Jump to content

Tenacious D

Trammell and Morris made the HOF!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Keepleyland2 said:

That's why I would think the Tigers would just book a hotel (if this is their plan I have no idea) in somewhere like Erie. Bus in during the day and bus back that night. 

You mean I would have to take a bus with all you morons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

HaHa.

I think it is without doubt true that a lot of why Jack got in were throwback reasons that have nothing to do with statistical performance  measures at all.

1) he played a long time - baseball has always had a soft spot for guys who keep showing up- even near 40. 

2) 3 WS rings.

3) big years at advanced age without an accusation of PED use.

4) Hero of the anti-analytics crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Are you sure about JAWS? B-R has him 164th whereas Smoltz is listed at 58th:

JAWS  Starting Pitcher (164th):
    44.1 career WAR / 32.8 7yr-peak WAR / 38.4 JAWS
  Average HOF P (out of 62):
    73.9 career WAR / 50.3 7yr-peak WAR / 62.1 JAWS

In fact, Jack isn't even the highest ranking Morris in JAWS. (Ed Morris ranks 162nd.)

I was applying BP's WAR Metric to JAWS where that number came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest thing Morris had going for him was the narrative that he was the best pitcher of the 80's (he wasn't).  The big game pitcher image fed off of that narrative as well.  He looked tough.  He got angry.  His moustache could beat up your moustache.

I don't think Moriis got votes because he was somehow a hero of the anti-analytics.  He always had the votes of a large percentage of BBWAA, who presumably are not, or were not, notably pro-analytic as a group.  I don't think this group was pro analytics at all, but I don't think they had a grudge that helped push Jack over the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

HaHa.

I think it is without doubt true that a lot of why Jack got in were throwback reasons that have nothing to do with statistical performance  measures at all.

1) he played a long time - baseball has always had a soft spot for guys who keep showing up- even near 40. 

2) 3 WS rings.

3) big years at advanced age without an accusation of PED use.

Isn't his career arc pretty similar to the stereotypical PED user?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I think the biggest thing Morris had going for him was the narrative that he was the best pitcher of the 80's.

I don't think he got votes because he was somehow a hero of the anti-analytics.  He always had the votes of a large percentage of BBWAA, who presumably are not, or were not, notably pro-analytic as a group.

I think it was that one World Series game that preceded the best pitcher of the 80s narrative.  They wanted to put him in the HoF for that along with being a very good pitcher.  He didn't really have HoF stats so they pushed the winningest pitcher of the 80s thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this discussion with a buddy who was a huge Morris fan, and he was able to produce multiple articles from SI and Sport from the 80's written around the premise Jack was the best pitcher in baseball.  A few were late 80's after Clemens was established and Gooden was dominant.

It was insane, frankly, how hard a few of the writers had committed themselves to the Morris train and denigrated his contemporaries to defend their position ('86 World Series proves Clemens he isn't a winner, Gooden was alleged to be running with the wrong crowd, Steib didn't know how to win games, etc.).

In any event, I think the dominant pitcher narrative predated the 91 World Series.  The 91 World Series cemented it, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I think the biggest thing Morris had going for him was the narrative that he was the best pitcher of the 80's (he wasn't).  The big game pitcher image fed off of that narrative as well.  He looked tough.  He got angry.  His moustache could beat up your moustache.

I don't think Moriis got votes because he was somehow a hero of the anti-analytics.  He always had the votes of a large percentage of BBWAA, who presumably are not, or were not, notably pro-analytic as a group.  I don't think this group was pro analytics at all, but I don't think they had a grudge that helped push Jack over the top.

I think he did get some votes as a statement from the anti-analytics crowd, since analytics was being used to dismiss his chances for the Hall of Fame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think anti-analytics had anything to do with it.  its all the myth of morris as a big game pitcher.

saberhagen, cone, gooden, all better than morris.  ****, david wells was as good morris.  nobody considers them hall of famers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I had this discussion with a buddy who was a huge Morris fan, and he was able to produce multiple articles from SI and Sport from the 80's written around the premise Jack was the best pitcher in baseball.  A few were late 80's after Clemens was established and Gooden was dominant.

It was insane, frankly, how hard a few of the writers had committed themselves to the Morris train and denigrated his contemporaries to defend their position ('86 World Series proves Clemens he isn't a winner, Gooden was alleged to be running with the wrong crowd, Steib didn't know how to win games, etc.).

In any event, I think the dominant pitcher narrative predated the 91 World Series.  The 91 World Series cemented it, however.

That is interesting.  I don't know that SI and Sport were representative of baseball writers in general though since he didn't do all that great in Cy Young voting during the 80's.  He got votes in five years, but never finished higher than third.  

I think it was a combination of things.  He had a good, but not great career and gave the impression that he was a big game pitcher.  His alpha male personality (at least compared to guys like Whitaker and Trammell) and self promoting probably helped a little too.   

I don't know that it was an anti-analytics thing.  I think the analytical arguments hurt him more than helped in his last few years on the regular ballot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

That is interesting.  I don't know that SI and Sport were representative of baseball writers in general though since he didn't do all that great in Cy Young voting during the 80's.  He got votes in five years, but never finished higher than third.  

I think it was a combination of things.  He had a good, but not great career and gave the impression that he was a big game pitcher.  His alpha male personality (at least compared to guys like Whitaker and Trammell) and self promoting probably helped a lot too.   

I don't know that it was an anti-analytics thing.  I think the analytical arguments hurt him more than helped in his last few years on the regular ballot.  

It was an odd debate, to be honest.

