold the record for opening day starts. He was a decent pitcher for teams that scored a lot of runs.
<< <i>Let's see. Morris is 2-0 in argueably the best World Series of all- time. In game 7 he pitches ten innings of shut out baseball vs John Smoltz ( big game pitcher) and WINS 1-0. He has like 4 rings and started more opening days then anybody ever I believe. WS MVP and somehow he is just an above average pitcher. Ok got it.
Yes he had a bad 92 WS. Still was on the winning team. He was pretty good in the 84 WS.
Again, I would have no issue starting him in a big game. Of course if Bill James was available I would start him instead.
MJ >>
Nor would I have an issue starting him in a big game. In his prime, he was All-Star caliber, and a horse. He even remained a horse at an older age.
However, none of that means he has a special ability as a big game pitcher...an ability that other elite pitchers(many of whom are better) 'don't have' based on your criteria. That is the issue.
Why didn't he use that big game ability in the '92 series? Was he stupid for not using it? Did he know they were going to win, so he pitched so poorly, making him psychic? Was he just too lazy to try?
He was a good pitcher who just happened to pitch a great game in a big moment. The notion he was a big game pitcher is a complete myth. I understand why people hang onto such myths...makes them feel good...kind of the same reason why superhero movies are so popular. I get it.
Stupid
Psychic
Lazy
Based on your criteria of calling him a big game pitcher, those three must also be applied to him.
So your sentence should read, "Jack Morris was big game pitcher, and he was also stupid, psychic, and lazy."
Based on your fluffery above, Tom Seaver started four World Series games...his teams lost three of them! Hmmmm...so based on what you are saying, you would choose Morris over Seaver whenever a big game arises. I get it.
Based on your criteria, you would chose Ray Knight in a big game over Mike Schmidt.
Grote- well noted and respected.
Bill James- meh
Enjoy the SB
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Finally, it is one thing to say a player "had a big performance in a big game," but it is quite another to then proclaim him a "big game player" based on that performance. >>
Holy picking nits out of sh-t >>
If you think that is nitpicking, I believe this discussion is waaaaaay over your head. I believe that distinction is the heart of the issue. >>
I believe that if a player does well in big games, by definition he is a big game player. Isn't that the exact same position Bill James takes when he ranks the top 11 Big Game Pitchers?
Trying to argue that such a definition is wrong absolutely is nit picking and has nothing to do with whether or not this stuff is over my head
<< <i>Then you must be in the same camp as Justacommon man, and believe in this mythical ability that Jack Morris had, an ability he failed to call upon in 98% of his outings. Seems to me, if I had that ability, I would use it far more than he did
I have never come close to saying anything of that sort. Pretty obvious you have nothing but a straw man argument
I believe game seven of the 1991 World Series was a big game. I also believe Jack Morris pitched well in that game. That has absolutely nothing to do with any of that ridiculous crap about mythical abilities, stupidity, psychic abilities or laziness -- stupid stuff that only you bring up
I believe that if a player does well in big games, by definition he is a big game player. Isn't that the exact same position Bill James takes when he ranks the top 11 Big Game Pitchers?
Trying to argue that such a definition is wrong absolutely is nit picking and has nothing to do with whether or not this stuff is over my head >>
So what you are saying is that you read a scoreboard? What if a picher is big in one big game, but gets lit up in another big game? What do we call that?
<< <i>
I believe game seven of the 1991 World Series was a big game. I also believe Jack Morris pitched well in that game. >>
Great...and that is about as insightful as saying today is Monday. If that is your premise, so be it.
However, you are still saying that Morris is a "big game pitcher" based on his outing in that game...which suggests you do believe in the mythical stuff. Wouldn't a big game pitcher be big game in the 1992 World Series too? If not, then how is he a big game pitcher?
Wouldn't a big game pitcher be big in games that are 97% as important as his biggest games? Or does he choose to only be a big game pitcher in game 7's? It can't be in World Series clinching games, because in his opportunity to clinch the World Series in 1992, he got shelled.
