Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, November 05, 2021

Gil Hodges, Roger Maris, Minnie Miñoso among 10 on Hall of Fame committee ballot

Gil Hodges, Roger Maris and Minnie Miñoso are among 10 men on the ballot of the Golden Days Era committee for baseball’s Hall of Fame.

Dick Allen, Ken Boyer, Jim Kaat, Tony Oliva, Billy Pierce and Maury Wills also are on the ballot along with former Pittsburgh manager Danny Murtaugh, the Hall said Friday.

The vote by the 16-person committee, whose members will be announced later, is scheduled for Dec. 5 at the winter meetings in Orlando, Florida. Its ballot considers players whose primary contributions were from 1950-69.

A separate 16-person early baseball era committee also will meet to consider pre-1950 candidates. Its ballot includes seven players from the Negro Leagues: John Donaldson, Bud Fowler, Vic Harris, Grant “Home Run” Johnson, Buck O’Neil, Dick “Cannonball” Redding and George Scales.

They are joined by Bill Dahlen, Lefty O’Doul, Allie Reynolds and George Scales.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 05, 2021 at 03:34 PM | 129 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. vortex of dissipation Posted: November 05, 2021 at 03:43 PM (#6051449)
Dick “Cannonball” Redding


I honestly didn't realize that Redding isn't already in the HoF. When Black pitchers of that era are mentioned, his name is always one of the first brought up. I would have guessed that he was in...

It would be interesting if Buck O'Neil and Lefty O'Doul, two people who probably wouldn't make it just on the strength of their playing careers, but who both made massive contributions to the game in other capacities, make it in together.
   2. bachslunch Posted: November 05, 2021 at 04:09 PM (#6051451)
The Golden Days ballot is much the same as last time, but dropping Luis Tiant and Bob Howsam. Replacing them with Danny Murtaugh and Roger Maris is very much not an improvement.

The Early Baseball ballot jettisoned everyone from last time except for Bill Dahlen. Could have gotten behind Doc Adams from that ballot (and I'm all for Wally Schang being elected if he ever gets nominated), but otherwise not complaining too much. Allie Reynolds is a poor choice (incredibly, he apparently got within one vote of induction at one point several years ago, if memory serves) and has no business on the ballot.
   3. DL from MN Posted: November 05, 2021 at 04:11 PM (#6051452)
I'll get a mock-ballot up soon.

HoM inductees
Golden Era: Dick Allen, Billy Pierce, Minnie Minoso, Ken Boyer
pre-1950: Bill Dahlen, Dick Redding, Grant Johnson

None of the rest even get any votes.

Scales is my next-best pre-1950 candidate but I wouldn't vote for him. Kaat is my next-best Golden Era player but I wouldn't vote for him either.
   4. DL from MN Posted: November 05, 2021 at 04:18 PM (#6051454)
Bud Fowler is historically interesting but nothing special as a player.
   5. . . . . . . Posted: November 05, 2021 at 04:19 PM (#6051455)
I looked at Redding many times in connection with the HoM and I never could find a case for him to be elected to the Hall, though I know there's been a bunch of work over the several years since then to get a better handle on NgL statistics from his era, so maybe there's a better argument now.
   6. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 05, 2021 at 04:21 PM (#6051456)
t would be interesting if Buck O'Neil and Lefty O'Doul, two people who probably wouldn't make it just on the strength of their playing careers, but who both made massive contributions to the game in other capacities, make it in together.


I just submitted a similar item and said the same thing

I'd also vote for Allen & Minoso
   7. DL from MN Posted: November 05, 2021 at 04:56 PM (#6051464)
The only player I'm irritated the Golden Era passed over is Bill Freehan. They could have picked Jim Wynn but I'm not as concerned about him.
   8. The Duke Posted: November 05, 2021 at 05:18 PM (#6051468)
If this is the ballot is rank them in order: Allen, Boyer , Minoso, kaat, Oliva. The 16 voters never seem to be able to get more than two through the process. Maybe they can get three this time.

On the early era, I just don’t have enough interest.
   9. DL from MN Posted: November 05, 2021 at 05:29 PM (#6051471)
On the early era, I just don’t have enough interest.


That's a shame because relative to their era Dahlen and Redding are the best players on either ballot.
   10. cardsfanboy Posted: November 05, 2021 at 05:53 PM (#6051473)
Among that 10 ballot list... If I'm voting it's Allen and Boyer and maybe Kaat... none of which I actually think should go in, but all of which wouldn't weaken the hall if they do go in.

At no point in history do I think Hodges or Maris is deserving.
   11. DL from MN Posted: November 05, 2021 at 06:07 PM (#6051478)
Pitcher WAA WAR top5 top10
Pierce 26.2 53.4 30.3 46.8
Kaat 7.8 45.2 29.0 43.9

Why do people prefer Kaat? Because he's alive?
   12. cardsfanboy Posted: November 05, 2021 at 06:31 PM (#6051484)
Why do people prefer Kaat? Because he's alive?

283 wins vs 211.
4500 ip vs 3300


Kaat's bWar is hurt by negatives,( that most reasonable people don't consider-- we are talking about negative 5 that is a part of his longevity) , add in the gold gloves, the 5.3 war batting that Kaat added, and it's really not a contest.


Basically Kaat was Pierce at his best, stuck around for another 1000 innings, and fielded and hitted like a good player. I don't think there is any rational reason to compare the two and think Pierce was the better player. It would take extreme convulted logic to argue that. Top ten seasons as just a pitcher, barely puts Pierce ahead of Kaat by bwar for pitching (doesn't include their defense or offense, which Kaat would then perform better) and then to ignore longevity is just silly.


Kaat has five seasons where he added half a war because of his bat, another 5 where he was above average... They really aren't comparable. Kaat was an all around player, and war does not capture pitcher defense in the slightest, Kaat has 16 gold gloves, that is not a typo, that is the contemporary opinion of his defense.
   13. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 05, 2021 at 07:20 PM (#6051488)
does pitcher defense really matter in all that? If PIerce's ERA+ is better than Kaat's, then it doesnt really matter how he got there whether he fielded the outs or someone else made the outs. If he's harder to score on then that's that.

I dunno who has better ERA+ but Im just saying..
   14. bachslunch Posted: November 05, 2021 at 07:21 PM (#6051489)
If I'm voting, it would be for Allen, Minoso, Boyer, Dahlen, and Redding. These are the musts in my book.

Pierce, Kaat, and maybe Oliva are borderline at best, but I wouldn't complain bitterly if they snuck in to varying degrees. On the other ballot, same for Johnson and Scales. Can also see some level of case for O'Neil and O'Doul if you factor in non-playing contributions. Hodges would require a significant managerial boost, which seems tough to justify.

Not quite sure what to make of Donaldson's case.

Not seeing it for the rest.
   15. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: November 05, 2021 at 08:07 PM (#6051495)
Seems like both Dick Allen and Luis Tiant would fit better in a ballot that included the 1970's? Also seems like Kaat should be considered in whatever ballot also considers John and Tiant.
   16. kcgard2 Posted: November 05, 2021 at 08:42 PM (#6051499)
I believe I agree entirely with bachslunch.
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: November 05, 2021 at 09:03 PM (#6051501)
s pitcher defense really matter in all that? If PIerce's ERA+ is better than Kaat's, then it doesnt really matter how he got there whether he fielded the outs or someone else made the outs. If he's harder to score on then that's that.


good point, but the at the same time Kaat was providing better offense and longevity than Pierce.. Pierce is a great pitcher, don't get me wrong on that, and is absolutely in the hof discussion, but there is nothing in his resume that says he's ahead of Kaat. Similar peaks as a pitcher, (we are talking about 13 or so seasons by both of them )

And to be fair, if you take Pierces entire career and compare it just to Kaat's 1962 to 1975, you get era+ of 114 vs 119 for pierce, innings pitched of3306 for pierce vs Kaat's 3382. fip of 3.26 for Kaat, vs 3.50 for pierce, Kaat adds in 4.7 batting war (Pierce is 0.0) Meaning Kaat's actual war in that time was 49.3 vs Pierce's 53.4... very comparable players by war. Kaat then pitched another 1200 innings. Whether they were good or not doesn't matter in this discussion, he was as good as Pierce and lasted the equivalent of another 6 year as even a replacement player. That is the reason why Kaat is in the discussion over Pierce. Nobody on the planet thinks Pierce was better than Kaat in the hof discussion, on a few seasons, absolutely, but hof worthy, not even a discussion. You literally can't put Pierce in and not Kaat and justify that decision.
   18. cardsfanboy Posted: November 05, 2021 at 09:11 PM (#6051503)
If I'm voting, it would be for Allen, Minoso, Boyer, Dahlen, and Redding. These are the musts in my book.


