Options
Jim Kaat HoF?
daltex
Posts: 3,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I understand the various Committees have taken to selecting people, like Harold Baines, who were never very good but were able to hang around long enough to put up some optically pleasing counting stats. I'm sure one of the Committees will elect Omar Vizquel for the same reason. In any event, I've heard a lot of talk that Jim Kaat should go in, and I've been absolutely befuddled as to why. Can someone make an argument for a Hall of Fame that includes Kaat but not Jamie Moyer who, deservedly, IMO, received just ten votes in his only shot in 2018. They seem similar, but Moyer is distinctly better. Can someone explain what I'm missing?
1
Comments
you are correct, kitty kaat is not a hall of famer. he is a hall of played a really long timer.
some people look at his pile of gold gloves. to be honest, I have never valued pitcher GG very highly. I mean, most of the time they are not even allowed to catch pop ups. they field the occasional bunt, cover first and sometimes back up home.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Can someone explain what I'm missing?
NO.
I should say first that I don’t particularly care if Kaat gets in, that I generally prefer a bigger Hall, and that I don’t think the Hall would be any worse if he were included. One thing that separates him from Moyer is that more than half of his HOF peers think he belongs, and I seriously doubt Moyer would come anywhere close to that. When they opened up the Vet Committee to all living HOFers he received between 54 and 63 percent of the vote in those three elections.
Anyway, I thought this was a pretty evenhanded treatment of Kaat’s case that comes out on the side of his being inducted.
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/does-jim-kaat-deserve-a-plaque-in-the-hall-of-fame/
I always thought Tommy John should be seriously considered. Numbers are very good, but also for the fact of his revolutionary surgery which today still uses his name.
Baseball Reference for comparable pithers:
Similar Pitchers
Jim Kaat (923.3)
Robin Roberts (898.2) *
Bert Blyleven (889.5) *
Fergie Jenkins (885.4) *
Early Wynn (869.8) *
Tom Glavine (865.5) *
Burleigh Grimes (865.2) *
Tony Mullane (864.0)
Don Sutton (861.6) *
Eppa Rixey (857.3) *
Tommy John and Jim Kaat are compilers - they pitched for an extraordinarily long time and accumulated bottom line stats that look impressive and in HOF territory. But I think they are both at best borderline candidates.
There are a hundred ways to look at this, but whenever you talk about HOF pitchers and whether they clear the bar, it eventually ends up back at Catfish Hunter.
I picked what I think is a very fair way to get at least a first cut at HOF worthiness. The stat I'm showing next to each pitcher is their runs better than average (RAA on bb-ref) in their top 10 seasons. I limited it to 10 seasons to (1) eliminate the effect of "compiling", and (2) to not punish pitchers for hanging around at a little below average after their primes.
It took Bert Blyleven 14 tries to get in to the HOF. Yes, that was because the HOF voters were drooling, mouth-breathing imbeciles ("DMBI"), but still - 14 tries. To this day, there are still DMBIs who question Blyleven's worthiness. His RAA over his top 10 seasons was 358.
Dave Stieb, the best pitcher of the 1980's by a surprisingly (if you don't understand baseball) margin, has a top 10 RAA of 300. I think he's the only eligible pitcher who didn't cheat at 300 or above not in the HOF or currently on the ballot.
Luis Tiant was close - 278. I think Tiant is a borderline HOFer; he had a few spectacular seasons and had he not gotten injured right in the middle of the prime of his career he'd have been elected easily.
Wilbur Wood is another step or two down from Tiant - 238; right behind him is Sam McDowell - 226 and Jerry Koosman - 222.
Then there's the pitchers that have been mentioned here, and a couple others just as good.
Moyer - 212
John - 203
Kaat - 192
Lolich - 188
Pappas - 183
Matlack - 180
Morris - 177
Below that, just filling in random pitchers on the way down:
Andy Messersmith - 168
Jim Maloney - 158
Jim Perry - 154
Mel Stottlemyre - 150
Larry Dierker - 134
Chris Short - 123
Sonny Siebert - 122
Bill Hands - 116
And below this crowd, you've got Catfish Hunter - 105.
Hunter made possible the election of Jack Morris, and keeps alive the candidacies of Jim Kaat and Tommy John and Jamie Moyer (but not equally good pitchers like Milt Pappas and Mickey Lolich and Jon Matlack, for reasons unknown).
I'd like to see Dave Stieb enshrined because he deserves it. I'd be happy if Luis Tiant was enshrined because I'm a fan of his and he's at least very close to deserving it. After that, stop the madness!!!! Jim Kaat was not a HOF pitcher, he wasn't even close. Yes, he was better than Jack Morris and a whole lot better than Catfish Hunter. But they weren't HOF pitchers, either; not even close.
Yes, Catfish Hunter was awful. Probably the worst player of all time. They should probably burn his jersey at Yankee Stadium. LOL. This is 5 straight years in the 1970's. Won 5 WS Titles in the 1970's also.
21 wins- 2.96 ERA. 1971
21 wins- 2.04 ERA. 1972
21 wins- 3.34 ERA. 1973
25 wins- 2.49 ERA. 1974
23 wins- 2.58 ERA. 1975
Catfish Hunter won five World Series?!?!?!?! There have been entire teams that included such luminaries as Hank Aaron and Willie Mays who never came close to winning five World Series, and Catfish Hunter did it all by himself?!?!?!? My God, how did I get to be this old and not know that? I'm confused, though, how Catfish Hunter, playing by himself, could make it to the World series at all if he only won 21-25 games per season. Now, winning any games at all playing as a one-man team is impressive, no argument, but that doesn't seem like enough wins to make the playoffs, let alone make it to the World Series.
Catfish Hunter was not awful. Catfish Hunter was very good for five years, average for three, and awful for seven. I'll be charitable and say that, for his career, he was average. He is also the worst pitcher elected to the HOF on the regular ballot by a mile and a half. He makes a mockery of what the HOF stood for before he befouled it with his presence.
Tommy John should absolutely be a HoFer, right next to Curt Flood in the builders wing.
Not at all convincing. The whole argument centers on the idea that if Kaat had had a little more luck (creation of extra awards, fewer injuries in key seasons, ability to be a starter rather than reliever in his 40s, less competition on the ballot) he would likely have been elected using the metrics that were used in the '80s rather than the more sophisticated numbers used today.
Of course he did not win them by himself.
Then you should remember this before you say any player "won" a World Series.
I stopped my list of top 10 RAA at Hunter. Here is a short list of the pitchers I found that were very close to Hunter:
Claude Osteen - 110
Harvey Haddix - 106
Catfish Hunter - 105
Johnny Podres - 95
Gary Peters - 91
If you see a HOFer in that group, you need to get your eyes checked.
Haddix may have pitched the best single game of all time.
I'll just say that Clemens is a heck of a lot closer than one would think despite only pitching 133 1/3 innings in the first half of the decade.
..........
@dallasactuary Would you prefer or insist that all mentions of championship wins in team sports be re-phrased as something like "he was part of a team which won the world series" instead of "he won the world series"?
LOL. In 1905 Christy Mathewson won the World Series.
I'd prefer people simply stop mentioning World Series (or Super Bowls, etc.) when talking about an individual player. But, if you must for some reason, then yes, use the "part of a team" language.
Nope.
,
Please point out the 7 years where he was "awful." I just looked at his career stats and I will give you four. But seven? I'd say he was great for five, average or so for seven, and not good for four. He is not the worst pitcher in the HOF either IMO.
I'm not going to get into a semantic argument over the line between average and awful; you see whatever it is you want to see.
And I never said Hunter was the worst pitcher in the HOF, although I could make a pretty respectable argument that he is. But the pitchers who are arguably worse than Hunter were selected in disgraceful displays of cronyism by the VC.
I should also have added a qualification for relief pitchers. So, for the record and without fear of contradiction by any reasonably knowledgeable baseball fan, this is my official position: Catfish Hunter is the worst starting pitcher elected to the HOF by the BBWAA. Here is my other official position: any human being who has seen a baseball game and does not recognize that Bert Blyleven was at least two orders of magnitude better than Catfish Hunter should not be allowed to vote for the HOF, drive a car, or own any sharp objects. I'll allow someone who can't tell that Mel Stottlemyre was better to drive, but I will not allow them to call themselves baseball fans, since they clearly don't understand baseball.
I didn't say anything about Blyleven. This thread was about Kaat (I voted no). You power-slammed Hunter which I feel was a bit harsh. I don't think Hunter had 7 "awful" seasons, Words matter.Does he belong in the HOF? I think he is borderline but there are worse examples in it. I think there are plenty (too many) of borderline players in the HOF to be honest. There are also intangibles to this stuff as we all know (fair or not). Does Gale Sayers belong in the HOF if simply looking at his numbers? Yes, he does.
I agree that Hunter is borderline; he's right on the border between "average" and "above average". He's also right on the border of being better/worse than Claude Osteen. But he's far below the border of being better/worse than Jon Matlack, and even if he stood on the shoulders of Jack Morris, he couldn't see the borderline to the HOF. The people who elected him to the HOF don't understand how baseball works; you should distance yourself from them.