So, basically, your stance is that Jack Morris is the best Game 7 World Series pitcher to be found...which has about the same validity as saying that Len Barker is the best July 22 pitcher around...and you would choose both of them for those instances whenever you could.
You keep saying I am making a strawman argument...but it would help if you make a point with more insight than just stating what today's date is. If that is all your point is, then great, time to move on. Today is Monday, Jack Morris pitched a great game 7 in 1991, and we live in the United States. Superb.
<< <i>Let's see. Morris is 2-0 in argueably the best World Series of all- time. In game 7 he pitches ten innings of shut out baseball vs John Smoltz ( big game pitcher) and WINS 1-0. He has like 4 rings and started more opening days then anybody ever I believe. WS MVP and somehow he is just an above average pitcher. Ok got it. >>
He has a career postseason ERA of 3.80. His career regular season ERA was 3.90. You want to pick and choose which stats you use to support your position, without looking at the entire body of work. As it is, he only pitched about 50 innings in the world series. That's hardly a substantial amount of innings in which to gather any data.
But that's irrelevant. The idea that some players can 'rise to the challenge' is a just a myth that isn't backed up by any sort of reasonable statistical analysis.
<< <i>Yes he had a bad 92 WS. Still was on the winning team. He was pretty good in the 84 WS. >>
In 1992 he was lucky to be on the winning team. The team won in spite of him, not because of him.
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's see. Morris is 2-0 in argueably the best World Series of all- time. In game 7 he pitches ten innings of shut out baseball vs John Smoltz ( big game pitcher) and WINS 1-0. He has like 4 rings and started more opening days then anybody ever I believe. WS MVP and somehow he is just an above average pitcher. Ok got it. >>
He has a career postseason ERA of 3.80. His career regular season ERA was 3.90. You want to pick and choose which stats you use to support your position, without looking at the entire body of work. As it is, he only pitched about 50 innings in the world series. That's hardly a substantial amount of innings in which to gather any data.
But that's irrelevant. The idea that some players can 'rise to the challenge' is a just a myth that isn't backed up by any sort of reasonable statistical analysis.
<< <i>Yes he had a bad 92 WS. Still was on the winning team. He was pretty good in the 84 WS. >>
In 1992 he was lucky to be on the winning team. The team won in spite of him, not because of him. >>
I feel so much better about my position now.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i> What if a picher is big in one big game, but gets lit up in another big game? What do we call that? >>
We call it somewhere between great and horrible and up to us to decide exactly where he ranks. Again, isn't that exactly what Bill James is doing?
<< <i>
I believe game seven of the 1991 World Series was a big game. I also believe Jack Morris pitched well in that game. >>
Great...and that is about as insightful as saying today is Monday. If that is your premise, so be it. >>
Or about as insightful as your ridiculous ideas about laziness and psychic ability
<< <i>
However, you are still saying that Morris is a "big game pitcher" based on his outing in that game... >>
I never once said that
<< <i>which suggests you do believe in the mythical stuff. Wouldn't a big game pitcher be big game in the 1992 World Series too? If not, then how is he a big game pitcher? >>
Because he did very little other than that one game, it is easy to see he isn't as much of a big game pitcher as others like Gibson, Schilling, Smoltz, Johnnson, Mussina or plenty of others Bill James discusses. That isn't based on mythology, that's based on what actually happened when the pitcher had the ball in their hands
<< <i>So, basically, your stance is that Jack Morris is the best Game 7 World Series pitcher to be found...which has about the same validity as saying that Len Barker is the best July 22 pitcher around...and you would choose both of them for those instances whenever you could. >>
The decision to start Morris in Game 7 in 1991 worked out very well for the Twins. Again, all this is based entirely on what happened. Obviously it doesn't offer much insight, but at least it's correct. It can at least be used as one piece in how we view his career. Your points about mythology, laziness and psychic abilities are both completely stupid and completely incorrect
Tomorrow is tuesday.
That is about the extent of your contribution to this debate, I appreciate it. Let me know when it turns to Wednesday.
