You know what? I understand WAR just fine, thank you. And I'm hardly cherry picking to support my argument. I'm building a case for Murray, and against Kaat, and thus far, you've done nothing to show me they were of equal value to their teams. If two players end up with the same career wins added, only one plays four years longer, they obviously were not providing like value on an annual basis, were they? Why can't you grasp this very simple concept?
"Two guys ended with the same win total, they must be equal, right?"
NO!
If a phenom pitcher comes up (say Dwight Gooden circa 1984), and absolutely sets the baseball world on its ear, wins 19 games, strikes out 275, has an ERA of 2.2, and his advanced metrics are Godly; say his fWAR is 9.5. He blows out his arm in spring training, and never pitches again. His teammate that rookie season puts up an fWAR of 3.0 his own rookie year. The next year he puts up a 2.9 fWAR. His third season, he puts up an fWAR of 3.6. His career total is now 9.5, the same as the phenom pitcher.
Who is the better player? The guy who wins the Rookie of the Year and Cy Young going away, and has an historic first season, or the utility player who is really good with the glove, and ok with the bat? Their career fWAR to this point is identical, but they are not nearly the same player. The value they bring to their teams is not even in the same ballpark. If after that third season, the phenom pitcher has a new surgical procedure that fixes his arm, and he's able to pitch at a high level again, who do you think the team is going to keep on the 25 man roster? The utility player, or the pitcher?
"But...but....they have equal fWAR, so they're equally valuable!"
No!!
Take this same rationale, and apply it to Kaat and Murray. Murray achieved in 18.7 years of actual playing time what it took Kaat 22.4 years of actual playing time.
Using those numbers, Murray's average season by fWAR is 3.85 (72.0 divided by 18.7).
Kaat's average fWAR is 3.17 (70.9 divided by 22.4). Murray's annual contribution is more than 21% higher than Kaat's.
I'm baffled how you continually gloss over this. For them to truly be equal, from a value standpoint, Kaat would have had to produce a lifetime fWAR of 86.24.
And these metrics baseball-reference.com use were good enough for baseball scholars for decades before Fangraphs ever came around. There is variance between Baseball-reference and Fangraphs, yes. I've looked at their methodology before, and their advanced metrics, and some of the time, I disagree with their results. Admittedly, I am not as conversant with their metrics, and so I will take the time to learn them, ok? But, in the mean time, regardless of what site I utilize as my base of statistical analysis, there is not enough evidence to support your assertion that Jim Kaat and Eddie Murray were the same, from a value standpoint. There just isn't.
For the rest of this discussion, I will use only Fangraphs. The end result is still the same, but it removes that variable from the argument.
And Kaat
should be high on the fWAR list in the modern era. Very high, indeed. Because, since the start of the 1920 season, only thirteen other pitchers have thrown more innings than Kaat in all of baseball. Of course a man that pitched a massive amount of innings is going to be fairly high up on the list of fWAR for live ball era pitchers. The sheer length of his career assures that. But it doesn't make him a great pitcher.
Speaking of FIP, which you brought up as a metric superior to ERA + (I agree with you), let's look at the starting pitchers of the live ball era. I wonder where Jim Kaat ranks among qualified starting pitchers from 1920 on? Since FIP considers only the things a pitcher can directly control (walk rate, strikeouts, home runs allowed, and hit batsmen), this should give us a pretty good indication of how Kaat truly stacks up against other starters that have pitched in the Major Leagues since the start of the 1920 season.
Hmm. Look at that? On a list of qualified pitchers, though Kaat ranks 27th with a career fWAR of 70.2,
he ranks 130th in career FIP at 3.40, right behind Harvey Haddix, Nelson Briles, Tommy John, Wilbur Wood, Al Javery, Jim Merritt, Mike Scott, Roy Oswalt, Mel Stottlemyre, Joe Horlen, Larry Christenson...hey look, Lefty Grove, finally, another Hall of Famer, Len Barker, Claude Osteen......all of these guys are better than Kaat. And, unlike Kaat, who led the league in FIP one time, Grove did so eight times.
There are sixty-two starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame. Kaat, when considering only the things he can control as a pitcher, is only the 139th best starter of the live era.
But yes, let's put him into Cooperstown!
Let's go back to fWAR for a second, since that seems to be your island in the middle of the ocean.
"Kaat's fWAR is 27th best all-time by a starter...." yadda yadda.