Dahlen absolutely... the other three.. ehh... don't know enough about Redding to make a decision.

Allen is overrated, so is Boyer (who I love to death) and same with Minoso.... for the record if the hall puts them in, it's another argument that the hall wasn't weakened, all of them are better than Sutter, Rice, Morris and Baines.
   19. The Duke Posted: November 05, 2021 at 11:07 PM (#6051511)
A lot of people have said minoso’s negro league stats would put him over the top. They seem so small and inconsequential to me - what am I missing ?
   20. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 05, 2021 at 11:12 PM (#6051512)
Basically Kaat was Pierce at his best, stuck around for another 1000 innings, and fielded and hitted like a good player. I don't think there is any rational reason to compare the two and think Pierce was the better player.

Almost all of Pierce's career was pre-expansion. Almost all of Kaat's was post-expansion. That has a significant effect on WAR standard deviations.

Pierce led the AL in pitching WAR twice, and finished in the top five 6 times. Kaat's highest finish was third, with three top 5's. And that's despite pitching in the AL at a time when basically all of the best pitchers were in the NL. (For instance, Kaat's career-best third-place finish in '62 came behind Hank Aguirre and Dick Radatz.) Pierce is arguably the third-best starting pitcher of the '50s, behind Spahn and Roberts. Kaat probably isn't in the top 8 for whatever you consider his primary decade to be.
   21. The Duke Posted: November 05, 2021 at 11:13 PM (#6051513)
11.

1. I think Kaat being alive is important if you theorize he will Go in eventually (which I do )
2. I loved him in St. Louis . Fun to watch so I have a bit of a local attachment
3. I’m a longevity guy. Doing it on the big stage at a high level is meaningful to me.
4. I think his many years broadcasting is helpful like with Torre on the managing side.
5. He was a great fielder and in old-time baseball pitcher fielding was super important.
6. A lot of wins
   22. Posada Posse Posted: November 06, 2021 at 12:18 AM (#6051518)
FWIW, Kaat has one of the largest discrepancies between bWAR (50.5) and fWAR (70.9) that I am aware of. Presumably Fangraphs' FIP-based WAR pitching model is friendlier to Kaat.
   23. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: November 06, 2021 at 04:51 AM (#6051524)
#22:

Tommy John is bWAR (61.6) and fWAR (79.4), for a difference of 17.8, so almost as large, but smaller on a percentage basis.
Luis Tiant is bWAR (66.1) and fWAR (54.8), much closer, and in this case Fangraphs is the unfriendly one.

But I think Tiant, John, and Kaat should all go in. They are all alive and would be a nice ceremony.
   24. The Duke Posted: November 06, 2021 at 08:42 AM (#6051528)
We’ll, if Tommy John gets in this year it would be a miracle
   25. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: November 06, 2021 at 08:52 AM (#6051531)
But I think Tiant, John, and Kaat should all go in. They are all alive and would be a nice ceremony.


I never thought of it that way, but all three are eventually getting in (probably), and none of the three will likely be around a lot longer - and the thought of a ceremony that would celebrate the three of them at the same time would actually be pretty awesome. (I understand that can't happen this year.)

I believe Kaat and John are the only two 20th-century pitchers with more than 270 wins not in the HOF (except the Clemens thing...), and for the foreseeable future, there aren't going to be too many pitchers getting anywhere near that many wins or innings again, so we should celebrate it while they are here. And then you add John's groundbreaking surgery, and Kaat's decades of announcing, and those two togheter make a lot of sense.

Tiant is a little different, but may be the best pitcher not in the HOF who is eligible (again, Clemens' problem excepted), and would certainly be the biggest draw for Induction Weekend of the three. He is truly beloved in New England, for example, and when a Red Sox gets in, the masses make the short drive west to go for the weekend (like I would). I also think the Cuban-American community would make a strong showing. (The Dominican presence at Pedro's induction was one of the best feelings of positive energy in a big crowd that I have ever experienced. The pride, the joy, the love and knowledge of baseball, the friendliness, etc., was so strong it was almost inspiring. I think there would be a smaller, but equally passionate, crowd to celebrate Tiant.)
   26. DL from MN Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:12 AM (#6051543)
The first two and last seven (!) seasons of Kaat's career were all below replacement. That's 700 innings of helping his team lose. I essentially zero those out when I make an assessment.

If you look at the rest you get 3810.1 IP, 3.87 RA9 against an opposing RA9 of 4.02, 17 WAA, 49.3 WAR. 246-194 record, 113 ERA+. He compiled a lot of innings at an above average rate.

If you zero out Billy Pierce ages 18-21 you're left with 3241 IP, RA9 of 3.56 vs opponents RA9 of 4.52, 26.8 WAA, 53.4 WAR, 208-169 record, 121 ERA+. That's more contribution to his team's wins in fewer innings.

Kaat does add back 5.3 wins with his bat which closes the gap but I still prefer Billy Pierce if I'm trying to assemble a team that is going to win a World Series and not just beat the below average teams.

Eric brought up a good point about run scoring standard deviations. In standard deviation adjusted WAR (zeroing out bad seasons) here's the comparison:

Pitcher PWAA BWAA PWAR WAR
Pierce 22.5 -9.8 52.0 52.2
JiKaat 8.1 -7.0 47.7 50.7

Close, but Kaat never quite catches up to Pierce despite pitching many more innings. Kaat is not the best pitcher available on the ballot. If you like Kaat you should also like Pierce (and John, Tiant, Rick Reuschel, Andy Pettitte and Frank Tanana).
   27. DL from MN Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:25 AM (#6051546)
Kaat has one of the largest discrepancies between bWAR (50.5) and fWAR (70.9) that I am aware of. Presumably Fangraphs' FIP-based WAR pitching model is friendlier to Kaat.


This is the exact opposite of what you would assume. When you see all of those Gold Gloves it makes it difficult to believe Kaat was hurt by his defense.
   28. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:46 AM (#6051547)
We’ll, if Tommy John gets in this year it would be a miracle


Of course I understand that isn't possible. #2 noted that Luis Tiant was dropped from this year's ballot, and I mentioned that in connection to my comment #15.

In an ideal world, there would be a ballot that included all three so they could go in together, if folks feel they would be elected eventually. It is a shame if someone gets elected just a few years after passing away, but it's happened more than once in recent years.
   29. DL from MN Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:56 AM (#6051548)
A lot of people have said minoso’s negro league stats would put him over the top. They seem so small and inconsequential to me - what am I missing ?


