Article: A Hall Without Jack Morris Is No Hall at All

[Brock Beauchamp]

Have you seen Ozzie Smith play? Very similar defensively but with better bat and most of his years hitting against the raised mound. His nickname? "Human Vacuum Cleaner". Hope that helps.

 

Well, I know that much about him. Just curious about who these similar players were to Brooks.

[Craig Arko]

Well, I know that much about him. Just curious about who these similar players were to Brooks.

 

Maybe Gary Gaetti during the year or three stretch he was at the top of his game. Robinson did it for much of 20+ seasons.

[old nurse]

It does?

 

Career ERA: 3.90 Career FIP 3.94

 

Could you explain how FIP shows him in a better light? He ranks 659th amongst starting pitchers with more than 1000 IP.

 

In relation to other pitchers career wise Morris looks better by the methods assessing pitchers based on FIP than on runs allowed. Please notice I did not say based on the statistic fip. If you haven't through the tread noticed preferred statistics and look at what they are based on, so be it. Sorry for the confusion.

1000 inning pitched will not as a starting pitcher get you elected into the hall of fame so why are you ranking pitchers based on that? Different eras, different runs scored, different approaches to hitting. The statistics are the same but the game changes.

[Alex]

In relation to other pitchers career wise Morris looks better by the methods assessing pitchers based on FIP than on runs allowed. Please notice I did not say based on the statistic fip. If you haven't through the tread noticed preferred statistics and look at what they are based on, so be it. Sorry for the confusion.

1000 inning pitched will not as a starting pitcher get you elected into the hall of fame so why are you ranking pitchers based on that? Different eras, different runs scored, different approaches to hitting. The statistics are the same but the game changes.

 

Using the acronym "FIP" and then saying you're not referring to the statistic is confusing to me. If you have some measurement you are using that shows he was a HOF and not just a very good pitcher, why don't you actually use it rather than vaguely refer to it?

 

I have read the statistics in the thread and others and there are all sorts.

 

How many innings do you want? What stats do you want? I redid the sort for 3K innings which left me with 132 pitchers. Morris is 116th in FIP, 117th in BB/9, 119th in HR/9, though he does come in 29th in K/9.

 

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what statistic you use, Morris is can not be considered a hall of fame pitcher, unless you're willing to open up the Hall to a lot of other pitchers.

[biggentleben]

This.

 

Jack Morris is already memorialized in the Hall of Fame for having one of the greatest World Series pitching performances in one of the greatest World Series games in one of the greatest World Series in baseball history. He was not one of the greatest pitchers of all time. So he is already in the Hall for exactly the reason that he should be.

 

Exactly. Morris is in the HOF for the one reason he actually should be in - 1991. His 1984 performance was good too, but his 1987 and 1992 postseason performances were equally horrid as his 1991 and 1984 performances were good. In fact, his postseason ERA is 3.80, basically equal to his 3.90 career ERA. So Morris was the same pitcher that he was during the regular season in the postseason. He just happened to be up in the rotation for a very memorable game 7 in 1991 and pitched well in half the postseasons that he appeared.

[cmathewson]

I'm curious about this. Could you elaborate? I never saw Robinson play but only heard people rave about him, which makes sense given his absurd 78 career WAR.

 

Since he is widely considered the best player ever at his position, finding comparable third basemen in his era should be doubly challenging. I would say Mike Schmidt is comparable offensively, but an era later. And he was no Brooks Robinson with the glove.

 

In his era, players had good years over there. Pete Rose played there some, for example. But no one played there consistently with the kind of excellence that Robinson did. I would say the 78 WAR is actually low, because it does not take into account plays he made that have never been made in the history of the game.

[Jim H]

I'm curious about this. Could you elaborate? I never saw Robinson play but only heard people rave about him, which makes sense given his absurd 78 career WAR.

 

I am not sure what you are looking for here, and I was not trying to imply Brooks Robinson does not belong in the Hall, he certainly does. I am not going to look this up, but 3 3B of his era who had good stats and good defensive reps were Ken Boyer, Clete Boyer, and Frank Malzone. This era's offensive stats were rather depressed which is when you look at the raw stats that Brooks had, you might not be that impressed.

 

What "made" Brooks was the 1966 World Series. As great the Baltimore pitching staff was, it was largely a pitch to contact staff. They allowed a lot of hard contact in that Series but most it seemed to be in Brooks' direction and he made a number of incredible defensive plays. I believe he had some clutch hits as well. I do remember watching at least part of the series on TV. I think it was the a little later when the games were played at night. So would I have had to watch the games in study hall or on the weekends.

[cmathewson]

Exactly. Morris is in the HOF for the one reason he actually should be in - 1991. His 1984 performance was good too, but his 1987 and 1992 postseason performances were equally horrid as his 1991 and 1984 performances were good. In fact, his postseason ERA is 3.80, basically equal to his 3.90 career ERA. So Morris was the same pitcher that he was during the regular season in the postseason. He just happened to be up in the rotation for a very memorable game 7 in 1991 and pitched well in half the postseasons that he appeared.

