Not sure how you can not consider wins as a factor.
Because a pitcher's wins, again, are an artificial statistic -- it only means that his offense happened to score more runs than he gave up during a particular game (to say nothing of any defense-independent pitching statistics). It says absolutely nothing
about his actual performance. For example: Ryan Dempster was a balls-out awesome
starter for the Cubs in 2012, but he didn't get his first win until June 5 because the offense was complete dogshit.
Let's take it a step farther and look at Maddux. In 1994, when he had a fucking ridiculous 1.56 ERA and a 271 ERA+
, he "only" had 16 wins. In both his 20-win seasons, his ERA+ averaged 168 (still excellent) and his WHIP was north of 1. Again, still excellent stats, but not as lights-out as 1994 -- but if you were to look at his wins, you'd think that '92 and '93 were better, which is wrong on its face. Even if you disregard 1994 due to it being strike-shortened, every single season
in which Maddux had more than those 16 wins had him boasting a worse ERA+ and WHIP.
This is why Morris' entire case for the Hall of Fame falls apart as soon as you look at any meaningful number: He was a good, occasionally very good pitcher who ate a ton of innings and did nothing else of note. As soon as you remove Game 7 from the equation (which was really due to Lonnie Smith being a knucklehead and Kent Hrbek having a cannon of an arm), you cannot make an intellectually honest argument for Morris in the Hall.