Jack Morris

[zzazazz]

I've seen some Tiger players mentioned but I haven't seen the name Jack Morris come up.

I think it's because of a unrealistic expectation for low ERA's and high strikeout totals. I think his post-season performances and 154 wins is plenty enough for a nod.

Anyone?

[zzazazz]

Jack again

I see his percentage is going up. There may be hope.

Year Election Votes Pct
2000 BBWAA 111 22.24
2001 BBWAA 101 19.61
2002 BBWAA 97 20.55
2003 BBWAA 113 22.78
2004 BBWAA 133 26.28

[Aegis]

Meh. His entire reputation is based on his great postseason starts. Let's take a closer look, eh?

He's a very respectable 7-4 in the postseason with a decent 3.80 ERA. But the difference between his wins and losses are night and day. Note: He started every game he appeared in and earned a decision for 11 of his 13 starts.

In wins: 7-0, 2.16 ERA
In losses: 0-4, 6.50 ERA
In no decisions: 2 starts, 6 ER in 9.1 IP, 5.81 ERA

And let's not forget where his two worst losses came from: the '92 World Series with the Jays. 2 G, 0-2, 10 ER in 10.2 IP for a 8.44 ERA.

He certainly earned his '91 Twins ring. I'm never going to argue that he didn't. But he wasn't dominant against the league. Peak ERA+ of 133. Broke 125 a total of 3 times, including the 133. Career ERA+ of 105. Seriously. 105.

So you have a slightly above average regular season pitcher and a night-and-day postseason pitcher who could pitch a 10-inning shutout in game 7 of the World Series but was almost as likely to crash and burn horribly than win at all.

[leecemark]

--I'm not going to argue too hard for Jack. He is at best a marginal Hall of Famer. There are some pitchers in the hall not as good as he is, but there are more pitchers better who aren't.
--The disparity in his wins and losses in the postseason is pretty easy to explain though. It isn't like he was up and down in post season games in his prime. Four of those six bad games came in the 1992 postseason when he had nothing left in the tank. Although he won 21 games that season, he was just over league average in ERA+ (102) and struggled down the strech. He got bombed in the post season and lasted only two more seasons, both of which he spent time on the DL and was awfull when he wasn't (ERA+s in the 70s and 80s).
--Morris was a workhorse who was amoung the league leaders in IP and wins for over a decade and who came up big in the big games. He wasn't amoung the elite pitchers of all time, but he has to be in the 80s All Stars rotation and all but a handfull of teams in any era would be happy to have him as their number one guy.

[Aegis]

I just think it's kind of funny that he went from 4-0 in the '91 postseason to 0-3 in the '92 postseason. The Jays won that World Series despite him.

Maybe being a workhorse should earn him brownie points. I don't know. I just can't bring myself to support a man with a 105 ERA+. He also had 4 seasons of at least 160 IP where he had a sub-100 ERA+.

[dgarza]

I think it's because of a unrealistic expectation for low ERA's

I'm really not following this at all ...

[Designated Fielder]

Jack Morris seemed like the dominant American League pitcher in the 80s so he deserves the Hall of Fame.

[zzazazz]

Era

My point is that he had an excellent 18 year career and by not having a super low ERA such as Koufax or Gibson he is not seriously considered. As of right now there are only three active pitchers that have more wins than Morris: Glavine, Maddux and Clemens.

I'm really not following this at all ...

[Captain Cold Nose]

Jack Morris seemed like the dominant American League pitcher in the 80s so he deserves the Hall of Fame.

It was a weak decade. If you're looking at the entire decade, his closest competition is Dave Stieb, who was as good, if not better, as Morris, minus the post season heroics. (Although that is a lot.)

The NL's best pitcher for the entire decade was, maybe, Fernando Valenzuela, who was more iconic than superstar.

[Designated Fielder]

The 80s are a forgotten decade. The players of the 80s did not produce the numbers so their dominance is forgotten. Where is Dale Murphy on Hall of Fame ballots?

Both Murphy and Morris deserve election.

[Chadwick]

As of right now there are only three active pitchers that have more wins than Morris: Glavine, Maddux and Clemens.

So what? There are also 7 retired pitchers with more wins than Morris!

At any point in time, there is going to be an extremely few number of active pitchers with more than 254 wins in their career. How on earth does that justify Morris's election?

I don't give much additional credit to a pitcher for "being a workhorse" (as it is already born out in his career numbers), nor because he would supposedly have been the "ace" for a number of other teams.

If I were a manager in the 1980s, I don't know that there'd have been any difference between Morris and Dave Stieb, or Dennis Martinez, or anyone else and I'd rather have had a half-dozen other guys in any given year (Valenzuela, Gooden, Clemens, Viola, Scott, Ryan, etc.) heading my rotation than Morris.

Had Morris pitched for the Indians or Mariners in the 1980s and put up exactly the same stats year-after-year, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[zzazazz]

Thank you veddy much

I appreciate all the opinions about Jack Morris. Much of what you all have said has made lean toward him not making the hall.

Especially telling was the ERA+ career stat that someone referenced. Although when you look at his best years his ERA+ is just as good as the other top pitchers of the 80's (except for Gooden's second year which is ridiculous).

I don't buy that it was a weak decade. Just becuase pitching didn't dominate then all the pitchers were not as good? Does anyone know that percentage of pitchers and batters in the 80's that were non-white and how that compares to other decades?

The reason I mentioned the three active pitchers who had more wins than him because two of those three are first ballot hall of famers.

Ed

[Aegis]

Wins aren't everything, not to a pitcher--there are too many other things that need to happen for a pitcher to win that're out of his hands. If a pitcher gives up 6 runs per game, but gets 7 runs in support, he'll win with a 6.00 ERA. Sure, he gets plenty of wins, but not because he's a good pitcher--it's because the lineup is good enough to cover his tail. And as for the reverse situation, just look at Randy Johnson's '04 season.

Morris' career-high ERA+ is 133. That is not "just as good" as other pitchers.

Pitcher: Years with ERA+ >133
Clemens: 12
Maddux: 9
Blyleven: 6
Saberhagen: 6
Ryan: 4
Stanley: 4
Viola: 4
Tanana: 3
Valenzuela: 3
Gooden: 2

He's not in the same class, not with ERA+.

[zzazazz]

Era +

If you want to split statistical hairs the consider those with years over 120 ERA+


Clemens 15
Blyleven 11
Morris 6
Tanana 4

[Aegis]

120+? Fine.

Name - 120+ count - Career/Peak

Clemens ---- 15 - 141/226
Maddux ----- 12 - 141/273
Seaver ----- 12 - 127/193
Blyleven ---- 11 - 118/158
Stieb -------- 8 - 122/171
Key --------- 7 - 122/164
Ryan -------- 7 - 112/194
Blue --------- 6 - 108/183
Morris ------ 6 - 105/133
Saberhagen -- 6 - 126/178
Stanley ------ 6 - 118/158
Viola --------- 6 - 113/161
Hershiser ----- 5 - 112/172
Hough ------- 5 - 106/154
Langston ----- 5 - 108/142
Tudor -------- 5 - 124/183
Tanana ------ 5 - 106/154
Gooden ------ 4 - 110/226
Valenzuela --- 4 - 103/143

Well then. 6 seasons of at least 120+ is good. But it's by no means distinguishing. Morris has the second-lowest career ERA+ on this list (Valenzuela) and the lowest peak number. So how does Morris' ERA+ compare again? That's right, it really doesn't.