WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > Jack Morris or Curt Schilling

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Jack Morris or Curt Schilling  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 03:56 am
  PM Quote Reply
31st Post
stingmark

 

Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9400
Status: 
Offline
Principal_Raditch wrote: I guess I didn't consider the 1993 season him getting a ring since he didn't actually contribute in the playoffs as he was left off the playing roster because he sucked so badly during the regular season.
If he was "left off the playing roster" he shouldnt have gotten a ring then? i thought you had to be on the playoff roster to be eligible for things like that?

Last edited on Sun Jan 10th, 2010 04:00 am by stingmark



____________________
"I went to the #6th ranked liberal Arts College in California, I'm smarter than anyone else"(Also found out to be a formerly racist institution-Jeff Forsyth)




Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 03:59 am
  PM Quote Reply
32nd Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52416
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote: Morris was terrible in 1993 and his postseason numbers in 1992 were terrible. And besides since when did WS rings determine who was a better pitcher? I guess that must mean Whitey Ford is one of the 5 greatest pitchers ever.
Actually Ford being the 5th best pitcher ever is pretty damn close.  Having WS rings doesn't mean you're a better pitcher, but performing big in WS games is absolutely gping to put you ahead of pitchers who didn't, all other things close to equal (not saying Don Larson is great because of 1 game).



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 02:08 pm
  PM Quote Reply
33rd Post
silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1265
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: silentkiller wrote: Morris was terrible in 1993 and his postseason numbers in 1992 were terrible. And besides since when did WS rings determine who was a better pitcher? I guess that must mean Whitey Ford is one of the 5 greatest pitchers ever.
Actually Ford being the 5th best pitcher ever is pretty damn close.  Having WS rings doesn't mean you're a better pitcher, but performing big in WS games is absolutely gping to put you ahead of pitchers who didn't, all other things close to equal (not saying Don Larson is great because of 1 game).

Actually I don't think it's pretty close at all. In just the last 20 years Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Pedro Martinez have all been superior pitchers to Ford.



____________________
http://www.hoopshabit.com
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 03:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
34th Post
PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
Unrelated to the HOF discussion, but the A's are known as a stats-first, scouting-second organization and for being a rather cold-hearted one at that (see the passages regarding David Justice in Moneyball).  The Twins are known as a scouts-first, execute-the-fundamentals, play-good-defense-and-put-the-ball-in-play organization.

Both are small-market teams who've achieved great success in the regular season.  Both have trouble hanging onto their star players.

Both have had exactly the same amount of success in the postseason: several division titles, one LCS appearance, no pennants.

Yet the Twins are routinely trumpeted as a success story and the A's are thought of as "chokers" because "sabermetrics doesn't work in the playoffs" or some such.

So...why is that?  I think it's far more likely that there IS no "formula" for postseason success and that a lot of it comes down to, as Billy Beane put it, "fucking luck."  I know that's not a very sexy storyline for sportswriters to pontificate about, but it's probably the most likely one.

Oh, and Schilling >>> Morris.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 03:13 pm
  PM Quote Reply
35th Post
PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
Also, Gray Ink and Black Ink are a measure of HOF voter tendencies, not necessarily player value.

Tim Raines does horribly on Black Ink because his strengths were based on stuff like OBP and steal percentage instead of the "traditional" stats (other than steals).  He is still a HOF-quality player.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 05:20 pm
  PM Quote Reply
36th Post
The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 10126
Status: 
Offline
I'd pick Morris. 

If Morris played in Schilling's time he'd have better numbers and possibly more rings.  He would have commanded  too much money or would have demanded a trade rather than languish on those shitty Tiger teams of the 70s early 80s.  He most likely would have been traded/signed with a contender like Schilling was/did.

On the flip side Morris gave up a lot of homers, so in the steroid era he may have completely sucked balls.



____________________
May I offer you some salt and vinegar chips?
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 05:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
37th Post
lobo316



Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: Raptorville
Posts: 44380
Status: 
Offline
Ferguson Jenkins also gave up a lot of homers. But Jenkins hardly
walked anyone, so he didn't give a rat's ass about homers. 
Maybe Morris felt the same way about home runs.

Last edited on Sun Jan 10th, 2010 05:34 pm by lobo316

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 05:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
38th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52416
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote: srossi wrote: silentkiller wrote: Morris was terrible in 1993 and his postseason numbers in 1992 were terrible. And besides since when did WS rings determine who was a better pitcher? I guess that must mean Whitey Ford is one of the 5 greatest pitchers ever.
Actually Ford being the 5th best pitcher ever is pretty damn close.  Having WS rings doesn't mean you're a better pitcher, but performing big in WS games is absolutely gping to put you ahead of pitchers who didn't, all other things close to equal (not saying Don Larson is great because of 1 game).

Actually I don't think it's pretty close at all. In just the last 20 years Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Pedro Martinez have all been superior pitchers to Ford.

Fascinating.  They're all clearly better than the guy with the 69% winning pct. (4th best ever) and 2.75 ERA (2.71 ERA in 22 WS games).



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 05:38 pm
  PM Quote Reply
39th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52416
Status: 
Offline
lobo316 wrote: Ferguson Jenkins also gave up a lot of homers. But Jenkins hardly
walked anyone, so he didn't give a rat's ass about homers. 
Maybe Morris felt the same way about home runs.

Morris was the type of pitcher who did what he needed to in order to win.  If he was leading 6-1, he thought nothing of giving up 2 or 3 solo homers.  He wasn't trying to be too fine or strike out everyone like most guys do today with a lead.  That's what hurts his numbers.  He could win 2-1 or 10-9.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 07:38 pm
  PM Quote Reply
40th Post
silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1265
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: silentkiller wrote: srossi wrote: silentkiller wrote: Morris was terrible in 1993 and his postseason numbers in 1992 were terrible. And besides since when did WS rings determine who was a better pitcher? I guess that must mean Whitey Ford is one of the 5 greatest pitchers ever.
Actually Ford being the 5th best pitcher ever is pretty damn close.  Having WS rings doesn't mean you're a better pitcher, but performing big in WS games is absolutely gping to put you ahead of pitchers who didn't, all other things close to equal (not saying Don Larson is great because of 1 game).

Actually I don't think it's pretty close at all. In just the last 20 years Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Pedro Martinez have all been superior pitchers to Ford.

Fascinating.  They're all clearly better than the guy with the 69% winning pct. (4th best ever) and 2.75 ERA (2.71 ERA in 22 WS games).

Not only are they clearly better, I'd say easily better than a guy who with the exception of Pedro Martinez who they lead in wins, innings pitched, and strikeouts.

3 of the 4 also lead him in Adjusted ERA+ while they all played in a far more offensive environment and a much better league quality than the subpar AL that Ford played in the 1950's and most of the 60's.



____________________
http://www.hoopshabit.com
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 07:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
41st Post
PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
Funny, "give up a lot of homers but don't walk anybody" describes Schilling to a T.  And he was better at that than Morris.

Schilling is also historically great at preventing unearned runs.  I don't know if he had a "pitch better when the guys behind me make an error" mojo working or what, but normal ERA actually underrates him.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 08:35 pm
  PM Quote Reply
42nd Post
Count Grog
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Fuquay Varina, NC, USA
Posts: 15720
Status: 
Offline
Morris because Schilling is a cocksucking prick and I would pick Bob Moose over Schilling



____________________
Most people don't care if you're telling them the truth or if you're telling them a lie, as long as they're entertained by it. - Tom Waits

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 09:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
43rd Post
PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
Having become a real diehard baseball fan in 1994 (when the Indians became a powerhouse), my first real solid memory of Jack Morris is a guy who quit on his team when they were in the middle of their first pennant race in 40 years because his farm was more important than the team.

In August, he asked to work the first game of a doubleheader so he could fly home afterward, was refused by Mike Hargrove, and got shelled in the second game and went home right after being taken out.  The Indians immediately released him even though he was 10-6--that's how valuable an asset they considered him.

So, this is one fan who's less than enamored with the idea that Morris was a "gutsy" pitcher and a "winner."  Personal bias, yes, but 1993 and 1994 count, too.

The point I'm trying to get at is, Curt Schilling's greatest crime is that he can be an annoying loudmouth.  Jack Morris, towards the end of his career, was a quitter.  I'll take Schilling.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 09:57 pm
  PM Quote Reply
44th Post
The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 10126
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote:
Having become a real diehard baseball fan in 1994 (when the Indians became a powerhouse), my first real solid memory of Jack Morris is a guy who quit on his team when they were in the middle of their first pennant race in 40 years because his farm was more important than the team.

In August, he asked to work the first game of a doubleheader so he could fly home afterward, was refused by Mike Hargrove, and got shelled in the second game and went home right after being taken out.  The Indians immediately released him even though he was 10-6--that's how valuable an asset they considered him.

So, this is one fan who's less than enamored with the idea that Morris was a "gutsy" pitcher and a "winner."  Personal bias, yes, but 1993 and 1994 count, too.

The point I'm trying to get at is, Curt Schilling's greatest crime is that he can be an annoying loudmouth.  Jack Morris, towards the end of his career, was a quitter.  I'll take Schilling.


They realeased him because the season ended in a lock out and they could dump portions of his contract.



____________________
May I offer you some salt and vinegar chips?
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 11:02 pm
  PM Quote Reply
45th Post
PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
Morris was released in the first week of August, while games were still being played, and the strike didn't come until 8/12.

The Indians became the first team in history to make a trade DURING a strike (for Dave Winfield)--they were not looking to shred salary, they were staying active in case play resumed.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 09:48 pm Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page    
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > Jack Morris or Curt Schilling Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems