Jack Morris Elected to Hall of Fame

[drjim]

Reusse on Morris making it:

 

http://www.startribune.com/jack-morris-makes-it-a-st-paul-hallof-fame-trifecta/463293213/#1

 

Being the provincial homer I am, it is amazing to think that 3 hall of famers grew up within 5 years and 3 miles of each other in the same city (where I currently live).

[Tom Froemming]

 

I keep hearing/reading people slam WAR as to why Morris wasnt making it in before. There are sooooo many old school reasons you can point to to explain why he didnt make it. No need to even mention WAR.

Like, for examples, for his career his ERA was only 5% better than league average. ERA is pretty old school. Or his low K/9 ration and his high BB/9 ratio. Or never winning a CY. All old school reasoning.

And,lets face it, the first 5 or so years on the ballot, newer things like WAR were barely mentioned, much less being used as some kind of barometer for HOF worthiness or individual season awards worthiness.

But he was a winner! Or wait ...

 

Most losses in the 1980s
126 Jim Clancy
122 Frank Tanana
119 Jack Morris

 

Morris had just the 18th best W-L% (.577) among pitchers with at least 100 decisions in the 80s. That was also his career mark, which is nearly identical to Bartolo Colon's. Somebody brought up Sandy Koufax earlier, his W-L% was .655. Johan Santana's was .641. Just sayin'.

[yarnivek1972]

I think Jack pitched to the score a lot. In today’s game, he would have been taken out of games with big leads. But he was allowed to stay in and rack up innings, and often give up cheap, meaningless runs.

 

PS: In 7 career World Series starts, 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA, 3 CG. In 6 career World Series starts and one relief appearance, Don Drysdale had 3 wins and a 2.95 ERA. In 13 World Series starts, “big game” Andy Pettitte had an ERA north of 4.

 

Don’t kid yourselves, October still matters to the voters.

[nicksaviking]

 

But he was a winner! Or wait ...

 

Most losses in the 1980s
126 Jim Clancy
122 Frank Tanana
119 Jack Morris

 

Morris had just the 18th best W-L% (.577) among pitchers with at least 100 decisions in the 80s. That was also his career mark, which is nearly identical to Bartolo Colon's. Somebody brought up Sandy Koufax earlier, his W-L% was .655. Johan Santana's was .641. Just sayin'.

 

So we've come full circle and we're back to W/L record? I thought Wins was basically the stat that got everyone to finally wake up to how silly some stats actually were. Nolan Ryan and Bert Blyleven were also both top 12 in losses in the 1980's as well.

 

And lumping a guy in with Frank Tanana isn't a demerit to me; he's one of the all time under-rated pitchers in my book.

[dbminn]

 

I keep hearing/reading people slam WAR as to why Morris wasnt making it in before. There are sooooo many old school reasons you can point to to explain why he didnt make it. No need to even mention WAR.

Like, for examples, for his career his ERA was only 5% better than league average. ERA is pretty old school. Or his low K/9 ration and his high BB/9 ratio. Or never winning a CY. All old school reasoning.

And,lets face it, the first 5 or so years on the ballot, newer things like WAR were barely mentioned, much less being used as some kind of barometer for HOF worthiness or individual season awards worthiness. Pretty sure Fangraphs was the first site to have a WAR stat and Fangraphs itself wasnt even in existence until Morris had been on the ballot for like 3 years.

 

All of your points have validity. The writers didn't vote for him and I would not have been upset if the veterans didn't vote him in either.

 

Where I disagree is related to the commentary re: WAR. Paul Swydan just published a HoF screed  at FG - basically suggesting the HoF isn't worth anyone's time because WAR isn't the judge (written before Morris was selected). Here at TD, we have a writer who I respect very much calling the selection "biased" and one that "lowers the bar".  

 

Morris was selected by a veterans' committee that included professionals who either played or were responsible for teams that competed against Morris. If they selected him, then fine. I'm okay with it. They were contemporaries and I respect their opinion.  

[mikelink45]

 

He was no Steady Eddie Bressoud. Alan Trammell was, in addition to being dependable and consistent, *really* good.

 

Really, really good. A plus defender at a premium position, who could hit. He could hit well above the league average most seasons during his prime. His team might have been happy with his bat if he had played at first base, those years. But he didn't play first, he played SS, meaning you could go out and get a bat-only guy for first base if you liked. And you didn't have to substitute him out in the late innings for defense - no, if his bat had been bad, he might still have been the late-inning defensive substitute.

 

I might be seriously underselling him by saying he's really, really good. He was *really*, really, really good. Greatest SS ever? No. But a long-standing oversight has finally been corrected.

I do not mean to demean his skills, they already did that when they forced him to be elected by the veterans committee (modern committee), but it was the lack of flash that both got him in and also delayed his election.

[Tom Froemming]

 

So we've come full circle and we're back to W/L record? I thought Wins was basically the stat that got everyone to finally wake up to how silly some stats actually were. Nolan Ryan and Bert Blyleven were also both top 12 in losses in the 1980's as well.

 

And lumping a guy in with Frank Tanana isn't a demerit to me; he's one of the all time under-rated pitchers in my book.

This was in support of jimmer's statement that "There are sooooo many old school reasons you can point to to explain why he didn't make it. No need to even mention WAR." The main old school reason to support Morris is wins. People love that "winningest pitcher of the 80s" title, but he lost a heck of a lot of games too. I was just trying to point out that there's neither a great new or old school argument in Morris' favor. 

 

In he end I don't care specifically that Jack Morris is in. I just don't care for the process and am frustrated that he's in and a ton of other guys who have just as good if not better cases are not ... guys like Frank Tanana. He didn't get a single vote when he was up for election in 1999.

[jimmer]

All of your points have validity. The writers didn't vote for him and I would not have been upset if the veterans didn't vote him in either.

 

Where I disagree is related to the commentary re: WAR. Paul Swydan just published a HoF screed at FG - basically suggesting the HoF isn't worth anyone's time because WAR isn't the judge (written before Morris was selected). Here at TD, we have a writer who I respect very much calling the selection "biased" and one that "lowers the bar".

 

Morris was selected by a veterans' committee that included professionals who either played or were responsible for teams that competed against Morris. If they selected him, then fine. I'm okay with it. They were contemporaries and I respect their opinion.

I just read Paul Swydans article. Does he even say the word WAR (other than mentioning JAWS once)? Im sorry, but I read it and not sure how you came to think his conclusion was what you said. I do think he is sayng there should be high standards and some consistency. He had a problem with Morgans letter. He has a problem with all ballot not being public.

 

Now he does say he likes a place called Hall of Stats, which certainly has WAR in it, but that is different than saying WAR should decide who gets in the Hall of Fame.

 

I guess after reading the article I dont find that he is saying what you say he is saying. And even if he is,its just a guys opinion,not the opinion of everyone who values the WAR stat

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

In he end I don't care specifically that Jack Morris is in. I just don't care for the process and am frustrated that he's in and a ton of other guys who have just as good if not better cases are not ... guys like Frank Tanana. He didn't get a single vote when he was up for election in 1999.

Well this is entirely on the BBWAA. While some have argued that the writers have lowered the bar for admission to the HOF the one position that they haven't lowered is starting pitcher.  Here is how the writers have treated starting pitchers.

 

2015 - Pedro, Smoltz, Big Unit

2014- Glavine, Maddux (These five averaged 300+wins and 3 Cy Youngs apiece. They are all absolute elite starters and all but Pedro threw over 4000 innings)

2011 - Blyleven - was on the ballot forever and finally got in. By WAR, he's better than some of the pitchers elected in 14 and 15.

1999 - Nolan Ryan - yep, the writers didn't elect a single starting pitcher at all between Ryan and Blyleven, although they put in several relief pitchers. Ryan, of course, is another inner circle HOFer. Jack Morris got on the ballot the next year.

1998 - Don Sutton - 300+ wins, 5000+ innings. That was his fifth year on the ballot

1997 - Phil Neikro - 300+ wins, 5000+ innings, nearly 100 WAR. His fifth year on the ballot and there were lots of articles about "compiling wins" at the time.

1994 - Steve Carlton - another inner circle HOFer

1992 - Tom Seaver - in the conversation for best pitcher ever.

 

And that's the entire list of starting pitchers selected by the BBWAA over the last 25 years. 11 guys and all but Sutton are inner circle pitchers. That is completely small hall voting. Morris, Saberhagen, Tanana, Guidry, Kaat, John, Radke, Hershiser, Cone, Brown etc were all dropped or ignored. Not all were HOF worthy but there were a lot of guys who deserved more looks.

 

[gunnarthor]

 

I just read Paul Swydans article. Does he even say the word WAR (other than mentioning JAWS once)? Im sorry, but I read it and not sure how you came to think his conclusion was what you said. I do think he is sayng there should be high standards and some consistency. He had a problem with Morgans letter. He has a problem with all ballot not being public.

Now he does say he likes a place called Hall of Stats, which certainly has WAR in it, but that is different than saying WAR should decide who gets in the Hall of Fame.

I guess after reading the article I dont find that he is saying what you say he is saying. And even if he is,its just a guys opinion,not the opinion of everyone who values the WAR stat

I dunno man. Reading that article it seems pretty clear that he wants WAR to be the decider or close to it. Basically, the article seemed a lot like a guy with only child syndrome saying since something isn't like how he'd want it, it's not good. Seemed petty to me. That's probably how dbminn read it too.

