SI's Jon Heyman has an article up about
his Hall of Fame ballot (h/t:
BBTF). Sounds like fun. Here we go.
"Enshrinement in Cooperstown shouldn't be about numbers. If anyone thinks so, let's trash tradition and have a computer select the honorees."
First of all, ignoring the numbers is a terrible idea. But beyond that, people say this all the time, and then immediately resort to using numbers like Wins and RBIs. Let's see how this goes.
"Blyleven did some great things in his career, and he pitched a lot of dominating games. Yet he never had a truly dominating season. He threw 60 shutouts -- but won 20 games only once in an era when 20-game winners weren't nearly so rare as they are today."
20 is a number.
In 1992, Morris pitched 240.7 innings with a 102 ERA+ and won 21 games. In 1977, Blyleven pitched 234.7 innings with a 151 ERA+ and won 14 games. I honestly don't understand how people continue to think that number of 20-win seasons is some kind of meaningful measure of how good a pitcher was.
B-R has a very convenient feature where you can neutralize a player's stats. This puts them in an average offensive context, with average run support. If you do this, Morris is 229-204 with zero 20-win seasons. Blyleven is 325-227 with four 20-win seasons.
And no, Morris was
not "pitching to the score""2. Jack Morris. The ace of three World Series teams, it's an abomination he may never get in."
An "abomination". Oh boy.
"Morris made 14 Opening Day starts, tied with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young, behind only Tom Seaver's 16 (the others already are or will be in Cooperstown)."
I am not going to waste everyone's time explaining how utterly meaningless this is. Well, at least not yet.
"Also pitched the greatest game of the past 25 years, winning Game 7 of the 1991 World Series 1-0 in 10 innings against a young John Smoltz."
On October 22, 1992, Morris faced off against a young John Smoltz in
Game 5 of the World Series. He pitched 4.2 innings, allowing 9 hits and 7 runs. The Braves won, 7-2.
His career ERA is 3.90. His postseason ERA is 3.80. Yes, he was fantastic on
10/27/91. But we cannot be electing people into the Hall of Fame because of one game. This is not acceptable.
"The only two reasons I can think of for him not making it are: 1) he got hit hard his final couple years and finished with a 3.90 ERA, and 2) he was no charmer. Neither is a good enough reason to omit him. His impact was great."
On April 6, 1993, Morris started on Opening Day for Toronto (he
pitched horribly). We are giving him credit for this. In 1993, Morris had a 6.19 ERA in 152.7 innings. We are excluding this data point.
If you take away those last two seasons (which is completely arbitrary and unfair, but let's do it anyway), Morris has a career 3.73 ERA (108 ERA+) in 3,530 innings.
Bert Blyleven had a 3.31 ERA (118 ERA+) in 4,970 innings. This is including a 5.43 ERA (75 ERA+) in 1988, and a 5.24 ERA (73 ERA+) in 1990.
"10. Blyleven. Stat gurus love this guy, and it's understandable. One of the great compilers of his generation, he's fifth all-time in strikeouts, ninth in shutouts and 25th in wins. There's no doubt he was a superb talent who played a long time. But he was rarely among the ultra-elite in his 22-year career."
Excuse me for not having a definition of "ultra-elite" handy. Let's try a few cut-offs:
Years with ERA+ above...
150: Blyleven 2, Morris 0
140: Blyleven 5, Morris 0
130: Blyleven 6, Morris 1
120: Blyleven 11, Morris 6
Blyleven pitched more innings than Morris (4970-3824). He had a lower ERA (3.31-3.90). He had a better ERA+ (118-105). He had a higher peak (see above). He struck out more guys (6.70 K/9 for Blyleven, 5.83 for Morris). He walked fewer guys (2.39 BB/9 for Blyleven, 3.27 BB/9 for Morris). He gave up fewer HRs (0.78 HR/9 for Blyleven, 0.92 HR/9 for Morris).
And here's my favorite part. Morris backers like to talk about the one WS game, but Blyleven was a better postseason pitcher. In 47.1 playoff innings, Blyleven had a 2.47 ERA. For Morris, it's 92.1 innings, but a 3.80 ERA.
This is not close. In fact, there is really no debate here. Yet Heyman has Morris 2nd on his list, and Blyleven 10th.
This is a great example of what happens when you have a preconceived bias, stubbornly forms an opinion based on nothing, and then tries to build an argument to explain himself.
(As I was about to post this, FJM put up a
post on Heyman's article. Oh well.)