 

Yes, and as I have said, his '91 postseason ERA could have been much higher if Lonnie Smith had not been deeked by Chuck Knoblauch and Greg Gagne. He is in the HOF now in part because of luck, which is one of the things the HOF celebrates. The story of that game is complex and wonderful. The HOF is a hall of great stories.

[biggentleben]

I think the 80's was a great era of baseball. For one thing, it was pre-steroids. Atleast the game was pure. I gotta get back to work. Signing off. Peace.

 

No, no it wasn't. There were reports of anabolics in the dugout in the minors during the 1981 strike. There are many beat writers of the time who are starting to admit seeing anabolics in the early 80s. The mid-90s brought around PEDs that were safer and didn't take away from basic baseball skills like the old anabolics did, but don't kid yourself that steroids weren't not only in baseball in the 1980s but also being used throughout the league at some level.

[Jim H]

Since he is widely considered the best player ever at his position, finding comparable third basemen in his era should be doubly challenging. I would say Mike Schmidt is comparable offensively, but an era later. And he was no Brooks Robinson with the glove.

 

In his era, players had good years over there. Pete Rose played there some, for example. But no one played there consistently with the kind of excellence that Robinson did. I would say the 78 WAR is actually low, because it does not take into account plays he made that have never been made in the history of the game.

 

Ken Boyer, in particular is quite comparable. He won 5 gold gloves and had a decent bat. Ron Santo's career overlaps with Brooks' as well. He of course is in the Hall. It could also be noted that Harmon Killebrew played about 1/3 of his career at 3rd and was a much greater offensive player than Brooks if only adequate at 3rd.

[biggentleben]

Ken Boyer, in particular is quite comparable. He won 5 gold gloves and had a decent bat. Ron Santo's career overlaps with Brooks' as well. He of course is in the Hall.

 

Pedro Florimon is an exceptional fielder, but comparing he and Andrelton Simmons in the field is like comparing Adrian Gonzalez to Miguel Cabrera at the plate. Gonzalez is an exceptional hitter, but he's nowhere near Cabrera's level. Robinson compared to many in his era is similar, and that's outside of the postseason.

[cmathewson]

Ken Boyer, in particular is quite comparable. He won 5 gold gloves and had a decent bat. Ron Santo's career overlaps with Brooks' as well. He of course is in the Hall. It could also be noted that Harmon Killebrew played about 1/3 of his career at 3rd and was a much greater offensive player than Brooks if only adequate at 3rd.

 

Good players. Killer played third because the Twins of that era had guys like Vic Power and no DH. Killer is my favorite Twin ever. But to call his defense at third "adequate" is a stretch.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Exactly. Morris is in the HOF for the one reason he actually should be in - 1991. His 1984 performance was good too, but his 1987 and 1992 postseason performances were equally horrid as his 1991 and 1984 performances were good. In fact, his postseason ERA is 3.80, basically equal to his 3.90 career ERA. So Morris was the same pitcher that he was during the regular season in the postseason. He just happened to be up in the rotation for a very memorable game 7 in 1991 and pitched well in half the postseasons that he appeared.

 

I can live with the idea of Morris not being in the Hall, but whatever his stats I really want to stress one more time the point of view that, as most people define "ace" that yes, Morris was the ace of those Detroit teams (all those opening day starts?), and here specifically that Morris's turn in the rotation "happened" to come up for Game 7 in 1991. Two things:

 

1. If I remember the feeling from moment, beside the natural anxiety of a game seven, there was no other pitcher you'd want to have pitching in a game seven than Morris. That feeling was vindicated for us in spades. (With a little help from the deke) This performance is why Morris, like Mazeroski, may actually be remembered longer than many Hall of Famers themselves.

 

2. In his seven post-season series appearances, Morris pitched Game 1 in six of them.

 

By the way Ben thanks for the reminder that there has been doping going on long before the mid 90s. It also strikes me, looking back, at how unimposing Morris physically was on the mound compared to guys these days.

[stringer bell]

While Brooks and Ozzie are both the standards by which their respective defensive positions are measured, to me they are totally different players. Brooks was the epitome of the surehanded defender, he wasn't a fast runner, but he displayed unmatched instincts and a great first step. Ozzie had incredible range and made a scrapbook full of "impossible" plays. Neither player made the Hall for their offense, but they were more than respectable. Brooks had decent power and Ozzie hit more homers than Denny Hocking. BTW, Mike Schmidt was the best defender of his era at third, not on a par with Robinson, but extremely good.

[Jim H]

Good players. Killer played third because the Twins of that era had guys like Vic Power and no DH. Killer is my favorite Twin ever. But to call his defense at third "adequate" is a stretch.

