Jack Morris: Hall of Famer or Not?
by Steve Adams on Jan 10, 2012 9:02 AM EST
in News
Email
PrintIf the world of offseason news were to be compared to the Earth, Minnesota would be the Atacama Desert at this point. There's hardly been so much as a mention of the Twins in connection to anything substantial as of late. They've been tagged just twice in a post since December 22 over at MLBTR. Ouch.
There's life outside active players, however, and the recent Hall of Fame voting is certainly relevant to those of us who call Twins Territory our home.
The sole inductee from this year's class was Barry Larkin -- a well-deserved honor for one of the game's all-time greats at shortstop. Larkin racked up an impressive 86.4% of the vote in his third year on the ballot, earning the lifelong Cincinnati Red a permanent shrine in Cooperstown. Second on the list? The man who pitched arguably the greatest game in Twins history: Jack Morris.
Morris pulled in 66.7% of the vote in his 13th year of eligibility, a large number, but still well short of the required 75% number required to be inducted alongside Larkin.
Morris' candidacy has been debated to the high heavens. His detractors will point to stats such as his 3.90 career ERA (which would be the highest of any pitcher in Cooperstown), or his ERA+ of merely 105 (with 100 being league average) -- the same mark as that of current Yankees ace pitcher dude with a pulse runny-nosed tattoo enthusiast A.J. Burnett. Morris fell well short of the magic 300 win plateau (254), reached 20 wins only twice, and never finished higher than third place in any Cy Young voting. Those may not all be the best measuring sticks of a pitcher's talent, obviously, but they're things that factor into voting.
On the other hand, Morris' supporters will say that he's one of the greatest "big game pitchers" in history. They'll point to Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, as well as his three All-Star Game starts, his status as an annual Opening Day starter, and his overall aura as a "number one" kind of guy. Morris threw a no-hitter in his second start of the 1984 season, and he finished it by throwing complete game victories in Game 1 and Game 4 of the World Series. He was a bulldog on the mound who ate innings like Jose Mijares eats General Tso's chicken (and anything else in sight) at a Chinese buffet and hated to leave any game. He reached 200 innings in 11 of his 16 full seasons as a starting pitcher, and two of his misses were by less than three innings. From 1979-1992, Morris averaged 241 innings per season; that includes surpassing the 240 inning mark each season from age 35-37. It's impressive longevity, there's no denying that.
You can draw your own conclusions about Morris' candidacy, but personally, to me, he's not quite there. Morris was a consistently good pitcher who showed flashes of greatness, but I'm of the school that looks at numbers more than narrative. I'll concede that Game 7 of the 1991 World Series is one of the single greatest postseason performances in the sport's history, given not only the results, but the stakes. A 10-inning shutout on that kind of stage is the stuff of legend, and Morris will forever hold a special place in my heart for the memory of that season and that game.
Regardless of my own personal feelings, I think Morris is close enough to the prize that it's conceivable to say he'll make the cut in one of the next two seasons. If that happens, there will be lots of backlash from the stat community pointing out that Morris "doesn't deserve" Cooperstown immortality. Admittedly, Morris wouldn't make my theoretical ballot, but I can say this: if he's inducted, I'll be on-hand the day they honor him at Target Field, cheering with the rest of Minnesota and thanking him for making the one season he spent with his hometown team one of his best ever. 1991 was a special year for him and for all of us, and I'm damn glad he was a part of that team.
What do you think?
158 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't think he is.
Very good pitcher, some great performances, but he’s not in for me. I mentioned this on Twitter yesterday, about a conversation I had at work with someone who asked how (as a Twins fan) I could say no to Morris – but I wouldn’t have voted for Kirby Puckett, either.
Blasphemy, I know. But for me Puckett was closer than Morris.
by Jesse on Jan 10, 2012 9:06 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
No to Puckett
Is insane. The only thing that kept him from hitting all the number touchstones was injury, and he was still darn close.
agreed on the insane comment.
You have to look how productive the productive years of a career are imo.
Reggie Jackson Broke .300 only once in his career and was not the caliber of fielder as kirby. Had 21 years to get only 2,584 hits. He is in the hall of fame. His .357 average and 10 dingers in world series games got him there.
Kirby Puckett broke .300 8 times in his 12 year career. Amassed 2,304 hits(close to jackson’s number) in half the time of jackson. He averaged .309 ba in the playoffs and had 5 dingers in less than half the post season games that Jackson played. That means he was on pace to hit more than Jackson given the same number of ab’s.
You wouldn’t vote for kirby to make the Hall? It is a shame that he didn’t play in a bigger market-for his sake. Maybe a few more post season appearances would have helped his cause.
Kirby was a first-ballot HOFer
-So I think he did OK for having played in Minnesota.
I understand what Jesse is saying, at least from a “pure numbers” point of view. Kirby’s number alone aren’t overwhelming. Still, his defense and his October performances that put him in the Hall. Post-season performances are also what Black Jack’s hopes ride on. Personally, I don’t think that is enough for Morris. However, based on the fact that he has broken 60%, I would think he will eventually get in (all other players save 1 who broke 60% made it in).
Puckett's numbers
We’re absolutely there. He just didn’t play long enough.
