Mussina is better than people are saying. A lack of a 20 win season means absolutely squat in terms of what really matters. Look at Mussina's rankings in the following....
ERA+ 2,2,3,4,4,4,7,7,8
IP 1,2,4,5,7,8,8,8,9
WHIP 2,2,2,2,3,4,4,4,5,10.
And since people are overly enamored with WINS, he had... 1,2,2,3,4,5,6,8.
Oh, and a 2,400 Strikeout to 684 BB ration ain't too shabby either. The dude can pitch.
He is much more dominate a player than somebody like Rafael Palmeiro was, and the support for Palmeiro on these boards, in the past, was overwhelming. Palmeiro never remotely came close to dominating his league in true value(though he did have excellent sustained longevity). Mussina acutally merits the Hall more than Palmeiro does(even without steroids as a factor).
Mussina isn't Pedro, Unit, or Maddux. BUT, he and Schilling head the next group of pitchers, as they are virtually neck and neck right now in value....both of which are already ahead of Kevin Brown, and neither are done yet.
If somebody isn't wise enough to understand the product of Mussina's ERA, then there is no point even discussing this topic with them.
Again the wins talk too. People just get stuck on these round numbers. First, wins are a Poor measure of pitchers ability...just ask the GM's who signed RIck Helling.
Second, this round number infatuation is ridiculous. Yeah, he never won 20 games, but he won 18,18,18,19, and 19. So based on people's flawed logic of round numbers, he would be a HOFer if his line was simply 17,17,18,20, and 20??? Ridiculous.
The fact is that pitchers are going to need to get elected to the Hall. It's not like they can just quit electing pitchers once Maddux, Clemens, Glavine, Rivera, Pedro and maybe Johnson get in; somebody else has to get the nod. So why not Mussina? He's a class guy (or at least appears to be), and has been a top tier starter for over a decade... if you're not going to put him in who are you going to put in (aside from the aforementioned)?
Look-- I don't root for the Yankees either. But some of this talk just gets stupid. If YOUR team had a 200 million payroll would you flood internet message boards with posts complaining about your team's spending habits? No, you wouldn't. Plus, baseball NEEDS the Yankees, if for no other reason than because they're the only team in MLB not named 'Red Sox' that's fun to watch lose.
How come Jack Morris never gets any recognition? 254 wins, winningest pitcher in the 80's, three 20-win seasons, almost there 3 or 4 other times, 3 rings, including a WS MVP, 175 complete games, and a no-hitter in the mix. Does anyone remember the 10 inning complete game he pitched in the '91 World Series?
Glad you dropped in! I agree with what you say about Mussina and Schilling. I have not looked too deep into how they fair against Kevin Brown, but it seems like you already looked into it. I thought Brown was ahead of David Cone, Mussina and Schilling but behind Tom Glavine in terms of how close they are to the Group of Maddux, Johnson, Clemens and Pedro.
So, I guess Brown does not have a chance? Then that means Cone is unspeakable.... John Smoltz is an unusual case because he spent time as a starter and stopper, but was excellent at both.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Now I'm on the chit list. I annoyed Ax. There were never problems between us before.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Actually, Guidry and Stieb were both better than Jack Morris. Morris was excellent and logged a lot of innings, but run support played a big role in the number of his wins. Guidry and Stieb were both better. Of course many of the Jack Morris fans believe in the myth of "He knows how to win," or "He pitches to the score." Both of those theories were both shown to be incorrect of course, as the reason why he had a lot of wins despite a high ERA is because of run support(good fortune).
There is an excellent article on Jack Morris in the Baseball Prospectus that talks about his Hall of Fame chances and the question of whether or not he pitched better than his 3.90 era would indicate.
Aro, there is nothing like examining the play by play data. When looking at every single instance, it tells a whole lot.
Most of the common claims that good stat people refute aren't based on conjecture, but on a simple charting of what ACTUALLY happened...much like I did when I refuted that guys claim about Joe Carter winning dozens of games in the late innings on Fenway(in reality he may have had one game that fit the guys criteria, let alone dozens).
The people who hate good stat people and their conclusions, are the people who just had their baloon burst(or their hero put into a more truthful light).
As for Morris pitching to the score, just common sense should tell you that is ridiculous. If he had that ability, and he played on a team that averaged 1.5 runs per game, then his ERA should be below 1.50 for his career if he had the ability to pitch to the score. As the article said, he gave up the first run quite often, and was simply bailed out by a good offense to earn many wins. Nobody knocks his durability(IP), as that puts him as a better pitcher than simply looking at his ERA+, but it doesn't put him into the Hall.
Of course, common sense is wasted on many sports fans, so it often takes a detailed examination to show otherwise. In those cases only zealots refuse to believe, hence the Carl Everett dinosaur references I sometimes make. If you have ever sat in a room and listened to Carl Everett totally disregard any tangible evidence of dinsoaurs existence, then everyone should understand.
That play by play data is awesome. I suggest everyone go through it to see how strikeouts by a batter aren't as bad as they think, etc... There is so much.
Jeez, people have to analyze too many things stat related, to come to conclusions. Fact is, Jack Morris was a workhorse, won games, and now I read that he is not a hall of famer in some minds, because he was on a good team, basically, most of his career. I hear Pedro is a definite hall of famer, he has now, 202 wins, but I suppose the Boston offense sucked when he played there. It is a simple fact for a pitcher and a team, let's say, a team scores 5-10 runs in a game, the pitcher is more apt to not play the "pitching game," and throw more balls for strikes, to move the game along and get it over, since there is margin for error. Many of those strikes are often hit. Fact is, when it was time to be a pitcher, Jack Morris stepped up to the plate! In years that Jack Morris "had a team," his ERA hovered at the 3.20-3.50 per game, not bad in my mind. One thing to ponder, in some instances, are games in which a player lost, cause let's face it, even the best pitchers have blown games, hell, Roger Clemens lost a game in which he went for #300, against a hapless Tigers team. Jack Morris also had a couple bad years, as some pitchers have, Roger Clemens and Pedro Martinez had a few seasons with inflated ERAs also. Much of that is attributed to crappy teams that were played on. In Roger Clemen's years with the oh so-called mightly Yankees, his ERA is 4.60, 3.70, 3.51, 4.35, and 3.91 respectively. Why would one say those averages are high, because he pitched for a run scoring team, that in a sense, allowed him room for error. Sure, I love the style of Clemens, and I do realise he has such and such number of wins and Ks, but if one is knocking Jack Morris, for an ERA, then I do not see why one cannot compare the two in one category. Greg Maddux, yes, a great pitcher, yes, a hall of famer, also had inflated ERAs as a Cub, his ERA lowered when he played with whom, the Braves, another great team, regardless of how many titles they have won. I started a thread about a week ago, comparing Ivan Rodriguez, Johnny Bench, and Carlton Fisk, and how statistically, I-Rod is better in many categories, but I am also told that eras cannot be compared, etc, etc, and still people have to toss in the "steroid" question, as if everyone took them. I do recall, Johnny Bench played on a stacked Reds team, he is before my time on earth, but he played on teams that made it much harder to pitch around a certain player. Randy Johnson also has years of an inflated ERA, I am sure, much of it is attributed to playing on average-at-best teams. Why does anyone not knock their ERAs, as I see Jack Morris' is. The Tigers were the winningest team of the 80s, but they did NOT win every World Series title, there were a few years in the mix, where they were horrible, at best, average. A fact is a fact is a fact, Jack Morris should be in the hall of fame, he was one of the greats of his time, who made a good team better, and when games really counted, he showed his stuff.
