joe dokes said:
I thought "pitching to the score" in this context meant that if Morris was up 7-0, he'd throw meatballs, give up 4-5 runs but get outs and pitch the complete game, with the resulting high ERA. Its not a laughable theory, IMO, (altho its highly unlikely to happen enough to make a difference) but it is easily disproven.
I seem to recall Joe Sheehan (or maybe Clay Davenport or Woolner) at BP looking at *all* of his starts and finding just as many high-runs allowed games where Morris gave up the runs *first* and was bailed out later -- the exact opposite of "pitching to the score." The conclusion was that if the split was roughly 50-50 between giving up the runs first and giving them up after he got a lead in those high-run games, then there isn't evidence of "pitching to the score" as the term was used by writers in defense of Morris's candidacy.
I'm sorry, but no.
The job of a pitcher, any pitcher, is to get outs without giving up runs. Except in very limited situations, there is nothing positive or admirable about not going for the easiest out. Giving up hits, or walks, or home runs, is the
opposite of getting an out. There was no benefit to him, or the team, for taking a longer time to get those remaining outs than necessary. If he was capable, why not get pop flies, or ground outs, or get guys to hit into double plays? The answer is because he couldn't, because he wasn't good enough. He was a pretty good pitcher, but he wasn't that good. You know who was that good? Guys like Clemens, Pedro, Johnson, Maddux, etc...
Hall of Fame caliber players. You don't get extra credit for saying "Well, I could have done what they did if I wanted to." No. If you could have, you would have. To suggest that there was a
greater benefit to being less good than you could have been is the definition of "complete bullshit", and is antithetical to the nature of sporting competition.
I feel like this argument is a deliberate perversion of sabremetrics and/or a reaction to the rise over the past decade in the value placed on working up a pitch count. I believe Jack Morris and his ass-backwards supporters think something like this:
"Well, wait, you're telling me that going up there and taking an 8-pitch strikeout is better than taking a few hard cuts and trying to put runs on the board? That's not what this game is about!"
"I don't believe it."
"Yea, hey, you know, Jack was a gamer, not a stat head. He just let it rip. He didn't care about pitch counts or any of that stuff!"
"Seriously! If it was 7-2, sure he might give up some runs, but he'd buckle down when it mattered!"
It's the opposite of objective analysis. It's fucking stupid. It's like arguing that pulling the goalie in hockey when you're up 4-0 is a perfectly defensible strategy because you have a big lead, and the benefit of resting your goalie makes it worthwhile.