First, a question for you. There are guys on the starters list, since 1920, with a higher fWAR than Kaat that are not in the Hall. Tell me, do you think these players are Hall of Famers?
Mike Mussina, 82.1 fWAR, 3559 innings pitched
Tommy John, 79.0 fWAR, 4673.0 innings pitched
Curt Schilling, 78.1 fWAR, 3079.1 innings pitched
Kevin Brown, 76.5 fWAR, 3237.1 innings pitched
Jim Kaat, 70.3 fWAR, 4242.2 innings pitched
All those guys have higher fWARs for their careers. Brown pitched over 1,000 fewer innings than Kaat. His FIP (3.32) is better than Kaat's, too. Does Kevin Brown belong in Cooperstown? All of these guys, except Tommy John, have much better fWAR metrics in far fewer innings pitched. Knowing that Major League Baseball has elected 62 starting pitchers since Cooperstown opened, are you prepared to throw five more guys in, and then Kaat??
Let's look at the guys behind him, and determine if Kaat is actually better than them as a pitcher. Because, again, while I credit Kaat for showing up day after day, year after year, just punching the time card doesn't make one great. And Cooperstown is supposed to recognize greatness, not a gold pen for spending 25 years with the company.
Let's focus, again, on the live ball era, and compare Kaat to the guys who were, in your eyes, must not be as worthy as Kaat because they had a lower fWAR career total. I'm going to limit the discussion to guys within 10 wins, by fWAR.
So, here they are. The last column is their fWAR. Obviously, standard stats are first, wins and losses, SV, G, GS, IP (as a starter), and the last grouping of three before fWAR is ERA, FIP and xFIP.
So notice Kaat's numbers. All these starters have fWAR within 10 of Kaat's 70.3.
First up, Andy Pettitte. Is he a Hall of Famer, in your eyes? He has a fWAR 1.8 below Kaat's, and his FIP is higher (3.74 to 3.40). But he also pitched 942 2/3 fewer innings. Clearly he is more valuable than Kaat, if you consider length of career, and total fWAR. Kaat averaged 202 IP per 162 games, and Pettitte averaged 214 IP per 162 games. So, let's look at average fWAR per 162 games played. Kaat pitched a total of 4530.1 innings in his career. 22.4 seasons. 3.14 fWAR per season. Pettitte pitched 3316 innings in his career. At 214 IP per 162 games, that's 15.50 actual seasons pitched. That's an average fWAR of 4.42. Pettitte was worth 1.3 more wins per season than Kaat. So, does he go in?
Next up, Rick Reuschel. Reuschel has an fWAR of 68.2. Only 2.1 wins fewer than Kaat. But, in his career, Reuschel threw 3,541 innings, averaging 222 IP per 162 games played. Reuschel's FIP of 3.22 is much better than Kaat's career 3.40. Reuschel pitched 15.95 actual seasons. His average fWAR, on a 162 game basis, is 4.28. That's 1.14 more wins per season than Kaat. Again, more wins per season, a better career FIP, and a nearly identical career fWAR. So, Rick Reuschel must be a Hall of Famer too, then, right???
Glavine and Bunning are already in. So, Roy Halladay is next up. He has a 65.1 career fWAR. He threw 2,749 innings in his career, averaging 232 innings pitched per 162 games played by his team. Halladay pitched 11.85 seasons of actual baseball. Kaat was only worth 5.2 more fWAR, even though Halladay pitched a whopping 1781 fewer innings. While their FIP is nearly identical (3.40 for Kaat, 3.36 for Halladay as a starter, 3.39 for his career), Halladay was clearly much more valuable than Kaat. Halladay was worth 5.49 wins per season by fWAR, 2.35 wins more per season than Kaat. You're going to sit here and tell me that Jim Kaat was more valuable than Roy Halladay because he had a higher career fWAR? Halladay is the more valuable pitcher. His peak is better. While Kaat's best individual seasons, by fWAR are 6.4 (1966, '67), a 5.9 (1971), a 5.4 (1962), and a 5.1 (1975), Halladay counters with an 8.3 (2011), a 7.0 (2003, '09), a 6.8 (2002, '08), and a 6.1 (2010). Halladay has five seasons better than Jim Kaat's best, by fWAR, and six of the top seven seasons thrown by either Halladay or Kaat were thrown by Halladay. So, clearly, he's a superior pitcher.