Longevity does matter, though.
I don’t like the argument that if he played longer he would have amassed more statistics. That’s true of nearly every player, HOFer or not. I agree he is still in the Hall based on his numbers, but he wouldn’t have been nearly as strong of a candidate based on numbers alone.
If longevity doesn't matter
Then Twins 3B Glenn Williams is a first-ballot Hall of Famer!
I'm confused.
I made the argument for kirby and you act like i belittled him. Playing in a small market IS a hurdle that you have to cross, and yes, kirby did so easily. I don’t see how you can say kirby’s numbers aren’t overwhelming. I would preface everything in the context of numbers over time. If he hadn’t been injured, who knows what the totals would have looked like.
I didn't mean it that way.
It was a tounge-in-cheek comment about how sometimes you can get attention even playing in Minnesota.
My main point was that Kirby didn’t get in on numbers alone, which is not would get Jack Morris in either. So, yes, October performances do matter some to the BBWAA. Also, that longevity does matter some too. A shortened career is still shorter. Kirby just overcame that.
What kind of Twins fan are you?!
I’ll grant that Puckett didn’t have the big numbers (i.e. no 3000 hits). But he easily would have were it not for glaucoma. Plus, his induction was prior to all of the controversy that came out later. He was a ambassador to the game and all that cheesy stuff.
by ColossusOfRhode on Jan 10, 2012 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And his career was mostly before all the PEDs
of the 1990s, and thus shouldn’t be discounted by the offensive explosion that followed.
If you say no to Puckett,
you have to say no to Sandy Koufax to be consistent. The only rationale for not supporting Puckett, as others have said, is that his career was cut short.
by Cooperstown Needs Bert on Jan 10, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
While there is an argument in your comment
It really isn’t right. Koufax’s peak was better than Puckett’s; there is an argument for keeping both of them out, but if one is getting in, it has to be Koufax. I’m somewhat agnostic on Puckett’s enshrinement: he isn’t anywhere near the worst guy in there, but I think I probably would not have voted for him.
The Wolves are like the worst meal you've ever had--terrible while you're eating it and even worse later.
by Eric in Madison on Jan 10, 2012 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
I knew somebody would come back with this counter-argument
and you’re right, if one has to get in, it’s Koufax. But the best argument (and in my opinion, the only) argument for keeping Puckett out would have to be the same one for keeping Koufax out: the overall career numbers aren’t there.
This isn’t to say that anybody with a few good years should get in. Koufax had five utterly dominant seasons, with a sixth excellent season. Puckett had four deity-level seasons (particularly for a hitter in the 80s), another three where he was rightly in the MVP conversation, and the remaining five ranged from above-average to excellent. So in neither case are we talking about a flash-in-the-pan—both had proven track records. We’re not talking about Smokey Joe Wood syndrome in either case.
by Cooperstown Needs Bert on Jan 10, 2012 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
You wouldn't vote for Kirby Puckett?
Kirby Puckett?
You wouldn’t have voted for KIRBY PUCKETT?
…. I mean, I can’t. Kirby?
"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez
He's Kirby Puckett
"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez
by myjah on Jan 10, 2012 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Well
Kirby: .318/.360/.477 for OPS of 837 and a career fWAR of 49.4 over 12 seasons or 4.12 WAR per year. Kirby was also in the all star game 10 out of 12 years and won six gold gloves and six silver sluggers.
Dale Murphy: .265/.346/.469 for OPS of 815 and a career fWAR of 47.3 over 18 seasons or 2.63 WAR per season. Murphy was in 7 all star games over 18 years, won five gold gloves, four silver sluggers and two MVP.
I’d say the only thing making this not overwhelmingly in Kirby’s favor are Murphy’s MVP awards.
And
I guess If you prefer traditional stats, here’s 162 game averages for R/H/HR/RBI:
Kirby: 97/209/19/99
Murphy: 89/157/30/94
Do you prefer hits or home runs? Kirby had almost 200 more career hits and was within 200 RBI of Murphy in either fewer seasons. But Murphy hit 398 home runs to Kirby’s 207.
So what you're saying is...
…if Kirby hadn’t retired, but instead bounced around the league with eye problems for 6 years averaging .220 each year, he wouldn’t be a Hall of Famer, either?
You can't even hit .100 with one good eye.
I know that is not your point. But he didn’t retire willingly. Like Koufax, he was forced out of the game.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
If Morris, then LOTS of pitchers
Mickey Lolich had pretty much the same career, even had the great game in the World Series.
The writers cannot evaluate pitching. Why does Kevin Brown get <5% of the vote when Jack Morris gets 66%? Why do they pass up David Cone in favor of Lee Smith?
Because
Brown is known for the huge contract he flopped on and Smith compiled a lot of one stat.
But Cone should be a contender. I’d say yes to Morris too, because I think there can be a non-stat path with iconic performances, but obviously that’s controversial.
As will be the votes for the next several years when he stats will be there but will be offset with PEDs.
If he can't get the votes here
That does not bode well for him.
We've been using Morris as the "other guy" in Blyleven debates for years
People less vested in the Blyleven discussions might not have all the material against him
I personally wouldn't vote for Morris, but it wouldn't surprise me if he made it eventually
He’s a mistake that you can see coming. Like Tony Perez or Jim Rice.
by DavidRF on Jan 10, 2012 10:16 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
He has about as many votes as Blyleven did at this stage
I am surprised by that. But I suppose I shouldn’t be. Many of the HOF voters don’t even cover baseball regularly.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
with all due respect
Can there really ever be a “mistake” on something that’s entirely symbolic and honorary?
that doesn't make a disputed decision
A “mistake.” My point being that there is only opinion, not an actual objective answer. And should someone you disagree about get enshrined, exactly nothing bad happens int he real world.
"nothing bad happens in the real world"
That would be the case the HOF was closed, the Twins were contracted and baseball was made illegal. Its just sports, but we still debate things.
Tommy McCarthy is the gold standard for mistake inductions. Nobody disputes that
No love for Black Jack, TT?
Lame.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"Tell Gardy there's nobody around to protect him now." Ozzie Guillen
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Jan 10, 2012 10:37 AM EST reply actions
Still bitter
He had a five-year contract with an out clause. He took the out clause for a couple more million in Toronto. It was his right, but it’s not like he deserves a lot of gratitude on our part for one come-back season. He came to Minnesota because we were the highest bidder. He left for the highest bidder.
As a gun for hire, I don’t consider him a Twin. If he goes into the Hall, he’ll wear a Tigers hat, where he tormented the Twins for years.
Just sayin’
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 10, 2012 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If he does go in,
I wonder what hat he’d wear?
Objectively, it has be the Tigers.
But in reality, his entire HOF platform is based on 1991 game 7, so why not the Twins?
And in that case, would the Twins retire his number?
Morris also had two wins in the '84 World Series (and a no-hitter that season)
Not to mention, he was with the Tigers a lot longer. I can’t see him wearing anything other than the old English D on his hypothetical plaque.
by ColossusOfRhode on Jan 10, 2012 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
They'd better not
I thought it was dumb enough that they retired Blyleven’s number (he’s either worth it right after he retires or he’s not; the Hall of Fame election shouldn’t have made a difference). If they retire Morris’, they may as well just light Tony Oliva’s number on fire, for as much as a retired Twins number is worth.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
by BeefMaster on Jan 10, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
If Jack Morris
Got into the Hall, I think you could make a case for a lot of good pitchers out there. Hell, even Liriano shows flashes of greatness and he is not a HOFer.
That game and series should be immortalized in Cooperstown but one great game does not make a career. I always believe the HOF is for players who had great careers, not great games. Is Chris Carpenter a HOF worthy then as well? I think he is more worthy already than BlackJack.
Remember, remember the seventh of November.
Lets be a little more rational... Morris does have 3800 IP with a 105 ERA+
That’s not “great” but its a long career. If Chris Carpenter pitched 1500 more innings then he’d be a candidate.
Dennis Martinez, David Wells & Jamie Moyer are better comps. If you make those careers a bit more “compact” with less partial seasons then they might pick up Morris’s traction. Morris had a reputation of being his teams ace for a decade (even if it was a case of having great run support and great infield defennse).
Very True.
I guess I was just looking at pitchers who have had spectacular postseasons and above average careers. The theory here was that BlackJack was going to make it in based on the strength of his postseason and in particular one WS game. Carpenter has had great success in the postseason as well. That’s where my comparison came. From a career standpoint, yes, Morris has had a longer career. Although, there are a number of pitchers with “long” careers that don’t belong in the hall. There are also pitchers that have great careers, albeit short. My theory is that for a pitcher, or any player, to be voted into the Hall he should have sustained success, not a few great games and a good career or a great career in a few games.
Remember, remember the seventh of November.
I think Blackjack is great, but I don't think he's Hall of Fame
I’ll always admire him for Game 7, but I don’t think his numbers are there, even compared to Blyleven.
Next year all the infamous roid users get added to the ballot — Bonds, Clemens, Sosa. Plus Piazza, Schilling, and Biggio. Those are big distracting names for the 2013 ballot — if not for the steroids, the first three would all be no-doubt-about-it first ballot Hall of Famers. Schilling seems a similar case to Morris — not super great career numbers, but great post-season heroics. (Is anyone else’s blood hanging in Cooperstown?) My guess is that Morris’s numbers actually drop of in lieu of the new ballot mates.
by ColossusOfRhode on Jan 10, 2012 11:55 AM EST reply actions
Next year is really interesting
Because all of those guys should be considered suspect from the PED point of view, but only the first three, whom we know about, are going to get the automatic rejection.
I didn't think Schilling was ever associated with PEDs?
He used to rail against them on his blog, back when he wasn’t writing about politics or his video game company.
by ColossusOfRhode on Jan 10, 2012 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
I'm just saying
That everyone in that era should be suspect, no matter whether there is anything specific on them.
Did Schilling use? I have no idea, but I do know that because there wasn’t any testing we can’t say no. Denying it or railing against it publicly isn’t evidence on way or the other.
Why are you so certain about the "start" of that era?
There has been steroid use in athletic competition going back to the 1950’s. One of Pete Rose’s slimy associates dealt steroids.
+1
PEDs are as old as sports. Devising ways to circumvent testing is as old as testing.
