I have never had a particular interest in supporting Jack Morris for the Hall of Fame. There are six likely causes for this:
a. There is a massive plot against Morris, orchestrated by Bill James and carried out by the liked of Neyer, Posnanski, and myself. It’s actually a two-part plan: first we keep Jack Morris out of the Hall-of-Fame. Then we’ll abolish tip jars and hotel taxes.
b. Steroids. I only support players who used steroids.
c. I hate wins. And games. And sunlight. I live in my mother’s basement.
d. Secret Padres fan. Ain’t over the ‘84 World Series.
e. I cannot grow a convincing of facial hair, and I’m jealous of Morris’s ‘stache.
f. There are a few other pitchers who are objectively better than Morris, who aren’t in the Hall-of-Fame.
Okay....so my take is actually (f.), with maybe a little bit of (e.) thrown in.
That said, I am at least sympathetic to the candidacy of Jack Morris, who clearly meets the ‘fame’ qualification that the BBWAA guidelines detail. (Note: there is actually no ‘fame’ qualification in the BBWAA guidelines.)
Whether or not Morris is a worthy entrant into Cooperstown, there’s no doubt that most people who watched baseball during the 1980’s thought he was an ace pitcher. For instance, the 1988 Bill James Baseball Abstract has individual columns about players, in which Bill grades each player and sums them up in a word:
Darrell Evans: Efficient
Carlton Fisk: Forty
Dwight Gooden: Recovering
Jack Morris: Ace
Dale Murphy: Cooperstown
Kirby Puckett: Adorable
Cal Ripken: Regular
Bill ranks Jack Morris as the #2 right-handed pitcher in baseball, behind Clemens. And as numbers 3-8 were Gooden, Mike Scott, Mike Witt, Orel Hershiser, Bret Saberhagen, and Rick Sutcliffe, it’s safe to say that the stock wasn’t particularly deep that year. The lefties ain’t much better: Higuera, Viola, Key, Leibrandt, Langston, Dravecky, Bannister...there wasn’t a bumper crop of ace pitchers in 1988.
I loved 80’s baseball. So, out of affection for Jack Morris and the amazing decade that he played in, I’d like to present a case for Jack Morris’s election to the Hall-of-Fame.
The Sabermetric Case Against Jack Morris
First, let’s get this out of the way:
-Morris had a staggeringly high ERA: 3.90. Among ranking pitchers, this is good enough for the 743rd best career ERA of all-time. Morris is a few ticks behind Mike Flannagan, and a few ticks ahead of Bruce Hurst.
-Morris’s ERA would be the worst among any pitcher in the Hall-of-Fame. His career ERA is higher than the career ERA of Hall-of-Famer Red Ruffing (3.78). It is also higher than the career ERA of Hall-of-Famer Wade Boggs (3.86). It is drastically higher than the career ERA of Hall-of-Famer Jimmie Foxx (1.52, over 23.2 IP).
-Morris’ career WAR is also pretty low: 39.2 according to baseballreference. This ties him with Hall-of-Famer Lefty Gomez. It also ties him with non-Hall-of-Famer Tom Candiotti. WAR rates him as the 145th best pitcher of all-time, which is really, desperately low.
-He had a lot of good teammates. The Tigers were really good for most of the 1980’s. The Twins won a World Series with him. The Blue Jays won two World Series. He played on good teams.
-He never won a Cy Young Award, nor did he get particularly close. If everyone thought he was an ace, no one seemed to think he was the best pitcher in baseball.
-Wins are a stupid stat.
Now that that’s out of the way....
The Sabermetric Case For Jack Morris
The sabermetric argument for Jack Morris demands exactly one assumption: that we don’t have it perfect, either. That those of us who favor advanced metrics don’t have it 100% right. We don’t know everything we could know. We could be wrong.
As happy as I am that a statistic like WAR has gained considerable traction in the wider discourse, I worry that we’re forgetting that WAR, like Win Shares or Fielding-Independant Pitching, is just a step forward in our understanding of baseball. It is not a final answer: it does not prove anything.
