Skip to content

Tonight in Jack Morris hyperbole

Dec 28, 2013, 10:15 PM EDT

Jack Morris

In last week’s edition, Jack Morris was “never once not the best pitcher on the mound” according to Bill Madden of the New York Daily News. Jerry Green has managed to exceed that amount of hyperbole though in his latest column for The Detroit News. Green argues that Morris will likely miss out on being inducted in his 15th and final year on the ballot due to “prejudice and misunderstanding”. The full quote:

But the other day, I checked the box next his name on my Hall of Fame ballot for the 15th — and final — time and dropped it into a mailbox. He is bound to fail again — kept out of his deserved spot in Cooperstown by prejudice and misunderstanding by the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America. He moves on to be judged by a Veterans Committee in a few years.

Green follows up with a rant about the eroding meaning of the Hall of Fame voting process and suggests that the anonymous person who sold his vote to Deadspin is a traitor, joking that he should be punished by a firing squad.

Great effort, gang. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  1. 4d3fect - Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM

    Blaming the Jack Morris HOF kerfuffle on Deadspin?

  2. Stacey - Dec 28, 2013 at 10:37 PM

    These jackasses better not allow Moose to fall below 5%.

  3. wpjohnson - Dec 28, 2013 at 10:38 PM

    Morris should miss out on the Hall because he was not a pitcher deserving of election.

  4. cackalackyank - Dec 28, 2013 at 10:40 PM

    At this rate I might start wishing they just close the HOF down.

  5. irishpatsredsox - Dec 28, 2013 at 11:03 PM

    I always thought that the HOF should be represented by the best players and coaches….period. Now it seems like that determination is clouded by personal judgements of the individual ranging from PED use or suspicion of PED use, off the field issues, or just plain public disdain. I think the whole Deadspin fiasco showed what a joke the voting process is. Jack Morris was arguably the best pitcher for his era. The same for many others already welcomed to Cooperstown. Of course I’m just a humble fan who still believes Pete Rose’s likeness should have an eternal presence in the Hall. My rational based solely upon the fact that Mantle(Drunk), Ruth(Gambler/Womanizer), and Cobb(Racist/Overall Prick) are current longtime residents, but I guess it’s more about popularity than mere baseball prowess. I’ll just have to crack out my old school highlight videotapes and have my own ballot.

    • Kevin S. - Dec 28, 2013 at 11:06 PM

      Jack Morris is only “arguably” the best pitcher of his era if nobody is allowed to argue back against you. He was a durable pitcher who threw a ton of slightly above-average innings for some great teams. That’s not the best pitcher of his era, and that’s not a Hall of Famer.

    • genericcommenter - Dec 29, 2013 at 1:26 AM

      Define his “era.” Anything you use will be arbitrary, and he will be a beneficiary of other pitchers being 2-3 years too early or too late. You can use “the 80s,” but it doesn’t mean much, or shift it however you like. Many better pitchers overlapped his career. I could argue that Don Mattingly was the best position player of his prime using certain stats and a short window, but he’s not a HOFer. I use him as an example because he was my favorite player as a kid. So I really really want him to be a HOFer, but he isn’t. I remember Joe Carter putting up some big numbers in the 80s, but he wasn’t a HOFer, either.

      Jack Morris might have great counting stats for the 80s because guys like Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux didn’t come along until the mid-late decade and because a bunch of HOF and borderline HOF other pitchers were finishing up around the middle of the decade or on the decline. Morris happened to be a starting pitcher whose career coincidentally covered an entire calendar decade in the middle, so his primest 10 years neatly covered that time period. He showed up, he was durable, and he was very good. He was Chuck Finley, Andy Pettitte, Dennis Martinez.

      • braxtonrob - Dec 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM

        @generic, Mattingly should be in the HOF – his career tailed-off significantly but early on he was phenomenal. But more to the point, he has the same #’s as Kirby Puckett, including many Gold Gloves.

