If we're going to put Bill Mazeroski in the HOF, shouldn't Jim Kaat be in also (for the same reasons

Estil

I know Mr. Mazeroski gets all the attention based off his World Series winning tater in the 1960 World Series. But he was never even close to getting into the HOF (let's just say his career stats line doesn't exactly scream first ballot) until some of his peers realized that he was the greatest fielding 2B at least of his time in addition to the famous home run (at least I believe that's how the story goes), and in 2001 got in with I believe one of the loudest/longest standing ovations ever at a HOF induction (and Mr. Mazeroski even cried during the middle of his speech). And let's face it, he couldn't exactly keep his composure during the 2008 All-Star game ceremony either.

But enough about Mr. Mazeroski, let's talk about who is perhaps the greatest fielding pitcher of all-time, Jim Kaat. He has won a record sixteen consecutive Gold Gloves (1962-77); which I believe also ties the overall record, and let's face it, his 283 career wins (four short of Blyleven) and quite respectable 3.54 ERA indicate he definetly wasn't a one-trick pony leather player. But wait, wait!! He didn't hit a home run to win a World Series!!! Maybe so, but he did help the Cardinals win the 1982 World Series championship.

That being said, if you're going to have Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski in the HOF based mainly on their defense, then it's only fair that Mr. Kaat go in for the same reason. In the famous words of Bill O'Reilly, where am I wrong?

thegemmintman

I'm on record as saying Mazeroski is the worst HOF selection ever. You're absolutely right about Kaat. He was an awesome pitcher on some pretty terrible Yankee teams. He deserves in.

Estil

<< <i>I'm on record as saying Mazeroski is the worst HOF selection ever. You're absolutely right about Kaat. He was an awesome pitcher on some pretty terrible Yankee teams. He deserves in. >>



Well, his .260 career BA would raise a few eyebrows in that regard (I will admit his career stats line is VERY weak for a HOFer), not to mention he only has half the Gold Gloves of Mr. Kaat. Still, he was a seven time All-Star for a reason, I'm sure. All I'm saying is, don't say Mr. Mazeroski goes in based on his stellar defense and then say with a straight face Mr. Kaat stays out when he's got double the hardware (and much more respectible career stats).

But again, let's keep the focus on Mr. Kaat. I guess the reason he hasn't got in is probably much the same reason Mr. Blyleven is not in yet; lack of name recognition doesn't help at all.

WinPitcher

Mark Grace today said that kaat not being in the HOF is a disgrace.

Then some knucklehead reporter (Ken Rosanthal) was asked if he would vote for Grace said (with Grace in the room)
no!! That he was not a hall of famer.


He could have said: I think he is on the cusp and I have yet to decide if I will vote for him.

Instead the guy disrespects one of the finest hitters of the 90's to his face!


Steve

Estil

I'm sorry to say Mr. Grace will face the same problem. No flash, no name recognition.

BobaFett72

"Instead the guy disrespects one of the finest hitters of the 90's to his face!" true, but Grace isnt a HOF'er.

dallasactuary

For the record, I was always a big fan of Jim Kaat; if he someday makes the HOF it won't cause me much distress. He was a better pitcher than Jack Morris, and far more deserving of the HOF.

But, I wouldn't vote for him to be in the HOF:

1. While better than Morris, he was still nowhere close to a HOF level pitcher. His top five complete seasons (his peak) in park-adjusted ERA are 28% better than average; for his career he was 7% better than average. That's comparable to Rube Marquard - one of the biggest jokes in the HOF - but not to any great pitchers. It trails such pitching luminaries as Wilbur Wood, Rick Reuschel, Vida Blue and Mike Cuellar. It significantly trails pitchers who DO deserve HOF consideration like Blyleven, Tiant and Lon Warneke.

2. Mazeroski got in the HOF, deservedly, for being the best. Now there's best at hitting home runs, there's best at striking out hitters, etc. at one end and there's best at hitting sacrifice flies in night games on natural grass, best left-handed catcher, etc. at the other end. Which is to say, that being the best at something doesn't get you in the HOF - being the best at something important does. Being the best fielding second baseman (over 11,000 successful plays, including 1,700+ double plays) is important; being the best fielding pitcher (about 1,000 plays with 65 double plays) is not. Jim Kaat helped his teams with his fielding in his 25 year career roughly the same amount that Mazeroski helped the Pirates in 1966.

So, please stop disrespectin' Mr. Mazeroski. He's nowhere close to the worst HOF selection - see the NY Giants roster of 1920 alone for three worse picks. And he's much more deserving than Jim Kaat.

Morgoth

To say Mazeroski is the worst HOF selection is truly idiotic. The cronies of the Frisch regime were much worse. Lloyd Waner was a much worse selection from the same team. I think alot of people sort of remember Mazeroski play or at least seen him alive so it's much easier to say he was the worst rather than some guy who died in the 50's but come on.

Also look at his actual hitting stats and compare them to other 2bs he played against and he isn't no where near Mendoza as most people like to think. He actually is 9th place all time in Pirates HRs, Bay just passed him.

Estil

I'm not sure where I stand on Mazeroski. Like I said, he's got quite a weak offensive stat line for a HOFer, but then again, Ozzie's wasn't exactly glowing with HOF creditinals either.

Morgoth

Also remeber we live in an offensive MLB where SS hit for power. Maz played in Forbes field for a good portion of his career and it took a shot to make it out of there. I posted earlier he averaged 11 HRs a year during his prime but say he played in a band box like Cincinnattis new stadium would he averaged 20 hrs a year? Would that sway some minds? Again its just what it is but you have to put him into context with the times he played.

WinPitcher

I can't compare Maz with Kaat. One was a position player the other a pitcher.

Just because both fielded well is no reason to compare them.

Maz is a marginal HOF'r Not the worst selection, not the best either.

I can think of a few guys that are in that he was better then.


Steve

tombo

I can think of a few guys that are in that he was better then.

Who are some of those guys?

WinPitcher

Guys like Ray Schalk and his 250 lifetime average for one.

Rick Ferrell to name another.

If I looked I could prolly find another.


Maz is not the worst in is all I am saying.


Steve

Estil

Remember though, the only reason Maz got in is because less than 25% of the guys voting for the HOF at the time said no. And over 75% said yes.

I mean, haven't we had the 75% rule pretty much since the beginning? Not a perfect system to be sure but unless someone can come up with a better one...

Morgoth

Well the Frankie Frisch boys club ruined any semblance of a Veterns Committee but Maz's selection was much bettern than alot of his cronies he got in. I think Maz is better than a Dizzy Dean or even Lloyd Waner.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Just at second base alone I'd rather have Maz than the following:

Red Schoendienst
Johnny Evers
and maybe Nellie Fox though he has good longevity so probably not him
>>



Who belongs in the HOF is always going to be subjective, and I won't disagree with you that there are sound arguments to be made for keeping all of these guys out. But, none of them bother me much for the following reasons:

1. If the HOF is just going to let in the best hitters, then there'd be hardly any infielders in it. For those of us whose memories of second basemen start with Pete Rose or Joe Morgan, it may be natural to think that second basemen were always right up there in the batting leaders. But they weren't; most generations have only one second baseman who stands out as a hitter, and there are some long stretches where none stand out. If only the standouts were in the HOF, we'd have Lajoie, Collins, Robinson and Morgan and nobody else. I think the HOF should have relatively equal representation by position, or at least strive to, and by that standard I think all of these three belong. The same problem exists with shortstops and third basemen, and I just think a HOF with 100 outfielders and 20 infielders is wrong.

2. Schoendienst has the weakest argument as a second baseman, and a borderline case as a manager/coach. I think the combination clears the bar.


Third base presents the biggest problem for the HOF. It seems to be in the voters mindset that third basemen hit as well as first basemen and outfielders, so they get held to the same hitting standards. It also appears to be the case that fielding by a third baseman is considered far less important than by a 2B or SS. So we have about a dozen guys who were hired and held their jobs because of their stellar fielding who never got a second look from the HOF because their hitting wasn't as good as an outfielders. Whatever the thinking, there is a pronounced lack of third basemen in the HOF relative to every other position, with Ron Santo being #1 on the screwed over list. And of Boyer, Nettles, Evans, Hack and Bando at least a couple should be in as well.

