4 comments Tracy Ringolsby Lazily Checks Off the Boxes Required to Argue Jack Morris Should Be in the Hall of Fame

Tracy Ringolsby, who has the absolute best picture above his columns for MLB.com, thinks Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame. First, let me remind you that Ringolsby's picture is of him staring into the distance, probably angrily at a bird that he just can't wait to shoot out of the sky, with a black cowboy hat on. Now THAT is the kind of picture I like to see a baseball writer use above the heading to his column. It says, "I'm manly, my cowboy hat fits perfectly, and no, I don't have to look directly into the camera."

I'm tired of talking about Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame and I am sure you are tired of hearing about Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame. What I find to be interesting about this column advocating for Morris to be in the Hall of Fame is there is a list of criteria every writer who advocates Morris's entry into the Hall of Fame must check off for it to be approved by the Jack Morris Talking Points for the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee that probably sends an email out everyday reminding Hall of Fame voters to vote for Morris. The three major talking points all pro-Jack Morris columns must have, as set out by the Jack Morris Talking Points for the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee, are as follows:

1. He completed a lot of games. Repeat this at least three times for maximum effect.

2. Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. It happened. Include a quote from one of Morris's managers showing how much he wanted the ball in important games.

3. He was the best pitcher of his era because he won a lot of games.

Ringolsby seems to give us the all the exact same information every other pro-Morris writer has given us and he includes each of these talking points in making his case. 

Jack Morris has come closer to being elected to the Hall of Fame than anybody who was ever denied admittance, but in this, his 15th and final year on the Baseball Writers' Association of America ballot, Morris still faces long odds.

He's been a workhorse in staying on the Hall of Fame ballot. He's pitching a complete game when it comes to being on the Hall of Fame ballot. Let him in the Hall of Fame now!

Morris could well be victim of the new reliance on statistical analysis.

Jack Morris is such a martyr. He has to pay for the sins of those who rely on statistical analysis to evaluate a player's statistics which determine whether that player should enter the Hall of Fame or not. Crazy how that works that the stats crowd uses statistics to determine whether a baseball player has good enough statistics to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

In the world of baseball stats, four does not always equal four. Evaluations need to be based on eras, and for his era, Morris was the most dominant pitcher in the game.

Why do statistics need to be based on eras? I give Ringolsby credit, he didn't follow the Jack Morris Talking Points for the Baseball of Hall of Fame Committee Talking Points all the way and included his own bullshit reasoning to support Morris's candidacy. Shouldn't the evaluation of a pitcher for the baseball Hall of Fame be based on how he compares to other dominant pitchers in the Hall of Fame? It's not the baseball Hall of Fame Based on Era, but a cumulative collection of the best baseball players in history. "History" being the key word there. Jack Morris has to be one of the best pitchers in MLB history to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, not the best pitcher of an era and this would qualify him for the baseball Hall of Fame.

It's silly in my opinion to base evaluations on a pitcher's era. It's especially silly when the opinion that the evaluation of a pitcher should be based on his era is being used solely to advocate Morris being inducted into the Hall of Fame as one of the most dominant pitchers in the game. Morris being the most dominant pitcher of his era is also pretty arguable.

There are 12 starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame who performed during the DH era. None of the 12 spent his entire career in the AL.

I understand Morris's ERA may have been inflated a bit by pitching his entire career in the AL, but he still has a much higher ERA than every other pitcher who pitched during the DH era in the American League and is currently in the Hall of Fame. Here is a list of pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame who pitched during the DH era and how long they spent in the American League. Morris pitched 18 years in the majors, all in the American League, but I don't need to find pitchers who pitched 18 years in the American League to prove my point that Morris's ERA is still higher than a Hall of Fame-worthy pitcher during the DH era should be. A sample size of 4-5 years in the American League seems sufficient for me.

Nolan Ryan- 3.17 ERA (13 years)

Bert Blyleven- 3.23 (19 years...lower ERA than Morris by half a point and he pitched longer than Morris in the AL)

Gaylord Perry- 3.24 (9 years)

Goose Gossage- 3.12 (16 years)

Dennis Eckersley- 3.47 (20 years)

Don Sutton- 3.98 (6 years...not to make excuses, but Sutton pitched in the AL when he was in his last 30's and 40's. You know, the same time in his career Morris was putting up ERA's of 4.04, 6.19, and 5.60)

Phil Neikro- 4.23 (4 years...again, he pitched in the AL from the age of 45-48, so his ERA is a bit misleading in terms of his overall ability)

Fergie Jenkins- 3.54 (8 years)

Jack Morris has a higher ERA in the AL than all of these pitchers. The pitchers that had a higher ERA than Morris pitched solely in the American League at the very tail end of their career. So I can buy that Morris's ERA was elevated slightly by pitching in the American League, but other Hall of Fame pitchers pitched in the American League and had a much lower ERA than Jack Morris did. The bottom line is that Morris wasn't an elite pitcher.

Only two of them even faced a DH in more than half of their big league games: Bert Blyleven pitched 483 of his 692 games in the AL after the addition of the DH. Jim Palmer made all 558 of his appearances with the Baltimore Orioles, but only 354 of them came after the addition of the DH.

It's not about whether a pitcher pitched the majority of his career in the AL or not, but it is about whether that pitcher pitched long enough in the AL to get a large enough sample size of games pitched to come to a conclusion. I would think five years of pitching in the AL is a large enough sample size to look at a pitcher's ERA in the AL and come to a conclusion. Also, Jim Palmer's ERA in the AL was 2.86, a full run lower than Morris's ERA. I feel like I needed to add this. ERA isn't the end-all be-all, but if Ringolsby wants to argue on the matter of ERA then Morris still doesn't look great.

The 10 other starters who faced the DH in their careers are Don Sutton (174 of 774 appearances against lineups with the DH), Tom Seaver (97 of 656 appearances), Nolan Ryan (381 of 807 appearances), Gaylord Perry (277 of 777 appearances), Phil Niekro (124 of 740 appearances), Juan Marichal (11 of 471 appearances), Ferguson Jenkins (255 of 664 appearances), Catfish Hunter (214 of 500 appearances) and Steve Carlton (46 of 741 appearances).

Rollie Fingers (inducted in 1992), Dennis Eckersley, (2004), Bruce Sutter ('06) and Goose Gossage ('08) were enshrined for their work as relievers rather than starters.

Nearly all of these pitchers had a lower ERA in the American League than Jack Morris. Whether Fingers, Eckersley, Sutter, and Gossage were relievers or not is somewhat irrelevant. They pitched to the DH as well, even if it was on a short-term basis. If they gave up two runs in the 8th or 9th inning it still affected their ERA.

Morris' 254 wins tie him with Red Faber for 43rd on the all-time list. There are 13 pitchers ahead of Morris who are not enshrined.

Of them, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Mike Mussina are on the ballot for the first time this year. Randy Johnson, Jamie Moyer and Andy Pettitte aren't eligible yet. Tony Mullane (1881-94), Bobby Mathews (1871-87), Jim McCormick (1878-87) and Gus Weyhing (1887-1901) were products of the 1800s.

Oh now Ringolsby isn't comparing pitchers to pitchers from their generation anymore. Mullane, Mathews, McCormick, and Weyhing were products of the 1800's, but if they compare favorably to other pitchers from the 1800's then using Ringolsby's "Hey, let's compare a pitcher's candidacy for the Hall of Fame only using other pitchers from his era as a measurement so we can get Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame" method these four pitchers should have good cases to be in the Hall of Fame, right?

Roger Clemens was eligible for the first time a year ago, but he was one of the targets of the voters who protested PED usage.

Yeah, but compared to pitchers from his era, the Steroid Era, he was one of the best pitchers who used PED's. So if we are comparing Roger Clemens to his era of cheating PED users, Clemens was one of the best pitchers. Let him in the Hall of Fame using Tracy Ringolsby "Era Theory" that was specifically created to get Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame. 

Morris was the winningest pitcher of his era.

I'm the fastest person in my household. This doesn't make me fast enough to run the 100 meter dash in the Olympics.

From his debut until 1994, Morris' final season, he won 254 games. Dennis Martinez, who also pitched in each of those seasons, is a distant second for that 18-season stretch, with 218 wins, followed by Bob Welch (211), Ryan (202) and Frank Tanana (189).

This is part of the reason advanced metrics were created, to deal with a writer who says Jack Morris is the best pitcher of his era (which for some reason Morris's era only encapsulates when he was active, when the DH era Morris pitched in didn't start when Morris entered the league and stop when Morris left the league) and use wins as the sole example of why. Great, Morris had a lot of wins during an era when there weren't a ton of great pitchers. This doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

Also, Ringolsby can now proudly check off point #3 in his Jack Morris Talking Points. He's mentioned Morris had a lot of wins during his era.

Morris appeared in seven postseason series and won three World Series: in 1984 with Detroit, '91 with Minnesota and '92 with Toronto.

