Jack Morris Elected to Hall of Fame

[Wookiee of the Year]

 

I just don't care for the process. For 15 years hundreds of writers voted and these two didn't make it in. Then it goes to a committee of 16 guys to review their cases and come to a conclusion? Why can't the veterans committees be bigger?

 

This is basically how I feel. The "front door" to the Hall of Fame goes through a process where over 500 writers voted on Jack Morris's worthiness annually for 15 consecutive years, and as recently as 2014, and found him wanting. It's bizarre to me that three years later, 12 guys on one of the Eras Committees is enough to put a guy in.

 

I think Alan Trammell is a deserving Hall of Famer, but last year the writers voted and gave him 41% of the vote. It feels way to soon for a veterans committee to be reevaluating that judgment.

 

I'd like to see a requirement that 10 years need to pass after a player falls off the writers' ballot before the Eras Committees can consider him.

[Doomtints]

 

I'd like to see a requirement that 10 years need to pass after a player falls off the writers' ballot before the Eras Committees can consider him.

 

By then the same people who voted the first time would be voting for the player again. The point is to get a different perspective. Morris *was* considered one of the top pitchers in his era. That means something. It's called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Great Stats.

[yarnivek1972]

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.

Giving up any runs is going to increase one’s ERA. Say for example, Morris was in the 8th inning with a 6-1 lead. A couple guys get on. Maybe a less experienced pitcher gets pulled and those runs don’t score. Morris stays in, but gives up a run. Maybe even two. He finishes the inning. Maybe even the game.

[jimmer]

 

Giving up any runs is going to increase one’s ERA. Say for example, Morris was in the 8th inning with a 6-1 lead. A couple guys get on. Maybe a less experienced pitcher gets pulled and those runs don’t score. Morris stays in, but gives up a run. Maybe even two. He finishes the inning. Maybe even the game.

The problem with his ERA was affected WAAAAAY more in innings 1-3 than anything afterwards. If he never pitched past the 6th inning, his ERA would have been higher not lower.

 

Season ERA: 3.43

ERA in innings 1-6: 3.58

 

The runs he allowed in innings 7-8 dropped his season ERA by .15.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

RE: The pitching to the score. IMO, not trying as hard because you have a comfortable lead is a negative attribute, not a positive one. If true, of course.

[yarnivek1972]

The problem with his ERA was affected WAAAAAY more in innings 1-3 than anything afterwards. If he never pitched past the 6th inning, his ERA would have been higher not lower.

 

Season ERA: 3.43

ERA in innings 1-6: 3.58

 

The runs he allowed in innings 7-8 dropped his season ERA by .15.

But what I am saying is that his overall ERA could have been even lower if he had been lifted for a reliever instead of being allowed to give up a late inning run here and there. And I think that was the case for the bulk of his career. As has been noted, he played on a lot of big time offensive teams. That he had big leads a lot certainly wouldn’t be a surprise.

[jimmer]

 

But what I am saying is that his overall ERA could have been even lower if he had been lifted for a reliever instead of being allowed to give up a late inning run here and there. And I think that was the case for the bulk of his career. As has been noted, he played on a lot of big time offensive teams. That he had big leads a lot certainly wouldn’t be a surprise.

Yeah, in theory, if he had been pulled in certain games and not others (and if a manager could forsee that all the time wouldn't that be awesome) but as can be shown in application, it could LOWER his ERA too, like it did in '91 overall as well as his career overall.

 

And in any event, your theory can be said for any pitcher no? The idea one could give up more runs if left in longer. It's not unique to him.

 

Enjoyed our chat, I'm moving on. 

[old nurse]

 

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.

What was his ERA in games that the Twins were comfortably ahead in innings 7-9? What was his ERA in 1 run games innings 7=9.  What you point out is meaningless without the differentiation. because not all innings 7-9 were  games that it did not matter if you gave up a run.

[rikker49]

 

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

And he would have to win three World Series....(cough)

[rikker49]

Is this Atlanta Braves Daily?? This St. Paul guy, who won a World Series for the TWINS, gets into the HOF and some people on TWINS Daily seem unhappy or mildly upset that he got in. I'm thrilled for Morris. I am not saying people can't have an opinion, but it feels like there are a lot of Braves fans commenting. And yes, I'm a homer, but geez....enjoy and be happy for Jack.

