Skip to content

Inducting Jack Morris would lower the bar for the Hall of Fame

Dec 4, 2012, 2:00 AM EDT

jack-morris-03jpg-3f54fc94864f2ba1_medium[1] AP

I’ve covered this territory before, and I realize I’m mostly preaching to the choir here. Still, it needs to be written again: Jack Morris did not have a Hall of Fame career.

The funny thing is that the writers once knew this. When Morris debuted on the Hall of Fame ballot in 2000, he received 22 percent of the vote. His support dipped to 20 percent in 2001, and he only reached 30 percent on his sixth try in 2005. Now he’s all of the way up to 66.7 percent, still for no good reason that I can see.

Morris’ backers say he was the best pitcher of the 1980s and that he pitched one of the greatest games of all-time to clinch the 1991 World Series for the Twins. I take no issue with the latter statement; Morris’ stellar duel with the Braves’ John Smoltz in which he went the distance for a 1-0, 10-inning victory was a true masterpiece and should never be forgotten. And it won’t be.

The rest of the case for Morris is weak.

Morris is only a candidate for “best pitcher of the 1980s” because it just so happens that no elite starters showed up during that 1975-1980 timeframe and had their peak years during the 1980s. No one would ever think of Morris as the top pitcher of the 1970s or 1990s had his 1980s happened in another decade.

Also, one can put together a pretty good argument that Dave Stieb was actually the best pitcher of the 1980s. Morris topped Stieb in wins 162-140, but it was closer in winning percentage (.577 to .562), even though Morris played for superior teams. Morris had a 3.66 ERA and a 109 ERA+ for the decade, while Stieb came in at 3.32 and 126.

Even if you still want to give Morris “best pitcher of the 1980s” honors, he certainly wasn’t the best pitcher of the first half of the decade (Steve Carlton, 88-47, 2.91 ERA; Morris 86-62, 3.66 ERA) or anywhere near the best pitcher of the second half of the decade (Roger Clemens 86-41, 2.92 ERA; Morris 76-57, 3.67 ERA).

And Morris wasn’t the best pitcher in any season of the decade. Not only did he never win a Cy Young Award, but he never even finished second.

It’s the Cy Young balloting that is particularly telling, in my opinion. Some of those who argue for Morris like to tell us that we weren’t there, that we didn’t see Morris when he was winning all of those big games.

Well, look at the people that were there. Morris pitched for 18 seasons, all of them in a 14-team American League. During that time, there were 504 ballots cast for the Cy Young Award. Morris received a first-place vote on five of those ballots. One percent. He got two first-place votes in 1983, when he finished third in the balloting behind the immortal LaMarr Hoyt and a reliever in Dan Quisenberry. He got the other three in 1991, when he finished fourth behind Clemens, Scott Erickson and Jim Abbott.

And while I wasn’t covering baseball in those years, I was there, at least for the latter half of Morris’ career. I think everyone respected Morris. I don’t think anyone was afraid of him. No opposing fan ever went to the ballpark and said “we’ve got no shot today, Morris is starting.” Morris was a workhorse, a battler. There’s no evidence to support the pitching to the score argument, but Morris worked deep into games and usually gave his team a chance to win. And his team did more often than not (it helped that those Tigers had two guys who really should be in the Hall of Fame in Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker).

Of course, having to be the game’s best pitcher shouldn’t be the standard for the Hall of Fame. Bert Blyleven and Don Sutton were never the best in their leagues. Tom Glavine and Curt Schilling weren’t either, yet both of them should be enshrined.

Morris, though, still doesn’t compare. His 3.90 ERA would be the worst in Cooperstown. Even in seemingly weak fields, his best AL ERA finish was fifth place. He led the league in wins twice; once in the strike-shortened 1981 season with 14 and later in 1992 when he went 21-6 with a 4.04 ERA. He led the league in innings and strikeouts once apiece. His win total of 254 is pretty good, but it’s still behind that of 41 other starters in history and it’s really the strong point of his case. Also, it should be noted that the AL was the weaker of the two leagues during Morris’ career. He was facing easier competition than his NL counterparts.

Jack Morris was a very good pitcher, one of the last to average 250 innings and 10 complete games per season in his prime. He turned in one of the greatest postseason starts in history. That’s how he should be remembered. He just doesn’t come all that close to meeting the current standards for Hall of Fame enshrinement, and voting him in would be a mistake.

  1. fuddpucker - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:07 AM

    Cool, I say let him in.

  2. mrfloydpink - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:09 AM

    I thought Tom Verducci made a very good and interesting case in favor of Morris:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/tom_verducci/11/30/hall-of-fame-jack-morris-craig-biggio-curt-schilling/index.html

    I still think Morris should be on the outside looking in, but I’m persuaded that if (when?) he’s inducted, it won’t be a travesty on the level of a Jim Rice induction. For better or worse, Morris was one of the four or five best pitchers of his (admittedly weak) era. I don’t think Rice cracks the top 10 OF of his era.

    • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:15 AM

      His interesting points are that Morris pitched a lot of innings and had a lot of wins. Which isn’t exactly new ground. Morris was a pretty good pitcher, no one disputes that. But he certainly wasn’t great and certainly not hall worthy.

      I think Morris in the Hall is equal to or worse than Jim Rice. He had a lower WAR, he was never dominant (Rice won an MVP), his ERA was barely above league average and more than almost anybody, his case is built on a silly narrative.

      No, I think Morris’s election would be considerably worse than Jim RIce.

  3. fuddpucker - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:16 AM

    Tony Perez is a travesty. Voting Jack Morris into the HOF wouldn’t be nearly as bad.

    • 78mu - Dec 4, 2012 at 3:54 AM

      Putting someone in the HOF because they were an RBI machine makes as much sense as putting the best pitcher of the XX decade in.

      Before Morris makes it into Cooperstown, his mom and dad should be inducted into a Parents HOF for conceiving him when they did. A year or two earlier or later and a big argument for Morris goes “poof”.

    • dirtyharry1971 - Dec 4, 2012 at 6:50 AM

      totally agree, Perez and Puckett already lowered the bar so why does it matter now?

    • bigleagues - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:02 AM

      #24, Dwight Evans was better than Rice or Perez but newer baseball fans have no point of reference, and writers from his era remain ignorant of his impact.

    • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:15 AM

      Tony Perez: 50 WAR
      Jack Morris: 39 WAR

      • bigleagues - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:53 AM

        Dwight Evans: 62.8 WAR

      • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:02 AM

        Yes…Dwight Evans was very good. I don’t really know what bearing this has on Perez v. Morrs. Just pointing out that Perez was better than Morris and Morris would be a much worse choice.

        What I found baffling was the lack of support for Evans when Rice came up for election. They were exact contemporaries on the same team! Rice was a *bit* more peak heavy, but Evans lead the league in OPS twice, had a longer career and was a much better fielder.

        My theory: Rice and Lynn came up and immediately made a big impact on offense. Evans slowly turned himself into a great hitter. Even though, at the end of the day, he was a bigger offense fore than Jim Rice, it went under appreciated because people still saw him through the lens of the 1970s. That, and a solid amount of his offensive value was found in walks, which people have a hard time appreciating.

        Evans is one of the most underrated players of all time. Though, oddly enough, probably only the 2nd most underrated Evans of his ERA (he was better than Darrell, but Darrell gets *no love from anybody at all!*)

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM

        Evans is one of the most underrated players of all time. Though, oddly enough, probably only the 2nd most underrated Evans of his ERA (he was better than Darrell, but Darrell gets *no love from anybody at all!*)

        Probably has to do with being really good in a lot of areas, and not great in one. Kenny Lofton suffers from the same situation. By all accounts his raw totals should get him in Cooperstown, but no one is advocating his induction.

      • bigleagues - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:46 AM

        I only brought Evans up because fuddpucker terms Tony Perez’ absence from the Hall as a ‘travesty’. Which is, of course, ludicrous.

        But I like your theory on Rice/Lynn vs Evans.

        And while I’m at it Rice/Lynn/Evans. O.M.G. What I wouldn’t give for just one more year w/ an OF of that caliber.

  4. joegolfer - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:21 AM

    The Morris argument sort of reminds me of the Andy Pettitte argument. A close friend of mine (and big time Yankee fan) says Pettitte should go in eventually after he’s eligible, though not immediately. He bases this on an accumulation of stats and wins, even if many wins were for dominant offensive teams. Personally, I think Pettitte has been far less dominant than Morris was.
    To me, it’s a tough call on Morris. He’s borderline. I certainly wouldn’t be upset if he got in, and I wouldn’t think the standards had been watered down, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he never quite got the votes.
    That said, I do think he’ll make it in based on the fact that his percentage keeps rising. It’s a shame that the voters, who are baseball writers, often don’t know enough history to give a valid vote. Some idiots won’t put a guy into the HOF on their first ballot simply because they think everybody should wait. Who doesn’t put in a guy like Willie Mays or Joe DiMaggio. Guys like this should get 100% on the first ballot.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM

      Personally, I think Pettitte has been far less dominant than Morris was.

