Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings
Fair points, but note that unlike Maddux (11-14) and Glavine (14-16), Morris had a winning record postseason (7-4). He averaged more than 7 innings per start, which is more than Maddux and Glavine. He had 5 complete games-- the same as Maddux and Glavine combined in their 47 postseason series. He won complete games of 3-2 and 4-2 in the 1984 World Series, with the AL MVP sitting in his bullpen. And of course the 10 inning 1-0 complete game in 1991. So I don't think it's imagined or overstated to say he took the ball in big games and was more than a bit successful.
|
Yes, Morris had great success in a few World Series games and more complete games than Maddux and Glavine in far fewer starts, but the game was changing by the time Maddux and Glavine pitched the bulk of their postseason games and complete games were becoming rarer so it's a tough comparison to make. Maddux and Glavine pitched far more postseason innings and had much lower ERAs in a generally higher scoring period of baseball so even with worse won-loss records, you could still argue they were better postseason pitchers. The question with Morris has always been given his overall career, is a few great postseason games enough to make him a HoFer? I think that's the question people have debated endlessly. Maddux (definitely) and Glavine (probably) would have been HoFers if they never pitched at all in the postseason. I doubt that would have been true for Morris.