[Don Walcott]

Is this Atlanta Braves Daily?? This St. Paul guy, who won a World Series for the TWINS, gets into the HOF and some people on TWINS Daily seem unhappy or mildly upset that he got in. I'm thrilled for Morris. I am not saying people can't have an opinion, but it feels like there are a lot of Braves fans commenting. And yes, I'm a homer, but geez....enjoy and be happy for Jack.

The Morris HOF debate has been going on for years, and not because of team affiliation. It’s about people who believe that bWAR and ERA+ are the most important rating systems, and anyone who disagrees is “old school” and less enlightened. It’s more about a group of people wanting to be right than it is about Twins fans, or Braves fans, or Tigers fans.

[jimmer]

And he would have to win three World Series....(cough)

or perhaps play on teams good enough to actually get to even one world series. Morris didnt get to and win world series on his own.

[jimmer]

The Morris HOF debate has been going on for years, and not because of team affiliation. It’s about people who believe that bWAR and ERA+ are the most important rating systems, and anyone who disagrees is “old school” and less enlightened. It’s more about a group of people wanting to be right than it is about Twins fans, or Braves fans, or Tigers fans.

ERA+is old school, not new. K/9, BB/9, K/BB ratio and the fact he never even finished 2nd in CY,much less won a CY. All old school. Old school or new school, both give compelling arguments against.

[PDX Twin]

 

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).

 

And more remarkably, it is not a location where one can comfortably be on the field 12 months of the year.

[spanman2]

 

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!

I also look at his 175 complete games...it would be interesting to dig up how many runs he gave up say after the 8th inning in those games?  I bet in many occasions he told whomever the manager was at the time 'I got this' or something to that effect to save the bullpen the wear and tear on their arms.  Congrats Jack. 

[Mike Sixel]

The Morris HOF debate has been going on for years, and not because of team affiliation. It’s about people who believe that bWAR and ERA+ are the most important rating systems, and anyone who disagrees is “old school” and less enlightened. It’s more about a group of people wanting to be right than it is about Twins fans, or Braves fans, or Tigers fans.

No. And that is really rude. It is about who is good enough to be in the hall. Not about ego or other things you imply. Nice ad hominen attack, though.

[Squirrel]

 

No. And that is really rude. It is about who is good enough to be in the hall. Not about ego or other things you imply. Nice ad hominen attack, though.

I don't think it's rude ... I think there is a certain to truth to it ... on BOTH sides. (The 'being right' part.) I've followed this debate each and every time it's come up and there is absolutely nothing new being said ... it's the same old arguments on both sides, back and forth, back and forth. There are a few acknowledgements of understanding the others' points of view, even if disagreed with (and I say few, very few) vs people just digging in for the long haul, with the 'tone' of "I'm right, gosh darn it!" So, at this point, as a moderator, I'm putting this out here:

 

If you've said it already, you've said it. Move on. There is no 'convincing' of anyone of anything here as most here have decided opinions. On TD, I don't care how much you believe in what you believe, or how right you may be proven in hindsight, or how right you think you are in foresight, no one is right or wrong here, only expressing opinions. Disagree with those opinions all you want, have a good debate, even heated as long as you remain respectful. But at this point, this subject has been debated many times over, and it will soon teeter over (and has) into jabs at one another and their reasoning as to why they think as they do which then becomes bickering. So, unless you have something new to add or are just refuting what you've already refuted time and again, stop.

 

And while I'm at it ... stop with the jabs, especially if you meant them to be unfriendly. And stop being easily offended with perception without truly knowing and responding equally. (Especially the 'responding equally' part.) If you truly feel whatever someone said was meant as an insult, report it.

 

(And even though I quoted Mike here, I am addressing EVERYONE. He just gave me a 'good jumping off' point.)

[ashbury]

Giving up any runs is going to increase one’s ERA. Say for example, Morris was in the 8th inning with a 6-1 lead. A couple guys get on. Maybe a less experienced pitcher gets pulled and those runs don’t score. Morris stays in, but gives up a run. Maybe even two. He finishes the inning. Maybe even the game.

Anecdotal evidence is one thing. (Hypothetical anecdotes, a strange subclass. ) But, people have tried to slice and dice the available data in many ways, and to my knowledge no one has come up with convincing evidence that Morris was capable of repeatedly doing what is claimed over any significant period of time.