Check off point #2 in his Jack Morris Talking Points. Let's talk about the World Series victories that Jack Morris participated in and then heavily weigh these into whether Morris should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

Morris started Game 1 in six of those seven playoff series, earning the selection from three managers: Sparky Anderson in Detroit, Tom Kelly in Minnesota and Cito Gaston in Toronto.

Starting Game 1 of the World Series multiple times isn't a reason to put a pitcher in the Hall of Fame. Whether a pitcher starts Game 1 of the World Series isn't the sole determination of whether that pitcher is the best pitcher on his respective team or even that the pitcher is one of the best pitchers in the game. The Game 1 starter for a team can be based on how much rest the other starting pitchers on the roster have, whether the game is being played at home or on the road (many times a manager will set up a younger pitcher to pitch at home in the World Series), and the quality of the other starting pitchers on the staff. There are other factors too. Basically, Jack Morris isn't necessarily a Hall of Famer simply because he started Game 1 of the World Series. It could be another pitcher on the staff would have had to work on short rest or Morris just happened to be the best pitcher on the staff, which doesn't mean Morris is a Hall of Fame pitcher.

The one time Morris missed a Game 1 start was with Detroit against Minnesota in the 1987 AL Championship Series. But Morris started for the Tigers in Game 161 of the regular season that year -- and tossed a complete game -- earning an extra day of rest before appearing in the postseason.

Exactly. Morris couldn't pitch in Game 1 because he needed rest and this could very well work the other way where Morris did pitch Game 1 because another pitcher on the staff needed rest. Also, how well Morris pitched in those seven career playoff series is much more important than the fact he pitched Game 1 of the series. Morris wasn't great in three of the postseason series he pitched in, was average in one series, and was great in three other series. His postseason record looks a lot like his career record. An ERA just below 4.00, he pitched a lot of innings, and he won more games than he lost. On a macro-level, he was great sometimes and not great other times.

Morris was 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA in seven career World Series starts, working three complete games, including a 1-0, 10-inning Game 7 win for Minnesota against Atlanta in 1991.

Ringolsby checks off point #2 with a black magic marker yet again for emphasis.

Morris' career ERA was 3.90. The highest ERA of a Hall of Fame pitcher is Red Ruffing's 3.80.

ERA isn't everything, but even if you don't care about ERA Morris's candidacy just doesn't hold up. Joe Sheehan a decade later still wrote it best about why Morris isn't a Hall of Famer.

Morris was a five-time All-Star selection,

Irrelevant. All-Star selections are the epitome of popularity contests based on perception of that player's talent.

and he finished in the top 10 in the AL Cy Young Award voting seven times.

How many times did Morris win the Cy Young? Zero.
How many times did Morris finish second in the Cy Young voting? Zero.

Granted, I'm not a huge fan of using postseason awards to judge whether a player should be in the Hall of Fame or not. Still, the Cy Young has traditionally (especially during the era Morris played in) been given to pitchers who won the most games and had the best traditional statistics. Many of these same statistics are being used to trumpet Jack Morris to be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame.

So I find it incredibly interesting the so-called "best pitcher of his era" and a guy who had the most wins of his era wasn't voted as even the second-best pitcher in a given year by the Cy Young award voters. Shouldn't this tell you something? An award which traditionally been given to the pitcher that has the best statistics (the same statistics that are being used to put Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame) was never given to Jack Morris in an individual year. Fine, cumulatively Jack Morris put up some good numbers, but in a given year he was never considered the most second-most dominant pitcher in the American League, yet I am supposed to believe he is one of the most dominant and best pitchers in baseball history? Again, I don't like using the Cy Young award to say Morris shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, but the criteria that determines who wins the Cy Young (wins, complete games, played on a winning team) are the exact same criteria to support Morris's Hall of Fame candidacy...and Morris never even came in second in the Cy Young voting. I think it tells me something.

Morris was the '91 World Series Most Valuable Player and the 1981 The Sporting News Pitcher of the Year.

Okay. This is very impressive. This doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

Morris was the '91 World Series Most Valuable Player and the 1981 The Sporting News Pitcher of the Year.

Now Ringolsby checks off point #1 on his Jack Morris Talking Points. Complete games. Jack Morris is the last dinosaur of the complete game era. I've heard it all before.

which is more than Maddux (109) and Glavine (56) combined. Among the eight starting pitchers on this year's ballot, Clemens is second with 118 complete games, followed by Maddux (109), Curt Schilling (83), Mussina (57), Glavine (56), Kenny Rogers (36) and Hideo Nomo (16).

Well then let's induct Morris into the baseball Complete Game Hall of Fame for Pitchers Who Won an Important Postseason Game. He's a first ballot Hall of Famer there.

At this point, any article on Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame is just a lazy recitation of the three Jack Morris Talking Points.

1 comments Tom Verducci Also Thinks Jack Morris Should Be in the Hall of Fame

Well, Tom Verducci finally took me up on my challenge (sort of). He obviously didn't take me up personally, but happened to (sort of) write a column about Jack Morris's Hall of Fame candidacy that I didn't think could be written while making a good case for Morris to enter the Hall of Fame. Verducci tries to make a case for Morris to be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame without relying heavily on Game 7 of the 1991 World Series (well, he relies on it some). I feel like I am right, that Verducci tries to make a case, but ultimately the case for Jack Morris still fails without mentioning that Game 7 World Series victory. What's left is a bunch of discussion about how Morris used to complete games, how he was the best pitcher for a cherry-picked era of time, and he was just a real competitor. It's just not a strong case being based entirely on Morris completing a lot of games and Morris being the opening day pitcher for his team a lot. I struggle to think of a more arbitrary category than using "opening day starts" as a measure of whether a pitcher is Hall of Fame worthy or not. Tom Glavine pitched four opening day starts in his career. He would have pitched more opening days starts, but it was completely dependent on the strength of the pitching staff around him. That's why opening day starts is a very weak category to use in determining whether a pitcher should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

From 1971 through 1983, 615 pitchers made their first start in the major leagues. None of them have been elected to the Hall of Fame as a starting pitcher. It is baseball's Dark Ages for superb starting pitchers.

And oh yeah, Verducci bases part of his case for Morris to enter the Hall of Fame on the fact no pitcher from this randomly selected era has made the Hall of Fame. It's simply an arbitrary span of time. It's like saying "Jack Morris was the best pitcher of the 1980's" as if being the best pitcher from 1981-1991 means less. 

It is, by far, the longest and deepest drought in baseball history when it comes to the debut of a Hall of Fame starting pitcher.

It is also noteworthy, but ultimately meaningless as it pertains to whether Jack Morris should be inducted into the Hall of Fame or not. 

The Dark Ages has one last chance: Jack Morris, who gets his 15th and final opportunity on the baseball writers' ballot. The best of the rest of his contemporaries are long gone from the ballot: Dennis Martinez, Frank Tanana, Bob Welch, Rick Reuschel, Dave Stieb and Fernando Valenzuela, all of whom fell off the ballot after one or two years for failing to gain the minimum five percent support.

Let's just say invoking Jack Morris's name along with these six pitchers isn't going to help convince me that Morris deserves Hall of Fame induction. 

Morris is the last chance from an era of enormous change in how the game was played. The widespread use of the five-man rotation, the accepted wisdom of using relief specialists and the adoption of the designated hitter in 1973 combined to jump-start a trend that hasn't stopped its course: starting pitchers were asked to throw fewer starts, fewer complete games and fewer innings.

I smile as I write this because it sounds ridiculous...but basically Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame not because of his performance during his career, but because of what he represents? He's an ambassador to baseball from a different era and someone who has contributed to the game in ways that exceeds his contribution on the baseball field? This is what I am to take from this. That it is not just about Jack Morris and his performance, but about what Morris represents, and that's why he should be in the Hall of Fame. I feel like this is quite the reach to make a case for Morris.

The Dark Ages began with starters completing 28 percent of their starts in 1971. By 1983 the completion rate was down to 18 percent. By the time Morris threw his last pitch, in 1994, it was down to 8 percent. Today it is down to 2.6 percent.

Complete games are great. Every team wants a pitcher who will throw 25 complete games in a season. That's just not the current state of baseball though. Teams rely more on specialists out of the bullpen and pitchers just don't complete games like they used to. I don't see what this has to do with Jack Morris and whether he should be in the Hall of Fame. Morris should not be elected to the Hall of Fame as the Last Great Pitcher of Complete Games. 

As the game changed -- especially in the DH-infused American League -- no starting pitcher who debuted in that transitional era held up better than Morris.

Again, these superlatives don't mean that Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I'm not entirely sure what this means, but Morris being the best pitcher to hold up in the transitional era of the DH doesn't mean he should be in the Hall of Fame. Morris was consistently really good. He makes the Hall of Very Good, but he's not one of the best pitchers of all-time.

