Skip to content

Giving up the anti-Jack Morris crusade

Nov 11, 2013, 7:21 AM EST

Jack Morris

Brace yourselves: Jack Morris For The Hall of Fame/Jack Morris Is Not A Hall of Famer season is coming. It’ll be the last season for it, as this is Morris’ final season of eligibility, so I assume the rhetoric will be particularly pitched. And particularly stupid at times too.

Here’s stupid for you: Jack Morris himself was quoted over the weekend saying that his ERA may have been high for a Hall of Famer, but that’s just because no one ever told him he needed to have a low ERA. Really. He actually said that. He said if his general manager or his manager told him that they wanted him to have a lower earned run average then “I probably would have led the league.” Jack Morris is a professional baseball analyst these days and he actually said that. And some people with Hall of Fame votes actually believe him. Just let that sink in for a bit.

But I don’t offer that little link and that little shake of my damn head as a means of firing up the engines on the Keep Jack Morris Out Of The Hall of Fame Outrage Express again.  I think I’m done manning any part of the controls of that beast. I’ve written a ton of stuff over the years on the Jack Morris Hall of Fame debate, and I’m kinda tired of it, actually. And though my position hasn’t changed — I wouldn’t vote for Morris if I had a vote — I have come around on one point that those who support his candidacy sometimes make: spending inordinate amounts of energy to argue that so-and-so shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame to the point it becomes a proxy war in some larger crusade is a negative experience.

Not that all Hall of Fame crusades are like that. The pro-Bert Blyleven thing of a few years ago was useful because it helped a lot of folks realize how overlooked the guy was. It may have educated some folks a bit about certain modes of baseball analysis. And, in the end, it was aimed at doing a good thing: honoring someone.

The Morris stuff? Also enlightening at times, yes, but when your argument is anti-something rather than pro-something, you’re going to end up in a negative place if you get too carried away with it. You have to remember after all that in those cases a “win” is a guy being told “no, you weren’t good enough.” Which, yes, is obviously the result of any process that seeks to elevate some over others, but it can be a drag. Best to state your case and get on with life rather than slog back into it again and again.

I liked Jack Morris as a pitcher when I was a kid. I’ve said all I feel like I need to have said about his case in the past — and, in hindsight, I’ve probably said way too much about it — so at this point I’m content to link that old stuff rather than rehash it all again because I’m simply not in the place now, as I may have been a year or two ago, where I feel like hating on the guy to make a political point leads to any positive returns. I’m content to live with a Jack Morris legacy that is not so tied to the black-or-white views the Hall of Fame debate forces us to have. To say that Jack Morris was a really good pitcher without feeling compelled to spend ten times more effort to say why he wasn’t a Hall of Famer. In my mind he wasn’t. If your mind is different about it I can think you’re wrong. But I am not obligated to think too hard about it.

As for the larger Hall of Fame case for Jack Morris? Well, no one’s mind is going to change on Morris based on any cogent analytical argument on the one hand or any emotional appeal to Game 7 and Morris’ winning quality on the other hand at this late date. If votes shift around it’ll be either because of some attention-seeking political reaction by a voter or else because other candidates on the ballot — like Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine — require people who may have once supported Morris to pull their support due to there being too many better choices. There is still technically one more Jack Morris battle to be fought in the form of this year’s balloting, but the shooting part of the war is essentially over.

If Jack Morris gets in I feel like it will be one of the poorer Hall of Fame choices in recent years, but the world won’t end. And at this point I don’t feel like arguing to prevent him from getting in is worth the added negativity.

  1. proudlycanadian - Nov 11, 2013 at 7:43 AM

    Jack Morris was famous. He has my vote.

    • proudlycanadian - Nov 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

      It is called The Hall Of “Fame” after all.

    • rje49 - Nov 11, 2013 at 6:12 PM

      He was famous for game 7 in 1991. If it weren’t for that one game, many people would have forgotten about him by now.

  2. chip56 - Nov 11, 2013 at 7:57 AM

    Since you’re over Jack Morris you can dedicate time to writing about a-rod exploiting the family of a missing autistic boy for pr purposes

  3. alexo0 - Nov 11, 2013 at 7:58 AM

    So Jack Morris said that he didn’t always try to keep the other team from scoring? Doesn’t that now work against his candidacy?

  4. larrytsg - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:06 AM

    And you expected Jack Morris to make an enlightening quote? Come on, this is from a guy who played baseball, the same group of guys who produced John Smoltz, who ironed a shirt he was ALREADY wearing.

    Let’s stop expecting these guys to be erudite (Nobel Prize winners they are not), and also stop expecting them to be objective about their abilities. Successful baseball players are successful because they BELIEVE that they can do anything, especially if someone told them they could not. Most overcame some kind of adversity on their way to a long MLB career. But to expect them to objectively scrutinize their own abilities… it ain’t gonna happen.

    • apmn - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:48 AM

      American politicians have won Nobel Prizes, and if ever there were a group to make you shake your head at stupidity, it’s American politicians.

      • Old Gator - Nov 11, 2013 at 11:17 AM

        Enough people are fascinated with Kim Kardashian that she’s become an inevitable element of every supermarket checkout experience. That beats your stupid politicians (and perhaps explains why they’re there in the first place) by a country parsec.

      • larrytsg - Nov 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM

        Um, I apologize in that I lumped the Nobel PEACE prize in with the others. You know, like the prizes for medicine and economics and the like. The Peace prize is a stupid popularity contest (see Kardashian reference below)…..

        Now I’m gonna try that Smoltz shirt ironing thing to really streamline my morning.

  5. chacochicken - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:07 AM

    Clayton Kershaw doesn’t play the game the right way.

  6. sportsfan18 - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:35 AM

    Jack was a great pitcher. Now I’m NOT saying Mark Buehrle was a better pitcher than Jack Morris but I would like to point out some things.

    Jack’s career ERA 3.90
    Mark’s career ERA 3.84

    Jack’s ERA+ 105 (100 being league average)
    Mark’s ERA+ 117

    Jack’s WHIP 1.296
    Mark’s WHIP 1.278

    Mark has thrown over 200 innings for 13 consecutive seasons now or every yr of his career except for his first yr when he only pitched 51 innings and 25 of his appearances were in relief.

    Jack’s best string of 200 plus inning seasons in a row was 7 consecutive seasons.

    Again, I’m NOT saying Mark is a better pitcher, I’m ONLY pointing out that a middle of the rotation pitcher who was an innings eater like Mark has career numbers that are pretty close to Jack’s (better in some areas and worse in others, Mark’s career winning percentage is very close to Jack’s too).

    So while we all agree that Mark is NOT a HOF pitcher, how could someone be one with numbers that are pretty damn similar to his?

    • Glenn - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      But Buerhrle pitched in the “sabermetric era” and should have know better.

    • paperlions - Nov 11, 2013 at 9:06 AM

      You don’t have to say that Buehrle was a better pitcher. The numbers (which, you know, quantify and summarize the things that actually happened on the field) say that Buehrle was a better pitcher….a MUCH better pitcher.

      Of course, Buehrle probably had a smarter GM that mentioned to him that, you know, him being a pitcher and all, it would be swell of him if he would try to keep the other team from scoring.

      • sportsfan18 - Nov 11, 2013 at 1:11 PM

        As I stated previously, but didn’t list, there were stats that favored Jack Morris too between Buehrle and him.

        Morris had a lot more strikeouts, more shutouts, a slightly higher win percentage so it isn’t a slam dunk to say that Buehrle is/was a better pitcher than Morris.

        My point wasn’t to try and decide which one of them was better than the other… it was to make a point about the article above and whether Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame.

        I tried to make my point by stating that Morris should not be in the hall because his numbers are pretty similar to a middle of the rotation innings eater like Buehrle.

        I don’t care to try and decide which one was the better pitcher as they are both fairly even.

        Also, Buehrle has to pitch for like 4 more yrs or so with similar numbers to match how long Jack pitched.

        If Buehrle’s numbers take a dive over the next few yrs, ERA goes up etc… Morris will definitely edge him for having the better career.

        Buehrle’s ERA last yr was over 4 and his ERA+ was below the league average of 100. If he does that for four more seasons there won’t be any doubt who had the better career.

      • paperlions - Nov 11, 2013 at 1:21 PM

        To date, they haven’t been anything like even. Morris had a career ERA- of 95, which is nice. Buehrle has an 86…he would have to be really really horrible for 4 years just to be as “good” as Morris was. Morris Ked almost 2% more of the hitters he faced than Buehrle…but he also walked almost 3% more of the hitters he faced than Buehrle (i.e. he walked hitters at a rate nearly 50% greater than Buerhle). The walks far outweigh the additional strike outs.

        Any rate stat that takes league and park effects into account shows Buehrle has been far superior to date…if he retired tomorrow, he wouldn’t get enough votes to stay on the ballot….and if sucks hard for 4 years, he might wind up with a similar career to Morris.

      • sportsfan18 - Nov 11, 2013 at 1:31 PM

        And the point IS like before that Morris is NOT a HOF pitcher because his numbers are similar to a middle of the order pitcher like Buehrle…

        AGAIN, my point wasn’t to try and decide which one was better.

      • sportsfan18 - Nov 11, 2013 at 1:38 PM

        They pitched in different eras too and that has to be taken into account.

        When Morris pitched, pitchers threw more pitches per game, usually pitched deeper into games.

        What does that mean? It means that it’s tougher to get batters out the 3rd and 4th time they see you in a game vs. being taken out in the 6th inning and having fresh middle relievers come in, a specialty reliever and then the closer.

        Morris threw many more innings on average per season than Buehrle. Why? It was a different era. But that causes one to give up more hits, runs, walks etc…

        You say numbers show Buehrle is better but context is needed.

        Morris had 11 seasons over 230 innings pitched to Buehrle’s 4 seasons.

        Buehrle’s high was 245.1 innings, his only season over 240 innings pitched.

        Jack had 10 seasons to his 1 pitching more than 240 innings.

        Jack threw 293.2 innings one season and over 260 innings 4 times.

        They were both damn good pitchers. I’d want both of them on my team.

        Neither of them are Hall of Fame pitchers though.

      • paperlions - Nov 11, 2013 at 1:57 PM

        …and when Morris pitched lineups were no where near as deep as they are now, few players on each team had power, and parks were much bigger, making it easier to go through a lineup multiple times.

        You can compare the pitchers, ERA- does that as it accounts for park and league effects (i.e. it is standardized based on the performances in the league each year and to account for park effects so that 100 is always average).

        I don’t care about the HOF argument, I haven’t mentioned it. The point is that Buerhle has been a better pitcher compared to his peers than Morris was compared to his….and the comparison is not particularly close.

    • Mark - Nov 11, 2013 at 9:13 AM

      You could find fairly similar ERA+ numbers and longevity to Jamie Moyer as well. There’s a lot of similar pitchers to Morris in this case.

    • cur68 - Nov 11, 2013 at 5:29 PM

      Excellent summarizing throughout, in this thread. Two very good pitchers. Neither of whom should be HOF guys. Still, you’d probably want them on your team. But in The HOF? Nah. I wouldn’t cry about it if Morris made it in (or Buehrle, too), but he was just not good enough.

    • moogro - Nov 12, 2013 at 2:04 AM

      I see what you did there. Nice. Like in Joe’s Quisenberry article, “I’m not comparing, but” seems to be the new running joke.

  7. unclemosesgreen - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:36 AM

    Very sly anti-Jack Morris article, Mr. Double-C.

    • pauleee - Nov 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM

      He comes to praise Jack Morris, not to bury him. Jack Morris is an honorable man.

  8. psly2124 - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:40 AM

    So if jack Morris wasn’t trying to keep the opposing teams from scoring, could that be viewed at fixing games. Was he letting up runs because he was betting the over on the game. I though a pitchers job was to prevent teams from scoring runs. The more runs you let up the less chance you have of winning the game. Maybe jack was pissed off over the owners collusion in the 80’s and decided to fix games unlike Pete rose who bet on his teams to win

  9. sfm073 - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:42 AM

    If you don’t want to talk about why Jack Morris doesn’t deserve to get into the HOF then why write this?

    • ptfu - Nov 11, 2013 at 9:20 AM

      Read it again. He’s writing about WHY he doesn’t want to talk about Jack Morris/HOF. Which is not entirely unreasonable for someone who has beaten that drum in the past.

  10. bigjimatch - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:43 AM

    if kirby puckett can get in, anyone can get it.

    • proudlycanadian - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:50 AM

      Kirby was famous. So was Jack.

    • happytwinsfan - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:55 AM

      is it your hope to use the reaction to this post to disprove minnesota nice

    • cohnjusack - Nov 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

      Really? Kirby Puckett is the best you can come up with for a bad hall of famer? I would have gone with a George Kell or a Lloyd Waner. Not a guy who had 50 WAR before his career was cut short by glaucoma.

  11. sdelmonte - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:47 AM

    If only people who argue about things that are actually important to life and limb (aka political issues) would also abandon being anti-everything instead of pro-something.

    • apmn - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:49 AM

      Million thumbs up!

    • bellweather22 - Nov 11, 2013 at 9:03 AM

      It is a fallacy that arguing about politics is valuable…. tell me what these debates have changed for the better…. and generally the people that spend the most time arguing politics are the most negative and obnoxious people on the planet. Hearing for the thousenth time the latest governmental conspiracy theory is not my idea of a good conversation. Nor do I want to hear about someone spending gobs of money on a bomb shelter and automatic weapons (to protect against some vaguely defined economic or governmental collapse). I avoid those people like the plague.

      • sportsfan18 - Nov 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM

        Just how have you avoided the plague recently?

        Have to cross over to the other side of the street when walking downtown?

        Did you have to move from one city to another?

        Just because you’ve given up discussing things like politics doesn’t mean everyone has to. Far too many in this country have given up. We’ve left our politicians alone for far too long and now they serve themselves, big business etc…

        If we Americans over the yrs hadn’t fallen asleep at the wheel, this wouldn’t have happened.

        But too many were happy with their lot in life, worked, had a bit of money, went to things like the movies, sporting events, concerts, hung out with friends, drank, partied and quit caring about politics. They only cared when something happened to them. If things happened to others, in other states it didn’t bother them.

        Well apathy set in, people don’t care or discuss politics enough, know who their congressmen our etc…

        Hell it’s worse than that as many can’t find nations on a map…

        So I guess more apathy and avoiding and not caring about politics will get us out of the mess we’re in… Jeez… Wake up, care, become involved…

  12. gosport474 - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:51 AM

    So by Jack’s way of thinking, a starter who pitches eight innings and wins the game 6-5 with 5 earned runs and 12 hits plus walks is always better than the starter that pitches seven innings and loses 1-0 with 4 hits plus walks? I don’t think so.

  13. Glenn - Nov 11, 2013 at 8:59 AM

    I see what you are saying, Craig. I am against the death penalty but gave up arguing about it long ago. Defending horrible people and their actions was nothing but negative after a while.

  14. paperlions - Nov 11, 2013 at 9:09 AM

    Instead of arguing against Morris, this could be used as a platform for arguing FOR such pitching luminaries as Denny Martinez and Frank Tanana, because they were better pitchers than Morris but their greatness has been lost in time.

  15. rickdobrydney - Nov 11, 2013 at 9:09 AM

    Just looked at Jack’s stats again —- too many mediocre years — should not be in —–

  16. Mark - Nov 11, 2013 at 9:12 AM

    That comment by Morris certainly wasn’t his best. However, after listening to him on the radio the past season I’ve actually found him to be a very good analyst. At least one of the better ones to cover the Jays this season. And unlike a lot of broadcasters he was willing to point out when a player made a poor play or made a bad decision, which is something a lot of broadcasters aren’t willing to do.

    I actually enjoyed listening to Morris. No, he’s not a Hall of Famer, but he does give insightful comments during a game which is something I wasn’t expecting. It’s easy to write me off based on his comment here, but I do think he’s a better broadcaster/analyst then he gets credit for.

    I don’t even care about the HoF anymore. There were 9-10 viable candidates last year and none of them got in.

    • pastabelly - Nov 11, 2013 at 9:26 AM

      What’s a viable candidate. If Jack Morris is viable, I suppose David Wells should be viable as well. I think with Morris, people see a couple of amazing games in the World Series and want to remember Morris for that. In truth, his post season was 7-4 with an ERA slightly under 4. I consider Curt Schilling to be borderline and his post season is 11-2, 2.23 with a WHIP under 1.0. Of course, the same people who make the case for Jack Morris, probably will make a case against Curt Schilling, David Wells, Andy Pettite, etc.

      • paperlions - Nov 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM

        Jack Morris is nothing like a viable candidate based on performance. I think what Mark meant was that there are at least 9 or 10 guys that were on the ballot last year that, if elected, would be among the best 50% of players in the HOF, which is true. There are a crap ton of guys that historically would have waltzed into the HOF, many of which have no stink of steroids around them, that are currently on the ballot.

      • Mark - Nov 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM

        Paperlions is correct. I meant there were a ton of guys I felt were qualified and didn’t get in, thus why I feel the HoF is a joke.

        Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Clemens/Bonds, Edgar Martinez, Tramwell, Walker, Lofton…you can debate some of those guys, but they’re at worst borderline. And with the new crop of guys coming in next year, a lot of these fringy guys are going to be left out of the voting.

        If not even one of those guys could get in, then what’s the damn point of the HoF?

  17. raysfan1 - Nov 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

    I see Morris as a very good pitcher but would not vote for him for the HoF. I mostly weigh in when pro-Morris’ candidacy folks get overly effusive in their praise and rely on his being “clutch,” without taking the time to review his whole postseason career to realize it was pretty up and down other than that one fantastic game 7. The pitching to the score meme, to me is pretty ridiculous too.

    Will it be a travesty if Morris is enshrined? No, of course not. It’s a museum and tourist attraction where the biggest draw is nostalgia. Morris’ plaque wouldn’t hurt that a bit, might even draw a few more fans there. However, if he’s in, he becomes the new threshold for HoF entry as I think there are clearly superior pitchers who aren’t in from the 1970s and 1980s.

  18. DelawarePhilliesFan - Nov 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM

    but that’s just because no one ever told him he needed to have a low ERA. Really. He actually said that.

    No, he did not “say that”

    The refermce Mr. Tizzy (aka Craig) is refering to went like this:

    “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. I never had any incentive for quality starts or WHIP or WAR. All these formulas didn’t exist. I’ve always told these guys you should be allowed to vote only for the guys who had new fangled stats. Being judged in a different era, I don’t understand why that is.”

    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.

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

    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.

    I will throw out a couple more thoughts. 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.

    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.

    The guy who wrote the peice says “no one asked him to” – then asked Morris a hypothetical.

    For the record, I do not believe Morris is Hall of Famer. But I am capable of breathing when the topic comes up – unlike others

    • ashot - Nov 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM

      Is this post a joke?

      “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.”

      Saying these statistics didn’t exist is a bit of misnomer. Take WHIP for instance: even way back in Jack Morris’ heyday, they kept track of walks, hits and inning’s pitched. The fact that nobody did some basic math to calculate WHIP does not mean that teams and players somehow did not value or recognize the importance of keeping guys off base. I don’t think Justin Verlander pitches to keep his WHIP low because he knows the stat exists anymore than Jack Morris failed to do so because he was unaware of the stat.

      “wins were still meaningful”
      They are just as meaningful now as they were back then. That you don’t understand this indicates you don’t really understand statistics. Things that are valuable (or not valuable) now had the same value back then. The fact that people only recently realized or accepted that does not change the absolute value now or then.

      The bottom line is that regardless of the era in which a pitcher pitched, the goal was to not let the other team score. The fact that we now have better ways to measure how a pitcher accomplishes that goal does not change the fact that Morris was good (maybe very good), but not great at accomplishing his goal.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Nov 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

        I cut and pasted the article to show that Morris was not the one saying “no one told him to”. Those aren’t my words, nor did make any commentray on them. My words were:

        For the record, I don’t believe Morris ia Hall of Famer. But I am capable of breathing when the topic comes up – unlike others

      • ashot - Nov 11, 2013 at 11:50 AM

        Ahhh…sorry about that Delaware!

        Then the is this a joke comment should be addressed to the author of the article.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Nov 11, 2013 at 12:37 PM

        NP – I probably cut and pasted too much from that article, thus creating confusion….and lord knows I have read people posts wrong as well :)

        And yes, that guy is a little over the top with is “another era” argument. It’s not like Morris played in the 20’s.

      • sportsfan18 - Nov 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM

        One thing to point out about pitchers from yrs gone by is that they threw more pitches and pitched deeper into games than pitchers do today.

        Why is that important? It’s tougher to get outs when the opposing lineup is seeing you for the 3rd and 4th time in the same game.

        Pitchers today don’t pitch as long, then come the middle relievers, the specialty reliever for a batter or two and then the closer.

        Pitching for 6 innings it’s easier to have a lower ERA, lower WHIP etc… vs pitching 8 innings.

        Yes, there are exceptions, those that did very well back then too. I’m not talking specifically about Jack but just in general.

        If Jack were pitching today, his ERA would most likely be lower, as would his WHIP… at least I think so.

      • ashot - Nov 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM

        Sportsfan- There has to be a study out there about a starting pitcher going through the lineup the 4th vs. 3rd time specifically. I know such studies exist for going through the lineup 1 or 2 times. I doubt it’s such a big difference that it makes up much value, but it’s a fair point. More directly thought, the extra innings have value in and of themselves. I’m not a numbers mean everything guy, I’m not sure such people exist other than in certain columnists minds, so I agree that there is value in saving the bullpen even if you give up a meaningless run or two in the process.

      • raysfan1 - Nov 11, 2013 at 4:49 PM

        Perhaps his ERA might be lower now with specialized pitching. It would likely have been higher if he pitched through the late 1990’s and early 2000’s too. Regardless, he pitched in a pitching dominated era, and (if he is enshrined) his career ERA would be the highest of any pitcher in the HoF by a significant margin. His career ERA is #748 all-time.

        Below is a partial list of pitchers whose careers at least partially overlapped Morris, all of whom had lower ERA’s (and higher ERA+). All are at least arguably better pitchers than Morris. A couple even had higher win totals. None are in the HoF (I think 2-3 should be but I’m a “big hall” guy).

        Brett Saberhagen
        Kevin Brown
        Jimmy Key
        Dave Stieb
        Dwight Gooden
        Jim Kaat
        Tommy John
        Frank Tanana
        Orel Hersheiser
        David Cone
        Bob Welch

        In fact, the worst ERA among these guys is 3.66 (Tanana).

      • rje49 - Nov 11, 2013 at 6:27 PM

        I keep sayin’, if it wasn’t for “game 7″ in 91, we wouldn’t be talking about Jack… who?

    • paperlions - Nov 11, 2013 at 11:37 AM

      Morris is HOF delusional. You know what the “new fangled” stats say about truly great pitchers of by-gone eras…you know, guys that everyone thought were great? Those stats say that those guys were fantastic….even though many of those guys were dead before said stats were developed.

      He is just making stuff up when he says they wanted him to suck up innings. No team just wants their pitchers to suck up innings….of course they want that…but they mostly want pitcher to not allow runs to score.

      You can use old fashioned stats to show that Morris was nothing more than a slightly above average pitcher who pitched a lot of innings. He pitched mostly during a low run environment and his ERA would easily be the worst in the HOF. He was not particularly good at preventing teams from scoring runs, he just played for a lot of teams that were great at scoring runs (thus the win total).

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Nov 11, 2013 at 12:41 PM

        Yea, I don’t think “sucking up innings” leads to high ERA….heck, you could argue the opposite. Look at a guy like Roy Hallday (talkin’ pre 2012). He would give up early runs quite often. If he got the hook after 6 innings and 3 ER, what would his ERA be as opposed to being an “innings horse” who was gievn the opportunity to pitch a scoreless 7th – an opportunity that a lesser pithcer would not rec’v?

  19. wpjohnson - Nov 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM

    Jack Morris is not a Hall of Famer. The Hall has been watered down far too much. Don’t add another merely good pitcher to what is supposed to be a hall for the great players. The argument that there are lesser pitchers there than Morris is ridiculous. Indeed there are lesser pitchers so why add another one?

  20. Old Gator - Nov 11, 2013 at 11:21 AM

    Thanks, Craig, for today’s dose of stupid. It was nearly 11AM when I read it, and there hadn’t been any stupid yet. I was even tempted to post something about the time that the Cubs tried to use Matt Garza to pry Tweeter away from the Feesh, figgerin’ that some particular idiot who loves ursines would chime in and provide enough stupid to get me through the day. You made it unnecessary to do so, for which I thank you.

    • wurst2first - Nov 11, 2013 at 12:48 PM

      Gator, if you’re still in the market for some stupid this morning, go check out how Rob Neyer has decided to spend his Monday morning on Twitter.

      • Old Gator - Nov 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM

        I don’t have a Twitter account. Twitter makes you stupid.

  21. dirtydrew - Nov 11, 2013 at 3:44 PM

    Jack Morris is a hall of gamer. Period. Nails in the biggest game. 84 was vintage Morris.

  22. largebill - Nov 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM

    I sort of feel the need to defend the Sparky Anderson, Cito Gaston, Tom Kelly and the various GM’s of Morris’ teams. They had to assume Morris was told in t-ball, or coach pitch, or little league or high school ball that you generally don’t want your opponent to score. I bet there isn’t a single manager or GM in the game who feels it is necessary to explain to their pitchers in spring training that they would prefer they not allow the opponent to score. Wow, just wow!

  23. tombando - Nov 27, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    Jack Morris is as much a hof as Catfish, Bunning, Tiant, Martinez D. and Neil Sedaka. There are gobs of acts Not in the Rock Hall (War, Spinners, Connie Francis, Monkees) every bit as good’s those that are in–Hank Ballard, The Hollies, Mary Wells, every danged Clapton/Winwood group, Rascals–you know? Sedaka did whatever Billie Joel or Neil Diamond did, he’s out they’re in. Maybe Morris listens to Nickelback.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (3215)
  2. J. Kang (3075)
  3. C. McGehee (2799)
  4. W. Middlebrooks (2767)
  5. J. Upton (2753)
  1. D. Ross (2462)
  2. T. Tulowitzki (2315)
  3. J. Shields (1836)
  4. M. Kemp (1781)
  5. M. Prado (1767)