I think it's more evidence that Minoso was ready when he was 21 or 22 and held back until age 25. His 1949-50 stats in AAA are more evidence. They shouldn't have held him back from the big leagues until he was performing at an All-Star level.
   30. DL from MN Posted: November 06, 2021 at 11:06 AM (#6051550)
Players on this ballot by the number of seasons they have received MMP votes:

Redding 6
Allen 6
Boyer 4
Oliva 4
Minoso 3
Pierce 3
Kaat 3
Dahlen 2 (and counting)
Johnson 2
Hodges 2
Maris 2
Donaldson 2
O'Doul 2
Reynolds 1
Wills 1
   31. DL from MN Posted: November 06, 2021 at 11:07 AM (#6051551)
Vic Harris seems a lot more impressive as a manager of the Grays than as a player. I'm intrigued by his case.
   32. The Mighty Quintana Posted: November 06, 2021 at 11:39 AM (#6051556)
I have no problem imagining another 500 hits and 300 runs for Minoso, if he comes up in 1948. He was raking everywhere from 21-24. That gets him into Clemente territory, he seems like a lock to me.
   33. John DiFool2 Posted: November 06, 2021 at 11:47 AM (#6051558)
Did they ever conclusively square away his birth year? BBRef shows 1925...

He led his league in slugging at age 22.
   34. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: November 06, 2021 at 01:03 PM (#6051573)
There's 150 years of baseball history. Why does this committee have just a 20 year window?
   35. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 01:09 PM (#6051575)
There's 150 years of baseball history. Why does this committee have just a 20 year window?


Because that is the purview of this particular committee. Basically the hof has three veteran's committees, and they get to vote every three years, this particular committee is devoted to the 1950-1969. Next year a different committee votes for a different era.

The basic thought process is that we have already gotten everyone that is worthy, but it's possible that we might have missed someone so let's go back and re-examine eras every three or so years to see what was missed.
   36. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 06, 2021 at 02:30 PM (#6051582)
I would have predicted that Dick Lundy would have made this ballot. It’s very strange that he didn’t given his near unanimous standing among Negro Leagues experts as a 2006 error of omission.

John Donaldson’s presence here, IMO, shows a misreading of context. Yeah, he struck out 20-odd men in various games, but these were barnstorming matches against local and regional teams who had probably never seen a a major league curveball before. Donaldson’s stats in the Negro Leagues are far less impressive than legend and lore suggest, and they MLE to a number two/three starter, not anyone who merits Hall consideration.

The continued interest these screening committees have for Reynolds is beyond me. He’s be one of the worst HOF pitchers if elected, and this isn’t the first time the screeners have put him on the ballot. Lefty O’Doul is strange in as much as to elect him, you’d have to believe that NPB is admissible evidence, but the Hall doesn’t recognize play in foreign leagues as for player inductees. If foreign play isn’t good enough in one instance why would it be in another? Bizarre. And Roger Maris should have to buy a ticket to get in. Except that he’s dead, of course.

But in practical terms, the Reynolds, Marisses, and O’Douls may serve a good purpose in that if everyone were great it would be hard to reach consensus in anyone.
   37. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 06, 2021 at 02:32 PM (#6051584)
Re my last paragraph. The two word retort to it is “Harold Baines.” We will have to wait to see the composition of the committees to see if any candidates have an especially cronyistic path to glory.
   38. SoSH U at work Posted: November 06, 2021 at 02:40 PM (#6051585)
37. Harold Baines isn’t really a counterpoint. His ballot was stocked with non-candidates (at least as seen by the voters). If there had been a few legitimate candidates on there, no amount of TLR and Reinsdorf politicking would have mattered.

That era shouldn’t have debuted until the next election.
   39. DL from MN Posted: November 06, 2021 at 02:51 PM (#6051587)
Harris managed the Grays during their years in league play, between 1935 and 1948, and piloted Homestead to eight pennants. He guided his team to six consecutive pennants from 1937 through 1942; in 1945 and 1948, and led the 1948 team to the Negro League World Series championship.
- Wiki

These were also interesting to read:
https://nlbemuseum.com/history/players/harrisv.html
http://www.cnlbr.org/Portals/0/Hero/Elander-Victor-Vic-Harris.pdf

He seems to meet Hall of Fame standards for a manager and he was a pretty good player as well. His managerial career was derailed by integration - he managed 8 East-West All Star games, won 8 pennants and 2 titles in 1948 at age 43. In 1950, at age 45 the Negro Leagues were done and so was Harris' managerial career. He worked as a custodian after that. MLB wouldn't hire a black manager until 1975.
   40. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: November 06, 2021 at 03:55 PM (#6051593)
Lefty O’Doul


I would think Lefty O'Doul is being considered from a "service to the game" standpoint, as well perhaps consideration of his Pacific Coast League years, back when it wasn't completely a captive of the majors. Similarly, though under different circumstances, for Buck O'Neil. There probably isn't a good category for either of them as they weren't broadcasters, managers, or executives, but they were players, so maybe that would be the right way to induct them.
   41. DL from MN Posted: November 06, 2021 at 04:41 PM (#6051599)
Buck O'Neill was the manager of the Monarchs in 1948 and managed them until 1955. Then he became a scout because nobody was going to hire a black man to manage their team. In 1962 the Cubs hired him as a coach but wouldn't let him manage during the "college of coaches" even when 2 other people got tossed from a game.

Frank Robinson was the first black manager but he didn't manage in the minor leagues except for winter ball. I can't figure out who the first black minor league manager was.
   42. Jaack Posted: November 06, 2021 at 04:44 PM (#6051601)
It's nice to see that the Hall took the concerns about NGL baseball seriously - I expected the ballot to have Buck O'Neil and maybe a couple of KC Monatchs/Homestead Grays guys, but 7/10 is pretty cool, and they got the two most important players in Grant Johnson and Dick Redding. Would have liked to see Dick Lundy too though. They did get the best white player in Dahlen on there, but I'm disappointed not to see any 19th century guys.

My guess is that O'Neil and Dahlen get the call. Maybe another NGL guy, but it's hard to gauge exactly what the committee will do with them. I'd vote for Dahlen, Redding, and Johnson, and I guess O'Neil. I'm pretty ambivalent about him, but he's such a big name relative to the rest of the Negro League guys that discussion about him will suffocate anyone else's chances.

The Golden Era committee basically kept the same ballot as last time, which is okay enough. Glad Pierce is being given another look, would have liked to see Jimmy Wynn get his name in there, but there isn't anyone as bad as Allie Reynolds.

I'd vote for Allen, Pierce, Minoso, and Boyer. My guess is that we'll get two of Kaat, Oliva, Allen, and Minoso.
   43. The Duke Posted: November 06, 2021 at 04:55 PM (#6051604)
36. Jack Lundy ? From SNL’s “Deep Thoughts from Jack Lundy”? He was funny, but not that funny
   44. Walt Davis Posted: November 06, 2021 at 06:10 PM (#6051610)
There seems some confusion about pitcher defense and WAR ... although it's reasonably explained in #13. As far as WAR is concerned, the quality of a pitcher's defense is captured in that pitcher's RA9. I suppose it could be done differently but this seems sensible ... if the pitcher is a good fielder, he's taking away more hits and making fewer errors (leading to fewer earned runs, fewer unearned runs, a larger RA9 vs RA9opp difference). Since it is captured in RA9, pitcher defense is not included in the team defense calculated as part of WAR. Pedantically this means that "pitching WAR" is actually "pitching and fielding WAR."

You will then note, when you look at the pitcher's batting WAR, where fielding WAR is usually captured, every pitcher gets a zero for Rfield whether it's Kaat or Maddux or Pierce or Bartolo. That's so WARpit + WARpos will equal total WAR -- otherwise their defense would be counted twice if it is captured in both RA9 and Rfield. They've chosen a simpler method than it being in RA9 (there's no choice on that), taking it out of RA9 via RA9def then adding it back in via Rfield.

If you look at their fielding table though, you can get their fielding numbers in the DRS era (apparently TZ isn't done for pitchers). So nothing for Kaat or Pierce but, for example, Kyle Hendricks has 15 Rdrs, Greinke 84. We only have about half of Bartolo's career but he's surprisingly +13.