Plenty of pitchers posted better individual years, more than a few posted better peaks and many have Cy Young Awards or boast better run prevention metrics.

The translation I receive from this is that plenty of other pitchers were better at pitching than Jack Morris was during this time. So while Morris completed games and "held up" well during this time, he wasn't one of the best pitchers of his era, so he is not the type of player who should be in the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is not for pitchers who completed a lot of games or transitioned to the DH well. It is intended for the best pitchers in the history of baseball and Jack Morris by Tom Verducci's own admission wasn't one of the best pitchers of his era. 

But none of the 615 starting pitchers who debuted between 1971 and 1983 had the staying power that Morris did.

Jamie Moyer and Tim Wakefield had staying power. Are we electing them to the Hall of Fame anytime soon? 

Among all starting pitchers who debuted between Blyleven and Clemens, Morris won the most games (254) and completed the most games by far (175, or 22 percent more than the next closest pitcher, Tanana) and posted the second best winning percentage (.577, trailing only Bob Welch and his .591 among pitchers with 400 starts) and the second most strikeouts (2,478, second to the 2,773 of Tanana).

But there is no rule that says a pitcher who debuted between Blyleven and Clemens has to make it into the Hall of Fame. It's possible this was just a dry period for Hall of Fame-caliber starting pitching. Tom Verducci will soon mock those who say Jack Morris was the best pitcher of the 1980's by stating this is an overrated way to measure Morris's dominance, but he's using his very own set of cherry-picked dates to prove Morris was a Hall of Fame pitcher. 

The strength of Morris' candidacy derives mostly from the volume of his work measured against his peers through this transitional period.

And unfortunately in order to make the Hall of Fame, Jack Morris and his volume of work should be measured against his peers throughout baseball history. That's how we determine if Morris is one of the best pitchers of all-time and not the best pitcher of a cherry-picked era. 

He was a workhorse who gobbled up innings as an ace, not just as a rotation filler. Nobody else in his era equaled him in that regard, especially when you talk about the harsher duty in the American League.

You will read a lot of this from Verducci. Jack Morris was a workhorse. This is the main argument for Morris to make the Hall of Fame, along with Morris being the pitcher from 1971-1983 that held up the best. While Morris being a workhorse is true, I'm not sure how this makes him a Hall of Fame pitcher. Morris being one of the last workhorse pitchers is nice, but I think comparing Morris to all of his peers instead of just those from 1971-1983 is the best way to measure his Hall of Fame candidacy. 

The problem with Morris' candidacy, however, is that he gave up so many hits and runs that you don't find the superior quality of pitching you typically associate with a Hall of Famer.

Much like Dale Murphy, who didn't get enough hits or hit enough home runs that you find with the superior hitters that are typically in the Hall of Fame. Gee, I wonder what that means for a player's Hall of Fame candidacy when a player just doesn't have good enough statistics compared to current members of the Hall of Fame? If only there were an answer on what this means...

In his 14-year peak (1979-92), Morris ranked tied for 17th in adjusted ERA (109) among pitchers with 1,500 innings. He never finished among the top four in his league in ERA or WAR and only once did so for WHIP.

But these are advanced statistics, which don't tell the whole story. Jack Morris had a lot of complete games (as did many pitchers prior to the specialization of pitchers) and he won a lot of games (which is an individual award that based partly on how the team overall performs). He's a winner and a workhorse. 

Many of the baseball writers I know invest significant research and some angst in filling out their ballots. The accessibility and spread of information has served to create more informed ballots.

Well, for those voters who actively seek out this new information and care to use it to evaluate baseball players and their qualifications for the Hall of Fame. Meaning, not Murray Chass. 

I have come to believe that getting enough votes for election (75 percent) comes down to one simple question: How well can you sum up his candidacy in one sentence?

Well maybe that and for some of these Hall of Fame candidates it is quite clear they are worthy of the Hall of Fame. It doesn't take much to see Gregg Maddux deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, while voters have to start cherry-picking data and using superlatives to state why Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. 

The preferred candidates are those (non-PED-stained) guys who belong to the "magic number" clubs (i.e.: 300 wins, which will serve Tom Glavine well, and 3,000 hits, which will get Craig Biggio in). You get imprimaturs such as "most home runs by a second baseman (first Ryne Sandberg, and eventually Jeff Kent), "best at his position" of a certain era (Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Gary Carter) and "franchise player associated with one team" (Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Larkin, Sandberg, Biggio).

Many of these players are more than just the one sentence that Tom Verducci has created to describe them. Tom Glavine won 300 games, but he also won the Cy Young award twice and was in the Top 3 of the Cy Young voting four other times. Roberto Alomor, Barry Larkin, and Gary Carter were the best at their position in their era and their legacy holds up when compared to players at their position throughout baseball history. The same goes for Ripken and Tony Gwynn. They are more than just guys who were on one team for most of their career. They have a resume that holds up against the best players in the history of baseball, which should ultimately be the determiner of whether a player gets a writer's vote for the Hall of Fame or not. 

I also like how Verducci says he believes you can sum up a player's candidacy in one sentence, but he seems to use three separate sentences to advocate for Craig Biggio and two sentences for Alomar and Larkin. Maybe it's a compound sentence for those three players. 

Deserving players without those easy identifiers, especially Tim Raines and Fred McGriff, are woefully undersupported. It actually takes some context to appreciate their greatness.

I don't know if McGriff or Raines would have a better case if they had played for one franchise, but they certainly would have a better case if they could attach themselves to a specific record. I see where Verducci is going with this. He's going the "You just have to understand how good Morris was by getting some context," and by "context" I assume Verducci means "cherry-picking numbers from an era and then calling Morris a workhorse over and over again." 

With Morris, attempts to shrink his narrative to a sentence have done more harm than good. People rightly have derided labels such as "he has the most wins in the '80s" (overrated), "he pitched to the score" (not entirely true) and "he threw a 10-inning shutout in Game 7 of the World Series" (hello, Don Larsen).

Having the most wins in the 1980's is overrated, but being the pitcher that held up the best from 1971-1983 is the perfect criteria for judging Morris's Hall of Fame candidacy. 

You have to be brutally honest with Morris' candidacy and avoid the hagiography: He was a plowhorse who lived up to the demands of an ace like nobody else in his transitional era. He was a manager's dream for fulfilling that role, especially pitching exclusively against DH-loaded lineups, not for superlative rate statistics.

So why were other pitchers able to pitch against DH-loaded lineups and still have superlative rate statistics? There are pitchers from the DH era who will make the Hall of Fame. Why was it possible for other pitchers to do this, but not Morris? I would suggest this is because Morris wasn't an elite pitcher. Sure, he did a great job of hanging in there and pitching a lot of innings, but his statistics reflect the fact he wasn't elite. Elite pitchers make the Hall of Fame. 

If you still want a one-sentence summation of Morris, you can pick from among these:

You are the one who is all about the one-sentence summary of a player's career, not me. 

He won and completed the most games among all starting pitchers who debuted from 1971-83, by far the longest period without a Hall of Fame pitcher in baseball history.

So he pitched the most innings during a period when no pitchers made the Hall of Fame. This is about as relevant as saying Morris was the best pitcher of the 80's. So Morris was the best among a group of non-Hall of Fame pitchers, that doesn't make him a Hall of Fame pitcher himself. The best player in the D-League won't get named to the NBA All-Star team. 

He pitched eight or more innings in AL games more times than any pitcher in the history of the DH (248), a record unlikely even to be approached.

Over a 14-year peak (1979-92), Morris gave his manager eight or more innings more than half the time he took the ball (52 percent of his 464 starts).

He was a workhorse. It's simply being re-phrased over and over. 

In AL history since the DH debuted, Morris ranks first in Opening Day starts (14),

Irrelevant as it pertains to Hall of Fame voting because whether a pitcher has 14 opening day starts or 2 opening day starts depends on the pitching staff around him. 

first in starts of eight or more innings, second in starts of seven or more innings (to Clemens), second in complete games (to Blyleven)

Has Verducci mentioned he was a workhorse? If not, he was. This is very important to know. 

and third in wins (to Clemens and Mike Mussina, a deserved Hall of Famer).

That's fantastic too. I can't help but wonder where Morris ranks in losses since the DH debuted. 

Now you begin to understand that his 10-inning shutout in the 1991 World Series was about more than just one historic game. You have to go back to the first day of spring training that year, when Morris, signed the previous month by Minnesota as a free agent, walked into the camp of a team that finished in last place the previous season and announced, "Men, I'm going to get you guys to the World Series. I'm going to throw the most innings on this team, have the best ERA and win the most games. I will lead you."

Does Tom Verducci realize how many times an athlete promises a championship to his teammates and it doesn't turn out to be true? Also, what Morris said is irrelevant to his Hall of Fame candidacy. I hate to keep saying this, but what a baseball player states and is able to back up is not a part of his Hall of Fame resume. 

