Quote:
Originally Posted by howard38
I agree with everything you wrote except that I wouldn't put any stock in the Cy Young voting. For much of his career there was only one Cy Young given for the entire major leagues and voters could only vote for one pitcher. As a result in 1966 when Kaat almost certainly have won the AL award if it existed he lost out to Sandy Koufax who received all twenty votes from the sportswriters.
|
You're absolutely right. I'll give him 1966. He probably would have won the AL Cy Young if the award was given out in both leagues. But I would not say that "for much of his career there was only one Cy Young". Kaat became a full-time starting pitcher in 1961. In 1960, he only appeared in 13 games, starting 9. From 1961 to 1966, there was one Award. That's 6 seasons. He'd have won the 1966 Cy Young. He pitched another 17 seasons after 1966, from 1967 to 1978, 12 seasons, he was a full time starter, and he received
any kind of Cy Young vote in one season, 1975.
From 1967 to 1983, the period after which we agree he'd have won the 1966 AL Cy Young, he started 406 games, and appeared in a total of 654 games. During the period of 1967 to 1983, his numbers:
185-154 (.546) with a 3.50 ERA, 1,504 K in 3,015 1/3 IP, 1.275 WHIP.
When you consider how the rules and the pitching mound gave pitchers an absolutely incredible advantage, even in his peak years, Kaat wasn't all that impressive. In 1968, Kaat was 14-12 with a 2.94 ERA while Denny McClain, a guy who'd pitched to a career 3.57 ERA, was winning 30 games with a 1.96 ERA. And Bob Gibson was 22-9 with a 1.12 ERA for the National League Cardinals. Kaat was very ordinary at a time when there was one hitter in the American League hitting .300, Carl Yastrzemski, who hit .301.
Now I've always been very open about the fact that I don't put much weight in a player's win-loss record. A very good pitcher can throw his arm off, but if the team behind him is no good, he's not going to get much run support, and he's not going to win a lot of games. And, I'm not saying Kaat was a bad pitcher. Quite the opposite. He was a good, solid pitcher. A dependable pitcher. But I just don't think the Hall of Fame should reward "sturdy and dependable".