 

If you get a chance, compare Ken Boyer's stats to Brooks Robinson's. They started about the same year, 1955 although Brooks was only 18 when he first appeared in the majors. Boyer was 24. The biggest difference is that Boyer was basically done when he was 33. Brooks played into his 40's and had some ok years after 34. If you compare their stats through their peak years, you might be surprised how good Boyer was. If you are into WAR(I am not) you will see that their total WAR through about their age 34 seasons, are very close.

 

As far as defense goes, Boyer was considered very, very good. I expect some St Louis fans would tell you he was as good as Brooks. None of this means that Boyer belongs in the Hall. All I am saying is if St Louis would have been a bit better during his peak years it might have helped his chances to make the Hall.

 

I like Killer a lot too. He was a real team player and actually played a lot of LF as well. It depended who was on the team. When Rich Rollins had his good years, Killebrew was in the OF a lot. When Don Mincher was with the Twins, Killebrew kind of switched positions a bit. What I remember about Killer's defense, particularly at 3rd, was that he had no range but caught what he got to, and had a strong arm. I was also a kid, so others would know better than me.

[Whammy]

Jack Morris is the Troy Aikman of baseball.

 

Aikman's stats are, for all practical purposes, pretty bad. But, Troy got in on the first ballot. I'm not saying that Morris should have been first ballot, but if Morris would have pitched in NY, Boston, St Louis, for the Cubs, or in LA, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have lasted more than a couple ballots before getting in.

[cmathewson]

If you get a chance, compare Ken Boyer's stats to Brooks Robinson's. They started about the same year, 1955 although Brooks was only 18 when he first appeared in the majors. Boyer was 24. The biggest difference is that Boyer was basically done when he was 33. Brooks played into his 40's and had some ok years after 34. If you compare their stats through their peak years, you might be surprised how good Boyer was. If you are into WAR(I am not) you will see that their total WAR through about their age 34 seasons, are very close.

 

As far as defense goes, Boyer was considered very, very good. I expect some St Louis fans would tell you he was as good as Brooks. None of this means that Boyer belongs in the Hall. All I am saying is if St Louis would have been a bit better during his peak years it might have helped his chances to make the Hall.

 

I like Killer a lot too. He was a real team player and actually played a lot of LF as well. It depended who was on the team. When Rich Rollins had his good years, Killebrew was in the OF a lot. When Don Mincher was with the Twins, Killebrew kind of switched positions a bit. What I remember about Killer's defense, particularly at 3rd, was that he had no range but caught what he got to, and had a strong arm. I was also a kid, so others would know better than me.

 

HOF for position players is historically about two things: having a long career of greatness and being considered the best player at your position during much of that stretch. Boyer had a great prime, but his career was relatively short for his era. So he was almost by definition not a HOFer. I thought the Rat was the best player at his position in his prime. He didn't get past the first vote.

 

Robinson is perhaps a bad example for your point. He's almost the quintessential HOFer by those two criteria. Morris was never the top of his profession during his era, nor did he have the longest career in his era. Now, perhaps pitchers should be given a little leeway. Nolan Ryan and Greg Maddux are two of the best pitchers of all time. Both pitched during Morris' era. You shouldn't be the best of all time to make the Hall. But I can think of about five guys in any year in which Morris pitched who were better. And so it went for his whole career. As some have pointed out, he wasn't even the best pitcher on his team some of the time. Even in '91, he was the best pitcher on the staff for one month during the year and the postseason. Besides Morris, three other guys were AL pitchers of the month that year. You all know Erickson and Tapani. Trivia: who was the other one?

 

And so Morris belongs in the second tier, with guys like Suttcliff and Langston.

[Thrylos]

Besides Morris, three other guys were AL pitchers of the month that year. You all know Erickson and Tapani. Trivia: who was the other one?

 

Nope. 2 more: One should be in the HOF (he was twice POM in 1991 btw) but he is not and the other is Freddie's little brother.

[Jim H]

Oh I don't really think Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame nor do I really think Boyer is any sure thing either. But since I doubt you actually looked at their career stats I will publish them here.

 

Robinson played 22 years, had about 800 more games and over 3000 more AB's. Boyer's career was 15 years, he was an all star 11 times and MVP once.

 

Robinson Boyer

R1232 1104

H2848 2143

HR268 282

RBI1357 1141

obp322 349

slg401 462

ops723 811

BA267 287

[biggentleben]

I can live with the idea of Morris not being in the Hall, but whatever his stats I really want to stress one more time the point of view that, as most people define "ace" that yes, Morris was the ace of those Detroit teams (all those opening day starts?), and here specifically that Morris's turn in the rotation "happened" to come up for Game 7 in 1991. Two things:

 

1. If I remember the feeling from moment, beside the natural anxiety of a game seven, there was no other pitcher you'd want to have pitching in a game seven than Morris. That feeling was vindicated for us in spades. (With a little help from the deke) This performance is why Morris, like Mazeroski, may actually be remembered longer than many Hall of Famers themselves.