Here are some post-season records for you to also ponder since everyone analyzes everything:
Pedro Martinez, 11 games started, 6-2 record, 55%, 3.80 ERA Jack Morris, 13 games started, 7-4 record, 54%, 3.80 ERA Randy Johnson, 15 games started, 7-8 record, 47%, 3.28 ERA Gred Maddux, 29 games started, 11-14 record, 38%, 3.22 ERA Roger Clemens, 33 games started, 12-8 record, 36%, 3.71 ERA
As you can see, Jack Morris did perform as well or better when games really counted, as compared to the hall of fame locks! I am not sitting here saying that Jack Morris is the best of all time, only saying, he should be a hall of famer, regardless of how a couple seasons impacted his ERA! By the way, Mike Mussina also has seasons of high ERAs, also highly inflated with the Yankees if you look, and his post season record is 7-7 in 20 games started, a miniscule 35%, so I will keep up with the reason this thread was started for. When the games count, I would take Jack Morris anyday of the week!
I feel he (MORRIS)belongs in because he was one of the great big game pitchers of his era. Thats enough for me in the biggest games he played the best. You cant talk about the great players of his era and not mention him that to me is a hall of famer. I may be easy but that is how i feel.
Hardcore is right on. Last season Clemens was shutout I think 9 times! If one goes back and looks at each game he pitched one will find that he had little RUN support. His ERA? 1.87
backtrack to his Yankee years.......................I think you get the point.
I know when I pitch with a big lead my job is to throw strikes, batters are more apt to take one and there is no need to be fine.
Hardcore, the article address most of your points, and quite matter of factly. Era's do play a big role in what the numbers look like(that is another long topic).
As for the post season numbers, you are drawing conclusions based on 11 to 30 games from those pitchers...that is crazy. Given enough IP or AB, a players post season stats start to normalize to what their regular season stats tell you.
Take Bernie Williams. Had he retired after his first few post seasons, he would have been labled the BEST CLUTCH player ever! But given enough time for things to even out(as they always do in baseball), his post season stats tell you what his regular season stats already do.
Heck, even your guy Jack Morris has a lifetime post season ERA of 3.80 compared to 3.90 in the regular season. What is so special about that? If he was some post season god, then he sure didn't show it in the '92 post season where he was pretty bad. Livan Hernandez, likewise to Bernie WIlliams.
The bottom line is that "Pitching to the score," and "knowing how to win" are just myths to explain Jack Morris's high win total compared to what his ERA says.
Winpitcher, in mens league, or little leagues etc... you get to face a lot of players who's abilities are so varied, that it may be possible to apply those theories in THOSE LEAGUES. The talent discrepency just isn't nearly the same in MLB. ON any given day, even the worst hitter in the league can have better games than the absolute BEST hitter in the league in MLB. That just doens't happen in men's leagues. I've played many of games, and have pitched many of games. There are certain players and certain teams who just weren't in my class(or my team's class). Against those guys, I only threw fastballs because I know they couldn't have a chance.
You can't do that in MLB, and it isn't done. This topic of pitching to the score has been charted and studied many of times, and it just doesn't occur. That article posted is a good example. I'm not sure how any reasonable human being could refute what was written in that article. It simply disproves the common notion held by Jack Morris fans. The only ones who would disagree are the zealots who's hero has been put into a more truthful light.
Let me clarify that Jack Morris's value is better than what his ERA+ indicates, simply by virtue of his excellent IP numbers. All the other junk that goes along with Jack Morris is simply hogwash.
My main point was how Roger Clemens had an ERA of 1,87 last season. He was shutout 9 times. Almost every game was tight.
I was not arguing with you. Just trying to show that in some respects pitchers (even MLB) pitch to the score. You mean to say that a guy with a 10 run lead does not pitch differently then when it is a 1-0 game?
Players pitch to get batters out, plain and simple, regardless of the score. I've never met a pitcher in my life who was willing to 'let' guys get hits off of them and plump up their ERA. Pitchers have a LOT of 'nasty' pride. Pitchers with big leads tend to give up runs at the same rate as when the games are close(regardless of any perceived motive, feeling, or perception). It is there when examing play by play data....just as in the Jack Morris example.
Jack Morris didnt' pitch to the score, the evidence is there.
Clemens didn't have a 1.87 ERA because he had some ability to pitch to the score. More run support simply means more wins and no difference in ERA. That has been studied ad nauseum. Jeez, just look at clemens himself. One year with Boston he has a 3.60 ERA and wins 10 games. Another year with NY he has a 3.50 ERA and wins 20. The only difference was good fortune.
Clemens didn't all of a sudden sport a 1.87 ERA because HE HAD TO DO IT BECAUSE OF LACK OF RUNS. He did that because he was damn good, just like in 1997 when he had a 2.05 ERA in the AMERICAN LEAGUE(which is better than a 1.87 in the NL), and he won over 20 games.
Nevermind Skip I won't argue with anyone that makes this statement:
Players pitch to get batters out, plain and simple, regardless of the score. I've never met a pitcher in my life who was willing to 'let' guys get hits off of them and plump up their ERA
No $hit , I always thought one allowed guys to get basehitsoff them.
Steve, pitchers may change their approach a tad with regard to the score, BUT it usually doesn't translate into anything different in terms of amount of runs given up, than when the score is close.
They may end up giving that extra home run up because of throwing more strikes, but it is often simply balanced out by not walking as many.
Pitchers are also simply not in many 10-1 games. The most common run differential in a MLB game is ONE RUN.
Even if a guy did exist where he pitched to the score in a blowout, it would only move his ERA just a tad, and it doesn't really change what we already know about him.
That information is there, and anyone can research it. The most common run differential is one run, followed by two runs. No, I don't have that chart on the ready, but it is there. You are welcome to dispute it. All you have to do is do a quick check and see that most teams fall within a one run per game differential for the year. If everyone is averaging within about one run per game, that usually would translate on an actual per game score as well....which it does as we already know.
