Skip to content

Jon Heyman wants Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame and won’t let the facts get in his way in order to make it happen

Jan 7, 2013, 8:59 PM EDT

jack morris

UPDATE: Since this post went up Heyman has updated his column to take out the lines about Blyleven and Stewart. No explanation in the column of course. And it changes little, actually. He may call it an oversight, but it’s a case of him wanting to believe something so badly that the facts ceased mattering at some point.

8:59 PM:¬†Jon Heyman put up his Hall of Fame column this afternoon. For years he has pushed hard for Jack Morris for the Hall. He has long overstated Morris’ merits in my view, but it’s gotten to the point now where he’s simply making crap up:

He was thought good enough to be the ace on teams that had Bert Blyleven and Dave Stewart, and to receive Cy Young votes in seven seasons. I can’t allow his vast accomplishments to be re-evaluated downward by a new emphasis on different numbers.

Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven were never teammates. Jack Morris played one season with Dave Stewart. In that one season — 1993 — Morris was 7-12 with a 6.19 ERA. It’s possible that Heyman is calling Morris the “ace” of that 1993 Jays team because he got the Opening Day start, but he didn’t distinguish himself at all that year, he was out of the rotation by early September and was left off the postseason roster. Some ace.

Heyman has an agenda. He wants Morris in the Hall of Fame. He is so committed to that agenda that he will mislead his readers in order to make it happen. Because this can’t just be a mistake, right? Because it takes approximately five seconds in order to get that stuff right and we know someone given the privilege of making baseball history in the form of a Hall of Fame vote is not going to just dash it off without careful consideration and due¬†diligence, right?

  1. yahmule - Jan 8, 2013 at 12:31 AM

    Larry Walker doesn’t make the cut because his lifetime .965 OPS and 141 OPS+ were accomplished in “Coors Field’s pre-humidifier days”. This guy just doesn’t seem very bright.

  2. riverace19 - Jan 8, 2013 at 12:43 AM

    Give me a break. Morris was an above average grinder with one great playoff performance. Not HOF material. Keep the integrity of the Hall raised high and move past Morris.

  3. superpriebe - Jan 8, 2013 at 2:43 AM

    I know this is a thoroughly un-scientific argument, but I disagree with the notion that Morris was the undisputed ace he is claimed to be on the basis of RBI Baseball.

    Morris was listed as the #2 starter in RBI Baseball. Doyle Alexander is #1.
    Morris was listed as the #2 starter in RBI Baseball 2. Frank Tanana is #1.
    In RBI Baseball 3, he is listed as the #1 starter on two of the Detroit teams, but #2 for the 1984 team. Dan Petry is #1.

    Anyone who has played these games knows that Morris is not the #1 guy you want on the mound.

    • brewcrewfan54 - Jan 8, 2013 at 3:07 AM

      Well this is as solid of evidence I need. Well done sir.

    • danphxariz - Jan 8, 2013 at 6:11 PM

      If Morris isn’t listed as #1 in 1984, RBI Baseball is flat wrong. Petry was #2, Morris was #1 (and Wilcox was 3, and Berenguer was 4).

      • superpriebe - Jan 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM

        I can understand why RBI Baseball thought Petry was better. Consider…

        Jack Morris: 19-11 (.633 win%), 3.60 ERA
        Dan Petry: 18-8 (.692 win%), 3.24 ERA

        Morris won 1 more, but lost 3 more. A closer look reveals that Petry had a better WHIP, K/9, and BB/9.

        The fact that we can argue this point meaningfully speaks to the silliness of labeling Morris a HOF talent.

  4. skids003 - Jan 8, 2013 at 7:28 AM

    Facts? Never let facts get in the way of your agenda. Sounds like a liberal to me.

  5. paperlions - Jan 8, 2013 at 7:31 AM

    If you collected baseball cards in the 80′s, you knew who everyone thought was good because perception was the driving force behind card values. Morris was never a highly sought after card. He was a step up from a common, but nothing more. Never considered a super star, never considered an ace, never considered a future hall of famer, and never ever considered one of the best pitchers in any given year. Heyman (and pretty much anyone that votes for him) are trying to revise history.

  6. paperlions - Jan 8, 2013 at 7:44 AM

    The Morris arguments are truly pathetic. But where Heyman fails miserably is on his ballot. He doesn’t vote for Biggio (I am willing to bet it is an old-man “first ballot” reason), Bagwell, or Trammel….but does vote for guys that were all clearly inferior to those players (Mattingly, Murphy, Morris). Heyman may report on baseball, but he clearly doesn’t understand what he’s seeing when he watches a game.

  7. malavya - Jan 8, 2013 at 9:03 AM

    Heyman didn’t delete this comment from his column:

    Not only did Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris never pitch on the same team, but Morris was the ace of the Jays the season he had a 6.19 ERA and won just 7 of 27 starts??!! If my ballot stunk this badly, I’d release it during the BCS title game too.

    When you read this comment in the updated column, it doesn’t seem to refer to anything in the column. I think that’s a kind of betrayal of all the readers.

  8. kirkvanhouten - Jan 8, 2013 at 9:42 AM

    Heyman has the single most awful HOF ballot I’ve seen in a good long while.

    His HOF votes:

    Jack Morris (aka, Dennis Martinez with an awesome mustache)
    Dale Murphy (okay, that’s a stretch, but he did have a great peak…just nothing else around it)
    Don Mattingly (Jesus Christ, I can’t say enough how intellectually dishonest and hypocritical the Don Mattingly-HOF crowd is. His closest comp: Cecil “0 HOF Votes” Cooper)
    Fred McGriff (but, you know…not Jeff Bagwell)

  9. gosport474 - Jan 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM

    ‘Pitched to the score,’ ‘he was considered and ace,’ ‘you had to be there’; when did anecdotal nonsense replace objective analysis for journalists? I have nothing against Jack Morris, he was a very good pitcher and more than likely a fine human being, but he was not HOF material. Dennis Martinez, Dave Stieb, and Mickey Lolich have as good if not better cases for HOF than Morris. Has Heyman ever looked at Lolich’s postseason numbers? They are much better.

    • cur68 - Jan 8, 2013 at 11:49 AM

      Don’t forget Tommy John. He has better numbers than Morris, too.

    • yahmule - Jan 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM

      I would put Luis Tiant in over Morris to be perfectly honest. Probably about a dozen other guys, too.

  10. chomsky66 - Jan 8, 2013 at 12:19 PM

    CRAIG! You HAVE to read this!

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/199902/cbssports-com-writer-has-never-seen-corrections-listed-below-an-internet-story/

  11. danphxariz - Jan 8, 2013 at 5:50 PM

    I’m a very long time Detroit Tigers fan. Grew up in the 1960′s watching Kaline, McLain, Lolich, Cash, Northrup, etc. Let me tell you this about Jack Morris. In NO way was he an average pitcher. With all due respect, people who are looking at his ERA and calling him an “average grinder” or something similar have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Jack Morris was a stud, plain and simple. I think he’s a cusp Hall of Famer myself, could go either way, but the man was true grit, a great pitcher, and a true ace.

    • danphxariz - Jan 8, 2013 at 7:16 PM

      Two down votes shows the mentality of those here – probably not worth my time to engage with idiots.

  12. Kevin S. - Jan 8, 2013 at 10:19 PM

    The only plausible explanation is that Jack Morris was a Scott Boras client.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (5060)
  2. K. Uehara (4415)
  3. T. Wood (3739)
  4. G. Springer (3630)
  5. M. Machado (3468)
  1. J. Kubel (3388)
  2. T. Walker (3117)
  3. H. Rondon (3116)
  4. J. Reyes (3026)
  5. D. Pedroia (3024)