Senor evolved on steroids.

Please keep in mind I don't speak for every member of the Hall of Fame. I don't know how everyone feels, but I do know how MANY of the Hall of Famers feel.

Yesterday, Goff gave a rundown of the list of nominees this year. Senor was supposed to answer either "Yes" "No" or "Legitimate Debate" on whether they should be in. I remember Senor used to ask Terry that when the list came out. I was looking forward to the segment, but Senor is such an asshat, and he got all uppity because he kept throwing his personal biases in there and mentioned Jim Rice about 50 times. Goff and Shep were getting annoyed with him. And of course he doesn't want Schilling in there because he's a dirty conservative.

Ah, the old "Morality Clause" coming to Dan's aid, I'll bet? Which Senor railed against when it was used to keep suspected PED-users out of the Hall for the longest time?

Wasn't it Dan who incredulously remarked something about "You've already got racists and philanderers and gamblers and wife beaters in there" or something like that?

If Jack Morris's body of work doesn't get him in, not sure Schilling should be in. They're about the same with Schilling getting a bump because Boston is more important to writers than Toronto or Minneapolis.

Not really. Schilling's career ERA+ is 127, with Morris' being 105. Morris notched a 3.90 ERA to Schilling's 3.46, with Schilling pitching in his prime through the height of the steroid/HGH era.

Schilling also clobbers Morris in the new-age HOF indicators of Career WAR, 7-year Peak WAR, and JAWS. Really the only knock against Schilling's HOF candidacy (outside of being an outspoken conservative loon) is that his 7-year peak WAR is slightly below that of the average HOF starting pitcher.

Still though, Schilling was way more dominant of his overlapping league and era than Morris was of his own.

Of course, Schilling was more "dominant". He had way more "stuff". (Though I believe Morris may have led the league in strikeouts at least once.) But a pitcher can only win one game on the day he pitches. There really aren't style points. The stats that are currently in vogue are largely measurements of "stuff", i.e. "the ability to miss bats". There have been plenty of great pitchers who didn't miss bats like Nolan Ryan, indeed many greater than Ryan himself. I think Schilling is short but the fake bloody sock helps. I'd say Morris is closer, but I'm fine with both of them out.

I'd say Morris is closer, but I'm fine with both of them out.

1. Schilling had a career W% 20 points better than that of Morris.

2. Like who?

Ultimately, I'd say he and Schilling were similar guys in substance, if not style.

With absolutely no corroborating data or statistics, other than said assertion fitting with your baseball-hipster argument. As usual. I highlighted all the way in which Schilling was superior to Morris, but they're still "similar guys in substance"? Get the hell out of here.

Pretty much where I'm at on the issue. Keep Halls hard to get into. Look at the jamokes who get into the Hockey Hall of Fame: Dave Andreychuk, famous for deflecting pucks off his ass on power plays and taking a long time to win a Stanley Cup. Come on.

And you think you highlighted the ways Schilling was "superior" to Morris. And this is the disconnect between you and me. I don't think the things you think make a pitcher superior actually do. A strikeout is nothing more than the means to an end, not the end itself, certainly not the object of the game. The hardest pitcher in history to hit doesn't have a .527 career winning percentage because he "lacked 'run support'". It's because he had flaws in his game.

I'm not going to take the time to mop the floor with you regarding this all over again, but suffice it to say that only 2 of those Rangers teams Ryan was on had an above-average R/G offense. The best was the 1991 team, leading the league at more than 5 R/G. Ryan went 12-6 that year.

You say "only two" as if he played on 17 Rangers teams that were below average offensively. He only played for the Rangers for slightly more than four seasons. Should I put away my mop bucket?

Beyond that, Ryan was a better pitcher in his forties than he ever was. Probably because he finally learned how to manage a game.

Don't forget murderers. Ty Cobb for sure. Probably a few others from the first half of the 1900s that we don't know about. There were some bad country crackers playing baseball back then.

A lot of things said about Cobb were proven to be bullshit. He wasn't quite the racist, murdering psycho he was made out to be.

Of his 8 "losing" seasons, Ryan pitched for below-average offenses in 5 of them, spending 3 seasons pitching for a bottom-2 offense in his respective league.

In 1987, Ryan led the league in ERA, ERA+, FIP and Hits per 9. He lost 16 games en route to a .333 W%.

EDIT: Across 8 other seasons, Ryan pitched for 5 more below-average offenses. Making for 10 of 16 reviewed seasons pitched for below-average offensive teams.

His offense was strong. It just played in a park that held its numbers down.

He was so great, yet somehow 2/3 of the time average bums pitched better than he did.

For at least 10 seasons it was decidedly below average. Are we calling "below average" offense "strong" now?

As evidenced by his winning win percentage?

This is JORR arguing that Nolan Ryan was actually kind of average, ladies and gentlemen.

For ten seasons he happened to pitch in the Astrodome. Why is it so difficult to understand that the same thing that helped his pitching hurt his team's offense?