Clayton Kershaw

[frankbmd]

It looks like Kershaw forgot to pack his WHIPS and FIPS for the current road trip.

[clydepepper]

That's what he gets for scheduling against GOT finale.

[Dewey]

Not good tonight. But he battled. And for as often as he picks up the team, they didn't pick him up. Typical.

The first steal attempt of the season against Kershaw today. Out at second. Plus his first intentional walk of the year. Rockies at home up next.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

As a Dodger fan on the East Coast I never get to see him pitch. I of course was watching tonight. So I think it's my fault. I turned off the game after the bases clearing double and apparently the world righted itself shortly thereafter. I apologize for not understanding the full extent of my powers.

[Touch'EmAll]

Aquarian - same as you. I watched him for first time on TV this year - oh, well. At least I recorded Swimming Olympic Trials.

[chaddurbin]

yea the game wasn't even over, but let's get the knives and pitchforks out while waiting for him to fail. seems like the big pitchers are going thru some injuries, strasburg on dl already, kershaw pitching thru some back spasms, and syndergaard with the elbow pain (uh oh!).

of course tuesday is the start of giolito's career replacing strasburg in the rotation. i was wrong on urias, he's looked much better than i thought...excited to see what another #1 pitching prospect can do tomorrow.

[chaddurbin]

gonna stop participating in these types of threads. not worth it to sing someone's praise...you already know they're great or it's just gonna invite the hate waiting for them to fail. bad karma all around.

now kershaw's on the dl and syndergaard has a bone spur in his elbow. giolito prolly gonna undergo TJ again soon if this keeps up.

[clydepepper]

How soon will some demented future little league parent somewhere asks the pediatrician to preform a Tommy John on the newborn just to get it out of the way?

A scary future indeed.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

How soon will some demented future little league parent somewhere asks the pediatrician to preform a Tommy John on the newborn just to get it out of the way?

A scary future indeed.

Seriously? We're already beyond that. They will not need that as they will be genetically modified prior to being born.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by tschock

Seriously? We're already beyond that. They will not need that as they will be genetically modified prior to being born.

Well... at least they'll be left-handed.

[Dewey]

First time back to this thread since Kershaw's last start. Team rallying and this post made me lol. ASC that's about the perfect encapsulation of a baseball fan. I've never thought this way after a football game, but almost every baseball game. Hell if we homer while my left arm is raised, up it stays. Haha.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

As a Dodger fan on the East Coast I never get to see him pitch. I of course was watching tonight. So I think it's my fault. I turned off the game after the bases clearing double and apparently the world righted itself shortly thereafter. I apologize for not understanding the full extent of my powers.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

kershaw can just sit for and chill for the next month and he'd probably still be the most productive pitcher in baseball.

so yea this was a jinx. kershaw has been out for a month now, and yes he still leads all pitchers in WAR. my hunch is at some point next month he'll be shut down for 2016. they don't want to do it right now because of the trading deadline/leverage and all that.

urias/deleon/puig/verdugo for chris sale, let's do it chicago!

[bravos4evr]

I suspect he will end up with a Pedro like career, this huge peak and a swift decline. Back injuries tend to linger and shorten careers.

Pedro had a great peak, but he isn't a top 10 pitcher because of longevity. You can't give guys credit for innings they never pitched.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I suspect he will end up with a Pedro like career, this huge peak and a swift decline. Back injuries tend to linger and shorten careers.

Pedro had a great peak, but he isn't a top 10 pitcher because of longevity. You can't give guys credit for innings they never pitched.

Truth be told, I have always worried about his windup...and Alex Wood's is very similar.

Herky-Jerky windup like theirs' always put extra stress on the back.

Sad to see...but I'm still hopeful for him to return.

[Touch'EmAll]

Yes, Kershaw indeed does have an odd pitching motion, herky jerky. I hope him the best and would love to see him strut his stuff a bunch more years, but???

I remember watching Bert Blyleven when he was with the Angels. The most smooth and fluid pitching motion I ever saw - pure grace.

[Topnotchsy]

(Responding to a number of comments)

Kershaw has been very durable to this point, and he's a much bigger person than Pedro so I don't think there's a strong reason to assume he'll break down the same way.

Regarding Pedro's ranking though, I do believe (and think I am far from alone) that he had arguably the most dominant peak of any pitcher ever and despite his relatively short career is a top 5-7 pitcher of all-time.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

(Responding to a number of comments)

Kershaw has been very durable to this point, and he's a much bigger person than Pedro so I don't think there's a strong reason to assume he'll break down the same way.

Regarding Pedro's ranking though, I do believe (and think I am far from alone) that he had arguably the most dominant peak of any pitcher ever and despite his relatively short career is a top 5-7 pitcher of all-time.

Back injuries can linger though. So much energy transitions through the back that as a pitcher he may have to either dial back the velocity or get used to the cortizone shots.

As far as Pedro is concerned, I have a tough time putting a guy in the top 10 all time when he doesn't have 3000 innings pitched in the big leagues. Sure his 7 year peak was epic, but for guys like Clemens (pre roids) Maddux, WJ, Young, Ryan, Big Unit...etc who threw 5000+ innings and kept a very high level of production for 15+ years they are at another level.

Pedro was a shadow of himself at 34 and done by 36 (tho he lingered for two bad seasons )

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Yes, Kershaw indeed does have an odd pitching motion, herky jerky. I hope him the best and would love to see him strut his stuff a bunch more years, but???

I remember watching Bert Blyleven when he was with the Angels. The most smooth and fluid pitching motion I ever saw - pure grace.

Cliff Lee and, in an earlier time, Floyd Bannister were joys to watch...like a ballet!

Shortly after he was drafted, Bannister pitched just a couple of games here with the Columbus Astros and he was fun to watch.

The danger with a smooth, very repeatable windup is, without great off speed pitches, it is far easier to time.

