Jim Kaat and the Hall of Fame

[Seth Stohs]

Graham Womack of The Sporting News wrote a tremendous article on Jim Kaat and the Hall of Fame. Kaat clearly doesn't want to talk about it or make his own case, but he certainly has some opinions on it and on others. 

 

He made this interesting point: 

 

 

“If my career ended after the 1975 season, I probably would be in already, because I was a much more dominant pitcher for that 15-year period of time. And with the Veterans Committee, that’s actually the period of time they’re supposed to be judging me on. But they have people on that Veterans Committee that are executives that never even saw me play. And that’s the case they’re going with with a lot of guys. So all they’re doing is going by numbers. That’s why I get a little cynical about it.”

 

In speaking for himself and for Jack Morris, he added, "“There were some games where we were getting blown out, and I’d had a bad start,” Kaat said. “I would say to the manager, ‘Save your bullpen. I’d love to go in and work a few innings and see if I can work some of my problems out.’ I might give up five or six runs in three innings. Examples like that, that inflates the numbers, but if writers don’t actually see you in person or executives, whoever’s on the committee, they don’t really have a true picture of what your career was like.”"

 

 

Regarding Tony Oliva, he said: 

 

“I always use the analogy, Harmon Killebrew is in the Hall of Fame because he was a great power hitter and he deserves to be there,” Kaat said. “Rod Carew is in there because he won a lot of batting titles and was a great hitter for average. But Tony Oliva, if you ask catchers that caught against our teams in that era, they feared Tony more than they feared any of our hitters because he was a great combination of average and power.”

 

 

There is a ton more, so be sure to read that article. 

[gunnarthor]

I haven't read the article but I think Kaat is probably right.  After the 75 season, he was 235-187, 3.30 era (113 ERA+), 3,638ip, 64 WAR in his career.  After 1976, it was 247-201, 3.31 era (112 ERA+), 3865ip, 67 WAR.

 

If he had retired around then, the 300 winners aren't in yet and he probably gets in.

[nicksaviking]

 

I haven't read the article but I think Kaat is probably right.  After the 75 season, he was 235-187, 3.30 era (113 ERA+), 3,638ip, 64 WAR in his career.  After 1976, it was 247-201, 3.31 era (112 ERA+), 3865ip, 67 WAR.

 

If he had retired around then, the 300 winners aren't in yet and he probably gets in.

 

Yeah, Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Fergie Jenkings, Robin Roberts, Whitey Ford, Don Drysdale and Catfish Hunter were all contemporaries that finished with fewer than 300 wins, most of them way fewer.

 

His years as a reliever probably hurt him quite a bit; unlike Dennis Eckersley, he didn't exactly thrive in his new role.

[mickeymental]

... not to mention the 16 gold gloves through 1977.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Of course, 1974-1975 were by some measures Kaat's peak seasons.  Would he have been a HOF retiring after 1973?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yeah, Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Fergie Jenkings, Robin Roberts, Whitey Ford, Don Drysdale and Catfish Hunter were all contemporaries that finished with fewer than 300 wins, most of them way fewer.

Of course, almost all of those guys had postseason and/or peak cases.  Kaat matching them in career case isn't terribly meaningful.

[Thrylos]

I think that Tommy John might be a great comparable with Kaat, in wins, 20 win seasons, ERA, FIP and WAR (and TJ lost fewer games than Kaat.)

 

Is he a Hall of Famer?  Their career numbers are eerily similar.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I haven't read the article but I think Kaat is probably right.  After the 75 season, he was 235-187, 3.30 era (113 ERA+), 3,638ip, 64 WAR in his career.  After 1976, it was 247-201, 3.31 era (112 ERA+), 3865ip, 67 WAR.

 

If he had retired around then, the 300 winners aren't in yet and he probably gets in.

Should note that is Fangraphs WAR.  Any explanation why fWAR and bWAR are so different for Kaat?

 

Given that no one would have had a clue about Kaat's fWAR or bWAR until many years later, I am going to say he still wouldn't have made it regardless of his retirement date.  His contemporaries certainly didn't seem to regard him as a future HOF, judging by all-star and MVP voting.

[DAM DC Twins Fans]

I think that Tommy John might be a great comparable with Kaat, in wins, 20 win seasons, ERA, FIP and WAR (and TJ lost fewer games than Kaat.)

 

Is he a Hall of Famer?  Their career numbers are eerily similar.

Yes numbers eerily similar--but Kaat has all those gold gloves, John has a surgery named for him (worth more than gold gloves??). One difference favoring Kaat is that he pitched for more bad teams hurting his numbers.