 

Here are a couple of links: one, a primary-source study by someone with pretty good credentials, and the other, an essay by a writer I respect who says here he's looked at studies. See what you think after reading:

 

http://cybermetric.blogspot.com/2016/05/jack-morris-pitching-to-score-and-hall.html

http://joeposnanski.com/the-reality-and-absurdity-of-pitching-to-the-score/

 

There's a ton more from my googling "pitching to the score jack morris" without the quotes. You might try a different key word list and find a further ton more. In any case, a hypothetical scenario on a guy for whom actual data exists doesn't move the needle for me.

[gunnarthor]

I think this is a nice article celebrating both Morris and Trammel as well as the 80s by Joe Posnanski, who never voted for Morris but at the same time is quite happy he's in the HOF.

 

"But Morris' case was never about numbers. It was about the pitching fury that drove him. If you want to choose any number, choose one that tells the story of Morris' stubbornness. He threw 240-plus innings 10 times; since 2010, only seven pitchers have thrown 240 innings in even one season. No, there couldn't be a Morris in today's game, not in the same way, not in this era of power bullpens and the science that shows you rarely want a pitcher facing a lineup for a third time."

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/alan-trammell-jack-morris-a-nod-to-the-80s/c-263258412

[old nurse]

If there was evidence one way or the other on Morris pitching to the score, the computer literate file sorters would have produced that information.  The IP/yr is a number that he can claim as worthy. The reputation of being the number one starter on the teams he was on for 16 years. The reputation of being the leader and competitor.  It does not fit into a statistical category.  The IP and mindset of Morris is about as far from the current mindset of the pitching of today I could see how Morris would resonate with the veteran players and executives on the committee. That would be enough to get him in.

[Don Walcott]

 

No. And that is really rude. It is about who is good enough to be in the hall. Not about ego or other things you imply. Nice ad hominen attack, though.

I apologize if my comment was offensive. I did not intend to be rude. I have a lot of respect for the opinions that you express on this site.

 

I have been involved in this debate on other sites, including Posnanski's, where instead of debating the merits of the HOF case, I've been condescended to as if I knew nothing about advanced statistics. And I have found that it makes no difference what team you root for, the debate is not about that. So my opinion about the motivations behind the debate was formed many years ago.

[Don Walcott]

 

ERA+is old school, not new. K/9, BB/9, K/BB ratio and the fact he never even finished 2nd in CY,much less won a CY. All old school. Old school or new school, both give compelling arguments against.

ERA+ is one of the primary rating systems that is used in the case against Morris, in my experience. I agree that it is a terrible rating system. And the flaws in ERA+ are compounded by bWAR.

 

K/9 is also a terrible statistic.  People should use K% instead.  For example, if one pitcher gives up three baserunners and strikes out one in one inning, his k/9 is 9.  Another pitcher gives up no baserunners and strikes out one in one inning, his k/9 is 9.  However, the latter's K% is twice as good as the former's, and he's simply better at striking people out.

[jimmer]

ERA+ is one of the primary rating systems that is used in the case against Morris, in my experience. I agree that it is a terrible rating system. And the flaws in ERA+ are compounded by bWAR.

 

K/9 is also a terrible statistic. People should use K% instead. For example, if one pitcher gives up three baserunners and strikes out one in one inning, his k/9 is 9. Another pitcher gives up no baserunners and strikes out one in one inning, his k/9 is 9. However, the latter's K% is twice as good as the former's, and he's simply better at striking people out.

ERA+ is just ERA compared to other pitchers when they pitched (with a possible adjustmebt for ballparks). So really, its mostly just ERA and yeah, it is flawed. As is ERA (which is also a knock on him, BTW)

 

As yes, K/9 has issues too (most stats do)

 

Both in these cases, you are preaching to the choir and it doesnt change my point, which is that there are plenty of reasons,on both the old school and new school sides of thinking, that make a compelling argument against him getting in.

 

Btw, as far as new stats, I personally dont use bWAR at all.

 

P.S.his FIP is nothing to write home about either ;-)

[Don Walcott]

But his fWAR is significantly better than bWAR, which is why you never hear about fWAR in these debates.

[jimmer]

 

But his fWAR is significantly better than bWAR, which is why you never hear about fWAR in these debates.

His fWAR is nothing to brag about either:  55.8.

 

Mussina, who may not make it, is 82.2. Schilling is 79.8.

 

I've read plenty who quote his fWAR when saying he doesn't deserve it (for example, some writers at Fangraphs).

