12/22/24
August 11, 2005
Tempered Bid: Jack Morris says he is working to gain votes to the Hall of Fame but wouldn't seek induction if a steroid user is elected. "They're all cheaters in my opinion," Morris said. (reg. reqd: sports@filter.com, pw: com.com)
Man, I look at Morris' numbers and he should warrant more consideration. He has very good win and loss totals and has pitched some classic games. Definitely suffers the Blyleven syndrome - not many great seasons, just at the end of the career having some great totals.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:19 PM on August 11, 2005
Actually, Morris didn't have that many "good" seasons, either (or had a few and then had some bad ones as well). A career ERA+ of 105 suggests he was only 5% better than the average pitcher over the same time span. An average season for Morris would be 3.90 ERA, 156K, 87BB, 241.1 IP. An average season for Blyleven would be 3.31ERA, 182K, 65B, 245.1 IP. A quick comparison of their 10 best ERA+ seasons, in order: JM: 133/127/126/124/124/122/117/115/109/102 BB: 158/151/142/142/140/135/129/127/126/125 Blyleven is much better than Morris. That said, I get where you are coming from about the comparison (workhorse & consistency). I'd vote Blyleven into the HOF, but not Morris. However, I'd definitely vote Morris into the Hall of Very Good, and thank him for his work in 1992 (tip o' the Blue Jays cap).
posted by grum@work at 12:43 PM on August 11, 2005
I'd vote Blyleven into the HOF, but not Morris. Agreed, but I will also never forget those ten shutout innings in the seventh game of the 1991 WS...he was masterful in that game.
posted by chris2sy at 12:49 PM on August 11, 2005
I agree I would take Bert over jack for the HOF. One thing about Morris, for that 10 year period or so, he was the "stud" pitcher of the Majors. He was the poster boy of "big game" pitchers
posted by daddisamm at 01:15 PM on August 11, 2005
It did cross my mind reading the article that it'd be easy for him to take his name off the ballot since there's a slim chance of him getting in anyway. I think Blyleven should definitely be in.
posted by hootch at 02:21 PM on August 11, 2005
You dont get into the hall for pitching a great game, or even a bunch of great games. You get in for having a great career.
posted by gregy606 at 02:37 PM on August 11, 2005
Yes, but Morris had more than one great game!
posted by daddisamm at 03:15 PM on August 11, 2005
If at the end of ones playing days they say you had a HOF type of career then you can be sure it was a memorable one . Having to jar peoples memories to get votes to the HOF years later kind of says maybe it wasn't so memorable after all .
posted by evil empire at 03:30 PM on August 11, 2005
Jack Morris says he . . . wouldn't seek induction if a steroid user is elected. Is there any way that we can go back and test HOFers for steroids or other substances? Maybe submitting to a test should be a prerequisite for the ballot. Dig up the dead ones and run tests? The fact is the only ones that we are going to know for sure used steroids are those that are playing now and get caught, or those that admit it. Everything else is speculation. How many HOFers used steroids? Steroids were invented in the 30s and were not made illegal until 1991, so it is quite possible and probable that many players used them that we do not know about.
posted by graymatters at 04:45 PM on August 11, 2005
How many HOFers used steroids? Can't you just picture Lou Gehrig injecting Babe Ruth in his fat ass ?
posted by evil empire at 05:18 PM on August 11, 2005
I couldn't until you mentioned it. Thanks for that image. Morris doesn't belong in the HOF anyway. It's an empty threat. Would he mind being in there with the wife beaters? The alcoholics? The speed takers? The Irish? (Personal note: I'm half-Irish, but I've never beat my wife, taken speed or become a friend of anyone with a single initial for a last name.) Come on, what if the early inductees had said "We'll leave if you let those guys in who had nutritionists! They had an unfair advantage over us. Not to mention the ones who took cortisone or B-12!" I think it's time to seperate MLB into eras and elect players based on how they did in comparison to players of their era. And still Jack Morris doesn't belong.
posted by ?! at 05:30 PM on August 11, 2005
Come on, what if the early inductees had said "We'll leave if you let those guys in who had nutritionists! They had an unfair advantage over us. Not to mention the ones who took cortisone or B-12!" Take it one step further , what about the kids who took Flintstones vitamins and ate their Wheaties having an advantage as adults over those who didn't . It's just a joke but I bet for at least one second someone who read this said hey yea .
posted by evil empire at 05:49 PM on August 11, 2005
The big argument I hear on radio about why steroids is cheating is that they allow you to recover more quickly from injuries, fatigue, whatever, because it is hard to make the argument stick that they make you faster or better able to see the ball, etc. So, maybe we should just ban anyone who receives who receives modern medical treatment, such as muscle stimulus, etc. (Maybe even modern surgery?). After all, for the purity of the game, shouldn't the players of today be held to the same standards as the players of the past? [By the way, just kidding]
posted by graymatters at 11:34 AM on August 12, 2005
I agree. It's silly to complain that each group of players have it better than the last. But I still wonder why are people so upset about such drugs? If all they are is another step (or misstep) in medicine then why are people so upset? Do the average fans still think these guys are pure athletes who strive only for the love of the game?
posted by ?! at 11:24 PM on August 14, 2005
Maybe it is just me but it seems sad to me that guys actually campaign to be put in the Hall. It's not a popularity contests (well it shouldn't be anyway) so if your merits are enough then fine if your career was not great then you won;t get in. Or shouldn't