Al Yellon
Editor
Bud Selig: Athletics Could Get Approval To Move ... Out Of Bay Area - May 17
Grant Brisbee
Editor
Worst Call Of The Year? - May 18
Jeff Sullivan
Editor
The Bobby Valentine .Gif Of The Year - May 19
Rob Neyer
National Baseball Editor
Grading on the Curve - May 20
Dan Moore
Contributor
Joey Votto And The Twilight Of The Giant First Basemen - Apr 14
Jim Baker
Contributor
eBay Item Of The Day - May 20
Marc Normandin
Contributor
Josh Reddick, And Having Patience With Prospects - May 18
Wendy Thurm
Contributor
Baseball On Par With Other Professional Sports In Dealing With Bad Umpires - May 20
By Rob Neyer - National Baseball Editor
Jack Morris will be the top holdover on next year's Hall of Fame ballot, which bodes well for his candidacy. But what about all those superstars who will join Morris on the ballot?
Follow @sbnbaseball on Twitter, and Like Baseball Nation on Facebook.
Jan 10, 2012 - Monday, the Hall of Fame announced the results of the 2012 Baseball Writers' Association of America election:
Barry Larkin.
And only Barry Larkin.
Of course, without a single strong newcomer to the ballot, many of the holdovers gained support, which doesn't make sense because their stats didn't get better but that's just how the electorate does things. Some of the holdovers gained a great deal of support. And Jack Morris, in his 13th year on the ballot, moved from 54 percent in 2011 to 67 percent this year.
According to Hall of Fame expert Jay Jaffe, Morris's ultimate election is now "as inevitable as Jim Rice".
I'm not exactly sure what means. Jim Rice's election looks inevitable now, because he's been elected. But before he was elected, how inevitable was it, really? He didn't make it until his 15th -- and by rule, his last -- appearance on the ballot. He needed 405 votes, and he got 412. He could have missed. (He should have missed, that's an argument for another day.)
It's absolutely true that when candidates reach a certain level of support, they tend to do better and better until they're actually elected. Morris reached 67 percent this time, way up from 54 percent last year. I might be wrong about this, but I don't believe that any player has reached 67 percent and not eventually been elected. I believe the record is held by Gil Hodges, who hit 60.1 percent twice before topping out at 63.4 percent in his last season of eligibility. Of course there's a pretty good chance the Veterans Committee will elect him eventually (because eventually the Veterans Committee elects everyone).
But Jaffe seems to be suggesting that because nobody's ever reached 67 percent and not been elected, nobody can reach 67 percent and not be elected.
We know that holdover candidates are impacted by new candidates. And next year there are some killer new candidates: Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Curt Schilling, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa. Also Kenny Lofton, who might have better a case than you think. A lot of voters won't vote for some of those guys; but a lot of voters will.
To those players, you may add Morris's fellow holdovers: Jeff Bagwell, Lee Smith and Tim Raines, all of whom received significant support in this year's balloting.
So that's nine candidates who should receive significant support, and of course many others will draw insignificant support (however unfairly). And Morris has the distinct disadvantage of being the worst player among them all (with the possible exception of Lee Smith).
I mean, it's actually sort of ridiculous. Not that Wins Above Replacement is the only thing that matters, but if you make a list of the players on next year's BBWAA ballot, Morris ranks 22nd in WAR. Maybe this is why Jim Caple keeps agitating for a larger ballot: So he can keep voting for Morris, but without having to worry about, you know, all those pesky facts.
Jack Morris was a good, exceptionally durable starting pitcher. He never won a Cy Young Award, nor deserved to. He won fewer games than both Jim Kaat and Tommy John -- neither of whom came close to being elected by the BBWAA -- with an adjusted ERA worse than both of them.
Morris's supporters like to argue that his ERA is irrelevant because he "pitched to the score", which would be a compelling argument were it true. It is not true.
Morris won more games than any other pitcher in the 1980s because he was good, because he was durable, and because he pitched for good teams.
Morris's supporters also like to argue that his postseason performance should count for a great deal of extra credit.
Hey, I'm all for extra credit. Morris, all by his lonesome, won one of the biggest World Series games ever. If he were a borderline Hall of Fame candidate -- say, Jim Kaat or Tommy John -- that might do it for me. That single brilliant game might put him over the top.
But Morris isn't borderline. He was no better than Rick Reuschel, nor as good as Kevin Brown.
David Wells joins Morris on the ballot next year. David Wells won 15 fewer games than Morris, but lost 29 fewer. His adjusted ERA is slightly better. Jack Morris is famous for his brilliant postseason pitching. In the real world, the one in which I usually live, Morris went 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA in postseason games. Same world, David Wells went 10-5 with a 3.17 ERA.