        [picking Pitchers from the 80’s is slim-pickin’, but Morris is near the top. That being said, I personally wouldn’t put him in (because of that horrid 3.90). If a player represents a decade well with out any awful stats (like Morris’ ERA), and he’s the best representative at his position, I think he should go in.]

        It’s careless mistake to not vote him in, but I’m confident (after the BBWAA fail to do their job properly, again) the VC will fix it and put him in.

  6. raysfan1 - Dec 28, 2013 at 11:08 PM

    I disagree with his view that Morris should be in the Hall, and commented quite a bit on the last post about it. However, this guy has been covering the Tigers for over 40 years, so I’m not going to begrudge him a bit of homerism. If anyone should feel as strongly in favor of Morris, it’s him. The rest of his ballot was pretty reasonable–there are over 15 players with decent resumes for HoF consideration, and all his other picks were among those players.

    • paperlions - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM

      Lee Smith is NOT among those players.

      • raysfan1 - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM

        I wouldn’t vote for him either but was careful to say decent resume for consideration. It’s not crazy for someone to think he belongs.

      • paperlions - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        I suppose crazy isn’t the right word, but there is a lack of understanding associated with such a choice. Smith was fine for a relief pitcher, he threw a lot of innings, he had a 75 ERA-, which is 27th all-time among relief pitchers with 600+ IP. The vast majority of relief pitchers that last 10 years have an above average ERA-; a 75 isn’t particularly special. Relief pitchers continue to be highly over-valued. Electing Sutter was silly, electing Smith would just be a repeat of that.

      • Kevin S. - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:32 PM

        I tend to agree with PL that Lee Smith does not belong, but his comment did send me to Fangraphs advanced reliever statistics page, specifically WPA. Smith is third in career shutdowns, but is much higher in career meltdowns than the two best one-inning relievers ever, Mo and Hoffman. I then sorted the relievers by career WPA. Smith came in 6th at 24.36. Hoffman is 2nd at 32.98. Mo is first at 57.83 (!!!). The difference between Rivera and Hoffman is the difference between Hoffman and Brendan Donnelly, all the way down at 92nd. There are two morals to this story. 1) There’s a solid argument for Rivera being the only one-inning reliever in the HoF, and 2) any Yankee fan who argued that Joba should have been kept in the bullpen to be the next Rivera needs to understand that there will never be a next Rivera.

        My apologies for the digression. I blame paperlions.

      • paperlions - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM


        I agree that relievers are hard to evaluate….the fact is that there isn’t a position player equivalent to what they do. They are like the pinch hitter/defensive replacement/utility guy of the mound in terms of appearances/contributions to wins….and NO ONE is going to suggest that such position players/hitters be considered for the HOF. Rivera is a huge exception, he’s like a pinch hitter that hit .400.

      • Kevin S. - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM

        They’re a little more than that, though. A 70 IP reliever would be pitching in approximately 5% of a team’s innings in a given season. The offensive equivalent of that would be about 300 PA, and no pure pinch-hitter gets that many PA – that’s more like a platoon starter, and the reliever is better leveraged in his appearances. It’s obviously still less than a full-time player, which is why the reliever needs to be preposterously exceptional to rate acceptance into the Coop, but pinch-hitter is an unfair comp.

      • paperlions - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:55 PM

        Yeah, a platoon player is a better comp.

        The point is, I guess, a DH like Martinez had much larger contributions than a relief pitcher, and he can’t get in….the list of above average regulars or starting pitchers that can’t sniff the HOF that were far more useful/valuable/better players than Smith is really, really long.

      • Kevin S. - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:57 PM

        Like I said at the top, I agree with you about Smith (and Edgar, and most other things outside of Cardinal fans’ attitudes for Albert Pujols for that matter :-p ). Just sort of playing out how to rate relievers historically.

      • paperlions - Dec 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM

        As my boss would say, “I’m just talking out loud.”

        I am trying not to just dismiss relievers (non-Rivera division) outright….mentally trying to understand their contributions in a general setting. Pretty much every reliever is a reliever because they aren’t good enough to be a starter, can’t go through lineups multiple times, etc. Realizing that, and combining it with their IP (Lee Smith’s entire career is about 6-7 years of a starter)….it is hard for me to make an argument in favor of any reliever for the HOF that doesn’t have an ERA- around 50 and 1000+ IP.

      • braxtonrob - Dec 30, 2013 at 1:42 AM

        I agree with your sentiments about ‘Closers’.
        That being said, you have to weight the older closers more like Goose Gossage and Hoyt Wilhelm, respectively as you go further back in time.
        The older the closer, the more innings he threw, and the more impact those guys had.
        There should be very few closers in the HOF, IMO, but I do have several in mine (especially the two listed above).

  7. irishpatsredsox - Dec 28, 2013 at 11:29 PM

    @Kevin S. Bold statement, but if history serves me right, Jack received a 68% vote last year. That would mean the 42% school in which you reside has less individuals inclined to out Morris in the Hall. So if we actually converted the percent to a fraction, fraction to ratio, statistically you’re argument would have greater chance of leaving your own lips and falling on your own ears much greater. Food for thought.

    • cur68 - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:53 AM

      I don’t mean to be rude to you, but I don’t get what your reply has to do with what Kevin said to you. He’s citing Morris’s record not voter behaviour. Morris’s record is what counts for HoF consideration. And his record isn’t that great. He’s a fine broadcaster, a funny guy, and he was an above average, work-horse, pitcher on some very good teams. Unfortunately for Morris he gave up a lot of runs. He gave me ulcers whenever I had to watch him. He was always nearly coughing up the lead only to see his hitters get him back into the game. There’s nothing about that that says “HoF”. And please don’t cite “wins” in his defence! Pitchers don’t win games. Otherwise there’s something really wrong with Cliff Lee.

      • raysfan1 - Dec 29, 2013 at 8:37 AM

        Every time I hear someone use the most wins in the 1980s line, I counter with the most hits, most earned runs, and most home runs of any pitcher in the 1980s, along with the third most losses. Then of course there’s that career 3.90 ERA.

        I don’t use advanced stats with them, and I usually don’t bother with the difference between pitcher wins and team wins. The most hard core Morris-for-the-Hall fans tend to take any view opposing his enshrinement as an insult to begin with, so I just use old school stats and leave it at wins, innings pitched, and that game 7 are all great, but it’s not quite enough.

        If he’s elected, it’s not some horrible wrong, but it would set a new threshold for pitcher entry into the Hall. Pundits would start citing him in defense of Andy Pettite’s candidacy in a few years for example (and I do think he will be Jack Morris II when it comes to Hall candidacy). If Morris is the floor, then also what about Tommy John or Jim Kaat next time the Veterans Committee considers their era? Etc, etc.

      • anxovies - Dec 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM

        Being neither a Tigers fan nor a Jack Morris fan I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I think he deserves serious consideration for the HOF. Not saying he should necessarily be voted in but anybody who pitches 3800 innings with over 250 wins with mostly mediocre teams deserves more respect than morris has received. raysfan mentioned Kitty as a player who might benefit from Morris’ induction. Kaat’s situation is similar in that he never got the respect he deserved during the time he was eligible in the voting. Ironically, if Kitty had stopped pitching after the 1976 season, when he had 17 years in and had won 250 games, he likely would have made it to the HOF. The fact that Kitty became a valuable relief pitcher thereafter was never acknowledged by the voters.

      • Kevin S. - Dec 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

        “… mostly mediocre teams…”

        About that. Excluding 1977 (when Morris pitched only 45 innings), his teams were a collective 232 games above .500, an average of 13.5 games above .500. This actually understates how good his average team was, because two of those seasons lost a significant number of games to labor unrest, but I don’t feel like going through and prorating how much better his teams’ records have been if the ’81 Tigers and ’94 Indians played full seasons. He pitched on two losing teams his entire career. He pitched for four world champions. Jack Morris in no way, shape or form pitched on “mostly mediocre teams.”

