Comments on: POLL: Mike Mussina and the Hall of Fame http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: POLL: Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-28714 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:32:10 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-28714 [...] readers have already had a ton to say about Morris. You can go back and read comments on the Mike Mussina HOF thread or the Mussina/Schilling debate. For some reason both of those threads led to lots of discussion [...]

]]>
By: Matthew Cornwell http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-28302 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:03:47 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-28302 Yeah, Morris did his 21 fewer WAR in one fewer years.

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-28100 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:56:11 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-28100 Morris did his in a year less time than Tiant, He also lost out on 6-7 wins and a 20 win season b/c of the 81 strike.

]]>
By: Matthew Cornwell http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-28049 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:32 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-28049 And Tiant did that in far less time than Kaat and John. Much, much better WAE and WAA too. Tiant is an easy HOFer for me. John is right on the bubble, and Kaat is a tad behind.

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-28031 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:32:44 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-28031 Ah, lets Kaat, Tiant and John into the mix as well.

Kaat: WAR 42

Black Ink Pitching - 16 (135), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 125 (140), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 130 (57), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 44 (53), Average HOFer ≈ 50

John:WAR 59

Black Ink Pitching - 8 (300), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 131 (127), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 111 (80), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 44 (53), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Tiant:WAR 60

Black Ink Pitching - 13 (167), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 115 (167), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 97 (99), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 41 (66), Average HOFer ≈ 50

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-28030 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:27:24 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-28030 I know some don't want to use these numbers, but I think they're quite telling of the big differences between Gibson and Morris IMO. Jack was consistently on the leader board throughout 1980-1995 evidenced by his Gray Ink Value. Shoot, by today's standards his Black Ink is pretty good too. He's clearly borderline, but I think statheads short-change him sooo much he's not even borderline. They think he's basically the same as Martinez or Tanana and they are just not even remotely the same. In fact, evidenced that WAR is not the a holy grail as some think, is Tanana's WAR is 55 and Martinez's WAR is 47, but Jack's was 37. See numbers below for the differences in these players. ERA+ was basically the same for all 3.

Morris:

Black Ink Pitching - 20 (92), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 193 (48), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 122 (64), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 39 (74), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Gibson:

Black Ink: 0
Gray Ink Batting - 44 (569), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 16 (907), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 22 (624), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Tanana:

Black Ink Pitching - 9 (266), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 85 (275), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 55 (228), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 35 (96), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Martinez:

Black Ink Pitching - 17 (122), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 135 (119), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 67 (171), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 37 (86), Average HOFer ≈ 50

]]>
By: DavidJ http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-28023 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:54:37 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-28023 Why are Gibson and Morris "clearly not equal," though? Both had about the same career value, and both had an extraordinary "signature moment." (I know that the answer is that Gibson just wasn't durable enough and played very few full seasons, whereas Morris was a workhorse, as durable as they come. Still, the fact that Gibson had nearly as much career value despite that is hard to ignore.) And how about Bobby Thomson? He was a good-but-not-great player for fifteen seasons (also in that 30-40 WAR range), and had probably the greatest "signature moment" in the history of the game. Should he have been considered for the Hall more seriously than he was? He never got as much as 5% of the vote during fifteen years on the ballot.

I suppose it's admirable to want to look at more than just the stats--everyone who loves baseball, even the "statheads," know that the game is more than just numbers--but the problem you run into is that the process starts to become rather arbitrary. How do you decide whose "signature moments" count, and whose don't?

(And I know that Morris had other great postseason games. My point is just that he had many bad games as well, and that his reputation seems to rest disproportionately on Game 7. I guess my real point is that I don't think Morris's career as a whole is borderline HOF to begin with, which is probably where we differ most. I suppose if I thought he was truly a borderline case, I could better understand the argument that the "signature moment" puts him over the top.)

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-28006 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:55:02 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-28006 Morris pitched more than one good big game in the playoffs. I'm just saying somewhere in the middle is good --Stat-people want to say the numbers tell the whole story and they don't like that the voters use signature moments in the equation. Perfect example was equating Gibson to Morris. They clearly aren't equal to me. Voters say there's more than just crunching numbers --I'm saying you have to look at both, step back and evaluate both several times, and make a decision. I think that's largely going on now.

]]>
By: DavidJ http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-27995 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:20:36 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-27995 I guess I just don't put as much stock into "signature moments" as others do when it comes to HOF consideration. Brown to me is a HOFer, even though he wasn't great in the postseason. Morris to me is nowhere near being a HOFer. Game 7 of '91 was obviously an extraordinary moment, and nothing can ever take that away from him, but it doesn't make him a HOFer, any more more than Game 1 of '88 makes Kirk Gibson a HOFer. (Gibson, incidentally, accumulated nearly as much career WAR as Morris--37.1 to 39.3.) And in any case, as you allude to, Morris's overall postseason record is much spottier than his reputation seems to suggest. He was great in '84 and '91, but he was bad in '87 and '92. In one big game in particular he "showed up in a huge way," but in many others he didn't. Like his reputation for "pitching to the score," his reputation for being a big-game pitcher just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6976/comment-page-2#comment-27982 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:43:45 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=6976#comment-27982 Morris' numbers are another good example of a post-season mixed bag--nothing spectacular. They are something like 7-4 with a 3.80, but when the biggest stakes were on the line he mostly showed up in a huge way --at least for two of those championships. He literally brought them across the finish line as an ace should do. When looking at the numbers in such fine detail (and I do this as well), one can "lose the forest through the trees".

]]>