 

But, still, it's not old school versus new school when it comes to Morris.  Plenty of reasons on both sides to say, 'Yeah no.  He didn't deserve it.'  So this idea that people put out there that's it's only because of new school thinking (especially quoting WAR) that he couldn't get in before is false.  There are arguments and both sides as to why he shouldn't have AND WAR didn't even exist the first few years he was on the ballot, much less taken seriously.

 

But he's in, and good for him.

 

 

[Don Walcott]

IMO, the main problem with any WAR calculation for starting pitchers is that pitchers only continue to pitch by getting outs. Once they can't get outs, or tire, or hit a pitch count, they get pulled. A replacement level pitcher can't pitch 293 innings like Jack did in 1983. A replacement level pitcher can't pitch 250 innings, like Jack averaged for his healthy full 13 seasons. To truly understand the replacement level for a great starting pitcher, you need a replacement level pitcher and one or two relievers, and then you would need to quantify the burden on the bullpen of having to pitch innings 7-9 20-30 more times each season. Finally, FIP and ERA+ don't account for the high leverage situations a starting pitcher like Morris took on by pitching the 7-9 innings.

 

Ultimately, the concept of replacement level players, which may work for other players, does not work well for starting pitchers. The Morris debate has highlighted this fact, as he's an extreme example of a guy who pitched a lot of 7-9 innings compared to his peers.

[jimmer]

 

IMO, the main problem with any WAR calculation for starting pitchers is that pitchers only continue to pitch by getting outs. Once they can't get outs, or tire, or hit a pitch count, they get pulled. A replacement level pitcher can't pitch 293 innings like Jack did in 1983. A replacement level pitcher can't pitch 250 innings, like Jack averaged for his healthy full 13 seasons. To truly understand the replacement level for a great starting pitcher, you need a replacement level pitcher and one or two relievers, and then you would need to quantify the burden on the bullpen of having to pitch innings 7-9 20-30 more times each season. Finally, FIP and ERA+ don't account for the high leverage situations a starting pitcher like Morris took on by pitching the 7-9 innings.

 

Ultimately, the concept of replacement level players, which may work for other players, does not work well for starting pitchers. The Morris debate has highlighted this fact, as he's an extreme example of a guy who pitched a lot of 7-9 innings compared to his peers.

And innings are taken into account, right?   Since WAR is a cumulative stat.

 

And his ERA in innings 7-9 is lower than in innings 1-3 and 4-6 so those 7-9 innings helped his ERA, not hurt it.

[Don Walcott]

 

And innings are taken into account, right?   Since WAR is a cumulative stat.

 

And his ERA in innings 7-9 is lower than in innings 1-3 and 4-6 so those 7-9 innings helped his ERA, not hurt it.

Not exactly. With FIP, it hurts if he didn't try to strike every batter out. If he was told he was only going 7 innings, he'd probably have had more strikeouts. This is evidenced by the fact that he had a higher strikeout percentage in the 9th inning than in any other inning. His 8th inning was his worst inning in a lot of ways. So it would appear that he was saving something to close out games. If he had gone full out, knowing he was not expected to go deep into games, he would have had better FIP and a better ERA.

 

If WAR were a truly cumulative stat, you'd take into account all of the things I listed above because no replacement pitcher could, say, throw 7 consecutive complete games or three consecutive shutouts, or even approach the results Jack achieved in the late innings.  There'd at least be a leverage component to the calculations, which there are for relief pitchers, but not for starting pitchers. But it definitely would be a difficult calculation, and would likely involve even more questionable assumptions than are already inherent in the calculations through things like ballpark effect and defense.

 

That Jack was so dominant in the 9th inning, brings up his 7-9 stats relatively. So you have to unpack that analysis a bit. Moreover, one of the reasons pitchers are taken out of games is to preserve them for the next game, and for the course of the season. Despite his freakish stamina, I have to believe that some of the runs he gave up in early innings were a result of having been overworked in previous games. Of course, there's no way of knowing for sure, but common sense and experience would say that's the case.

 

One problem with ERA is we assume that it means a pitcher averages a certain number of runs per nine innings pitched. That's true in a way, but not the 9 innings of any particular game. A more accurate statistic would show how many innings a pitcher averaged per start, and how many runs that pitcher averaged giving up per start. Then, if you want to get really into it, determine what innings the pitcher did not pitch, and how many runs an average bullpen from that league in that year would have given up in those games in those innings. I think Jack would come out looking really good if that's how we quantified run prevention.

 

Even though I think he could have had better "advanced" statistics if he had been used differently, I don't think it would have helped his teams win championships. The 1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins and 1992 Blue Jays relied on him to win games, but also pitch deep into games to that the bullpen could be used to assist weaker pitchers. That formula worked for the rotation, the bullpen and the teams he played on. And after all, his contributions to his teams is the main factor in whether he's a HOFer.

[Don Walcott]

As for Wins, one of the reasons the statistic is flawed, is that 5-inning wins are the same as 9-inning wins. Fun fact in this discussion that I've never heard from anyone else is that if you counted only wins where the pitcher went 7 innings, Jack had 1 more win that Glavine in about 155 less starts over his career. Jack earned his wins more than anyone in his era and ever since, going 7 innings in 86% of his wins, and going 9 innings in 43%. He has very few cheap wins.

[jimmer]

 

Not exactly. With FIP, it hurts if he didn't try to strike every batter out. If he was told he was only going 7 innings, he'd probably have had more strikeouts. This is evidenced by the fact that he had a higher strikeout percentage in the 9th inning than in any other inning. His 8th inning was his worst inning in a lot of ways. So it would appear that he was saving something to close out games. If he had gone full out, knowing he was not expected to go deep into games, he would have had better FIP and a better ERA.

 

If WAR were a truly cumulative stat, you'd take into account all of the things I listed above because no replacement pitcher could, say, throw 7 consecutive complete games or three consecutive shutouts, or even approach the results Jack achieved in the late innings.  There'd at least be a leverage component to the calculations, which there are for relief pitchers, but not for starting pitchers. But it definitely would be a difficult calculation, and would likely involve even more questionable assumptions than are already inherent in the calculations through things like ballpark effect and defense.

 

That Jack was so dominant in the 9th inning, brings up his 7-9 stats relatively. So you have to unpack that analysis a bit. Moreover, one of the reasons pitchers are taken out of games is to preserve them for the next game, and for the course of the season. Despite his freakish stamina, I have to believe that some of the runs he gave up in early innings were a result of having been overworked in previous games. Of course, there's no way of knowing for sure, but common sense and experience would say that's the case.

 

One problem with ERA is we assume that it means a pitcher averages a certain number of runs per nine innings pitched. That's true in a way, but not the 9 innings of any particular game. A more accurate statistic would show how many innings a pitcher averaged per start, and how many runs that pitcher averaged giving up per start. Then, if you want to get really into it, determine what innings the pitcher did not pitch, and how many runs an average bullpen from that league in that year would have given up in those games in those innings. I think Jack would come out looking really good if that's how we quantified run prevention.

 

Even though I think he could have had better "advanced" statistics if he had been used differently, I don't think it would have helped his teams win championships. The 1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins and 1992 Blue Jays relied on him to win games, but also pitch deep into games to that the bullpen could be used to assist weaker pitchers. That formula worked for the rotation, the bullpen and the teams he played on. And after all, his contributions to his teams is the main factor in whether he's a HOFer.

I'm sorry, but the arguments used for Morris, by Morris fans, get all twisted around until only certain numbers or narratives(all the positive ones) count and the rest are discarded as misleading or whatever else.  Like going out of their way to stretch things or look at things at a certain angle or reach for straws to say he's deserving.  For examples:

 

1. Pitch to score (and the idea his ERA would be lower if he didn't go as far while also saying he deserves to go to the Hall cause of the complete game). Both used as an excuse his ERA is so high (for a HOFer)

2. Most wins in the 80s

  - As if wins aren't a product of team effort

  - As if it's something special as opposed to any 10 year stretch.

  - Failing to mention losses during that decade too (cause only the wins count?)

3. World Series titles when it takes a whole team to get to the playoffs, get through the playoffs (one round in his case) and win a W Series 

 

When people have to do that for a HOF candidate it's telling.  And he's the only pitcher I know where that happens.

 

In any event, like I keep saying, my original point which got this discussion started was that people need to stop with the narrative that's it's only new school thinking that argues against him being deserving.  It's not.

 

It's been a good discussion (very fun and respectful) and I thank you. I've had these kind of debates at length with many, but in the end for me it's about the numbers and there are too many old school and new school numbers that over-ride the rest, no matter how interesting to read.