HOF Results

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Was just going to say if you like Jack Morris in the hall, you can't bitch about Kaat.

Just to play devil's advocate, if you wanted a WS win, are you going with Kaat or Morris? Morris appears to be a miserable human being, but he knew how to win. And I think a lot of the ugliness to his stats is because he'd let up if given a big lead. He didn't mind winning 6-4 instead of gassing himself to win 6-0.

Kaat and John had many more wins and played longer, but Morris was better.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Just to play devil's advocate, if you wanted a WS win, are you going with Kaat or Morris? Morris appears to be a miserable human being, but he knew how to win. And I think a lot of the ugliness to his stats is because he'd let up if given a big lead. He didn't mind winning 6-4 instead of gassing himself to win 6-0.

Kaat and John had many more wins and played longer, but Morris was better.

Looking at careers, personally I’m picking Kaat. Over very large sample sizes, Kaat was better at not giving up runs, adjusted for context (Morris’ 105 ERA+ is even worse). If we look at post season only, in small sample sizes they have very similar ERA’s. Morris got absolutely shelled in 3 post season series, that’s always forgotten and only his good appearances remembered.. That Morris was particularly clutch I have a hard time finding support for in the data. I’d probably take John over both of them.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by G1911

Looking at careers, personally I’m picking Kaat. Over very large sample sizes, Kaat was better at not giving up runs, adjusted for context (Morris’ 105 ERA+ is even worse). If we look at post season only, in small sample sizes they have very similar ERA’s. Morris got absolutely shelled in 3 post season series, that’s always forgotten and only his good appearances remembered.. That Morris was particularly clutch I have a hard time finding support for in the data. I’d probably take John over both of them.

Morris did not exactly get shelled in three post season series, at least not as you would suggest. in '87 he lost and gave up 6, but did pitch a complete game. So too in the 1992 ALCS, where he gave up 4 but went the distance. Your manager does not leave you out there for the duration if you're no good.
His first start in the 1992 WS was a 3-1 loss to Tom Glavine.

As for the second appearance in each of those 1992 series, yes he did get rocked. At age 37 and pitching on three days rest, he had one bad inning against the A's, and had the same outcome against Atlanta, thanks to a two-out grand slam by Lonnie Smith. These are probably forgotten because, well, his team won the game and series against Oakland and had a 3-1 series lead when he faltered against the Braves.

So yeah, I guess a couple of blemishes in his final season at age 37 are overlooked, but it's not like the 1991 gem against Atlanta was a one-off. Morris was clutch when it mattered most.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Morris did not exactly get shelled in three post season series, at least not as you would suggest. in '87 he lost and gave up 6, but did pitch a complete game. So too in the 1992 ALCS, where he gave up 4 but went the distance. Your manager does not leave you out there for the duration if you're no good.
His first start in the 1992 WS was a 3-1 loss to Tom Glavine.

As for the second appearance in each of those 1992 series, yes he did get rocked. At age 37 and pitching on three days rest, he had one bad inning against the A's, and had the same outcome against Atlanta, thanks to a two-out grand slam by Lonnie Smith. These are probably forgotten because, well, his team won the game and series against Oakland and had a 3-1 series lead when he faltered against the Braves.

So yeah, I guess a couple of blemishes in his final season at age 37 are overlooked, but it's not like the 1991 gem against Atlanta was a one-off. Morris was clutch when it mattered most.

In 1987, he gives up 6 earned runs in 8 innings for a 6.75 ERA. A 6.75 ERA is not being shelled? Pitching a complete game doesn’t mean he wasn’t shelled.

In 1992 he gives up 9 earned runs in 12.1 innings for a 6.57 ERA. A 6.57 ERA is not being shelled?

In 1993 he gives up 10 earned runs in 10.2 innings for a 8.44 ERA. A 8.44 ERA is not being shelled?

Total postseason results: 3.80 ERA. Respectable, not great. If you want to remember only his heroics and ignore his failures, then any player one likes is a hall of famer. It is not reasonable to expect others to do this. The Hall of Fame is a career honor, a players entire career counts, not the parts we like. He had 3 terrible postseasons, and 2 excellent ones (1984 and 1991).

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by G1911

In 1987, he gives up 6 earned runs in 8 innings for a 6.75 ERA. A 6.75 ERA is not being shelled? Pitching a complete game doesn’t mean he wasn’t shelled.

In 1992 he gives up 9 earned runs in 12.1 innings for a 6.57 ERA. A 6.57 ERA is not being shelled?

In 1993 he gives up 10 earned runs in 10.2 innings for a 8.44 ERA. A 8.44 ERA is not being shelled?

Total postseason results: 3.80 ERA. Respectable, not great. If you want to remember only his heroics and ignore his failures, then any player one likes is a hall of famer. It is not reasonable to expect others to do this. The Hall of Fame is a career honor, a players entire career counts, not the parts we like. He had 3 terrible postseasons, and 2 excellent ones (1984 and 1991).

Um, he did not pitch in the 1993 postseason. And as I said, he had two bad outings at age 37 in 1992. You cherry pick. Look up the 2000 NLDS, where the Braves got swept by the Cardinals. Greg Maddux ERA? 11.25. Tom Glavine's? 27.00. Should we remember those too?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Um, he did not pitch in the 1993 postseason. And as I said, he had two bad outings at age 37 in 1992. You cherry pick. Look up the 2000 NLDS, where the Braves got swept by the Cardinals. Greg Maddux ERA? 11.25. Tom Glavine's? 27.00. Should we remember those too?

Looks like the stats listed for 1993 were really his 1992 WS stats. Since one of the arguments for Morris getting into the HoF was his postseason dominance, I think it's fair to look at the series he wasn't so good. He only pitched in 7 postseason series - 3 were very good, 3 were very bad and 1 was mediocre - so it doesn't really show an overall dominance like people try to present when arguing he belongs in the HoF. Maddux and Glavine pitched in a lot more postseason series so a few bad series out of 23 (for Maddux) or 24 (for Glavine) is more like cherry picking than it is when you are talking about almost half of Morris' postseason appearances being bad.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Looks like the stats listed for 1993 were really his 1992 WS stats. Since one of the arguments for Morris getting into the HoF was his postseason dominance, I think it's fair to look at the series he wasn't so good. He only pitched in 7 postseason series - 3 were very good, 3 were very bad and 1 was mediocre - so it doesn't really show an overall dominance like people try to present when arguing he belongs in the HoF. Maddux and Glavine pitched in a lot more postseason series so a few bad series out of 23 (for Maddux) or 24 (for Glavine) is more like cherry picking than it is when you are talking about almost half of Morris' postseason appearances being bad.

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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Just to play devil's advocate, if you wanted a WS win, are you going with Kaat or Morris? Morris appears to be a miserable human being, but he knew how to win. And I think a lot of the ugliness to his stats is because he'd let up if given a big lead. He didn't mind winning 6-4 instead of gassing himself to win 6-0.

Kaat and John had many more wins and played longer, but Morris was better.

There is no sensible objective standard by which Morris is better. Subjectively people can do whatever they want.

[G1911]

Yep, I’m a moron. He got shelled twice in 1992, I misread the year column. I don’t think it materially changes things, but I was wrong.

2 good post seasons, 2 bad ones