      • cur68 - Dec 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM

        Yeah, Kevin: that’s the Morris I recall. Bloated ERA with outstanding run support. His teams were very good behind him and at bat. They needed to be: he was getting shelled a lot.

    • tfbuckfutter - Dec 29, 2013 at 10:52 AM

      You…uhh….you may want to recheck your math, chief. I’m not sure it’s 110% accurate.

      Also….what the hell happened in that run-on sentence near the end? Do you have a Dictionary app that you set to “Shuffle”?

  8. baseballisboring - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:27 AM

    I know it’s just the Hall of Fame, and it’s already lost all of it’s credibility so who cares, but it’s hard not to be irritated by this kind of blatant idiocy. Jack Morris had a 3.90 career ERA. Three. Ninety. How incredibly narcissistic of people to fight so hard for him to get in just because they want him to, when they have to understand in their heart of hearts, at least on some level, that he doesn’t belong there.

  9. mikemj - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:34 AM

    There was NEVER a gray area concerning gambling during the time that Pete Rose was in uniform, therefore he can’t be put into the Hall, period. His playing career was certainly worthy but they would have to change the criteria for him to make it. And then Bonds and Palmiero and Sosa etc. would have to be allowed in.

    • platediscipline - Dec 29, 2013 at 1:50 AM

      The mortal sin in sports is throwing games. Something PR never did. What PR did was a lesser offense to be sure. And only as a manager (I guess that is what you mean by in uniform). When PR signed off on his banishment, the HOF was still in play. Only AFTER his admission and before his 5 years were up did they come up with rule that players were ineligible if they were on the banishment list (the Pete Rose rule if you will). Pete Rose NEVER cheated anyone in the game unlike Bonds, Palmreio etc. Pete was a 3 time batting champion, 2 time gold glover, and an astonishing 17 time all-star and MVP. He belongs in the Hall. Morris was a 5 time all-star and won zero Cy Youngs.

      • NatsLady - Dec 29, 2013 at 6:59 AM

        Here’s the problem with saying Pete Rose “never threw games.” We don’t know that. What we know is that he bet on games, bet on his own team. What about the days he didn’t bet? Those are the days he knew his best pitcher wasn’t going, the days he knew so-and-so was hurting, and a thousand things that could influence the result–things he knew as an “insider”.

        If you are a gambler, the absence of a bet is, in effect, a bet against. What if he pulled together all the best players and the healthy players and threw them in on the days he placed heavy bets? In that case, yeah, he threw games, he threw the games he wasn’t betting on.

      • raysfan1 - Dec 29, 2013 at 8:45 AM

        Well said, NatsLady. Add to it that if he ever bet different amounts of money that too creates at least an impression of trying harder on the large bet days. There is also the possibility of shaving runs as opposed to outright throwing games. Further, him not betting on some games or betting more or less on some games could also be a signal to the bookies to aid the gambling interests in setting their lines for other customers.

        I’m not against him being in the HoF, but he should absolutely never be allowed to be employed in MLB again.

      • anxovies - Dec 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

        Amen. I saw Pete play many times when I lived in St. Louis and never stopped being awed by his game. With the expanded TV coverage we have today, If the present fans could see him play there would never be a debate whatever his flaws and transgressions. Nobody would ever accuse him of throwing a game. It was what it must have been like to watch Ty Cobb play without the anger and venality. And Cobb is a charter member, isn’t he?

      • clydeserra - Dec 29, 2013 at 8:35 PM

        “The mortal sin in sports is throwing games. Something PR never did. ”
        says who?
        “And only as a manager”
        says who?
        ” Pete Rose NEVER cheated anyone”
        says who (there is good evidence that he corked his bat)?

        even accepting that he only bet for his teams to win (leaving out that is a silly way to bet on baseball) his monetary interest in a specific game necessarily colors his decisions on that game at teh expense of future games.

        You are correct, the Hall redid their rules for him, that was lame.

  10. mikemj - Dec 29, 2013 at 12:38 AM

    Morris is an interesting candidate for the Hall. He doesn’t necessarily have the career numbers to make it but he was the main reason two teams won the world series. Add the fact that he pitched in the offense friendly American League and pitched most of his games in hitter friendly ballparks and the decision becomes even tougher.

    • Kevin S. - Dec 29, 2013 at 9:19 AM

      Morris did not pitch in an offense-friendly era. During his career (’77-’94), AL ERA jumped over 4.25 once during the offensive spike of 1987 and then again in ’93-’94, the beginning of the offensive explosion and the twilight of Morris’ career. It wouldn’t dip that low again until 2010. Also, Tiger Stadium hovered right around neutral in terms of effect on run scoring. It gave up HR, but suppressed singles, doubles and triples. Every single pitcher coming onto the ballot now and in the coming years pitched in a tougher run environment than Jack Morris did.

    • cohnjusack - Dec 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM

      If only advanced metrics had a way to adjust for hitting environments so we could compare his ERA across eras and parks.

      Sorry, what’s that? We can?

      Jack Morris’ ERA+ would be the worst of any HOFer pitcher. At 105, that means it was 5% better than average when adjusting for park factors and era.

  11. pike573 - Dec 29, 2013 at 1:25 AM

    I find some of these debates odd. I’ve watched a lot of these players now being argued (which is new for me). I always thought during their careers I would know I was watching a HOFer. And so when looking back on these players I look at the numbers but I also remember them in the context of their times. It’s interesting how some appreciate and some depreciate. Having said all that Morris isn’t a HOFer in my eyes. He pitched some great games on some good teams, yes but his career as a whole doesn’t merit the HOF.

    • cur68 - Dec 29, 2013 at 2:30 AM

      I don’t get all the Jack Morris hype. Its a bit irrational. Perhaps not unlike the Michael Young Love-A-Thon you see around, too. Guys with great reputations, above average skills, but lauded like they were the second coming or something.

      I don’t know what it is about Morris that inspires suck misty eyed remembrance of his pitching. At the time, he was a guy you could count on to give up a lot of runs but he had the good luck to play on teams that scored a lot, too. Why some people choose to recall him like he was Sandy Koufax is beyond me. Maybe its the moustache? The great head of hair? I dunno.

      • raysfan1 - Dec 29, 2013 at 8:53 AM

        Honestly, I think it’s because that awesome game 7 happened near the end of his career. Because he was indeed very good, and also fortunate to play on some really talented teams, folks could then look back at his career and say “wow, look at all those wins and those rings” and gloss over the rest of his resume that did not fit the conquering hero narrative.

      • braxtonrob - Dec 30, 2013 at 2:19 AM

        @cur68, If you’re saying you fully expect Michael Young to get a ton of HOF votes, then you’ve just won my ‘Favorite Post of the Year’. Sounds good to me, (as long as he gets that 3,000th Hit).

  12. disgracedfury - Dec 29, 2013 at 1:52 AM

    If there so many stats of how bad Jack Morris was than besides Clemens who was more better in his era.Who would you take.Not Bert Blylevan.Curt Schilling has some good stats but I could name 9 pitchers more valuable and better than him.

    Say what you want but Jack Morris was the best in his era and if there so many guys better than him than why is he remembred and not others.

    • ptfu - Dec 29, 2013 at 10:05 AM

      No. At no time was Jack Morris ever the best pitcher of his era.

      Jack Morris pitched from 1977 to 1994. The following pitchers racked up more WAR during that period–in a nutshell, they were MORE valuable–even though they all threw far fewer innings:

      Nolan Ryan
      Roger Clemens
      Dennis Eckersley
      Bert Blyleven (Regardless of what you think, BlylevEn was much better than Morris. More K/9, and fewer BB/9–actually fewer career walks despite throwing 1100 more innings. Fewer HR/9. More wins too, if that floats your boat.)