As it turned out, Scott Erickson had the most wins and Kevin Tapani had the best ERA, but Morris threw the most innings and was the undisputed leader.

So basically Morris is going to get credit for saying something that he didn't even completely back up? So now what Verducci wants Morris to get credit for is leading the 1991 Twins in innings pitched. He was a workhorse. It's now on repeat, simply re-stated. 

By then Morris owned a reputation as one of the best, if not baddest, dudes in the game. He was so stubbornly competitive that once in 1982 Tigers manager Sparky Anderson started walking to the mound to remove Morris on what would have been his second visit that inning. Morris ran over and stopped Anderson before he could cross the third-base line.

"Get the hell out of here," he told Anderson. "What you've got warming up is no better than what I've got right now."

"You're nuts," Anderson said.

The manager turned around and walked back to the dugout.

Wow, I didn't know we could use stories to get players into the Hall of Fame. One time Fred McGriff hit a home run so far it bounced off a man's head back into the field of play where McGriff caught the ball threw it back to the pitcher who threw McGriff another pitch that McGriff hit right back at the same man, who caught it this time. Everyone elect Fred McGriff into the Hall of Fame now. 

And so there was no way Morris was letting Tom Kelly take him out of a scoreless Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Morris was 36 years old at the time. He was making his fifth start of the postseason, including three of the last four on short rest. It was his third start in eight days. The 10 innings pushed his season total to 283 -- and none of the final eight batters he faced managed to get the ball out of the infield.

It turns out I lied. Tom Verducci can't make a case for Morris to enter the Hall of Fame without at least mentioning Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. See, I don't think it can be done. I don't think a case for Jack Morris to enter the Hall of Fame can be made without mentioning this World Series game. His candidacy centers around one (very important) game, that he was a workhorse, and if you cherry-pick a subset of time then Morris was one of the best pitchers during that time compared to other pitchers during that time. It's not a strong case for the Hall of Fame in my opinion. 

Twins GM Andy MacPhail called it "the most impressive pitching performance I ever have witnessed."

So the Twins GM appreciated the performance that helped his team win a World Series? How unforeseen. 

It wasn't just about the 10 innings Morris pitched that day. It was about a career of fulfilling the responsibility of an ace and refusing to give in. After that series, Sam Carchidi of the Philadelphia Inquirer noted that Morris had compiled a career similar to Hall of Famers such as Catfish Hunter, Herb Pennock and Jesse Haines, only with more superlative World Series numbers (4-0, 1.54 ERA). "It is a distinction that will probably send him to Cooperstown one day," wrote Carchidi.

The opinion of a sportswriter from 20 years ago immediately after a fantastic performance does not a Hall of Fame career make. It's not like sportswriters tend to overstate things due to the immediacy effect or anything. 

Also, as I have shown repeatedly, these World Series numbers are impressive but didn't look so impressive after his performance in the 1992 World Series or when factoring in his ALCS numbers. Of course, who cares about the ALCS, and Jack Morris can't be expected to pitch well in the World Series at the age of 37, so those numbers clearly shouldn't count nor be mentioned when discussing Morris's postseason achievements. 

Morris was never the same after 1991, which is to be expected when a 36-year-old pitcher throws 283 innings. He did lead the AL in wins the next season with 21 for Toronto, but mostly because the Blue Jays rolled out the second-highest scoring offense in the league.

So now the same pitcher who Verducci is building a Hall of Fame candidacy around being a workhorse can't expected to be a workhorse? It's a nice way to have it. Base Morris's candidacy on him being a workhorse and then state the Blue Jays shouldn't have expected Morris to be a workhorse after the 1991 season. Also notice how Verducci bases part of Morris's candidacy on him having the most wins of the DH era outside of Clemens and Mike Mussina, but dismisses wins as a relevant statistic when it is useful to show that Morris wasn't the same pitcher during the 1992 season. Wins are a team statistic when Verducci wants to show the struggles of Jack Morris, but magically become an individual statistic when Verducci wants to describe what a great pitcher Morris was. 

He also went 0-2 with an 8.44 ERA in the 1992 World Series for the Jays.

But this doesn't count because the workhorse was all worked out at this point. 

After the '91 World Series, Morris pitched to a 5.07 ERA in his final 84 regular season starts. The three-year decline phase raised his career ERA from 3.71 to 3.90, causing the "future Hall of Famer" Carchidi wrote about in 1991 to be recast dubiously as "the pitcher with what would be the highest ERA of any Hall of Famer," displacing Red Ruffing and his 3.80 mark compiled against an AL that was neither integrated nor turbo-boosted by the DH.

So Jack Morris, the great compiler of wins and other statistics over his 18 year career, shouldn't have the fact he didn't pitch well for the last three years of his career held against him? I guess that means the 38 wins and 24 losses, as well as 11 complete games don't count either? So Jack Morris ended his career with a 3.71 ERA, 216 wins, 162 losses (which lowers his career winning percentage to 57.1% compared to his real winning percentage of 57.7%) and he had 164 complete games. Does that get him in the Hall of Fame? If we took away the last three seasons of every pitcher's career when it comes time to evaluate that pitcher's Hall of Fame candidacy would that make sense? 

Since his third year on the ballot, Morris has gained 288 votes. (Blyleven gained 393 over his time on the ballot.) His gain of only three votes last year does not portend well toward picking up the 40 or so he needs on his last try. It is possible that Morris, after a 71-vote leap the previous year, simply has neared his ceiling of support, though it is also possible that the most mean-spirited campaigning against one player in the history of the Hall of Fame ballot has cost him votes.

And of course disagreeing that Morris should be in the Hall of Fame is mean-spirited. I'm not sure how pointing out a player doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame in response to many articles being written about why that player should be in the Hall of Fame is mean-spirited, but it's best to paint the anti-Morris crowd as being unreasonable rather than argue on the facts. 

I am both baffled and saddened to see how people continually lampoon Morris and those who support his candidacy.

I'd love to see examples of this lampooning of Morris's candidacy. I'm guessing I would see this lampooning as simple disagreement over Morris's candidacy, but again, it's better to paint the opposition to Morris being in the Hall of Fame as extremists who are mean bullies. 

Morris has received 2,873 votes, the most ever by anyone on the wrong side of election.

It looks like Morris even sticks around the Hall of Fame vote long enough to accumulate impressive numbers. I can't wait for the sportswriter to make the case that Morris should be in the Hall of Fame because he has received more votes than any other candidate who hasn't gained entry into the Hall of Fame. 

If you prefer a statistical autopsy to determine your Hall of Famers, you probably will find Morris lacking. Many of the rate numbers aren't pretty enough.

If you prefer non-anecdotal evidence, a candidacy based on Morris being the best pitcher in a cherry-picked selection of dates only against other pitchers during those dates, and Game 7 of the 1991 World Series as proof of Morris's candidacy then you are probably voting for him. In the end, his candidacy should be based on what he did as a pitcher during his time in the majors, not based on what he did from 1971-1983 versus the other pitchers during that time. 

But, using another set of numbers, there is no denying the volume and impact of what Morris did.

But you have to use numbers that compare him to other Hall of Fame pitchers and I just feel Morris is lacking in that department. 

The facts show that Morris was the most reliable ace of his generation whose ability to continually take the ball deep into AL games was unmatched and may never be seen again.

He was a workhorse. I'm pretty sure you have mentioned this once or eleven times already. 

What also is true is that he altered baseball history by going 7-0 with a 2.05 ERA in the 1984 and 1991 postseasons, pitching the Tigers and Twins to world championships. Neither franchise has won a World Series since then.

Whether these franchises have won a World Series since Morris played for them is, again, irrelevant. Morris pitched poorly in the 1992 World Series and the 1987 ALCS. Why doesn't this count?

If you view baseball from the viewpoint of the manager, as I like to do, Morris is a Hall of Famer.

If you view baseball from the viewpoint of the manager then a lot of players are Hall of Famers. Managers will think most of their best players should be in the Hall of Fame. 

Just imagine you are the manager, and for nearly a decade and a half -- in the AL, with the DH -- when you give the ball to Morris more times than not he is going to give you a minimum of eight innings, and over his career and from the inception of the DH to this day he will win more AL games than anybody except Clemens and Mussina.

That's great and I will be happy my team's offense scored enough runs for Morris to win all of these games, while noting it's good the offense scores runs because Morris certainly gives up more runs than your typical ace would give up. 

the most players elected in one year is three. Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas should be expected to clear 75 percent this year. If you get an unprecedented fourth player elected, it could be Biggio rather than Morris. Biggio finished ahead of Morris last year by three votes and has no one campaigning against him.

Yes, NO ONE is campaigning against Craig Biggio, which is why he made the Hall of Fame in his first year on the ballot, right? Wait, he didn't make the Hall of Fame in his first year on the ballot? But, no one is campaigning against him...so how did he not make it? 