There are obvious cases of abuse (Bonds, Clemens, Manny, etc.) But if we start going after the marginal cases where no evidence exists, we would not admit anyone to the Hall.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
or the reverse
We don’t know that any of them weren’t using, so it’s rather hypocritical to hold it against the ones we’re pretty sure were.
McGuire’s the classic case. We know he did because he admitted it. He will never be in the hall because of it.
But Schilling might have. A long as he keep up the denials and no former trainers surface with samples, he won’t be penalized in that way, and will probably get in.
Agreed
It was a part of the sport for a while, it was frowned upon but there was no serious consequences at the time so people did it. There have been cases throughout history where well respected people have done stupid things that weren’t acceptable or aren’t acceptable now but they still are respected. People make mistakes but we can’t assume they made mistakes and penalize them for it because we think they did or that they were a part of the era.
Remember, remember the seventh of November.
Congratulations
You have just won the award for most obscure fact on Twinkie Town. Step forward and claim your prize!
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Snake oil and dried monkey balls aren't steroids.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"Tell Gardy there's nobody around to protect him now." Ozzie Guillen
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Jan 11, 2012 8:38 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The clear and the cream?
Here I thought BALCO used modern science to create those products. Turns out, they got them from the local gypsy camp.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Local gypsy camp
a.k.a. Berkeley.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
give me your tears gypsy woman...
or i will take them from you!
Next year is going to be super interesting
I’m not sure how all I would personally vote, but I’d definitely put Barry Bonds in.
"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez
We've had this discussion, but I say Bonds gets in when Rose gets in
Both are no-doubt-about-it HOFers based on the numbers and were the best of their era. (Bonds pre-steroids was still probably headed to the hall.)
However, both cheated the game and got caught. Did other guys cheat in similar ways? Probably, in both cases. But these are the guys who cheated and got caught… and when that happens, you ought to be punished for it, otherwise there’s no incentive for people not to cheat down the road.
Now, do we forgive the cheater because he was so above and beyond good, even in lieu of the cheating? Maybe. But if you’re going to do it in one case, you should do it in the other.
Same for Shoeless Joe Jackson, but then, Joe Posnanski had a nice piece recently about why posthumous inductions are bittersweet, so that one matters less to me.
by ColossusOfRhode on Jan 10, 2012 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
Except one of them is banned from baseball
And the other isn’t.
Of course, I’d put them both in if it was up to me. Everyone will know about the asterisk.
Oh, and the incentive not to cheat comes in the form of losing your livelihood (ala Rose to a degree), not losing out on a hypothetical honor down the road that isn’t really on the table for 99% of players anyway.
They're absolutely and completely different
Bonds cheated to win – similar to Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford did by doctoring the ball. Even now the punishment is a 50 game suspension for the first offense. Take away 50 games and see if he’s still a Hall of Famer. If you just throw away all of Bonds’ career after he started taking steroids (assume he goes 3 strikes and banned forever) he’s still a Hall of Fame caliber player.
Rose gambled on games – which calls into integrity the whole purpose of major league baseball. If people think the games are fixed they’ll stop watching. Rose broke a rule that almost brought down baseball in 1919. The consequences of breaking the rule – a lifetime ban – were well established.
They both should be banned
If Bonds did the McGuire thing and admitted it, maybe he shouldn’t be banned. But he still doesn’t belong in the Hall. I don’t see much difference between throwing games and cheating in a way that rigs them. He wasn’t just using PEDs to elevate his numbers. He was changing the outcomes of hundreds of games.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Gaylord for sure, not sure about Whitey
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
I never thought Whitey had the credentials beyond being dubbed the "big-game pitcher of his generation"
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
agreed DJL...
and guys who are just “speculated” on are getting shafted; a guy like Jeff Bagwell for instance. How do we know a LOT of these other guys aren’t doing something? Rickey Henderson? Anyone rationally think he wasn’t doing steroids on that A’s team? Really?
I’d bet money Larkin was using them, and a vast majority of others, pitchers too. I bet most guys still playing are using performance enhancers. I just don’t care. Put them all in if they’re worthy.
So did Bert
Bert didn’t load it up, but he used pine tar regularly—a practice widely used today. Look at the cap of just about any reliever and you will see a brown smudge of pine tar on the brim or back of the cap. Watch them adjust their caps between every pitch, especially before the breaking ball.
Morris was a master at scuffing the ball. He was known to keep a thumb tack in the webbing of his glove. I remember him throwing what looked like a gyro ball to Kirby. Kirby said, “Get rid of that ball.” The next pitch with a fresh ball came in straight, and Kirby drove it off the wall in right field at the old Tiger Stadium.
Gaylord’s practice was far different than a little scuffing or pine tar. He loaded it up on every pitch, openly. That level of cheating deserves special treatment. Same with Bonds or McGuire. The temptation is to descend the slippery slope and either ban them all or take them all. I think you can draw reasonable distinctions between occasionally getting an edge and persistently doing so.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Except he didn't
Listen to some interviews with Perry. He wanted the batter to think he was loading it up on every pitch even though he wasn’t. It’s part of the cat and mouse with the batter. He would never have been that successful just using a greaseball. He had a plus fastball, good breaking pitches even without the extra help and plus command. Plus, as you have stated, everyone else is doing it.
If everyone else is doing it (steroids, doctoring the ball) and MLB is looking the other way instead of enforcing the rule then why would you punish the players? It’s the way the game was played in that era. It’s a loophole that was exploited and has now been mitigated.
Rose, on the other hand, calls into question the integrity of the sport. If gamblers are rigging the outcome then MLB isn’t any different from pro wrestling.
but we don't know what the edge was is my point...
we have no idea what the vast majority of players were doing, for how long, and what effect they had. there’s just no way of knowing. i think there’s pretty damn good circumstancial evidence that a whole slew of players were using performance enhancers (including pitchers) but all that’s focused on are HR guys, etc. again, doesn’t it stand to reason that rickey henderson was juicing? just as an example. yet there’s been nothing about his HOF candidacy being in question. it just leads to a complete double standard. that’s why i think you have to either let none of them in, or let them all in.
and personally i vote for them all in. because guys have been cheating in various ways for the last 100 years. hell, mickey mantle was popping amphetamines like they were candy back in the day.
by DJSkillz on Jan 11, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
and i should add with the "whole slew of players were using performance enhancers"...
“still are”.
i really think it’s incredibly naive to believe that a LOT of players aren’t still enhancing today. ryan braun being yet another example of it. the loopholes and advanced medical procedures will always be a step ahead of the tests; there’s too much money at stake for these guys. and not nearly enough incentive to stop them (better drugs equal better play equal higher ratings/attendance/more money).
I think it's reasonable
To assume that the scale and the nature of what they are doing has changed.
They are likely no longer shooting up with anabolic steroids, but there’s probably a lot more HGH around, which is actually probably a bit better for them.
They are going to do what they can get away with.
exactly....
i’m not going to guess exactly what they’re doing. but the vast majority of players are still doing something. IMO. and i don’t exclude twins from that. wouldn’t shock me one bit of joe mauer, justin morneau, etc. have been taking performance-enhancers all along.
it’s just the nature of it; there’s millions of dollars at stake for these guys.
i always think it makes the most sense for 2 different crops of guys;
1) relievers; recovery and velocity are both incredibly important.
2) the fringe AAA/end of roster guys. this is why i can’t get moralistic on steroids. if i was that close to my dream of being a major league player, and i knew some drug could help me put me over the top, i can’t sit here and judge and say i wouldn’t take it. if you play 1-2 years in the majors you can set yourself up financially for life.
But the something matters
If it’s approved supplements, fine. For me, I don’t really care about HGH either.
If everyone knew Perry was doing it
but no one did anything about it, was he really cheating? Or at least cheating by the standards of his day?
Well, sort of
Because everyone didn’t “know” about Barry right away.
Also, in Perry’s case, you can actually throw him out of the game when you observe him doing it.
Everyone "knew" about Bonds
When he went from a 7 1/2 to an 8 3/4 hat size, gained 70 lbs in one offseason and became impervious to pain, it was pretty obvious to everyone. Just like Sosa looking like he just got ejected into the Mars atmosphere before the oxygen got turned on.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
my point was
Can you throw Bonds out of game after measuring his head?
There was actual in-game enforcement that could have been applied to Perry but was not, thus what he did was actively tolerated on the field.
He got thrown out a couple of times
It was like Joe Niekro. An ump actually saved a bunch of his scuffed baseballs and brought them out to the mound asking to see what was in his pockets.
I believe the same thing happened with Perry a couple of times. They found Vaseline on his trousers once and once in his glove. I don’t have the links, but Bert’s told them a couple of times. In the context of those stories, he also told the story about how Perry tried to teach him how to use the stuff. Bert said it felt like his arm was going to fall off after throwing 10 wet ones in the bullpen.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Actually we have no hard evidence on Sosa
No failed tests, no admission. Nothing. He just got bigger.
and that's the thing, again...
steroids/HGH aren’t just about “getting bigger”. it’s also about recovery/speed, etc. so much of this outrage has been against the power guys, but it’s a total double standard.
There are obvious cases
In low doses, steroids are used more for endurance, yes. That’s why the Tour de France is at the forefront of the doping wars. But in high doses, there are obvious physical effects. Show a physician pictures of Pudge or Sosa in the years prior to testing, and they would say they had telltale signs of large doses of steroids. The fact that both players lost 30 lbs of muscle in the first offseason in which testing resulted in suspensions, and it’s as close to a smoking gun as we were going to get.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Whitey had a career ERA+ of 133
That’s stellar. Plus he lost 2 years to Korea. He’s a pretty easy pick.
It really depends on how you view the moments vs. statistics...
If you’re going to allow great statistical players into the HOF, guess players like Bonds and Sosa belong in there.
But I take the position that players that create some of the most memorable moments in baseball should be considered. Weird, yes, but I think of sports way beyond what ends up on the stats page. I think he should be in the HOF simply based on his WS performance. It is (in my mind at least) the best World Series ever played, and he topped it off.
I’m sure I’m not part of popular opinion, but that’s just my .02.