Pitchers who play the field on occasion (Ohtani, Lorenzen, Travis Wood) will technically get an Rfield value in WARpos but only Lorenzen has enough innings for it to register (+1 in the OF).
   45. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 06, 2021 at 06:46 PM (#6051619)
. Pierce is a great pitcher, don't get me wrong on that, and is absolutely in the hof discussion, but there is nothing in his resume that says he's ahead of Kaat.


well I dunno, on the other thread you emphatically declared that the best ten years of a player's career is really the best way to measure a guy's HoF chances (not counting narrative which I understand)

So PIerce's best ten year stretch from 1950-59 nets 44 WAR and Kaat's from 1966-75 is about 37.

I get you still need to add in Kaat's batting but is that gonna be enuf? I dont think so.

So how can you be so certain Kaat is ahead of Pierce, and then in the other discussion you seem to completely contradict yourself?
   46. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 06, 2021 at 06:52 PM (#6051620)

Both WAR stats are problematic in my opinion.

bWAR rewards or penalizes a pitcher based on his team's average defense over the course of the season. It's not tied to that pitcher's specific starts, so you could have a pitcher who got above-average defense in his starts, but he played for an overall poor defensive team so he gets an added bonus in his WAR. I've always found this problematic. During the last 8 years of his career, Kaat gets penalized 0.3 RA/9 (or about 30 runs) for pitching in front of a good defense. As a result he has -0.6 bWAR for those years rather than something closer to 2.5. This is despite the fact that Kaat had a FIP of 3.81 and an ERA of 4.08. If anything, it looks like he was hurt by his defense.

Meanwhile fWAR gives him full credit as though he was a 3.81 ERA pitcher, and doesn't penalize him for team defense, so he ends up with 6.8 fWAR for those years.

Over the course of his career, the team defensive penalty from bWAR is worth about 5 wins and the FIP bonus in fWAR is worth 13 wins, which is the difference between bWAR and fWAR.

I prefer to look at Fangraphs RA9-WAR, which is just based on how many runs he actually allowed without any adjustments for FIP or team defense. That number is 57.8 - pretty comfortably borderline.
   47. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 06, 2021 at 07:14 PM (#6051629)
Allen is overrated, so is Boyer (who I love to death) and same with Minoso


How are they overrated? Allen is a bad fielder throughout his entire career but even if we ding him WARs for that he's still over 50 WAR. Ive gone through his game logs for at least three seasons and he doesnt seem to make horrendous throwing errors with runners on base (one source of under counting) and he's actually above average at DPs. Not sure how much to ding him.

But he's VG peak candidate as you know. He put 32 WAA in 9 seasons, its a really great peak.


Boyer is probably underrated. He was an excellent fielder for at least the first seven seasons. TZ has a known methodology flaw that under values both extremely good and extremely bad fielding. Ive referenced it numerous times here and would be glad to again. Its 99% certain that Boyer's defense is very underrated for those seasons. Hes at almost 63 WAR and I would guess he's losing 30 def runs to that system for those years. I dont see how he's underrated.
   48. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 07:29 PM (#6051638)
well I dunno, on the other thread you emphatically declared that the best ten years of a player's career is really the best way to measure a guy's HoF chances (not counting narrative which I understand)

So PIerce's best ten year stretch from 1950-59 nets 44 WAR and Kaat's from 1966-75 is about 37.

I get you still need to add in Kaat's batting but is that gonna be enuf? I dont think so.

So how can you be so certain Kaat is ahead of Pierce, and then in the other discussion you seem to completely contradict yourself?


I absolutely belief that you can go into the hof based upon just ten years, and that is the standard, at the same time when you want to compare two players, and in Kaat's case vs Pierce, their best 10 years are pretty comparable, then you can add the career. Kaat and Pierce are pretty close on ten year stretch argument, Pierce is arguably ahead of him if you go by Bwar, Kaat has the fip advantage etc... either way they are close when you include the full picture, (defense and hitting) then of course you have to look at longevity and it's not really a contest their.... so we are talking about two relatively equal players at their best, and one of the players sticks around for another decade as a decent player.

Again, if you want to put Pierce in, I don't see an issue there, but if you are ranking them all time, there is no way I can understand putting Pierce ahead of Kaat.
   49. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 06, 2021 at 07:33 PM (#6051642)

I prefer to look at Fangraphs RA9-WAR, which is just based on how many runs he actually allowed without any adjustments for FIP or team defense. That number is 57.8 - pretty comfortably borderline.


Dave do you have any thoughts on the other weird discrepancies we are seeing with respect to FIP? I think it was the MVP discussion (Maybe Mclain's?) we were having many months ago and someone brought up McLain and Lolich and showed how different their FIPs seemed to be despite pitching in front of the same defense.
   50. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 07:38 PM (#6051646)
Allen is overrated, so is Boyer (who I love to death) and same with Minoso


Allen is overrated with his self destructive behavior and inability to stay in the lineup for whatever reason. He played in 140 games in a season 5 times... I am well known on this site as being a guy who is pretty passionate about players staying in the lineup. Allen couldn't do that.

As far as Boyer goes, I'm a Cardinal fan, so I have to intentionally go negative on Cardinal players simply to keep my bias away from my opinion. In St Louis, Boyer is massively overrated. If given a vote, I would put him in the hof, but I know I have a bias. And Minoso... well you really have to do what iffs to put him in. and I'm fine with that argument, but simply based upon his actual major league career, he's short of the standard. And again, I would have zero qualms about him being put in... heck I might vote for him myself if given a chance, but at the same time, I think people overrate him, earlier we saw someone giving him 500 extra hits if he was promoted earlier, and that is a bit silly, simply because every player outside of a phenom, is promoted later than they deserve, you can add roughly 200 hits to pretty much every single major leaguer who premiered after their 23rd birthday and be justified in that. (Wade Boggs is the poster child for this, seriously you could probably add 800 hits to his career if he is promoted when he was major league ready)
   51. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 06, 2021 at 07:44 PM (#6051648)
He played in 140 games in a season 5 times... I am well known on this site as being a guy who is pretty passionate about players staying in the lineup. Allen couldn't do that


that is a reasonable pt.
   52. Howie Menckel Posted: November 06, 2021 at 07:58 PM (#6051655)
fwiw (and ymmv), in order of appearance in the thread as worth discussing:

HOM: Minnie Minoso, Dick Allen, Ken Boyer, Billy Pierce, Grant “Home Run” Johnson, Dick “Cannonball” Redding, Bill Dahlen, Luis Tiant, Roger Clemens, Dick Lundy, Jimmy Wynn

not HOM: Gil Hodges, Roger Maris, Jim Kaat, Tony Oliva, Maury Wills, John Donaldson, Bud Fowler, Vic Harris, Buck O’Neil, George Scales, Lefty O’Doul, Allie Reynolds, George Scales, Doc Adams, Wally Schang, Bruce Sutter, Jim Rice, Jack Morris, Harold Baines

[corrections are welcomed]
   53. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 08:16 PM (#6051663)
hom has a tendency to overrate peak to be honest and ignores longevity.
   54. The Duke Posted: November 06, 2021 at 08:40 PM (#6051671)
I think Dick Allen should be in. He was a stupendous hitter. But mostly I think being a black man in Philly really hurt him. Who amongst us could excel in that work environment. In some ways he’s similar to Posey - 11 glorious seasons. Posey gets the catcher bump and Allen should get the “race” bump.
   55. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 09:08 PM (#6051679)
I have no issue if Allen is put in, but he's basically a DH who couldn't play a full season. He's Rolen without the defense, he's a poor man's version of Big papi basically. I just do not see it. the obsession that war is the be all and end all of the discussion is why there is a vote. I just do not see any way that Dick Allen is a hofer, no matter how many people argue for it.

If it happens, it's not on par with a Morris or Rice level of stupidity, in the fact that it's a legit argument... but I just can't support that option.
   56. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: November 06, 2021 at 09:29 PM (#6051682)
hom has a tendency to overrate peak to be honest and ignores longevity.


My understanding is that the "peak" argument was/is intimately related to Bill James' and others argument relating "peak" to "pennant", the idea that a "peak" year=a "pennant" year. Now the counterargument, that having someone who is good or very good, but good or very good steadily over a long period of time, is more conducive to getting into the playoffs, and of course as the Braves show this year, getting into the playoffs is half or more of the battle in terms of winning a World Series, assuming that is the ultimate goal. Would you rather have Dick Allen, who could be stratospherically good one year, and maybe just not show up next year, or Steve Garvey, who could be counted on every year to provide 4-5 WAR. Of course, in this case a "poor" Dick Allen was still a 3 WAR player, and a "poor" Steve Garvey was a 4 WAR. Still the hypothetical question stands: Maybe the answer as to peak value versus longevity is different based upon the playoff structure.
   57. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 09:38 PM (#6051683)
Maybe the answer as to peak value versus longevity is different based upon the playoff structure.


Potentially yes, but the argument isn't really about peak vs longevity in the Pierce vs Kaat discussion, it's simply that Kaat was nearly equivalent to Pierce for about 12 years, and then stuck around another decade as an average pitcher...

The hom is saying that the relatively small difference between them in their best 12 year stretch is enough to put Pierce in, while the extra decade of work by Kaat should be ignored. It's a ridiculous conceit. There is almost no way to argue for Pierce in and Kaat not, that doesn't defy absurdity.
   58. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 06, 2021 at 09:41 PM (#6051685)
Edit: Eh, not worth getting worked up over obviously hyperbolic arguments.
   59. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: November 06, 2021 at 09:44 PM (#6051686)
while the extra decade of work by Kaat should be ignored. It's a ridiculous conceit.


Yes! There is a reason it's Wins Above Replacement. Even an average pitcher at the major league level has significant value, at least in my mind, and this train of thought was echoed by the folks who developed WAR, and by Bill James who developed Win Shares, the (as I understand it) precursor to WAR. But then those arguments are thrown away when it comes to the Hall of Fame, and it's just peak value, e.g. WAA over a certain span, or some variant, that matters.
   60. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:00 PM (#6051699)
By war... (bwar which heavily penalizes Kaat)
Kaat---- Pierce
7.7---- 7.3
7.1 ----- 7.0
5.4------ 6.2
4.5-------5.2
4.3-------4.8
4.2--------4.7
3.3--------3.6
3.0--------3.0
2.3--------2.8
2.1--------2.4
Total
43.9-----47...top ten years based strictly on pitching stats by bwar... ooh, I forgot offense(and bwar ignores pitchers defense entirely) (Kaat's ten best seasons as a hitter is .9, .8, .7. 6. .6 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 for another5.7 war.. Pierce adds .5 .5 .3 .3 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 2.4 making them 49.6 vs 49.4 in their top ten seasons. Again... I'm not seeing any argument that Pierce is more worth of the hof, especially when you have to acknowledge that the war system doesn't notice pitchers defense... and that Kaat pitched another decade.
   61. Mefisto Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:03 PM (#6051704)
@56: Your point is fine, but Garvey is a bad example. He got to 4 WAR only 4 times in 19 seasons. Dick Allen did it 6 times in 15.
   62. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:07 PM (#6051708)
(and bwar ignores pitchers defense entirely)

No it doesn't. bWAR starts from the pitcher's own runs allowed, which already have the effect of the pitcher's fielding baked in. (Unless the pitcher's fielding has no effect on the number of runs they allow, in which case why would we care about it?)

Also, you seem to be adding Kaat and Pierce's top 10 seasons as hitters to their top 10 pitching seasons without accounting for the fact that those are different groups of seasons. (Kaat's two best pitching seasons by bWAR were 1974 and 1975, when he was in a DH league. Only 5 of his 10 best hitting seasons are also among his 10 best pitching seasons.)

I'll spare anyone still reading the repetition of other arguments that have already been made upthread.
   63. Jaack Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:07 PM (#6051709)
Among the HoM voters, I'm generally one of Kaat's better friends. He's got a reasonable case. But Pierce is a fair bit better. Pierce outclasses Kaat in their respective best six seasons, and they run pretty even from year 7-13. After that Pierce doesn't add much, but honestly, neither does Kaat. He's got one, maybe two league average seasons, but he's mostly sub 1 WAR, and regularly below replacement level.

Pierce also stands out much higher among his peers. During his career, how many better pitchers were there? Definitely Warren Spahn and Robin Roberts. Early Wynn is better when you account for his bat and Whitey Ford is probably better too. But the gap down to Mike Garcia and Bob Friend is pretty big. There's some overlap with Drysdale and Bunning too, but Pierce is pretty clearly one of the best pitchers of the 50s. Kaat in his prime is behind Bob Gibson, Gaylord Perry, Tom Seaver, Juan Marichal, Fergie Jenkins, and Jim Palmer, and he also overlaps significantly with Bunning and Drysdale. Also Sandy Koufax, Steve Carlton, Don Sutton, and Phil Niekro. I'd take Mickey Lolich and Luis Tiant over him too. And Bert Blyleven and Tommy John are showing up in the later parts of Kaat's prime. Kaat's biggest claim to faim is his longevity, but a lot of those guys were more durable than him.
   64. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:42 PM (#6051721)

No it doesn't. bWAR starts from the pitcher's own runs allowed, which already have the effect of the pitcher's fielding baked in. (Unless the pitcher's fielding has no effect on the number of runs they allow, in which case why would we care about it?)


That is a stretch to be honest. basically it says that rfield doesn't exist for pitchers, simply because ra9 exists... so all pitchers are equal fielders after ra9... it's a dumb argument. Why would a pitcher not get extra credit for pitching in front of a poorer defensive team is his defense can help them, which allows them to play someone like Jeter?
   65. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:46 PM (#6051722)
Also, you seem to be adding Kaat and Pierce's top 10 seasons as hitters to their top 10 pitching seasons without accounting for the fact that those are different groups of seasons. (Kaat's two best pitching seasons by bWAR were 1974 and 1975, when he was in a DH league. Only 5 of his 10 best hitting seasons are also among his 10 best pitching seasons.)


Actually I was doing that on purpose, simply speaking I'm trolling, more accurately speaking it doesn't matter when they accumulate value. The fact is that Kaat was roughly equivalent to Pierce, and then played another 800 innings or another decade, to think that Pierce is so far ahead of kaat that he's deserving and kaat is behind a line is just idiotic stupidity of the finest degrees.
   66. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 06, 2021 at 10:58 PM (#6051724)
That is a stretch to be honest. basically it says that rfield doesn't exist for pitchers, simply because ra9 exists... so all pitchers are equal fielders after ra9... it's a dumb argument.

Huh? There is no way of disentangling pitcher fielding from their own runs allowed, if you're starting from their own runs allowed. Mark Buehrle was a great fielder, and therefore allowed fewer runs than he otherwise would have. Nolan Ryan was a bad fielder, and therefore allowed more runs than he otherwise would have.

Everything the individual pitcher does that affects how many runs they allow (inducing double play grounders, throwing or avoiding wild pitches, hitting batters or not hitting them, fielding well or fielding poorly) is inherently reflected in their RA. All the other adjustments bWAR makes are attempting to contextualize how that RA compares with what an average/replacement pitcher would do in the same situation. If you want to break a pitcher's performance down by components, feel free, but then don't start from RA when measuring their value, because you're going to double count.