      Mind explaining why? Looking over their career, it’s a lot easier to make a case for Pettitte than Morris, although Pettitte is very borderline. The only benefit Morris has over Pettitte is IP, as Pettitte has a better unadjusted ERA, better ERA+ (longevity), better Win %, better peak (145 ERA+ vs 126 ERA+*),better K/BB ratio, and if Pettitte gets to 10 wins this year he’ll have more wins than Morris.

      *This is an average of ERA+ over best 6 years. Bref doesn’t let you select individual seasons, or at least I can’t without a PI subscription.

  5. jdd428 - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:28 AM

    Morris, Schilling, Pettitte – all above average pitchers, but not HOF. I agree with the argument against Morris as detailed here.

    If Schilling hadn’t been on two (very talented aside from him) WS champs and one other (also talent-filled) NL pennant winner, he wouldn’t be as highly regarded as he incorrectly is.

    Similarly, Pettitte spent the vast majority pitching for a loaded Yankees team that made the playoffs every year, allowing to rack up postseason wins. Had he spent his career in Kansas City or Seattle or Milwaukee or San Diego, he wouldn’t get much consideration.

    • paperlions - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM

      You might want to actually go back and look at Schilling’s performance. Based on pitching performance alone, he should be a no-doubt HOFer. He is a giant jack-ass, but he was a fantastic pitcher for a long time. His overall career value seems to be highly under-rated because no one paid attention to him until the D-Backs won the WS. He was great on the Phillies, he was great on the D-Backs, and he was great on the RS.

      • bigleagues - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:21 AM

        I’ve disagreed with Paperlions so much in the last 6 months, I feel compelled to back him up here.

        Schilling’s Phillies years are way under-rated because that team sucked so bad for most of his time there.

        Schilling out-pitched Randy Johnson in long stretches in AZ, including the post-season and Schill summoned other-wordly focus in the face of unGodly adversity in his stint in Boston.

        I think the Injuries throughout his 20’s and not becoming a full-time SP until age 26 confuses a lot of people on first glance.

        But look at 1997 – 2007 and it’s hard to ignore averaging

        16-9
        56 CG
        3.47 ERA
        1.117 WHIP
        9.2 K/9
        1.7 BB/9
        134 ERA+
        76.9 WAR (career)

      • paperlions - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM

        Curt Schilling, bringing folks together since 4 December 2012. :-D

      • bigleagues - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:49 AM

        :p

  6. kardshark1 - Dec 4, 2012 at 3:33 AM

    I’ve never understood the infatuation with the HoF. Once Babe Ruth was not unanimously voted in… Any credibility the HoF had should have immediately been flushed down the toilet. It’s like the MVP and CY — Rational, logical people know who the REAL HoFs, MVPs and CYs are — Why do we need other people to do the decision making for us? If some bitter old blue hair sports writer tries to prove that, “in his day, players were much better than these kids now-a-days,” by voting for somebody like Morris or Bill Mazeroski, why would anybody care?

    I mean, Bill Conlin gets a vote (Did not vote for Nolan Ryan). Basically, take dumb, put it on steroids, mix it with irrational thought, sprinkled with stupidity and you have Bill Conlin.

  7. 78mu - Dec 4, 2012 at 4:18 AM

    Any advocate for Morris that brings up his ability to ‘pitch to the score’ should immediately be shipped to a deserted island off Alaska for a minimum of ten years.

    Can anyone imagine Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver thinking ‘well, we’re up 3-0 in the 4th inning so I can relax and give up a couple of runs’? Heck, even a Phil Gibson or Joe Seaver wouldn’t think like that. I can’t imagine any major league pitcher, having reached the top of their profession, thinking like that. Any pitcher that pitches to the score never made it past their high school baseball team.

    • kardshark1 - Dec 4, 2012 at 4:39 AM

      I see your point… But I do think every pitcher “pitches to the score”. For Instance. I know just from watching every game, Barry Zito pitches differently when up 5 runs than he does in a tight game. In a tight game, he tries to hit every corner — knowing he can’t afford to get too much of the plate. The only way he can succeed is to induce weak contact. Up 5-0 in the 4th inning, he challenges more and is willing to risk a mistake here and there rather than falling behind and giving up a walk.

      Now the notion that one pitcher has a better ability to do it than another is just something people like to say to make their argument sound better.

      • paperlions - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:22 AM

        You may think that, but you would be wrong. No pitchers thinks, “well gee, I’ve got an unlimited number of bullets…let’s waste some pitches”…they also have far too much pride to not pitch their best. In addition, every analysis that has tried to determine if guys pitch the score has shown that they do not….pitchers perform exactly as well when ahead, behind, or in a tied game. There is nothing to hang that argument on. Even if pitchers think they pitch to the score, the fact is that it has no measurable effect.

      • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:19 AM

        Okay Kardshark, here’s my spin:

        If Morris “pitched to the score”, then he should DEFINITIVELY not be in the hall of fame! He is going to keep his team on the field longer and increase the chances of losing just to save some breath? That preposterous! That’s not being a team player at all.

      • kardshark1 - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:22 PM

        Every pitcher pitches to the score, it’s not even debatable, sorry. If you don’t believe me, then show me the last time somebody was intentionally walked in a 10-0 ball game. Show me the last time somebody was pitched around in a 10-0 ball game in the 9th inning. When a pitcher has a big lead, he is less willing to risk a chance of a walk — as he should. In a tight game, a pitcher may pitch for the ground ball (to prevent a costly sac fly or pitch for a DP). In a 10 run game, a pitcher is not worried about preventing the sac fly as much, or inducing the DP as the risk of a walk. He just wants to prevent a rally. In fact, he’d probably take the sac fly, especially if it was in the 9th inning. It’s just common sense, pitchers pitch differently depending on the score of the game.

      • 78mu - Dec 4, 2012 at 3:21 PM

        kardshark:

        I suspect the number of innings Morris pitched with a 10 run lead (or even a 6 run lead) are pretty insignificant.

        The “pitch to score” is not to deny that the pitch selection may be different in the 7th inning of a 10-0 game than it was in a scoreless 1st. But that’s not what Morris supporters are talking about. They are claiming his numbers would have been better if only it had been necessary. That seems to be at best an unprovable hypothesis and gives him credit he didn’t earn on the mound.

        Steib had 5 seasons during the 1980s where he had a better ERA+ than Morris” best of 127. Did Steib pitch in a lot fewer 6-0 games than Morris or was he just the better pitcher? The stats are what they are and to say Morris could have done better if only he had had to is ridiculous. I suspect his numbers in the 186 games he lost were similar to his stats in the 254 games he won with the biggest difference being the number of runs scored by his team.

      • kardshark1 - Dec 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM

        Then what you are referring to seems more like clutch and not “pitch to the score” like the initial post implied.

        In that case, of course it’s a ridiculous notion. I believe people can choke under pressure, but in no way do I believe somebody can raise their natural ability under pressure or in a tight game and become better than what they are.

        And no, Jack Morris should not be in the HoF, but then again, I use logic, not a popular concept with sports writers. And frankly, I get that… People who love to write and do it professionally probably grew up with a vivid imagination that led to storytelling/writing as an adult. The HoF voters should be made up of mathmeticians/science guys, not storytellers/writers. I say, go to your nearest biotech company, find 20 guys in white coats that are buried under fluorescent lights all day and have them vote. I’d feel much better with their selections.

  8. derklempner - Dec 4, 2012 at 4:37 AM

    First it’s Sosa that doesn’t deserve the HoF. Then it’s Biggio who shouldn’t be above PED suspicion. Now it’s Morris that isn’t a HoF candidate.

    I’m wondering when you’ll get around to accusing Big Bird of lying about Snuffleupagus to draw attention to himself, Matthew. That would complete the entire circuit of paranoia for this week.

    • mrfloydpink - Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM

      Dude, you’re a moron. The point of the Biggio article was not about him at all. It was that the list of players who are suspected and the list of those who aren’t is essentially arbitrary. Why Jeff Bagwell and not Frank Thomas? Why Mike Piazza and not Ivan Rodriguez? Why Sammy Sosa and not Ken Griffey?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM

        I’m utterly shocked at how many people missed the point of that Biggio article. Matt merely said:

        If you think Bagwell took roids MERELY because: he got stronger during his playing days and was friends with Caminiti; then why don’t you accuse Biggio of taking ‘roids because he also got stronger during his playing days and was friends with Caminiti.

        Either change your rationale or use the same line of thinking regarding Biggio. That’s it…

    • Gamera the Brave - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM

      klempner,
      The REAL issue I have with your comment is your complete inability to correctly spell Snuffalufagus.
      Sad, really…

  9. willclarkgameface - Dec 4, 2012 at 7:12 AM

    This is an impossible statement since Jim Rice lowered it as low as it could go.

    • paperlions - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM

      No, he didn’t. There are dozens of HOF players put in by the veterans committee that were far worse than Rice. In addition, Rice > Morris.

    • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:21 AM

      “This is an impossible statement since Jim Rice lowered it as low as it could go.”

      High Pockets Kelly would like to have a word with you.

  10. magicrat13 - Dec 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM

    “Of course, having to be the game’s best pitcher shouldn’t be the standard for the Hall of Fame.”

    “Jack Morris was a very good pitcher, one of the last to average 250 innings and 10 complete games per season in his prime. He turned in one of the greatest postseason starts in history. That’s how he should be remembered. He just doesn’t come all that close to meeting the current standards for Hall of Fame enshrinement, and voting him in would be a mistake.”

    couldn’t agree more….he was a very good pitcher but not hall of fame worthy in my opinion…i think that is the case for a large number of players inducted into the hall of fame…

  11. paepae805 - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:02 AM

    How can you not vote Jack Morris in? I always hear the arguement that stats are not the only item voters look at. Championships are usually a barometer as well. Morris has 4 rings and was a key player on 3 of those teams. He had 2 complete game victories in the 84 series and the epic game 7 of the 91 series.

    If we are looking at just stats, I compare him favorably to Curt Schilling. Very similar stats with Morris amassing more wins, Schilling with more strikeouts, and both have sub 4 career ERA’s. Both have championships and individual game performances that each generation will never forget. Can’t forget game 7 of the 91 series and who can’t forget the bloody sock game. Baseball experts believe that Schilling is a shoe in for the hall. May not be first ballot, but will get in.

    I don’t think it should be ask why Jack should be voted in, I think it should be asked Why Not Vote Hime In.

    • paperlions - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:29 AM

      You are looking at the wrong stats and ignoring context. Saying both guys have sub 4 ERAs is like saying Bob Gibson and Frank Tanana both have sub 4 ERAs, true but irrelevant (BTW, Frank Tanana was a better pitcher than Jack Morris, pitched during the same era, had a much lower ERA, 3.66, struck out more guys, walked fewer guys, and had a higher career WAR). Nearly 100% of Schilling’s career was during a high offense era, nearly 100% of Morris’ career was during a low offense era….and Schillings ERA was still nearly 1/2 run better…and 1/2 run over the course of a career is a HUGE difference.

      Morris was lucky to be on some great teams, and late in his career he was a back of the rotation starter who was still allowed to start Game 1.

    • tomemos - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM

      An ERA **BELOW 4** is the standard now? Jesus, make ME a Hall of Famer. Not to mention that Schilling’s ERA came in the vastly more offense-heavy 90’s.

      “I don’t think it should be ask why Jack should be voted in, I think it should be asked Why Not Vote Hime In.”

      Yeah, and Matthew just answered that, decisively. Well, except for the “hime” part (how did that happen? The E key isn’t anywhere near any of the other letters you were typing there).

    • Alex K - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:40 AM

      Q: Why not vote him in?
      A: He wasn’t a good enough pitcher.

    • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM

      Let’s unweave your argument one by one, shall we?

      1. “Championships are usually a barometer as well. Morris has 4 rings and was a key player on 3 of those teams.”

      Well, Frank Crosetti has 8 rings. Hank Bauer has 7, David Cone has 5. When you say Morris has 4 rings, what you’re really saying is that he’s tied with Paul Blair.

      2. “He had 2 complete game victories in the 84 series and the epic game 7 of the 91 series”

      He gets in because he pitched 3 great games? Don Larsen pitched a fucking perfect game in the Series! Morris’s career postseason ERA is an uninspiring 3.80. Chris Carpenter, who was better and doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell at the Hall had a 3.00 postseason ERA…does he deserve to go to?
      Sure, he had those great postseason games, but why do you pay attention to those and ignore these:
      87 ALCS: 8 IP, 6 ER,
      91 ALCS: 5.1 IP, 4 ER
      92 ALCS: 3.1 IP, 5 ER

      3. “, I compare him favorably to Curt Schilling”

      Well…they were both pitchers I suppose…Schilling had an ERA a half run lower while playing in an era with much greater offense. Schillings adjusted ERA as 27% better than his contemporaries over the course of his career, Morris’s was just 5% better. In 600 more innings, Morris struck out 600 FEWER batters and walked 700 MORE. Schilling and Morris aren’t similar at all, and comparing the two does no favors for Morris.