[dbminn]

 

I keep hearing/reading people slam WAR as to why Morris wasnt making it in before. There are sooooo many old school reasons you can point to to explain why he didnt make it. No need to even mention WAR.

Like, for examples, for his career his ERA was only 5% better than league average. ERA is pretty old school. Or his low K/9 ration and his high BB/9 ratio. Or never winning a CY. All old school reasoning.

And,lets face it, the first 5 or so years on the ballot, newer things like WAR were barely mentioned, much less being used as some kind of barometer for HOF worthiness or individual season awards worthiness. Pretty sure Fangraphs was the first site to have a WAR stat and Fangraphs itself wasnt even in existence until Morris had been on the ballot for like 3 years.

 

He only needed to mention it once, included with other deconstructed metrics: "All have merit, and given that all of these metrics are organized coherently and are not subject to continuous logical fallacies and cronyism, all have more merit than does the current Hall’s member list."

 

They don't have more merit, IMO. Selection by the writers is itself part of the HoF history, as is the selection by veterans. They have merit on their own terms. 

 

I'm a fan of modern metrics and have no problem with the writers using them to support their HoF votes. But veterans have their place in the selection process. The history of selections has its place too. 

 

* - oops - quoted the wrong comment. See jimmers last response.

[gil4]

 

This will retire the conversations about whether or not Morris is worthy.

 

This will ensure the debate will continue long after everyone who saw him play is dead. If it got to the point where most of what was left of his memory was the numbers, the debate would have died away eventually if he wasn't in. 

[jimmer]

By the way, of the 16 members on the committee that selected Morris and Trammel, 6 were former players (all in the HOF).

[jkcarew]

 

A lot of pitchers on the outside looking in saying "if he got in why not me?"

 

No problem.  Just go out and win a couple of world series if you haven't already...and make sure you're the MVP in one of them.  And, oh yeah....work in one Game 7 10-inning Complete-Game Shutout...you know, where if you had given up a run at any point during the game, your team would have lost the World Series, but instead they won the World Series.  If you've got about the same or slightly better numbers than Jack, this should put you over the hump.

 

There are a few different way's guys have made it to the hall...I don't have an issue with this one.  And, it's not like he sucked otherwise.  When he was playing, he was consistently and broadly considered to be among the best pitchers in the league.

[Mike Sixel]

Morris had the most WINS of any pitcher in the entire decade of the 80's. 3 World Series rings/3 different teams. Ace of those teams. Bulldog. '91 Game 7. Yeah, he deserves it. Congrats Jack!

To be as good as Morris, radke would need to throw over a thousand more innings with an ERA of nearly six.. Plus, Morris insulted a woman reporter for being a woman. He does not deserve it, not even close.

 

https://twitter.com/DSzymborski/status/940292418494255104

[Mike Sixel]

I think Jack pitched to the score a lot. In today’s game, he would have been taken out of games with big leads. But he was allowed to stay in and rack up innings, and often give up cheap, meaningless runs.

 

PS: In 7 career World Series starts, 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA, 3 CG. In 6 career World Series starts and one relief appearance, Don Drysdale had 3 wins and a 2.95 ERA. In 13 World Series starts, “big game” Andy Pettitte had an ERA north of 4.

 

Don’t kid yourselves, October still matters to the voters.

Studies show that isn't true. He gave up runs early just as much as late.

[jkcarew]

While the 80's don't seem that long ago for some of us, they were, in fact, a completely different era in terms of baseball.  Starters were not charged with "missing bats"  (meanwhile, at least two-thirds of the lineups were actually trying to put the ball in play)...instead, they were expected to work fast and eat up as many innings as possible while keeping their team in the game.  Jack did this as good, or better, than anyone else in baseball for the better part of a decade.

 

IMO, there is a Hall argument to be made with his regular-season performances, given the era.  Having said that, I don't think it's a particularly strong argument.  I think the WS performances pushed him over the top.  And the one he had with the Twins was historical.  It just was.

[gunnarthor]

 

To be as good as Morris, radke would need to throw over a thousand more innings with an ERA of nearly six.. Plus, Morris insulted a woman reporter for being a woman. He does not deserve it, not even close.

https://twitter.com/DSzymborski/status/940292418494255104

Interesting, insulting a woman reporter = no entry to HOF. Where does Bonds' PED use and DV allegations put him? How about Clemens' PED use or  his alleged affair with a 15 year old girl? How about Smoltz' comments on same sex marriage?  

 

As for the Radke comparison (and others), I suspect if Morris had thrown 30-40 less innings a year, his rate stats would be far better. For his career, Radke threw 2400 innings, 113 ERA+ and amassed 38 fWAR. From 79-88, Morris threw 2400 innings, put up a 114 ERA+ and amassed 40 fWAR. (Yes, bWAR has different valuations of those innings). He then threw another 1300+ innings.

[drjim]

Interesting, insulting a woman reporter = no entry to HOF. Where does Bonds' PED use and DV allegations put him? How about Clemens' PED use or his alleged affair with a 15 year old girl? How about Smoltz' comments on same sex marriage?

 

As for the Radke comparison (and others), I suspect if Morris had thrown 30-40 less innings a year, his rate stats would be far better. For his career, Radke threw 2400 innings, 113 ERA+ and amassed 38 fWAR. From 79-88, Morris threw 2400 innings, put up a 114 ERA+ and amassed 40 fWAR. (Yes, bWAR has different valuations of those innings). He then threw another 1300+ innings.

I agree the rate stat comparisons over such a large difference in innings is disingenuous.

[jimmer]

Studies show that isn't true. He gave up runs early just as much as late.

his ERA in innings 7-9 is lower than innings 1-3 and 4-6. So pitching later in games helped his career ERA, not hindered.

[h2oface]

 

Good for them.  They might now put a premium to their autographs.

 

I just don't get the need for a back door to the hall of fame.

 

I like the alternate avenue. I think writers are often pompous and misguided, and for the Hall of Fame, often out of date, or in reverse of that, too new and not studied on the history of the game. Morris was, for a decade, a great pitcher/player/personality of the game. I am glad he is in the HOF.

[h2oface]

 

Interesting, insulting a woman reporter = no entry to HOF. 

 

Hey.... not exactly the same type of event, but it didn't stop Kirby Puckett.

[Pius Jefferson]

 

Morris had the most WINS of any pitcher in the entire decade of the 80's. 3 World Series rings/3 different teams. Ace of those teams. Bulldog. '91 Game 7. Yeah, he deserves it. Congrats Jack!

 

Not sure why that one specific ten year period means anything.  Good for Morris but Hall of Fame is an individual career achievement. Not the Ace of the Blue Jays.  That's all he's got going for him.

[h2oface]

 

But he was a winner! Or wait ...

 

Most losses in the 1980s
126 Jim Clancy
122 Frank Tanana
119 Jack Morris

 

Morris had just the 18th best W-L% (.577) among pitchers with at least 100 decisions in the 80s. That was also his career mark, which is nearly identical to Bartolo Colon's. Somebody brought up Sandy Koufax earlier, his W-L% was .655. Johan Santana's was .641. Just sayin'.

 

 

Most losses in the history of MLB

1 Cy Young - 316
2 Pud Galvin - 308
3 Nolan Ryan - 292
4 Walter Johnson - 279
5 Phil Niekro - 274
6 Gaylord Perry - 265
7 Don Sutton - 256
8 Jack Powell - 254
9 Eppa Rixey - 251
10 Bert Blyleven - 250

 

58 Jack Morris - 186

 

...all in HOF except Jack Powell

 

What a bunch of losers!

[Mike Sixel]

I don't have an issue with PED use, we've covered that ground, though I am sure most here don't agree.

 

As for merit.....I will stop posting on this thread. Some of you are happy he made it, so I'll just say congrats and move on.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Interesting, insulting a woman reporter = no entry to HOF. 

 

If only that was all I posted. As I said, I'm happy that you all are happy.....

[yarnivek1972]

Studies show that isn't true. He gave up runs early just as much as late.

I’m sure he did. But what I am saying is that he gave up meaningless runs in late innings, at least anecdotaly and based on his one season when I saw pretty much all of his starts. If the game was close and he was struggling, he was lifted like any other guy would be. But, if the game was in hand, he was often allowed to save the bullpen at the expense of his ERA.

[jimmer]

 

I’m sure he did. But what I am saying is that he gave up meaningless runs in late innings, at least anecdotaly and based on his one season when I saw pretty much all of his starts. If the game was close and he was struggling, he was lifted like any other guy would be. But, if the game was in hand, he was often allowed to save the bullpen at the expense of his ERA.

what season was that? '91?

[yarnivek1972]

what season was that? '91?

Yes. Not all. But I probably saw 30 of his starts that season.

[jimmer]

 

Yes. Not all. But I probably saw 30 of his starts that season.

That year, his ERA in innings 1-3 was 4.35, in innings 4-6 it was 2.75, in innings 7-9 it was 2.82.  Pitching late didn't hurt his ERA, but rather it helped his ERA (since his ERA that year was 3.43).  He only gave up 16 ERs from innings 7-9.