[bravos4evr]

Here's a question:


If Kershaw never comes back from his back issues is he a HOF'er? (I would say no, but only because of less than 2000 innings bugs me, tho I can see the Koufax argument being made)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Here's a question:


If Kershaw never comes back from his back issues is he a HOF'er? (I would say no, but only because of less than 2000 innings bugs me, tho I can see the Koufax argument being made)

If he retires now, no. He has only pitched 9 years. If he tries to pitch next year and does poorly, I think he does.

[the 'stache]

If he retires now, he's absolutely a Hall of Famer.

We're giving far too much credit to guys who had long careers. Longevity should be a factor, but not nearly as big a factor as dominance. Clayton Kershaw has been, hands down, the best pitcher in the game the last six seasons. And he was pretty darned good the two before that amazing six year run. And, like Koufax, he had inarguably his best season at the end. If this is it for Kershaw (it won't be), he's one of the greatest to ever play his position. That he dominated at a ridiculous level as a left handed pitcher only adds to his stature.

He was a rookie at 20, and had a 4.29 ERA. In the eight seasons since, he's never had an ERA above 3.00. He's led the league in ERA five of the last six seasons, and the one he didn't lead, his ERA was 2.13. How good has he really been? Through the history of baseball (with complete statistics going back to 1901, so 115 years of the sport), only two pitchers have been more dominant through their first nine seasons (1,000 innings pitched, minimum): Walter Johnson and Pedro Martinez.

Career ERA + through nine seasons:

Walter Johnson 176
Pedro Martinez 168
Clayton Kershaw 158

Then, let's look at FIP. Again, FIP (fielding independent pitching) measures only the things a pitcher can control: home runs surrendered, hit batsmen, walks, and strikeouts. Through nine seasons, Clayton Kershaw ranks 32nd of all starting pitchers in FIP (again, 1,000 innings pitched, minimum).

But here's the caveat. All thirty-one pitchers on the list ahead of Kershaw played in the dead ball era, when home runs were rare. They should have a lower FIP metric than Kershaw because the game was different. This means that, when considering only things a pitcher can control, eliminating things like wins, runs allowed, hits allowed, etc, all of which the team behind the starter can heavily influence, Clayton Kershaw is the best starting pitcher of the modern era. Not top ten. Not top five. Number one.

2,000 innings pitched, or 3,000 innings pitched is some arbitrary number picked out at random because people like nice ever numbers. 3,000 hits. 3,000 strike outs. 500 home runs. As if Frank Robinson would be judged differently if he'd somehow managed 57 more hits to reach 3,000, or Fred McGriff would suddenly be a Hall of Famer if he'd hit 7 more home runs. Clayton Kershaw has thrown 1,732 innings in the Major Leagues, more than enough time to demonstrate how he throws the ball, and more than enough time for Major League hitters to adjust, if they could, and improve their fortunes against him. Nine years into his career, not only have they not figured him out, but Kershaw is getting better. In the past six seasons, he's won an MVP, three Cy Young Awards, and he's finished second and third in the voting once each. If the season ended today, he'd be a unanimous Cy Young winner for 2016.

Look at his past three seasons, and how spectacular his numbers are. 48-12 (an .800 winning percentage), 1.92 ERA, 552 IP, 13 CG, 8 SHO, 685 K, 82 BB, 190 ERA +, 1.85 FIP, 0.839 WHIP, 11.2 K/9 IP, 1.3 BB/9 IP, 8.35 K:BB.

Look at his Hall of Fame metrics:

Black ink: 65 (16th all-time), average HoF 40
Gray ink: 154 (92nd all-time), average HoF 185
Hall of Fame Monitor: 123 (64th all-time), average HoF 100
Hall of Fame Standards: 46 (48th all-time), average HoF 50

He's already met the Black Ink and Hall of Fame Monitor metrics in nine seasons. He's 4 points off the Hall of Fame Standards, and 31 points off of Gray Ink. All in, being accurate, 8.5 seasons as a starter.

I don't see an argument that could be made keeping Kershaw out of the Hall of Fame. He's simply one of the most dominant starters the game has ever seen. If the Hall of Fame rewards true excellence, how can he be kept out?

[the 'stache]

By the way, a minor disc herniation is not a major injury. They've been trying to rehab the injury without surgery. It's been unsuccessful. Most minor herniations will heal themselves. If they do shut him down for the remainder of the season, I'm 99% sure he'll be at 100% to start Opening Day in 2017.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Josh,

I'm more than willing to admit that I don't give Sale his due as a great pitcher. The media market and his coverage isn't very good despite the numbers he puts up. If Sale were on the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Chris Sale would be a household name.

I would love him on the Royals!!!

Who is your avatar of?

Side note.......Users or not, Bonds and Clemens were the absolute very best of their time, and rank among the greats. Even juicing, the pitcher still has to throw the ball with expertise, and the batter still has to square up the ball and hit it. Tremendous skill is still required regardless of " enhancement " or not.

Lou,

Avatar is of Ian "Lemmy" Kilmister and "Philthy" Phil Taylor both passed away lat last year

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

If he retires now, he's absolutely a Hall of Famer.

We're giving far too much credit to guys who had long careers. Longevity should be a factor, but not nearly as big a factor as dominance. Clayton Kershaw has been, hands down, the best pitcher in the game the last six seasons. And he was pretty darned good the two before that amazing six year run. And, like Koufax, he had inarguably his best season at the end. If this is it for Kershaw (it won't be), he's one of the greatest to ever play his position. That he dominated at a ridiculous level as a left handed pitcher only adds to his stature.

He was a rookie at 20, and had a 4.29 ERA. In the eight seasons since, he's never had an ERA above 3.00. He's led the league in ERA five of the last six seasons, and the one he didn't lead, his ERA was 2.13. How good has he really been? Through the history of baseball (with complete statistics going back to 1901, so 115 years of the sport), only two pitchers have been more dominant through their first nine seasons (1,000 innings pitched, minimum): Walter Johnson and Pedro Martinez.

