Kuzul

I’m not real big on statistics.

Sure, they have their place in the game, but when it comes to evaluating a player’s career, I’m one of those people that feel certain statistics can be bent, massaged and manipulated to say whatever the person using them wants them to say, thus at times creating unnecessary debate.

You know what I’m talking about. Instead of just accepting what the stats say about a player, some folks with an agenda in tow will trot out variance explanations to make their case, such as, “I know so-and-so only hit .281, but his OPS on the road in night games was such and such and he shouldn’t be penalized for playing in so many day games.”

To me this is evident at times during Hall of Fame voting.

Every now and then, largely fueled by the statistical manipulating I referenced earlier, some guy gets in that makes me say “huh?” and every now and then the same type of manipulation keeps some guy out that makes me say “what?”

Look, I understand the Baseball Writers Association of America has a tough job to do evaluating candidates, and I respect the fact that each voting member gets to use his or her own individual, completely subjective, criteria, even if I don’t agree with it. But I’ve always been partial to those voters who eschew statistics in favor of a less refined, yet amazingly effective method for determining a candidate’s Hall-of-Fame worthiness.

Some call it “The Eye Test” and make reference to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s legendary claim about pornography, where he said he probably could never define it but “I know it when I see it.” In any case, that’s exactly how I feel about the way to go about determining what a Hall of Famer is. I may not be able to define it but, statistics be damned, I know it when I see it.

And I’m telling you right now, without even the slightest bit of hesitation, Jack Morris is a Hall of Famer.

When the ’80s began, I was just starting to come into my own as a baseball fan. I was eight when the decade began and 17 when it ended. Now I admit, my memory may not be the greatest, but I’m struggling to recall a more dominant pitcher during that time, at least not in the American League. Others may have had had better individual seasons, but when the decade was over Morris clearly stood above everyone as the best. I honestly don’t even remember this being a debate. Here’s what I do remember:

I remember Morris putting the Tigers on his back during the ’80s and pitching them back into relevancy, culminating in a World Championship in 1984.

I remember after finishing the decade as the American League’s best pitcher for that 10-year period, he moved on to Minnesota and was the ace of the staff that won the World Series in 1991.

I remember Morris following up THAT performance by moving on to Toronto the next season and anchoring THAT team to its first World Series title in franchise history.

See, that’s the thing: I can bust out all these statistics that make my case for Morris’ enshrinement, but the guy choosing not to vote for Morris can break out his own statistics to support his argument. But you see, all of that is irrelevant because if you were around during that time and saw Morris pitch, you can’t deny what you saw, nor what commentators, sportswriters or fans had to say about it. Any attempt to do so is engaging in revisionist history, which sadly wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened during election season. That’s my biggest problem with statistics. They don’t speak to you the way your eyes do.

I also don’t like it when voters compare players from different eras, either. There are so many differences between the way the game was played in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, etc. that showing how Morris stacks up statistically against current Hall-of-Famers who pitched in different eras tells me nothing of consequence. So what if Morris’ ERA was higher than Bob Gibson’s? It was a different game then. And on the flip side, what does it really say that he has more wins than Don Drysdale?

How you did against your peers at the time you were playing is the only true test of a player’s greatness. Take the steroid era, for example. Should someone who, during his entire career, was never even in the top five at his position be given entry into the Hall of Fame simply because his numbers stack up favorably to other Hall of Famers from different eras? I don’t think so. That’s like rewarding the sixth-place finisher in the 2012 Olympics with entry into the Track and Field Hall of Fame simply because he ran faster than sprinters from the ’30s, ’40s, etc. 

It makes no sense, yet voters engage in these types of debates all the time, particularly when it comes to those players who have gotten some support but not enough for election.

I don’t get into the debates about these “borderline candidates” on the ballot each year. I’ll leave that for the stat-heads to argue about. I understand the need to debate about someone like Bert Blyleven or Jim Rice. But that’s what is so frustrating about Morris’ candidacy. To me he’s not borderline anything!

Am I crazy? Did I miss something? Am I “misremembering” the ’80s?

I believe anyone who relies more on statistics than empirical evidence to make their decision on Morris is doing the Hall a disservice. Jack Morris was the best pitcher in the American League during the ’80s, and not just because he led the decade in wins. He was fearless on the mound, a great leader off of it, and led not one, not two, but THREE completely different franchises to World Series titles.

He didn’t piggy-back on any of those teams, either. He led them. He anchored them. And when it was time to answer the call, he carried them.

He was the guy who got the ball in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, and not because it was his turn in the rotation, either. And while one game alone doesn’t define a player, that game does serve as the perfect example for the kind of pitcher Jack Morris was. Because in that game, and for most of the 13 years that surrounded it, Jack Morris was the best and anyone who was the best at what they did for that length of time deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com