HOF Results

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not the strike season one, but weren't Madlock's other titles considered somewhat cheap given how many games he missed?

Anyhow Oliva was very popular. Madlock, not.

He won't get in ever IMO.

130, 142 and 130. Sure that's missing some time but not crazy. 565, 588 and 530 PA's. 530 is pretty low to the 502 required, but nobody seems to devalue Brett's run at .400 and the batting title he won with only 515 PA's.

Who's to say he wouldn't have hit even higher if he'd been healthier?

[cardsagain74]

Can't agree with all of the approval of Jim Kaat making it.

A 3.45 ERA during a low-scoring era of major league history. Pitched a ton for a Twins team that won a lot of games during the '60s, or else his win total wouldn't have even sniffed HOF consideration.

It's trademark hall of very good stuff, and represents how the hall's standards continue to slowly lower (and how important it is to have the right buddies influencing the voting)

[G1911]

I think Kaat’s 287 wins have more to do with his 4,500 innings than being a Twin. His 108 ERA+ is his real problem. His WAR is fairly low. He also was consistently good for two decades and won a ton of gold gloves that certainly can give him a little bit of a boost. 7 of his top 10 similarity scores are hall of famers. Excellent but not great 20 year pitchers doesn’t seem a bad place to draw the line as the bottom tier of the hall of fame. I’d rank him over some hall of fame starters, he’s hardly lowering the general bottom standard, he’s right on the border. He’s really almost the same player as John, wonder if he gets in soon. They’re both a lot better than Jack Morris.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think Kaat’s 287 wins have more to do with his 4,500 innings than being a Twin. His 108 ERA+ is his real problem. His WAR is fairly low. He also was consistently good for two decades and won a ton of gold gloves that certainly can give him a little bit of a boost. 7 of his top 10 similarity scores are hall of famers. Excellent but not great 20 year pitchers doesn’t seem a bad place to draw the line as the bottom tier of the hall of fame. I’d rank him over some hall of fame starters, he’s hardly lowering the general bottom standard, he’s right on the border. He’s really almost the same player as John, wonder if he gets in soon. They’re both a lot better than Jack Morris.

I agree that my "lowering the standard" statement might be too strong. But I still maintain that it's a poor choice (to go along with whatever starters you felt were even worse choices).

The Twins were around 140 games over .500 during Kaat's 12 full seasons there, so I imagine it was both that and the 4500 innings that account for his win total.

And even with his fielding, as you mentioned, his WAR (especially over all those innings) still isn't worth of the hall to me. Especially when you factor in that low ERA+ compared to the usual HOF standards

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think Kaat’s 287 wins have more to do with his 4,500 innings than being a Twin. His 108 ERA+ is his real problem. His WAR is fairly low. He also was consistently good for two decades and won a ton of gold gloves that certainly can give him a little bit of a boost. 7 of his top 10 similarity scores are hall of famers. Excellent but not great 20 year pitchers doesn’t seem a bad place to draw the line as the bottom tier of the hall of fame. I’d rank him over some hall of fame starters, he’s hardly lowering the general bottom standard, he’s right on the border. He’s really almost the same player as John, wonder if he gets in soon. They’re both a lot better than Jack Morris.

Was just going to say if you like Jack Morris in the hall, you can't bitch about Kaat.

[Robextend]

I've learned over the years that any kind of gold standard I had will only make me salty when borderline guys are inducted - so I am happy for all.

With that said, Kaat made 3 All-Star teams in 25 years, and did not have too many "HOF years". Kaat's gold gloves are as, or more impressive than his win total.

The others are pretty well justified in my mind, would have liked to see Allen get in as well.

[Chris-Counts]

It's nice to see something go right with baseball at a time when its fearless leaders are mucking things up again with another strike. I'm particularly thrilled to see Minnie Minoso get in: I've personally campaigned for him to the point where I've annoyed some — but I did get a call from him one day thanking me, which was a wonderful surprise.

As for Dick Allen, of course he's a Hall of Famer. He was easily one of baseball's most feared hitters for a decade. Just look at his OPS from 1964 to 1974 — who hit the ball harder during that time? Nobody. His case for Cooperstown is convincing as Minnie's.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Robextend

With that said, Kaat made 3 All-Star teams in 25 years, and did not have too many "HOF years". Kaat's gold gloves are as, or more impressive than his win total.

To be honest, his Gold Gloves are a joke. First, nobody really cares about Gold Gloves for a pitcher to begin with. Secondly, one year he won a Gold Glove with a fielding percentage of .826. So, that "Gold Glove defender" botched it nearly 1 of every 5 times he handled a ball defensively. That's mind-bogglingly terrible for an MLB player. Other years weren't a whole lot better.

IMHO, if "he won X Gold Gloves" is among the first things you mention for a pitcher, he's not a HOFer.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Tabe

To be honest, his Gold Gloves are a joke. First, nobody really cares about Gold Gloves for a pitcher to begin with. Secondly, one year he won a Gold Glove with a fielding percentage of .826. So, that "Gold Glove defender" botched it nearly 1 of every 5 times he handled a ball defensively. That's mind-bogglingly terrible for an MLB player. Other years weren't a whole lot better.

IMHO, if "he won X Gold Gloves" is among the first things you mention for a pitcher, he's not a HOFer.

Yup I agree.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Was just going to say if you like Jack Morris in the hall, you can't bitch about Kaat.

Just to play devil's advocate, if you wanted a WS win, are you going with Kaat or Morris? Morris appears to be a miserable human being, but he knew how to win. And I think a lot of the ugliness to his stats is because he'd let up if given a big lead. He didn't mind winning 6-4 instead of gassing himself to win 6-0.

Kaat and John had many more wins and played longer, but Morris was better.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Just to play devil's advocate, if you wanted a WS win, are you going with Kaat or Morris? Morris appears to be a miserable human being, but he knew how to win. And I think a lot of the ugliness to his stats is because he'd let up if given a big lead. He didn't mind winning 6-4 instead of gassing himself to win 6-0.

Kaat and John had many more wins and played longer, but Morris was better.

Looking at careers, personally I’m picking Kaat. Over very large sample sizes, Kaat was better at not giving up runs, adjusted for context (Morris’ 105 ERA+ is even worse). If we look at post season only, in small sample sizes they have very similar ERA’s. Morris got absolutely shelled in 3 post season series, that’s always forgotten and only his good appearances remembered.. That Morris was particularly clutch I have a hard time finding support for in the data. I’d probably take John over both of them.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by G1911

Looking at careers, personally I’m picking Kaat. Over very large sample sizes, Kaat was better at not giving up runs, adjusted for context (Morris’ 105 ERA+ is even worse). If we look at post season only, in small sample sizes they have very similar ERA’s. Morris got absolutely shelled in 3 post season series, that’s always forgotten and only his good appearances remembered.. That Morris was particularly clutch I have a hard time finding support for in the data. I’d probably take John over both of them.

Morris did not exactly get shelled in three post season series, at least not as you would suggest. in '87 he lost and gave up 6, but did pitch a complete game. So too in the 1992 ALCS, where he gave up 4 but went the distance. Your manager does not leave you out there for the duration if you're no good.
His first start in the 1992 WS was a 3-1 loss to Tom Glavine.

As for the second appearance in each of those 1992 series, yes he did get rocked. At age 37 and pitching on three days rest, he had one bad inning against the A's, and had the same outcome against Atlanta, thanks to a two-out grand slam by Lonnie Smith. These are probably forgotten because, well, his team won the game and series against Oakland and had a 3-1 series lead when he faltered against the Braves.

So yeah, I guess a couple of blemishes in his final season at age 37 are overlooked, but it's not like the 1991 gem against Atlanta was a one-off. Morris was clutch when it mattered most.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Just to play devil's advocate, if you wanted a WS win, are you going with Kaat or Morris? Morris appears to be a miserable human being, but he knew how to win. And I think a lot of the ugliness to his stats is because he'd let up if given a big lead. He didn't mind winning 6-4 instead of gassing himself to win 6-0.

Kaat and John had many more wins and played longer, but Morris was better.

There is no sensible objective standard by which Morris is better. Subjectively people can do whatever they want.

[G1911]

Yep, I’m a moron. He got shelled twice in 1992, I misread the year column. I don’t think it materially changes things, but I was wrong.

2 good post seasons, 2 bad ones