Morris will probably get in, one way or the other, even though I’m irritated by the whole situation.
Could you imagine seeing his plaque in Cooperstown? What would you say to your kid if he asked you why he was there? “He pitched one really good game in the World Series”? “He wore a perpetual scowl on the mound and had great facial hair”? Meh.
“He won more games than any other pitcher in the '80s even though wins are sort of bullshit and judging by decade is arbitrary?”
That works as well as the reasons I gave, I suppose.
Gil Hodges got a high of 63%.
Well, be fair to the guy; he was a good pitcher for a long time and he certainly did more than pitch one good World Series game. You just described Juan Guzman with a beard. Jack Morris isn’t a good HoF choice but he would be far from the worst player in there.
Also a point for Morris: EVERY pitcher who is the winningest in a decade is in the HoF.
That’s not a point for Morris.
This is an interesting point because, in my mind, Schilling is not, NOT, a hall of famer. He had some great years, a great post season record, a highly memorable post season performance (bloody sock), but not nearly enough to be HOF worthy. I always thought Morris was on the cusp, but if you look at their numbers, Schilling is probably a better choice. Fewer wins but a far better ERA, ERA+, more K’s, much better K/9, better WHIP, higher Cy Young finishes, etc. If Morris gets in, you can’t excuse not voting for Schilling.
I think it will be very interesting to see the vote difference between all the PED users. Will Clemens get more or fewer votes than Bonds? What about versus Palmeiro and McGwire? I want to see that, and the logistical gymnastics that will accompany the ballots.
The discussion is probably going to become exhausting, but it won’t be dull, that’s for sure.
True. Compared with other decades, there was a serious dearth of great starting pitchers who were in their prime during the 1980s. Morris just happened to be the best of a rather mediocre lot.
Actually, Dave Stieb was. But even Stieb wasn’t really a Hall of Famer, especially compared to the next generation.
And what about those guys that had an incredible 10-year run, but had it split between two decades? etv’s “point” he’s awarding is about the most worthless, arbitrary distinction you can make with Wins, and that’s saying something.
To use an obvious example, Steve Carlton won Cy Young Awards in 1980 and 1982, and is obviously a Hall of Famer, but isn’t the winningest pitcher of the 1980s.
Roger Clemens won two Cy Young Awards in the 1980s as well and probably helped the Red Sox in the 1980s more than Jack Morris helped the Tigers, even though he didn’t start until 1984, but he’s not the winningest pitcher of the 1980s. He’s maybe the greatest starting pitcher of modern baseball.
The sole reason I used that criteria is because it’s the most convient, and stands up against cherry-picking.
Isn’t defining a segment of time based on the 8 in the third position of the date kind of the definition of cherry picking?
Does anyone care who the winningest pitcher from 1994 to 2003 was?
It IS cherry picking! Why does it matter who won the most games in the decade of the 20th century that started with 8? EDIT: You will pay, markdash.
David Wells joins the ballot next year and has a better case than Jack Morris imo.
You’re right that nobody cares who’s the winningest pitcher from 94-03. But then again, was there a TV special in 2003 reviewing the biggest stories sinces 1994? Didn’t think so.
What an *excellent *point. :rolleyes: