Quote:
Originally Posted by bravos4evr
so I didn't say they were equal players on a year by year basis, but the RESULTS of their career say they provided equal value.
|
Murray 129 OPS + career. 29% above league average for his
career.
Kaat 108 ERA +. 8% above league average
career.
29% >>>>> 8%. In fact, 29% is more than three times better than 8%. What part of that is unclear to you?? If Jim Kaat had pitched 29% above league average for his career, then you could say they provided equal value. That didn't happen.
Look at their career totals, and their 162 game averages:
Murray averaged 686 plate appearances per 162 games played. He had 12,817 career ABs, or 18.68 seasons worth of baseball.
Kaat averaged 202 innings pitched per 162 games played. He had 4,530 1/3 IP, or 22.42 seasons worth of baseball.
What this boils down to is that Eddie Murray played about four fewer seasons of baseball than Jim Kaat (3.74 to be precise). So, if their career fWAR is comparable (72.0 for Murray, 70.9 for Kaat), Kaat played 3.75 more seasons to get nearly the same value that Murray did.
At 202 innings pitched per 162 games, here's another way of saying it. If Murray and Kaat started their careers on the same day, and then, several years later, Murray retired, Jim Kaat had to throw another 755 innings to reach his 70.9 fWAR. And he was still a win below Murray at that point.
And, again, as far as their career peaks are concerned, there is no comparison to be made. Murray's peak was at a Hall of Fame level. Kaat's was not.
There are 62 starting pitchers in the Hall. JAWS ranks Kaat the 102nd best starter in history. There are 40 starters not already in the Hall that are more deserving than Kaat. He was a workhorse starter that ate up a lot of innings for a long time. A nice pitcher, but not one worthy of enshrinement in Cooperstown.
Quote:
|
I think Eddie Murray deserves it even tho his peak was not "hall worthy" because there is something to be said for being around a long time and being above avg.
|
His peak was not Hall worthy? Are you freaking kidding me?
Do you understand the concept of context? I've referred to it multiple times. You have to look at what other players in the same league were doing in any given season. He was top 5 in the American League MVP five years in a row between 1981 and 1985, and was 6th in the MVP in 1980. Six years in a row top 6 in the MVP vote, with a composite 152 OPS + (52% above league average) isn't a Hall worthy peak? LOL, ok.
Here's where he finished in the American League in OPS +
1980 8th
1981 3rd
1982 2nd
1983 2nd
1984 1st
1985 5th
1986 7th
Clearly not an elite peak.
Kaat's best full season ERA + was a 131 in 1966. 31% above league average. Murray's
six year OPS + composite was 21% better than Kaat's best season.
Jim Kaat received Cy Young votes once.....
once in his 24 year career. The Cy Young Award was first given out to a pitcher in
both leagues in 1967. Kaat was a rookie in 1972. In a quarter century of baseball, Kaat received never received a single vote outside of the 1975 season. Not top five, or top ten.
Not even a single vote.
But the voters for these awards were idiots, right?
Or, maybe, just maybe, it was because Jim Kaat just wasn't that great of a pitcher??
I'm done with this part of the conversation.