HOF Results

[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.

[jingram058]

For all the talk about Dick Allen quitting on various teams, hard to get along with, etc., I would be okay with him going in. He must have lost whatever chip he was carrying as time went by. He was known after hanging up the spikes as being quite fan friendly. I used to go to a forum back in the early 2000s that had numerous threads detailing how to contact ballplayers including old-timers. That was how I began a lengthy period of correspondence with Tommy Henrich. Well one of the threads listed info for Dick Allen. Many people commented that he happily signed photos, cards, what have you, and mailed them back. At no cost for signing. That says he must have been an okay guy to me.

[jayshum]

From Jay Jaffe's write-up on Dick Allen:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2022-gol...te-dick-allen/

"Sabermetrician Don Malcolm called that passage “the absolute nadir of Bill James’ career, a summary statement so blatantly biased that his long-time friend and associate Craig Wright felt compelled to write an essay refuting Bill’s perspective… Everyone knows that Dick Allen was a great hitter; there’s just all that other baggage that they’re afraid to open.” Having opened it, well, it’s not pretty, but by now it’s abundantly clear that it wasn’t all Allen’s baggage to begin with. Wright’s work, which featured interviews with all but one of Allen’s big league managers (the late Dodgers skipper Walter Alston) as well as several teammates, strongly refutes the notion that Allen was a divisive clubhouse presence or a particular problem for his managers aside from his early-career tardiness (and his extreme behavior in 1969). “His teammates always liked him,” said Mauch. “He wasn’t doing anything to hurt [his teammates] play of the game, and he didn’t involve his teammates in his problems. When he was personally rebellious, he didn’t try to bring other players into it.”

Even Skinner and Ozark, the two managers portrayed as the most openly critical of him, told Wright that Allen wasn’t the problem with their teams and that they’d have him back again if given the chance."

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jingram058

For all the talk about Dick Allen quitting on various teams, hard to get along with, etc., I would be okay with him going in. He must have lost whatever chip he was carrying as time went by. He was known after hanging up the spikes as being quite fan friendly. I used to go to a forum back in the early 2000s that had numerous threads detailing how to contact ballplayers including old-timers. That was how I began a lengthy period of correspondence with Tommy Henrich. Well one of the threads listed info for Dick Allen. Many people commented that he happily signed photos, cards, what have you, and mailed them back. At no cost for signing. That says he must have been an okay guy to me.

He seems to be a complicated guy. He no-showed games in 1969 and walked away from his team in 1974 while feuding with Ron Santo but also clearly had some friends.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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.

In 1987, he gives up 6 earned runs in 8 innings for a 6.75 ERA. A 6.75 ERA is not being shelled? Pitching a complete game doesn’t mean he wasn’t shelled.

In 1992 he gives up 9 earned runs in 12.1 innings for a 6.57 ERA. A 6.57 ERA is not being shelled?

In 1993 he gives up 10 earned runs in 10.2 innings for a 8.44 ERA. A 8.44 ERA is not being shelled?

Total postseason results: 3.80 ERA. Respectable, not great. If you want to remember only his heroics and ignore his failures, then any player one likes is a hall of famer. It is not reasonable to expect others to do this. The Hall of Fame is a career honor, a players entire career counts, not the parts we like. He had 3 terrible postseasons, and 2 excellent ones (1984 and 1991).

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by G1911

In 1987, he gives up 6 earned runs in 8 innings for a 6.75 ERA. A 6.75 ERA is not being shelled? Pitching a complete game doesn’t mean he wasn’t shelled.

In 1992 he gives up 9 earned runs in 12.1 innings for a 6.57 ERA. A 6.57 ERA is not being shelled?

In 1993 he gives up 10 earned runs in 10.2 innings for a 8.44 ERA. A 8.44 ERA is not being shelled?

Total postseason results: 3.80 ERA. Respectable, not great. If you want to remember only his heroics and ignore his failures, then any player one likes is a hall of famer. It is not reasonable to expect others to do this. The Hall of Fame is a career honor, a players entire career counts, not the parts we like. He had 3 terrible postseasons, and 2 excellent ones (1984 and 1991).

Um, he did not pitch in the 1993 postseason. And as I said, he had two bad outings at age 37 in 1992. You cherry pick. Look up the 2000 NLDS, where the Braves got swept by the Cardinals. Greg Maddux ERA? 11.25. Tom Glavine's? 27.00. Should we remember those too?

[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