Career ERA + through nine seasons:

Walter Johnson 176
Pedro Martinez 168
Clayton Kershaw 158

Then, let's look at FIP. Again, FIP (fielding independent pitching) measures only the things a pitcher can control: home runs surrendered, hit batsmen, walks, and strikeouts. Through nine seasons, Clayton Kershaw ranks 32nd of all starting pitchers in FIP (again, 1,000 innings pitched, minimum).

But here's the caveat. All thirty-one pitchers on the list ahead of Kershaw played in the dead ball era, when home runs were rare. They should have a lower FIP metric than Kershaw because the game was different. This means that, when considering only things a pitcher can control, eliminating things like wins, runs allowed, hits allowed, etc, all of which the team behind the starter can heavily influence, Clayton Kershaw is the best starting pitcher of the modern era. Not top ten. Not top five. Number one.

2,000 innings pitched, or 3,000 innings pitched is some arbitrary number picked out at random because people like nice ever numbers. 3,000 hits. 3,000 strike outs. 500 home runs. As if Frank Robinson would be judged differently if he'd somehow managed 57 more hits to reach 3,000, or Fred McGriff would suddenly be a Hall of Famer if he'd hit 7 more home runs. Clayton Kershaw has thrown 1,732 innings in the Major Leagues, more than enough time to demonstrate how he throws the ball, and more than enough time for Major League hitters to adjust, if they could, and improve their fortunes against him. Nine years into his career, not only have they not figured him out, but Kershaw is getting better. In the past six seasons, he's won an MVP, three Cy Young Awards, and he's finished second and third in the voting once each. If the season ended today, he'd be a unanimous Cy Young winner for 2016.

Look at his past three seasons, and how spectacular his numbers are. 48-12 (an .800 winning percentage), 1.92 ERA, 552 IP, 13 CG, 8 SHO, 685 K, 82 BB, 190 ERA +, 1.85 FIP, 0.839 WHIP, 11.2 K/9 IP, 1.3 BB/9 IP, 8.35 K:BB.

Look at his Hall of Fame metrics:

Black ink: 65 (16th all-time), average HoF 40
Gray ink: 154 (92nd all-time), average HoF 185
Hall of Fame Monitor: 123 (64th all-time), average HoF 100
Hall of Fame Standards: 46 (48th all-time), average HoF 50

He's already met the Black Ink and Hall of Fame Monitor metrics in nine seasons. He's 4 points off the Hall of Fame Standards, and 31 points off of Gray Ink. All in, being accurate, 8.5 seasons as a starter.

I don't see an argument that could be made keeping Kershaw out of the Hall of Fame. He's simply one of the most dominant starters the game has ever seen. If the Hall of Fame rewards true excellence, how can he be kept out?

A- awards are a meaningless measurement as they are based on the opinions of people who often make awful judgments (see the gold glove for example)

B- 2000-3000 innings isn't some arbitrary number, it's a solid gauge to use due to the number of prior pitchers in the HOF. If you don't set some sort of standard what then? put in a guy who had 3 great seasons then his arm fell off?

C- Longevity matters, I can see the Koufax argument being made for Kershaw (even if I am not 100% sold on it ) but at the same time supporters of it must admit that it is hedging the bet as the player never had to deal with the inevitable decline once 31-32 rolls around which makes a player's numbers appear better than they might have otherwise. The larger the sample size the more it tends to regress toward the mean, peaks are nice and all, but tend to only be used by people who have an agenda so they can ignore all the other stuff they don't like. It's also why Pedro isn't a top 10 pitcher. cherry picking the parts of a career you like and ignoring the other parts is intellectually dishonest.

D- to buttress above, who was more valuable in his career? a guy who pitches 10 years with an amazing 8 year peak? or the guy who pitches 18 years without ever posting sub 2 WAR seasons even in his late 30's and early 40's?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

If he retires now, he's absolutely a Hall of Famer.

We're giving far too much credit to guys who had long careers. Longevity should be a factor, but not nearly as big a factor as dominance. Clayton Kershaw has been, hands down, the best pitcher in the game the last six seasons. And he was pretty darned good the two before that amazing six year run. And, like Koufax, he had inarguably his best season at the end. If this is it for Kershaw (it won't be), he's one of the greatest to ever play his position. That he dominated at a ridiculous level as a left handed pitcher only adds to his stature.

He was a rookie at 20, and had a 4.29 ERA. In the eight seasons since, he's never had an ERA above 3.00. He's led the league in ERA five of the last six seasons, and the one he didn't lead, his ERA was 2.13. How good has he really been? Through the history of baseball (with complete statistics going back to 1901, so 115 years of the sport), only two pitchers have been more dominant through their first nine seasons (1,000 innings pitched, minimum): Walter Johnson and Pedro Martinez.

Career ERA + through nine seasons:

Walter Johnson 176
Pedro Martinez 168
Clayton Kershaw 158

Then, let's look at FIP. Again, FIP (fielding independent pitching) measures only the things a pitcher can control: home runs surrendered, hit batsmen, walks, and strikeouts. Through nine seasons, Clayton Kershaw ranks 32nd of all starting pitchers in FIP (again, 1,000 innings pitched, minimum).

But here's the caveat. All thirty-one pitchers on the list ahead of Kershaw played in the dead ball era, when home runs were rare. They should have a lower FIP metric than Kershaw because the game was different. This means that, when considering only things a pitcher can control, eliminating things like wins, runs allowed, hits allowed, etc, all of which the team behind the starter can heavily influence, Clayton Kershaw is the best starting pitcher of the modern era. Not top ten. Not top five. Number one.

2,000 innings pitched, or 3,000 innings pitched is some arbitrary number picked out at random because people like nice ever numbers. 3,000 hits. 3,000 strike outs. 500 home runs. As if Frank Robinson would be judged differently if he'd somehow managed 57 more hits to reach 3,000, or Fred McGriff would suddenly be a Hall of Famer if he'd hit 7 more home runs. Clayton Kershaw has thrown 1,732 innings in the Major Leagues, more than enough time to demonstrate how he throws the ball, and more than enough time for Major League hitters to adjust, if they could, and improve their fortunes against him. Nine years into his career, not only have they not figured him out, but Kershaw is getting better. In the past six seasons, he's won an MVP, three Cy Young Awards, and he's finished second and third in the voting once each. If the season ended today, he'd be a unanimous Cy Young winner for 2016.

Look at his past three seasons, and how spectacular his numbers are. 48-12 (an .800 winning percentage), 1.92 ERA, 552 IP, 13 CG, 8 SHO, 685 K, 82 BB, 190 ERA +, 1.85 FIP, 0.839 WHIP, 11.2 K/9 IP, 1.3 BB/9 IP, 8.35 K:BB.

Look at his Hall of Fame metrics:

Black ink: 65 (16th all-time), average HoF 40
Gray ink: 154 (92nd all-time), average HoF 185
Hall of Fame Monitor: 123 (64th all-time), average HoF 100
Hall of Fame Standards: 46 (48th all-time), average HoF 50

He's already met the Black Ink and Hall of Fame Monitor metrics in nine seasons. He's 4 points off the Hall of Fame Standards, and 31 points off of Gray Ink. All in, being accurate, 8.5 seasons as a starter.

I don't see an argument that could be made keeping Kershaw out of the Hall of Fame. He's simply one of the most dominant starters the game has ever seen. If the Hall of Fame rewards true excellence, how can he be kept out?

If he retires now, he is not eligible for the hof due to lack of service. You must play 10 years to become eligible for the hof. I don't see them giving a wavier for 9 years due to injury. It has never been done.

Addie Joss died tragically during spring training of his 10th year. It took 41 years for them to give him a wavier and only by arguing that Joss pitching during spring training in his 10th year before becoming ill and that he should be credited for that service.

The idea that Kershaw or Trout are already locks for the hof just shows a lack of understanding of its rules. They don't just elect guys with less than 10 years of service because they have had great careers for 6 or 9 years. Longevity and the 10 years of service very important.

[the 'stache]

I know the Hall requires ten years for him to be voted. There's no lack of understanding of the rules on my part. The question was, if he never comes back from his back injury, is he a Hall of Famer? That would seemingly infer that he made the attempt to come back, but failed, and thereby appeared, at least briefly, in a tenth season. If the question had been "if he never plays again, is he a Hall of Famer?" would have been different altogether.

Based on performance, Kershaw is already one of the all-time greats to play the game. What the BBWAA do with his eligibility is not at all up to me. But he's deserving of Cooperstown.

Originally Posted by rats60

If he retires now, he is not eligible for the hof due to lack of service. You must play 10 years to become eligible for the hof. I don't see them giving a wavier for 9 years due to injury. It has never been done.

Addie Joss died tragically during spring training of his 10th year. It took 41 years for them to give him a wavier and only by arguing that Joss pitching during spring training in his 10th year before becoming ill and that he should be credited for that service.

The idea that Kershaw or Trout are already locks for the hof just shows a lack of understanding of its rules. They don't just elect guys with less than 10 years of service because they have had great careers for 6 or 9 years. Longevity and the 10 years of service very important.

[the 'stache]

A. No, Awards are not meaningless. They have merit. Just because sometimes they've gone to the wrong player, based on analysis with newer tools, does not completely invalidate the awards that have been handed out, especially the MVP ad Cy Young votes. Gold Gloves are more subjective; until recently, voters have not had a great set of metrics to draw knowledge from. I would assume that with early Gold Gloves (and, apparently, when it came to Derek Jeter), reputation and bias played a large role. And even now, defensive metrics are not what I would consider great. But voters weigh things like Cy Youngs and MVP awards, right or wrong, in considering induction to the Hall of Fame. And there have not been a lot of pitchers with more than three Cy Young Awards.

Say he didn't win in those three seasons. He only finished second, or third. That's five top three finishes in five years, and an historic half season in 2016 where he was the best in the game. When examining his numbers, he still clearly deserves heavy consideration for Cooperstown.

B. Where did I say that there should not be some standard? Did you read what I said? 3,000 is the benchmark for hits. Does a great player who ended his career 50 hits short of 3,000 hits get excluded because he came up short? Does a good, but not great player automatically get into Cooperstown because he got 500 home runs? You're going to see fewer and fewer players hitting 300 wins, or 3,000 hits, going forward. These old benchmarks are becoming less important with today's advanced evaluation methods.

C. Of course longevity matters. I didn't say it didn't. But longevity alone does not merit induction to the Hall of Fame.

Anybody who plays 18 years in the Major Leagues has obviously done something right. Making the Majors, alone, is hard. Playing nearly two decades is a feat in and of itself. It means some team, or teams, thought you could contribute enough where the team would be improved. But a long career of good play should not warrant a place among the immortals. Jim Kaat played 25 years. He was obviously good enough to stay in the bigs. He won 283 games. Hell, if a few things had gone differently for him, he might have crossed that magical 300 win threshold (meaning you'd automatically put him in based on your "solid gauge" argument, right?") But the guy was never a truly great pitcher. He had a couple very good seasons; finished in the top 5 of the MVP once, and 4th in a Cy Young vote. But I don't see a lot of greatness. Every player being considered for baseball immortality needs to be carefully examined. As I have said repeatedly on this forum, context is everything. A pitcher that only wins 140 games might warrant induction if he dominated the game, but played on an average team. So, too, might a guy that got 3,000 hits not warrant induction if he played 22 years, and averaged only 140 hits a season.