Under current rules he would have to wait until December 2016 for a 16th try at enshrinement. That's when he would be eligible for consideration by the 16-person committee chosen by the Hall of Fame to vote on the next Expansion Era ballot.

I think Morris will get in the Hall of Fame at some point. I wouldn't be surprised if he makes it in December 2016. 

It shouldn't have to come to that. Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, and he has my vote.

Tom Verducci is being very mean-spirited in this discussion by disagreeing with me that Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame. So adding to the list of reasons Morris is a Hall of Famer (best pitcher of the 1980's, Game 7 of the 1991 World Series) is that Morris was a workhorse and the pitcher who has held up the best during a randomly selected point of time as compared to other pitchers during that era. As I expected, a great argument for Jack Morris to make the Hall of Fame can't be made without mentioning Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Verducci didn't initially rely on that game to back Morris's candidacy, but he rambled around calling Morris a workhorse multiple times until he fell back on the that World Series game.

I wonder if Verducci considers this take on whether Morris should be in the Hall of Fame to be mean-spirited in that is it well-thought out and reasonable?

4 comments If Only Jack Morris Was Told He Should Give Up Fewer Runs He Could Have Lowered His ERA

It's time to do the annual dance that is done regarding the baseball Hall of Fame. Some Hall of Fame voters say why they are voting for Jack Morris and I say why these people's reasoning for voting for Jack Morris is stupid. Fortunately, this is the last year this dance will be done, as Morris is in his 15th year on the ballot and will be kicked off the ballot if he isn't voted into the Hall of Fame this year. The argument usually goes the same way. Guys like Murray Chass say, "He's a winner who wins in winning fashion. He won big games in the playoffs, but please ignore the playoff games where he didn't pitch well at all. Pay no attention to those." People who don't think Morris should be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame say, "Wins are stupid, his ERA is too high, you can't induct a guy based on how well he pitched in one World Series game." This year, Murray Chass focuses on the "anti-Morris mob" that is trying to intimidate him into not voting for Morris to enter the Hall of Fame. Of course, Murray won't change his mind about voting for Morris. At this point, I think he's not changing his mind because he simply doesn't want to change his mind. It's more about stubbornness now than whether Morris truly deserves Hall of Fame induction to him. Numbers don't win baseball games, Jack Morris wins baseball games.

Murray describes it very well for us on his non-blog. 

Having just gone through an election cycle, I received dozens of telephone calls urging me to vote for candidates for governor, state senate, state assembly, county freeholder, borough council, sheriff. No one called asking me not to vote for someone.

Receiving a phone call saying, "Please vote for Person X" is essentially a phone call asking you not to vote for Person Y...assuming you can only vote for one person of course.

However, the day before Election Day, someone sent me an e-mail asking me, almost pleading with me, not to vote for someone – Jack Morris.

“Please reconsider & do NOT elect Jack Morris, the anti-Blyleven, to the Hall! Just one more year.”

I always like how the anti-stats crowd publishes the emails of the crazy ones who write in and have something to say about Jack Morris. I don't think Jack Morris should be elected into the Hall of Fame, but I'm not going to write in to Murray Chass and plead for him to not vote for Morris. (A) That's not going to work at all and (B) It makes you look like you care too much, which is going to allow Murray Chass to make you look like an extreme person, which is going to allow him to paint Sabermetricians as extreme people. It's a slippery slope.

The writer referred to Morris’ being in his 15^th and last year of eligibility on the writers’ ballot. If he doesn’t make it this year, he will be eligible in the expansion era voting after a five-year wait, meaning he will be eligible again in 2020.

Maybe in the year 2020 the voters for the Hall of Fame will be open-minded about measuring tangibles and intangibles like clutchiness, wins, and "this one time in Game 7 of the World Series this pitcher pitched a really good game."

I assume he wrote to me because I have been one of Morris’ biggest proponents since I retired from The New York Times in 2008 and resumed voting for the Hall of Fame.

And of course this is Murray's last year voting for the Hall of Fame of course, right? Once Murray has seen his pet project all the way through he is done voting for the Hall of Fame. I guess we'll see if that truly happens or not. I have a feeling Murray is going to want to be sanctimonious about the Steroid Era so this won't be his final year voting.

The e-mailer did not intimidate me.

How brave of you to not allow this random person emailing you to intimidate you. Clearly that was the intent as seen by the sentence beginning with the word "Please." By using such strong, aggressive language this emailer was definitely trying to intimidate you.

I guess Murray thinks any attempt to get him to change his opinion on a subject is an attempt to intimidate him. This is what happens when sportswriters go the majority of their career without getting immediate feedback based on what they are writing, as occurs in the present when a sportswriter posts a column. What happens is the sportswriter thinks it is unbelievable anyone would disagree with his point of view and because that person disagrees then he must be doing so in an aggressive manner.

“Jack Morris,” I replied, “will be on my ballot in capital letters.”

Very brave. Score one for standing up to bullying.

“Did you ever see him pitch, or do you base your view on numbers?” I asked. “A number did not pitch a shutout in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Morris did.”

This is very nearly literally the only evidence the pro-Morris crowd has for why Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame. It all starts and ends with Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Sometimes the cherry-picked data showing "Morris was the best pitcher in the 1980's" gets thrown in there, but mostly the pro-Morris crowd bases his induction on three things.

1. Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. This is the most important factor in his candidacy. Nevermind that Morris pitched in seven postseason games and was bad in three of them, average in one of them, and great in three of them. Let's just focus on the one game he pitched well. How Morris pitched in the 1992 World Series is irrelevant. Pay no attention to that.

2. Jack Morris has the most wins from 1980-1989. He's a winner. Of course as Murray Chass says, a win didn't pitch a shutout in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Morris did, so wins are stupid to use as a reason behind the Hall of Fame candidacy of Morris.

3. Because they voted for him last year and they are tired of the anti-Morris crowd, so they want to elect Morris into the Hall of Fame in order to show that statistics are stupid and "the eye test" still means something. It's really a fight for their own relevance more than a fight for Morris to get in the Hall of Fame.

The e-mailer said he had seen him pitch, and he saw that game. “So?” he added. “Don Larsen’s not in the HOF.”

Is that the best the anti-Morris forces can do? Don Larsen pitched a perfect game in the 1956 World Series, and he’s not in the Hall of Fame?

The best the pro-Morris forces can do is say Jack Morris pitched a complete game in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. The irony of Murray complaining the anti-Morris crowd is based on just one World Series game is fantastic. I dare someone to make a good case for Jack Morris to be in the Hall of Fame without mentioning Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. It won't happen because I don't think it can be done.

An excellent case for Tom Glavine can be made without mentioning Game 6 of the 1995 World Series. I can make an excellent case that Cal Ripken should be in the Hall of Fame without mentioning his consecutive games played streak. An excellent case can be made for Derek Jeter to make the Hall of Fame without mentioning his outstanding postseason fielding plays. That's what a Hall of Famer is. You can take away one small part of his candidacy and his candidacy still holds up well. You can't take away Game 7 of the 1991 World Series from Jack Morris because his entire candidacy seemingly relies on that game. That game is the springboard to show how he pitched complete games, was super-clutch, and a winner. Take away that one postseason game, he becomes a really good pitcher from an era when pitchers used to throw more complete games.

My e-mailer seems to have a twin (unless it’s the same misguided person). I was directed to an anti-Morris web site on which the blogger uses the same flawed Larsen analogy but also adds another silly example:

“Bill Wambsganss converted an unassisted triple play. Neither one is in the HOF or ever will be.”

I do agree that writing "Don Larson isn't in the Hall of Fame and he pitched a perfect game" is a silly example, but leading off Morris's candidacy with Game 7 of the 1991 World Series invites these type of comparisons. Of course Murray doesn't know this. He doesn't have the writing skills to write a persuasive non-blog post because he wrote about sports in a time when sportswriters could write whatever they wanted with no immediate feedback from readers who may disagree with him.

When we Morris believers vote for him, we are considering an entire career, in which his brilliant World Series performance was only a highlight.

What are the other highlights? He was really a good pitcher for a while and put up great numbers. He was good in a couple World Series starts, but I fail to see other grand highlights in the hundreds of other games that Morris started.

The statistic the anti-Morris gang seems to holds against him most fervently is his 3.90 earned run average. If he were to be elected, they say accusingly, his e.r.a. would be the highest of any pitcher in the Hall. But someone has to have the highest e.r.a. Right now it’s Red Ruffing and his 3.80.

I hold the fact he wasn't one of the best pitchers of his era against him. He was very good for a long time, but never great for more than a few years, and he wasn't one of the best pitchers of his era.

That web site I mentioned goes well beyond e.r.a., though, bringing up WAR and WAA and WHIP and all sorts of other meaningless initials.

