HOF Results

[the 'stache]

I don’t believe Jim Kaat was deserving in the slightest. I have nothing against the guy, but I Cooperstown exists to pay tribute to the best players in the game’s history. That’s not Jim Kaat. He’s the living embodiment of the phrase “Hall of Very Good”.

I get that he won almost 300 games (283). But he pitched in 25 different seasons to get that many wins, and honestly, win total, and win-loss record, are terrible methods for evaluating a player’s performance because so many things beyond a pitcher’s control influences a decision (run support, defensive performance, bullpen strength, etc).

ERA+ is a standardized metric that shows how much better or worse a pitcher performed than league average (average being 100). Kaat’s 108 ERA+ was, for his career, only 8% better than league average. And his best individual was only a 131 ERA+.

The man earned Cy Young votes-any votes, at all, in exactly one season, and the award began getting handed out in both leagues in 1967, Kaat’s age 28 season. From the beginning of that 1967 season, Kaat pitched 3,015 more innings, winning 185 more games. He started 406 games, and appeared in 654 in total. And yet the men that covered the game every day, who saw him pitch up close, thought he was worthy of receiving a Cy Young vote exactly one time. That’s not a ringing endorsement, and it’s certainly not indicative of greatness.

Typically, great players will create value at a rate greater than the amount of time they played. What I mean by that is, if you look at a player’s WAR ranking (either among position players or pitchers), and compared that ranking to where they appear on the all time innings pitched, or plate appearances list, the good ones will rank higher in WAR than those other two metrics; at worst, they will be about the same, or very slightly below.

In the 146 year history of Major League Baseball, 24 men have thrown more than Jim Kaat’s 4,530 innings pitched. And yet his 45.2 WAR from pitching ranks only 126th, all-time. For the amount of time he spent on the field, he didn’t generate anywhere near the amount of value for his team that he should have.

By JAWS, which averages career WAR and WAR7 (7 peak seasons), Jim Kaat, again, 25th all-time in innings pitched, ranks 109th in JAWS. He’s the 109th best pitcher in Major League Baseball history. There are now 65 pitchers in Cooperstown, meaning that there are 43 pitchers with a more compelling resume than Jim Kaat, not in the Hall of Fame.

And the whole “he won 16 Gold Gloves” narrative is not as impactful as many would have us believe. Yes, he was a good fielder. But fielding is such a small part of a pitcher’s responsibilities. Kaat threw 4,530 and 1/3 innings in 25 seasons. He handled 1,062 chances in his career. He made 262 putouts, and had 744 assists. He made a putout once every 17.3 innings pitched, and an assist every 6.1 innings. Again, not really statistically significant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

And the whole “he won 16 Gold Gloves” narrative is not as impactful as many would have us believe. Yes, he was a good fielder.

He wasn't even that good of a fielder. Career .947 fielding percentage. I randomly looked at Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton, Bob Gibson, and Robin Roberts - literally just four guys who pitched a long time - and all of them had a higher fielding % than Kaat. Yeah, fielding % is not a great indicator for defensive prowess but it's better than nothing.