 

2. In his seven post-season series appearances, Morris pitched Game 1 in six of them.

 

By the way Ben thanks for the reminder that there has been doping going on long before the mid 90s. It also strikes me, looking back, at how unimposing Morris physically was on the mound compared to guys these days.

 

I didn't mean he wasn't the ace of those staffs in that comment at all, so I apologize if that's how it came off. With the way today's playoffs go, there's a good chance your "ace" doesn't get to pitch game one. There used to be more time off between series and before the playoffs, but that was also back when there were only two teams from each league who made the playoffs at all.

[biggentleben]

Nope. 2 more: One should be in the HOF (he was twice POM in 1991 btw) but he is not and the other is Freddie's little brother.

 

And he won it the next year with the Twins.

[goulik]

The Hall of Fame is not and never will be about numbers or saber metrics though those things can be used to analyze things. It's about being the best of the All Stars. I loved going to Twins games to see Brad Radke pitch. All Star, not HOF. Tony O. Was a great player but not HOF.

I enjoyed watching Black Jack pitch for us after all those years against us. He was a great pitcher no matter what the stats say or he would not have been a number one starter on so many great teams. He gave us a home town discount, gave us a great year, is in the HOF for the best pitched game I have ever seen (both pitchers, not just him) and left since he'd lived the dream of winning for the hometown team.

HOF? No. Great? Yes. Why? Because less than 75% of the people (even on here) think he was THAT great. Some of those that actually watched him the most, the BBWA, think HOF or he would not have received votes but not a consensus and we need a true 75% or more agree consensus. That is also why I think the BBWA have also gotten it right.

When you walk into the HOF, you know you are looking at the greatest of the Great there. It needs to always be that way and there needs to be a cut off line in the sand. Some greats just are not great enough.

[OldManWinter]

A WS winner requires great plays from an entire team, all throughout the season.

 

That Chuck Knoblach and Greg Gagne suckered Lonnie Smith bailed out the team does not in the least diminish Jack Morris' game 7 performance. It just means the entire team was hitting on all cylinders.

 

My observation is people often make their mind up about something, then they look to find evidence to support their position.

[Thrylos]

If Morris would have pitched in NY, Boston, St Louis, for the Cubs, or in LA, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have lasted more than a couple ballots before getting in.

 

Do you see Tommy John or Don Mattingly in? Both NY Yankees and both better players than Morris.

[Thrylos]

And he won it the next year with the Twins.

 

Indeed. I forgot about him playing for the Twins

[biggentleben]

The Hall of Fame is not and never will be about numbers or saber metrics though those things can be used to analyze things. It's about being the best of the All Stars. I loved going to Twins games to see Brad Radke pitch. All Star, not HOF. Tony O. Was a great player but not HOF.

I enjoyed watching Black Jack pitch for us after all those years against us. He was a great pitcher no matter what the stats say or he would not have been a number one starter on so many great teams. He gave us a home town discount, gave us a great year, is in the HOF for the best pitched game I have ever seen (both pitchers, not just him) and left since he'd lived the dream of winning for the hometown team.

HOF? No. Great? Yes. Why? Because less than 75% of the people (even on here) think he was THAT great. Some of those that actually watched him the most, the BBWA, think HOF or he would not have received votes but not a consensus and we need a true 75% or more agree consensus. That is also why I think the BBWA have also gotten it right.

When you walk into the HOF, you know you are looking at the greatest of the Great there. It needs to always be that way and there needs to be a cut off line in the sand. Some greats just are not great enough.

 

Some good points in there, but he took no home town discount whatsoever. He was the highest paid pitcher in the game in 1991 and the 5th highest paid player in the entire league. That mystique has been erroneously hung on Morris in Minnesota for quite a while now, and it's just not true.

[cmathewson]

Do you see Tommy John or Don Mattingly in? Both NY Yankees and both better players than Morris.

 

Here's a funny one: ERA+ and CYA voting for each pitcher in 91

 

Tapani 143 (7)

Morris 123 (4)

Erickson 135 (2)

[cmathewson]

Indeed. I forgot about him playing for the Twins

 

My bad, I thought Krueger was the April winner and fourth starter in '91, that was '92. Anderson was the fourth starter in '91.

[OldManWinter]

Most of this is subjective. Like Hrbek did not ever receive a Gold Glove, (Mattingly received those votes I assume because of his hitting ... but why? it is the best fielders recognition).

[TheLeviathan]

My observation is people often make their mind up about something, then they look to find evidence to support their position.

 

I'd argue we've seen far more of that from the pro-Morris side.