Steve, all ANYONE has to do to put this debate to bed about Jack Morris is realize this(and it will show you what I mean about one run as well).
1,224 of his IP were with a tie score, and his ERA in those IP was a robust 3.97 945 of his IP were with a one run environment and his ERA in thos IP was a stinky 4.40.
The vast majority of his Innings were in close games, and that is what his ERA was. So this whole notion of pitching when it counts is hogwash. A tied game environment sure counts in my book, and I'm not sure why people get so wet off a guy who has a 3.97 ERA in that situation. How they can proclaim he is some mythic ability changer is a head scratcher.
As for the one run differential. His IP is most with a tie score environment(1,224 IP), second with a one runs environment(945), and it continues incrementally down the list right in order....dwindling the farther it gets away from a tie game environment.
HE HAS A GRAND TOTAL OF 343 IP IN 5 run or more differentials. Thats it.
Like I said, a pitcher does his job to prevent runs. His wins totals is very dependant on what his teammates do. To assign a value to a SP based on the ability of his teammates is quite foolish.
"Morris actually put his team behind in 344 of his 527 career starts", as quoted in the article, that pretty much says it all!
Morris actually put his team behind in 344 of his 527 career starts", as quoted in the article, that pretty much says it all!
Hold on skippy you can't have it both ways. He put his team behind? you mean the other 8 guys all played flawless defense? that is was all him? that he gave up hit after hit after hit in everyone of those 344 games? That he was the only guy to make an error? That in some instances the relief guy did not "hold'? That after the opponent took a lead the Tiger batters all went to sleep?
baseball is a team sport, yes it is quite possible that he did not hold a lead in 344 of 527 games. But to say it was all him is folly.
5 or more runs in 343 innings accounts for almost 10 percent of his total. Making it possibly just as common as any other combined differential. I think at times it does NOT paint a accurate picture when one delves into stats so deeply. Too many intangible can muck it up.
lastly, this is my first post regarding Morris. I, in all my previous posts was speaking of pitching in general. I think cuz i agreed with a poster who used Morris as an example you thought I was defending Morris. With that said his lifetime Era of 3.90 is almost .20 below the league average for his career.
As for the 1 run game being most common I found that it is quite possibly true. HOWEVER it is done something like 14 pct of the time. Hardly enough to create the impression that all games are tight.
Steve, if you can find that his defense gave up an unproportionally amount of runs(compared with the average defense), then show me(I'll give you a hint...IT DIDN"T). That figure of giving up the lead is with him on the mound and doens't even include relief pitchers!! Counting inherited runners would make that figure worse. Tiger batters didn't go to sleep. They bailed him out time after time after time!
Steve,...2,169 of his IP were pitched when the game was either tied or within a run!! You can not get any closer than that!! HIS RUNS ALLOWED IN THOSE IP IS 4.15!!
The fact is, most IP from a starting pitcher are done when the game is close.
Steve, Jack Morris's runs allowed for 3,700+ IP is 4.27.
How significant of an impact does the blowout games affect his runs allowed??
If you subtract all his IP when the lead was FOUR OR MORE(when he would change his approach), his lifetime runs allowed changes too.....
4.26! A major change from 4.27.
Bottom line is, the limited number of blowout innings that a starting pitcher partakes in, does nothing to change the impression of what his overall ERA+ tells you.
Steve, I never said Morris was bad, in fact I claimed him as excellent(most due to his IP and better than average ERA). But to say he is better(or anyone is better) than what his ERA+ shows by claiming his ERA took a big hit because he tended to let up in blowout wins, is pure folly.
Steve, all the numbers have been looked at, and not just Morris. It leads to the same conlcusion. Pitching to the score really doesn't exist, and if it indeed does exist, the amount of times in those situations don't really change the ERA significantly, because the vast amount of IP from a starting pitcher are done when the game is close.
P.S. It may very well be impossible to 100% certainty to find statistically that a pitcher may or may not change his approach with a big lead. I'm an actually occured guy. Go ahead and take Morri's blowout leads into account, and do the same exercise for everybody. The conclusion won't be any different than what the numbers already say. Morris dropped .01 runs allowed per nine innings when his blowout leads were taken into consideration. So all of his backers, think of him as a lifetime 3.89 ERA guy in stead of 3.90, because that is the net effect of blowout pitching. Heck, go ahead and make him a 3.85 guy if it makes one feel better. So whats the beef then?
I am not speaking highly of Jack Morris because I am on his jock! The only thing I am saying, is Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall. His numbers do speak for themselves, and if you want to talk about eras, Jack Morris was one of the best of his era! If there is talk about Mussina and the Hall, then I just do not even see why there is never any Jack Morris talk. I am a Detroiter, I love my Tigers, and it seems that almost nobody in Detroit sports gets any respect, with the exception of perhaps Barry Sanders. The Red Wings do well all the time, nevertheless, they seemingly do not perform when it counts, but I am quite content with 3 cups in 10 years, although it ticks me off they lose, I have seen a winner in them on 3 occasions, I remember the mid 80s when they sucked! With the exception of Al Kaline, I rarely hear any talk about any former Tiger. Personally, I also feel Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker deserve to be in the Hall too, will it ever happen? Probably in 10-20 years by a veteran vote, but being career-long Tigers, I highly doubt it. Trammell and Whitaker were 2 of the best at their positions in their era. The Pistons this year had one of the best seasons in NBA history, I do not care too much for basketball, but all I EVER hear about is talk about the Lakers, the Panties, I mean Knicks, the Heat, and the Spurs. It seems to go this way all the time, the only talk there is in sports it seems, is talk about a team in California, New York, or Boston, people in other cities really can care less!!!!!!!!!
I remember 1987, Alan Trammell should have been the MVP, but it was given to George Bell, because he had the "better" season! When Cecil Fielder hit 51 homers in '91, he should have been the MVP of the league, but they gave it to I think Cal Ripken. I heard the reason why Fielder did not win the MVP, is because he did not play on a winner. Well well, Alan Trammell and the Tigers beat George Bell and the Blue Jays in the '87 season, so who was the winner? I can guarandamntee you, if Morris, Trammell, and Whitaker were Yankees or Red Sox for any length of time, their status in the Hall would have been a first year vote in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hardcore, those are different issues than the one I was debating. All of your beefs there have some merit. I do like how you pinpointed the hypocrisy of MVP voting with your comparison of Trammell/Bell, Ripken/Big butt. Ripken did deserve that one though, but it sure makes the writers look foolish by not giving it to Trammell previously though(trammell deserved it more than Bell). The history of the MVP is wrought with hypocrisy and injustice.
The HOF debates are tough, and inexact for sure. Trammell and Whitaker do get stern treatment from the voters. Trammell was actually a better player than somebody like a Lou Brock. Trammell was very good defensively! He isn't as far from Ripken as the voting will suggest.
The era those guys played in was tough and competitive, and that should play a part in HOF voting.
I simply like to put reality on the accomplishments of the player, as opposed to conjecture(in the case of Morris and having a high ERA simply because he let up in blowouts). One can make a better case for Morris using better criteria than that.
I think you have your years off with Fielder. In 1990 he hit 51 homers and finished second in the voting to Rickey Henderson. The A's won 103 games the Tigers 79. Rickey did miss 26 games so I could see making a case for Fielder but the voting was close and ended up probably the way it should have. In 1991 Fielder hit 44 dingers and Ripken won the MVP. The voting was again close, and Fielder did play on a better team but the numbers clearly favour Ripken. In 1987 Wade Boggs was clearly the best player in the American League and George Bell the Most Valuable. Trammell played in a lineup where there were 5 guys that had great offensive years (Gibson, Lemon, Evans, Nokes and Trammell). Bell played in a lineup with only himself and the firstbase platoon (Mcgriff and Fielder) having huge years. I do not think their is an anti-Detroit bias. In 84 Willie Hernandez won both MVP and Cy Young.
The Red Sox have their fair share of players that are in the Trammell, Whitaker, Morris class who are not in the Hall or even considered. Dwight Evans does not get a sniff and you could make a case he deserves the honour as much as Trammell or Whitaker.
I do not have a beef with anything sports related, actually, now I find much of it humorous. I did not try to portray that Morris let up on his pitching when he was ahead, but what I did mean is, when a pitcher has a lead, said pitcher would not "pitch around" the main guys in an opposing lineup. In some instances, an ERA is overrated, but I still feel, if a guy like Clemens shuts down all teams for a season as he did last year, he should win the Cy Young award. But the thing is, if a pitcher constantly gets excellent run support, chances are good that he may throw more fastballs down the middle, to hopefully get the quick out, since not every fastball is taken deep. Case in point, although I do not see them walking Pujols as they probably should, if the Cards are down 5-0 or somewhere around that, a pitcher would not try to pitch around him to put him on base, they would come after him to get the out. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, these past few years, all the pitchers the Yankees had, basically had inflated ERAs, comparable to the years that Morris had higher averages.
Andy Pettite, 2.88-4.70 Roger Clemens, 3.51-4.60 David Wells, 3.49-4.21 Mike Mussina, 3.15-4.59 Randy Johnson, 3.79 last year, 4.71 thus far this year and I am sure it will go down
I am not bashing either of these guys for their ERA, only saying, Morris had ERAs as good or better, some years worse, you get the point, but if the game was big, I would not mind having Morris on the mound. And as said earlier, if Morris, Trammell, or Whitaker, were Yankees for any degree of time, they would have been first ballot HOFers. I also did not try to say that Trammell was any better than Ripken, but in some ways, Ripken was overrated on some aspects. Trammell may have squeaked out 3,000 hits, if he played as many games as Ripken did, Ripken played on par, almost 4.5 seasons more than Trammell, if you do an average on a 162 game basis. But that is Ripken's main legacy in the game, and also something I would not take from him, he deserved it. Compared to Mike Mussina, Jack Morris should be voted in first.
And you are correct, any award voting is an injustice, because it is like the All-Star game, it is a popularity contest, and not necessarily who should be there, based on performance.
"Morris actually put his team behind in 344 of his 527 career starts", as quoted in the article, that pretty much says it all!
When that statement is read (by me at least) it implies that the runs were EARNED. ? Now you are saying that his defense did not play a part in those games in which the lead was lost. I find that hard to believe.
So what you are saying is that he either lost more leads then 344 or every one of those leads (his actual total) were on account of earned runs. Yes?
The customary percentage of those blown leads were a result of unearned runs I'm sure. However, it is probably a wash considering that those figures do not count the times that the relievers let in HIS baserunners to blow the lead. If it isn't a wash, then you are probably talking about 15 of those leads as caused by unearned runs. IN any event....
You guys are forgetting the one main thing...GO AHEAD AND TAKE AWAY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MORRIS'S INNINGS WHERE HE HAD A BIG LEAD AND MAY HAVE DONE THE THINGS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT...GO AND TAKE IT AWAY. WHAT IS THE RESULT.....???
His career ERA will drop all the way down to 3.85 at best. "Momma says,...WOW"
Also you guys just keep glossing over that over 2,100 of his innings pitched were when the game was tied or within one! Those are the instances you say he steps it up....well his ERA ain't any different in those situations. Your guys case about pitching to the score really has no legs to stand on. Again, a pitcher may very well change his approach, but it doesn't TRANSLATE INTO ANYTHING DIFFERENT! It is true of Morris, and is true of MLB as a whole. IN the VERY RARE event that somebody did have a difference, it would only translate into a minor difference in his total ERA and value as a whole.
ERA+ can be flawed when comparing pitchers if one pitcher has a better defense behind him. THat can be looked at and has! In Morris's case he is on the better side of the defense behind equation, as his up the middle defense was EXCELLENT!
P.S. HARDCORE, YOU ARE COMPARING RAW ERA NUMBERS FROM AN ABSOLUTE HIGH OCTANE OFFENSIVE ERA, TO A MORE NORMAL TIME. Mussina's 3.50 ERA in the AL in 2001 is of more value than Morris's 3.50 ERA in 1981. In this instance(assuming equal run support and defense), Mussina's should garner more wins as he is outpitching his opponents to a greater degree than Morris is his opponents.
Jack Morris does pitch to the score...when he has a 2-0 lead he pitches it to a 2-2 game. When he has a 4-2 lead, he pitches it to a 4-4 game, until finally Lance Parrish hits a solo Home Run to take the lead, and then when Jim Sundberg's turn comes up he can't quite keep up with the firepower of his counterpart and Morris gets a Win. If that is what you guys mean by pitching to the score, then I have no grounds to argue against it.
the relievers let in HIS baserunners to blow the lead
Skip
Not sure if you know this but I have to believe you do. When an inherited runner scores the run (earned or unearned goes on the starters record.
I think you are arguing with me for not apparent reason other then to argue. I only agreed with hardcore. Not once did I say morris this or that.
You made a statement that he lost the lead in 344 of 527 starts. YES? or NO? and I countered with: his defense had to account for some of those blown leads. IT APPEARED that you were solely blaming Him. You answered me once with "Steve go and look up how many of those games the defense lost" that it did not matter it was a wash!. I did not make the statement you did. Why should I have to look up anything? I then asked did he lose 344 of 527 soley on earned runs? I got "customary ..............i'm sure. Well if that is the case whatever the customary amount is then it must be deducted from the 344 leads thet you have made him culpable for. YES? or NO?