Gale Sayers is a respectable candidate for the greatest football player of all time. His body, like every human body, could not hold up to the beating it took, but for 5-6 years he was amazing. But football isn't baseball. In baseball you can look at the stats and know, plus or minus a percent or two, how good a player was. Not so at all, not even close, in football. It matters tremendously that Sayers' teammates were, for the most part, terrible when evaluating Sayers' contributions. Excluding Sayers from the HOF because he had terrible teammates would be precisely as absurd as inducting Catfish Hunter to the HOF because "he" won five World Series, or because "he" won 20+ games several times.
Team stats are meaningless when evaluating individual players. All football stats are team stats, to one degree or another, which makes evaluating individual football players next to impossible. The one team stat in baseball that anyone pays any attention at all to is the "win", and it is meaningless when evaluating individual pitchers. And yet, it's probably the stat baseball fans, novice ones anyway, use more than any other. It's all fun and games until a mediocrity like Catfish Hunter oozes his way under the HOF door while vastly superior pitchers like Dave Stieb can't get in.
Steib ERA 3.44, WHIP 1.245 K/BB 1.61 SHO 30
Hunter ERA 3.26 WHIP 1.134 K/BB 2.11 SHO 42
I wouldn't call that vastly superior and those stats matter for a pitcher. To each his own. You can't have it both ways though. Steib may have had better stuff (I really don't know) but he didn't have vastly superior numbers. I personally don't think he's a HOF'er. Like I said, there are too many "borderline" players in IMO and Hunter may be one of them but I think calling him an average pitcher is inaccurate.
Yes, he did. You're looking at the wrong numbers.
Ok. No use debating this anymore as we don't see it the same way. Those numbers matter and they have for decades. Like Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." And like you said, "you see whatever it is you want to see." Have a good night and nice discussion. Bobby
People who cite stats like this can't understand that Pedro Martinez' 2000 season was vastly superior to Bob Gibson's 1968.
People who rely solely upon SABR metrics evaluation don't understand parametric vs nonparametric assumptions in data analysis.
People who understand statistics don't cite the ones you did as if they are important.
Whatever. Statistics are based upon specifically selected data obtained and manipulated to help make decisions and inform opinions. They are not infallible nor perfect (this is why we have things such as validity, reliability, and range restriction to account for). There are also moderators, mediators, parameters, and the like that are rarely fully accounted for. I have a doctorate in a technical field heavily based in quantitative analysis and I understand statistics. I also know their limitations including those stats that I mentioned. Your statement is an opinion. No more, no matter what Bill James says. For the record, I like Bill James and feel his metrics are useful when making predictions and accounting for variance in performance within subjects and between select groups. They are just not the end all to success in baseball as you see it. It must feel pretty nice to always be right...even when it comes to subjective matters.
Bringing it back to Jim Kaat: I'm not saying he should be a HOFer but nobody has mentioned that he won Sixteen(!) gold Gloves in his career. That's definitely something to add to the plus side of the ledger.
Craig44 brought it up early on. It is an impressive feat.
If you like Bill James, you should read Bill James. If you had, you'd know that James ranks Hunter light years ahead of where I do, and, ironically, one spot ahead of Jim Kaat. What you read on this site is me, not Bill James.
And yes, it does feel pretty nice to always be right. Thank you for noticing.
And yes, it does feel pretty nice to always be right. Thank you for noticing
You are someone who believes you are far smarter than you are and an arrogant jerk to boot. You possess a laughable belief in your own intellectual superiority that is so strong that you fail to realize how little you truly know - you are your own parody. Well, math genius, you are now in WAY over your head. Go back to your pivot tables, Excel formulas, 100% imperfect extrapolations, and modified descriptives, actuary. Then, let me know what color car I should buy to get the best rate. It is embarrassingly obvious that you know little regarding actual inferential statistics, experimental design, sampling consequences, error in measurement (both random and nonrandom), parametric limitations, nor the many limitations that hinder accuracy in most statistical inferences that are made around human behavior. I see this clearly as you ALWAYS fall back on your opinions, arithmetic drivel (smoke and mirrors), and then condescendingly shout it all loudly like it makes a difference to most of the rest of us. You especially do this when another poster disagrees with your entirely SUBJECTIVE analysis and opinions. I will read your reply but will no longer respond. I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you on a topic you ardently espouse to be an expert in. I would wager you are a math major from a solid program who has spent his (or her) entire career buried in the trees, failing to see the forest.
Bobby
edited to add: I have earned 30 hours credit in GRADUATE level courses from a Research I institution (I hope you know what that means) in advanced statistics (not math) which is why I find your "does not understand statistics" comment particularly insulting. I gave you the "proverbial" Olive Branch and then your "good buddy" and you tried to kick me in the teeth. I reserve the right to respond with an appropriate emoji (not comment). Although, the emoji that is likely most appropriate is not accepted on this board. I bet you are an absolute joy to be around in person! Word to the wise (and also you): No one likes a know-it-all _edited _and there are ALWAYS people who are more knowledgeable and intelligent than you.
If you're making the case for a pitcher and mention Gold Gloves, the > @BaltimoreYankee said:
To be honest, I consider pitcher Gold Gloves pretty much worthless. Does anybody really care at all what kind of defense a pitcher plays?
Then, let's take a look at Kaat's Gold Gloves. He won Gold Gloves in seasons where he had 5, 6, and 8 errors. He won a Gold Glove with a Fielding % of .826. So nearly 1 time in 5 he botched it AND STILL WON THE GOLD GLOVE. C'mon. During years where Kaat won Gold Gloves, he had 5 seasons with a fielding % under .930. Yes, fielding % doesn't tell the whole story but it tells pretty close to the whole story when your % is that bad.
So, yeah, I don't care about Kaat's Gold Gloves.
That's a fair point and well-taken. @craig44 said the same thing (basically).
I'm so sorry this is happening to you. I once got some guy on here to brag about winning a spelling bee in elementary school; you could never top that one, but your whining about how much you know about experimental design, etc. when what we're discussing is baseball stats is in the same ballpark. And while I am indeed a wiz with spreadsheets, I'll be the first to admit that I've forgotten almost everything I learned in school about experimental design and error measurement. The thing is, and why I am so amused by this thread (beyond the opportunity to trash Catfish Hunter), is that those don't have anything at all to do with the topic at hand. I'm not trying to predict how well Catfish Hunter will pitch in the future, I'm just pointing out that he didn't pitch very well in the past. If you really want to make me laugh, and if you are so inclined, try to educate me about baseball, which is the single only topic I have ever "ardently espoused** to be an expert in". (Certainly not car insurance; and the opportunities to impress people with my knowledge of ASC 715-30 and GASB 68 are few and far between, as I'm sure you can imagine).
** This word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sorry, no _edited _emoji so I had to do LOL. Insecure and _edited _is the one I need. You are the epitome of the latter.
Well that was a disappointing comeback; shame to end it there. Try again.
I missed that. Late to the thread and just skimmed through
I actually don't care about anyone's Gold Gloves, or fielding percentage for that matter. God Gloves are actually really rarely given because of fielding excellence. As far as fielding percentage goes, if a player doesn't make a play I don't care whether it's an error or not.
This is a good read about fielding, baseballprojection.com/defense/home.htm especially Kaat's and a much better fielding pitcher (Maddux).
I fail to find a year other than 1975 which could be described as "great" with a straight face.
Who do you think is worse?
Question has been answered....Kaat has been elected.
@dallasactuary and @bobbybakeriv - If the many degrees you two claim to have are indeed legitimate, and I have no reason to doubt them, then you surely have adequate vocabularies to debate without resorting to calling each other playground names. You're both better than that.
ERA is .92 higher on the road, WHIP is .3 higher. It's mostly Oakland.
1972 was a good year, not even very good. 1974 was better.
I went back and edited out the name calling on my part.
I flunked out of college because I never could figure out basic arithmetic. So...don't ask me who should be in the HOF.
2.58 is outstanding regardless of what happened in Oakland. 1.09 WHIP would have been about 10th in the league.
And, yes, Oakland helps but 1.66 ERA in Oakland is great, no matter what.
1972 was a great year.
Based on who's getting in now Hunter is a slam dunk HOFer based on class curve. I always had him as borderline but now he's a fine choice. Plus if your name is Catfish you should get in just based on that
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Ultimately, this is jut a semantic argument - you say "great", I say " very good" - but I'm curious: if Hunter was "great" in 1972, then what was Gaylord Perry in the same year? Because I don't see how the same word could possibly be used to describe those two seasons. I reserve "great" for seasons like Perry's; most pitchers are never "great" and only the very best pitchers are "great" more than once or twice. If Hunter's 1972 season was "great", then either you have a much broader definition of the word than I do, or you have another word to distinguish between these two very different types of seasons
I get your point, but I disagree. I can count on one hand the (starting) pitchers in the HOF who were even plausibly worse than Hunter (Marquard, Haines, Morris, and now Kaat, but there may be another I'm forgetting). And that list is only as long as it is if you think a pitcher's top 5 seasons are all that matters. If you concede that career length is worth something - anything at all - then Morris and Kaat are clearly better than Hunter. The "class curve" is bending lower and lower all the time for hitters, of that there is no doubt. But the curve is bending much more slowly for pitchers due, in part, to the fact that Hunter bent it so far down when he got in there isn't much more room for it to bend.