Murray says these are meaningless statistics and immediately dismisses them because he doesn't understand them, but of course that isn't a knock against him, but a knock against the use of statistics and other things that Murray is incapable of understanding. It's about Murray's legacy and if these new-age statistics are going to be used, it makes Murray feel less relevant and hurts his ego. Covering baseball is as much about massaging Murray's ego and letting everyone know how smart he is in regard to the sport. If there are facets of baseball that Murray doesn't understand then that makes him less relevant and only shows that Murray isn't as smart in regard to the sport he covers as he believes himself to be. So new things are bad because it hurts Murray's feelings when he doesn't understand these new things.

And also, if there is an individual statistic than is the most meaningless then it is the win. A pitcher gets a win based on the performance of his team, so in my mind it is pretty meaningless to be used in determining how well a pitcher pitched when taken all alone. WAR, WAA, and WHIP are "meaningless initials" that attempt to isolate a pitcher's performance outside of the performance of his team. I don't consider that meaningless, but to each his own I guess.

Then Murray prints an email from a SABR member who wants to point out there is a historical SABR group and a statistics SABR group. This SABR member who wrote in to Murray said,

"I have no use for the fantasy world statistics like WAR. I am mystified anyone takes them seriously."

And,

“I was able to totally avoid any discussion of the new forms of creative statistics, for the three days I was there.

“Perhaps you could specify the SABR Stat Heads or something similar so as not to malign those interested in baseball history.”

I have no use for a lot of things, but the mere fact they exist doesn't make them part of a fantasy world or any less relevant compared to those things which I do have a use for. As I have said before, I would be interested as to how these anti-stats people did in advanced math classes in high school and college. Statistics is a course with a lot of "creative statistics" that may seem like a fantasy but are really a combination of different formulas in order to create an answer using a larger formula. This isn't fantasy world stuff, but a higher level of measuring the performance of baseball players. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't disparage it because you don't understand what these statistics mean. 

Whether or not they are members of SABR, the anti-Morris mob needs help. Expending as much mental passion and physical effort as they have in trying to block Morris’ road to the Hall of Fame indicates the need for them to get a life.

One person wrote Murray an email asking him not to vote for Jack Morris to enter the Hall of Fame and now there is an entire anti-Morris mob. When you need to discredit an opposing view, make them opposing view seem less rational and much larger than it actually is. Any good propagandist knows this works well.

It’s one thing to use new-age statistics to persuade ignorant voters to vote for a candidate, as happened with Bert Blyleven three years ago;

These poor ignorant voters were persuaded to vote for an unworthy candidate by the evil new-age statistics mob.

I don’t recall a candidate’s being the target of non-voters trying to induce voters not to put an X next to the candidate’s name.

Personally, I can’t wait to get my ballot so I can mark it for Morris.

That's Murray's prerogative in his last year of voting for the baseball Hall of Fame. Because it is Murray's last year voting, right?

However, last year Morris gained only three votes to 67.7 percent, and I don’t think that was enough for him to attain the required 75 percent this time around, especially with Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine on the ballot for the first time.

Don't you just hate it when real Hall of Fame candidates appear on the ballot and take away votes from borderline candidates like Jack Morris who haven't been voted into the Hall of Fame after 14 tries? It's so unfair when qualified Hall of Fame candidates appear on the ballot.

Having a negative campaign waged against him may not hurt him, but the loss of just a few votes that he otherwise might have had could. Morris, 58 years old, had not heard of the existence of an anti-Morris web site.

I get the feeling there are a lot of things about baseball that Jack Morris hasn't heard of. I feel like he stopped learning new things and paying attention sometime around the time Murray Chass did, which was probably 1977.

“How about that?” Morris said in a telephone interview last week. “The sabermetricians have to justify their cause. I’m their leading candidate.”

I'm not even sure what this means, but it could very easily be seen that Murray Chass has to justify his cause and Jack Morris is the leading candidate. As much as players like Jack Morris and Murray Chass view the statistics movement as an underground surge led by people who hate the game of baseball and need to justify their cause, it's not true. The advanced statistics cause has been justified and Jack Morris is showing how out-of-touch he is. There isn't a reason to justify the cause anymore because more and more teams are accepting the use of stats-driven analytics to judge the performance of players. What's interesting is Jack Morris admits this is true, yet still seems to think advanced statistics are irrelevant.

“They’ve already taken over the game,” he said. “Ninety percent of the general managers are in it.

So there's nothing to justify because the cause is a part of baseball.

That’s why the game is messed up.”

Oh, so THAT'S why the game is messed up. I wasn't even aware the game was messed up, much less did I know the reason the game of baseball was messed up.

“They say that numbers are a good way to evaluate,” he said, “but they can’t predict. SABR can only tell what players have done. They can’t predict what a player might do.”

Jack Morris is an idiot. Can Jack Morris predict what players will do? Does the use of the win, RBI, home runs, or complete game statistic tell us what a player will do? Absolutely not. So to indicate advanced statistics are pointless because they can't predict the future is a dumb argument. Yes, there are advanced statistics projections that try to predict what a player/team might do, but advanced statistics are mostly used to evaluate how a player performed, which not-at-all ironically is the exact same damn thing the older statistics that Murray Chass and Jack Morris cling to so tightly are built to do. Advanced statistics are just a different way of evaluating a player. That is all.

To attempt to discount the use of advanced statistics by saying, "Well yeah, but they can't predict the future" is a dumb counter-argument and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of advanced statistics.

“They’ve never played,” he added, “but they can go to the owners and produce charts and graphs, and the owners don’t know any better.”

Yes, advanced statistics have many charts and graphs they produce to take advantage of the ignorant multi-millionaires who run MLB teams. If only there was a chart that could show hustle, grit, and percentage of mustachiness as compared to ability for a player to pitch to the score of the game then I'm sure these naive multi-millionaires would see that advanced statistics are useless. What's funny is that Jack Morris criticizes stats-driven GM's for not knowing how to evaluate a baseball player because they have never played the game, yet he's never been a general manager and claims to understand how to run a baseball team. Jack Morris hasn't ever been a GM, but he believes himself qualified to tell other GM's how to run their team the right way.

Morris rejects the e.r.a./WHIP criticism by explaining what was important to the people he played for.

“Innings pitched, complete games and games started,” he said. “They wanted me to suck up innings. If you look at that in any era, the guys on top would lead the league in e.r.a.

And that's great that Morris sucked up innings. Unfortunately sucking up innings and having a lot of complete games doesn't mean he should be in the Hall of Fame.

I never had any incentive for quality starts or WHIP or WAR. All these formulas didn’t exist.

Wait, what? Jack Morris didn't have incentive to pitch well because there weren't statistics that measured how well he pitched? So Morris didn't pitch as well as he could have pitched during his career because he needs incentive in the existence of the stats that he rejects as invalid? So these statistics are invalid and the reason MLB is messed up, but Jack Morris certainly would have paid attention to these statistics in order to provide incentive to pitch better during his playing career. So basically these stats are worthless unless they existed during Morris's pitching career, in which case they would have provided him more incentive to pitch well? Got it.

Morris makes a valid point. The stats geeks judge him on statistics that didn’t exist when he pitched. In another example, the new-age guys discount Morris’ 254 wins, saying wins are the least meaningful statistic for pitchers.

Right, but these statistics don't need to exist to evaluate Morris as a pitcher. I can't fathom the logic behind discounting these new-age statistics as being faulty and then Morris acting like he would have changed the way he pitched in order to have looked better in the eyes of these faulty new-age statistics.

Also, wins are a team measurement, not just the measurement of how well an individual pitcher has pitched.

Yes, fellow dinosaurs, that’s what they say these days, even though when Morris pitched, wins were still meaningful

Wins are meaningful still, but they shouldn't be the main criteria on which a pitcher is judged for the Hall of Fame.

Speaking of his time and the matter of wins, Morris said, “You gotta ask, what is important to get to the World Series?” The answer was wins.

For a TEAM, the most important statistic is wins and how many games that team wins in the playoffs. So yes, wins are the most important thing to a team, therefore wins are a team statistic. Thanks for proving my point for me. That was very kind.

Taking what Morris’ employers told him they wanted, games started and innings pitched, how does Morris compare with the 69 pitchers in the Hall of Fame? His 527 starts and 3,824 innings are both above the average.

How many starts a pitcher has and how many innings he pitched doesn't make that pitcher a Hall of Fame candidate. Jamie Moyer has 638 starts and 4074 innings pitched. Tim Wakefield has 463 starts and 3226 innings pitched. This doesn't mean they are Hall of Fame candidates. Innings pitched and starts made by a pitcher aren't Hall of Fame criteria without that pitcher having superior statistics in those starts and innings pitched. I'm not sure Jack Morris has those superior statistics.

And what might Morris have done if the general manager or his manager have said they wanted him to have a lower earned run average?

“I probably would have led the league,” he said.

I'm confused by this. So Jack Morris could have pitched better than he did if his manager had told him to do so? This blows my mind. So when Jack Morris went out on the mound he didn't give up as few runs as possible and could have given up fewer runs in order to lower his ERA? I'm not sure whether I should be more outraged by this claim, the fact Jack Morris is essentially admitting he didn't give up as few runs as possible when pitching or that Jack Morris believes he could have been a better pitcher if he had tried harder.

