Modern Era Ballot Full Of Flaws

Not an impressive list, frankly.

Trammell deserves it, I think. He should have won an MVP in '87, probably should have gotten at least one more all-star bid. A lot of great seasons and almost no bad ones.

Tiant is a no for me. It wasn't like he was robbed of a Cy or anything. He's a terrific pitcher who's in the Hall of Very Good for me. Had some injuries in his prime years and inconsistency in his 30s. Doubt he makes this list if he's not on those Boston teams from the 70's.

ted Simmons is a close call. He was a better defender than his rep and a terrific hitter, especially for a catcher. A terrific player for a long time, he also never had that really high peak where you'd legitimately think of him as an MVP. I'd have him just short, but I wouldn't cry if he went in, partly because there reall aren't a ton of catchers in there.

Dave Parker has to be a no. Only one really good season once he turned 29? (The MVP votes he got in '86 were absurd; he was too highly ranked in '85, but at least he had a good year then, his last as a pro) The peak was great, but 5 years is not enough to get into the HoF and he doesn't have anything else to hand his hat on.

Dale Murphy has the same problem as Parker: a great peak but then he fall off the face of the earth. probably didn't deserve the first MVP either, although he wasn't a terrible choice or anything; people just cared too much about RBIs back then and ignored Mike Schimdt & Gary Carter that year. I'd say no here too.

Jack Morris. I've been down this road many a time. A fine pitcher who could hang with the best of them...he just wasn't actually the best of them. Pitching to the score is BS, and Jack gave up too many runs to get in. 

Marvin Miller. Eh, it'd be fine. Been better if they'd done it when he was alive.

Don Mattingly. No, no, no! Vastly overrated player who piled up a ton of GG he almost certainly didn't deserve entirely because he played in NYC in the era before everyone could be seen often on tv. Won an MVP when he wasn't even the best guy on his own team. Short career, short peak. He's Kent Hrbek with far better press. See anyone clamoring for Hrbie to get in the HoF?

Tommy John. Borderline for me here too. long, long career (sometimes I still think he's pitching). Certainly meets the "fame" threshold. Piled up a lot of innings, great at keeping the ball in the park. But got most of his Cy Young steam because he was playing in big markets on pretty good teams. The peak's too low, not enough high levels seasons for me. Something of a compiler because he played so damn long.

Steve Garvey. Another No. Mattingly was a better player, and the extra 5 years of decline with the Padres don't do Garvey and favors. His MVP is another bad one; just like Mattingly he wasn't even the best player on his own team that year! Not a chance for this guy.

Keith Hernandez is the biggest snub that comes to mind for me. He's substantially better than either Mattingly or Garvey and played the same position. Mex was actually a reasonable choice as MVP the year he won it, and was historically good defensively. There may be other guys that are deserving to be on this ballot, but it's especially galling to have Garvey & Mattingly on the ballot and then to exclude Hernandez. Maybe that's on purpose: if you leave of Hernandez, maybe people won't compare Garvey & Mattingly to him and realize how they really aren't in the same league...

The voters are past players. I’ve always said that any player who ever made a million bucks in his career should feel an obligation to vote for Miller.

Morris was the #1 for three different teams who won the WS. The Tigers have won 3 WS total, the Twins 2, and the Jays 2. Morris is a significant historical figure for each of these teams in a way that is unmatched by any other pitcher in history. He was dominant in two of those post-seasons, winning Babe Ruth Awards twice and WS MVP once. He was crucial for each team making the playoffs.

He had 13 healthy seasons, and his career rating stats are jacked due to his injury-plagued 1989, 1993 and 1994 seasons. In his 13 healthy seasons, he led his team in regular season innings and wins every year but 1991, when Erickson had more regular season wins. If you count the playoffs, he led his teams in innings and wins all 13 seasons. His teams had a .599 winning percentage when he was pitching, and a .540 percentage when he was not.  And his teams were able to utilize the bullpens more on his off days because he pitched deeper into games than anyone of his era. In his 13 healthy seasons, he averaged 18-12, 3.65 ERA, 246.2 innings pitched, 7and 1/3 innings per game, 12 CG, 8 CGW and 2 Shutouts.

He had 111 Complete Game victories. In games he started where there was a save chance but he stayed in, he was 49 of 52 (94%) akin to Dennis Eckersley in his MVP and Cy Young season. He was better in innings 7-9 than in innings 4-6 or 1-3. He was also better in the 9th inning than any other inning. His rate stats in the 9th inning of games he pitched in are similar to those of Hall of Fame closers. He was a freak of nature how he could get stronger in the 9th inning, with a higher strikeout percentage than in any other inning. And these numbers support the idea that he saved something for the end of games to finish off his opponents.

He was voted for Cy Young in 7 different seasons. For all pitchers who touched on his era, only Clemens (12), Mussina (9), Palmer (8) and Ryan (8) had more seasons where someone gave them a Cy Young vote. Blyleven and Tommy John had 4. He also started 3 All-Star Games.

In 8th inning of the last game of 1981, he was one bad inning of his team not fielding bunts very well away from a Cy Young. He deserved to be the Cy Young in 1983, when he led the league in innings and strikeouts, had 293.2 innings (matched only once since by Blyleven in 1985), 20 CGs, 14 CGWs (striking out 17 in the 9th inning of those wins), and a 3.34 ERA. Match his numbers against the Cy Young winner, Lamar Hoyt, and Hoyt was only better in wins. He had 7 consecutive CGs from August 3-September 1 that season, almost keeping the Tigers in the pennant race. In 1986, he had 6 shutouts (including a 10-inning shutout of the Yankees), and a streak of 32 consecutive innings without giving up a run.

In 1984, he was 9-0, with a 1.97 ERA during the Tigers' 35-5 start. He had one no decision where he went 9 and the Tigers won in the 10th and one 1-0 CG loss. Then, after the Tigers lost 3 straight, he went out and won the next game in another CG. During the streak, he hardly needed any relief, which was saved for the next game's pitcher. In 1991, during the Twins' 24-3 streak, he went 6-0. Then after the Twins lost 4, he stopped the losing streak with a shutout against the White Sox and Jack McDowell. in 1992, he was 9-2 with a 2.97 during the last two months of the season, with the Jays holding a slim lead in the division, averaging 8 IP/game.

In his prime, he was dominant. He came up historically big in big games for his teams. I don't think any of his contemporaries who aren't in the Hall match up to him in accomplishments and contributions to his teams.

IMO, he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

After a whole lot of cherry-picking, IMO, Morris still doesn't belong in the HoF.

After a whole lot of cherry-picking, IMO, Morris still doesn't belong in the HoF.

Just cherry picking actual historical facts, as opposed to hypothetical rating systems.

I used to think that Morris belonged, I knew I was biased from '91, but after reading this book, I changed my mind. The number just arent there for him.

If you havent read it, get it, its great.

https://www.amazon.com/Cooperstown-Casebook-Baseball-Should-Plaques/dp/1250071216/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510147596&sr=8-1&keywords=jay+jaffe&dpID=512EVpuzlKL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Yeah, as others have noted, a lot of borderline players on that list. Some you could make a case for based on WAR or "clutch" performances, but too many are in the Jim Rice (who DID make it) and David Cone territory. That said, I agree that Alan Trammell should be in there. Very underrated player.

But it is cherry picking if you only point out things that support your stance and none that counter your position.  For instance, he had Cy Young votes in 7 seasons, but never finished higher than 3rd.  One of the guys that you listed that had more also isn't in the Hall (Mussina), who many feel was better than Tom Glavine who made it on the first ballot.  Five AS appearances are pretty underwhelming for a HoF argument, especially if he's as dominant as you make out him to be.

 

I like Morris.  I think he was a very good pitcher that benefited greatly by being on great teams.  Yes, he was part of what made them great, no doubt.  He had the moxie that I'd want on any team regardless of how well he was actually pitching.  IMO, he was on the 2nd tier of pitchers of his era.  Very good, but not elite and thus not HoF worthy in my opinion.

 

This is what makes sports fun though.  People will have different opinions and the debates are pretty fun.

I thought it was clear i was acknowledging that I was cherry picking facts. Given time and space constraints, isn't any post cherry picking? . . . Now, I'm nit-picking.

I mentioned the 3 All-Star starts because you can't find another pitcher who started 3 All-Star games who is not in the Hall. Morris probably wasn't in more All-Star games because he had several seasons where he wasn't very good in the first half, but was lights out in the second half -- like 1983 and 1986.

I agree with Glavine being a first-time HOFer. I also think Mussina should be in. Clemens would be in, but for steroids. So, my point on the Cy Young votes is that the only pitchers touching his era who had more years where someone voted for them were HOFers. And, I thought, my other point was that he should have been the Cy Young in 1983, but for a bias toward wins. He pitched way more innings than Hoyt, with an ERA of 1/3 of a run less, with way more strikeouts, but Hoyt had 24 wins. If he were a guy who had more WAR to appease people who rely solely on that rating system, everyone would be pointing out the injustice of the 1983 Cy Young voting.

Here's a list of pitchers who had less years with Cy Young votes::

1. Steve Carlton –   6  HOF
  2. Fergie Jenkins –   6  HOF
  3.  Dennis Eckersley –  6  HOF
  4. Tom Glavine –   6  HOF
  5. Mariano Rivera –   6  Sure thing HOF
  6. Johan Santana –   6
  7. Roy Oswalt –   6
  8.  Justin Verlander –  6
  9. Dan Quisenberry –  5
  10. CC Sabathia –   5
  11. Andy Pettitte –   5
  12. John Smoltz –   5  HOF
  13. Bruce Sutter –   5  HOF
  14. Phil Niekro –   5  HOF
  15. Gaylord Perry –   5  HOF
  16. Rich Gossage –   5  HOF
  17. Don Sutton –   5  HOF
  18. Catfish Hunter –   4  HOF
  19. Rollie Fingers –   4  HOF
  20. Lee Smith –   4
  21. Trevor Hoffman –  4  Likely HOF
  22. Curt Schilling –   4
  23. Bert Blyleven –   4  HOF

Here's a list of those who had as many or more:

1. Roger Clemens –   12 
  2. Randy Johnson –   10  HOF
  3. Tom Seaver –   10  HOF
  4. Mike Mussina –   9  Likely HOF
  5. Greg Maddux –   9  HOF
  6. Jim Palmer –   8  HOF
  7. Nolan Ryan –   8  HOF
  8. Roy Halladay –   7*  Likely HOF
  9. Pedro Martinez –   7  HOF

Another cherry-picking fact: Glavine had 682 career starts, and 216 wins where he pitched 7 innings or more. Morris had 525 career starts, and 217 wins where he pitched 7 innings or more. 86% of Morris' wins were 7 innings or more, leaving 2 innings or less for the bullpen to handle.  45% of his wins, the bullpen didn't need to get up at all (more than 1 out of every 5 times he pitched). Both guys had pretty consistently good or great offenses on their teams. But Morris relied much less on his bullpen.

Sure, there were years where his stats ended up pretty ordinary (except for innings pitched and CGs). But my point is that its seems like people either don't remember or don't want to remember how dominant he was at times during his prime.

Sigh. I always feel bad crapping on the Jack Morris HoF candidacy, because we was a fine pitcher for a long time and was the most important part of one of the greatest games on baseball history. But you have to really hang a LOT on that one game and the concept that Morris was an "ace" to compensate for what are, quite frankly sub-standard numbers.

Career ERA 3.90. That's just not hall-worthy. Tiant & John were both more than half a run better over their careers, and I'm not a proponent of either of them. Morris never had a season with an ERA under 3.00 in his entire career. never.

He never won a Cy, and never really deserved one, either. You look down his stats and you don't see any truly dominant seasons. his best work was done in years where he had teams that had enough offense that they could let him keep pitching deep into the game. His greatest skill as a pitcher was eating innings. Make no mistake, that is a valuable skill! But I'd need him to have something else to make him into the Hall. 

Did you know he averaged less than 1.5 WAR for his last 7 seasons? There was one last really good season in 1991 with the twins, that magical year that everyone remembers him for...but the decline was fast for Morris. The 1992 season with Toronto had a lot of wins, but he wasn't a great pitcher that year.

Post-season always comes up for Morris, so let's look at it. he was outstanding in 1984, the prime of his career. he got shelled in 1987. he was outstanding for the twins in 1991, especially in the WS. He was awful in 1992. So a bit of a mixed bag, right?

he wasn't a great strikeout pitcher. he never had the elite seasons. he gave up a lot of runs. he didn't win the big hardware. he didn't get a lot of "black type" stats (leading the league) and half the ones he did get are the bad ones. (led the league in Wild Pitches 6 times!)

very good pitcher. made a manager's life a lot easier because he pitched a lot of innings and could save your bullpen. not a hall of famer.

Subjective data such as All Star, and end of season awards  should not become objective statistical data.

I'm not going to argue every point. Some are very valid. But some also don't reflect the time he pitched. By today's standards, he wasn't a strike out pitcher but you're underestimating him. He led the league in strikeouts once and was top ten 8 times. He has more seasons than Johan Santana in the top ten for both strike outs in a season and k/9 in a season. Obviously, Santana was a relief pitcher for a while and Santana was the premier strike out pitcher for a while there but Morris wasn't just trudging along. When he pitched a full season, he was a strike out pitcher.  Only 33 pitchers have struck out more hitters than Morris and he was 21st all time when he retired. 

And every batter he struck out was a position player or DH. He never got to strike out other pitchers.

Sure. But are you proposing that the HoF be selected on objective statistical data alone?

The hall of fame is subjective also. Koufax had 7 years of being dominate. Johan Santana had a similar run. The biggest difference is WS. Subjective, but  it isn't Santana's fault he never had a chance to be a WS MVP.  He isn't going in like Koufax did. Early Wynn is in the HOF because he pitched until he almost had a foot in the grave and got to 300 wins.

I am fine if Jack gets in.  Morris is not a bad candidate he is a victim of current thinking which will change over time like all theories.  I am fine with Trammel or any of the other players.  

I am not fine with Miller, I was not fine with Selig or Kuhn or any of the other GMs, executives, owners.  I want players in the HOF, even if I argue about who is the right one and anquish over "bad" choices.  

But there are no WAR totals, no stats to cover the non-players.  They are not why we go to baseball games nor are they a reason for us to visit the Hall.   If they want something like we have for writers and broadcasters I am fine, but take them out of the mix

I am fine if Jack gets in. Morris is not a bad candidate he is a victim of current thinking which will change over time like all theories.

Some of the big negatives for Morris are as old school as it gets.

He would have the worst ERA (3.90) of any SP in the HOF (currently the worst is 3.80). The average ERA for a HOF pitcher is under 3.00. For his career, his ERA is only 5% over league average.

Also, his K/9 is less than 6 and his BB/9 is over 3.

Not only that, the new way of thinking hasn't even really taken strong hold in the HOF voting (as there are tons of old school writers holding on) and even less so the first 10 years he was eligible.  And one example of HOF voting not really up to newer thinking is Glavine getting in first ballot and Mussina still not in.

Some of the big negatives for Morris are as old school as it gets.

 

He would have the worst ERA (3.90) of any SP in the HOF (currently the worst is 3.80). The average ERA for a HOF pitcher is under 3.00. For his career, his ERA is only 5% over league average.

 

Also, his K/9 is less than 6 and his BB/9 is over 3.

 

Not only that, the new way of thinking hasn't even really taken strong hold in the HOF voting (as there are tons of old school writers holding on) and even less so the first 10 years he was eligible.  And one example of HOF voting not really up to newer thinking is Glavine getting in first ballot and Mussina still not in.

Mussina had only one year when he was dominate, with many years of being very good. Glavine had far more seasons of being dominate. Like any subjective beauty contest, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Some of the big negatives for Morris are as old school as it gets.

 

He would have the worst ERA (3.90) of any SP in the HOF (currently the worst is 3.80). The average ERA for a HOF pitcher is under 3.00. For his career, his ERA is only 5% over league average.

 

Also, his K/9 is less than 6 and his BB/9 is over 3.

 

Not only that, the new way of thinking hasn't even really taken strong hold in the HOF voting (as there are tons of old school writers holding on) and even less so the first 10 years he was eligible.  And one example of HOF voting not really up to newer thinking is Glavine getting in first ballot and Mussina still not in.

I am not a big Mussina fan.  He pitched for really good teams and was never the real leader.  I know he has many pushing for him, but I am fine if he is out.  I am also fine if Morris is out, but the old ERA standard is about to go away if we are going to put any modern era pitchers in.  In the era of the HR the ERA for the entire league is going up and the innings are going down.  In a big game I would take Morris over Mussina any day.  Since 1993 league ERA has gone from 3.94. to 4.77 and the complete games pitched has dropped from 371 to 59.  How can you compare numbers?  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/pitch.shtml

I am not a big Mussina fan.  He pitched for really good teams and was never the real leader.  I know he has many pushing for him, but I am fine if he is out.  I am also fine if Morris is out, but the old ERA standard is about to go away if we are going to put any modern era pitchers in.  In the era of the HR the ERA for the entire league is going up and the innings are going down.  In a big game I would take Morris over Mussina any day.  Since 1993 league ERA has gone from 3.94. to 4.77 and the complete games pitched has dropped from 371 to 59.  How can you compare numbers?  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/pitch.shtml

Yes, ERAs went up that high since 1993, yet Mussina (who started in '96) still bested Morris' ERA by half a run.

ERA+ compares how a pitcher's ERA compares to others in their time.  Mussina's is 123, Morris is 105.  That's a considerable difference.  Means Morris' ERA was 5% better than league average while Mussina's was 23% better than league average.  

Mussina's K rate was 7.0/9, his walk rate was 2.0/9, his WHIP was 1.192.

Morris' K rate was 5.8/9, his walk rate was 3.3/9, his WHIP was 1.296.

Mussina's playoff ERA: 3.42, with a 9.3K, and 2.1 BB/9
Morris' playoff ERA: 3.80, with a 6.2K/9 and 3.1 BB/9.

Mussina was way better than Morris even in the playoffs.

And as far as new stats go, Mussina has 82.2 fWAR.  Morris 55.8.

ERA+ relies on some very dubious assumptions regarding defensive statistics and ballpark factors. The Morris debate actually highlights the deficiencies in ERA+ and bWAR (which uses ERA+),

Baseball Reference has Morris' best season as 1979, when he pitched 197.2 innings (he got called up at the end of May). He had a 3.27 ERA. However, Tiger Stadium was considered a hitters park that year, and his defense wasn't considered to be very good. In 1983, he pitched 293.2 innings with a 3.34 ERA. However, Tiger Stadium had magically transformed into a pitcher's park (partly due to the Tigers staff being the best in the league in 1984), and his defense was considered better. So his ERA+ was better in 1979, and hence his bWAR ended up better in 1979. To me, this is ridiculous.

There's no question Morris was better in 1983. He threw nearly 96 more innings at basically the same ERA. He had a 19.3% strikeout rate and 6.9% walk rate, compared to 14% and 7.3% in 1979.  He had a 1.158 WHIP compared to 1.204 in 1979. How on earth could bWAR be 5.8 in 1979 and only 4.0 in 1983? Well, because ERA+ and bWAR are terrible rating systems for starting pitchers.

Morris' fWAR for 1983 was 6.2 and for 1979 it was 3.6.

So fWAR has Morris 2.6 games better in 1983, and bWAR has Morris 1.8 games better in 1979. These rating systems not only don't align, they actually completely disagree about value.

The reason this doesn't make sense is that these rating systems are not perfect, nor should they be relied upon in assessing historical facts. The rating systems are better at prediction, as they are based on hypothetical value, not actual historical value.