My whole arguemnt (and nothing more is based on this:
If Morris (or anyone for that matter) blows a lead it is not ALWAYS his fault. The defense plays a part in it. Relievers play a part in it as they can allow INHERITED runners to score thereby skewing the pitcher of records stats.
Therefore it is impossible for HIM to have LOST the lead in 344 of 527 in the manner you say. he very well may have been the pitcher of record when 344 of 527 leads were lost BUT IT WAS NOT SOLEY HIS FAULT!.
And what his era is with or without these blown leads never was part of my question.
As for pitching to the score, you made more of a big deal over it then I did. I simply (as usual) made a comment and had it examined and re examined countless times until it proved (sorta) what you were trying to say.
I again ask, if he lost 344 of 527 leads why say it is the bottom line on him when it is concievable that OTHERS were involved in blowing those leads. Surely some other measure or yardstick will show exactly what he can be accountable for.
Steve, that number does not include unearned runs. Surely his defense gave up some of them. I am full aware that inherited runners are charged to the starter, and that is why I stated that THOSE BLOWN LEADS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT TOTAL NUMBER. He should be given partial blame for those, yet he is getting ZERO blame in that number.
In his lifetime he has give up about 155 unearned runs. On a gererous estimate, lets say that half of them were the cause of a blown lead. That would lower his number to 264 times blowing a lead.
Then add the instances where he left with runners on, and the relievers let his runs in. Again, pure estimate, he would most likely have another 20 blown leads given to his total, so it would bring a total of 284 blown leads CREDITED TO HIM.
Now I ask, should a pitcher who gives up the lead 284 times out of 527 chances be a poster boy for "pitching to the score?"
Heck, should a pitcher who gives up the lead 200 times out of 527 be that poster boy?
I'm not going to get caught up on that exact number. A number anywhere in that ballpark should shred any Jack Morris notion of what his backers claim. The main question is...
Do you still believe that Jack Morris in his career "Pitched to the score", and his ERA was only higher because he had large leads to work with? You have agreed with that claim, and said that pitchers do pitch differently in large leads, and Morris was an example of that. You also hinted that given closer games that pitchers would buckle down and pitcher better.
All of that stuff is just a non factor in player evaluation, as even if a player did have that method of work to his resume, the number ot times he pitched in blowout wins is small enough where it would only smidge his ERA a hair. So it doesn't even matter anyway.
The absolute bottom line is that if ANYONE ever says that Jack Morris was better than what his ERA showed...BECAUSE he 'Pitched to the score', they are flat out wrong. There is no way around that. I'm not sure how any reasonable human being can say otherwise when they look at it. If anyone ever says that ANY player is significantly better than what his ERA suggests by virtue of that same theory, I would like to see it.
I never said that he did pitch to the score as adamantly as you think I did. I agreed with hardcore that is all. Did the guy pitch to the score? I have no idea as i do not know what is in his or anyones mind. Does a pitcher pitch differently depending upon the score of a game? I would say yes despite what the stats would say.
I hope now that we both understand what each other was trying to say.
OK, we all seem to agree that Jack Morris was an excellent pitcher and brought into question whether the "pitching to the score" theory holds any water.
Regardless how we spin the stats, Morris was the type of pitcher any team would want. An excellent pitcher for a long stretch of time and had some fascinating post-season exploits.
I have honestly not analyzed his numbers enough to say for certain if he deserves the HOF or not. My first impression says he is a HOF, but now I have to see some more stats. I wonder how his rankings for ERA+ has been throughout his career and if it was better than Mussina/Kevin Brown/ David Cone. I would also like to compare him to Tom Glavine as well and see who has the better ERA+ track record.
I am pleasantly surprised to see Glavine, Maddux, Schilling and Mussina be on top of things so far this season. The veterans are doing as well as can be.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Look at how many years ago this thread was. Mussina did win 20 games and retired on his own terms. He did not get 300 wins, but did achieve 270 wins. I can understand retiring after a remarkable season and not sticking around to pad the stats. Seeing his votes totals from the latest HOF ballot makes me think that it is only a matter of time before he makes it in.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
@DeutscherGeist said:
Look at how many years ago this thread was. Mussina did win 20 games and retired on his own terms. He did not get 300 wins, but did achieve 270 wins. I can understand retiring after a remarkable season and not sticking around to pad the stats. Seeing his votes totals from the latest HOF ballot makes me think that it is only a matter of time before he makes it in.
He is more then deserving. With Morris in its even more of a no brainer
m
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
Comments
ERA+
2,2,3,4,4,4,7,7,8
IP
1,2,4,5,7,8,8,8,9
WHIP
2,2,2,2,3,4,4,4,5,10.
And since people are overly enamored with WINS, he had...
1,2,2,3,4,5,6,8.
Oh, and a 2,400 Strikeout to 684 BB ration ain't too shabby either. The dude can pitch.
He is much more dominate a player than somebody like Rafael Palmeiro was, and the support for Palmeiro on these boards, in the past, was overwhelming. Palmeiro never remotely came close to dominating his league in true value(though he did have excellent sustained longevity).
Mussina acutally merits the Hall more than Palmeiro does(even without steroids as a factor).
Mussina isn't Pedro, Unit, or Maddux. BUT, he and Schilling head the next group of pitchers, as they are virtually neck and neck right now in value....both of which are already ahead of Kevin Brown, and neither are done yet.
If somebody isn't wise enough to understand the product of Mussina's ERA, then there is no point even discussing this topic with them.
Again the wins talk too. People just get stuck on these round numbers. First, wins are a Poor measure of pitchers ability...just ask the GM's who signed RIck Helling.
Second, this round number infatuation is ridiculous. Yeah, he never won 20 games, but he won 18,18,18,19, and 19. So based on people's flawed logic of round numbers, he would be a HOFer if his line was simply 17,17,18,20, and 20??? Ridiculous.
Look-- I don't root for the Yankees either. But some of this talk just gets stupid. If YOUR team had a 200 million payroll would you flood internet message boards with posts complaining about your team's spending habits? No, you wouldn't. Plus, baseball NEEDS the Yankees, if for no other reason than because they're the only team in MLB not named 'Red Sox' that's fun to watch lose.
Glad you dropped in! I agree with what you say about Mussina and Schilling. I have not looked too deep into how they fair against Kevin Brown, but it seems like you already looked into it. I thought Brown was ahead of David Cone, Mussina and Schilling but behind Tom Glavine in terms of how close they are to the Group of Maddux, Johnson, Clemens and Pedro.
So, I guess Brown does not have a chance? Then that means Cone is unspeakable.... John Smoltz is an unusual case because he spent time as a starter and stopper, but was excellent at both.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
No, he won't approach 300 wins, he won't get into the hall, and his best days are (obviously) behind him.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>Now I'm on the chit list. I annoyed Ax. There were never problems between us before.
Just saying we don't need a win by win recount, do we?
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1815Morris Article
Most of the common claims that good stat people refute aren't based on conjecture, but on a simple charting of what ACTUALLY happened...much like I did when I refuted that guys claim about Joe Carter winning dozens of games in the late innings on Fenway(in reality he may have had one game that fit the guys criteria, let alone dozens).
The people who hate good stat people and their conclusions, are the people who just had their baloon burst(or their hero put into a more truthful light).
As for Morris pitching to the score, just common sense should tell you that is ridiculous. If he had that ability, and he played on a team that averaged 1.5 runs per game, then his ERA should be below 1.50 for his career if he had the ability to pitch to the score. As the article said, he gave up the first run quite often, and was simply bailed out by a good offense to earn many wins. Nobody knocks his durability(IP), as that puts him as a better pitcher than simply looking at his ERA+, but it doesn't put him into the Hall.
Of course, common sense is wasted on many sports fans, so it often takes a detailed examination to show otherwise. In those cases only zealots refuse to believe, hence the Carl Everett dinosaur references I sometimes make. If you have ever sat in a room and listened to Carl Everett totally disregard any tangible evidence of dinsoaurs existence, then everyone should understand.
That play by play data is awesome. I suggest everyone go through it to see how strikeouts by a batter aren't as bad as they think, etc... There is so much.
Here are some post-season records for you to also ponder since everyone analyzes everything:
Pedro Martinez, 11 games started, 6-2 record, 55%, 3.80 ERA
Jack Morris, 13 games started, 7-4 record, 54%, 3.80 ERA
Randy Johnson, 15 games started, 7-8 record, 47%, 3.28 ERA
Gred Maddux, 29 games started, 11-14 record, 38%, 3.22 ERA
Roger Clemens, 33 games started, 12-8 record, 36%, 3.71 ERA
As you can see, Jack Morris did perform as well or better when games really counted, as compared to the hall of fame locks! I am not sitting here saying that Jack Morris is the best of all time, only saying, he should be a hall of famer, regardless of how a couple seasons impacted his ERA! By the way, Mike Mussina also has seasons of high ERAs, also highly inflated with the Yankees if you look, and his post season record is 7-7 in 20 games started, a miniscule 35%, so I will keep up with the reason this thread was started for. When the games count, I would take Jack Morris anyday of the week!
backtrack to his Yankee years.......................I think you get the point.
I know when I pitch with a big lead my job is to throw strikes, batters are more apt to take one and there is no need to be fine.
Steve
As for the post season numbers, you are drawing conclusions based on 11 to 30 games from those pitchers...that is crazy. Given enough IP or AB, a players post season stats start to normalize to what their regular season stats tell you.
Take Bernie Williams. Had he retired after his first few post seasons, he would have been labled the BEST CLUTCH player ever! But given enough time for things to even out(as they always do in baseball), his post season stats tell you what his regular season stats already do.
Heck, even your guy Jack Morris has a lifetime post season ERA of 3.80 compared to 3.90 in the regular season. What is so special about that? If he was some post season god, then he sure didn't show it in the '92 post season where he was pretty bad. Livan Hernandez, likewise to Bernie WIlliams.
The bottom line is that "Pitching to the score," and "knowing how to win" are just myths to explain Jack Morris's high win total compared to what his ERA says.
Winpitcher, in mens league, or little leagues etc... you get to face a lot of players who's abilities are so varied, that it may be possible to apply those theories in THOSE LEAGUES. The talent discrepency just isn't nearly the same in MLB. ON any given day, even the worst hitter in the league can have better games than the absolute BEST hitter in the league in MLB. That just doens't happen in men's leagues. I've played many of games, and have pitched many of games. There are certain players and certain teams who just weren't in my class(or my team's class). Against those guys, I only threw fastballs because I know they couldn't have a chance.
You can't do that in MLB, and it isn't done. This topic of pitching to the score has been charted and studied many of times, and it just doesn't occur. That article posted is a good example. I'm not sure how any reasonable human being could refute what was written in that article. It simply disproves the common notion held by Jack Morris fans. The only ones who would disagree are the zealots who's hero has been put into a more truthful light.
My main point was how Roger Clemens had an ERA of 1,87 last season. He was shutout 9 times. Almost every game was tight.
I was not arguing with you. Just trying to show that in some respects pitchers (even MLB) pitch to the score. You mean to say that a guy with a 10 run lead does not pitch differently then when it is a 1-0 game?
Steve
Jack Morris didnt' pitch to the score, the evidence is there.
Clemens didn't have a 1.87 ERA because he had some ability to pitch to the score. More run support simply means more wins and no difference in ERA. That has been studied ad nauseum. Jeez, just look at clemens himself. One year with Boston he has a 3.60 ERA and wins 10 games. Another year with NY he has a 3.50 ERA and wins 20. The only difference was good fortune.
Clemens didn't all of a sudden sport a 1.87 ERA because HE HAD TO DO IT BECAUSE OF LACK OF RUNS. He did that because he was damn good, just like in 1997 when he had a 2.05 ERA in the AMERICAN LEAGUE(which is better than a 1.87 in the NL), and he won over 20 games.
Nevermind Skip I won't argue with anyone that makes this statement:
Players pitch to get batters out, plain and simple, regardless of the score. I've never met a pitcher in my life who was willing to 'let' guys get hits off of them and plump up their ERA
No $hit , I always thought one allowed guys to get basehitsoff them.
Steve
They may end up giving that extra home run up because of throwing more strikes, but it is often simply balanced out by not walking as many.
Pitchers are also simply not in many 10-1 games. The most common run differential in a MLB game is ONE RUN.
Even if a guy did exist where he pitched to the score in a blowout, it would only move his ERA just a tad, and it doesn't really change what we already know about him.
Really? I find that hard to believe.
I would like to see some proof of that.
Steve
That information is there, and anyone can research it. The most common run differential is one run, followed by two runs.
No, I don't have that chart on the ready, but it is there. You are welcome to dispute it. All you have to do is do a quick check and see that most teams fall within a one run per game differential for the year. If everyone is averaging within about one run per game, that usually would translate on an actual per game score as well....which it does as we already know.
1,224 of his IP were with a tie score, and his ERA in those IP was a robust 3.97
945 of his IP were with a one run environment and his ERA in thos IP was a stinky 4.40.
