Was Jack Morris, in fact, a Big Game Pitcher?
I will answer that question, at length—not today and not tomorrow, not this week, actually, but eventually. I have done research that provides a clear and convincing answer to that question, but first there are quite a number of things that I have to explain, starting with this.
It is important for us not to be arrogant. Our field, I mean. . .sabermetrics, analytics, whatever you want to call it. It is important for us not to be trapped by the progression of the argument into thinking that we understand the issues better than we do.
And second, Jack Morris’ credentials for the Hall of Fame are actually not half bad.
Jack Morris has become a Whipping Boy in the Hall of Fame debate, and this happened because of Bert Blyleven. I assume most of you know this, but. …recapping quickly. People in our field tend not to put much weight on pitchers’ won-lost records, and at least one of our crowd is campaigning to get rid of them entirely. Bert Blyleven has a strong Hall of Fame case in terms of Games Started, Innings, ERA, Strikeouts, Walks, Shutouts and analytical stats (and practical jokes; let’s not forget the practical jokes.) Despite these assets, Blyleven was not elected to the Hall of Fame until 2011. He was not elected to the Hall of Fame until late in his eligibility largely because his won-lost record was not as good as his other stats. We don’t much believe in won-lost records, so while he was Not Being Elected Blyleven became the poster child of the analytics community.
As Blyleven became the favorite of our side of the debate, Jack Morris became the standard bearer for the Traditionalists. Morris has the opposite qualifications: fewer starts and innings pitched, a higher Earned Run Average, many fewer strikeouts, more walks, and less than half as many shutouts. Morris pitched a thousand fewer innings than Blyleven, but still issued more walks. He does, however, own a better won-lost log than The Nasty Dutchman—33 fewer wins, but 64 fewer losses. Since Traditionalists believe in the Won-Lost records of pitchers, they believe in Jack Morris.
Or is it not quite that simple? Always dicey when you try to represent a set of views you don’t actually believe in, but I’m sincerely trying. To Traditionalists, the argument can be boiled down to "Who do you want on the mound when you have to win a Big Game: Morris, or Blyleven?" Since Traditionalists advocate for Jack Morris, they thus advocate the position that Morris was a Big Game Pitcher. Morris did make 13 post-season starts and was 7-4 in the Post-Season (although even there his ERA was an unimpressive 3.80.) He pitched in three World Series, and won four games in those World Series, and of course he pitched a tremendous game in the 7th game of the 1991 World Series.
Of course, while Morris was 7-4 in post-season, Bert Blyleven was 5-1 with a much better ERA, 2.35, and while Morris led the Twins to a World Series championship in 1991, Blyleven did the same in 1987, so. ..that’s not actually all that helpful, but back to Jack. According to Mike Ozanian in Forbes, just last week "I saw a ton of his games, as I did two hurlers who did get the nod for the Hall (this year), Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux. Let me tell you something: if I to pick one of these three to win a game that my life depended on I would pick Morris in a heartbeat."
Well. . .I’d take Bret Saberhagen over any of those guys, too, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a Hall of Famer. When he was on his game, Saberhagen was better than any of those guys including Morris, but I am trying to be conciliatory here, rather than argumentative. Ozanian casts the debate not as Analysts against Traditionalists, but as Winners against Fantasy-League Stats.
Morris credentials’ for the Hall of Fame are not half bad. Let me make a Hall of Fame argument on his behalf:
1) While Won-Lost records of pitchers are often misleading for a single-season, they are also often instructive—and accurate. If you list the ten best starting pitchers in a league by Won-Lost records, and also by whatever analytical stat you prefer, they will sometimes be different, but normally six or eight of the ten are going to be the same guys.
2) A won-lost record is much more reliable as an indicator of the pitcher’s ability over the course of a career than it is in a single season. Over the course of a career, all of the things that trouble won-lost records in a season tend to become less of a problem.
3) Winning is the object of the game.
4) Historically, most pitchers who have career won-lost records similar to Jack Morris have been elected to the Hall of Fame. Morris was 254-186. If you take Red Ruffing, Burleigh Grimes, Jim Palmer, Eppa Rixey, Bob Feller, Ted Lyons, Red Faber, Carl Hubbell, Bob Gibson, Vic Willis, Amos Rusie, Herb Pennock, Three Finger Brown, Clark Griffith and Waite Hoyt, their won-lost records average 252-182, and all of them are in the Hall of Fame. If you throw Mordecai out of the group, their average record is actually 254-186, the same as Morris’.
5) Below that group of Morris comps there is another group of Hall of Fame pitchers whose won-lost records are distinctly LESS impressive than Morris’. Catfish Hunter, Jim Bunning, Rube Marquard, Dazzy Vance, Ed Walsh, Rube Waddell, Stan Coveleski, Chief Bender, Jesse Haines, Don Drysdale, Hal Newhouser, Bob Lemon.
6) If elected to the Hall of Fame, Morris would certainly not be the worst pitcher in there, although the same can also be said of many other pitchers such as Jim Kaat, Luis Tiant, Ron Guidry and Mike Mussina.
7) Morris’ seven post-season wins are certainly a meaningful credential. What is the ratio of value, one post-season game to one regular-season game? Five to one? Ten to one? Twenty to one? Put enough value on the Post Season, and Morris goes over the line or, if you prefer to think of it that way, further over the line.
8) Pitching perhaps the greatest World Series 7th-game start of all time is not an insignificant accomplishment.
OK, but we circle back to the argument that Morris was a Big Game pitcher, in general, rather than merely a Big Game pitcher in the 1991 post-season. Traditionalists assert that Jack Morris was a Big Game pitcher, because they have to assert this to defend Morris, and Analysts sneer and scoff at that because there is no general evidence for it, and also because sneering and scoffing are what we are best at.
We reject the argument that Jack Morris was a Big Game pitcher because there is no evidence for it beyond a few World Series starts, but think about it. Is there any evidence that it isn’t true? Have you ever seen any evidence that it isn’t true? What if it is true?
This is what started me off on this two-week research tangent, neglecting my wife, my personal habits and the Boston Red Sox. What if it is true that Jack Morris was, in fact, a Big Game pitcher? How would we know?
I am old enough to remember sabermetrics before some younger guys developed the concept of a leverage index, and one thing I remember is older analysts sneering at the value of relief pitchers, because the number of runs they save is small (relative to the number of runs saved by a starting pitcher.) What if there is a similar effect here: a Big GAME effect rather than a Big INNING effect, but we have not been seeing that because we have not been looking for it?
I decided to look. More on this tommorrow, and the next day, and the next, and on and on. It’s going to run in to next week.