I'm still a Minnesotan at heart...
how dare you
Pitchers should only be admitted to the hall on the basis of their wind-adjusted ground ball rate against hitters with better than 100+ park-adjusted career OPS
Moments are represented in other areas of the museum
The particluar award is supposed to represent the careers of players. That is why they have rule 3B: “Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons” and rule 6: “No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.”
yep, agreed fully...
Morris is not a HOF’er. He did have a HOF moment. If you put Morris in for that one game, then you have to put Maris in for his great year as well. Those moments can still be honored in another way without overinflating their above-average careers.
That's why I knew my opinion wasn't the popular one.
I just never liked the way baseball did its HOF elections.
I'm still a Minnesotan at heart...
I blame Bill James
It’s all about numbers now.
On the one hand, that’s good because it gives you a means to make a stronger case for guys who maybe didn’t get as much publicity because they were in smaller markets (in the pre-internet era). On the other hand, it gets you guys who were not considered great during their careers but played for a long time and compiled big stats.
Byleven is a case in point. Very good, very long career and stats that definitely belong in the hall. But as much as I love more enshrined Twins, was he one of the great players of his day? Probably not, but close enough that I’m not really going to complain.
I would have complained about Rafeal Palmiero though. If he hadn’t been one of the people who got caught with PEDs, his numbers would have put him in even though he was never more than just a very good player (for a long time).
I can't agree...
Bill James doesn’t do that. And stats don’t do that. You don’t have to reward longevity; you can still (and should still) reward peak as well. Stats are the most objective way to measure it, relative to one’s era. Anything else and you have drastically skewed cases (as we presently do, due to idiot old writers) based on market, personality, etc.
Everyone uses stats
I’ve rarely seen a Hall of Fame argument made without using stats. The commonly accepted stats are hits, HR, RBI and batting average. OBP, SLG, OPS and total bases are a step in the right direction. Runs created turns those rates into a counting stat. WAR adds in positional adjustments and the concept of “replacement level”. Then we have the unreliable but nifty addition of defensive value stats. If you’re going to compare people across eras and positions WAR comes in really handy.
People should adjust WAR to make it suit their needs. Mess with the replacement level. Zero out all the defensive contributions – or double them. In general though every player above 70 WAR meets the Hall of Fame standards and every player below 35 WAR doesn’t. It’s the grey area where you have to dig deeper.
I don't see that as a problem
This is the place to celebrate the players everyone loves. Who cares if there is the occasional marginal great who happened to be important to his time or beloved?
The "player of his day" argument
Kirby played in an era of great center fielders. Barry Larkin played in an era of great shortstops. Wade Boggs played in an era of great third basemen. Were they the best at their positions in their eras? No. That doesn’t meant hey weren’t hall of famers.
Some eras have no great players at certain positions. The 60s was an era devoid of Hall of Fame catchers. Do you install Joe Torre even though he’s not worthy just because he was probably the best catcher of his era? No.
It’s a dumb argument.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
agree...
I think it’s about production relative to an era; if there were multiple players productive in an era at a position, they all go in. if none, none of them do. etc.
as usual, it isn’t about the stats; it’s about how people interpret those stats.
Bonds and Kirby
Arguably were the best of their day with the bat.
But I didn’t say best at their position, or that there isn’t a floor. I said the question is were they considered great while they were playing.
Griffey and Schmidt
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
What about them?
I said great and arguably best, not best. And, of course, Schmidt was part of the earlier generational and Griffey part of the younger. .
But no one is saying that only one guy at a time at each position can be great or hall-worthy.
Some people are asying this
I thought it was your argument. Rob Neyer talked about his at length on the greater site.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Bad example
I think Torre was more worthy than Kirby.
The Argument for Morris
Someone on either Baseball Nation or Baseball Prospectus had a really good point recently on Morris – basically, their point was that making a stat-based argument for Morris is a fool’s errand. You can’t make a useful argument for Morris’ actual production without also going for guys like Rick Reuschel. Rather, the way to go is like urluckyday said above – you’re voting him in not as one of the objectively greatest players ever, but as one of the most memorable or historically significant.
This also allows “lesser” players into the Hall (specifically, it’s a great pro-Maris argument, and it even leaves room for a pro-Joe Carter argument), but taking the “It’s the Hall of Fame” route is really the best defense for Jack Morris as a Hall of Famer.
I can’t decide whether I’m in favor of this or not… it’s not satisfying for me as a numbers guy, but as someone who might one day bring his son to visit the Hall, it’s pretty cool to have guys there who you can tell stories about.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
couple things...
1) some of his accomplishments (like game 7) can still be recognized within the hall. it doesn’t detract from that.
2) it’s not like we’re ever going to forget morris’ game 7 just because he’s not in the hall. hell, most of us twins fans have the video of it and watch it periodically. i don’t see how he needs to be in the hall to be able to tell that story.
I'd probably vote him in
I just think it would be fun.
"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez
I say no...
… but I don’t get a vote, won’t ever have a vote, amd recognize the fact that after getting the high percentage he did this year he’s a lock sometime down the road.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
If not Jack, then definitely not Curt
Jack pitched 20 less games and 563 more innings. Jack has just about 7 innings per game. Curt has 5.7 innings per game. That tells me a lot.
by Adam Elston-Jones on Jan 10, 2012 4:24 PM EST reply actions
Not at all fair to Schilling
Schilling started in MLB as a reliever – 130 of his appearances weren’t starts. IP/game is horribly unfair to him because of that.