Very few voters will vote for David Wells, and many will vote for Jack Morris. But that says a lot more about the voters than about the pitchers.
Follow @sbnbaseball on Twitter, and Like Baseball Nation on Facebook.
40 comments
National Baseball Editor
Rob Neyer began his career with legendary baseball author Bill James, and later worked for STATS, Inc. and ESPN.com, writing more words for that website than anyone else. Rob has written or... Read full bio
SB Nation Profile
@robneyer
Subscribe to Rob Neyer
Rob Neyer:
Will 2013 Be Jack Morris's Year?
Rob Neyer:
Will 2013 Be Jack Morris's Year?
Mark Ellis Injury: Dodgers 2B Has Emergency Leg Surgery
Adam Lind Placed On Outright Waivers, According To Report
Orlando Hudson Signing With White Sox, Says Robin Ventura
Brandon McCarthy Lands On 15-Day DL With Strained Right Shoulder
Emilio Bonifacio To DL With Sprained Thumb
Lance Berkman Leaves Game With Knee Injury
Chipper Jones Likely To Miss Weekend With Leg Contusion
Danny Duffy Indeed Having Tommy John Surgery
Diamondbacks' Chris Young Comes Off Disabled List
Allen Craig, Kyle McClellan Hit DL
More News »






Comments
Well, he was 42nd in ERA among starting pitchers in the 80's
So, yes, lets put him and the other 41 guys from the 80’s in as one group. That makes sense.
I do admit that his intangibles are what’s pushing his candidacy (at least I hope its that and not his win total) but c’mon people, his stats are just so far from the rest of the hall members that its ridiculous to consider him.
Plus, selfishly, I don’t want him in because I’ll be facing a yearly deluge of fans of similar players who never were considered before but now seem worthy in comparison to Morris. Call it the Jim Rice effect.
Tony LaRussa- resident genius
by putmeincoach on Jan 10, 2012 11:00 AM EST reply actions
Dave Stieb was a better (if admittedly less durable) pitcher than Jack Morris. Did he even make it past his first year on the ballot?
"[Phil Kessel]'s as streaky as a flipped coin" - Shift
by The '67 Sound on Jan 10, 2012 11:03 AM EST reply actions
Nope...
1.4% in 2004, his only year on the ballot. Big Stieb fan, but he wasn’t a hall-of-famer. And he was better than Jack Morris, ergo…
by mlaffs on Jan 10, 2012 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
I would actually be pretty happy if Stieb made it
And he should probably have the title of “best pitcher of the ’80’s”.
by cookiedabookie on Jan 10, 2012 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think Morris should be a HoFer...
… but if he doesn’t get in, I think his supporters who voted for him have no one to blame but themselves. I know that sounds backward, so hear me out?
Bert Blyleven was a pretty clear Hall of Famer, but required a massive campaign by outsiders to get it done. The number and character of anti-Bly voters were similar to those who were vocal Morris supporters. The easiest way the demonstrate how strong of a candidate Blyleven was: compare him to Morris. It’s really not close.
But along the way, Morris lost a lot of luster. Maybe. The big jump from 54% to 67% suggests otherwise, but I think that could also be his peak. For years, voters have been reading us argue that Morris isn’t a Hall of Famer, and really, the reason for the focus on him (as opposed to say, Lee Smith) was because of the BBWAA’s collective idiocy regarding Blyleven.
Learn something new every day: http://dlewis.net/nik
by Dan Lewis on Jan 10, 2012 11:03 AM EST reply actions
A postseason career in which he had a 3.80 ERA.
by yosoysean on Jan 10, 2012 11:06 AM EST reply actions
EXACTLY!!
That’s way better than his regular season ERA of 3.90. It’s still, ya know, not HOF worthy, but he did pitch better in the playoffs.
by Dave Pomerantz on Jan 10, 2012 11:25 AM EST up reply actions
Pitching to the score
“Morris’s supporters like to argue that his ERA is irrelevant because he “pitched to the score”, which would be a compelling argument were it true. It is not true."
I disagree. Nothing about that is a compelling argument. He voluntarily performed poorly in games when his offense played well? Huh? And how can anyone call him “a bulldog” and mention pitching to the score in the same breath? Those are mutually exclusive concepts.
@PadmanJones
by Paddy McMahon on Jan 10, 2012 11:08 AM EST reply actions
THANK YOU!!
