The Votes Are In and Morris Left Out Again

by bcook on Jan 9, 2012 8:34 PM EST

Well the ballots have been cast and congratulations to Barry Larkin for being the sole individual to join the greats in Cooperstown this year. All in all the voting went as expected but I am pretty upset that Jack Morris once again was denied enshrinement.

So I'm curious, for every one out there, is my fan-dom clouding my judgment? Does his dominance over 2 decades belong in the Hall or is his less then perfect career stats a valid reason to keep him out. We can go back and forth debating the numbers but lets keep it simple, YES or NO on putting one of the best stash's ever in the H.O.F.

This post was written by a member of the DRaysBay community and does not necessarily express the views or opinions of DRaysBay staff.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Yes

Regressing to the mean streets of St. Pete

by stpetelawyer on Jan 9, 2012 8:56 PM EST reply actions

Eh... I may be changing my vote

Regressing to the mean streets of St. Pete

by stpetelawyer on Jan 13, 2012 9:05 AM EST up reply actions

I'm guessing you read the piece at BP today by Jon Bernhardt

If not, do so

I'm not a fanboy, I'm an awesome dude

by Jason Collette on Jan 13, 2012 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

Dear god no

Jack Morris shouldn’t be allowed to even visit the Hall of Fame.

by AndrewTorrez on Jan 9, 2012 10:13 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

"Dominance over 2 decades"

“Less than perfect stats”

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Jan 9, 2012 10:20 PM EST reply actions

He did not dominate even 1 decade let alone 2.

It seems to me there are basically 3 kinds of players who are eligible for the HOF.

1. Those who are great players over a long career, the ’inner circle" players like Mays, Mantle, Aaron or Seaver, Clemens, Maddux. Morris was not a great pitcher for most of his career. He was good, sometimes very good, but in no way comparable to the all-time greats.

2. Players who are spectacular for a short time, say 5 years or so. For these players to get in, they need to set peak career marks that set them apart from their contemporaries or from historically great players. Koufax is the best example, but Pedro is sort of like that, although his overall career does add value too. Morris does not come close to such a peak. His best years are no better than dozens of similarly fine pitchers: Cuellar, McNally, Harder, Warneke, Stieb (who I consider better anyway), Guidry, Parnell, Stottlemyre (pere) et al.

3. The compilers who last a long time as fine pitchers and accumulate outstanding career numbers, usually by hitting certain traditional milestones. For these players to earn enshrinement, those career numbers have to be not just good but special. Don Sutton is an example. Perhaps Early Wynn. Morris was a fine pitcher for many years, but in the end, he fell considerably short of such compiling. There is no category where we say Morris stands out in traditional stats such as wins or Ks. Again, good, but not significant enough to separate him from the pack.

Selecting some arbitrary boundaries, such as most wins in the 80s is meaningless. Why not wins from 1977-86 or 1985-1994? Nor do any of the other arguments about opening day starter or ace of the staff or big game pitcher hold water when looking at context or the actual performance.

Nor should we be impressed by comparing him to the weakest HOFers. Repeating poor choices (Haines, Hunter) simply accelerates the dilution of the honor. Rather ask whether he maintains or raises the standard, whether he fits in with those who have a solid case, not those whose case is weakest.

by bobr on Jan 10, 2012 1:33 AM EST reply actions 5 recs

It is instructive to

check the careers of 2 other pitchers who have some HOF support, Luis Tiant and Tommy John, at BB-Ref and compare them to Morris’s. Morris has 25 more wins than Tiant, which is a smaller gap in wins than that between Morris and John, but in just about every other category, whether traditional or progressive he lags behind Tiant and in many cases behind John as well.

In some cases, as in WAR, he is not even in the same class; in others, as in K rates, he lags by less but is still worse. His win % is virtually identical to Tiant’s and only marginally better than John’s.

Once you enshrine Morris, there can be no argument against not just those 2 better pitchers but myriad others. And it is not just a matter of stats. In his time, Tiant was as feared a pitcher as some claim Morris was and in 2 seasons was elite, something Morris could never claim. And John was a staff leader on a number of pennant winning teams.

by bobr on Jan 10, 2012 6:51 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

When do you sleep?

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Jan 10, 2012 6:58 AM EST up reply actions

Echoes my sentiments

Morris should be near the top of the hall of very good, but falls short of almost any hall of fame measure.

As for most wins in the 80’s, the guy who had the second most wins in the 80’s, only 4 fewer than Morris, whose career ERA is a half a run lower than Morris’s didn’t even last on the ballot for more than two elections.

Can anyone guess who he is?

Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."

by Brickhaus on Jan 10, 2012 11:22 AM EST up reply actions