 

Incidentally, I believe Kaat and John are the two pitchers with the most wins NOT in the HOF. (Distinction held by Bert till he was inducted).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think that Tommy John might be a great comparable with Kaat, in wins, 20 win seasons, ERA, FIP and WAR (and TJ lost fewer games than Kaat.)

 

Is he a Hall of Famer?  Their career numbers are eerily similar.

Good comp.  Kaat and John are also similar in all-star and MVP voting.  John too obviously could have "benefitted" by retiring much earlier than he did, but I don't think it would have mattered that much for either guy's HOF case, they were just never seen as particularly elite (outside of Kaat's somewhat flukish 25 win season).

 

As a more contemporary example, I don't think Mark Buehrle's HOF case would be much different if he hung on for another 6 years accumulating very little.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yes numbers eerily similar--but Kaat has all those gold gloves, John has a surgery named for him (worth more than gold gloves??). One difference favoring Kaat is that he pitched for more bad teams hurting his numbers.

Tommy John pitched the first 1/3 of his career for Cleveland and the White Sox.  And the last 1/4 of his career with the 1980s Yankees and Angels which was rather a mixed bag of team quality.

 

True, he pitched the 1970s for the Dodgers and Yankees, although notably never won a World Series.  Probably has a team quality advantage over Kaat, but only slightly -- the 1965-1970 Twins teams were very good too.

[gunnarthor]

 

Should note that is Fangraphs WAR.  Any explanation why fWAR and bWAR are so different for Kaat?

 

Given that no one would have had a clue about Kaat's fWAR or bWAR until many years later, I am going to say he still wouldn't have made it regardless of his retirement date.  His contemporaries certainly didn't seem to regard him as a future HOF, judging by all-star and MVP voting.

Maybe.  But I think had he retired earlier so his name was on the ballot before 1989 he would have gotten in.  He was constantly around 20-25% on the ballot during the 90s and when he first came up he was on some absolutely loaded ballots so he never really got a push.  Bench and Yaz his first year, followed by Morgan and Palmer in 1990, then Carew, Jenkins and Perry in 91.  In 92, Seaver gets in with Rollie Fingers.  Six of those were first ballot no-doubt about it HOFers.  And Fingers, Jenkins and Perry were all probably better than him.

 

But if he had gotten on the ballot in 1984 or so, it's a bit easier.  The first year was Brooks Robinson but the next year Luis Aparicio (6th ballot), Killer (4th), Drysdale (10th) get in. The next year is Lou Brock (1st ballot) and Hoyt Willhem (8th).  1986 was McCovey alone.  87 was Billy Williams (6th) and Catfish Hunter (3rd).  Against that group, I think Kaat would have had a lot more support and he was arguably a better pitcher than Willhelm, Hunter and Drysdale.  

[Jerr]

Ok, will show my age as I was at a game where Kaat got hit on his face with a wicked bounce and had to be helped/taken off the field.

 

I remember the stitches (from the ball) were visible on his face, from where I sat with my Dad.

 

Kaat, has always been one of my favs, due to his toughness and fielding.

 

I have been sadden that he is not in the Twins Hall of Fame...but I don't think he earned the MLB Hall of Fame, BUT maybe as a broadcaster, as he was always great with his commentary and insights.

 

 

[spinowner]

I don't value HOF membership as a good indicator of the quality of a player's career. The criterion for membership, being voted in by writers or a committee, is very arbitrary and has resulted in the dividing line between members and non-members being very inconsistent. I'd rather see a much more objective formula in place. Exhibit A is Blyleven. While he did finally achieve membership there's no satisfactory explanation for him not being voted in on the first ballot. When he retired he was third all-time in strikeouts. Third! That would be similar to Ken Griffey Junior not being elected after retiring in sixth place on the all-time home run list.

[nicksaviking]

Of course, almost all of those guys had postseason and/or peak cases.  Kaat matching them in career case isn't terribly meaningful.

Not today, but back in the 70's and 80's when those guys were getting in, it was different.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Not today, but back in the 70's and 80's when those guys were getting in, it was different.

Was it, though? Marichal had quite a peak, as did Roberts, Hunter, etc. Those guys were probably thought of as all-time greats during their playing days, even if some of their final career numbers were comparable to Kaat. Kaat, like Tommy John, just didn't have that, even in the 1970s and 1980s

[DaveW]

Kaat should be in the HOF, but then again, so should Bonds, Clemens, Rose, Bagwell, Shoeless Joe and Edgar Martinez.

 

It's time we all realize the HOF has the credibility of your average US senator.