What this comment does tell me is that Jack Morris is a Hall of Fame pitcher in his mind. That's something we can agree on. In his mind, and in his mind only, Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

8 comments So Apparently Mitch Williams Has a Blog

There are times in everyone's life when he/she/it wonders "How the hell did I miss this?" Today is one of those days for me. Mitch Williams, or "Wild Thing" as he was better known as a baseball player, has a blog where he uses the English language and a not-firm grasp on logic to talk about baseball-related topics. To Williams' credit, at least he acknowledges it is a blog (ahem, Murray Chass). Thanks to Cory (again) for sending me the links to these. I will cover two of Mitch Williams' posts today. I'll start off first with the continuous, never-ending Jack Morris-Hall of Fame discussion because there's no way anyone is tired of talking about it. Then I will delve into Mitch Williams' column about how Jon Daniels doesn't have enough baseball experience to effectively run the Rangers franchise. Daniels isn't a great GM like that "baseball guy" Andrew Friedman.

But first, Mitch talks about Schilling and Morris.

The Hall of Fame voting is coming up on us and there are a few people that I don’t quite understand what Hall induction is supposed to be based on. I hear arguments that Jack Morris should not be voted in, and I have heard arguments that Curt Schilling should be.

It's all very confusing isn't it? Both players have memorable postseason performances, so which memorable postseason performance is better? Isn't that what Jack Morris's candidacy is all about? Game 7 of the 1991 World Series?  

Let’s clear this up. Inclusion in the Hall of Fame is in recognition of an outstanding career. It is not based on Postseason performance.

Great then, it's settled. Neither player gets in the Hall of Fame

(Bengoodfella starts packing his bags and walking out of the room)

If we compare Jack Morris’ numbers to Schilling’s and we remove the Postseason — where Schilling was 11-2 and Morris was 7-4 — and we get down to the career numbers, I think you will see what I’m talking about.

I'm going to spoil the conclusion for all of you. Mitch Williams uses some deducing to tell us that Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame, while Curt Schilling should not. Before I get to this comparison more in-depth, let's go back and look at perhaps the most ironic comment I've read in reference to Jack Morris being inducted into the Hall of Fame.

It is not based on Postseason performance.

I'm not exaggerating when I make this statement. I have not read a pro-Jack Morris column where Game 7 of the 1991 World Series was not mentioned at least once. I know a pro-Jack Morris column without a mention of the 1991 World Series exists and I know this because Mitch Williams rambles his way through one right now. Still, saying the Hall of Fame is not based on postseason performance is ignoring the fact 95% of pro-Jack Morris Hall of Fame columns at some point mention his postseason record or Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Some writers (Jerry Green) seem to base Morris' induction solely on that game. So the idea Mitch Williams is excluding postseason performance when determining Morris should be in the Hall of Fame has blown my mind and I will struggle to go on.

Won/Loss: Morris 254-186, Schilling-216-146

Wins are dumb. Using wins to determine if a pitcher was any good or not is dumb. 

Career duration: Morris 18 seasons (all in the AL), Schilling 20 seasons (14 in the NL where there are only eight hitters in the lineup)
 
ERA: Morris 3.90, Schilling 3.35 (4.00 during six seasons in the AL)

3 things worthy of mention:

1. Mitch Williams' best years all occurred in the National League. If he is bashing the National League then he is bashing his ability as a relief pitcher.

2. A closer criticizing a starting pitcher for "only" facing eight hitters in the lineup is just too rich for me. The guy who faced 3-4 batters if he did his job correctly is the one criticizing Curt Schilling for not facing enough quality batters while playing in the National League.

3. Cory in his email to me makes this point better than I do. I can make these points myself, but he makes them pretty well. Since I'm using his email to me, I want to give his blog a shout-out too. He writes at http://corygb.blogspot.ca/.

''ERA: Morris 3.90, Schilling 3.35 (4.00 during six seasons in the AL)''

The 2nd quotation requires more in the way of critical thought

Yes, Schilling did have a higher career ERA in the American League. Fun fact though: His first tenure in the AL (1988-1990) lasted all of 69 IP for the Orioles, where he amassed a 4.54 ERA (85 ERA+)

In his 2nd tenure (2004-2007), Schilling pitched 675 AL innings, posting a 3.95 ERA (120 ERA+) 

I also believe it is relevant to note when comparing the numbers of Morris and Schilling in the American League that Schilling only pitched in the American League during the beginning and end of his career. Schilling pitched in the American League when he was 21-23 years of age and 37-40 years of age. I would venture a guess that his career statistics in the American League would have been better had he pitched in the American League anywhere near the prime of his career. Back to the point Cory is making,

Both quotations also indicate Mitch Williams (flawed) belief that it's fair to compare the American League of the 70s and 80s to the NL of the 90s, where runs per game were almost identical.

The photo attached has Runs Per Game averages during Morris's American League career (1977-1994) and Schilling's National League Career (1991-2003)

From roughly 1993 to 2003, runs per game in the National League were either on par or exceeding the American League yearly averages of 1980 to 1991 (the meat of Morris's peak) 

So basically, Mitch Williams has no point. National League teams scored 4.56 runs per game from 1991-2003. American League teams scored 4.50 runs per game from 1977-1994. It's important to remember that Schilling pitched right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Knowing 'roided-up batters were putting up historically great numbers during the Steroid Era has to be factored in when comparing the American League from 1977-1993 and the National League from 1993-2003. So over the time Morris pitched in the American League and Schilling pitched in the National League, the National League teams actually scored more runs per game. This is what happens when a knee-jerk reaction is made without doing research.

Innings Pitched: Morris 3,824, Schilling 3,261
Complete games: Morris 175, Schilling 83
Shutouts: Morris 28, Schilling 20

These are good numbers, but I still lean towards neither player entering the Hall of Fame. Comparing Morris to Schilling and believing Morris to be the superior player doesn't mean Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame.

This all speaks to my point. The Hall of Fame is recognition of a career, not Postseason stats! Postseason stats don’t count towards MVP or the Cy Young Award.

And yet, very few pro-Jack Morris voters fail to leave out Morris's postseason record.

If the people who vote on this induction only care about Postseason performance, then Greg Maddux one of the best pitchers in the history of our game, wouldn’t be a Hall of Famer! He was just 11-14 in his Postseason career!

Great point. If we just used assumptions that pitching in the American League was more difficult because a pitcher has to face 9 hitters instead of 8 hitters a pitcher faces in the National League then the result would be what Mitch Williams has written here.

If they come up with a Postseason Hall of Fame, Curt Schilling is a first ballot Hall of Famer!

Why is Mitch Williams using exclamation points excessively? Is he is a 12 year old girl?

But until they do, he was a good pitcher, but his career is not Hall of Fame worthy.

This also happens to be the perfect rebuttal to a person who claims Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

One final point on the Hall of Fame: the fact that Lee Smith has not been voted in is, in my opinion, a joke!

A joke like a "haha" joke or a joke like "why is this guy using exclamation points at the end of every sentence, he must be fucking with us" joke? 

And his career ERA — which for a closer is a stat that can be very easily inflated for the season by one bad outing — was 3.03.

A closer's ERA can also not be inflated because he often comes in the game with no runners on-base and only has to face three batters if he does his job correctly.

The telltale sign for me would be poll the players. Ask all the hitters that faced Lee, Trevor and Mo who they would have rather faced in the ninth. Trust me, Lee Arthur would be last on that list!

Thanks Mitch! I'm glad you used a poll of ex-MLB players that you never actually took to prove your point! It's very persuasive for you to make up the results of a poll and then use them to support your argument! This is analysis and very persuasive!

Most likely you know why Mitch Williams doesn't think Curt Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame? Because he doesn't like him. (Go to the 2:35 mark...and again, this was sent to me by Cory)

At least Williams is unbiased, right?

Now Mitch Williams discusses the shakeups in the Rangers front office and tells people to not tell others how to do their job. Williams goes about this by telling the Rangers front office how to do their job. 

Today we learned that the job of President of Baseball Operations with the Rangers has been taken away from Nolan Ryan and given to the team’s GM, John Daniels.

This is the problem plaguing our game.

Without knowing the next sentence, I would have no clue what "the problem" here is. It's not readily apparent. Is the problem GM's trying to have too much responsibility within an organization? Is the problem baseball "experts" like Mitch Williams who believes he is informed enough on a topic to comment on that topic, but he isn't really informed enough to spell all the names of the concerned parties correctly? John Daniels is not the Rangers GM. Jon Daniels is the Rangers GM. A small mistake, sure, but given Mitch Williams is paid to cover MLB and seems to carry a strong opinion about Jon Daniels...

