Posted by Rob McQuown on Thursday, January 7, 2010 at 12:07 pm

What exactly are we measuring?  Personality?  Manners?  The number of championships?  Whether you played for the Dodgers or Yankees?  If you can explain it to me, go ahead.

- Whitey Herzog on HOF selection criteria (from his 1998 book You’re Missin’ a Great Game).

Now, Jayson Stark “manned up” and openly discussed his HOF votes, for which I respect him greatly.   Here was his logic for voting for Jack Morris (from ESPN.com):

“this is where I remind the lecturers that we’re talking about a pitcher who threw a no-hitter, started three All-Star Games, was the winningest pitcher of his generation, made a major impact on three World Series teams and was more than just a man who put on the greatest Game 7 World Series show I’ve ever witnessed. So I checked his box for the 10th straight year. I haven’t been embarrassed to do that once.”

I’m just baffled by how things like the “Jack Morris for HOF” argument can gain legs, and how smart people like Mr. Stark can support it with rational-sounding criteria.  Let’s consider these point-by-point:

1. He threw a no-hitter. So did Juan Nieves.  Who cares?  There have been 221 modern-day no-hitters, and a LOT of them by guys who have no right being mentioned in a HOF discussion.  Tip O’ the cap to Mr. Morris for this… perhaps view him as being 0.01 ERA points better because he had a fantastic day at the office once.

2. He started 3 All-Star Games. What on Earth does first-half performance have to do with anything?!  Next, we’re going to read about why Morris is good because he excelled in the latter parts of the season.  Now, which is it?!  Matt Clement started an All-Star game.  I mean, seriously, it’s great for Jack that he was the best available (some guys may have had their rotation spots mess up their availability) AL pitcher (as determined by the All-Star manager) 3 times in the first halves of seasons.  And does 1985 really count?  Who else did we think Sparky was going to start?

3. He was the winningest pitcher of his generation. Give me a break!  Haven’t we gone beyond this yet?   When someone was raving about how he was the best pitcher of the 80’s to me, I pulled up Fernando Valenzuela’s 80’s for comparison, just because I knew he was good until his arm fell off.

Fernando: 128-103, 3.19, 27 shutouts, 4.2 runs/game support,  .237/.309/.336 batting line against

Morris: 162-119, 3.66, 20 shutouts, 4.7 runs/game support, .241/.305/.379 batting line against

Now, Fernando wasn’t nearly the best 100-win pitcher in the 80s.  That would be Doc Gooden, who went 100-39, 2.64 (132 ERA+).  Or Stieb or Tudor, if you want guys who didn’t begin in 1984.  Those three dominate the ERA+ list for 100-wins-in-80s pitchers.  #4 through #12 on that list are all “bunched”, with Valenzuela (8th) and Morris (11th) being 2 of them (thanks, B-R.com!)

As far as “winningest”, sure, you can take that literally and give him “credit” for staying in games longer, and that makes sense.  But good grief!  Wouldn’t you rather have a guy with a higher winning percentage, if you’re looking for “winningest”?   He had the most WINS in the 80’s, for example, but he also had the 3rd-most LOSSES in the 80s (119).   And he played for some teams which could score serious runs (4.7 runs/game was a lot in the 80s)!

4. He made a major impact on 3 World Series teams. Okay, now, let’s think about this one.  His first two World Series appearances were great, and he helped his team win by going 4-0, allowing just 7 ER in 41 IP(!)  Saying he had a “major impact” on his 3rd World Series is – while accurate – crazy to lump in with the other two, since he went 0-2, 8.44 – allowing 10 ER in 10.2 IP.  For kicks, let’s compare his World Series with Hershiser’s:

Morris #1: (1984) 2-0, 2.00, 4 ER in 18.0 IP.  Against SD (4.23 Runs/G regular season)

Hershiser #1: (1988) 2-1, 1.00, 2 ER in 18.0 IP.  Against Oakland (4.94 Runs/G regular season)

Morris #2: (1991) 2-0, 1.17, 3 ER in 23.0 IP.  Against Atlanta (4.62 Runs/G regular season)

Hershiser #2: (1995) 1-1, 2.57, 4 ER in 14.0 IP.  Against Atlanta (4.45 Runs/G regular season)

Morris #3 (1992) 0-2, 8.44, 10 ER in 10.2 IP.

Hershiser #3 (1997) 0-2, 11.70, 13 ER in 10.0 IP.

Now, both these guys deserve serious kudos for rising to the occasion at the most-important times.  Of course, Hershiser didn’t get any “mad props” the way Morris did, since his teammates lost 2 of the 3 World Series he appeared in.  Anyway, it’s somewhat hard to be overly swayed by the “major impact” argument for Morris, since while he dominated 2 of them (having one of the most impactful World Series performances of all time in 1991), he also seriously reduced the chances for his team (Blue Jays at the time) to win the 3rd, though they overcame his awful performance to win in spite of him.

5. He put on the greatest Game 7 World Series show [Jayson Stark] ever witnessed. Well, it’s impossible to debate this as written, not knowing what Mr. Stark has witnessed, but most would agree that it was among the greatest of all time.  This, clearly, goes further than the +0.01 ERA points for a no-hitter, given the context.  But how far?  Do we really want “one-and-done” guys in the Hall of Fame?  Morris was clearly a *good* pitcher for a long time.

Morris was durable and tenacious, and he pitched deep into games, which probably hurt his rate stats somewhat.  But his career ERA+ (which is adjusted for park and era) is 105.  That’s about what Joe Blanton has so far, and he’s also durable and tenacious and pitches deep into games.  Would anyone even begin to think of Blanton in terms of HOF candidacy?  Of course not!  And the argument has been made that there weren’t any “great” pitchers in Morris’ era, but let’s revisit the Hershiser comparison (who probably wasn’t as good as Stieb, but had more postseason success):

Career ERA: Morris 3.90, Hershiser 3.48

Career ERA+: Morris 105, Hershiser 112

Career win%: Morris .577, Hershiser .576

Career postseason: Morris 7-4, 3.80, Hershiser 8-3, 2.59

Career vs Yankees: Morris 17-12, 4.30, Hershiser 2-2, 4.17 (45 IP vs NY as an old man with the Indians)

[ed - I included the final one because for some reason I can't auger, several Yankees fans I know are avid "Morris for HOF" supporters.]

Anyway, it’s easy to be as cynical as Whitey Herzog when it comes to HOF balloting.  At times, it really does appear to be nothing more than a glorified popularity contest, with the guys people “like” having their warts glossed over and their accomplishments magnified and vice-verse for the “disliked” group.  But “fame” is fickle, and at times like these, it’s good to remember they didn’t call it the “Hall of Performance” (or “Hall of Merit” to use Baseball Think Factory parlance).