I can't believe we have to keep doing this

Jon Heyman is apparently quite good at getting news just before it breaks in the world of baseball. This is impressive since he clearly knows nothing whatsoever about baseball.

Heyman tweeted his Hall of Fame ballot. Here it is:

Roberto Alomar
Andre Dawson
Barry Larkin
Dave Parker
Jack Morris
Don Mattingly

Let's start with the picks that are fine. Alomar is a worthy Hall choice. Larkin strikes me as a little more borderline, but I think you can make a pretty strong case for him.

Then there are the more borderline picks: Dawson, Parker and Mattingly. Dawson probably has the strongest case of the three - he hit more than 400 home runs and was a good outfielder when healthy. His OBP stinks (.323 career, which is outside the top one thousand in baseball history), but his OPS+ was still 119, which isn't terrible. Joe Cronin's in the Hall with a 119 OPS+. Whatever.

Parker has always struck me as a weird case. From 1975-1979 he was one of the best hitters in the game, and won the MVP in 1978. He also helped lead the "We are Family" Pirates to the World Series the next year. Then he had a few lost years thanks to injuries and drugs. Then he had one more great season at age 34 in 1985... and then kind of hung around until 1991. Basically, he had six great years and 13 years in which he was, at best, good. In some of them he was basically league-average. But his career OBP was .339 and OPS+ 121, both better than Dawson, and he's maybe even more of a "what could have been" guy than Dawson. His 1978 MVP was better than any of Dawson's seasons, including 1987. I think it's weird to induct a guy based on missed potential - why not Darryl Strawberry, then? - but if Dawson is a borderline candidate, Parker has to be considered just as highly. (Of course, I wouldn't put either of them in. But I'm trying to give Heyman the benefit of the doubt here.)

Don Mattingly is a classic example of just looking at peak value (and also being swayed by hype). Mattingly's first six full seasons are, indeed, great. But he pretty much falls off a cliff at age 29 and was done at 34. The key argument for someone like Mattingly is the fact that Ralph Kiner is in the Hall, but Kiner at least was punching up multiple 1.000-OPS seasons at his peak. Mattingly didn't do that, and he played a power position. I also think his election would be a triumph of New York hype. If you had a pretty good fielding first baseman with only decent power (20 HR/162 g) and only six really good years under his belt, and he played in Kansas City or something, would he have lasted more than a year on the ballot? Yankees fans love Mattingly - no Yankee who didn't win a World Series has ever been loved more by them - and the corresponding exposure has led to the memory of Mattingly as being better for longer than he was. The guy was basically washed up by 1990. Heyman should know this, given that he was a beat writer in New York for most of Mattingly's career... but then that pretty much explains his inclusion, doesn't it?

Whatever. Mattingly's not a HOFer and fortunately he still has pretty low vote totals. I can at least understand voting for a guy based on a pretty strong peak.

Then, of course, there's Jack Morris.

So, right after posting his ballot, Heyman adds this (possibly in response to other Twitter posts wondering where Bert Blyleven is):

"regarding bert, 86% voted "no'' his 2nd yr. unlike others, i'm consistent. he never led league in wins, ERA but led in HRs, earned runs, Ls"

Do we really have to keep doing this?

Let's take these down one at a time.

1. So 86% of the BBWAA voted no on Blyleven in his second year - of course it's really more accurate to say that only 14% did vote for him. Why does that matter? Heyman voted for Mattingly, and 80% of the BBWAA voted no on Mattingly in his second year. Also, a few tweets after bragging about how consistent he is for refusing to vote for Blyleven, he states that he isn't voting for Tim Raines right now, but might in the future after reevaluating his career. Jon Heyman: consistently inconsistent.

2. Okay, Blyleven never led the league in wins or ERA. He was, however, top five in ERA seven times. And look at something like 1979 - that was one of the better teams that Blyleven pitched for (the Pirates won 98 games) - and yet even though he started 37 games, Blyleven was just 12-5. Why? Well, it helps when you have ten no-decisions in games where you gave up two earned runs or fewer. I don't know, is that Blyleven's fault?

3. Heyman brings up that Blyleven had years in which he led the league in homers allowed, earned runs allowed, and losses. These are all true statements - in 1986 and 1987 Blyleven gave up a combined 96 home runs for the Twins, then in 1988 cut back to 21 homers but gave up 125 earned runs and lost 17 games. That 1988 season was pretty bad, but when you look at '86 and '87 you have to consider that Blyleven was better than league average in ERA both years. He had a 4.01 ERA both times, not great but good enough for ERA+ of 107 and 115. (Both, amusingly, are better than Morris' career ERA+ of 105.)

While we're on the subject, Morris also once led the league in earned runs - in fact, with the exact same number, 125, two years after Blyleven did it. He also lost 18 games that year, more than Blyleven lost in his league-leading '88 season. Also, in 1986, Morris allowed 40 home runs - not as many as Blyleven's 50, but good enough for second-most in the AL! That was one of Morris' best years (21-8, 3.27), which just proves that HR allowed really isn't a meaningful number when stripped of all context.

Oh, and Heyman's big thing that he holds over Blyleven - never leading the league in wins or ERA? Well, Morris never led in ERA either. And only twice was he top five, next to Blyleven's seven. And I don't want to hear that bullshit about Morris pitching to the score, since it was disproven by Joe Sheehan years ago. Morris did lead the league in wins twice. Once was in 1981 - a strike year, when he led with 14 - and the other was in 1992, when he went 21-6 with a 4.04 ERA. His run support that year? 5.56. He won four games in which he gave up 5 runs or more; if the team doesn't score for him in two of those and he doesn't win 20 games, are we even having this conversation? Jimmy Key had a better ERA for the Blue Jays but somehow went 13-13, while Juan Guzman was probably their best pitcher, going 16-5, 2.64. Though I will grant that Morris's 60 additional innings made him a pretty good guy to have.

So far it's pretty clear that much of what Heyman holds over Blyleven can be held almost equally well over Morris. Let's see what else he's got.

"i dont mean to pick on blyleven, but his teams werent as bad as folks claim. they were a bit over .500 (& only a touch worse than him by %)."

Heyman might be right that Blyleven's teams weren't as bad as often cited. He did pitch for two WS winners. Blyleven's teams won 90 games five times; Morris' six. But Morris also pitched for below-.500 teams far less often - Blyleven did it ten times, Morris just three. And between 1978 and 1988 - an eleven-year stretch that encompasses the majority of Morris' career and pretty much his entire peak - Morris didn't pitch for a sub-.500 team even once. Between 1974 and 1984, the years in which Blyleven was the same ages as Morris during his stretch, Blyleven pitched for five winning teams and five losing teams. Also:

Blyleven's teams: .502
Blyleven: .534

Morris' teams: .539
Morris: .577

Difference between Blyleven and his teams: .032
Difference between Morris and his teams: .038

Pretty negligible. Over a 162-game season, Blyleven's teams go from 81-game winners - .500 - to 86 or 87 game winners if he pitches every game (if we buy into the idea that these percentages are meaningful). Morris' teams start at 87 and go to 93. Basically both guys add between five and six wins. The only real difference is the baseline. Next!

"i guess im going on more than stats since i saw both guys' entire careers. morris was ace of 3 WS winners"

It kills me that this canard comes up every single time Morris' candidacy is discussed. "He was the ace of three World Series winners!" Never mind that this is demonstrably untrue, unless you're using "ace" as a completely subjective, nebulous term that really doesn't mean anything.

Let me just talk about the "I'm going on more than stats since I saw both guys' entire careers" thing for a minute. According to Wikipedia, Jon Heyman grew up in New York. He graduated college in 1983. This put him in prime position to witness, as a professional journalist, the majority of Morris' career - but he'd already missed more than half of Blyleven's, and since Blyleven was pitching in Minnesota, Texas and Pittsburgh in the 70s, I really doubt Heyman saw him pitch very often... which means that the only thing he's probably really going by is stories he heard from guys who did see Blyleven and/or box scores, or as they might be called, "stats." For that matter, Heyman spent the entire period between 1983 and 1999 writing for Newsday. How often was he ever seeing Blyleven or Morris pitch live? The four times a year they started against the Yankees? What a load of crap.

