Should Jack Morris be in the HOF?
 

I go back and forth on this one.

I want to say right from the start that Jack Morris is NOT the best pitcher outside of Cooperstown not enshrined. He's behind Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat, and Tommy John, for sure. I think he's behind Luis Tiant, but you can argue that.

So the question here is simply this: Is Jack Morris' career a HOF-worthy career IN AND OF ITSELF?

There are some compelling arguments on his behalf.

Morris' 254-186 record is clearly within HOF range. His .577 winning % is in the middle of HOFers, maybe in the upper middle.
He won 15 or more games 11 of 18 years in the majors. The times he didn't were (a) the two bits of years at the beginning of his career, (b) his last two seasons, (c) 1989, his worst year in the heart of his career, and (d) 1981, the strike year, where he led the AL in wins, with 14.

Morris had big winning seasons, as well. He won 20+ games three times, in addition to leading the league with 14 wins in the strike year. He won 19 one other time, and 18 two more times.
Morris only had three losing records, one of them being a 3-5 record in his second "cup of coffee" season, when he came up for good.

Morris was the 1991 World Series MVP, and he pitched in what was the most memorable World Series performance of my lifetime
(I was born after Don Larsen:D ). Morris' performance in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series illustrated what Morris did best: win games. In many ways, he was the anti-Nolan, winning tough games, rather than losing spectacularly.

One can argue that Morris was the best pitcher of his generation, granted that his generation, which came in between Jim Palmer and Roger Clemens, lacked a defining pitching star. The other knocks on Morris are (a) his ERA, with is 3.90 vs 4.08 league (although his parks clearly hurt him), (b) his failure to win a Cy Young Award, (c) he did garner offensive support behind him, albeit in hitters parks, and (d) his w-l record is HOF-ish, but not overwhelmingly so without lots of chrome and leather. (Morris does have SOME chrome and leather; his 20-win seasons, but has never been held in the esteem of a Clemens, or even a Gooden, until Doc went completely south). Then, too, is the fact that Morris isn't the best outside the Hall, and that point is somewhat clear in his case.

But if there were no Tommy John, no Jim Kaat, no Bert Blyleven, would Morris be a HOFer? Did he do what HOFers do?

Morris did what other hall of famers do, win games, and win big ones. A lot of the problem with the ERA is due to the home runs he gave up. But I still voted no, I don't think he should be in. Yet. After the big 3 get in, I'd likely put Guidry in over Morris. He's a few pitchers back in the queue.
He also was really below average during the end of his career. He stayed too long, and if he retires, say, after the 1992 series, I think he's far more automatic.
He was very good but just wasn't spectacular enough for the hall. Doesn't have the prerequisite consistentcy to get in without being a spectacle. Yet. Key word in all this. :)

I voted yes. Morris' performance in game 7 of the 1991 World Series is what cinched it for me. I really don't have an opinion on John, Kaat, or Blyleven, because I didn't see them in pitch their primes, only at the tail ends of their careers. John and Kaat were junkballing old men when I saw them, and Blyleven was giving up 45-50 homeruns a year in Minnesota. I did see Morris in his prime, and he was a horse. He was the ace of his staff for over a decade, and all he did was win. Frankly, I don't care about his 3.90 ERA, because he did what he needed to do to get a win, and there was no better illustration of that than game 7 in 1991.

BTW, the league ERA mentioned is already park adjusted, so it takes Tiger Stadium into account.

I think that a requirement for being a hall of famer is "prolonged dominance at a position", and Morris has it. In the major leagues between 1979-1988, John Scott Morris has 42 more wins over the next closest pitcher, Dave Stieb. This also goes to show the weakness of the National League, because the winningest pitcher there in that span is Fernando Valenzuela, and Fernando was handicapped almost 2 1/2 full seasons. But this doesn't detract from the point that he's got the "dominance" requirement.

But I just don't see him as a hall of famer "at the moment". Wait a few years then the opinion will change. :)

Morris isn't ideally a HOFer, but I have no problem with Morris being in the Hall of Fame. He was probably the best pitcher of the 1980s, him or Fernando -- Clemens only had four good years.

Morris' HOF credentials are hurt by a couple of things:

1. The strike in 1981 probably cost him 20-win season and maybe a Cy Young award. Given a full season, I think it was more likely that Morris would have won 21 games with 300 innings than Fingers would have kept a .78 ERA.
2. His ERA isn't that good, but it bottomed out because he had some unusually awful years at the end of his career, and he pitched a couple years with some Tigers teams that had no pitching or defense.

He had 12 years in the top 10 in wins, five in top 10 in ERA, got Cy Young votes in seven years, and was the best big-game pitcher of his time, him or Stewart.

While his performance in 1991 world series was incredible, he is no hall of famer.

I can handle Morris for the HOF, maybe more than Kaat or John even. Blyleven is first to go in, and though I'm usually more a career value over peak value guy, I like Guidry too. Go figure.

I won't get too worked up either way though - over any of these five guys.

You can sum this question up in five words: NO

Are you sure you dont hate me? :confuse2:

P.S. I teach math if you are interested. Maybe a trade off on some lawn stuff? I'm flexible dude - heck, I flex all over the place. ;)

If Jim Bunning can get into the Hall of Fame, then why not Jack Morris?

Compadre,

Please do not make these statements in this forum. You do not know the trouble those statements can cause!!;)

Apparently I don't. Have I broken some unwritten rule? ;)

TGwynn is so totally right. The if 'A' then 'B' arguments invariably result in *unintelligent baseball discourse* and *rapid closure-du-thread*. (I made that up). Don't be seduced by the dark side. :)

My apologies, I'm still pretty new here. I can see how a thread could spiral out of control that way. I promise not to do it again. :p