WowBB Forums Home 
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > Jack Morris or Curt Schilling

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi  
AuthorPost
silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1265
Status: 
Offline
Who do you say was the better pitcher and I'd really like to hear the arguments from those who choose Morris as to why they have him over Schilling.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52416
Status: 
Offline
Schilling because they both were big game pitchers but Schilling's numbers are much better, with a half run lower ERA and a better winning percentage.

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
Schilling

lobo316



Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: Raptorville
Posts: 44380
Status: 
Offline
Schilling. But if it's one game, the 7th game of the WS, I want Morris.

NJRob65

 

Joined: Sat Aug 16th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 1116
Status: 
Offline
Schilling. See below:

A few quick numbers:

By IP
Schilling - 3261.0
Morris - 3824.0

By Wins
Schilling - 216
Morris - 254

By ERA+
Schilling - 127
Morris - 105

By K/9
Schilling - 8.60
Morris - 5.83

By K/BB
Schilling - 4.80
Morris - 1.78

By Postseason ERA
Schilling - 2.23
Morris - 3.80

By World Series ERA
Schilling - 2.06
Morris - 2.96

By Gray Ink
Schilling - 205
Morris - 193

By Black Ink
Schilling - 42
Morris - 20

Kid_Naitch



Joined: Tue Oct 30th, 2007
Location: IOWA
Posts: 4903
Status: 
Offline
Schilling in a squash.

dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10019
Status: 
Offline
This is great, as I was just thinking of this argument the other day.  For me, it's a bit of a toss up.  My gut says Morris, but as a Red Sox fan, I can't diss Schilling.  So Schilling...but barely.

victhestick



Joined: Mon Apr 27th, 2009
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA
Posts: 2452
Status: 
Offline
I'd take Jack Morris any day of the week, big game pitcher.

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1265
Status: 
Offline
victhestick wrote: I'd take Jack Morris any day of the week, big game pitcher.
Curt Schilling's postseason numbers blow away Morris and Schilling was better in big games than Morris. I think Schilling was better than Morris by a wide margin.

stingmark

 

Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9400
Status: 
Offline
NJRob65 wrote: Schilling. See below:

A few quick numbers:

By IP
Schilling - 3261.0
Morris - 3824.0

By Wins
Schilling - 216
Morris - 254

By ERA+
Schilling - 127
Morris - 105

By K/9
Schilling - 8.60
Morris - 5.83

By K/BB
Schilling - 4.80
Morris - 1.78

By Postseason ERA
Schilling - 2.23
Morris - 3.80

By World Series ERA
Schilling - 2.06
Morris - 2.96

By Gray Ink
Schilling - 205
Morris - 193

By Black Ink
Schilling - 42
Morris - 20


By WS rings:

 

Schilling: 3

Morris:4

stingmark

 

Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9400
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote: victhestick wrote: I'd take Jack Morris any day of the week, big game pitcher.
Curt Schilling's postseason numbers blow away Morris and Schilling was better in big games than Morris. I think Schilling was better than Morris by a wide margin.


Maybe...Morris came up huge though in big games. Not saying Curt didn't. But, did Schilling ever pitch a fucking 10 shutout in a WS game? Morris has a no-no(I think Schilling does too), and Morris has about 40 more wins than Schilling. Plus, how many 20 win seasons between the 2?

BOTH are wonderful, but I've seen Morris pitch several times, and the guy's a fucking stud. Those Split finger fb and Forkball pitches really made Morris a stud.

Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 7090
Status: 
Online
Huh? Morris got 1 ring with Detroit, 1 with Toronto and 1 with Minnesota.

stingmark

 

Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9400
Status: 
Offline
Principal_Raditch wrote: Huh? Morris got 1 ring with Detroit, 1 with Toronto and 1 with Minnesota.

No...He got 1 w/Detroit......1 w/Minnesota, and 2 w/Toronto..they talked about it on the JT The Brick show......(I actually called and corrected him on it, and he flipped out on me, LOL). Swsore up and down he didnt win 4..that he only had "like 2" he claimed...when he came back from break, he said "that last caller was right by the way, Morris does have 4 ws rings". Then, changed the subject and went off on some tangent about something else.

 





Jack Morris

Pitcher

Born: May 16, 1955 (1955-05-16) (age 54)
St. Paul, Minnesota

Batted: Right
Threw: Right 

MLB debut

July 26, 1977 for the Detroit Tigers

Last MLB appearance

August 7, 1994 for the Cleveland Indians

Career statistics

Win-Loss record  
  254-186

Earned run average  
  3.90

Strikeouts  
  2,478

Teams

Career highlights and awards

Last edited on Sat Jan 9th, 2010 08:45 am by stingmark

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1265
Status: 
Offline
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.