Baseball-Reference has stats for innings pitched per game started. Schilling and Morris both put up a career rate of 7.1, which is actually more impressive for Schilling since the league average was lower during his career.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Not sure this makes him a HOF but it's interesting...
If you saw a Detroit Tigers win between 1979 and 1990 there was a 19.9% chance Jack Morris was the winning pitcher of that game. That speaks to Jack’s ability to take ownership of a game, finish it himself (he completed 38% of his Detroit starts), his durability & his overall greatness.
This isn’t even including ’91 with the Twins and ’92 with the Blue Jays…
twitter@al_damlo
Durability, yes
Greatness, I don’t know. 20% of the wins in a 5-man rotation. 20% of the starter-wins is a wash. This just says he goes deep into games and wins more the rest of the rotation. I’d want to see how he compares with other ace-pitchers in that stat to see what that means.
I don't think Morris is a lock
This was a weak year, so his number jumped. But with a bunch of strong players (PEDs or no) coming on ballot next year, Morris could lose some traction. From a Hardball Times article a few years back:
When there’s an unusually strong crop of newbies, the members of the backlog lose support. Should there be a rather weak batch of newcomers, the holdovers will rise up. Pretty simple, but the results can be dramatic.
Let’s look at 1999. Headed by Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount, Carlton Fisk, and Dale Murphy, it had the strongest new candidates in memory. Look at what happened to the holdovers from the ’98 ballot:
Name 1998 1999
Tony Perez 67.90% 60.80%
Jim Rice 42.90% 29.40%
Gary Carter 42.30% 33.80%
Steve Garvey 41.20% 30.20%
Bruce Sutter 31.10% 24.30%
Tommy John 27.30% 18.70%
Jim Kaat 27.30% 20.10%
Dave Parker 24.50% 16.10%
Bert Blyleven 17.50% 14.10%
Davey Concepcion 16.90% 11.90%
Minnie Minoso 16.10% 14.70%
Luis Tiant 13.10% 10.70%
Keith Hernandez 10.80% 6.80%
Dwight Evans 10.40% 3.60%
Mickey Lolich 8.20% 5.20%
Ron Guidry 7.80% 6.20%
Bob Boone 5.50% 5.40%
by AM. on Jan 10, 2012 10:34 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Oooh, my vote tilted it (for now) to a 1-vote No margin.
I honestly do not believe this is even a consideration. It truly, really, deeply baffles me. It’s not even close. He was a good starting pitcher whose nice-but-not-shockingly-so W-L record is padded by (1) awesome run support and (2) awesome defense limiting hits on balls in play. He did one and only one thing at a dramatically better than average rate and that is eat innings. The Hall of Fame should not be a place for guys who could pitch at a somewhat better than average level for an inning more than the average guy.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/8/17/2366827/hurt-and-helped-by-the-defense
Oh look. 10th most defensive runs saved of all time.
Here’s a question for you.
Of the three, who do you think should be Hall of Famers? Andy Pettitte, Mike Mussina, Jack Morris?
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
Here are their numbers in random order to see if your thought matches up with the stats.
Looking up the stats to see who is who before commenting takes out the fun!
Regular Season
Pitcher A: 18 yrs, 2813 K, 7.11 K/9, 3.58 K/BB, 1.98 BB/9 (!), 3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+, 3.57 FIP, 74.8 rWAR, 85.6 fWAR (!)
Pitcher B:: 16 yrs, 2251 K, 6.63 K/9, 2.34 K/BB, 2.83 BB/9, 3.88 ERA, 117 ERA+, 3.75 FIP, 49.9 rWAR, 67.0 fWAR
Pitcher C: 18 yrs, 2478 K, 5.83 K/9, 1.78 K/BB, 3.27 BB/9, 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+, 3.94 FIP, 39.3 rWAR, 56.9 fWAR
Postseason
Pitcher A: 139.2 IP, 145 K, 9.34 K/9, 4.39 K/BB, 2.13 BB/9, 3.42 ERA, 3.54 FIP
Pitcher B:: 263.0 IP, 173 K, 5.92 K/9, 2.40 K/BB, 2.46 BB/9, 3.83 ERA, 4.17 FIP
Pitcher C: : 92.1 IP, 64 K, 6.24 K/9, 2.00 K/BB, 3.12 BB/9, 3.80 ERA, 3.74 FIP
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
That’s my point though, seems like many are saying Morris should be in but the other two are borederline
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
Well from what I’ve read, Morris seems to have gotten 60% of votes, but in preliminary polls, Mussina got maybe 40
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
Well, if Mussina would start of at 40, he would stand a good chance of getting in
Morris started at 22.2 . It’s a dumb system, but chances are Mussina would keep gaining voters and get in eventually.
I really dislike the system. Makes no sense to me that they randomly get more and more votes. Sadly, you are correct.
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
it's not random
It’s people arguing about it for years.
It’s ridiculous, one should have done enough research to formulate their full opinion by the time they have to vote.
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
agreed...
Barry Larkin didn’t change as a player 10 years after he’s done playing. Most of the voters (the old ones) just need to die.
didn't say that...
but it’s stupid that voters change their minds so much or get “swayed” so much by arguments over the course of years. ditto for the stupid practice of not voting for a guy on the 1st ballot because “no one deserves to be 100%”. that’s just dumb.
Agreed
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
No arguments that it's a stupid system
AS I said above, many of the voters don’t even cover baseball regularly. They’re like Sid or Reusse—clueless columnists who ruined their brains with alcohol.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
The writers need to shrink the pool
They have a bunch of unqualified voters. They really should enforce stricter standards if they want to keep the privilege.
agreed...
ditto for all of the award voting, for that matter.
Awards is a two-voters-per-city system
Perhaps the wrong writers have votes, but its not a case of too many voters.
Mussina is absolutely underrated and world's better than Morris was.
Recall in particular that ERA+ actually slightly underestimates the value of run suppression in high offense environments (i.e. Mussina’s career) due to the fact that run averages are produced with lop-sided (Weibull) curves of run-distribution. (Basically, you can never give up less than zero runs, but you can give up infinitely more than average, and the higher the average, the harder it is to suppress below modal average compared to a lower-run environment.)
see: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/moving-beyond-era/
by tobynotjason on Jan 11, 2012 6:57 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks for making my case
That excessive use of stats entirely ruins these discussions ;)
Interesting. Can’t the argument be made that using less stats would give you a lesser chance of figuring out who truly belongs, though? Unless I’m misinterpreting your comment.
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
Unless you actually bother to educate yourself...
beyond what everyone who watches baseball picks up by mental osmosis by the time they’re 13 years old. Then “excessive” stats lead to greater substantive understanding, which makes things MUCH more interesting – even (I’m carefully picking this word) marvelous. The above-linked THT article on ERA+ veritably TICKLED me. I had an absolute blast reading it, precisely because it shattered a perception I had (that, if anything ERA+ would favor high-offense environment pitchers) while engaging my mind (it involved some head-wrapping) and in the end enhanced my conceptual toolbox.
by tobynotjason on Jan 12, 2012 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
Only one of them was in a documentary about crossword puzzles
So, obviously, Mike Mussina gets in over the others. My standards might be different than most, however.
by ColossusOfRhode on Jan 11, 2012 3:06 AM EST up reply actions
It is the Hall of Freaking Fame! Not the Hall of Sabermetrics.
Reading this site over the last few years has definitely taught me alot about sabermetrics and whatnot. But I don’t give a rat’s ass about what some statistically theoretically better pitcher deserves to be in the Hall ahead of Jack. He had a good to great career and then dealt out one of the greatest, most FAMOUS performances in baseball history.
This is the classic divergence in Old School vs. Sabermetrics. Whom would you rather have had in that game 7? Maybe I’m selfish, but a couple of the most memorable, FAMOUS, baseball events I’ve ever seen were Morris’ complete game and the Schilling bloody sock game.
But, honestly, its a moot debate. Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson will never be forgotten as great baseball players, and neither will Jack Morris or Curt Schilling.
Once again, you have it completely backwards
The purpose of a Hall of Fame is to bestow fame on it’s inductees. It isn’t poll to see which players are the most famous.
by DJL44 on Jan 11, 2012 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Wins Above Replacement (for pitchers, career)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_pitch_career.shtml
Jack Morris is ranked 141st among pitchers.
Would Twins fans be in favor of Morris getting into the HoF if he hadn’t played 1 season for the Twins? Are Tigers fans going berserk over the non-election?
______________
Description of WAR: 1, 2
Tigers fans are going more berserk at Larkin getting in over Alan Trammell
But they also seem to think that Morris will get in eventually.
by ColossusOfRhode on Jan 11, 2012 3:08 AM EST up reply actions
i've resigned myself to the fact that morris likely will, undeserving as it is...
much like jim rice, tony perez, and andre dawson. doesn’t mean we can’t bitch about it.
trammell should definitely be in. he and larkin were both better players than ozzie smith, for instance.
I really think that's the wrong question
That is, I don’t think its terribly useful, for all sorts of reasons, to ask, “Is he better than someone who is already in?”
To me, the question is: “Is he one of the great players of his era?”
That’s a close question for Jack. Trammel certainly was, as was Ozzie Smith. I’d call Larkin a maybe.
no doubt...
just using a simple comparison. and trammell/larkin both overlapped with the same era as smith. i’d take trammell before ozzie in a heartbeat.
how is ozzie a lock and larkin is a maybe? larkin was better than ozzie.
why?
that shouldn’t be any kind of standard.
you could have 15 qualified candidates who remain on the outside looking in. or you could have zero.
There's always a decent backlog of candidates
Inducting the best 2-3 candidates each year would give you the same representation of players that other eras have gotten. If you make the right choices then you can retire the veterans committee. If a guy has to wait an extra year because Bench & Yaz retired the same year than so be it.
there should be no limits regardless...
if there are 15 worthy guys so be it. if there are none, so be it. the voters shouldn’t be limited by the group of likely candidates and have to choose one worthy guy vs. another.
imo.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
