3,000

For what it's worth, I think Morris is a slam-dunk HOFer. Best pitcher of his decade and, as others have noted, his 1991 Game Seven performance is maybe the greatest clutch pitching performance in, what, 30 years? Forty years?

 

Didn't he win WS titles with three franchises?

 

Morris also had a bit of a slide in the late '80s. He merely was a .500 pitcher on a little-better-than-.500 team when he left Detroit.

 

Yes. Detroit in 1984, Minnesota in 1991, Toronto in 1992 and 1993.

I don't have the time to look it up, but he may be the last guy to play for three straight WS champions.

 

I presume you mean the last guy to play for multiple teams during his WS champion stretch. There were a lot of Yankees who won three in a row from '98-'00. Or maybe you missed that in Northern Bumfuck, Canada.

 

And really, that's what stands out for me. From 1979-92, Morris was, hands down, the best pitcher of his era over that entire period of time. Sure, Fernando was dominant for a few years, Gooden was dominant for a few years, Dave Stewart, Roger Clemens, Mike Scott ... but over that entire decade-plus, Jack Morris was the best pitcher of that era.

He was the unquestioned ace of three World Series champions -- on three different franchises -- and Game 7 is still the greatest performance, considering the stakes, I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Hall of Famer.

 

Wow.

A rare trifecta of agreement.

 

Hell, I'll give you the exacta today:

I wouldn't vote for Schilling. No way, no how. Although his career's still going, so he's got time to change that ...

But if Schill retires after this year or next year, he doesn't get in. Two World Series triumphs and three 20-win seasons in a five-year span after age 34 (he went 8-9 and 8-8 in the other two years of that span) doesn't excuse 13 other very average years in your career.

What a bunch of media-enhanced bullshit, if he gets to Cooperstown. Just because it happens in the ESPN era doesn't mean it's the greatest ever. Schilling's an average pitcher who had three great years and stuck around long enough to get 200 wins. That's it.

 

Agree with all that, except terming him an average pitcher.

I'd call him very good.

 

"Very good" in the last five years, yes. Hell, I'll even give you "dominating." He was that, even ... but not before 2001, though. Check the stats.

He stayed healthy for exactly four seasons with the Phillies, where he made 34-35 starts: '92 (converted to starter in midseason), '93, '97 and '98. Best he ever did with the Phils was 17-11, 2.97 in 254 IP in 1997. That's an All-Star season. But that's it.

His 16-7 record looks good in '93, but his 4.02 ERA was above the league average. That's not "very good," although I'll grant you that he starred in the postseason that year. He's a Hall of Famer in October, no doubt. Always has been ...

But he was a token All-Star in '98, and he had a pretty good year the first half of '99 (finished 15-6, 3.54), but only made 24 starts before he got hurt.

Arizona got him in a deadline deal in 2000, and his "renaissance" began the following year. But he was an average pitcher throughout his career before that.

 

The testimony from Schilling's peers will help him. He doesn't have a large number of friends inside baseball, but even his enemies admire his ability. Just a guess here, but I think pitchers of the Steroid '90s will get a dividend on their numbers from my fellow voters just as hitter will take a discount.
One vote will go to Curt, no matter what.

 

Looking at both 3,000 lists, most of the players on either list are already hall of famers.

Here are the exceptions:

Hits -- Rose (banned, reinstatement questionable at best); Ripken, Gwynn and Henderson (all not yet eligible for the hall, but will be there soon); Palmeiro (Never. Going. In. Period.)

Strikeouts -- Clemens, Johnson and Maddux (certified locks five years after retirement); and Blyleven. (Martinez and Schilling as previously noted will likely join the 3,000 club in the next month. Martinez is a lock. Schilling could be this generation's Jack Morris)

Blyleven to me seems very comparable to Harold Baines, who appears now to be the greatest hitter that won't make it to the hall not because of off-field issues. Both had long, productive careers, but neither was ever truly dominant.

In fact, for his 3,701 strikeouts, Blyleven only led the league once. Granted he and Ryan pitched for many years in the same league, but he only finished second behind Ryan twice and both of those years he was more than 100 strikeouts behind Ryan.

Baines, despite his 2,866 hits, only finished in the top five in hits once and never reached 200 hits in a season. He also only led the league one time in one statistical category -- slugging percentage in 1984.

Both Baines and Blyleven had great careers, but neither deserve Hall of Fame enshrinement.