drleather2001 said:
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.
I would suggest reading HOF Christy Mathewson's book "Pitching in a Pinch" - the whole "pitching to the score" idea dates back to the deadball era. Basically Mathewson - and one presumes most pitchers- really only bore down when facing the opponent's star players (which , in 1912 were relatively few) - the rest of the time they coasted. This was completely defensible - and, in fact, necessary - because stamina was so highly valued. Starters were expected to throw compete games - and to pitch a couple of times a week.
Pitchers still do this to a degree. Schilling used to talk about expending far more energy - both physical and mental, when trying to get out of a jam.
The opposite of this - and the idea that you seem to be suggesting here , is that pitchers should go 100% every inning, every start. But if you are trying to conserve energy for later in the game , or the week, or the season - what's wrong with trying 90% when the score is 25-2 in the third inning? After all, the ultimate goal is to win the game.
But, in reference to Morris - as mentioned , there is no evidence to suggest he systematically did any such thing. He may thought he did - and uses this to build up his case - at least in his own mind. But detailed analysis (mentioned up thread) revealed no evidence to back up this idea.
One final note. Was reading this yesterday and I think it sums up the different approaches quite well;
http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/no-87-nolan-ryan/