Back to the "ace of three World Series winners" bullshit. So, Morris pitched for three teams that won a title: the 1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins and 1992 Blue Jays. But let me ask you a question: how does one define "ace"? Is it "best pitcher during the regular season?" "Best pitcher during the postseason?" "Guy who everyone believes to be an ace even if his stats don't bear it out so much?" If it's the latter, that's such a ridiculous dodge that I don't even want to address it. So, is it the former? If so, I will go on record as saying that it's very easy to argue whether Morris was the best pitcher on any of those three teams. But let's say - since Morris backers love to talk about the postseason - that it's his postseason performances that really made him the ace.

1984 World Series: 2-0, 2 CG, 2.00 ERA
1991 World Series: 2-0, 1 CG, 1.17 ERA
1992 World Series: 0-2, 8.44 ERA

*record scratch sound effect*

Whaaaa?

Let's get this straight once and for all. Jack Morris was, by no objective measure, the ace of three WS teams. If you want to say his regular seasons made him the ace, I would argue he was not the ace of any of those teams - Dan Petry was better in 1984, Kevin Tapani and Scott Erickson were better in 1991, and I could easily argue that Key and Guzman were both better in 1992 although Morris' innings make more of a difference that year. If you want to say his postseasons made him the ace, that's fine and I would agree he was the ace of two teams, but the 1992 Blue Jays lost two games in the World Series and Jack Morris was the losing pitcher in both of them. Also, his ERA was fucking 8.44.

And if Morris was so acey and it was so obvious to people who watched him play during his career like Jon Heyman... why did Morris never win a Cy Young? Why did he never come particularly close? If you want to hammer on Blyleven for things he didn't do, this seems like a pretty glaring omission from Morris' CV. He was the ace on three World Series teams and yet never cracked the top two in the Cy voting? In 1984 he was seventh, behind two of his own teammates (Petry and winner Willie Hernandez). In 1991 he was fourth, two spots behind Erickson. He was the only Jay getting votes in 1992, but he was fifth, not close to winning. So I repeat: the ace of three World Series teams was not considered the best pitcher on two of those teams by Cy Young voters.

Lest you think I'm ignoring Blyleven's similar lack of Cy credentials, he also had just two top-three Cy finishes, Morris had one more top-five finish and three more overall appearances on the ballot. On the other hand, at least Blyleven was always the top vote-getter on his own team. I also think it says something that three of Blyleven's four appearances on the ballot came when he was playing for teams that were .500 or worse. None of Morris' seven appearances were for sub-.500 teams and four were for playoff teams. What does this mean? Well, this is just an opinion, but I think it's a lot easier to get on a Cy Young ballot when you have a good season for a playoff team than when you have a very good season for a non-playoff team, and particularly one that isn't even very good. In 1984, Blyleven went 19-7, 2.87 for an Indians team that was 75-87 and finished sixth in the AL East. Morris went 19-11, 3.60 for a Tigers team that won 104 games. Blyleven was third in the voting, Morris seventh. Frankly, considering it was 1984 I'm a little amazed the voters got that one right.

"@petzrawr its not just that i saw them. i covered them. i saw morris be the ace of great teams. he made major impact. bert is very close tho"

This is a delightful pander since I think it's pretty clear he doesn't think Blyleven is really that close. We've already discussed how Morris was not "the ace of great teams" by objective measurement, but again with "I covered them." Hey, great. You missed half of Blyleven's career. Does that seem fair? This is like if you became a reporter in 2000, and then refused to vote for Ken Griffey Jr. because "I covered him - he wasn't a bad hitter but he was always injured and wasn't great in the field." I'm not saying that Blyleven gets a pass on the part of his career that Heyman did see, but he's ignoring an awful lot.

And again, what impact did Morris make that Blyleven didn't, or couldn't have if placed on the same great teams? The '84 Tigers didn't win 104 games because of Morris. And when it comes to being an "ace" and having a "major impact" on your teams, is there a better measurement than (1) ERA - if you're not giving up runs, you're helping your team win; (2) complete games, and (3) shutouts? Forget wins; they're situational. You can get a win if you pitch five innings and give up 10 runs so long as your team scored 11 while you were out there. The lower your ERA, the more likely that your team will win every time you go out there.

Blyleven ERA: 3.31
Morris ERA: 3.90

So on average, every time Jack Morris took the hill, his team would have to score 0.6 more runs to win the game than if they had started Blyleven. Jake Westbrook's career ERA is closer to Morris' than Morris' is to Blyleven's.

How about this: the complete-game shutout is the only way that you, as a pitcher, have almost total control over whether or not your team wins a game. Forget ERA, right? Runs allowed, who cares. You could have a few bad games and that sucker shoots right up. Morris was dominant because he could shut you down.

Blyleven complete games: 242
Morris complete games: 175

Blyleven shutouts: 60
Morris shutouts: 28

Oops. But Morris once led the league in shutouts! I'm sure Blyleven just compiled... oh, no, he did that three times.

"@DashTreyhorn i believe he was chosen to start game 1. his stats may not hold up as "best.'' but managwes consistently gave him ball game 1"

[Sic] there. So, in fact, Heyman's entire rationale for Morris being the "ace" is that he started game one in the playoffs. Not that he was the best starter... just that, for whatever reason, he always started game one. I guess that's nice, but what does it prove? Heyman's clearly an old-school guy who likes to believe that what's truly noteworthy about a pitcher is what his manager thought of him. Sure, Morris was clearly the third-best starter on the '91 Twins, but hey - Tom Kelly thought he should start Game One of the playoffs! It could be because he thought of Morris as his ace. It could also be because Morris started game 158, Tapani started game 159 and Erickson started game 161 - in other words, it was Morris' turn in the rotation. The same could be said in 1992, when Juan Guzman pitched closer to the end of the season than Morris. (Key was even fresher but he barely pitched in the ALCS - then he went 2-0 in the World Series while Morris went 0-2.) I'm not surprised Morris was picked in '84 because Dan Petry was only 25 and didn't quite have Morris' track record... but again, Petry pitched closer to the end of the season than did Morris! Heyman's argument rests on nothing more than how the rotation happened to line up? Good God. (I guess it was late in the year and you could argue that the rotation was being purposefully lined up to get Morris a Game One start; I'd have to do a lot more research to try and see which it was. Still, Morris was the most veteran of the good pitchers on his teams. It doesn't surprise me that a manager would want the most senior good guy to lead off a series. It doesn't mean that Morris himself was possessed of endemic pitching qualities that made managers choose him. It means he was in situations where he was a senior guy and baseball men like veterans. These are not HOF credentials.)

"@andytworischuk i dont believe i said "stats shouldn't be used.'' ive said i dont go by stats alone."

Come on, Jon. You don't go by stats at all! What does Morris have over Blyleven aside from winning percentage, which I've already pretty much disproved? Even the stats that you used to try to bury Blyleven simply don't hold up. Earned runs? Sure, he had one really bad year where he led the league - but so did Morris, and Blyleven's career ERA is markedly lower. Home runs? Again, a couple bad years there - but here's a fun fact for you:

Home runs allowed, 162-game average
Morris: 25
Blyleven: 21

Losses? Both averaged 12 per 162 games. What does Morris have that Blyleven doesn't? Postseason performance? Because that's an old canard too:

Blyleven postseason: 5-1, 2.47 in five series
Morris postseason: 7-4, 3.80 in seven series

I'm really supposed to believe that even though every available statistic says that Blyleven was not just better than Morris but often significantly better, I should just think that Morris was better because he was in the right place at the right time to start a few Game Ones? Who CARES?????

Last point, because this is rapidly turning into a dissertation: Heyman's entire argument seems to boil down to this: "Yes, the stats say Blyleven was better, but that's not what I remember." Here's the problem, Jon: human memory is notoriously fallible. They've done whole studies about this. There's something called "flashbulb memory," which refers to memories that stick in the mind very clearly because of their connection to traumatic events, like a car accident or something more global like the Challenger disaster or 9/11. But here's the thing: it turns out that flashbulb memories, while they are more vivid than regular memories, aren't necessarily more reliable. People interviewed within 24 or 48 hours of the Challenger explosion gave one account of what happened that day, and then a completely different one when asked again five years later - except that they still thought the memory was vivid and accurate, even though it wasn't. It was also discovered that things like television coverage often caused other information that they didn't originally have to bleed over into the memory, making them think they'd experienced these other things at the time, even though they hadn't.

What does this have to do with Jon Heyman? Well, what he's basically saying is, "I was there and I saw Morris be dominant." But did he? The stats - an objective record of the games played - certainly don't suggest dominance on Morris' part. They suggest a very good pitcher with a handful of great seasons and a few big playoff moments. Of course, Blyleven's stats suggest the exact same thing and they're better across the board, so you can't very well point to that and use it to say why Morris should be in and Blyleven shouldn't. So that leaves "personal experience." You can't just go by the stats! I was there and my memory tells me Morris was dominant!

Except that Jon Heyman's memory is almost certainly not more reliable, or less prone to alteration, than the average person's. What is the one thing that everyone knows about Jack Morris? He had clutch postseason performances. He was a big-game pitcher. Like Game 5 of the 1992 World Series, when Morris took the mound and clinched the title for the Blue Jays... oh, no. What actually happened was he gave up five runs in the top of the fifth with the game tied at two, including a two-out grand slam to Lonnie Smith of all people, and the Blue Jays had to go back to Atlanta, where they won Game 6.

That's not entirely fair, of course, but it proves my point. Jon Heyman remembers Jack Morris as a big-game pitcher for the same reason most people do: Game 7, 1991 World Series. And sure, that was a really great game. But it was one game. That's not enough, yet it's clearly coloring memories because it's not like Morris did that every time out. In the 1991 ALCS, Morris was pulled in the sixth inning of Game One because he had just let the Blue Jays close the gap from 5-1 to 5-4. (He was just pitching to the score, right?) The bullpen shut the Jays down and Morris got the win (yet another reason why wins are kinda bullshit). He's allowed bad games, but let's not pretend he was never anything but lights-out in the postseason. Heyman's memory is being affected by all the coverage that game continues to get to this day. But because people really can't be aware that their memory is altered like that, he continues to insist that he was there and he saw it happen. Even though, apart from a relatively small number of games, he probably didn't. (And of course Heyman is unlikely to remember games he saw in which Morris pitched poorly, so that just leaves memory of the "dominant pitcher" that Morris certainly could be at his very best. But so could Blyleven. Just because Heyman doesn't remember seeing it does not mean it didn't happen. That's why we have statistics, because it's impossible for one dude to remember everything that happened in one game, let alone hundreds of them.)

Really, if Jack Morris ever does get elected, he owes it all to Kirby Puckett. Why? Because without Puckett's home run to win Game Six, Morris doesn't get that chance at Game 7. And then his postseason resume goes from 7-4, 3.80 to 6-4, 4.26, and no one remembers that indelible moment which subsequently affects all their memories of Morris' talent, and we're not even having this conversation.

I don't mean to kill Morris here. It's not like he was a bad pitcher. But his ERA+ was 105. He was not a dominant starter any more than Blyleven just because he did it for a few more winning teams. Maybe you still want to argue that he's a Hall of Famer, and that's fine. But if you're going to put him in, how you can suggest that Blyleven belongs out when you have four more spots on your ballot into which you could put him... I just can't understand that.