      People who approached Morris’ WAR during that period, even though they threw only 1/2 to 3/4 the innings:

      Dwight Gooden
      Bret Saberhagen
      Frank Viola
      Steve Carlton
      Ron Guidry
      Dave Stieb

      But to do these guys full justice, let’s expand the 1977-1994 period by five years on each side, to get a better handle on who Morris was up against. (Cut it to two or three years if you like, it doesn’t much matter.) And when you do that, names like Greg Maddux, Rick Reuschel, Tom Seaver, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, Randy Johnson, Frank Tanana, Kevin Brown, and David Cone join the above lists.

      Some of those guys are all-time greats deserving of the Hall. Some of them were good pitchers who shouldn’t be in the Hall.

      Wanna know what they all have in common?

      They’re ALL more valuable than Jack Morris was just before, during, and just after his career. I’d rather have any of them on the mound for my team instead of Morris.

      So every time someone says, Jack Morris was the best pitcher of his era, I think of that long list of superior pitchers who pitched during/just before/just after he did. And given that many of them were good-but-not-great pitchers who should not be in the HOF…there’s no case for Jack Morris.

    • cktai - Dec 29, 2013 at 10:25 AM

      Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven only met once in the postseason, and Blyleven comprehensively beat him on that occasion. He was a prime reason why the Twins won it all in 1987.

      Other than Blyleven, of Morris’ contemporaries I would rank at least Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, Greg Maddux, Tom Seaver, Bret Saberhagen, Phil Niekro, Rollie Fingers, Jim Palmer, Catfish Hunter, Fergie Jenkins, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Steve Rogers, Frank Viola, Bob Welch, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, Randy Johnson, and Dwight Gooden over him. Maybe some others too.

  13. nothanksimdriving123 - Dec 29, 2013 at 2:06 AM

    Jack Morris was “never once not the best pitcher on the mound” according to Bill Madden of the New York Daily News.
    Well, given how many pitchers are on the mound at any one time during play, I can find no fault with that comment.
    Now, true story: One Saturday morning in April 1984, I awoke nice and late and turned on the little B&W TV beside my bed and saw the NBC game of the week was about to start. Morris for the Tigers vs Floyd Bannister for the ChiSox. My girlfriend woke up feeling, well, kind of frisky. Fortunately, being as rabid a baseball fan as me, she understood that we’d have to wait until each team had a hit. I mean, in the middle of a no-hitter? Puh-lease. And yes, barring a lead-off hit, the first inning is the middle of a no-hitter. Well, the poor babe had to wait 2 hours and 44 minutes, though the commercial breaks were not unpleasant. Pretty much my favorite no-hitter. Would I vote for him? Biased.

  14. sbs0311 - Dec 29, 2013 at 2:45 AM

    I’m not sure what I find funnier:

    The fact that Bill Madden, a New York sports writer, failed to recognize that Ron Guidry was a better pitcher than Jack Morris pretty much every single year they pitched in the same league — that’s not even mentioning that Morris faced Roger Clemens in ’86 (enough said);


    That the Detroit writer claims prejudice and misunderstanding without actually offering any empirical data as to why Morris should be in the HOF.

    I just wish these silly Tiger/Morris fan boys would redirect their energies towards campaigns for deserving Tigers like Trammell and Whitaker. I know there’s been anti-Detroit claims, but there’s not a single advanced statistic-inclined person I’ve ever seen argue AGAINST Trammell’s HOF candidacy. If anything, it’s your “traditionalists” who are against Trammell because he wasn’t the best player in the league at any given point, like that actually means anything.

    • jwbiii - Dec 29, 2013 at 2:03 PM

      The funny thing about Madden money quote is it is absolutely true. Morris “never once not the best pitcher on the mound.” If you want to argue that Lance Parrish or Matt Nokes or Pat Borders Sandy Alomar, Jr. was a better pitcher than Jack Morris, good luck.

      But there’s a fairly large gap between being a better pitcher than a 50 year old Sparky Anderson and a Hall of Famer.

      As for the guy on the mound in the next half inning, that’s debatable. ptfu has a pretty decent list.

  15. doctornature - Dec 29, 2013 at 4:14 AM

    I remember Morris as a mediocre pitcher with a high ERA who pitched a great WS game once.