I pointed out something similar (as well as point out both Clemens and Gooden were much, much better in the years before and after the articles in question), but basically my buddy 's position is it proved people around the game respected Jack *that* much.  Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Morris is a special case, unlike Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, because analytics was used as a major tool to explain why he should be kept out. Morris himself alluded as much in his press conference appearance today, and completely unbidden. So even if we don't believe so, he believes so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack Morris was eligible in 2000.  Sabermetrics did not keep him out in 2000.  Virtually nobody was voting based on sabermetrics then.  He received less than 25% of the vote. 

Morris then proceeded to gain votes annually as sabermetrics gained in popularity, going from 22% of the vote to peak at 68%.  Very few players go from that level of initial support to gaining half of the ballot at their peak, let alone taking 2 out of 3 votes.

There is literally no evidence or support to the notion sabermetrics kept Morris out.  It is a narrative that has no basis in anything except in his, and his supporters', minds, but hey, Jack is a winner so someone who has never played the game trying to use statistics objectively has to be at fault.

Jack whining is what he does and has always done.  He routinely whined about the defense behind him despite it being pretty good most of his career.  He'd whine about lack of run support if he went three games with low support, despite receiving great run support most of his career.  Whine about his teammates if someone made an error, despite having exceptionally good teammates throughout his career.  The man was and is a whiny ****.

That is why I always found the tough guy narrative laughable.  If it weren't for McLain, he would be my least favorite Tiger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I think it was that one World Series game that preceded the best pitcher of the 80s narrative.  They wanted to put him in the HoF for that along with being a very good pitcher.  He didn't really have HoF stats so they pushed the winningest pitcher of the 80s thing. 

Yeah. From what I remember, he had the most victories in that decade? And we ALL know how important a win-loss record is.....<smirk>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh....BTW? I would rather have Sweet Lou in than Morris. One of my favorite Tiger games was when Morris came back to pitch against us when he was with Toronto. When we knocked him around in the 4th or 5th inning, the song "hit the road Jack" played. Good, good times.  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Jack Morris was eligible in 2000.  Sabermetrics did not keep him out in 2000.  Virtually nobody was voting based on sabermetrics then.  He received less than 25% of the vote. 

Morris then proceeded to gain votes annually as sabermetrics gained in popularity, going from 22% of the vote to peak at 68%.  Very few players go from that level of initial support to gaining half of the ballot at their peak, let alone taking 2 out of 3 votes.

There is literally no evidence or support to the notion sabermetrics kept Morris out.  It is a narrative that has no basis in anything except in his, and his supporters', minds, but hey, Jack is a winner so someone who has never played the game trying to use statistics objectively has to be at fault.

Jack whining is what he does and has always done.  He routinely whined about the defense behind him despite it being pretty good most of his career.  He'd whine about lack of run support if he went three games with low support, despite receiving great run support most of his career.  Whine about his teammates if someone made an error, despite having exceptionally good teammates throughout his career.  The man was and is a whiny ****.

That is why I always found the tough guy narrative laughable.  If it weren't for McLain, he would be my least favorite Tiger.

 

I remember him whining about the overhang in RF at Tiger Stadium after just about every game he pitched. And listening to him as a broadcaster? He still whines. I guess it's just his nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Jack Morris was eligible in 2000.  Sabermetrics did not keep him out in 2000.  Virtually nobody was voting based on sabermetrics then.  He received less than 25% of the vote. 

Morris then proceeded to gain votes annually as sabermetrics gained in popularity, going from 22% of the vote to peak at 68%.  Very few players go from that level of initial support to gaining half of the ballot at their peak, let alone taking 2 out of 3 votes.

There is literally no evidence or support to the notion sabermetrics kept Morris out.  It is a narrative that has no basis in anything except in his, and his supporters', minds, but hey, Jack is a winner so someone who has never played the game trying to use statistics objectively has to be at fault.

Jack whining is what he does and has always done.  He routinely whined about the defense behind him despite it being pretty good most of his career.  He'd whine about lack of run support if he went three games with low support, despite receiving great run support most of his career.  Whine about his teammates if someone made an error, despite having exceptionally good teammates throughout his career.  The man was and is a whiny ****.

That is why I always found the tough guy narrative laughable.  If it weren't for McLain, he would be my least favorite Tiger.

 

I did not say sabermetrics kept Jack Morris out of the Hall of Fame. I said analytics were used as a tool to argue against his candidacy for the Hall. Those are two separate things. I’d actually argue that his rising support in the face of increasing use of analytics was an act of repudiation by some old school writers who hadn’t voted for him before of sabermetrics creeping into the game, because let’s face it: if you look just at the numbers, he doesn’t belong.

People who are anti-analytics are cheering his election to the Hall as a triumph of the jocks over the nerds, of the old school over the new school, of feelings over facts. That tweet I posted is one example. I bet we’ll see a lot more of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I did not say sabermetrics kept Jack Morris out of the Hall of Fame. I said analytics were used as a tool to argue against his candidacy for the Hall. Those are two separate things. I’d actually argue that his rising support in the face of increasing use of analytics was an act of repudiation by some old school writers who hadn’t voted for him before of sabermetrics creeping into the game, because let’s face it: if you look just at the numbers, he doesn’t belong.

People who are anti-analytics are cheering his election to the Hall as a triumph of the jocks over the nerds, of the old school over the new school, of feelings over facts. That tweet I posted is one example. I bet we’ll see a lot more of that.

I disagree.  The numbers are there.  He finished 1/3 of his starts.  That is pretty remarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was also the best pitcher for four teams that won world series.  Going 21-6 in '92 for the Blue Jays at the age of 37  is pretty awesome, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×