  12. wpjohnson - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM

    The Hall of Fame needs to be much more exclusive in adding members. Jack Morris is not a worthy candidate. His statistics are mediocre. The Hall has too many inductees now who were mediocre. When players like Morris are elected, it is an insult to the truly great pitchers who are there and who belong there.

    No Morris, please. And, Schilling doesn’t belong either. For once, protect the integrity of the Hall of Fame.

    • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:42 AM

      We wouldn’t want to taint the legacy of greatness left by High Pockets Kelly, Freddie Lindstrom and Lloyd Waner, would we?

      • rodtorfelson - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:15 AM

        Or Pee Wee Reese and George Kell.

        If you’re worried about lowering the bar to the HoF, it’s too late. That ship sailed a long time ago.

  13. tomemos - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:44 AM

    Jack Morris would be the first player elected to the Hall of Fame out of spite.

  14. simon94022 - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:11 AM

    Once they voted Rice in, it became the Hall of Pretty Good But Not Necessarily Great.

    There are more than a few voters out there who believe that Rice is more Hall-worthy than Barry Bonds, and that Morris deserves admission while Roger Clemens does not. This is just embarrassing.

  15. ha5ko - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM

    Ryne Sandberg, all time worst HOF’er ever bar none

    look at the numbers
    they say DOES NOT BELONG

    after Ryno, open the doors and let everyone in

    • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:23 AM

      You’re just trolling…right?

  16. shynessismyelguapo - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:23 AM

    My counter argument to everyone who attempts to justify the Morris’s high ERA by saying he “pitched to the score”:

    Put Clete Boyer in the Hall of Fame. He hit to the score.

  17. goirishgo - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:00 AM

    His body of work was good enough to generate 20% support when his career was fresh in the voters’ minds. How exactly has that body of work improved in 13 years of inactivity?

    • ezthinking - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM

      Better writing? It seems if you bitch enough and get the right writers to devise a compelling story by using select facts, you get in the hall.

  18. AlohaMrHand - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

    Pete Rose isn’t in yet Bert Blylevin is.Thats all you need to know about the Hall of Fame

  19. hushbrother - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

    Every argument for Morris is a dumb one, but his candidacy really isn’t about arguments. It’s about the traditional writers taking a slap at the sabermetric crowd.

  20. zebbers - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM

    There are so many bad picks already in there.

  21. iranuke - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM

    Based on Wins Above Replacement (WAR), Mr. Morris is the 17th most qualified player on the Hall of Fame ballot. David Wells and Fred McGriff were worth more wins in their career than Mr. Morris was.

  22. weaselpuppy - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:30 AM

    Right, so we’ll keep on with shutting Tigers out of the HOF….Tram, Whitaker, Freehan….all should be in…carry on.

  23. Tick - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:37 AM

    Maybe I’m being flippant here, but besides a guy like Stieb, I don’t even see where Morris was a more dominant pitcher than Brett Saberhagen or Dave Stewart during a lot of the time frame that Morris pitched in and there’s certainly no one arguing for any of them to get inducted.

  24. shoehole - Dec 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM

    If I remember, Morris pitched a no hitter against the White Sox in the early to mid 80’s.
    Morris lost a lot of respect from his Tigers team and writers when he begged to be released so he could finish his years in Mn. After his contract with the Twins expired, he started jumping around to other teams and did not retire.
    By the way, how can you compare stats of Morris against outfielders?

  25. fanofevilempire - Dec 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

    he sure does have a lot of Rings…………….
    he really suxs………………………
    I wonder how many of you actually saw him pitch…………………

    HOF is a popularity contest now………………………..

    bunch of bitter old writers who never even skip rope………………….

    and young guys who love making up new stats to prove they are smart………………..

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2875)
  2. D. Ortiz (2009)
  3. M. Trout (1985)
  4. A. Pagan (1979)
  5. A. Pujols (1935)
  1. J. Hamilton (1882)
  2. N. Arenado (1815)
  3. G. Stanton (1789)
  4. H. Ramirez (1777)
  5. C. Kershaw (1740)