HBF



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 17866
Status: 
Offline
What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.

Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 7090
Status: 
Online
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.

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1265
Status: 
Offline
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Those are tools used for measuring Hall Of Fame candidacy.

freebirdsforever2001
Fantasia is running wild!


Joined: Tue Jul 8th, 2008
Location: Pittsgrove, New Jersey USA
Posts: 20758
Status: 
Offline
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Sabermetrics crap.

freebirdsforever2001
Fantasia is running wild!


Joined: Tue Jul 8th, 2008
Location: Pittsgrove, New Jersey USA
Posts: 20758
Status: 
Offline
As much of a Douchebag Schilling is/was, He was a better pitcher then Morris.

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1265
Status: 
Offline
freebirdsforever2001 wrote:
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Sabermetrics crap.


This is completely wrong. Gray ink and Black ink are both based on traditional basic stats. And even if it wasn't what's wrong with sabermetrics?

dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10019
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote: freebirdsforever2001 wrote:
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Sabermetrics crap.


This is completely wrong. Gray ink and Black ink are both based on traditional basic stats. And even if it wasn't what's wrong with sabermetrics?


Exactly.  I'm no Sabermatrician, but Sabermetrics has completely revolutionized the game and the business of the game.  You only have to quicly peruse "Moneyball" to see how much influence Sabermetrics has.  Teams who are following the traditional AVG./HR/RBI formula for evaluating their talent are the teams that are getting left in the dust.

And to answer HBF's question, I'm too lazy to look up the precise definition at the moment, but IIRC grey ink/black ink refers to how many times a particular player led his league/finished in the top ten in his league in a particular offensive category, and then it's applied against a formula.  The theory is that traditional HoFers will be amongst the leaders in offensive categories. 

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52416
Status: 
Offline
dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: silentkiller wrote: freebirdsforever2001 wrote:
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Sabermetrics crap.


This is completely wrong. Gray ink and Black ink are both based on traditional basic stats. And even if it wasn't what's wrong with sabermetrics?


Exactly.  I'm no Sabermatrician, but Sabermetrics has completely revolutionized the game and the business of the game.  You only have to quicly peruse "Moneyball" to see how much influence Sabermetrics has.  Teams who are following the traditional AVG./HR/RBI formula for evaluating their talent are the teams that are getting left in the dust.

And we've seen how successful the A's have been in the playoffs. 

Sabermetrics is like anything else, fine in moderation but when overused or used in place of common sense it'll kill you.  If the A's used MIT geeks during the '70s and '80s, they would've never brought Rickey Henderson to the team.  The A's would've had just as much success consulting with 95-year old scouts.  Zero World Series wins and a whopping 1 playoff series victory.  Go Sabermetrics!

By the way, this is nothing new.  Using this type of statistical analysis to track things that are illogical have been around for more than 50 years.  These same people used the same type of formulas to try to track the stock market.  That worked out well for them too.  If they had been successful there, they wouldn't have resorted to trying it on baseball.  Like they're gonna have a better chance of figuring out Manny Ramirez than Enron.

Last edited on Sat Jan 9th, 2010 06:45 pm by srossi

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1265
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: silentkiller wrote: freebirdsforever2001 wrote:
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Sabermetrics crap.


This is completely wrong. Gray ink and Black ink are both based on traditional basic stats. And even if it wasn't what's wrong with sabermetrics?


Exactly.  I'm no Sabermatrician, but Sabermetrics has completely revolutionized the game and the business of the game.  You only have to quicly peruse "Moneyball" to see how much influence Sabermetrics has.  Teams who are following the traditional AVG./HR/RBI formula for evaluating their talent are the teams that are getting left in the dust.

And we've seen how successful the A's have been in the playoffs. 

Sabermetrics is like anything else, fine in moderation but when overused or used in place of common sense it'll kill you.  If the A's used MIT geeks during the '70s and '80s, they would've never brought Rickey Henderson to the team.  The A's would've had just as much success consulting with 95-year old scouts.  Zero World Series wins and a whopping 1 playoff series victory.  Go Sabermetrics!

By the way, this is nothing new.  Using this type of statistical analysis to track things that are illogical have been around for more than 50 years.  These same people used the same type of formulas to try to track the stock market.  That worked out well for them too.  If they had been successful there, they wouldn't have resorted to trying it on baseball.  Like they're gonna have a better chance of figuring out Manny Ramirez than Enron.

Rickey Henderson's value is actually much higher among sabermetricians than non-sabermetricians so you're wrong in that stating that.

With an ownership that doesn't spend to keep players and a payroll that's usually among the bottom teams in the league, the A's are a sabermetrics success story. If they had $100 million more to spend on payroll every year and had the ability to keep their best players like the Yankees do, then the A's would have a lot more than one playoff series.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52416
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote: srossi wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: silentkiller wrote: freebirdsforever2001 wrote:
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Sabermetrics crap.


This is completely wrong. Gray ink and Black ink are both based on traditional basic stats. And even if it wasn't what's wrong with sabermetrics?


Exactly.  I'm no Sabermatrician, but Sabermetrics has completely revolutionized the game and the business of the game.  You only have to quicly peruse "Moneyball" to see how much influence Sabermetrics has.  Teams who are following the traditional AVG./HR/RBI formula for evaluating their talent are the teams that are getting left in the dust.

And we've seen how successful the A's have been in the playoffs. 

Sabermetrics is like anything else, fine in moderation but when overused or used in place of common sense it'll kill you.  If the A's used MIT geeks during the '70s and '80s, they would've never brought Rickey Henderson to the team.  The A's would've had just as much success consulting with 95-year old scouts.  Zero World Series wins and a whopping 1 playoff series victory.  Go Sabermetrics!

By the way, this is nothing new.  Using this type of statistical analysis to track things that are illogical have been around for more than 50 years.  These same people used the same type of formulas to try to track the stock market.  That worked out well for them too.  If they had been successful there, they wouldn't have resorted to trying it on baseball.  Like they're gonna have a better chance of figuring out Manny Ramirez than Enron.

Rickey Henderson's value is actually much higher among sabermetricians than non-sabermetricians so you're wrong in that stating that.

Sabermeticians don't even believe in stealing bases and have a seizure at the idea of EVER trying to steal third, a Henderson specialty, so I have no idea what you base that on.  The idea of his value being any higher is ridiculous because every scout and casual fan is in love with him and his traditional scouts.  His value can't get any higher.

victhestick



Joined: Mon Apr 27th, 2009
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA
Posts: 2452
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote: victhestick wrote: I'd take Jack Morris any day of the week, big game pitcher.
Curt Schilling's postseason numbers blow away Morris and Schilling was better in big games than Morris. I think Schilling was better than Morris by a wide margin.

Jack Morris didn't need to invent bloody socks to spread his legend. Then there's the fact that Curt Schilling could've been juicing along with the other 75% of major leaguers of his time. I''ll take Jack Morris, the only thing unnatural about Morris was the length of his moustache.

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1265
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: silentkiller wrote: srossi wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: silentkiller wrote: freebirdsforever2001 wrote:
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Sabermetrics crap.


This is completely wrong. Gray ink and Black ink are both based on traditional basic stats. And even if it wasn't what's wrong with sabermetrics?


Exactly.  I'm no Sabermatrician, but Sabermetrics has completely revolutionized the game and the business of the game.  You only have to quicly peruse "Moneyball" to see how much influence Sabermetrics has.  Teams who are following the traditional AVG./HR/RBI formula for evaluating their talent are the teams that are getting left in the dust.

And we've seen how successful the A's have been in the playoffs. 

Sabermetrics is like anything else, fine in moderation but when overused or used in place of common sense it'll kill you.  If the A's used MIT geeks during the '70s and '80s, they would've never brought Rickey Henderson to the team.  The A's would've had just as much success consulting with 95-year old scouts.  Zero World Series wins and a whopping 1 playoff series victory.  Go Sabermetrics!

By the way, this is nothing new.  Using this type of statistical analysis to track things that are illogical have been around for more than 50 years.  These same people used the same type of formulas to try to track the stock market.  That worked out well for them too.  If they had been successful there, they wouldn't have resorted to trying it on baseball.  Like they're gonna have a better chance of figuring out Manny Ramirez than Enron.

Rickey Henderson's value is actually much higher among sabermetricians than non-sabermetricians so you're wrong in that stating that.

Sabermeticians don't even believe in stealing bases and have a seizure at the idea of EVER trying to steal third, a Henderson specialty, so I have no idea what you base that on.  The idea of his value being any higher is ridiculous because every scout and casual fan is in love with him and his traditional scouts.  His value can't get any higher.
 