And with that, I'm done with this discussion; my patience for engaging with someone who openly calls me an idiot because we slightly disagree about the relative ranking of two borderline Hall candidates has expired.
   67. cardsfanboy Posted: November 06, 2021 at 11:15 PM (#6051729)
Huh? There is no way of disentangling pitcher fielding from their own runs allowed, if you're starting from their own runs allowed. Mark Buehrle was a great fielder, and therefore allowed fewer runs than he otherwise would have. Nolan Ryan was a bad fielder, and therefore allowed more runs than he otherwise would have.


How is that even an argument. How do we disentangle a position from runs allowed? How do we credit a shortstop for making a play vs not making a play? Why wouldn't we credit a pitcher for the same reason? Once the ball is in play, there are effectively 8 players on the field, who makes the play matters. It's a part of the reality of the situation, why wouldn't we credit the pitcher for their own defense?

   68. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 06, 2021 at 11:22 PM (#6051732)
Because pitcher bWAR starts from the total runs allowed while the pitcher is on the mound, and compares that to league average. Whether he saves a run with a K or he saves a run with a great fielding play, it doesn’t really matter — it will show up in his runs allowed.

We have to track the plays a shortstop makes because team runs allowed never factors into his WAR the same way. With the SS, we’re starting from zero defensive value (vs league average) and adding or subtracting from there.
   69. chisoxcollector Posted: November 06, 2021 at 11:22 PM (#6051733)
Kaat’s last 664 innings (7 of those precious extra years that keep getting mentioned) were literally below replacement level. It would be absolutely idiotic to count those as a positive to somebody’s HOF case. And giving any extra fielding credit to a pitcher’s bWAR would obviously be double counting the effects of that defense, which would be equally asinine.
   70. Howie Menckel Posted: November 06, 2021 at 11:32 PM (#6051735)

FOR SHAME, ALL OF YOU, FOR SHAME !

"it happens every fall...."

"The countdown is on again, and for the Hodges family of Brooklyn, so is the wait. There will be another meeting early next month that will determine whether Gilbert Ray Hodges — who was born in Princeton, Ind., before becoming a star in Brooklyn and an icon in Queens — will be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

It is time. It is past time. It is actually way past time.

“To me, it doesn’t change much, honestly, if he gets in or he doesn’t get in, because everyone who knew my father knew what he accomplished and they know he belongs there,” Hodges’ daughter, Irene, told me Saturday morning. “But he is obviously so deserving of a place there. It would mean so much to so many.”

It would also right a wrong that has existed for far too long. Hodges’ absence from Cooperstown is a black mark against the roster of greats the Hall is commissioned to honor."
   71. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 07, 2021 at 10:44 AM (#6051757)
I wouldn't complain if Hodges got in, but you should at least acknowledge that his case is almost entirely narrative driven. A career 43.8 WAR denotes a marginal candidate at best, and aside from that one miracle year, his managerial record is ordinary verging on mediocre.

The real shame is in the absence of the Whitakers, the Griches, and the Allens, not the absence of players like Hodges or Maris.
   72. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: November 07, 2021 at 10:51 AM (#6051759)
Kaat’s last 664 innings (7 of those precious extra years that keep getting mentioned) were literally below replacement level.


Well, to be completely accurate, here's fWAR for Kaat

1977, Age 38: -1.4
1978, Age 39: -0.2
1979, Age 40: +0.3
1980. Age 41: +0.3
1981, Age 42: -0.7
1982. Age 43: -1.1
1983, Age 44: -0.2

bWAR has him above replacement in 2 of his last 7 years, and really doesn't like his Age 38 and Age 43 seasons.

Here's fWAR for Kaat

1977, Age 38: 1.0
1978, Age 39: 1.7
1979, Age 40: 0.5
1980. Age 41: 1.1
1981, Age 42: -0.1
1982. Age 43: -0.1
1983, Age 44: -0.2

fWAR has him above replacement in 5 of his last 7 seasons, and actually rather likes his Age 38, 39, and 41 Seasons.

Notably, in 1982 St. Louis chose to use him rather prominently (4 games, 2.1 innings of relief work) in the World Series, though he didn't pitch particularly well (4 H, 1 er), but that tends to support the idea that Whitey Herzog found him to be of some value even then.

In terms of Gil Hodges, something that is a separate topic. I was interested in Kaat and John and Tiant because they are still alive and hence the induction ceremony would be more meaningful if it could happen soon.



   73. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 07, 2021 at 02:26 PM (#6051796)
A career 43.8 WAR denotes a marginal candidate at best, and aside from that one miracle year, his managerial record is ordinary verging on mediocre.
Hodges managerial career was only 9 seasons, but his Washington Senators teams won more games each year of his stewardship, no easy task with the expansion Senators, and it’s not like he underperformed expectations with the Mets. The Hall doesn’t really have a process for considering the combined player & managerial candidates, it seems like you have to be good enough in one aspect, but I wouldn’t object if the committee finds that Hodges’ managerial record puts him barely over the line for the Hall.

From Howie’s link in # 70:
The last time, the Mets were so sure Hodges would make it that they sent limousines to the Hodges home to make sure they could throw a proper celebration at Citi Field. Then the returns came back, the limos were turned around, and once more someone had to explain to Joan Hodges that her husband had fallen short again. Joan Hodges is 96 years old now.
That alone is almost reason to elect Hodges.
   74. Rough Carrigan Posted: November 07, 2021 at 02:47 PM (#6051798)
Though, in fairness to critics of Hodges' enshrinement. the Mets were also sure they had not named drunks or pervs to their general manager position, either.
   75. Rough Carrigan Posted: November 07, 2021 at 03:06 PM (#6051801)
Minoso was an excellent player from day 1 that the White Sox acquired him and let him play full time in 1951. Minoso had led the negro leagues in slugging percentage in 1948 at the age of 22. So, it's not just a hypothetical claim that Minoso was a good player who idiot Indians GM Hank Greenberg wasn't giving a chance over a mediocre outfielder named Bob Kennedy. (or good average but no power Dale Mitchell). He had just led what we recognize as a major league in slugging at the age of 22. He then performed excellently in the minors for two years in Cleveland and got a cup of coffee worth of time with their major league club in one of those two seasons. Minnie Minoso was ready. His GM, Hank Greenberg, wasn't.
   76. SoSH U at work Posted: November 07, 2021 at 08:29 PM (#6051827)
FWIW, in Dag’s book on managers, Hodges rated quite highly for his entire tenure, not just the miracle pennant. If the Hall did the combo candidate the way it should, he’d be a decent selection.
   77. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 07, 2021 at 11:21 PM (#6051838)
FWIW, in Dag’s book on managers, Hodges rated quite highly for his entire tenure, not just the miracle pennant.

Chris is generally complimentary of Hodges as manager, but he doesn't make his top 30 list, perhaps because his managerial career was cut short..

As I said, I wouldn't complain if he got in, but there's a reason he hasn't been enshrined thus far. There are far more qualified candidates than Hodges who've been kept out, Minoso among them.
   78. chisoxcollector Posted: November 08, 2021 at 08:58 AM (#6051852)
I would love to see Billy Pierce, Minnie Minoso, and Dick Allen enshrined. All three were legit stars are their peaks. Minoso and Allen are no-brainers, and Pierce wouldn't be out of place in the HOF, though he isn't an obvious oversight.
   79. taxandbeerguy Posted: November 08, 2021 at 09:51 AM (#6051859)
Speaking to the strangeness and differing opinions of Kaat, check out his 1965 on Baseball Reference.

If I'm looking for a quick approximation of things ERA+ * IP usually results in a WAR that makes sense. Maybe it's a bit high, maybe its a bit low, but something like a 125 ERA+ over 250 innings usually ends up around 4-5WAR. Kaat has 264.1 innings with and ERA+ of 126. Okay. Feels like fringe all-star type of year, maybe just below that level taking into account the workloads of the 1960's.

His WAR is 0.4! 0.4!. How is that possible? Kaat had the a great defense behind him. Huge levels of defensive support. Won a gold glove himself if that's worth anything (he did win 16 in his career). Over the course of his career about 6/7 or 86% of his runs allowed were earned. That year it was only just over 2/3 or about 68.5%. That's a crazy variance given most years are in the 80-95% range. So with all those unearned runs, but counting as runs allowed, Kaat gets dinged in WAR, he has a great defense that was all world (except when he pitched that year) and he must have had the worst luck in that every time that all-world defense behind him actually made a mistake, the opposing team promptly scored a bunch more runs, like 2 or 3 times more than what would be "normal". If he himself made a huge number of errors that year, it would be one thing and while he appears a little more error prone that year, he also had a large number of opportunities.

He was very good with the bat that year, so it bumps his WAR up to 1.3 in total, it's just kind of staggering that for his 260+ innings of 126ERA+ ball he is barely above replacement, suggesting that a AAAA type of player could have accomplished what he did in 1965 with a bit of luck, which I find hard to believe.

The rest of his career looks kind of normal, but a strange year that I only stumbled across when I noticed his "peak" in traditional stats and figured that would likely be a nice little strecth of WAR, but in fact it's broken up.
   80. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 08, 2021 at 10:00 AM (#6051861)
it's just kind of staggering that for his 260+ innings of 126ERA+ ball he is barely above replacement, suggesting that a AAAA type of player could have accomplished what he did in 1965 with a bit of luck, which I find hard to believe.

Kaat allowed 38 unearned runs in 1965, which are reflected in WAR but not in ERA+. The most UER he allowed in any other season was 21.
   81. The Duke Posted: November 08, 2021 at 10:33 AM (#6051865)
21. 38. I dont understand the context of these numbers. What’s normal? And even if 21 is kinda normal how does an extra 17 tank his WAR so badly ?
   82. The Duke Posted: November 08, 2021 at 10:45 AM (#6051868)
Kaats whole career year by year by fWAR and bWAR is different. Even if you split the difference, he moves from meh to strong borderline. If you think fangraphs is closer to the truth, he’s in.
   83. taxandbeerguy Posted: November 08, 2021 at 10:47 AM (#6051870)
And why did he have 38 unearned runs, when he himself was a Gold Glover (made 6 errors, and given the opportunities and at his career fielding rate should have made 4) and the fact that he had such a good defense (supposedly) behind him (he gets docked a bunch for this). Did every other pitcher on the staff have a disproportionately low number of unearned runs? Just an oddity.

For 31.5% of his runs allowed to be unearned, I recall in some thread that this was normal-ish but towards the high end in Rube Waddell and Addie Joss' time way back in about 1905. There was discussion that Waddell allowed a disproportionate number of unearned runs, but a comparison with Joss found they were similar but towards the higher end of "normal". I seem to recall that they (along with most pitchers) had unearned runs amount to about 28-30% of their runs allowed.
   84. Mefisto Posted: November 08, 2021 at 10:57 AM (#6051873)
In 1905 or so roughly 30% of *all* runs scored were unearned. In the '60s it was, off memory, about 15%; Kaat's 1965 season is kind of surprising in that context.
   85. taxandbeerguy Posted: November 08, 2021 at 11:03 AM (#6051875)
84. That jives with my memory.
   86. DL from MN Posted: November 08, 2021 at 11:24 AM (#6051877)
I think a game by game analysis would be interesting for Jim Kaat in 1965. That's an article all by itself.
   87. Doug Jones threw harder than me Posted: November 08, 2021 at 12:20 PM (#6051882)
In 1965 Jim Kaat was 18-11 with a 2.83 ERA, essentially sharing the "top pitcher" duties with MudCat Grant, who was 21-7 with a 3.30 ERA. Grant pitched 270 innings, Kaat 265. Grant and Kaat both started 3 games in the World Series, which they lost 4-3 to the Dodgers with Koufax and Drysdale. Grant was 2-1, Kaat 1-2, Grant pitched 23 innings and Kaat 14. bWAR has Grant at 2.5 and Kaat at 0.4. I realize some of the arguments for "peak" in regards to HoF and HoM are they allow a team to get a pennant and/or win the World Series. Well, here's perhaps a counterexample.

From a "value" perspective, it seems folks at the time wouldn't consider Grant to be less than a 3 WAR player, and Kaat basically WORSE than 2006 Esteban Loaiza, 11-9 with 154 innings pitched, 4.89 ERA, 5.35 RA+, bWAR 0.7

I continue to believe that both fWAR and bWAR unfairly penalize pitchers who get outs other than via a strikeout. Probably in that same vein they both give way too much credit sometimes to defensive value. Alex Gordon (playing left field, where the likes of Khris Davis and Greg Luzinski go to hide), for example, is someone I cannot ever really understand having near the value that bWAR and fWAR say he did.

By the way, in #72 where I said:

"Well, to be completely accurate, here's fWAR for Kaat" should have been bWAR, sorry for the mistake.
   88. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 08, 2021 at 12:22 PM (#6051883)
I think a game by game analysis would be interesting for Jim Kaat in 1965. That's an article all by itself.

In this game Kaat allowed no earned runs and six unearned runs. The first three runs followed a 2-out error that would've gotten him out of the inning, and the other three came as a result of two dropped fly balls. And in this game a pair of 2-out errors in different innings led to four unearned runs. I'd chalk the discrepancy up to random chance more than anything else.
   89. DL from MN Posted: November 08, 2021 at 01:03 PM (#6051894)
I continue to believe that both fWAR and bWAR unfairly penalize pitchers who get outs other than via a strikeout


That's fine as long as you don't try to have it both ways and argue that unearned runs shouldn't count against a pitcher either. Pitchers with higher K rates give up fewer unearned runs.
   90. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2021 at 01:22 PM (#6051898)

In 1965, Kaat pitched 18% of the Twins' innings and allowed 16% of their earned runs, but 41% of their unearned runs. This is one of those situations where a pitcher gets penalized by bWAR for playing in front of a good defense, despite that defense playing very poorly behind him. In my opinion, it makes single season bWAR practically unusable for pitchers, and for certain guys even career numbers can be pretty distorted.

fWAR relies completely on FIP rather than how many runs a guy's team actually allowed with him on the mound. Whether you like that approach is up to you. Fangraphs RA9-WAR uses the number of runs that a pitcher actually gave up, without any of the problematic adjustments that bWAR uses. As I mentioned earlier, RA9-WAR is what I prefer, but I could also see an argument for coming out somewhere between RA9-WAR and fWAR.

For Kaat:

bWAR - 45.2
RA9-WAR - 57.8
fWAR - 70.9

Seems borderline unless you fully buy into FIP.
   91. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 08, 2021 at 01:36 PM (#6051899)
Pitchers with higher K rates give up fewer unearned runs.

A wild pitch that leads to a run is counted as earned, but that seems to be only because the rules committee doesn't want to give the pitcher credit for his own mistake. But from the team at bat's POV, those runs don't seem particularly "earned", since they were merely the passive beneficiaries of the wild pitch, just as they are from passed balls and other errors that lead to unearned runs.

I bring this up only because lately I've seen many of those power pitchers with dynamite breaking stuff throw wild pitches for third strikes or with runners on third. Those resulting runs are all scored as earned, but in one way they sure don't seem like it.
   92. DL from MN Posted: November 08, 2021 at 02:54 PM (#6051909)
Assuming the extra 12.6 RA9 WAR also gets added to his WAA it would move my assessment of Jim Kaat way up. That would put him above the line.

Looking at the BBREF adjustments, his defensive adjustment is basically zero over his career. He loses the most in the leverage adjustment -3.5 WAR.

