Fun with Baseball Reference's Play Index

I was playing around with Baseball Reference's Play Index a moment ago, and decided to see how Jack Morris fared as compared to his peers during the seasons that spanned his 18 year career (1977-1994).  Keep in mind that certain pitchers (Jim Palmer, Greg Maddux, etc.) were active for part of that time period, so these numbers don't reflect their entire careers.  It will only reflect Morris's entire career, and those lucky enough have fit their career within this sample size.  Here's how he ranked (minimum of 1000 innings pitched):

• Wins Above Replacement - Finished 16th with 39.3 WAR.  While he finished behind Hall of Fame quality pitchers like Greg Maddux, Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Bert Blyleven, and Phil Neikro; he also finished behind decidedly non-Hall of Fame pitchers like Rick Reuschel, Bob Welch, Mark Langston, and Frank Viola.
• ERA+ - Finished tied for 67th with an ERA+ of 105.  He finished behind such legends as Bob Tewksbury, Scott Erickson, Greg Swindell, Greg Harris, and many other non-Hall of Fame pitchers. 
• ERA - Finished tied for 103rd with an ERA of 3.90.  For all of those people who claim that Morris pitched to the score, this study by Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus (and many others that are similar) disproves that notion.  He wasn't pitching to the score, he just wasn't very good at preventing runs.  
• FIP - Finished 138th with an FIP of 3.94.  For those who thought Morris may've suffered from an unlucky ERA, his FIP disproves that idea.  In reality, Morris had tremendous luck, which typically came in the form of unbelievable run support.
• K/BB - Finished 81st with a K/BB ratio of 1.79.   There are three things that a pitcher has the most control over:  strikeouts, walks, and inducing ground balls.  Morris wasn't good with any of them.  His K/BB rate was worse than Ed Whitson, Kevin Gregg, Mike Witt, Tom Browning, and Terry Mulholland.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see him as a Hall of Fame pitcher.  He's just not that good. 

Should WS titles factor in to the HOF??

Increasingly an argument is being made that championships should be a factor when determining hall of fame status. More specifically, if a person is a borderline hall of famer, World Series championships should be a significant factor in the decision process.

The idea that whether or not a player possesses any World Series rings should help determine the legitimacy for the Hall of Fame is just preposterous. First of all championships, in any sport, are a team effort. Baseball isn't the Olympic high jump. A player is not an island. There are so many diverse components that make up a championship caliber team. One strong starting pitcher or one strong clean-up hitter isn't going to help you in October if you have no defense and no bullpen.

When you examine it from a team perspective, championships contributing to hall of fame status just isn't logical. Basically you are saying that if you don't get in it is the eight other players fault and vice versa.

I look at it from the perspective of one of our other contributors who wrote that dominance at the position, and during the era, should determine a player's candidacy for the Hall of Fame. That is why I have such a problem with Kirby Puckett being in the Hall of Fame. I don't think you could really call Puckett dominant. In twelve seasons (a short career I might add) he only hit over a 100 RBI three times and hit over 30 HR once. Although he did have an OBP of .360 and a SLG of .477, he never reached 3000 hits and hit just barely over 200 HR. Furthermore, twelve seasons I think is way too short a career to be considered dominant. I honestly believe that if Puckett had never won two World Series and played well in those World Series, he would not be in the Hall of Fame today.

Even now people are trying to make the same argument to get Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame. Granted he won twenty games three times and had a career WHIP of 1.296, but he also has almost 200 losses and his career ERA is a paltry 3.9. Furthermore, he never won a Cy Young and never reached the 2500 mark in strikeouts. Yet because of his dominating performances in the World Series (particularly game seven in 1991) there is always constant talk of him getting into the Hall of Fame. Jack Morris was a very good player for a long time but he was never dominant.

Using championships as a measuring stick for the Hall of Fame should never be a factor even in a last ditch effort. If the deciding factor needs to be whether or not the person won a title, you probably shouldn't even be considering him for the Hall of Fame. That's why I, a Yankee fan, laugh when people think Jorge Posada should be a future Hall of Famer. What the catcher who couldn't throw anyone out at second and was a double play waiting to happen? Emmmm...that's not what I mean by dominant.

I wish I could cast a magical spell around the Hall of Fame committee that would prevent them from taking championships into account when it comes to the Hall of Fame. Unfortunately, I'm not in the dark room making the decisions and drinking the coffee.

Or the Kool-Aid for that matter.

Jack Morris is Not Hall Worthy

There are a lot of arguments going back and forth regarding Jack Morris's Hall of Fame candidacy.  Personally, I'm against it.  The arguments for him being the best pitcher of the 1980s ring hollow to me considering the decade from 1980-1989 is pretty arbitrary.  Why not 1977-1986 or 1983-1992?  The 1980-1989 decade includes the tail ends of great careers by pitchers like Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer, and Steve Carlton.  It also removes half of a decade of Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens performances.  If you expanded the ten year span to include 20-25 seasons, would Morris even make your top ten for best pitchers in baseball?  How about top fifteen?  He wouldn't make either of mine.

The arguments about him being a great postseason pitcher don't really ring true either because he was pretty underwhelming during the 1987 ALCS, and incredibly forgettable during the Blue Jays World Series run in 1992.  In fact, he was so bad during the playoffs in 1992, that I would go as far as saying they won the World Series in spite of his pitching performance.  In 1993, he was so ineffective during the regular season, the Jays left him off of their postseason roster entirely.  That's not exactly high praise for a pitcher that supposedly rose to the occasion in the playoffs.  Yes, Game 7 of the 1991 World Series was great, but you can't build a Hall of Fame case out of one game. 

If you're looking for a great analysis of Jack Morris's Hall of Fame case, I strongly suggest you read Dan Szymborski's case against his induction.  (Sorry, ESPN Insider only!)  It's outstanding, and doesn't include a lot of emotional rhetoric.  Hope you enjoy!