That pitched to the score crap bothers me so much, because I never know if I should attack it on it’s logical faults or it’s factual faults.
by Dave Pomerantz on Jan 10, 2012 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
Jake
I think the issue is that a lot of fans are also fan of clock sports(Football, Basketball). And in clock sports there comes a time where you’re enough ahead that you can’t really lose, so you play soft defense, for instance in football prevent, giving up yards and sometimes points that are ultimately irrelevant. People see this as a viable option in football so they assume the philosophy also applies to other sports. So if Jack Morris is ahead by 7 they think “Well he’ll just throw it down the middle and try to get some outs.” But baseball, I don’t have to tell you, is inherently different from football, there is no insurmountable lead because the length of the game is tied to outs and not a clock. It doesn’t make sense to “pitch to the score” because no matter what you’re doing getting outs is paramount. But fans of clock sports misunderstand this abstract difference.
by Jake Albrecht on Jan 10, 2012 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
The glut won't matter
The type of voter who is supporting Jack Morris is exactly the type of voter who’s likely to take a strong stand against all of the “PED candidates” – Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Piazza" – and is already taking a stand against Bagwell. They’re also the type of voter who doesn’t get Raines, and likely won’t get Biggio either (except for the magic 3000 hits).
I’d argue that, if anything, the glut of the type of candidates that we’ll see next year makes it more likely that Morris will get the surge he needs to get in.
by mlaffs on Jan 10, 2012 11:08 AM EST reply actions
I also wonder if there was some push back against the statheads...
…in the past votes for Dawson and Rice that may end up putting Morris over the top as well.
by Tim E. Space on Jan 10, 2012 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
not necessarily. The hardcore Morris people might not vote for the “questionable” guys, but they aren’t enough to get Morris in.
The people who are voting for McGwire and Palmeiro may have voted for Morris this year or in the past, but if they only have 10 spots, they may leave him off to vote for 10 better candidates.
by Phildo on Jan 10, 2012 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
mlaffs – what is the connection between Morris voters and anti-PED voters? The debate over Morris is whether he belongs with the great pitchers of all time. The steroid discussion is about steroid use. The two situations are mutually exclusive, I think.
Maybe I just don’t follow what you’re saying.
by TimHagerty on Jan 10, 2012 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
Seconded
Tim, I suppose the idea is that it’s stupid to vote for Jack Morris and it’s stupid to not vote for Jeff Bagwell, but those are different kinds of stupid. In fact, there’s obviously a HUGE overlap between Morris voters and Bagwell voters.
by Rob Neyer on Jan 10, 2012 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
Mindset
I think some are saying that people who don’t vote for Bagwell have an idealized view of their type of player, an archetype that Morris meets yet Bagwell does not.
For a lot of these writers, I think that voting for Morris and not voting for Clemens next year is the crowning moment in their attachment to the seppia-toned baseball of their youth.
by Dennis Chase on Jan 10, 2012 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks, Dennis.
Yeah, that’s more or less what I was picking at. Tim/Rob, I guess my feeling is that Morris would be the champion of the “he looked/seemed like a hall of famer when I watched him play” crowd, which is a group that discounts Raines because he somehow didn’t. Feels like that’s also a group that’s more likely to irrationally disqualify anyone who put up big numbers during the steriod era unless, like say Ken Griffey or Frank Thomas, they can craft a compelling narrative around them.
If those assumptions are true, then Morris’ support is likely to solidify, and then it only takes a few more people grappling with their angst like Ken Rosenthal was yesterday – essentially, he’s so close, so is it really fair for me to deny him – and he’s in.
by mlaffs on Jan 10, 2012 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
mlaffs & Rob – Yeah. I see your points now.
Side note since mlaffs mentioned Griffey – any writer who doesn’t vote for Junior based on suspicion should have their BBWAA card revoked and then be put in prison.
by TimHagerty on Jan 10, 2012 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
Morris is very borderline to me
At just under 57 WAR, he’s well within the top 25 pitchers of all time by that metric.
Ahead of Tom Seaver.
WELL ahead of Tommy John.
I don’t think there’s anything at all offensive about voting him in.
by aronofsky40 on Jan 10, 2012 12:40 PM EST reply actions
Where are you getting your WAR figures from?
According to Baseball Reference, Tom Seaver’s WAR is the 4th highest of all-time (105.3), Tommy John’s is 44th all-time (59.0), and Morris is 141st (39.3), right behind Javier Vazquez.
by Jody Jody Davis on Jan 10, 2012 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
I was getting to the same thing
For highlighting the problem with using any single number to describe a player’s career. Morris’ fWAR is indeed 57 (well, 56.9), 24th all time. Seaver’s is 52.2, 28th all time.
Morris’ rWAR is 39.3, 141st all time. Seaver’s is 105.3, fourth all time.