See where I'm going with this? Career fWAR is not the be all, end all, especially when a guy plays the game, to some extent, for a quarter century. And THAT is why Jim Kaat has the 22nd highest fWAR of starting pitchers in the live ball era. It's not that he was better than everybody else behind him on the list; it's that he pitched longer. Andy Pettitte was more valuable than Jim Kaat. His FIP is higher, but on an annual basis, his fWAR is better. Rick Reuschel career fWAR is only 2.1 lower than Kaat's. But he pitched 989 fewer innings, and had a better career FIP. So, he needs to go into the Hall of Fame before Jim Kaat does. So does Roy Halladay. That's two pitchers, arguably three, that were better than Kaat, though their career fWAR is lower.
Next up, Mickey Lolich. 64.5 career fWAR, or 5.8 fewer wins than Kaat. Lolich has the superior FIP (3.19 to 3.40), so that's one point in his favor. He pitched 3,638 innings in his career of which almost all were realized as a starter. Lolich averaged 229 innings pitched per 162 games played for his career, or 15.89 seasons of actual baseball played. His fWAR per 162 games played is 4.06, which is 0.92 (4.06 - 3.14), almost a full game better per season. Individual seasons? Lolich has fWAR (again, this is from Fangraphs) of 8.3 (1971), 6.1 (1972), 6.0 (1969), 5.4 (1973), and 5.1 (1965, '70). Between the two pitchers, Lolich and Kaat, Lolich has the best season (8.3), Kaat has the second best (6.4), Lolich has the third (6.1) and fourth (6.0) best. Lolich, with a better career FIP, more wins per season, and a much better peak, deserves to get in before Kaat, too.
Next up, Paul Derringer. 62.4 career fWAR. Pitched 3,645 innings in his career, averaging 242 innings thrown per 162 team games played. That's 15.06 seasons of actual baseball played. He averaged 4.14 wins per season played, compared to 3.14 fWAR/162 G for Kaat. Derringer's career FIP is 3.26. That, again, is better than Jim Kaat's 3.40. Peak seasons? 6.3 in 1939 with the Reds, 5.5 (1940), 5.2 (1936), 5.1 (1938), 4.8 (1934), 4.7 (1933). Kaat had seasons of 6.4 twice, 5.9, 5.4 and 5.1. He also had a 4.8 and a 4.7. Kaat had the best two seasons, edging Derringer's 6.3 by 0.1. Derringer had the third best season. Kaat the fourth, Derringer the fifth, and they each tied with a 5.1. Kaat had a slightly better peak, but for his career, Derringer was better by annual fWAR, and FIP. The case could be made that Derringer is every bit as deserving of Hall induction as Kaat is, if fWAR is the chief component.
I could keep going on like this for a while. The bottom line is this. Kaat is where he is on the one metric
you cherry picked because of how long he played. It's that simple.
And stating "Kaat is third in fWAR for starters between 1961 and 1975", as an attempt to show "how good" he was, is a little ridiculous. Again, of course he's going to be high up on the list, merely because not many pitchers throw fifteen years in their careers. And if they do pitch during the same era Kaat played in, they likely don't have the identical coverage period. Look at the guys on the list behind him. Kaat had a 64.3 fWAR between 1961-1975. The guy behind him, Lolich, with a 61.4, didn't even come up to the Majors until 1963. Ya think that a guy with two more seasons of work is going to have a fWAR 3 wins higher?? Next up is Juan Marichal at 59.4. Marichal only threw 57 1/3 innings in 1974, and 6 innings in 1975, his last season. 63 1/3 innings in '74-'75 while Kaat threw 581 innings. Again, shocking that Kaat would have 4.9 more wins by pitching 517 2/3 more innings.
Next up, Fergie Jenkins with a 57.1 fWAR between 1961 and 1975. He wasn't even a rookie until 1965, and he threw all of 12 1/3 innings in '65. So, Kaat earned 7.2 more wins during this period....because Jenkins didn't pitch in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, and barely pitched in 1965. Jenkins blows Jim Kaat out of the water as a pitcher. That Kaat appears high on this little fWAR list you complied (talk about cherry picking!) is a matter of time played. Again, Kaat's best fWARs in this period were a 6.4, another 6.4, and a 5.9. Jenkins has a 9.6 fWAR in 1971, a 9.5 in 1970, an 8.2 in 1969, a 7.4 in 1974. Those 6.4 fWARs of Kaat's barely beat out Jenkins' fifth best season, a 6.3 in 1968. Had Jenkins pitched more than 12 1/3 innings between the first five years of the period you selected, he'd have caught, and blown Kaat's fWAR out of the water like a German U boat.
Next up...Tom Seaver, with a 56.4 fWAR. Let me just LOL here for a minute as we reflect on his having an fWAR that is a mere 7.9 wins behind Kaat. Seaver didn't pitch in 1961. Or 1962. Or 1963. Or 1964. Or 1965. Or 1966. Despite having six full seasons head start, Kaat could only put up 7.9 more wins. Seaver had a 9.1 fWAR in 1971, an 8.3 in 1970, a 7.8 in 1975, a 7.3 in 1973. All four of those seasons blow Kaat's best out of the water.
Next up is Jim Bunning at 49.3 fWAR. He didn't pitch in 1972, 1973, 1974 or 1975. He put up a 7.3, and two 6.8s in the period specified. He was better than Kaat, too.
Sam McDowell is next with a 48.1 fWAR. He pitched 6 1/3 innings in 1961, 87 2/3 in 1962, 65 in 1963, 48 2/3 in 1974, and 34 2/3 in 1975. Yeah, he blows Kaat away, too, with seasons of 9.4 fWAR (1969), 8.7 (1965), 7.6 (1970), and 6.8 (1968).
Don Sutton is next at 47.0 fWAR. He didn't pitch in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, or 1965. He has a 7.1 fWAR in 1971, a 6.8 in 1972, and a 6.0 in 1973. You have to figure he averages at least 3.0 fWAR a season. So, he's close, but might not have passed Kaat.
The next guy would have blown him out of the water. 1961 to 1975 is 15 seasons. Sandy Koufax only pitched between 1961 and 1966--6 seasons. And, he put up a 46.3 fWAR. He's worlds better than Kaat, and it's not even close. The only reason Kaat beats him is because of the extra years he plays. Koufax has seasons of 10.0 (1965), 9.2 (1964), 9.1 (1966), 6.3 (1961), and 6.1 (1964).
Next up? Steve Carlton with a 44.9 fWAR. He didn't pitch in 1961, 1962, 1963, or 1964. He pitched 25 innings in 1965, and 62 innings in 1966. His peak is much better than Kaat's, too, with an unbelievable 11.1 fWAR in 1972. Then he has a number of good seasons, with 4.9s in 1969 and 1974, but nothing that tops Kaat's best few seasons. The vast majority of his best seasons come from 1976 on; he has multiple 8 and 7 + fWARs. But missing four full seasons, and missing about 400 innings those first two seasons, he would have at least equaled, and likely passed Kaat's fWAR. He only needed 19.4 fWAR in 5.5 seasons (3.5 fWAR per season) to catch him.
The point here is that all of these guys, with the exception of Don Sutton, outperform Jim Kaat if they had pitched the same time period. Kaat's being third in fWAR during this period is merely the result of timing, and not a greater indication of his dominance. He was, again, a good, at times a real good pitcher. But not a Hall of Famer. Not even close.
Kaat, in his 25 year career, cracked the top 10 in fWAR in his
league three times. Murray had the 6th best fWAR in all the Major Leagues for a seven year period. That's a night and day difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bravos4evr
well, I'm done arguing with someone who either doesn't understand WAR or cherry picks it only when it supports their argument.
I'm also not going to argue with someone who uses stats like ERA+,OPS+ and JAWS. which are not very good modern stats.
72 WAR is 72 WAR, at the end of the day they provided nearly equal value for their careers. If you say one is HOF'er based on value then the other must be.... Kaat is 27th in career fWAR for pitchers (using the far superior FIP over ERA+) ALL TIME . Since 1920 (start of the "live ball era" he is 22nd, right ahead of Glavine ) In fact since 1920 only 36 starting pitchers have provided 60 WAR or more over their careers. He is 22nd.
From his first full season in 1961 to the end of his productive era in 1975 Kaat is 3rd in WAR behind only Gibson and Gaylord Perry. so it's not like he had no peak either.
stop using baseball reference, it's pretty much worthless
P.S. Murray's peak 7 seasons you mentioned put him 6th in MLB WAR over that period with 36.8. That is very good, it is NOT elite, Mike Schmidt and Rickey Henderson put up 49 over that same period , THAT'S elite. (not to mention Murray got 23 of that WAR as a DH and only 49 at first base, which is 20th all time)
|