    So did Derek Holland for the Rangers in 2011, with his team behind in the series. His career ERA is 4.36, which is .46 runs/game higher than Morris…whose career ERA is about that much higher than the HIGHEST HOF Starter’s ERA.

    Where do you draw the line? Maybe Holland should be next in line after Morris, no?

    Basically, Morris gave up FOUR runs/game.

    No WAY, pre-steroid period, is that HOF Caliber. He belongs in the Hall of Slightly Above Average, with a great game or two. I saw him pitch MANY times on TV and several times in person. After watching Koufax and Drysdale in person as a youngster ,Fergie Jenkins and Clemons when the Senators moved to Texas, and many of the great modern-day pitchers, I can say without a doubt I don’t think he deserves serious consideration. Four runs a game in the HOF???

    Get real, and say it three times real slow. “Four runs a game, in the Hall of Fame.”

    Now say it until it makes you sick.

    It will.

    Four runs a game is NOT HOF material.

  16. mottershead1972 - Dec 29, 2013 at 8:32 AM

    So am I the only one that is going to point out to Irishpat that 42% plus 68% is 110%. Ain’t that a bitch….

  17. jonrox - Dec 29, 2013 at 8:32 AM

    “It’s a shame, a pity. Jack should have collected the required 75 percent of the votes years ago. One of his World Series victories was for the Twins, a 1-0 Game 7 epic in 10 innings over the Braves in 1991.”

    This paragraph was incredibly jarring. Does he think one game justifies enshrinement?

    • Kevin S. - Dec 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM

      Duh. Haven’t you seen him stumping for Don Larsen?

    • extavernmouse - Dec 29, 2013 at 4:21 PM

      I always liked Jack Morris, and in the context of this discussion I think that game should be enshrined in the Hall of Fame. What a compelling night!

  18. tfbuckfutter - Dec 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM

    I, for one, welcome this discussion again when his case goes to the Veteran’s Committee.

    And then we never have to discuss it again after they put him in and all this was for naught.

  19. doctornature - Dec 29, 2013 at 11:54 AM

    Here is a SI write-up on the case for KENNY ROGERS as a HOFer:

    He has just as good a case as Morris, if not better, and as I saw Rogers pitch in person several dozen times, I can say Roger’s HOF case is: Non-Existent

    I still can’t believe Morris has remained on the ballot for 15 years, much less get the support he has up to now. With Maddux and Glavine on the ballot this year, maybe some voters decide Morris really needs to just fade away. I believe if they vote him in, they will regret it as the years go by and they sober up.

  20. weaselpuppy - Dec 29, 2013 at 2:49 PM

    People calling Morris mediocre is a joke. As big of a joke as saying he was the best pitcher in his era.

  21. mpzz - Dec 29, 2013 at 3:31 PM

    Morris had a 3.90 lifetime ERA. He never was below a 3.05 ERA. His lifetime WHIP was 1.30. Even in one of his three twenty-win seasons he was above a 4.00 ERA. He benefitted from being on good hitting teams. Sure, he was a durable innings-eater. But HOF’er? No way!

  22. coryfor3 - Dec 29, 2013 at 4:12 PM

    Why is a guy’s opinion hyperbole? That’s they way he feels.

  23. braxtonrob - Dec 30, 2013 at 2:42 AM

    If Jack Morris is voted in, I’ll be glad that the 80’s has (full) representation, but I will be forced to adjust my thinking about career ERA’s well above 3.50

  24. eatitfanboy - Dec 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM

    Isn’t every pitcher the best pitcher on the mound seeing as there is only one pitcher on the mound at a time?

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Springer (2656)
  2. H. Ramirez (2599)
  3. G. Stanton (2598)
  4. S. Strasburg (2420)
  5. J. Baez (2402)
  1. M. Teixeira (2397)
  2. C. Correa (2373)
  3. B. Crawford (2318)
  4. H. Pence (2316)
  5. B. Harper (2116)