Goose Gossage Newest Member of Hall of Fame

And I may have exaggerated a little on the math comparing a 4.00 ERA to 3.00, but my point remains. There is value in logging a lot of quality innings. Maybe it does not makeup for a 1 run diff in ERA, but it surely would if we compared a guy with a 3.75 vs. 3.00 with the 3.75 guy throwing 60% more innings.

 

Yes, it is. It's a simplistic view of the outcome and doesn't take wear and tear on the bullpens into account. It wasn't meant to.

 

Kent Tekulve deserves to be in the HOF.
Lee Smith probably deserves it as well.
And perhaps Sparky Lyle, given that Bruce Sutter is there, if Sutter actually deserved it.

All the above, I believe, had better ERAs than any of the reliever types who are there, except for Sutter and Hoyt Wilhelm, and all three lag behind Sutter, in this, by only a pittance, like .05, .20. and .02, respectively in ERA. All were in more games and pitched more innings than did Sutter. Smith and Tekulve pitched close to half again as many innings as did Sutter, and in 1/3 to 1/2 more games, give or take a few.

However this also shows two other things about the HOF, and relief pitchers, as well. There is also a subjective nature to RPs, and numbers, depending on whether they were used a lot as "set up" men. And 'save' rules have changed more than once, as well. And second, unlike starting pitchers, there are very few left handed closers, as LH relief pitchers are far more likely to be used in "spot" roles, than are righthanders, at least these days. In fact, off of the top of my head, I can only think of two leftys that did much closing at all, that being Sparky Lyle and Tug McGraw.

Ed

 

I'm foaming at the mout to get in this discussion. Maybe later tonight or Sat. PastorSBC, we went over this over the summer, but as good as he was, Tram doesn't match the totality of Concepcion's merits. CCROB is right about Morris. And saves meaningless? Sure, there are quirks. But what about inflated K numbers of NL pitchers who pitch to pitchers?

I find it amusing when Andy derides intangibles then uses them to bolster his biases..er, I mean opinions

And one final quick note: the HOF couldn't be compromised now. It already has been with some of the guys already in there.

That's all for now. I know y'all can't wait for me to chime back in with something more substantive. :smilewinkgrin: I love talking baseball, and love HOF talk even more.

 

This is my biggest gripe about the baseball Hall of Fame. I will continue to argue against Jack Morris being in the Hall, but the fact is that he was better than some of the guys that are in there already.

 

I remember you posted some selected stats (like All-Star Game MVP) that attempted to make this argument. I don't see how you can honestly say Concepcion was better than Trammell. I could maybe buy an argument that says the two were very comparable overall. Note also that in the 15 ESPN baseball writers ballots, not one of them voted for Concepcion, while Trammell got 6 votes. I've heard quite a few arguments for Concepcion, but I've never heard it argued that he was better than Trammell, unless it is coming from a biased BRM advocate.

What intangibles? I've argued nothing of the sort on Morris. I've argued innings pitched, which is not an intangible. I've argued wins - definitely not an intangible. I've argued "pitching to the situation" which may seem intangible, but could be statisically demonstrated by looking at individual box scores of every game he pitched. Don't have the time for that, so I'll go on the testimony of baseball historians and my own experience of following his career on TV and radio as a Tiger fan.

Agreed. Exhibit A: Tony Perez.

 

I think "pitching to the situation" is nonsense, like I think "clutch hitting" is nonsense. But, just for fun, I took a random sample of 10 games from 1984.

You said:

When is it ever a good thing to let the other team get hits and score runs?

Regardless, not bearing down on the other team when you have a big lead is apparently what is meant by "pitching to the situation." Let's see if these 10 games bear that out. The verdict on each game will be if he pitched to the situation as defined by the above quote.


April 3, 1984
Tigers 8, Twins 1
At Minnesota, Morris went 7 innings, allowing 5 hits and 1 ER. The Tigers had taken a 2-0 lead in the top of the 3rd and Morris allowed his 1 run in the bottom of that inning. The Tigers broke open the game by scoring 3 in both the 6th and 7th. Minnesota had a single in both the 6th and 7th, but didn't score.

Verdict: No. This game is a perfect example of the situation being evaluated. In this case, Jack allowed 0 runs and 2 singles after the Tigers took an 8-1 lead.


April 7, 1984
Tigers 4, White Sox 0
At Chicago, Morris pitched a no-hitter. The Tigers scored 2 runs in both the 2nd and 5th innings.

Verdict: No. He didn't allow so much as a hit after taking the 4-0 lead.


April 12, 1984
Tigers 9, Rangers 4
With a 7-1 lead going into the top of the 7th, this looks like a good time to pitch to the situation. However, the Rangers scored only once on an unearned run.

Verdict: No. Another perfect example where Jack didn't allow anything after getting the big lead.


April 24, 1984
Tigers 6, Twins 5
The Twins knock Morris around a little, as he allows 5 ER in 9 innings and the Tigers come back to win by scoring 3 in the bottom of the 9th.

Verdict: Doesn't qualify. The Twins led most of the game, having scored 4 in the top of the 3rd. Thus, this game doesn't really follow the definition of "pitching to the situation" that is being evaluated.


April 28, 1984
Tigers 6, Indians 2
The Tigers took a 3-0 lead into the 4th and the Indians scored 2. Detroit countered by scoring 3 in the bottom of the 4th. Again, with a 6-2 lead, Jack could afford to let Cleveland hit. However, after the 4th inning, Jack allowed 2 singles.

Verdict: No. Jack allowed a mere 2 singles after taking the big lead.


May 19, 1984
Tigers 5, Athletics 4
Detroit scored a single run in the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th. As it was 5-1 going into the 8th, Jack must have pitched to the situation here, because Oakland scored 2 in the top of the 8th off of him.

Verdict: Yes. This one seems to apply, though I'm sure Captain Hook wasn't happy about Jack giving up those runs in the 8th.



June 7, 1984
Tigers 5, Blue Jays 3
Another excellent complete game outing by Morris. It was a close game until Detroit scored 4 in the bottom of the 6th. He allowed 2 ER in the top of the 8th.

Verdict: Yes. Obviously, Jack knew that the Jays would score a couple of runs that they didn't need and the Tigers would win 5-3. It's uncanny how he can predict the future like that.


June 24, 1984
Tigers 7, Brewers 1
Morris pitched 6 innings of 1 hit ball and left with a 1-0 lead. Detroit scored 6 in the bottom of the 6th and Lopez allowed the 1 Brewer run.

Verdict: Doesn't qualify as to the definition above.


August 11, 1984
Tigers 9, Royals 5
After taking a 9-2 lead into the 9th, Jack toyed with the Royals by allowing them to score 3 in the bottom of the 9th before Captain Hook yanked him and Lopez got the last out.

Verdict: Yes. We once again see Puppet Master Jack Morris toying with the opponent, allowing them to not completely embarrass themselves by losing 9-2. Can somebody explain to me why allowing 3 runs in any situation is ever a good thing?


August 20, 1984
Tigers 14, Athletics 1
Detroit led 6-1 after 3 and 11-1 after 5. After having a 6-1 lead, Morris retired 12 straight batters before being lifted to start the 8th.

Verdict: No. If there ever was a time where Morris would pitch to the situation, this was it and he didn't.

In 10 randomly chosen games from 1984, 2 of them don't qualify for "pitching to the situation" because they were close throughout Jack's time in the game.

In the 8 remaining games, Morris shut the other team down in 5 of them, even when he had a big lead.

In the 3 remaining games, Morris gave up runs, although not enough to lose the game. Every one of those 3 games could have gone the other way and Detroit could have lost. So, why is it a good thing that Morris "pitches to the situation" and allows the other team to score runs?

 

It appears that the voters seem to rate Alan Trammel and Dave Concepcion at about the same level, neither of which has received Hall of Fame merit, thus far.

FTR, with Rabbit Maranville, Joe Tinker, and Bobby Wallace in the HOF, how can anyone ever justify keeping either/or Dave Concepcion and Alan Trammell out?

BTW, Dan Quisenberry also rates inclusion in the HOF as a reliever, too, in addition to Kent Tekulve, Lee Smith, and Sparky Lyle, given those that are already there.

Ed

 

cc, "pitching to the situation" means that you do not nibble or strain at every out. When you have a big lead, there is nothing worse than to allow walks and then a possible 3-run homer to let a team back into it. Managers hate walks when they have a comortable lead. They would rather see their pitcher give up a couple of solo homers than to walk a few and cause a big inning. Morris gave up a lot of solo homers. He was similar to Curt Schilling in that respect.

Your scant 10 game sampling isn't enough to prove or disprove my hypothesis. Let the Bill Jameses of the world do that stuff, man!

 

10 games from one season out of 500+ career starts is not a fair example. The analysis would require us to compare "close" games with "big leads" and see if Morris pitched differently - i.e., did he throw more strikes in big leads than he normally would in other situations? It is more than just looking at a box score and seeing if he gave up runs when they were ahead. The fact that the A's couldn't score more than 1 run off Morris on August 20, 1984 is quite meaningless to the hypothesis.

 

I wanted to quickly revisit this comment. You also need to account for the fact that Morris pitched in mostly hitters' ballparks (Detroit, Stink-a-dome and Toronto). Detroit and Minny esp. were hitters parks. He also pitched in the AL (better hitting). So you need to account all of that when you consider his ERA.

 

I completely agree. It's nothing more than a start to a larger piece of work. It does lead to a couple of questions though.

When is giving up runs and hits ever a good thing? Doesn't every hit have the potential to lead to a run scored? It's easy to say after the fact that Morris was pitching to the situation, but during those games, it's not possible for Jack to have known with 100% certainty that the Tigers were going to win. Thus, he had to go after every batter with the same intensity. Didn't he? If there were any game that called for allowing hits and runs to happen, that 11-1 game would have been it, but he didn't. He retired 12 in a row.

Isn't this idea of pitching to the situation just a way to justify Morris' high career ERA? Because there's no way we're even having this conversation if his ERA is somewhere around say, Catfish Hunter's 3.26.

 

Pitching to the situation does not mean giving up runs every time. It may. Or it may not. It means throwing strikes and not nibbling when you have a big lead. Sometimes you can chuck it in there and the other team still can't hit (or they hit it right at someone).

Morris' high ERA along with his 250+ wins is quite odd don't you think? It's not like he played for the '27 Yankees every year. The Tigers of the 80's was a decent offensive team, but they were by no means a juggernaut. Morris didn't win simply because his team gave him unbelievable run support. Another explanation to his high ERA could be that when he was off, he was really off. So when he lost, he lost big. But the end result is, he won a lot more than he lost - and he won some big games. He was clutch, and he was a winner.

 

In 17 seasons, 13 of the teams he was on were better-than-average run-scoring teams. 7 of those teams finished either 1st or 2nd in the league in runs scored. When you allow a lot of runs, you better have a lot of run support in order to win games.

I will always contend that his sensational Game 7 performance in the '91 World Series makes people think that Morris was better than he actually was. He was an average pitcher, with above average durability, who pitched on some really good teams.

 

Now you are being ridiculous. Jack Morris was an average pitcher. My lands.

 

I saw some site, only today, that had done a detailed analysis of this, as well. Their conclusion, and this was based on the entire career with every game Morris pitched in, checked was that this was basically an urban legend, as you have here surmised. There was no real difference as to whether Jack Morris had a lead or not. There is some evidence that he tended to pitch somewhat better in post-season play.

And, like Don Drysdale, he pitched, pitched, and pitched some more, in game after game.
What was incontrovertible (as well as basically inexplicable, given that he pitched several years for Sparky Anderson, who was well nick-named "Captain Hook", for his penchant to pull pitchers, but had a very slow hook, for Jack Morris) was the number of complete games (and the accompanying high-pitch and IP counts) that Morris actually had, over his career. He had 175 complete games in 18 years or about one out of every three starts. (Granted, this ain't to the level of 'Iron Man McGinnity' and Cy Young stuff, but neither was it 1903, either.)

By contrast, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, and Pedro Martinez (all very possible HOFers) have a combined 155 Complete Games between the three over 52 years of starting pitching [with Smoltz's 4 year hiatus where he was one of, if not the, dominant closer(s) in baseball, ignored here.]. Curt Schilling has 83 CG in 20 yr.; Randy Johnson has 98 CG in 20 yr.; Greg Maddux has 109 CG in 22 yr.; and Roger Clemens has 118 CG over 24 yr.. And all the above 'Magnificent 7' have been known to toss a coupla' innings, themselves.

I'd say one can make a case, either way, about Jack Morris making the HOF.

This is just to put some perspective, to it.

Ed