And I don't see any cherry picking when it comes to Pedro Martinez. He was the best pitcher in the game, and pitched at an historic level, for seven seasons. And for two years after that, he was still a top ten pitcher in the Majors. That's about a decade of greatness. This isn't Dwight Gooden in his first couple of years, we're talking about. Martinez had a 213 ERA + from 1997 to 2003.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

A- awards are a meaningless measurement as they are based on the opinions of people who often make awful judgments (see the gold glove for example)

B- 2000-3000 innings isn't some arbitrary number, it's a solid gauge to use due to the number of prior pitchers in the HOF. If you don't set some sort of standard what then? put in a guy who had 3 great seasons then his arm fell off?

C- Longevity matters, I can see the Koufax argument being made for Kershaw (even if I am not 100% sold on it ) but at the same time supporters of it must admit that it is hedging the bet as the player never had to deal with the inevitable decline once 31-32 rolls around which makes a player's numbers appear better than they might have otherwise. The larger the sample size the more it tends to regress toward the mean, peaks are nice and all, but tend to only be used by people who have an agenda so they can ignore all the other stuff they don't like. It's also why Pedro isn't a top 10 pitcher. cherry picking the parts of a career you like and ignoring the other parts is intellectually dishonest.

D- to buttress above, who was more valuable in his career? a guy who pitches 10 years with an amazing 8 year peak? or the guy who pitches 18 years without ever posting sub 2 WAR seasons even in his late 30's and early 40's?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

A. No, Awards are not meaningless. They have merit. Just because sometimes they've gone to the wrong player, based on analysis with newer tools, does not completely invalidate the awards that have been handed out, especially the MVP ad Cy Young votes. Gold Gloves are more subjective; until recently, voters have not had a great set of metrics to draw knowledge from. I would assume that with early Gold Gloves (and, apparently, when it came to Derek Jeter), reputation and bias played a large role. And even now, defensive metrics are not what I would consider great. But voters weigh things like Cy Youngs and MVP awards, right or wrong, in considering induction to the Hall of Fame. And there have not been a lot of pitchers with more than three Cy Young Awards.

Say he didn't win in those three seasons. He only finished second, or third. That's five top three finishes in five years, and an historic half season in 2016 where he was the best in the game. When examining his numbers, he still clearly deserves heavy consideration for Cooperstown.

B. Where did I say that there should not be some standard? Did you read what I said? 3,000 is the benchmark for hits. Does a great player who ended his career 50 hits short of 3,000 hits get excluded because he came up short? Does a good, but not great player automatically get into Cooperstown because he got 500 home runs? You're going to see fewer and fewer players hitting 300 wins, or 3,000 hits, going forward. These old benchmarks are becoming less important with today's advanced evaluation methods.

C. Of course longevity matters. I didn't say it didn't. But longevity alone does not merit induction to the Hall of Fame.

Anybody who plays 18 years in the Major Leagues has obviously done something right. Making the Majors, alone, is hard. Playing nearly two decades is a feat in and of itself. It means some team, or teams, thought you could contribute enough where the team would be improved. But a long career of good play should not warrant a place among the immortals. Jim Kaat played 25 years. He was obviously good enough to stay in the bigs. He won 283 games. Hell, if a few things had gone differently for him, he might have crossed that magical 300 win threshold (meaning you'd automatically put him in based on your "solid gauge" argument, right?")

A.

I don't put much stock in awards. Writers do, because they vote for them, but I think it's pointless twaddle as far as gauging HOF worthiness. You either have the numbers or you don't.

we have learned that pitcher wins is a pretty lousy stat so no,I don't put much stock in the magical "300 " wins and because we now know that the 3000 hit threshold is also kinda pointless as far as gauging a hitter's quality, I don't put much stock in that either. I would rather have Jim Thome or Frank Thomas's bat over Tony Gwynn or Pete Rose because they were better hitters (and power matters) It's like the argument FOR McGriff, people say he should get in because he has 493 HR's, but i don't think he deserves to be in because he is 31st in 1b WAR all time, 36th in wRC+ for 1b all time yet is also 13th in plate appearances. and his 57 career fWAR just isn't high enough for me. (but I think Kaat deserves to be in as he is the Eddie Murray of pitchers, really good for a really long time)


I am a "small hall" guy, iMO there are far too many guys in that don't deserve it (Jim Rice, Mazeroski...etc) so no, I probably wouldn't vote for Kershaw due to his short career, and tho he has been good, it would be tough for me to vote for a guy with so few innings pitched. but ymmv

[howard38]

I agree with Nick that awards should not be considered when voting for the HOF. The stats already tell you if a player had a great season and a voter that considers both stats and a resulting award is, in a way, giving extra credit to the player for that season. On the flip side, a player that should have or could have won an award but didn't is unfairly penalized by voters. An example is the aforementioned Jim Kaat. That he never won a Cy Young award was as much a result of bad timing as it was the quality of his pitching. If Cy Young voting had been overhauled in 1966 instead of 1967 he would have won the AL award that year, probably unanimously. It still wouldn't make him a hall of famer but he likely would have received more votes.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I don't put much stock in awards. Writers do, because they vote for them, but I think it's pointless twaddle as far as gauging HOF worthiness. You either have the numbers or you don't.

I don't really disagree with you. Awards like the MVP and Cy Young make for nice debate fodder; they also make for good looking bullet points on ESPN graphics, etc. Often, yes, the award goes to the most deserving player, and it highlights their accomplishments. That is where I feel the award has merit. A truly standout season should be recognized. But as we've seen, the best player doesn't always get the prize; the system is hardly infallible. Voters are human, and things like politics, biases, allegiances to a franchise, etc can all color a vote.

For me, an award like the MVP is the starting point in my examination.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

we have learned that pitcher wins is a pretty lousy stat so no,I don't put much stock in the magical "300 " wins and because we now know that the 3000 hit threshold is also kinda pointless as far as gauging a hitter's quality, I don't put much stock in that either.

Again, I agree with you, especially when it comes to pitcher wins. I look at somebody like Kershaw, and scratch my head wondering how he doesn't have more wins than he does. Obviously, the team around him is not near the level of greatness he is. And, that team lets him down far too often. He's had to pitch almost flawlessly to get many of the wins he does have.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I would rather have Jim Thome or Frank Thomas's bat over Tony Gwynn or Pete Rose because they were better hitters (and power matters) It's like the argument FOR McGriff, people say he should get in because he has 493 HR's, but i don't think he deserves to be in because he is 31st in 1b WAR all time, 36th in wRC+ for 1b all time yet is also 13th in plate appearances. and his 57 career fWAR just isn't high enough for me. (but I think Kaat deserves to be in as he is the Eddie Murray of pitchers, really good for a really long time)

I'd agree on the first point, at least. Old thinking was that batting average is king, and while a hit is still better than a walk, Thome, while having a career average some 60 points below Gwynn, had a higher career OBP because he walked so much. When you consider Thome's power, that's remarkable. I guess I'll say that I'd take all four of them in my lineup because they could do different things well. Give me Gwynn in his prime to lead off, Rose second, Thomas third, and Thome batting cleanup, and that's a hell of a formidable top half of the order.

You'll never convince me about Kaat, though. I don't know if I'd call him really good. He had three seasons with an ERA + over 130, and another at 129...in 25 years of baseball. And his best season by ERA +, 157, was in 1972 when he made only 15 starts. He was a good pitcher who had a couple of strong, if unspectacular seasons. I mean, look at the prime years of his career. Here's what I see:

1963, age 24, 87 ERA +
1964, age 25, 112 ERA +
1965, age 26, 126 ERA +
1966, age 27, 131 ERA +
1967, age 28, 115 ERA +
1968, age 29, 107 ERA +
1969, age 30, 106 ERA +
1970, age 31, 107 ERA +
1971, age 32, 107 ERA +

If a 100 is league average, he's 6-7% better than the league average starter in a lot of those seasons. For that nine year span, his ERA + is only 112. That's not what I would call Hall of Fame-worthy.

You say McGriff's career 57 fWAR isn't high enough for you. Well, Kaat has a career 45.3 bWAR, and a 70.9 fWAR, for a guy that played 25 years, seems low to me, too.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I am a "small hall" guy, iMO there are far too many guys in that don't deserve it (Jim Rice, Mazeroski...etc) so no, I probably wouldn't vote for Kershaw due to his short career, and tho he has been good, it would be tough for me to vote for a guy with so few innings pitched. but ymmv

Kershaw has been better than just good. He's been phenomenal.

I do agree that there are far too many players in Cooperstown as it is, though I'm not sure if I'd boot Mazeroski. I think the best to ever play a certain position, defensively, should be in. Metrics won't support that argument, but I think historic defensive metrics are pretty piss poor.

[bravos4evr]

You say McGriff's career 57 fWAR isn't high enough for you. Well, Kaat has a career 45.3 bWAR, and a 70.9 fWAR, for a guy that played 25 years, seems low to me, too.

well, that's why I compared Kaat to Eddie Murray, neither were super dominant players, and both played a long time and accumulated WAR (70.9 for Kaat, 72.1 for Murray) I tend to think that most guys who go over 60 career WAR at least deserve a long look.

I do agree that there are far too many players in Cooperstown as it is, though I'm not sure if I'd boot Mazeroski. I think the best to ever play a certain position, defensively, should be in. Metrics won't support that argument, but I think historic defensive metrics are pretty piss poor.

I can see that argument ,at least for the "up the middle" positions and 3b as they require more defensive skill. But will the voters put in Andruw Jones? 67 career fWAR, better hitter than Ozzie or Maz or Brooks and is the most dominant defensive player in the modern era of defensive stats. (not to mention has counting stats like 434 homers and 1300 RBI's that the voters like) I think he should get in, but I don't think he will, and all of a sudden the "good glove" vote starts to look a little suspect.

[Tabe]

If Kerhsaw were able to somehow get an inning in next year and then have to retire to meet the 10-year requirement, I say he's a HOFer. He's already had more excellent seasons than Koufax. Koufax had 5 plus 1 very good season. Kershaw has had 8 excellent seasons. Koufax had a career 131 ERA+ - Kershaw is at 157. Kershaw led the MAJORS in ERA four straight seasons. NOBODY has ever done that other than Kershaw. Kershaw's ERA away from Dodger Stadium - 2.83. Koufax's ERA away from Dodger Stadium - 3.38 in a far easier time.

None of that should be taken as a knock on Koufax. Rather it's testimony to Kershaw's greatness.

[Dewey]

Hurry back, Clayton. We'll keep the light on.

[the 'stache]

The counting stats look good until you see his career OPS + of 111. Everybody and their mother were hitting home runs in that era. His offensive performance, relative to the other hitters in his league, wasn't all that great.

Still, he was a center fielder doing this. So, I don't know. He doesn't scream Hall of Famer to me.

And as far as Maz goes, he wasn't just a good glove. He's the best to ever play the position. Honestly, I think his dWAR is a bit low, too.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I can see that argument ,at least for the "up the middle" positions and 3b as they require more defensive skill. But will the voters put in Andruw Jones? 67 career fWAR, better hitter than Ozzie or Maz or Brooks and is the most dominant defensive player in the modern era of defensive stats. (not to mention has counting stats like 434 homers and 1300 RBI's that the voters like) I think he should get in, but I don't think he will, and all of a sudden the "good glove" vote starts to look a little suspect.

[the 'stache]

And comparing Kaat and Murray is not a fair comparison. For his career, Kaat was 8% above league average for pitchers with a 108 ERA +.

Murray, for his career, was 29% above league average as a hitter with a 129 OPS +. And if you eliminate the late part of his career where his numbers tanked, he's even better. From 1977 to 1990 (14 seasons, and 9,125 PA's, a full career for many players), his career OPS + was 140. 40% above league average for a decade and a half is pretty dominant. To compare to a modern player, Ryan Braun has a career 141 OPS +. If you were a GM in today's game, and could add Braun to your lineup, and get his career average offensive production, you'd flip and speak in tongues to get him. Well, that's what Murray was for the vast majority of his career. A dominant offensive force.

The peak of his career, 1981-1985, was pretty spectacular, given the era. His 162 game averages for that five year span: .304 AVG, 105 runs scored, 183 hits, 33 doubles, 120 RBI, 87 BB vs 83 Ks, and a slash line of .390 OBP/.530 SLG/.920 OPS. A 155 OPS + is pretty damned good in any era. The counting stats aren't as eye popping because there just wasn't a lot of offense in that era. Context is everything. Andruw Jones had a 136 OPS + the season he hit 51 bombs. That looks impressive next to Murray's best season of counting stats (33 home runs in 1983). Yet Murray's 156 OPS + blows Jones' out of the water. Why? The era. Between 2000 and 2009, there were 12 50 home run seasons, and 42 seasons of 40 or more. Between 1980 and 1989, there wasn't a single 50 home run season, and 13 seasons of 40 or more home runs.

Murray was pretty dominant.

There were 140 batters to amass 3,000 or more at bats between 1980 and 1989. Murray had the 8th highest OPS + of those 140 batters. Only two batters in all the Major Leagues had more home runs in the 1980s than Murray's 274: Mike Schmidt hit 313, and Dale Murphy hit 308.

I think you're under-appreciating how good Murray really was.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

well, that's why I compared Kaat to Eddie Murray, neither were super dominant players, and both played a long time and accumulated WAR (70.9 for Kaat, 72.1 for Murray) I tend to think that most guys who go over 60 career WAR at least deserve a long look.

[bravos4evr]

I don't like baseball reference so I don't use their stats. value is value, 72 WAR is 72 WAR and Murray and Kaat were worth the same yet only 1 is a HOF'er?

[the 'stache]

Clearly Murray was farther above the average Major League player than Kaat. And if it took Kaat 4 extra years to reach Murray's WAR, is he really as valuable? Nope.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Clearly Murray was farther above the average Major League player than Kaat. And if it took Kaat 4 extra years to reach Murray's WAR, is he really as valuable? Nope.

for their careers yes they were equally valuable. value is value


you also fail to mention Kaat's high rated defense which doesn't count towards his pitching WAR. (but Murray's counts toward his)

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I don't like baseball reference so I don't use their stats. value is value, 72 WAR is 72 WAR and Murray and Kaat were worth the same yet only 1 is a HOF'er?

They actually switched some of their calculating of WAR to the system that the site you like uses after discussing it with them. So maybe they're not so bad eh?

Steve B

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by steve B

They actually switched some of their calculating of WAR to the system that the site you like uses after discussing it with them. So maybe they're not so bad eh?

Steve B

I'd have to look into that, but I'm not a big fan of ERA+ vs FIP nor OPS+ vs wRC+ or wOBA. Plus, Fangraphs using both UZR and DRS on defense is a plus too.

Plus, to be honest, Fangraphs has writers who cover the game, prospects, scouting etc and will follow up discussion on stat validity. BR just seems to be a reference place that was designed in 1992 and never updated. lol

I think it's probably fair to use either,but not to swap between the two so as to back up a particular argument.

[the 'stache]

No, they weren't equally valuable. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

If one horse takes two minutes to run a mile, and a second horse takes 2:20 to run the mile, they've both run a mile, but the first horse was much faster than the second. The first horse wins races, and gets put out to stud. The second gets turned into glue.

Kaat needed an extra 4 years, or a career that was 20% longer than Murray's, to get the same value. Not the same. Not even close.

You can dismiss all the stats you want. But the same formulas apply equally to all players in the game's history. And one says, for his career, Kaat was 8% better than the average pitchers in his era. The other says that Murray was 29% better than the average hitters in his era.

Oh, and Eddie Murray was voted into the Hall of Fame in 2003, receiving 85.3% of the vote the first time he was eligible.

Jim Kaat was on the Hall ballot for fifteen years, and never cracked 30% of any vote. He was dropped from the ballot.

85% vote, got in on first try vs. 15 years on the ballot, and never sniffed induction.

But, yeah, they were equally valuable. Uh huh. That's what we call an untenable position.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

for their careers yes they were equally valuable. value is value


you also fail to mention Kaat's high rated defense which doesn't count towards his pitching WAR. (but Murray's counts toward his)

[the 'stache]

And Kaat gets 6 + WAR from his hitting, which is far more than he'd ever get from his fielding as a pitcher, even as a Gold Glover (which, again, doesn't really mean anything, right? You can't say awards are meaningless one minute, and then turn around hailing the number of Gold Gloves a pitcher has as an indication of how much his WAR should be increased).

Why isn't dWar considered for pitchers? Because they don't get enough chances to justify its inclusion. A starting pitcher throws 30-35 games a year, on average, with some variance depending on the era they pitched in. Kaat played 25 years. He had a grand total of 1,062 defensive chances. That breaks down to about 41 a year, or slightly more than one chance per game. How much do you think WAR will increase by the one ball, on average, Kaat fielded a game?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

No, they weren't equally valuable. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

If one horse takes two minutes to run a mile, and a second horse takes 2:20 to run the mile, they've both run a mile, but the first horse was much faster than the second. The first horse wins races, and gets put out to stud. The second gets turned into glue.

Kaat needed an extra 4 years, or a career that was 20% longer than Murray's, to get the same value. Not the same. Not even close.

You can dismiss all the stats you want. But the same formulas apply equally to all players in the game's history. And one says, for his career, Kaat was 8% better than the average pitchers in his era. The other says that Murray was 29% better than the average hitters in his era.