I base it on Rickey Henderson generally ranking in the Top 20 of the greatest players ever polls by most sabermetricians. I have never seen him ranked that high in a non-sabermetrics poll. 

Sabermetrics guys are also currently the strongest supporters of the induction of Tim Raines into the Hall.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52416
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote: srossi wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: silentkiller wrote: freebirdsforever2001 wrote:
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Sabermetrics crap.


This is completely wrong. Gray ink and Black ink are both based on traditional basic stats. And even if it wasn't what's wrong with sabermetrics?


Exactly.  I'm no Sabermatrician, but Sabermetrics has completely revolutionized the game and the business of the game.  You only have to quicly peruse "Moneyball" to see how much influence Sabermetrics has.  Teams who are following the traditional AVG./HR/RBI formula for evaluating their talent are the teams that are getting left in the dust.

And we've seen how successful the A's have been in the playoffs. 

Sabermetrics is like anything else, fine in moderation but when overused or used in place of common sense it'll kill you.  If the A's used MIT geeks during the '70s and '80s, they would've never brought Rickey Henderson to the team.  The A's would've had just as much success consulting with 95-year old scouts.  Zero World Series wins and a whopping 1 playoff series victory.  Go Sabermetrics!

By the way, this is nothing new.  Using this type of statistical analysis to track things that are illogical have been around for more than 50 years.  These same people used the same type of formulas to try to track the stock market.  That worked out well for them too.  If they had been successful there, they wouldn't have resorted to trying it on baseball.  Like they're gonna have a better chance of figuring out Manny Ramirez than Enron.

With an ownership that doesn't spend to keep players and a payroll that's usually among the bottom teams in the league, the A's are a sabermetrics success story. If they had $100 million more to spend on payroll every year and had the ability to keep their best players like the Yankees do, then the A's would have a lot more than one playoff series.

Money has nothing to do with investing in guys with no heart who roll over and die in the playoffs every year.  That's a poor excuse.  The Yankees had tons of relatively cheap role players who came through in the clutch.  Hell, virtually any contending team could've even afforded Paul O'Neill.  But they didn't want him, the Yankees did.  Enough excuses for getting guys who can't win. 

freebirdsforever2001
Fantasia is running wild!


Joined: Tue Jul 8th, 2008
Location: Pittsgrove, New Jersey USA
Posts: 20758
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: dogfacedgremlin34 wrote: silentkiller wrote: freebirdsforever2001 wrote:
HBF wrote: What does gray ink and black ink mean? I've never heard of that.
Sabermetrics crap.


This is completely wrong. Gray ink and Black ink are both based on traditional basic stats. And even if it wasn't what's wrong with sabermetrics?


Exactly.  I'm no Sabermatrician, but Sabermetrics has completely revolutionized the game and the business of the game.  You only have to quicly peruse "Moneyball" to see how much influence Sabermetrics has.  Teams who are following the traditional AVG./HR/RBI formula for evaluating their talent are the teams that are getting left in the dust.

And we've seen how successful the A's have been in the playoffs. 

Sabermetrics is like anything else, fine in moderation but when overused or used in place of common sense it'll kill you.  If the A's used MIT geeks during the '70s and '80s, they would've never brought Rickey Henderson to the team.  The A's would've had just as much success consulting with 95-year old scouts.  Zero World Series wins and a whopping 1 playoff series victory.  Go Sabermetrics!

By the way, this is nothing new.  Using this type of statistical analysis to track things that are illogical have been around for more than 50 years.  These same people used the same type of formulas to try to track the stock market.  That worked out well for them too.  If they had been successful there, they wouldn't have resorted to trying it on baseball.  Like they're gonna have a better chance of figuring out Manny Ramirez than Enron.

Preach on Brother Rossi, preach on.

LAF



Joined: Sat Oct 13th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4596
Status: 
Offline
If I was starting a team, I'd take Morris. Schilling is such a humongous douchebag, that I wouldn't want him around or I'd be slitting my wrists.

stingmark

 

Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Cop City, California USA
Posts: 9400
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.
It doesn't...i was just making a case for Morris, as so many people put an emphasis on WS rings and so forth. Morris was a helluva "big game pitcher".

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

The Ultimate Sin
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown, Sri Lanka
Posts: 10126
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote:
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.


Morris pitched on August 7th. He was released on Aug. 10, and the season was cancelled 2 days later. So he never even missed a start.



UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems