Ted, your analysis is right on...but the true crime is the ignorance of the Veterans Committee in passing over "Coach" Ron Santo again.  There is no excuse in leaving him off-his record speaks for itself and he does honor to the game with every game he calls.  What is the Hall waiting for-him to die?
Putting the yes-man Kuhn in and not Santo is a sad day for Cooperstown and I will not waste my good time watching the writers committee and the Veterans committees bad decision.

Couldn't agree more.  I was lucky enough to see Morris pitch with the Tigers and the guy was as money as they come.  Get him in the Hall please!

The Leonard Koppett should be the only "benchmark".  You are correct - as a life-long Yankee fan, I never liked seeing Jack Morris pitch against the Yanks.  He was THE dominant pitcher of his time and also the best "money game" pitcher of his time.  Both Morris and Gossage should have been in the HOF a long time ago.  Bert Blyleven is the only other player on the list who also dominated his era.  The rest were very good ball players.

Gossage got in!  I am with you on Jack Morris!  Also Alan Trammell and Jim Rice should be there!

It's good to see that Gossage finally got in.  Jim Rice should also be in.

The biggest crime, though, is that Gil Hodges has not made it.  Second in homeruns and rbi's in the 1950's (second only to Duke Snider, and it took Snider 11 tries to get into the Hall!!!), the best fielding first baseman of the 1950's, and, finally, the manager of the Miracle Mets of 1969.  It just shows that there are a lot of writers out there who just aren't real bright, and the same can be said for many of the Veterans Committee members.

Congratulations Ted, you've been mocked at FJM

I think you have hit on something that doesnt get talked about enough.  You are correct that all too often - career totals seem to be the yardstick for acceptance into the hall.
During their playing career - anyone following baseball knew certain players were "the best".  Players like Gossage, Rice, Morris.  Anyone who was the best for a period of time close to a decade - should be in the hall.
Yet we see players - good players - play the game close to 20 years accumulate "big numbers".  Anyone who saw these players never thought of them as "the best".  Guys like Bert Blylevon, Don Sutton, Phil Neikro - theys guys werent the best guys on their team let along in the league.
Isn't the hall supposed to be dedicated to the best - and not who played the longest?

You're famous, FJM is talking about your mostly nonsensical HOF post.

www.firejoemorgan.com

This article makes no sense. You throw out the numbers you don't like and keep the numbers you do like every other member of the BWAA. Ridiculous.

Fire Joe Morgan breaks it down nice and thoroughly for you.

firejoemorgan.com

good night.

Did Leonark Koppett ever have to think about whether he had to think about a player's candidacy?  And why was Ted Robinson standing just outside the A's dugout that fateful day in 1980?  Was he a batboy?

Ken Tremendous over at firejoemorgan.com has appropriately destroyed your reasoning here, but there's one item he overlooked.  You say that degrading the presence of players already inducted to inflate another's candidacy is a "distasteful tact."  You could say (correctly) that it is a "distasteful tactic" or you could say (less aptly, but not egregiously incorrect) that it is a "distasteful tack."  But to say that it is a distasteful tact is just plain wrong, and as a professional writer you should know better.

"the beat writer, whose presence in every clubhouse and stadium affords insight that cannot be duplicated"

So this is why 100% of beat writers missed or ignored reporting on a decade of steroids while it happened right in front of them?  Nice insight.  

And speaking of insight, your analysis of Morris lacks any.  He pitched a great shutout game for the Twins which made you all tingly because you were a Twins announcer knew about the pain of his divorce?  Sure, put him in the hall..  Yet another example of proximity preventing rather than inspiring insight.  

You're right, thinking is overrated. Who needs it? The Hall should be about FEELINGS. When I watched Jack Morris I got all tingly and excited. That's a Hall of Famer to me. So what if some "numbers" show that he was a mediocre pitcher and that Bert Blyleven was far superior? That requires thought and brainpower, and as I already explained, that's not how a decision like this should be made.

Please read Joe Posnanski's take on Morris:
http://www.joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/

Morris wasn't even the best pitcher on his team most years, much less best pitcher of his era. He did throw one great game in the series though. So he's got that going for him.

Ted, I disagree with your assertion that Morris was "top dog" on three World Series teams.  Just off the top of my head I'm certain that Kevin Tapani was better in 1991, and Juan Guzman was better by MILES in 1992.  Or is "top dog" intended to be an unofficial title, not based on fact, but doled out by Ted however he sees fit?

Congratulations, Ted, you've already been FJM'd

After reading your article, I am personally gratified that you neither 1) have never had a vote 2) will never have one and 3) would never accept one, if you truly believe your argument on what constitutes a Hall of Fame pitcher.  Fortunately, a significant number of those who do actually vote evidently realize that Morris was a slightly above average pitcher (his adjusted ERA of 105 for his career means he was 5% better than average, based on the leagues and ballparks in which he played) who happened by sheer coincidence to put together a convenient 10 year run that happened to coincide with the beginning and ending of a specific decade.

You ignore the fact that despite his 162 wins from 1980-89, which you argue makes him the "best pitcher of the decade", not once in those ten seasons was he ever voted to be the best pitcher in his league - or even the second best, for that matter, though he did manage two third place finishes.  Wouldn't the "best pitcher of the 80's" be expected to do better than that - say, maybe two wins and another top ten finish?  Wait, that's what Roger Clemens did in just four full seasons in the 80's.  Or maybe just two first place finishes would be enough - sounds like Bret Saberhagen in his six seasons in the 80's.  

Despite the PED issues, Clemens certainly passes your Koppett test, but I doubt seriously you think Saberhagen does.  Yet, I challenge you to look objectively at their pitching records and try not to have the song "one of these things is not like the other" running through your mind.  That one thing would be Morris, who clearly is not the "best pitcher of the 80's", and thankfully must spend another year paying his way into the Hall, just like most of us.      

The Hall of Oh Buh-rother.
Geez Louise.

What disturbs me about the Hall of Fame is that it appears to have morphed into a numbers honor. Benchmarks have been set for automatic entry: 3,000 hits, 500 homers, and 300 wins. Blogs allow more analysis from the world of sabermetrics. Pure statistical breakdowns are here to stay in baseball front offices. And they have earned their place. But the view here is their role in the Hall-of-Fame voting should be limited to clarifying one’s achievements, not defining the achievement.

I'm going to go ahead and agree with this. The Hall of Fame should not be just about numbers. But it should kind of be about numbers, right? Because, you know...they're numbers. They tell us things. In fact, it's numbers that should define a player's achievements, and anecdotal reporting that should clarify and elaborate on the numbers. So: you are exactly wrong, Ted Robinson.

Players must only be compared against their peers and within their eras. No number can be truly compared across generations for reasons so obvious they need not be offered here.

Except that there is ERA+. And OPS+, EqA+, and WARP3. And others. So, the reasons aren't so obvious to me.

If a deep study is needed to buttress a player’s case, it is most likely an unworthy argument.

First of all, nice use of "buttress," which is a fancy word that makes people sound smart. Second of all, saying that studying is lame is usually reserved for dumb jocks in John Hughes movies. So, good work aligning yourself with them.

Bottom line: the Hall of Fame is about quality, not quantity.

Why are these things mutually exclusive? Why not say: The Hall of Fame is about quality and quantity? What bad thing would happen if someone wrote that? Hell, I just wrote it and I seem to be -- my eyes!!! No!!! What is happening?!?!?!?1/?!?

Leonard Koppett, the late New York sportswriter who has been honored by the baseball and basketball Halls of Fame, told me repeatedly that his Hall-of-Fame voting standard was simple: if he had to think about the player’s candidacy, then the vote was no. To Leonard, a Hall of Famer was obvious.

Excellent. A new criterion for HOF induction: induce the right answer in a game of word association with Leonard Koppett.

I have immense respect for the passion displayed by those who analyze baseball in new ways. They often present fresh and compelling arguments on Hall of Fame candidates, Rob Neyer being the best of the group. But I hold firmly that my 22 years of traveling with MLB teams provided the best perspectives and judgments on players.

Quick diversion coming up.

Every beat writer/broadcaster has had the greatest education baseball can provide -- the daily intimacy through which we learn about the unique rhythms of the game, the people who play it, and what makes them succeed or fail. Dispassionate analysis can support but never replace or supersede that education. Is there emotion and subjectivity in such an approach? Most likely, but that’s a price well paid in determining an honor so important.

Some diversionary things:

This may neither be here nor there. But. It is, in my opinion, the utter lack of objectivity amongst the entire BBWAA that led to the biggest scandal in pro sports in decades -- widespread, in-plain-air doping amongst a significant portion of the players' union -- going unreported for more than a decade. Emotion and subjectivity are nice if you're you, Ted, and you get to hang out with baseball players who call you "Teddy" or "Slim" or something. But if you're me, and you rely on the BBWAA for news, information, and judgments about a sport you love, then emotion and subjectivity suck.

They are not charming or cool or things to be celebrated and valued. They are a trump card that writers use to tell the world that you just don't understand. You had to be there. I know stuff you don't. You can look at all the numbers you want, but guess what, computer boy. I sat at Jack Morris's feet when he was soaking in the whirlpool before game 7 of the Series and held a plastic tobacco-juice cup to his mouth. And I asked him, "Jack, how do you feel?" And he leaned over and spat into the cup, and some of the juice got on my hand and shirt and stuff, and that juice smelled like...victory. And I stared into his eyes, and he had a look about him that said: I'm gonna throw a shutout. And that: that is the only piece of information I need to know that Jack Morris is a Hall of Famer.

So screw you, guy who didn't do that.

(My guess is, he didn't hear the question, and the look in his eye was, "Why is this dude sitting so close to me when I'm naked?)

I like subjectivity and emotion. I am a Red Sox fan, and when I watch Red Sox games I get pretty subjective and emotional. Before 2004, I often accused Major League Baseball of planning and enacting a conspiracy to keep the Red Sox from winning a World Series -- a conspiracy that included the umpires' union, stadium construction firms, Fox TV, Curt Gowdy, whoever invented the Weather Machine that pushed Bucky Dent's ball over the Monster in 1978, and thousands of others, reaching into the upper tiers of our nation's government. Once, during a Sox-Yankees playoff game in 1999, I emotionally subjectified a glass duck through the window of my apartment. But when it comes to things like permanent enshrinement in the Hall of Fame, can't we tone down the emotional subjectivity? Can't the basis for enshrinement be career numbers, with emotional subjectivity serving as the final dash of icing on top of the delicious objective cake?

No? Okay. Keep going.

With that background, Tuesday can bring legitimacy to the electorate if Goose Gossage and Jack Morris are voted in to the Hall of Fame.

Uh oh.

Let me start by saying I have never met Gossage but he is being dealt a great wrong by not being in the Hall of Fame.

So: recap:

A. You can't really know whether someone is worthy of the Hall of Fame unless you cover baseball and travel with the teams...unless you hang out with the players during their careers...unless you lick the sweat off their foreheads after a game...unless you personally hand-wash their undershirts, deeply breathing in the pungent fumes left by their dirty, subjective bodies. That's the only way you can truly know a man well enough to determine whether he is a Hall of Famer.

B. I have never met Goose Gossage, but he is definitely a Hall of Famer.

Dennis Eckersley and Bruce Sutter belong, but so does Gossage -- the most feared reliever since the closer role developed.

Every time someone makes an argument about a player by saying that player was the "most feared," I barf a little on myself.

Here’s what I know. In 1980, I stood just outside the Oakland dugout as Gossage entered in the ninth inning with a one-run lead. Billy Martin, the A’s manager, turned to summon pinch-hitters but he couldn’t find any. The lefty hitters, most likely to be drafted, had scattered. No one wanted to face Gossage in his prime. Not one batter was anywhere near the bat rack. Martin’s coaches had to round up the available men. I have never seen a similar moment.

I'm calling BS here. When a team's closer comes in for the ninth, do you often find tons of guys lingering around the bat rack hoping to get a chance to jump into the game cold against a (usually) really good pitcher? That's a common sight in baseball? And what were the other circumstances? Had one of the A's pitchers hit a Yankee the day before? Was Gossage drunk?

Now, obviously, I wasn't there. Gossage was an awesome pitcher, and guys fear awesome pitchers with fu manchus. But: I just don't think the entire team was cowering under the bench and fainting like a bunch of Southern belles when Sherman's armies closed on Atlanta.

Here's where things get really good.

I spent many hours with Morris during the 1991 season and developed an intense admiration for his pitching as you’ll read below.

I was pleasantly stunned to read a glowing endorsement for Morris in the Sunday New York Times. All the sensible reasons that Morris should already be an inductee were presented. Simply, he was the best pitcher of his time (this seems to surprise some but wins and losses are the prime currency of baseball and Morris was the winningest pitcher of his full decade, the 1980s).

1. If he was the best pitcher of his time, why didn't the hallowed BBWAA -- the selfsame organization you seem to hold in such high esteem because they travel with the players -- ever vote him the best pitcher in his league? Ever? Once?

2. For that matter, why didn't they ever vote him second-best?

3. Morris started pitching in 1977. There were a lot of good pitchers hanging around at that time. Ron Guidry was pretty good in 1978. Bret Saberhagen was excellent in the early 1980s, but didn't rev up until 1984. Roger Clemens enters stage left in 1984 and kicks things into high gear in 1986. Maddux didn't show up until 1988, really, and Jim Palmer's last good year was 1982. So, Morris just happened to show up at the right time -- hitting his stride at the age of 25 in 1980 -- to have a very good 1980-1989.

He (-slash his team's batters and relief pitchers) won 162 games in the 1980s. Excellent job. Is your old buddy Jim Kaat a Hall of Famer, Ted? Because from 1966-1975 he won 162 games. That's a decade. From 1962 to 1971 he won 159. That's also a decade. Why aren't we hearing about how Jim Kaat won a ton of games from 1966-1975? Oh -- right. Because completely randomly, 1966-1975 isn't a stupidly arbitrary "clean decade."

Saying that Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame because he won the most games in the 1980s is like saying that lots of crazy stuff is going to happen the second the clock strikes midnight on Dec. 31, 1999. Because it's the year 2000!! A round number!!! That is significant!!!!!

He was a good pitcher who won a lot of games = okay argument.

Those games are more meaningful as a group because they occurred during years that begin with 198 = irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant stupid stupid come on people we're better than this.

And his postseason exploits in a culture that reveres winners and humbles the runner-up (check on that with Fran Tarkenton, Bud Grant, Jim Kelly or Marv Levy) should be indisputable.

Postseason:

7-4 with a 3.80 ERA overall. 64 Ks and 32 BB in 92.1 innings. Not bad. 3-2 with a 4.87 ERA in LCS play. 0-1 with a 6.57 in the 1992 ALCS in 2 starts. (But he made up for it in the World Series, though, when he went 0-2 with an 8.44 ERA in two starts.)

Jack Morris pitched really really well in several postseason games, including one truly great 10-inning outing. But he also pitched crappily in several postseason games. His postseason exploits, therefore, are eminently disputable.

(Also, Fran Tarkenton, Bud Grant, Jim Kelly and Marv Levy were "humbled" to the tune of: all of them are in the Football Hall of Fame. Weird choices.)

Somehow the numbers folks have dissected Morris and point to his 3.90 career ERA (3.73 if you eliminate his final two over-the-hill years)

Do you get to do that now? It's like figure skating judging? You get rid of the two worst years? Then let's also get rid of his two best years. So, subtract 42 wins and like 450 Ks from his totals. Also, a minor drop in ERA from 3.90 to 3.73, when you get rid of his two highest year totals, highlights the fact that he was pretty consistently between the mid-upper 3's and 4's over his entire career.

or his 254 wins (the benchmark factor. [sic]

Not the benchmark factor if you are a thinking human being.

([sic] is for inexplicable lack of close parens.)

I often read pieces that degrade the presence of players already inducted to inflate another’s candidacy. That tact is distasteful. If you care, just compare Morris with his peers, including those already in the Hall of Fame. In every measure of quality, Morris is a no-brainer. In measures that are more significant to the analysts (ERA, WHIP, etc.), Morris can be tainted.

So:

If you look at "every measure of quality" (or: wins, I guess) he gets in.

If you look at "measures that are more significant to the analysts" (or, by elimination, things that are not "measures of quality") he does not.

Thus: he does not.

Problem with that thinking is that Morris was the top dog on three World Series title teams. Find me a peer who matches that claim.

So, here's your plan: first, challenge me to find a man who was lucky (and skilled) enough to be on three teams that made the World Series. Hard to do, right? And then use that like a club to beat me over the head when I say that Jack Morris might not belong in the HOF.

Also, call Morris the "top dog" of the 1992 Blue Jays postseason despite the fact that he lost both of his WS starts, including giving up 7 ER in 4.2 IP with a chance to close out the Series in Game Five.

Indisputable!!!!!

Morris wasn’t a stat man’s lover, he just won. Let’s make sure everyone has that one more time. Morris was the number one guy on three World Series winners. And he pitched one of the two greatest postseason games in history.

Bert Blyleven's career postseason #'s: 5-1, 2.47 ERA, 38/8 K/BB ratio in 47 innings. Screw him.

And if you're going to use that one awesome game 7 to bludgeon me with a pro-vote, I will use that one stinky Game 5 to bludgeon you with my anti-vote. He gave up 7 runs in 4 2/3 innings in a clinching game! He's one of the worst choke-artists in starting pitching history. He let his team down. He blew it. He's Jean Van de Velde. He's worse than Ralph Branca. He doesn't belong in the Hall of Anything. He sucks!!!!!

(Crazy, right? It's what you're doing, only from the opposition party. So cool it.)

But here’s what I remember: late September 1991 and Minnesota is trying to clinch the AL West. The Twins are in Toronto where the Jays are looking to finish off the East. Morris was in the throes of a divorce throughout the summer. Often his mind would wander and the pain that can only be known to those with like experiences would surface. That weekend in Toronto seemed to be a time when the cumulative weight of his personal life crashed down upon Morris. Yet, on a Saturday afternoon, he calmly went to the SkyDome mound and tossed a shutout at Toronto that clinched a division tie for the Twins.

Here's what I just looked up on a computer: Morris's 105 career ERA+ ties him for 460th all-time, with (among others) Zane Smith, Denny Naegle, and Paul Byrd.

After that, Game 7 of the World Series, one month later, was no surprise. And it’s why Morris passes the Leonard Koppett test --no thought needed. He is a Hall of Famer.

Even if I afford you the opportunity to apply the excellently-reasoned Leonard Koppet Test, Jack Morris demands a ton of thought. A ton. He was a very good pitcher who did some great pitching things, but cold hard indisputable facts tell us that his career just does not measure up to "no-brainer" HOFers. Greg Maddux -- no thought. Tom Seaver, Walter Johnson, Steve Carlton, Pedro Martinez, Bob Gibson -- no thought.

Jack Morris? Are you kidding me? No thought?

And by the way, you started your argument with this:

If a deep study is needed to buttress a player’s case, it is most likely an unworthy argument.

Then you talked about Jack Morris's divorce, calculated his ERA if you drop his two worst seasons, referenced Fran Tarkenton, Bud Grant, Jim Kelly and Marv Levy, and cited a game Morris pitched on September 28, 1991. This isn't a deep study?

Congratulations to Goose Gossage, an excellent pitcher who probably deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. My condolences to Jim Rice, who probably does not belong in the Hall of Fame, and was not elected. My congratulations to the BBWAA for not stretching like crazy to elect Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame. And my "What the ?" to the one dude who voted for Todd Stottlemyre.

Let's see that argument.

Seriously? Because you've had personal contact with these guys, they are HOFers. That is it? I feel sick.

Wins are the prime currency only of team success.  As a measure for individual performance, they're arbitrary.  Morris had the benefit of being on great teams, hence the win totals.  If he and Dave Stieb had swapped places in the 1980s, nobody would be talking about Morris a viable candidate.

And sorry, but Gossage's numbers matter more than the fact that you saw some guys running scared in the dugout.

Many pitchers would look better if you took away their 2 worst years! Good job...

Newsflash: The fact that you cover baseball does not (A) Make you more intelligent when it comes to baseball than anyone else. (B) Does not give you the right to denigrate the voting process by voting for people you were "close too" or spent "many hours with."

I love your ilk who thinks that stats shouldn't be a big, defining factor of who should be in the Hall.  What should it be based on then, your "gut" instinct.  This may come as a surprise to you, but stats demonstrate what a player ACTUALLY DID.  Not what you think he did, felt like he did, etc.  It's what he DID.  Clear?  That SHOULD be what defines a career.

Oh, and quoting wins for a pitcher as the single most important stat is ridiculous.  Wins are largely dependent on what your team does for you in the matter of runs scored.  Why must this be explained the Baseball Writers of America members on a daily basis.  A writer that claims that's the most important stat should be immediately removed from the organization.  

Also, it wouldn't hurt you to do a little research here and there.  It's OK to put on the nerd glasses once in a while and look up the numbers.  I'd much rather know that then when Jack Morris sat you on his knee and told you how special you were.

1987 LCS Game 2.  Jack Morris, Mr. Postseason, gives up 6 runs in the first five innings helping the Tigers lose to the eventual World Series Champion Twins.  Bert Blyleven, post season ERA over a run a game better than Morris, #5 all time in strikeouts, #9 in shutouts, far more wins, more innings, more complete games, much better regular season ERA, and 17 winning records out of 22 (Morris was 10/18) got the victory giving up three runs in 7 1/3 innings.  Of course, Blyleven had roughly 140 quality starts in his career that didn't lead to victories: if just 13 of them had been won by the crappy teams so often behind Blyleven, then he'd have 300 wins and been a first ballot HOFer.  Think about that: 140 QUALITY STARTS that his team couldn't hold on and win for him.  

One game, and one undeserved reputation for that one game, should not be worth as much as two top ten all time rankings in reasonably important things: shutouts and strikeouts.  Morris had a great game in 1991.  In 1992 he was 0-3 in the postseason with a combined ERA over 7.  Morris's highest rankings all time are in wild pitches and walks.  I'll take K's and shutouts any day.

Ted-

I loved you as announcer for my favorite baseball team of all time--the 1993 SF Giants--but man, you are way off here.  

I don't know where to start--claiming that if you need to "buttress" someone's candidacy with numbers then they don't belong and then you buttress the hell out of Jack Morris to support your claim of his HOF worthiness--but I think it has to be your rejection of numbers and statistical analysis as a means to determining whether a player belongs in the HOF.  

Baseball is a numbers game more than any other sport.  It always has been and always will be.  For the greater part of its history, the wrong numbers have been used to evaluate players.  Thankfully, the correct ones have finally been developed and are slowly being adopted as standard by some of the more enlightened and less conservative fans.  Even GMs are using these statistics to help teams, and new-age statistics have played very large roles in two Red Sox World Championships, and the successes of numerous ball clubs.  Why would we then disassociate these statistics that reveal HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS and go with something so subjective as "someone's gut feeling" when determining who belongs in the HOF?  That is completely removing any sense of logic from the HOF equation.  

This is the reason why Jack Morris is so far ahead of Bert Blyleven in HOF voting.  Any reasonable comparison of what the two players actually achieved clearly shows that Blyleven is the far superior pitcher.  Morris supporters normally point to the fact that he has more wins, which is basically penalizing Byleven for playing on bad teams, which is not his fault.  Morris also gets more consideration for his playoff accomplishments (mainly pitching one good game, he wasn't even that good for the Blue Jays if you look up his stats--oh wait that would be using "numbers" and not "gut memory" to see if he was actually good), but I doubt that there will be anyone using the same criteria trying to get someone like Livan Hernandez into the HOF discussion (the point being it doesn't make a pitcher HOF-worthy because he pitched well in a few playoff games).

And there is a way to compare statistics across generations--it's called adjusting them, ERA+, SLG+, OPB+ allows you to compare how good a player was in the context of all other seasons.  I'm sure I've lost you by now, but my point is that it seems odd and counter-productive to dismiss "numbers" when evaluating players and determining HOF canidates.  Otherwise, we're letting human judgment and error play too large a role.

Will you be responding to those who seem to have proven that you fabricated your Gossage story of 1980?
http://begonias.typepad.com/srubio/2008/01/why-you-need-mo.html

Ted, you're just plain wrong.

Jack Morris does not belong in the Hall of Fame.

You keep bringing up Game 7 of the '91 World Series, truly a great game, but if we base HOF induction on one game, where's Don Larsen? What about Morris' other post-season games? In 1993, trying to close it out for the Blue Jays, he gave up 7 ER in 4.2 IP. Why don't you use that argument? Overall, his post-season ERA was 3.80, not markedly better than his regular season ERA.

Fact is, he was a good pitcher, but not a great pitcher. You say, "If you have to think whether he's a Hall of Famer, then the answer is no." Then you proceed to write page upon page trying to convince us that Morris belongs.

The simple answer is, he doesn't.

Good Lord! What useless drivel this is. You contradict yourself and make inane arguments throughout. This is just another person who uses the "I was there" argument but doesn't want to hear any cold hard facts that dispute his claim (because that would be inconvenient). Guess what, I was there (watching) when Morris gave up 7er in 4.2ip in game 5 of the World Series in '92. Does that supersede his game 7 outing in '91? How about his not Hall of Fame-like 3.80 career ERA in the postseason? Maybe that will do some damage to the "clutch" pitcher argument you hear so often about Morris. That doesn't sway you? Okay then, how about the fact that he has a career OPS+ of 105. Jaimer Moyer does too. Does that mean Moyer is a HOF'r?

Morris was a very, very good pitcher who had one great game in the WS in '91. He does not belong in the Hall of Fame though.

Terrible Article, all hearsay NO REAL DATA

This is ridiculous.  If you want a full analysis on this baseball "experts" column, check out FireJoeMorgan.  Ill cover the highlights, there are stats to compare peers in the same era, you say a deep study is not neccessary, but you look at specific games to bolster your bad argument for Jack Morris.  Finally, Jack Morris had the third best stats on all three of his World Series Squads.  You really need to do more research or give up writing about baseball.  Yes, RESEARCH, you cant judge players by watching unless you watch all 2400 games played per year.

You are incompetent for ignoring important statistics like ERA (or ERA+) and WHIP. If you believe wins are the benchmark of pitching success, you're blissfully ignorant of pitchers who were really good who just happened to be stuck on bad teams for portions of their careers.  There is no way Jack Morris was a hall-of-famer.  Good pitcher, yes.  Clutch in 1991's game 7, yes.  Game 5 of 1992 to clich series, definitely not...and a career ERA of 3.90 - no pitcher with a career ERA of 3.90 should get in the Hall.

please read www.firejoemorgan.com for a detailed analysis about this post.  

Ted, you are an idiot, as the folks at FireJoeMorgan.com have chronicled. You pretend to have objective standards and tough criteria, but then you start to write, and you undercut everything you say.

Ted, I used to respect your POV when you were calling Mets games. You owe me 7 minutes of my life back after reading this drivel. I demand those 7 minutes back!

I think you should respond to the evidence showing that you fabricated the story about Goose Gossage, Billy Martin, and the A's in 1980.  It's one thing to make ridiculous claims based on terrible reasoning, but outright lying by a reporter is an action which calls for termination. Or does msnbc.com not have a problem with its representatives lying to create the news?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):