Morgoth

With Dean vs. Koufax, they played in two different eras while Dean had some gaudy numbers he never led the league in ERA but did wins twice. His WHIP was awesome and led the league 5 times. Koufax led the league in wins 3 times, ERA 5 times, WHIP 4 times. Each had 1 MVP.

To me Koufax is a marginal as you can get due to career length, he basically was a 6 year creation. Dizzy was only a 5 year (in 32 he was barely over .500 and had a really high WHIP compared to other seasons but had 18 wins against 15 loses).

Koufax beats out Dean on all HOF standards black ink, grey ink, HOF monitor and HOF standards. To me Koufax should barley get in so that leaves Dean short of getting in. If you use Deans announcing and other baseball nonplaying credentials then maybe but not solely as a player.

Dean supreme player for 4 years. Mazeroski great player for 12. Both helped teams win WS's.

WinPitcher

Remember though, the only reason Maz got in is because less than 25% of the guys voting for the HOF at the time said no. And over 75% said yes.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I think he got in via the vets committee and they vote differently.


Steve

WinPitcher

I think Maz is better than a Dizzy Dean



lol no way!


Steve

dude

I recall vividly the events leading up to Mazeroski getting elected into the Hall of Fame. For a long time he didn't come close, then Ozzie Smith got in on the first ballot. How does a guy like Ozzie Smith get into the Hall with a lifetime batting average of .262 and only 28 HR's? The answer was easy - he was arguably the greatest fielding shortstop who ever played the game. When Smith was elected, then the debate came up: "How do you put the best fielding SS in the Hall on the first ballot and ignore the best fielding 2nd baseman in the history of game?" Then it was indefensible to keep Maz out of the Hall.

Another issue is that comparing Maz's batting stats to guys of other eras isn't really fair. Maz played in the era of the pitcher with the high mounds and large strike zones.

So if Maz doesn't belong, then neither does Ozzie Smith. It's that simple.

Estil

<< <i>I recall vividly the events leading up to Mazeroski getting elected into the Hall of Fame. For a long time he didn't come close, then Ozzie Smith got in on the first ballot. How does a guy like Ozzie Smith get into the Hall with a lifetime batting average of .262 and only 28 HR's? The answer was easy - he was arguably the greatest fielding shortstop who ever played the game. When Smith was elected, then the debate came up: "How do you put the best fielding SS in the Hall on the first ballot and ignore the best fielding 2nd baseman in the history of game?" Then it was indefensible to keep Maz out of the Hall. >>



All the more reason Mr. Kaat should go next. He's got double the hardware of Maz and has quite reasonable career pitching stats for a HOF candidate as well.

dallasactuary

<< <i>When comparing OPS+, it adjusts for eras and ballparks and still Maz is THAT FAR below his peers.

Ozzie Smith has the following going for him that Maz does not:

1) He played shortstop and that has always been tagged with "it's mostly all about defense" mentality. Second basemen, fair or not, have not been given as much consideration in that regard.

2) Ozzie Smith had and OPS+ of 87 versus about 108 for the other trackable SSs in the HoF. Hence, the average shorstop was 24% better on this offensive measurement than Ozzie while the average 2nd basemen was 45% better than Maz. A big difference. Plus, that does even count the 580 SBs that Ozzie had versus 27 for Mazeroski. 432 Net versus 4 net (or pretty much zero).

3) Ozzie played many more games than Maz, which counts for career longevity. >>



All true, but not necessarily convincing. The key is in your "fairly or not" clause, and I would come down squarely on the side of "not".

Second basemen have historically been held by the HOF to a standard of hitting that is different than the standard that existed in their time; they were hired to provide top-notch defense and adequate hitting, and the HOF standard was transformed to top-notch hitting and adequate defense. The problem would be the same, just to a different degree, if the HOF voters decided that pitchers shouldn't be in the HOF if they were poor hitters, or that catchers couldn't be in the HOF if they couldn't steal bases.

The HOF has held second basemen to a different and higher standard than they have shortstops, thus the average second baseman in the HOF is better than the average shortstop. That, more than anything else, explains why Maz falls further short of his HOF standard than does Ozzie.

All that being said, in therory I personally wouldn't care if Mazeroski or Ozzie consistently fell short of the Mendoza line - I would still think that the best player at a position had a rightful claim to a spot in the HOF.

jaxxr

Harry Hooper,

old time OFer for the Red Sox, was probably the first player ever put into the HOF, based mainly, on his defense. Probably not as well known, or actually as good a defender, as Maz.

He was an above average batter, and considered by his time era peers, a truly outstanding outfielder. He also shares some lead-off HR record with Rickey Henderson.

aro13

baseball - I agree, given the choice between Ozzie and Maz it has to easily be Ozzie.

In regard to OPS+ that statistic unfairly helps Ozzie. Ozzie benefits because Busch Stadium in St.Louis was a pitcher's park. Hence, it bumps his numbers when in reality the park had virtually no affect on him where as a player like Jack Clark would have been hugely affected.

While Ozzie's value is mostly defensive his career numbers rank pretty high for shortstops.

He scored 1257 runs in his career which ranks top 10 for shortstops.
He had 2460 career hits which ranks top 5 or 6 for shortstops.
He has almost a 2:1 walk to strikeout ratio in an era where that is highly unlikely.
He has 580 career stolen bases.
His career OBP is .337 which is almost 10 points higher than the league average when he played.

dallasactuary

I think Ozzie belongs in the HOF on his own merit and sits in the top half of it. I think the HOF should admit players like Mazeroski despite the fact that there are hundreds of overall better players. If the HOF had levels, Mazeroski would be in the lowest one or perhaps one off to a side. But there aren't levels so I just want him in.

In other words, no argument at all.

Estil

I know this is bringing up an old topic but it is that time of year again for announcing this year's HOF-Elects and I definetly think Mr. Kaat is second among those I think are most worthy (and eligible) for the HOF.

bking

<< <i>I'm on record as saying Mazeroski is the worst HOF selection ever. You're absolutely right about Kaat. He was an awesome pitcher on some pretty terrible Yankee teams. He deserves in. >>



Ummm, the guy pitched a whopping 44 games for the Yankees over two partial seasons, out of 25 seasons and 900 games.

bking

<< <i>I can't compare Maz with Kaat. One was a position player the other a pitcher.

Just because both fielded well is no reason to compare them.

Maz is a marginal HOF'r Not the worst selection, not the best either.

I can think of a few guys that are in that he was better then.


Steve >>



I was just going to post that. Maz's JOB was fielding, and he did it damn well. Kaat's job was pitching, and he did a good but not great job.

HGenesis

When your argument for including a player is based on someone else's induction and not your own merits, then you shouldn't be in the hall. Also, when you're a pitcher and your first argument is your fielding, then, again, you shouldn't be in the hall. Gold Glove awards are nothing but popularity contests.

Sorry, Kaat nor Maz belong in the hall. Let's not justify a mistake by making another one.

stevek

For those who want to water down the Hall of Fame even more, i say let every player who ever took to the playing field, even a player whose entire MLB career consisted of being say a pinch runner one time, or being say an outfielder for 1/3 of an inning...let every MLB player get automatic induction into the HOF, and then say the players only get booted out for say bad behavior such as being a Democratic Party member or something like that.

stevek

And for those who think Sandy Koufax is a marginal HOFer - that is almost too pathetic for words. Sandy won more awards in his "shorter career" than probably most HOF pitchers did in their entire career. Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers of all time and frankly, that shouldn't even be remotely debatable. Case closed.

Morgoth

Nothing against Koufax who I think he is a HOFer but marginal due to his career length.

There have been lots of hitters like Albert Belle or Don Mattingly who put up great 5 year runs but not alot of people would vote for them so why should pitchers get different treatment?

Koufax's 5 year run may have been the greatest ever (you could argue that Belle was the best hitter in baseball for 5 years) but would you take Koufax's 5 year run over say a career like Warren Spahn's? Which one was most valuable to their team over their whole career?

When people say Koufax was the greatest pitcher ever it always needs to be put into context of his short career.

WinPitcher

<<<<<<<<<<You're absolutely right about Kaat. He was an awesome pitcher on some pretty terrible Yankee teams. He deserves in.>>>>>>>>>>>





I can't believe I missed this last year.

Kaat played exactly parts of 2 seasons with the Yanks, 1979 and 80 and they were NOT terrible teams.


The 1980 team won 103 games and the East Title.


Steve

stevek

<< <i>Nothing against Koufax who I think he is a HOFer but marginal due to his career length.

There have been lots of hitters like Albert Belle or Don Mattingly who put up great 5 year runs but not alot of people would vote for them so why should pitchers get different treatment?

Koufax's 5 year run may have been the greatest ever (you could argue that Belle was the best hitter in baseball for 5 years) but would you take Koufax's 5 year run over say a career like Warren Spahn's? Which one was most valuable to their team over their whole career?

When people say Koufax was the greatest pitcher ever it always needs to be put into context of his short career. >>



Of course he wasn't the greatest pitcher as far as quantity of wins, we all know that, and he does have around the lowest win total in the Hall...but he had 165 wins in that shorter career, and that's not chopped liver. I don't think I need to go over Koufax's achievements here which frankly were spectacular.

Look, every player has to be judged for their merits and Koufax meets the minimum requirements for entry into the Hall, and yes in my opinion pitchers should get "different treatment" as far as Hall consideration because in general pitchers have shorter careers than hitters. I'm not one for "stat builders" getting in to the Hall whose only real claim to the Hall is the accumulation of stats over the years without really being considered a great player. A "stat builder" type very good player, to me, in a number of cases, is a bogus Hall of Famer in what I believe the Hall should be about...and I feel it should be about greatness. And I realize that some consider "greatness" to be the accumulation of stats - I just happen to disagree with that.

Oh well, nothing I can do but grin and bear it, and I last visited the Hall I guess it was around 7 years ago or so, and next time I visit, I'm gonna immensely enjoy it again and deeply appreciate it no matter what.

WinPitcher

You're absolutely right about Kaat. He was an awesome pitcher on some pretty terrible Yankee teams. He deserves in.






I think I would. It included a few world championships.



Steve

bking

<< <i>You're absolutely right about Kaat. He was an awesome pitcher on some pretty terrible Yankee teams. He deserves in.






I think I would. It included a few world championships.



Steve >>



I must be missing an inside joke here. This is the 2nd post lauding his time with the Yankees, which lasted all of 44 games from May 1979 to April 1980.

Estil

If it makes you feel any better I couldn't care less what teams a potential HOF candidate played on; it's not important at all. What matters first and foremost is overall career numbers and hardware being a close second (especially something like SIXTEEN Gold Gloves in a row and Maz getting in with only half as many).

bking

<< <i>If it makes you feel any better I couldn't care less what teams a potential HOF candidate played on; it's not important at all. What matters first and foremost is overall career numbers and hardware being a close second (especially something like SIXTEEN Gold Gloves in a row and Maz getting in with only half as many). >>



So, Kaat's claim to fame is his Gold Gloves?? and THAT's his ticket to the Hall??? Really????

In all his seasons, the most chances Kaat ever had was 91, and he only surpassed 70 TWICE. That not only SCREAMS "Small Sample Size" to me, but it should also point out in large block letters that fielding wasn't even a major part of his game. In six of his GG seasons, he fielded

In EIGHT of his Gold Glove seasons, he fielded under the league average for pitchers.

One more tidbit - in his 25 seasons, his career FPct was .947, and he exceeded .975 twice. Why did I pick .975? Because that was the lowest FPct that Maz EVER had in his career.

It just seems simple to me, maybe too much so. I just think that pitchers should go in the HOF based on how they pitched, not how they handled 10-15 balls a month.

WinPitcher

Bking lol I must missing it too.


I have no idea what I meant in the above post.


Steve

Estil

Sorry for bumping up an old topic but in light of Mr. Blyleven's becoming a HOF-Elect (FINALLY!!) I guess that means Mr. Kaat is now who I consider the most worthy eligible player not in the HOF (though you could also make a case for Ron "Cubbies retiring my number is MY Hall of Fame!!" Santo).

grote15

This thread reminds me, whatever happened to Dallasactuary?

Kaat is a tough call...his stats are not as good as Blyleven's (ERA, WHIP, ERA are all higher while SO, CG and K's are all lower), so I don't think he is a HOFer...he is close, but not quite..The Gold Gloves are nice, but Gold Gloves and pitchers just don't excite me and any award that is given to a player who only played a handful of games in an entire season at the position should be taken with a grain of salt anyway..

Saberman

Dallasactuary was the best at taking complicated questions/points and putting them into terms that any level headed person could understand. Unfortunately, there were too many knuckleheads that couldn't get past accepting the most basic logic and common sense...hence why the saying it is easier to debate somebody more knowledgeable on the subject, than not. I think that Dr.J guy took the cake. As a result, he got fed up and left.

Saberman

Nah,

It was the Howard and Rice threads.

THe other Maz thread I think was the defensive replacement thread. There were a few items we disagreed on, but when valid points were made, usually they were taken.

He beat his head against the wall with that Dr. J guy, and another one or two guys.

grote15

Whatever the case, it seems a bit extreme to simply stop posting just because others don't share your view...I know Skin would never be run off the board like that, LOL..

Saberman

LOL,

Grote, maybe he needed to recharge.

I am a bit different than Dallas. While we share a similar respect and understanding of the metrics....I also like to play in the gutter.

I also get my Springer fix from the debates. It is my diversion.

Saberman

Baseball,

Dallas did have a soft spot for Maz, and his guy Ozzie. He was appreciative of their standing as all time great defensive guys.

Saberman

Also, Dallas was just flat out smarter than all of us. He probably has a higher purpose. I just like to argue.

grote15

Actuaries are nerds...

Mickey71

Kaat was an all time Yankee great....WTF

DeutscherGeist

Koufax played in pitcher friendly Dodger Stadium. It helpled him be ERA leader 4 or 5 times. When you take the ball park factor into account, he only lead in ERA+ TWICE in his career. I am not saying Koufax is not deserving, just putting it in perspective.


Jim Kaat was in the top 10 of ERA+ four times.

Sandy Koufax was in the top 10 of ERA+ six times, and led twice.

David Cone was in the top 10 of ERA+ seven times.

Mike Mussina was in the top 10 of ERA+ eleven times.

Jack Morris was in the top 10 of ERA+ four times.

Dwight Gooden was in the top 10 of ERA+ four times, and led once.

Bert Blyleven was in the top 10 of ERA+ twelve times, and led once.


I just don't see how distinguished Jim Kaat actually was. He does not have a peak that comes close to Gooden, Blyleven or Koufax. Being a player of longevity, he does not even outshine Cone and Mussina, who have been in the leader boards more often with less years played.

Kaat looks like a pitcher who was good at remaining healthy and compiled large totals because of it.

Kaat's defense is noteworthy, but that is already reflected in the ERA+. If his defense prevents certain runs from happening, that would be reflected in his ERA+ anyway. However, a position player who fields valiantly won't have that reflected in his OPS+ to that same degree if at all. In conclusion, no extra credit for his 16 gold gloves, its part of his ERA+ anyway.

David Cone had a habit of focusing so much on pitching that he loses concentration of the players on the basepaths. They took advantage of that yet Cone outshines Kaat.

Granted, I have used some pitchers outside of Kaat's era, but I think we already have enough pitchers from the 60s-70s era in the HOF. Blyleven was deserving. He was the best for at least one season.

Kaat played so many years, yet still no 300 wins. Its hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now I will add my shameless plug here about Mattingly. His 9 Gold Gloves deserve some credit since it was not reflected in his OPS+. Like Koufax led MLB twice in the most important stat for his role, Mattingly also led MLB twice in the most important category for offense. So, Mattingly's short career was koufaxian after all. Sabermetrics make this more real than just looking at his batting average, home runs and RBIs. So, since this thread is about giving credit to the best defensive position players of an era or all time, it is hard to ignore Mattingly's nine gold gloves and fielding percentage that covered his career from beginning to end. There was an offensive drop, but his fielding remained superior throughout and made him more valuable than a slugger who could not field as well but hit above average.


edit for additions

Tabe

Jim Kaat is like Bert Blyleven - .500 pitcher who didn't quite make it to 300 wins - minus all the positives that Blyleven had, like a good ERA, lots of Ks, a good postseason resume, and lots of shutouts. Kaat's claims to fame are that he played for 25 years (whoop dee doo) and his 16 Gold Gloves (again, whoop dee doo).

He was an All-Star 3 times and a Top 10 in the Cy Young ONCE. There's no way in heck he belongs in the HOF.

Tabe