Clayton Kershaw

[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.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

um, not even close.

He got you there, Bill...5 AM again? Get some sleep, sir!

[the 'stache]

Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I typed that. Just a brain fart. Sometimes the numbers run together.

Oh hell, it's 5 am again, lol.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

He got you there, Bill...5 AM again? Get some sleep, sir!

[bravos4evr]

Yes I think all of those guys should be in with perhaps the exception of Brown due to his appearing on the Mitchell list.

It's a crime Mussina wasn't a first ballot guy as he should have been.


and yes for their careers Murray and Kaat provided very similar value, overall. I don't get why you have such a hard time with this.

If you play ten years and put up 72 WAR you were a better player than a guy who put up 72 WAR over 20 years, but FOR YOUR CAREER, you provided exactly the same amount of wins above a replacement player.


do you think that 2000 pounds of dirt piled slowly is less a ton than 2000 pounds of dirt piled quickly?

Kaat was a reliever for 4 of the final 5 years of his career, thus providing very little value on a WAR basis.

Kaat 19 seasons of positive WAR contribution - total fWAR 70.9

Eddie Murray 18 seasons of positive WAR contribution- total fWAR 72.0

and like I said, Kaat's peak production period of 1961-1975 he was the 3rd best pitcher behind only Gibson and Gaylord Perry.

Eddie Murray's peak production period from 1977-1990 he was 4th best position player behind Schmidt, Henderson and Brett.

I think both compare pretty well, they are within 1 WAR for their careers had similar rankings against their peers in their prime and both had similar total years of positive WAR contribution.

[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)

[the 'stache]

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.

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)