Clayton Kershaw

[nat]

The problem with simply comparing WAR totals for HOF discussions is that WAR doesn't measure value. It measures wins above replacement. Wins are the basic building blocks of value, but value isn't just their sum. How they are distributed matters also.

Look at it this way. An average player will post about 2 WAR in a season. An average team will win 81 games (give or take; more precisely, on average, a team will win 81 games). Say that it takes 90 wins to get into the post season (number for illustration purposes only). There is, therefore, a lot more value to a team to getting to 90 wins than there is to sitting at 81. A lot more value, over and above the extra 9 wins. For example, it's more important to get from 81 to 90 than it is to get from 72 to 81. So a 4 WAR season is more than twice as valuable than a 2 WAR season.

And that's the reason that not all 70 WAR careers are of equal value. It's more valuable to have that production concentrated than it is to have it spread out. It's why Sandy Koufax is a reasonably good hall of fame choice, and not a pretty bad one.

[packs]

So a thread about Clayton Kershaw has devolved into a discussion about Jim Kaat?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by nat

And that's the reason that not all 70 WAR careers are of equal value. It's more valuable to have that production concentrated than it is to have it spread out. It's why Sandy Koufax is a reasonably good hall of fame choice, and not a pretty bad one.

Kaat- 19 seasons of positive WAR , 68.3 WAR over 16 seasons

Murray-18 seasons of positive WAR, 65.4 WAR in 14 seasons

seems like both guys had about the same amount of productive years