I say this as someone who cites WAR constantly: I have no doubt that I’ve been as guilty as anyone else about using catch-all stats like WAR and Win Shares as being the end of the conversation. I’m a sinner, too.
But I am willing to consider the possibility, at least, that the advanced statistics I love might be missing something. Actually, I’ll go further: the advanced metrics are missing something. They have to be. No statistic measure yet invented is a perfect measure of ability. This is true of misleading statistics like wins and RBI’s, and it’s true of advanced metrics like WAR and Win Shares. None have it exactly right.
We have a tendency to look pityingly on older assumptions: how did all those MVP writers vote for Mickey Cochrane over Lou Gehrig in 1934? Why are Rabbit Maranville and George Kell in the Hall? How come no one noticed how good Arky Vaughn was? What’s with the obsession about batting average? How come no one thought about walks?
This is good: we’ve advance our knowledge of the game in positive ways. Kudos to us.
But it’s important to remember that the future generations of baseball fans will view our perceptions of the game as being just as limited and narrow and occasionally stupid as we look on earlier generations. It is possible that two decades from now baseball writers will write about how stupid the 2012 AL MVP vote was, because in all the hullabaloo about Trout and Cabrera, we missed the fact that Justin Verlander was really the best player. It is likely that we’ve gotten some things wrong. Not sort-of wrong, but staggeringly wrong. Dawson MVP wrong.
We’re going to look like holy fools, too. Just warning you.
So...let’s leave the door open a crack. Let’s not assume that WAR, or Win Shares, or FIP, is at all definitive. Let’s hold our truths, our assumptions, as lightly as we can.
And let’s talk about Jack Morris.
Or first: let’s talk about Bert Blyleven. The Beast from Zeist was born in 1951. The standard and advanced number agree that Blyleven is a clear Hall-of-Famer. Blyleven ranks 12th in career WAR for pitchers, 5th in career strikeouts, 14th in innings pitcher, 9th in shutouts, and 27th in wins. There is little doubt that he is one of the twenty-five best pitchers of all-time. He was the best pitcher born in 1951.
Roger Clemens was born in 1962. His career, too, is clearly past the standard for the Hall-of-Fame, whether you’re looking at basic or advanced metrics.
There is gap of ten years betweenthe birth of Bert Blyleven and Clemens. I’d argue:
a. It is likely that at least one Hall-of-Fame pitcher was probably born during that decade, and
b. Jack Morris is probably the best, or at least the second-best, candidate.
Going year-by-year.
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1952
|
John Denny
|
28.9
|
123-108
|
3.59
|
1146
|
0
|
We’re not off to a terrific start. John Denny, the 1983 NL Cy Young Award winner, is probably not anyone’s idea of a Hall-of-Famer. He does not compare favourably to, say, Bert Blyleven. He has more wins that Babe Ruth (123 to 94), but Babe Ruth did a few things beyond pitching that snuck him into the hall.
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1953
|
Frank Tanana
|
52.6
|
240-236
|
3.66
|
2773
|
3
|
Frank Tanana, the best pitcher born in 1953, had two careers: he was a hard-throwing ace for the Angels during much of the 1970’s, and, after suffering an arm injury, he became an effective junk-ball specialist for much of the 1980’s. While he compiled some impressive numbers over his long career, the arm injury probably cost him any chance of making the Hall.
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1954
|
John Tudor
|
32.2
|
117-72
|
3.22
|
988
|
0
|
Dennis Eckersley was also born in 1954, but to call Dennis Eckersley a Hall-of-Fame starter is disingenuous. He is in the Hall-of-Fame because of his relief pitching with the Oakland A’s. As a starter, Eck was 149-130, which would not get him in the Hall. And no, John Tudor isn’t getting in either.
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1955
|
Jack Morris
|
39.3
|
254-186
|
3.90
|
2478
|
5
|
1955
|
Dennis Martinez
|
45.1
|
245-193
|
3.70
|
2149
|
4
|
Jack Morris was born in 1955, as was Dennis Martinez. It is possible that Dennis Martinez was a better pitcher than Jack Morris, but only the most die-hard Expos fan would say that Martinez’s 5.8-edge in WAR is any kind of definitive proof. They’re really close. Considering their closeness, I think the general perception of qualified observers should get weight. Most writers and fans thought Jack Morris was an elite pitcher. Dennis Martinez was not viewed as being on quite that level.
(Interesting side-note: Martinez and Jack Morris led their respective leagues in wins in 1981, with 14 each. Also: Dennis Martinez is Jack Morris’s closest comparable according to Similarity Scores).
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1956
|
Bob Welch
|
39.9
|
211-146
|
3.47
|
1969
|
2
|
Bob Welch had a fine career ERA, but he was aided by friendly home parks (LA, Oakland) for the entirety of his career. That he tallied a WAR parallel to Morris’ in 800 fewer innings suggests that, as with Dennis Martinez, there’s an argument that Welch was better than Morris, but I’m not inclined to make it. Aside from his fluke-ish (and undeserved) Cy Young season, Welch has little black ink on his career record: he led the league in shutouts in 1987 and in games started in 1991. A fine workhorse pitcher, but I don’t think the Tigers would’ve traded Morris for Welch in their respective primes.
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1957
|
Dave Stieb
|
53.5
|
176-137
|
3.44
|
1669
|
7
|
This is the first real challenge to Morris: Dave Stieb was a very good, and very underappreciated pitcher. According to WAR, Stieb was the best pitcher in the American League in 1982, 1983, and 1984. He was the second-best in 1981 and 1985. Win Shares reaches a comparable conclusion. Jack Morris doesn’t do nearly as well: WAR ranks Morris as just the 8th best pitcher in 1981, and the 10th best in 1985. He is outside the top-ten for 1982-1985.
It’s probable that Dave Stieb, pitch-for-pitch, was better than Jack Morris. But Stieb’s career numbers do not seem the numbers of a Hall-of-Famer. He won 176 games, which isn’t a terrifically huge number. He led the league in ERA once, in innings pitched twice, and in complete games once. He never led the league in wins, or won 20+, He didn’t finish higher than 4th in a Cy Young vote. And his career is short: he pitched close to 2900 innings.
Stieb is a weird case: his six-year peak between 1980-1985 (37.0 WAR) compares favourably to Greg Maddux from 1990-1995 (38.9 WAR). Maddux went 105-55 and won four straight Cy Young Awards, three ERA titles, and led the NL in wins three times....Maddux has tons of black ink. His advanced metrics are supported convincingly by the non-advanced statistics. Stieb, by comparison, went just 87-72. He had one ERA title, and showed up at the bottom of three Cy Young ballots.
In other words, WAR says that Stieb dominated the league. But the wider statistical record – and the subjective measures of success such as CY voting – do not support this assumption.
I don’t think that the traditional metrics of wins and ERA give an accurate view of how good Dave Stieb was, but I ‘m not really sure that WAR is anymoreaccurate: I believe that Dave Stieb was a very good pitcher, but I’m not convinced that he was quite the dominant pitcher that WAR views him to be.
Trying a different tack: consider Jack Morris’ 1982 season. In 1982, Jack Morris posted a 17-16 record. He threw 266 innings and posted a 4.06 ERA, which is about league-average (100 ERA+). He completed seventeen of his thirty-seven starts.
WAR considers this performance as being exactly one win better than a replacement-level player would’ve provided the Tigers. One.
Do you buy this? Does this, objectively, seem like an accurate measure of his contribution to the Tigers in 1982? Do you think it is reasonable to assume that had the Tigers given Morris’s 266 innings to a replacement-level pitcher, they would’ve won just a game less than they did with Morris on the mound?
Do you buy that Milt Wilcox was more valuable to the 1982 Tigers than Jack Morris? Just looking at them side-to-side:
Year
|
Team
|
Name
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
IP
|
CG
|
K
|
BB
|
WAR
|
1982
|
DET
|
J. Morris
|
17-16
|
4.06
|
266.1
|
17
|
135
|
96
|
1.0
|
1982
|
DET
|
M. Wilcox
|
12-10
|
3.62
|
193.2
|
9
|
112
|
85
|
1.5
|
Wilcox threw seventy-one fewer innings than Morris, and posted similar walk and strikeout rates. Yet he ranks as being more valuable than Morris. Does this seem, again, a reasonable conclusion?
Does WAR get Morris right?
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1958
|
Orel Hershiser
|
48.0
|
204-150
|
3.48
|
2014
|
3
|
Orel has a similar case to Stieb; WAR rates him as the best pitcher in the NL in 1988 and 1989, and the second-best pitcher in 1987. Orel’s supporting claims are slightly stronger than Stieb’s: he won a (deserved) Cy Young in 1988, broke a big record (Drysdale’s consecutive shutout innings), and was widely regarded as an elite pitcher. But the sabermetric case for Orel is weaker than the case for Stieb. WAR aside, I don’t know that I’d take the shorter career of Hershiser over Morris’s longer one.
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1959
|
Mike Morgan
|
25.9
|
141-186
|
4.23
|
1403
|
1
|
Mike Morgan, the best starting pitcher born in 1959, is a worse pitcher than Jack Morris.
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1960
|
Mark Langston
|
46.9
|
179-158
|
3.97
|
2464
|
4
|
Fernando Valenzuela and Frank Viola were also born in 1960....but Langston had the better career than either of them.
Mark Langston has a higher cumulative WAR than Jack Morris: 46.9 to 39.3. This is true despite Morris pitching about 800 innings more than Langston, over his career. Per 162-games, WAR rates Langston as being worth 4.1 wins, and Morris being worth 3.0 wins.
Looking at their stats per-162 games, it is difficult to see where Langston gets the edge:
Morris: 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+, 242 IP, 225 H, 25 HR, 88 BB, 157 K.
Langst: 3.97 ERA, 107 ERA+, 228 IP, 209 H, 24 HR, 99 BB, 189 K.
These stats seem identical. Actually, they are identical. Morris walked slightly fewer hitters (3.3 to 3.9, per 9 IP), and Langston got slightly more strikeouts (7.5 to 5.8).
They seem like the same pitcher to me. Yet WAR rates Langston as being 35% better than Morris, per 162 games. Where is the advantage? How does Mark Langston, a pitcher whose only substantive difference is pitching 800 fewer innings than Jack Morris, and winning seventy-five fewer games than Morris, somehow rate as being drastically better than Morris?
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1961
|
Jimmy Key
|
46.1
|
186-117
|
3.51
|
1538
|
4
|
Jimmy Key threw 2600 innings over his career, in which he accumulated a higher WAR than Jack Morris gathered in a 3800-inning career. Have we failed to appreciate Jimmy Key, too, or is WAR perhaps underselling Jack Morris.
I think it’s a little of both. Jimmy Key was really good....he has an ERA+ of 122, and was a reliably good starter for most of his career. But I remember Key: no one ever thought he was that good. He was never considered an ace, or a likely Hall-of-Famer. He was a good pitcher on good teams. I don’t know that his 2600 innings pitched are more valuable than Morris’ 3800 innings pitched.
* * *
One of the reasons that I think Bonds and Clemens will eventually get elected to the Hall-of-Fame is consistency: the museum in Cooperstown tells the story of baseball. The steroid era, as unsightly as it seems to our eyes, was a segment of the game’s history, and the museum will eventually come around to recognizing the great players of that era, just like they’ve done with the controversial eras before.
A decade stretches between the births of Bert Blyleven and Roger Clemens. Right now, there isn’t a single starting pitcher in Cooperstown who represents that decade. From the many pitchers born in that decade, the best careers are:
Born
|
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
ERA
|
K
|
ASG
|
1955
|
Jack Morris
|
39.3
|
254-186
|
3.90
|
2478
|
5
|
1955
|
Dennis Martinez
|
45.1
|
245-193
|
3.70
|
2149
|
4
|
1957
|
Dave Stieb
|
53.5
|
176-137
|
3.44
|
1669
|
7
|
1958
|
Orel Hershiser
|
48.0
|
204-150
|
3.48
|
2014
|
3
|
1961
|
Jimmy Key
|
46.1
|
186-117
|
3.51
|
1538
|
4
|
If we rely exclusively on WAR, Jack Morris ranks well behind Dave Stieb, and pretty comfortably behind the other four pitchers listed.
But Morris ranks ahead of Stieb in Black Ink (statistical categories where he led the league) and Grey Ink (statistical categories where he was in the top-ten in the league). And Morris is drastically closer to the standards of the Hall of Fame than Dave Stieb.
Name
|
WAR
|
W-L
|
Black Ink
|
Grey Ink
|
HOF Standards
|
Jack Morris
|
39.3
|
254-186
|
20
|
197
|
39
|
Dave Stieb
|
53.5
|
176-137
|
17
|
146
|
27
|
Comparability Scores aren’t definitive proof of a player’s ability, because they don’t make adjustments for league contexts. But, in the case of Stieb vs. Morris, comparability scores are interesting:
Jack Morris
|
Dave Stieb
|
Dennis Martinez
|
Virgil Trucks
|
Bob Gibson *
|
Ken Holtzman
|
Luis Tiant
|
Bob Buhl
|
Jamie Moyer
|
Rick Sutcliffe
|
Red Ruffing *
|
Tommy Bridges
|
Amos Rusie *
|
Kevin Appier
|
Chuck Finley
|
Fernando Valenzuela
|
Burleigh Grimes *
|
Dave Stewart
|
Bob Feller *
|
Frank Viola
|
Jim Bunning *
|
Bob Shawkey
|
Jack Morris’ career statistics are very comparable to six players enshrined in Cooperstown, and one player (Luis Tiant) who has a strong case. Dave Stieb has no Hall-of-Famers on his list, and no one who is likely to ever reach the Hall of Fame.
The lists for each player go back a far way: I doubt many of you remember seeing Amos Rusie or Red Ruffing or Tommy Bridges toe the rubber. Both lists have players from many generations in baseball history, many eras. It is the clear consensus, in all of those eras, that pitchers who had careers like Jack Morris are better than pitchers who had careers like Dave Stieb. Feller is better than Virgil Trucks. Tiant is better than Holtzman. The consensus, across generations, is that player like Jack Morris is better than a player like Dave Stieb.
This might not be correct: I am in no way certain that Morris is better than Stieb. If I had to pick a side, I’d probably lean to Stieb. But....I recognize that this opinion breaks considerably from about seventy years of opinion. I recognize, too, that it is at least possible that our new perspective isn’t right, either. Maybe Fernando was the best pitcher of the era, and no one noticed.
Jack Morris, at the very least, is the starting pitcher most central to baseball during that era. He won seventy-eight more games than Dave Stieb. He threw 900 more innings than Hershiser and Key. Maybe he wasn’t a better pitcher – pitch-for-pitch - than those pitchers, but he outlasted them by a considerable margin.
I would love a Hall of Fame where a pitcher like Dave Stieb is recognized. But I am happy to have a Hall of Fame that does recognize pitchers like Jack Morris, who left an indelible mark on the game. Someone should represent the starting pitchers of that era. There are many choices worse than Jack Morris; I don’t know if there are many better.
Dave Fleming is a writer living in Wellington, New Zealand. He welcomes comments, questions, and suggests here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com.