I have all the respect in the world for these young front office people that come out of Harvard or Yale — or in Daniels’ case, Cornell. I respect them when they know what they are good at: business, finance, or organizational skills — those sorts of things.

The amount of idiocy that Mitch Williams is spewing right now is amazing. So being the General Manager of a MLB franchise doesn't require business, finance or organizational skills? It sounds to me like Mitch Williams isn't quite intelligent or informed enough to be making these criticisms that he is making. Being a General Manager requires business, finance and organizational skills. Anyone who doesn't believe this is true is an uninformed moron.

Also, I like how graduates from Cornell/Harvard/Yale are good at only these three things and should not look for a job that requires other attributes. Mitch Williams graduated from West Linn High School in Oregon, perhaps they are famous for learning their young ones on how to be a baseball analyst? Because otherwise, it sounds like graduates of West Linn High School should know what they are good at...and I'm not sure it is writing.

Where I tend to lose respect for them is when they decide they know how to evaluate baseball talent better than people like Nolan Ryan! When they so that, they do their players a disservice, as well as their fan base and the entire organization.

Yeah I know! It's not like Jon Daniels is the GM of a baseball team that he has helped build into a franchise capable of making back-to-back World Series or anything. What does he know, other than he was able to replenish the Rangers farm system and make them competitive again? Leave the baseball stuff to guys like Nolan Ryan (insert exclamation point here)

I can’t speculate what the problem is down in Arlington between Nolan and Daniels

Mitch Williams can't speculate but he knows the fault is on Jon Daniels. There you go, that makes sense.

I was a Ranger back when going to a game was something a fan did when there was nothing else to do that night in town. Over the last four years, they have done something I never thought would be possible, and that was take away fans from the Dallas Cowboys.

And the reason the Rangers have had such success is because they have won baseball games. Should the credit for putting a team together that won games and made the World Series go to the President/Owner of the Texas Rangers or the General Manager of the Rangers? It seems to me like Jon Daniels put this Rangers team together, so he should get at least 50% of the credit. What do I know though? I'm not a scrappy, competitive, ex-baseball player like Mitch Williams. He clearly knows what he is talking about when he is talking about John (Jon) Daniels. Daniels needs to stick to what he knows best, like business, finance, and having them organizational skills. Leave the running of the Rangers' business, dealing with the Rangers' budget, and organizing the organization to run as effectively and efficiently as possible to those who who are qualified to do such things...which obviously isn't a graduate from a Ivy League school.

Also, the Rangers haven't really taken away fans from the Dallas Cowboys. It's not an either/or situation since each team plays a different sport. Fans can cheer for both teams.

I don’t know Daniels, but the way that Michael Young was treated there was just wrong.

You mean the part where Daniels gave Young an $80 million contract extension? Boy, that was an asshole thing to do.

Young changed positions four times for the good of the team. He became an All-Star at three different positions, then demanded a trade after the signing of Adrian Beltre.

Michael Young demanded a trade nearly every time he was asked to switch positions. I have discussed it before on this blog and the bottom line is the Rangers replaced Young with a better player each time he was asked to move. There have been plenty of MLB players who have moved positions repeatedly and not made a peep, but for some reason the media insists on making Michael Young a martyr.

One thing I can say for sure is that as soon as a GM starts to think he can evaluate talent better than someone like Ryan without anywhere near the baseball background, he is giving himself too much credit.

The Rangers have been to the World Series two of the last three seasons. Jon Daniels doesn't think he can evaluate talent well, he knows he can evaluate talent well. Whether he is a better judge of talent than Nolan Ryan, who's to say, but having played baseball doesn't mean Nolan Ryan is a better judge of talent than Jon Daniels. Nolan Ryan threw a baseball well. Throwing a baseball well doesn't mean Nolan Ryan can judge talent better than Jon Daniels can judge talent.

The problem I see in Texas is that they have power arms in their rotation, and all of them are trying to become sinker ball pitchers. 

It is harder to command a sinker than it is a four-seam fastball.

I forgot about Mitch Williams credentials as a pitching coach. After not being retained as the pitching coach for an Independent League franchise early in the 2000's I know he is turning down pitching coach offers left and right. It's funny how Mitch (in just a minute) will say people who tell others how to do a job they can't do themselves are ignorant. Hopefully Mitch was looking in the mirror when he wrote this.

So if you can’t command it, it becomes a 91-MPH hit-me pitch. Trust me.

I don't trust you. You have shown through the misspelling of Jon Daniels' name and your inability to understand running a baseball team requires organizational and business skill that you have very little clue of what you are talking about. But hey, Mitch Williams throws a baseball well, so he believes that makes him qualified to do anything baseball-related. I'm really good at driving a car so that means I could own a NASCAR team, right?

I think that has to change. I think they need to let these guys who can throw 95 to 98 go out and do it, and use a sinker only in spots where it is needed.

I would remind Mitch Williams that Nolan Ryan is on record as being the guy in the Rangers organization who has had the most influence on the Rangers pitching staff. So these changes Mitch criticizes the Rangers for not making, well, he is basically criticizing his boy Nolan Ryan. Nolan Ryan is on record here, here, here, here, and here as having a great effect on the Texas Rangers pitching staff. It doesn't shock me that Mitch Williams doesn't understand he is essentially criticizing Nolan Ryan when he criticizes how the Rangers pitchers are pitching.

I also enjoy how Mitch is trying to blame Jon Daniels for the pitchers the Rangers have acquired and developed, but doesn't give Daniels credit for any of the success the Rangers have had over the past five years.

I will point to an organization that has a very smart GM: Tampa. Andrew Friedman is very smart. I believe he is smarter than any other GM out there right now, because I believe he surrounds himself with very good baseball people and trusts each of them to do their job,

Mitch Williams should not be writing any of his thoughts down. He contradicts himself, he doesn't really make sense and I get a feeling he doesn't have a firm grasp on the point he is trying to make. Let's compare the backgrounds of Jon Daniels and Andrew Friedman. One guy Mitch Williams likes because he is "very smart" and the other guy Mitch thinks needs to leave running a baseball team to baseball guys.

College

Jon Daniels- Cornell University
Andrew Friedman- Tulane University

Major in College

Jon Daniels- Applied Economics and Management
Andrew Friedman- Management with a Concentration in Finance

First Job out of College

Jon Daniels- Business Development for Allied Domecq (They operate wine and restaurant businesses)
Andrew Friedman- Analyst for Bear Stearns

First Baseball Job

Jon Daniels- Internship with the Rockies in 2001 and Assistant, Baseball Operations for Rangers in 2003
Andrew Friedman- Director of Baseball Development for the Rays in 2004

Now if you can tell me how based on their backgrounds Andrew Friedman is a "baseball guy" and Jon Daniels is not, then you are lying. Both guys have very similar educational and baseball backgrounds, but Mitch Williams thinks Jon Daniels can't run a team because he isn't a "baseball guy," but Williams likes Friedman and seems to accept him as a "baseball guy." In related news, Mitch Williams has no idea what he is talking about and isn't consistent with his criticism.

I don’t know about y’all that are reading this, but I don’t for a second think Friedman is making any decisions involving talent without consulting his baseball people.

Don't think for a second that Jon Daniels makes any decisions without consulting his baseball people.

In my opinion, you are only ignorant if you try and tell someone how to do their job if you aren’t qualified to do that job.

You mean sort of like how you just told the Rangers organization how they need to encourage their pitchers to throw the baseball despite having no experience despite having no experience as a pitching coach at the major league level (Williams was a pitching coach for an Independent League team for 2002 and 2003, but his contract wasn't renewed)? Or does Mitch mean like how he is calling Jon Daniels not a "baseball guy" and stating he doesn't have the knowledge necessary to do Nolan Ryan's job, despite the fact Mitch Williams has no experience as a scout or baseball executive?

This whole column is basically Mitch Williams telling Jon Daniels how to do his job and what job to stick to.

I don’t think I’m going to get to many people calling me to do their taxes or represent them in court. Just as I am not going to argue with someone who does a job that I have no clue about.

You mean like being the General Manager of an MLB team? Mitch seemed to argue with the qualifications of Jon Daniels to do Nolan Ryan's job and Mitch doesn't seem to have a clue that being an MLB GM requires business, finance and organizational skills...which are all strengths Mitch admits Jon has due to graduating college from Cornell.

If the Rangers lose Ryan, they will be headed back to where they were before he got there

I don't think the Rangers should lose Nolan Ryan, but it is incredibly premature and uninformed to state the Rangers will be a bad team if Ryan no longer has an affiliation with the Rangers organization.

Much like Mitch seems to dislike Curt Schilling and this drives his belief Schilling should not be in the Hall of Fame, Mitch doesn't like Jon Daniels not being a "baseball guy" (unlike Andrew Friedman...mind. blown.) and so he thinks Daniels can't do his job as Rangers GM without Nolan Ryan around.

I wish Mitch Williams wrote more blog entries because his blog could be a gold mine.