The vast majority of his Innings were in close games, and that is what his ERA was. So this whole notion of pitching when it counts is hogwash. A tied game environment sure counts in my book, and I'm not sure why people get so wet off a guy who has a 3.97 ERA in that situation. How they can proclaim he is some mythic ability changer is a head scratcher.
As for the one run differential. His IP is most with a tie score environment(1,224 IP), second with a one runs environment(945), and it continues incrementally down the list right in order....dwindling the farther it gets away from a tie game environment.
HE HAS A GRAND TOTAL OF 343 IP IN 5 run or more differentials. Thats it.
Like I said, a pitcher does his job to prevent runs. His wins totals is very dependant on what his teammates do. To assign a value to a SP based on the ability of his teammates is quite foolish.
"Morris actually put his team behind in 344 of his 527 career starts", as quoted in the article, that pretty much says it all!
Hold on skippy you can't have it both ways. He put his team behind? you mean the other 8 guys all played flawless defense? that is was all him? that he gave up hit after hit after hit in everyone of those 344 games? That he was the only guy to make an error? That in some instances the relief guy did not "hold'? That after the opponent took a lead the Tiger batters all went to sleep?
baseball is a team sport, yes it is quite possible that he did not hold a lead in 344 of 527 games. But to say it was all him is folly.
5 or more runs in 343 innings accounts for almost 10 percent of his total. Making it possibly just as common as any other combined differential. I think at times it does NOT paint a accurate picture when one delves into stats so deeply. Too many intangible can muck it up.
lastly, this is my first post regarding Morris. I, in all my previous posts was speaking of pitching in general. I think cuz i agreed with a poster who used Morris as an example you thought I was defending Morris. With that said his lifetime Era of 3.90 is almost .20 below the league average for his career.
Steve
Steve
Steve,...2,169 of his IP were pitched when the game was either tied or within a run!! You can not get any closer than that!! HIS RUNS ALLOWED IN THOSE IP IS 4.15!!
The fact is, most IP from a starting pitcher are done when the game is close.
Steve, Jack Morris's runs allowed for 3,700+ IP is 4.27.
How significant of an impact does the blowout games affect his runs allowed??
If you subtract all his IP when the lead was FOUR OR MORE(when he would change his approach), his lifetime runs allowed changes too.....
4.26! A major change from 4.27.
Bottom line is, the limited number of blowout innings that a starting pitcher partakes in, does nothing to change the impression of what his overall ERA+ tells you.
Steve, I never said Morris was bad, in fact I claimed him as excellent(most due to his IP and better than average ERA). But to say he is better(or anyone is better) than what his ERA+ shows by claiming his ERA took a big hit because he tended to let up in blowout wins, is pure folly.
Steve, all the numbers have been looked at, and not just Morris. It leads to the same conlcusion. Pitching to the score really doesn't exist, and if it indeed does exist, the amount of times in those situations don't really change the ERA significantly, because the vast amount of IP from a starting pitcher are done when the game is close.
P.S. It may very well be impossible to 100% certainty to find statistically that a pitcher may or may not change his approach with a big lead. I'm an actually occured guy. Go ahead and take Morri's blowout leads into account, and do the same exercise for everybody. The conclusion won't be any different than what the numbers already say. Morris dropped .01 runs allowed per nine innings when his blowout leads were taken into consideration. So all of his backers, think of him as a lifetime 3.89 ERA guy in stead of 3.90, because that is the net effect of blowout pitching. Heck, go ahead and make him a 3.85 guy if it makes one feel better. So whats the beef then?
I remember 1987, Alan Trammell should have been the MVP, but it was given to George Bell, because he had the "better" season! When Cecil Fielder hit 51 homers in '91, he should have been the MVP of the league, but they gave it to I think Cal Ripken. I heard the reason why Fielder did not win the MVP, is because he did not play on a winner. Well well, Alan Trammell and the Tigers beat George Bell and the Blue Jays in the '87 season, so who was the winner? I can guarandamntee you, if Morris, Trammell, and Whitaker were Yankees or Red Sox for any length of time, their status in the Hall would have been a first year vote in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The HOF debates are tough, and inexact for sure. Trammell and Whitaker do get stern treatment from the voters. Trammell was actually a better player than somebody like a Lou Brock. Trammell was very good defensively! He isn't as far from Ripken as the voting will suggest.
The era those guys played in was tough and competitive, and that should play a part in HOF voting.
I simply like to put reality on the accomplishments of the player, as opposed to conjecture(in the case of Morris and having a high ERA simply because he let up in blowouts). One can make a better case for Morris using better criteria than that.
In 1987 Wade Boggs was clearly the best player in the American League and George Bell the Most Valuable. Trammell played in a lineup where there were 5 guys that had great offensive years (Gibson, Lemon, Evans, Nokes and Trammell). Bell played in a lineup with only himself and the firstbase platoon (Mcgriff and Fielder) having huge years. I do not think their is an anti-Detroit bias. In 84 Willie Hernandez won both MVP and Cy Young.
The Red Sox have their fair share of players that are in the Trammell, Whitaker, Morris class who are not in the Hall or even considered. Dwight Evans does not get a sniff and you could make a case he deserves the honour as much as Trammell or Whitaker.
Andy Pettite, 2.88-4.70
Roger Clemens, 3.51-4.60
David Wells, 3.49-4.21
Mike Mussina, 3.15-4.59
Randy Johnson, 3.79 last year, 4.71 thus far this year and I am sure it will go down
I am not bashing either of these guys for their ERA, only saying, Morris had ERAs as good or better, some years worse, you get the point, but if the game was big, I would not mind having Morris on the mound. And as said earlier, if Morris, Trammell, or Whitaker, were Yankees for any degree of time, they would have been first ballot HOFers. I also did not try to say that Trammell was any better than Ripken, but in some ways, Ripken was overrated on some aspects. Trammell may have squeaked out 3,000 hits, if he played as many games as Ripken did, Ripken played on par, almost 4.5 seasons more than Trammell, if you do an average on a 162 game basis. But that is Ripken's main legacy in the game, and also something I would not take from him, he deserved it. Compared to Mike Mussina, Jack Morris should be voted in first.
And you are correct, any award voting is an injustice, because it is like the All-Star game, it is a popularity contest, and not necessarily who should be there, based on performance.
When that statement is read (by me at least) it implies that the runs were EARNED. ? Now you are saying that his defense did not play a part in those games in which the lead was lost. I find that hard to believe.
So what you are saying is that he either lost more leads then 344 or every one of those leads (his actual total) were on account of earned runs.
Yes?
Steve
The customary percentage of those blown leads were a result of unearned runs I'm sure. However, it is probably a wash considering that those figures do not count the times that the relievers let in HIS baserunners to blow the lead. If it isn't a wash, then you are probably talking about 15 of those leads as caused by unearned runs. IN any event....
You guys are forgetting the one main thing...GO AHEAD AND TAKE AWAY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MORRIS'S INNINGS WHERE HE HAD A BIG LEAD AND MAY HAVE DONE THE THINGS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT...GO AND TAKE IT AWAY. WHAT IS THE RESULT.....???
His career ERA will drop all the way down to 3.85 at best. "Momma says,...WOW"
Also you guys just keep glossing over that over 2,100 of his innings pitched were when the game was tied or within one! Those are the instances you say he steps it up....well his ERA ain't any different in those situations. Your guys case about pitching to the score really has no legs to stand on. Again, a pitcher may very well change his approach, but it doesn't TRANSLATE INTO ANYTHING DIFFERENT! It is true of Morris, and is true of MLB as a whole. IN the VERY RARE event that somebody did have a difference, it would only translate into a minor difference in his total ERA and value as a whole.
ERA+ can be flawed when comparing pitchers if one pitcher has a better defense behind him. THat can be looked at and has! In Morris's case he is on the better side of the defense behind equation, as his up the middle defense was EXCELLENT!
P.S. HARDCORE, YOU ARE COMPARING RAW ERA NUMBERS FROM AN ABSOLUTE HIGH OCTANE OFFENSIVE ERA, TO A MORE NORMAL TIME. Mussina's 3.50 ERA in the AL in 2001 is of more value than Morris's 3.50 ERA in 1981. In this instance(assuming equal run support and defense), Mussina's should garner more wins as he is outpitching his opponents to a greater degree than Morris is his opponents.
Jack Morris does pitch to the score...when he has a 2-0 lead he pitches it to a 2-2 game. When he has a 4-2 lead, he pitches it to a 4-4 game, until finally Lance Parrish hits a solo Home Run to take the lead, and then when Jim Sundberg's turn comes up he can't quite keep up with the firepower of his counterpart and Morris gets a Win. If that is what you guys mean by pitching to the score, then I have no grounds to argue against it.
Skip
Not sure if you know this but I have to believe you do. When an inherited runner scores the run (earned or unearned goes on the starters record.
I think you are arguing with me for not apparent reason other then to argue. I only agreed with hardcore. Not once did I say morris this or that.
You made a statement that he lost the lead in 344 of 527 starts. YES? or NO? and I countered with: his defense had to account for some of those blown leads. IT APPEARED that you were solely blaming Him. You answered me once with "Steve go and look up how many of those games the defense lost" that it did not matter it was a wash!. I did not make the statement you did. Why should I have to look up anything? I then asked did he lose 344 of 527 soley on earned runs? I got "customary ..............i'm sure. Well if that is the case whatever the customary amount is then it must be deducted from the 344 leads thet you have made him culpable for. YES? or NO?
My whole arguemnt (and nothing more is based on this:
If Morris (or anyone for that matter) blows a lead it is not ALWAYS his fault. The defense plays a part in it. Relievers play a part in it as they can allow INHERITED runners to score thereby skewing the pitcher of records stats.
Therefore it is impossible for HIM to have LOST the lead in 344 of 527 in the manner you say. he very well may have been the pitcher of record when 344 of 527 leads were lost BUT IT WAS NOT SOLEY HIS FAULT!.
And what his era is with or without these blown leads never was part of my question.
As for pitching to the score, you made more of a big deal over it then I did. I simply (as usual) made a comment and had it examined and re examined countless times until it proved (sorta) what you were trying to say.
I again ask, if he lost 344 of 527 leads why say it is the bottom line on him when it is concievable that OTHERS were involved in blowing those leads. Surely some other measure or yardstick will show exactly what he can be accountable for.
Steve
In his lifetime he has give up about 155 unearned runs. On a gererous estimate, lets say that half of them were the cause of a blown lead. That would lower his number to 264 times blowing a lead.
Then add the instances where he left with runners on, and the relievers let his runs in. Again, pure estimate, he would most likely have another 20 blown leads given to his total, so it would bring a total of 284 blown leads CREDITED TO HIM.
Now I ask, should a pitcher who gives up the lead 284 times out of 527 chances be a poster boy for "pitching to the score?"
Heck, should a pitcher who gives up the lead 200 times out of 527 be that poster boy?
I'm not going to get caught up on that exact number. A number anywhere in that ballpark should shred any Jack Morris notion of what his backers claim. The main question is...
Do you still believe that Jack Morris in his career "Pitched to the score", and his ERA was only higher because he had large leads to work with? You have agreed with that claim, and said that pitchers do pitch differently in large leads, and Morris was an example of that. You also hinted that given closer games that pitchers would buckle down and pitcher better.
All of that stuff is just a non factor in player evaluation, as even if a player did have that method of work to his resume, the number ot times he pitched in blowout wins is small enough where it would only smidge his ERA a hair. So it doesn't even matter anyway.
The absolute bottom line is that if ANYONE ever says that Jack Morris was better than what his ERA showed...BECAUSE he 'Pitched to the score', they are flat out wrong. There is no way around that. I'm not sure how any reasonable human being can say otherwise when they look at it. If anyone ever says that ANY player is significantly better than what his ERA suggests by virtue of that same theory, I would like to see it.
Thanks, that is the answer I was looking for.
I never said that he did pitch to the score as adamantly as you think I did. I agreed with hardcore that is all. Did the guy pitch to the score? I have no idea as i do not know what is in his or anyones mind. Does a pitcher pitch differently depending upon the score of a game? I would say yes despite what the stats would say.
I hope now that we both understand what each other was trying to say.
Steve
Regardless how we spin the stats, Morris was the type of pitcher any team would want. An excellent pitcher for a long stretch of time and had some fascinating post-season exploits.
I have honestly not analyzed his numbers enough to say for certain if he deserves the HOF or not. My first impression says he is a HOF, but now I have to see some more stats. I wonder how his rankings for ERA+ has been throughout his career and if it was better than Mussina/Kevin Brown/ David Cone. I would also like to compare him to Tom Glavine as well and see who has the better ERA+ track record.
I am pleasantly surprised to see Glavine, Maddux, Schilling and Mussina be on top of things so far this season. The veterans are doing as well as can be.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Look at how many years ago this thread was. Mussina did win 20 games and retired on his own terms. He did not get 300 wins, but did achieve 270 wins. I can understand retiring after a remarkable season and not sticking around to pad the stats. Seeing his votes totals from the latest HOF ballot makes me think that it is only a matter of time before he makes it in.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Agreed. 2019 will be his year.
A class act all the way, he deserves to get in withought question
He is more then deserving. With Morris in its even more of a no brainer
m
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......
As successful as he was pitching in the AL East, in 2 great Home hitting ballparks, in the steroid era, he belongs in no question.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)