You keep claiming you don't believe in the myth of the big game pitcher, but then continue to offer evidence that 1)you do believe in it, or 2)evidence that is as pointless as saying today is Monday.
Take your pick.
<< <i>
You keep claiming you don't believe in the myth of the big game pitcher, but then continue to offer evidence that 1)you do believe in it, or 2)evidence that is as pointless as saying today is Monday. >>
If the evidence is as clear to you as the day of the week, why do you insist on calling it a myth?
That is fine, but unfortunately there are many who do, and who use the vacuum sample size of the '91 World Series and Game 7 from that series as the proof for such a categorization.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
You keep claiming you don't believe in the myth of the big game pitcher, but then continue to offer evidence that 1)you do believe in it, or 2)evidence that is as pointless as saying today is Monday. >>
If the evidence is as clear to you as the day of the week, why do you insist on calling it a myth? >>
The evidence you provide ISN"T clear, and that is part of the problem.
You claim you don't believe in the big game myth, yet you continue to talk as if you do(like your above quote)...or like I said, you just like stating things that are about as relevant as saying today is Tuesday.
Or, like Grote said, you may just like being obtuse.
Make a point, or at least be clear. Justacommonman has made his point and stance clear...as misguided and homeristic as it is...at least it is clear.
Yeah, I know, Morris pitched a great game seven...that is your point. We know Morris pitched a great game 7, just as we know green and purple are colors that can be found in a crayon box, that today is Tuesday, and that it is 2014.
Point is....your point doesn't mean Morris was a big game pitcher.
<< <i>I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that NV is being intentionally obtuse. That, or he just doesn't actually want to come out and say that he views Morris as a "big game" or "clutch" pitcher, or doesn't believe in such terminology.
That is fine, but unfortunately there are many who do, and who use the vacuum sample size of the '91 World Series and Game 7 from that series as the proof for such a categorization. >>
There are also a lot of people who don't view Morris as someone who did exceptionally well in big games. He did well in one of them and not so well in plenty of others. But the things he did when he was on the mount should be the only things we base our evaluations on. When I first said that in response to skin, he flat out said it was wrong
<< <i>Make a point, or at least be clear. Justacommonman has made his point and stance clear...as misguided and homeristic as it is...at least it is clear. >>
The very first thing I wrote: "The only question that matters is 'How much did all those successes and failures help his team?'"
You said that was wrong. That being able to answer if someone was dumb, psychic or lazy was a more important question. To evaluate how good a player was, the only thing that should matter is what he did when he was on the field. A good game in 1991 should be included in that -- and if it happened to be in the World Series, it should carry more weight than one in May.
<< <i>Yeah, I know, Morris pitched a great game seven...that is your point. We know Morris pitched a great game 7, just as we know green and purple are colors that can be found in a crayon box, that today is Tuesday, and that it is 2014. >>
But what's your point exactly? Whatever it is, it hasn't been expressed very clearly. That Morris wasn't always very good in big games? Isn't that just as insightful as the day of the week or that we shouldn't eat crayons?
<< <i>Point is....your point doesn't mean Morris was a big game pitcher. >>
That's because Morris wasn't a great big game pitcher. We know that because of what he did when he actually pitched in big games. Which is the only thing that should matter, yet somehow you couldn't accept that and instead create these straw man arguments
Today is Tuesday...may as well just state that and move on.
He wasn't, so he isn't. Why is this point lost on so many people? Are those defending him so enslaved to the notion of Morris being a 'big game' pitcher that you are unable or unwilling to see the facts?
Look - he had a great world series one year. Fantastic. Why are you unwilling to look at the ALCS of that same year and see his 4.05 ERA, especially game 1 where he only lasted 5 1/3 innings and gave up 4 runs? Is there a bigger game than game 1 of the ALCS? If his offense hadn't bailed him out, he takes the loss, and the Twins go down 0-1 and lose home field advantage. Are we supposed to believe he 'pitched to the score' there as well?
I was going to continue with a few questions for clarification...but I'm starting to feel like Peter LaFleur when he was talking to White Goodman at the sports bar, in the movie Dodgeball. So I'm not going to.