Hall of Fame: If you're voting for Jack Morris, how do you not vote for Blyleven?
Dec 28, 2009, 8:00 AM EDT
Sports Illustrated’s Jon Heyman set off an hours-long debate last night on Twitter when he revealed his Hall of Fame ballot:
just mailed Hall of Fame ballot, beating deadline yet again. voted for alomar, dawson, larkin, parker, morris & mattingly
At the outset, let me give Heyman some credit. After tweeting that, a cubic crap-ton of people like me came out of the woodwork to attack him, and he basically took on all comers. As I’ll note below, his arguments were weak, but he stood in the box all night and that’s worthy of some respect.
But with that out of the way, let’s be clear: there is all kinds of ugliness here. Among other things voting for Andre Dawson and Dave Parker while not voting for Tim Raines is more than curious. Voting for Don Mattingly at all is simply silly. What sparked the big debate, however, was his vote for Jack Morris and failure to vote for Bert Blyleven.
Don’t worry: this is not going to be a big Blyleven-for-the-Hall-of-Fame post. People have beat that to death, and if you’re looking for a comprehensive argument in his favor, there are better places to go for it, including from the man himself. Personally, I think Blyleven is a Hall of Famer. I understand that a lot of people disagree. They’re entitled to that opinion. Hall of Fame voting comes with a hefty dose of subjectivity, and with the majority of candidates — including Blyleven, Dawson, Fred McGriff and many like them — there are non-ridiculous arguments on both sides.
But the arguments from any given voter should at least be consistent, and here is where Heyman goes off the rails. Like Blyleven, Morris is something less than a shoe-in candidate. Personally I don’t think he belongs. Buf if you’re one of those people who do think he belongs — if you’re a proponent of a larger, less exclusive Hall of Fame — how can you vote for Morris and not Blyleven?
As many have noted, Blyleven has a large advantage in just about every possible statistic except for the random “wins in the 1980s” and “wins in Game Sevens of the 1991 World Series” categories. If you’re making a purely statistical case — which I accept that voters do not, as a rule, do — Blyleven is in and Morris is out.
But even if you’re making a broader, shape-of-career case — which voters often do — Blyleven and Morris profile rather similarly: they are good, durable but rarely-considered-great pitchers
without Cy Young awards. Morris has the rings, but he had a lot of help and they are at the very least equaled in weight by Blyleven’s overall career value. I wouldn’t approach the matter this way, but for those who do, I can see voting for neither of them. I can also see voting for both of them. I can even see — if voters go to big stats like wins and strikeouts as tiebreakers — voting for Blyleven and not Morris. I cannot, however, fathom a vote for Morris and not Blyleven.
But that inconsistency is not the most galling. No, the most galling inconsistencies were volunteered by Heyman himself. First, in response to me lodging the objection from the last paragraph, Heyman said “regarding bert,
86% voted “no” his 2nd yr. unlike others, i’m consistent. he never led
league in wins, ERA but led in HRs, earned runs, Ls“
This sort of cherry picking is so common I rarely get outraged anymore, but that doesn’t make it any less outrageous. Ignore all of Blyleven’s stats in his favor and dismiss him as merely a stathead’s pick as so many writers do, but then use the negative stats to hammer his candidacy. It’s simply not legitimate in my mind to look at the dingers he gave up and not even consider his 287 wins and 3701 strikeouts. You have to take his overall stats and weigh them, and guys like Heyman never do that. “Stats are overrated,” they often say when dismissing Blyleven, and then they use stats to twist the knife. And by the way: Jack Morris led the league in earned runs once. Steve Carlton led the league in homers, ERA and losses on occasion as well. What’s your point?
But the worst part of Heyman’s case comes in the “86% voted “no” his 2nd yr. unlike others, i’m consistent” comment. Setting aside what some smart people have said about such consistency, Heyman isn’t even consistent about his consistency. Later, in what became a wide-ranging debate among a good dozen or more people, Heyman said that he would (a) look at Tim Raines’ candidacy again; and (b) that he had voted “no” for Mattingly eight times before changing his mind. If you’re going to reevaluate for Mattingly and Raines, why not Blyleven? Why not just shorten the Hall of Fame voting window to one year per player?
Maybe Heyman was just joking with the consistency crack. Maybe he’s just so moonstruck with Game 7 of the 1991 World Series that no logical case against Jack Morris would ever dissuade him.
Then again, maybe he’s just shooting darts out there, making up his standards as he goes along.
-
- KPD - Dec 28, 2009 at 8:39 AM
-
Jack Morris must be a Scott Boras client.
-
- Bill@TDS - Dec 28, 2009 at 9:09 AM
-
Well said. I was very impressed with Heyman’s willingness to hang in there and respond to criticism…unfortunately, his responses kept making him come out worse and worse.
-
- pepe - Dec 28, 2009 at 9:10 AM
-
Bert Blyleven deserves to be in the HOF but writers like Craig and Posnanski, as much as I love ‘em, might be creating a bit of a backlash with their slightly sanctimonious take on the matter. You know, Morris was pretty dominant during an era (the ’80s) when there were very few HOF-worthy pitchers. I’m guessing the thinking of a Heyman, and other writers who vote for Morris over Blyleven, is Jack was the number one guy on the three World Series staffs he pitched for while Bert was the 2 or 3 guy in Pittsburgh and Minnesota. I’m generally a numbers guy but the very real perception in the game back then was Morris was an ace and Blyleven, regrettably, wasn’t. It’d be nice to see both of them get in and thanks to writers like Craig, Joe and Rob Neyer it looks like Blyleven will get in at some point. But, I still think, Morris is better than any number of HOF members voted in during Frankie Frisch’s reign and deserves more respect than he’s getting here.
-
- Ron - Dec 28, 2009 at 9:37 AM
-
So it’s wrong to call out Law and Carroll for their Cy Young votes (based purely on criteria they chose), but okay to call out Heyman for his Hall votes (based purely on criteria he chose).
I disagree with him, but as was explained to me by many people during the Cy Young thing, writers have the right to vote they way they want based on any criteria they want, and we lowly people (who aren’t smart enough to understand) are supposed to bow to their superior wisdom.
Or has it been firmly that some writers are more smarter than other writers? Just so I know before I make any stupid comments?
-
- Craig Calcaterra - Dec 28, 2009 at 9:40 AM
-
Who said it was wrong to call out those guys for their Cy Votes? Everyone who votes for stuff should be accountable for their votes. I can’t remember all the comments here at Cy Young time, but if anyone said that we shouldn’t question Law or Carroll’s votes, they’re full of it. We may agree with them more than we agree with Heyman’s Hall ballot, but they’re all subject to scrutiny.
-
- Wooden U. Lykteneau - Dec 28, 2009 at 9:50 AM
-
Morris was pretty dominant during an era (the ’80s) when there were very few HOF-worthy pitchers.
Really? Name one (1) year during the 1980s in which Jack Morris was the best pitcher in his division, never mind the American League (give you a hint: it’s written on that sign on Jimmie Dimmick’s lawn.
And quite frankly, he was only the best pitcher on his team for two and half seasons during that decade (’85, ’86, and ’87 until Doyle Alexander showed up).
-
- Ron - Dec 28, 2009 at 10:00 AM
-
Craig, I didn’t mean to imply you said taht. My fault for that. But many people blasted a comment I made, and on a lot of other sites, anyone who disagreed with Law/Carroll were pretty much abused for their opinion. By the writers, and the commenters.
I think Heyman is nuts, but people calling him out for his vote are going to be the same people that complained when Law and Carroll were questioned on thiers.
And it will be interesting to see how many of the actual voters will complain about the ballots of others without wanting to be criticized themselves.
-
- Bill@TDS - Dec 28, 2009 at 10:21 AM
-
Morris was never dominant in any sense of the word for any period longer than a single game. Never. He was called an “ace” because of his attitude and his mustache and his “ability” to get his teams to score lots of runs for him. But he was the second best pitcher on the ’84 Tigers, the second or third-best on the ’91 Twins, and a distant third-best on the ’92 Jays. I’m not sure why getting yourself an ultimately pretty empty “ace” label on three teams that won the Series should get you anywhere.
Even if you take just the eighties, Morris’ big “dominant” decade, Blyleven was the better pitcher. Then Bert has the whole 1970s, when he was one of the best pitchers in baseball, to add on top of it. The “comparison” between Bly and Morris really isn’t a comparison at all. It’s not a fair fight.
If you’re a “numbers guy,” compare Morris to Jamie Moyer, Dennis Martinez, Frank Tanana, Jim Kaat, Tommy Jon and Luis Tiant. Do they all deserve to get in? If not, what sets Morris apart from all the others? Just that one game in ’91? Is one good game really enough to make Jamie Moyer a Hall of Famer?
-
- AlexO - Dec 28, 2009 at 10:52 AM
-
What’s unfortunate is that no matter how hard he gets ripped on, Heyman will never learn from it. He is too entrenched in his role as a leading MLB writer and no doubt feels secure enough by this that it gives him no reason to change. If anything, he probably gets off on the resulting controvery, viewing himself as a martyr for some non-existant code of values.
-
- ralphdibny - Dec 28, 2009 at 11:03 AM
-
OK, here’s the best argument I can make for Morris:
It’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistics We Happen To Value Today. The Hall should enshrine those players who, at the time they were playing, were considered to be the best players of their era. At the time, Morris was considered an ace: paid like an ace, reported on like an ace, started Opening Days like an ace. This is not because people in the 1980s were incredibly stupid; they simply valued different things then. It is unfair to Morris to now decide “Whoops! We were wrong. Sorry, dude.”
This is an argument for a Big Hall, with lots of different kinds of players. Some players transcend our ability of evaluate them. Babe Ruth has always been (and I imagine will always be) considered one of the very best to ever play the game, regardless of how we measure him. Other players have reputations that wax and wane. They deserve enshrinement as well. But if that’s your argument, you must allow for reputations to grow as well as shrink. Morris and Blyleven should enter the Hall together, as an example of the complicated and ever-shifting history which the Hall purports to honor.
-
- Craig Calcaterra - Dec 28, 2009 at 11:06 AM
-
If you go by “fame” and “what was important to fans at the time” you have to include McGwire and Bonds and those guys too, right?
-
- ralphdibny - Dec 28, 2009 at 11:13 AM
-
Yes. Absolutely you do. When Bonds was mashing all those homers, we all knew he was juicing, and no one cared. Then suddenly we did. And perhaps the next generation of baseball minds will go back to not caring. The Hall both reflects these changes and transcends them.
-
- themarksmith - Dec 28, 2009 at 11:18 AM
-
Ron,
I think most of the abuse was initially aimed at Law/Carroll for their votes, and the return abuse aimed at you and others was mainly just a reaction. Another instance of the disconnect between the two groups of thought.
But the idea here is consistency. Law/Carroll, and to a large extent even most journalists, stay consistent in how they value players. You can value players however you wish, but Heyman really seems to be picking and choosing based on how he “feels” about Morris. Law/Carroll have always used the same method of valuation and will continue to do so.
But Heyman is fighting the saber crowd here, so let’s look at some normal stats. Bert leads in wins (287 to 254), though you could make the case that he did pitch four more seasons. Bert leads in ERA by .60 in 4 more seasons. Bert had 4 seasons over 285 IP (Morris has 1) while having several others that were close to that (Morris never got over 266 again and only did that twice). Blyleven absolutely dominates in shutouts (60 to 28). Bert had 1300 more strikeouts. Bert had almost 70 more complete games. Blyleven gave up 40 more home runs, but with 4 more seasons, would Morris have given up fewer. Sorry, I just don’t see either traditional stats or saber stats helping Morris over Blyleven, and Heyman’s vote is inconsistent, which is the main point here.
Blyleven did have 60 more losses if we want to use that to outweigh everything else above, which it doesn’t.
-
- pepe - Dec 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM
-
All I meant to say was there was a very real perception at the time that Morris was an ace, a number one starter, and while Blyleven does have the superior overall career, he really wasn’t considered anything more than a number two or three starter. You can cherry-pick starting pitchers on those Tigers, Twins and Jays teams and find some having better years than Morris but I don’t think Sparky Anderson, Tom Kelly or Cito would have bumped Jack in the rotation for the likes of Dan Petry, Milt Wilcox, Doyle Alexander, Kevin Tapani, or Scott Erickson. I will say Jimmy Key was better…where’s the love for him?
I am biased because I am a Tiger fan but if I had to pick between the two for the Hall I’d pick Blyleven. Truth be told, Morris probably needed a couple more solid years and another sexy postseason to be seriously considered for the Hall. I also think Kaat, Tiant and possibly TJ had better careers than Morris. Martinez had a good, solid career but he probably falls a tad short of the HOF. And yes, I do read the same blogs you do and I’ve heard the whole Jamie Moyer argument before. Maybe if Jamie comes back and pitches four or five more years he could end up having Don Sutton-type numbers. That makes him a Hall of Famer, no?
-
- lar @ wezen-ball - Dec 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM
-
It seems to me that all of these “arguments” against Blyleven’s election by people like Heyman aren’t really legitimate reasons he doesn’t belong. Instead, it sounds like they already made up their mind to vote one way and so went back looking for reasons to justify that choice. It’s the whole “he never felt like a HOFer” stigma. Folks like Heyman just can’t seem to get past that – all they see are the reasons to support that label, not the much more legitimate and powerful evidence that negates that.
-
- Tony A - Dec 28, 2009 at 1:38 PM
-
Yes, and let’s not forget Sammy in that discussion. I really believe that some day we might look back on the steroid era as “the good old days”. Also, there’s comment about “the 80′s, and Morris being an ace and Blyleven not”, well, I was alive, sentient, living the the US and watching baseball in the 80′s, and I have a pretty strong recollection of considering Blyleven an “ace” at the time. I also remember numerous commentators reflecting on his incredible curve ball, claiming it to be the prime ingredient of his success. Many of these same commentators also observed that his high HR total was not that different from Robin Roberts or Catfish; hadn’t prevented them from winning and didn’t prevent BB either. If anything, I consider him more worthy of the hall than Morris…
-
- Conquistador - Dec 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM
-
I disagree with the dismal of Don Mattingly’s candidacy. People who followed the sport during his hay day remember how he took over the game with both his bat and glove. Mattingly’s glove was not merely gold, but platinum. Clutch hitter throughout his career, even at the end when decimated by injuries. Lou Pinella commented during Mattingly’s sole playoff appearance that he was the person he feared most in the Yankees lineup and didn’t want beating him. For good reason as he hit over .400 in the series, including a go ahead Game 2 HR that nearly brought the Stadium down. Sometimes you have to look beyond the numbers. Having said that, a case can be made by focusing on the #s. Puckett (may he rest in peace) was voted in with similar #s and a career cut short due to injury.
-
- ralf - Dec 28, 2009 at 1:50 PM
-
I also have to take issue with the notion that Blyleven wasn’t thought of as an elite pitcher during his career. I wasn’t old enough to follow baseball closely until the late 80′s, so I took a look at b-ref and saw where he ranked in various stats. Here are the number of times he placed near the top of single-season leader boards in the main stats that old, crusty writers seem to care the most about. First number is times in the top ten, second is times in the top five:
Cy Young voting: 4, 3. ERA: 10, 8. Wins: 6, 5. IP: 11, 6. K: 15, 13. CG: 12, 6. Shutouts: 10, 9. And, for the youngsters, adjusted ERA+: 12, 7. That all seems pretty elite and ace-y to me.
-
- themarksmith - Dec 28, 2009 at 2:10 PM
-
It strikes me as funny that we “perceive” people to be aces. The whole idea behind sabermetrics is going beyond perceiving and finding out what’s closer to the truth. Even basic analysis tries to do this. How can one “perceive” anyone to be an ace? Just basic feeling? How can we really remember who we felt was an ace 30 years ago? Or do we perceive him to be an ace because we heard Jack Morris’ name a lot more than Bert Blyleven’s (I hasn’t heard the name until this time last year) and then associate Jack Morris with greatness? Any delving into even basic statistics should show that Blyleven was more “ace” than Morris (well, other than W-L record, and even then, it’s not by much). Did you know Morris’ average record was 16-12 and that Blyleven’s was 14-12? How much of a difference is there?
It’s funny because we do all sorts of research and analysis for finding the truth behind politician’s voting records, Tiger Woods’ mistresses, etc., but we can’t take 5 minutes to objectively realize that Bert was better than Jack.
-
- Sussemilch - Dec 28, 2009 at 2:39 PM
-
Don’t use Jack as a foil – Jack Morris belongs in the hall. He didn’t have Gooden’s fastball or Maddux’s precision, but he had a leather arm, a barrel full of guts and knew how to win championships.
-
- themarksmith - Dec 28, 2009 at 2:47 PM
-
Livan Hernandez has a leather arm, literally a barrel for guts, and knew how to win championships (7-3, 3.97 ERA in playoffs and was 2-0 in the 1997 World Series). We putting him in, too?
-
- dave sanders - Dec 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM
-
I also disagree with dismissal of Mattingly’s credentials. Like other obvious HOF’s with injury abbreviated careers, his resume needs to be viewed in the context of era dominance on both offense and defense. Amazing glove and bat.
-
- Old Gator - Dec 28, 2009 at 11:49 PM
-
Blyleven gets in on hanging chads.
-
- mike in mn - Dec 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM
-
?Mattingly?
If he loves wins so much, compare Mattingly and Hrbek. Let me know which one won 2 WS titles….
They are nearly identical stats wise (not the Heyman cares about comparing people based on stats, apparently), they played at the same times, and one won 2 WS titles.
NEITHER belongs in the Hall, but if one does, it isn’t Mattingly.
Why does anyone think Mattingly should be in the Hall? If he’s not a NYY, NO ONE talks about him.
-
- Jerry - Jan 5, 2010 at 1:16 PM
-
Morris won more games than any pitcher in the 1980′s. The high ERA was due to the fact that Sparky Anderson often left him in to work out of jams instead of going to the bullpen.