Obviously, there can be massive differences in how WAR values a player. Let’s please not use it as a end-all, be-all of any player value discussion.
by GBSimons on Jan 10, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry about the first sentence not making sence
I changed my subject line after Jody Jody Davis posted his comments.
by GBSimons on Jan 10, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Jake
I think this sort of indicates why Fangraphs pitcher WAR is useless. If you don’t normalize for luck on batters why should you do it on pitchers. FIP says how well you do three things, strike people out, walk people(or don’t) and give up home runs. I think it’s a useful stat but having your WAR based off of it when there’s a whole host of things that happen besides the “three true outcomes” is ridiculous.
by Jake Albrecht on Jan 10, 2012 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
fWAR is good as a predictive stat, but bWAR is a better describer of what actually happened.
by cookiedabookie on Jan 10, 2012 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
Well shit
Didn’t realize there was such a large difference or that most people felt fWAR for pitchers was basically useless.
What is the major component that accounts for the difference? Just curious.
by aronofsky40 on Jan 10, 2012 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
fWAR uses FIP
rWAR uses RA
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
by Pikachu on Jan 10, 2012 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
baseball reference numbers are lower
usually. They have a lower replacement level. But I don’t think BR is a good describer of what happened. They estimate defense by using team defense and distributing it more to the players who pitched more innings. As we know, a defense does not perform the same for every pitcher. If run scoring dosen’t why should defense? look at RS numbers from fangraphs for a team. The way to do it would be to use PZR, which unfortunately, MGL hasn’t calculated since 2006.
by Bososx13 on Jan 10, 2012 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
Not to mention it massively overrates strikeouts
An awful pitcher who gives up homers and strikeouts will always rate above a good pitcher who pitches to contact in fWAR. fWAR basically double counts strikeouts and treats homeruns as if they are random.
Tony LaRussa- resident genius
by putmeincoach on Jan 11, 2012 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
Difference
I think the massive difference in Seaver’s fWAR is because pitchers’ fWAR has only been calculated back through the mid-1970s. For example, Tom Seaver’s first seven seasons don’t have an fWAR because they either can’t calculate it for that many seasons back or they haven’t gotten to it yet (don’t know which). Meanwhile, Morris has a fWAR calculated for every season of his career.
by TheoHCH on Jan 10, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
True
fWAR has not been calculated for Seaver’s first seven seasons. He averaged about 4.0 fWAR over his final 13 seasons – including a couple of 0.5-fWAR clunkers – so a very conservative career total would be 80 fWAR.
The other key takeaway is that no pitchers from the early 70s and before are even ranked. So Morris is 24th since 1974, not all-time.
Thanks for the clarification, TheoHCH.
by GBSimons on Jan 10, 2012 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
The David Wells comp
was particularly damning, to me. Maybe because all of the others have been made so many times that this whole folderol should have been settled by now.
by CSFreeman on Jan 10, 2012 12:49 PM EST reply actions
"Impacted"?
Really? Rob, you’re a great writer. What do you have against the word “affected”?
by ajw on Jan 10, 2012 12:56 PM EST reply actions
fWAR
Umm, I have to wonder if there’s something wrong with FanGraphs’ Wins Above Replacement for starting pitchers.
Bret Saberhagen and Rick Reuschel and David Wells significantly better than Tom Seaver? Frank Tanana? Chuck Finley?
by Rob Neyer on Jan 10, 2012 1:26 PM EST reply actions
Look at the first seven years
Fangraphs doesn’t list WAR for the first 7 years of Seaver’s career, I think that accounts for a large discrepancy.
by Jake Albrecht on Jan 10, 2012 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
Oh.
That’s odd. But does explain a great deal. Thanks.
by Rob Neyer on Jan 10, 2012 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
Dave Stieb comp
If Stieb had 929 more IP and 551 more ER (5.34 ERA), would he be a Hall of Famer? Does 4 years of poor pitching take someone from no consideration to being in? I’m all for a big HOF, but Morris goes too far.
by jjsmta on Jan 10, 2012 1:56 PM EST reply actions
Famous for sure
Morris was a winner (see Wins, particularly post season wins) and he’s famous. Isn’t in the Hall of Fame?
Sorry, best argument I can make for him.
Seriously, does the 3.90 ERA not turn off people who are into traditional stats?
by AdamSt on Jan 10, 2012 6:14 PM EST reply actions
Yep, the 3.90 era
is very bothersome to me.
by aronofsky40 on Jan 11, 2012 2:00 AM EST up reply actions
Jack Morris won the most games in the 80s
Not at all coincidentally, he also started the most games. That seems to be left out whenever someone makes his case.
Also not coincidentally, the whole most dominant player from 1977 to 1986 thing for Jim Rice is only true because he had, far and away, the most plate appearances, so he piled up the counting stats.
Ow! My oblique!
by Cantankerous on Jan 10, 2012 7:34 PM EST reply actions
I am a Big Hall guy....
And even I can’t find a reason that Morris should be elected. He just wasn’t that great.
by Brett Davis on Jan 10, 2012 8:37 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed