OT: Who should be in the Hall that isn't

[howard38]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I'm somewhat torn on Kaat. Yes, he won almost 300 games. Yes, he won 16 Gold Gloves (second most all-time to Greg Maddux). But was he ever the best pitcher in the game, or even in his league?

Here's the problem I have. The Cy Young Award started in 1956. Kaat started his career in 1959. Until 1967, there was just one award. Then there started being an award for each league.

But Kaat, in his 25 year career, only received votes for the Cy Young Award once in his career, in 1975. I'm not saying he only won the Cy Young once. I'm saying that he only got votes--any votes at all--in one year. He was fourth in the '75 AL Cy Young Award. He never received another vote again.

If the voters for that award only thought he was one of the top pitchers one year in twenty-five, how do we put him into the Hall of Fame, which is supposed to recognize he greats of the game?

I looked at all Hall of Fame pitchers that have thrown over 1,000 innings in their career between 1880 and 2014. There are 66 pitchers. I then looked at their ERA +. Kaat's ERA+ is 108. His ERA + would be the 6th worst out of all Major League Hall of Fame pitchers.

I then looked at career WAR. Kaat's 45.3 WAR would be 15th worst.

Next, I looked at career WHIP. Kaat would be 17th worst.

I don't know if those numbers are as reliable as they're purported to be, but it's pretty clear from those metrics, Kaat would be a lower-tier Hall of Famer if here were elected.

I then checked his career averages. Per 162 games played, here are Kaat's career averages:

13 wins, 11 losses, 3.45 ERA, 110 strikeouts

I couldn't help but notice that he only struck out 2,461 batters in 25 years.

Then, I looked at his Hall of Fame statistics



Three out of four metrics, he did not meet the average threshold for a Hall of Famer.

However, one positive would be the most similar pitcher. First is Tommy John, who is not a Hall of Famer. But next are Robin Roberts and Fergie Jenkins, two Hall of Famers. However, Roberts had six straight 20 win seasons where he had a 2.93 ERA. All these years were before the advent of the Cy Young Award. And Jenkins won a Cy Young, finished second twice, finished third twice, and sixth once.

I can see Jim Kaat getting another look, but he's a borderline Hall of Famer in my opinion. A very good pitcher with a few excellent seasons. I certainly wouldn't be upset if he got in, but if I were a voter, I would not vote for him.

I agree with everything you wrote except that I wouldn't put any stock in the Cy Young voting. For much of his career there was only one Cy Young given for the entire major leagues and voters could only vote for one pitcher. As a result in 1966 when Kaat almost certainly have won the AL award if it existed he lost out to Sandy Koufax who received all twenty votes from the sportswriters.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

I agree with everything you wrote except that I wouldn't put any stock in the Cy Young voting. For much of his career there was only one Cy Young given for the entire major leagues and voters could only vote for one pitcher. As a result in 1966 when Kaat almost certainly have won the AL award if it existed he lost out to Sandy Koufax who received all twenty votes from the sportswriters.

You're absolutely right. I'll give him 1966. He probably would have won the AL Cy Young if the award was given out in both leagues. But I would not say that "for much of his career there was only one Cy Young". Kaat became a full-time starting pitcher in 1961. In 1960, he only appeared in 13 games, starting 9. From 1961 to 1966, there was one Award. That's 6 seasons. He'd have won the 1966 Cy Young. He pitched another 17 seasons after 1966, from 1967 to 1978, 12 seasons, he was a full time starter, and he received any kind of Cy Young vote in one season, 1975.

From 1967 to 1983, the period after which we agree he'd have won the 1966 AL Cy Young, he started 406 games, and appeared in a total of 654 games. During the period of 1967 to 1983, his numbers:

185-154 (.546) with a 3.50 ERA, 1,504 K in 3,015 1/3 IP, 1.275 WHIP.

When you consider how the rules and the pitching mound gave pitchers an absolutely incredible advantage, even in his peak years, Kaat wasn't all that impressive. In 1968, Kaat was 14-12 with a 2.94 ERA while Denny McClain, a guy who'd pitched to a career 3.57 ERA, was winning 30 games with a 1.96 ERA. And Bob Gibson was 22-9 with a 1.12 ERA for the National League Cardinals. Kaat was very ordinary at a time when there was one hitter in the American League hitting .300, Carl Yastrzemski, who hit .301.

Now I've always been very open about the fact that I don't put much weight in a player's win-loss record. A very good pitcher can throw his arm off, but if the team behind him is no good, he's not going to get much run support, and he's not going to win a lot of games. And, I'm not saying Kaat was a bad pitcher. Quite the opposite. He was a good, solid pitcher. A dependable pitcher. But I just don't think the Hall of Fame should reward "sturdy and dependable".

[pbspelly]

Anyone for Bobby Grich?
Very underrated ballplayer

[clydepepper]

Billy Pierce

[Klrdds]

I agree with you on Grich . He definitely deserves consideration. I think like Ted Simmons he played in the shadow of a great Reds player during that time ...Joe Morgan.