Oh, and Eddie Murray was voted into the Hall of Fame in 2003, receiving 85.3% of the vote the first time he was eligible.

Jim Kaat was on the Hall ballot for fifteen years, and never cracked 30% of any vote. He was dropped from the ballot.

85% vote, got in on first try vs. 15 years on the ballot, and never sniffed induction.

But, yeah, they were equally valuable. Uh huh. That's what we call an untenable position.

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.

so what? the voters were mostly morons back then who still thought batting avg and RBI's had value (as well as pitcher wins). Voters are smarter now.

There are only 4 pitchers IN MLB HISTORY who aren't in the HOF, with more fWAR than Kaat, Tommy John, Mike Mussina, Kevin Brown and Curt Schilling, all 5 (including Kaat) are in the top 30 of starters all time per fWAR. (and 2 of them, Brown and Schilling, have had the PED thing associated with them)

BTW, 4 of Kaat's last 5 seasons he was a pen arm so he accumulated his WAR in 21 seasons of starting.


(oh and fWAR adds defensive production to batter WAR along with baserunning this is why it doesn't show up on pitcher WAR stats)

[KCRfan1]

So BA and RBI's don't have value?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

So BA and RBI's don't have value?

not really. Not for what people have traditionally used them for (individual hitter production)

Let's look at the limitations of batting avg:

it doesn't tell us how good a player is at getting on base

it doesn't tell us the type of hits they got thus creating the illusion that a .300 hitter is more productive than a .275 hitter (and this may or may not be true but avg alone doesn't tell us this) OPS (which combines OBP and SLG) does a better job, wOBA and wRC+ are better than that.

I mean, would you rather have Ichiro and his career .314 avg or Jim Thome and his career .276 avg?


RBI's are so contingent on the OBP ability of player's in front of a player (and/or the quality of the team's offense) rather than the player himself. (as the player has no control of who is on base when he comes to the plate, nor does the presence of baserunners impact his ability to hit) there is a small variation in hit sequencing with RISP, but it's within the noise range.

Let us look at a couple of examples of why RBI's doesn't tell us much about player production: Ryan Howard in 2014 had 95 RBI's (18th in MLB) yet his slash line was .223/.310/.380 (terrible) his wRC+ was 93 (7% belw avg)and his WAR was -0.4

also in 2014 Kyle Seager had 96 RBI's had a slash line of .268/.334/.454 with a wRC+ of 127 (27% above avg) and a WAR of 5.5

two guys, same season nearly identical RBI's in the same amount of games yet their actual hitting production that year couldn't be more different.

[steve B]

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.

so what? the voters were mostly morons back then who still thought batting avg and RBI's had value (as well as pitcher wins). Voters are smarter now.

I think that's somewhat unfair to anyone who evaluated players years ago. I'm not sure what date would be appropriate, but the newer stats were used by very few people until fairly recently.

As an example, I went to the SABR convention in 2002, and one of the talks was about a system teams were using to track some detailed player data by video. Really neat system, each pitch was filmed and annotated with situational info that was entered into a searchable database. The teams traded tapes, and since messing with the data would spoil it for everyone apparently it worked really well. Being able to pick up tendencies and tells for both pitchers and batters was a big benefit.
And at the time, only six teams were using the system.

The only pro I can think of who might have been trying anything similar earlier was Earl Weaver, who had those 3x5 cards of his. (I'd love to get hold of a handful of those! ) Varitek did something similar to help prep, and was supposedly really happy to use the video system as well as his own.


And if that's the state of the art for baseball pros ca 2002 I can't imagine most writers were doing much at all.


--------------------

Interesting debate about cumulative value vs peak value. I can see an argument for each side. I often hear people downplay a player as merely building up stats by hanging around a long time. I don't quite buy into that, since some part of me says "hey, the amount they get paid now, if a guy is merely average there's got to be some reason they don't just replace him with random prospects until one sticks. Which did happen regularly for a few years, taking some of my favorite players out of the game because they could supposedly be easily replaced with a younger player for less than the veteran minimum. Like Brian Daubach, not spectacular, but a solid slightly above average player. The big contract kicked in for 2002, went from 400K to 2.3 million. Then he was allowed to go into free agency and Chicago would only sign him to a minor league deal putting him back at 450-500K over the next couple years.
A fairly common career arc at the time, and a situation where the CBA didn't do much for the average player.



Steve B

[bravos4evr]

you are right, I might have been a little mean towards the older voters. BUT, a lot of those guys hand waved modern stats away in the early 200's tho....

Interesting debate about cumulative value vs peak value. I can see an argument for each side. I often hear people downplay a player as merely building up stats by hanging around a long time. I don't quite buy into that, since some part of me says "hey, the amount they get paid now, if a guy is merely average there's got to be some reason they don't just replace him with random prospects until one sticks. Which did happen regularly for a few years, taking some of my favorite players out of the game because they could supposedly be easily replaced with a younger player for less than the veteran minimum. Like Brian Daubach, not spectacular, but a solid slightly above average player. The big contract kicked in for 2002, went from 400K to 2.3 million. Then he was allowed to go into free agency and Chicago would only sign him to a minor league deal putting him back at 450-500K over the next couple years.

well.... I think the real measure when it comes to long careers, is how long they were still productive. Rose, for example, was not a very good player his last 5 seasons chasing the hit record. But, his total career value is still what it is.

I just think there is more than 1 way to get to the HOF, you can have a shorter career with better peak numbers, a long career with consistent above avg production or a combo of the two. 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. My Kaat, Tommy John argument is that they were both good pitchers who played a long time AND have a higher career WAR than several pitchers who are in. (and both are above 60 WAR which has often been touted as the dividing line for HOF consideration by sabr nerds)

[the 'stache]

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.

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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Kaat was a rookie in 1972.

um, not even close.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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.



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.

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)