I'm not using either of those WAR for my assessment, I'm using a standard deviation adjusted WAR from Dan Rosenheck but it builds off of defensive adjusted ERA. I did notice that there is an undercount of his relief innings in my numbers.
   93. The Duke Posted: November 08, 2021 at 03:39 PM (#6051923)
Is it a zero sum game ? If Kaat gets more, some else gets less ?
   94. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 08, 2021 at 04:05 PM (#6051927)
In 1965, Kaat pitched 18% of the Twins' innings and allowed 16% of their earned runs, but 41% of their unearned runs. This is one of those situations where a pitcher gets penalized by bWAR for playing in front of a good defense, despite that defense playing very poorly behind him. In my opinion, it makes single season bWAR practically unusable for pitchers, and for certain guys even career numbers can be pretty distorted.

Allowing unearned runs isn't the only effect of good or bad defense. The Twins had a below average fielding percentage in '65 (.973 compared to .978 for the AL as a whole), but an above average DER (.724, second in the league, compared to a league average of .715).

That said, Kaat's BABIP allowed in '65 was .281 compared to a league average of .269, and a team average of .254. So it does look like the defense got worse results behind him. How much of that is actually poorer play from the fielders, how much is Kaat giving up harder-hit balls that year, and how much of it is random chance, I don't think is a question that can be reliably answered.
   95. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 08, 2021 at 04:10 PM (#6051929)
A wild pitch that leads to a run is counted as earned, but that seems to be only because the rules committee doesn't want to give the pitcher credit for his own mistake. But from the team at bat's POV, those runs don't seem particularly "earned", since they were merely the passive beneficiaries of the wild pitch, just as they are from passed balls and other errors that lead to unearned runs.

I'm not sure what your point is here? I have literally never heard anyone talk about how many earned vs. unearned runs a team scores, as an evaluation of that team's hitters. It's always talked about in terms of crediting runs allowed by the pitchers. Wild pitches are the pitcher's fault and therefore he gets the blame for them, which makes at least slightly more sense than the earned/unearned run dichotomy does as a whole.
   96. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 08, 2021 at 04:19 PM (#6051932)
21. 38. I dont understand the context of these numbers. What’s normal? And even if 21 is kinda normal how does an extra 17 tank his WAR so badly ?

For the sake of context, I pulled up my starting pitching gamelogs spreadsheet from 1965 (which is pulled from B-R's gamelogs, which will sometimes have slight discrepancies from the official totals). The top 5 pitchers in unearned runs allowed (in starts only because that's the data I have) in 1965:

Kaat 39
Don Drysdale 22
Bill Monbouquette 20
Jim Lonborg 20
Joe Horlen 18

So yeah, 38 (or 39) is a whole lot for the time. Checking nearby seasons, 38 would easily have led the league in '64 (Camilo Pascual and Dick Ellsworth tied with 22), and would have led slightly less easily in '66 (Ellsworth again with 30; Kaat's 21 put him in 4th).

The unearned runs also don't explain the entire ERA+ vs. WAR discrepancy; the team defensive adjustment (which you can take or leave) pulls some of that weight as well. It's just always worth keeping UER in mind when a WAR total seems off, especially for older pitchers who allowed a lot more of them.
   97. The Duke Posted: November 08, 2021 at 05:03 PM (#6051938)
So does the unearned runs thing explain the lions share of his career WAR differential? And if so, what about Jim Kaats pitching led to him giving up unearned runs? Luck? Can’t shake off an error ? Not a strikeout pitcher so more chances ?
   98. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 08, 2021 at 05:28 PM (#6051939)
So does the unearned runs thing explain the lions share of his career WAR differential? And if so, what about Jim Kaats pitching led to him giving up unearned runs? Luck? Can’t shake off an error ? Not a strikeout pitcher so more chances ?

His career unearned run percentage isn't THAT unusual; it was just particularly high in 1965. Kaat allowed exactly 300 UER in his career, just under 15% of his total runs (2038). Just going based on his first and last 200-inning seasons (1961 and 1976), league averages in those years were both just above 12%. If Kaat's percentage was the same, you would expect him to have allowed roughly 50 more earned runs over the course of his career (assuming the same total runs allowed), which would bump his ERA from 3.45 to 3.55.

As for explanations, Kaat was definitely a contact-oriented pitcher; he only had one top-10 finish in K/9, but finished in the top 10 in fewest BB/9 literally 13 times in 14 years from 1963-76 (the one miss being '72 when he didn't qualify for rate leaderboards). Not sure if he tended toward ground ball-heavy contact, but that also tends to drive up UER in relative terms (errors are more common on ground balls than on fly balls).

Apart from that, who knows? 50 runs over the course of a career as long as Kaat's could easily be random chance. It also definitely doesn't explain the WAR differences - RA9 WAR also includes unearned runs, and FIP WAR doesn't care how many actual runs of either type a pitcher allows.
   99. Jaack Posted: November 08, 2021 at 05:38 PM (#6051941)
One minor thing that will make Kaat look better by fWAR is that fangraphs gives a slightly higher percentage of WAR to pitchers than bWAR (43% vs 41%). Imperceptable for a single season, but for a guy with a long career like Kaat that will add up.
   100. SoSH U at work Posted: November 08, 2021 at 07:53 PM (#6051959)
95. I always thought of earned runs from the perspective of the offense. Obviously, no one really cares how many earned runs vs: unearned runs a team scores. It just seems more sensible definitionally (runs earned vs. runs allowed that the pitcher “earned” on his record).

And FWIW, I think it’s preferable. The idea that a run is earned on a WP but not a PB is kind of a ridiculous distinction when you realize most of both are some combination of pitcher and catcher mistake (or maybe Tim Wakefield’s catchers all got unsurehanded only when he was on the bump). I’d be fine with getting rid of the distinction altogether (though not errors - that’s nonsense), but if you have to have them, I’d rather all runs that scored because of a defensive miscue of any type fielding be treated the same.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTrevor Bauer’s defamation case against accuser’s former attorney could be thrown out
(23 - 11:58pm, Oct 01)
Last: baxter

NewsblogTo dream the impossible dream - and then decide it's time to let it go
(34 - 11:57pm, Oct 01)
Last: Hombre Brotani

NewsblogOT - October 2022 College Football thread
(47 - 11:30pm, Oct 01)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogWhy Major League Baseball needs to do a better job of appreciating regular season greatness
(60 - 11:14pm, Oct 01)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogAtlanta Braves sign RHP Charlie Morton to 1-year, $20 million deal for 2023
(2 - 11:07pm, Oct 01)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the week of September 26 - October 5, 2022
(164 - 11:06pm, Oct 01)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMets to call up No. 1 prospect in baseball
(20 - 9:56pm, Oct 01)
Last: cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - European Leages Return
(279 - 4:34pm, Oct 01)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2537 - 4:15pm, Oct 01)
Last: 57i66135 is a hard word for me.

NewsblogRoger Maris Jr. blasts MLB, says Aaron Judge’s potential 62nd home run should be single-season record
(83 - 4:03pm, Oct 01)
Last: willcarrolldoesnotsuk

NewsblogOrioles intend to sign new lease committing team to remaining in Baltimore, document says
(3 - 1:06pm, Oct 01)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Fred

Newsblog2022-23 Preseason NBA thread
(330 - 9:10pm, Sep 30)
Last: 57i66135 is a hard word for me.

Sox TherapyPredictions of Ridiculousness
(142 - 6:44pm, Sep 30)
Last: Darren

NewsblogThree impacts of baseball's new 12-team postseason format
(5 - 3:30pm, Sep 30)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMiami Marlins' Richard Bleier only pitcher since 1900 with 3 balks in same at-bat, gets tossed vs. Mets
(42 - 12:39pm, Sep 30)
Last: Ron J

Page rendered in 1.1629 seconds
45 querie(s) executed