Did Catfish Hunter deserve induction?

[Jake]

Looking over his stats, they don't really seem to jump out at me as Hall of Fame worthy.

[Brad Harris]

Catfish Hunter was the Jack Morris of his day. Known as a big "winner", he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Had either pitched for last place teams, neither would be given much thought as candidates. Rather one is in and the other has a stubborn support system behind his candidacy.

[The Commissioner]

I have to disagree, his 5 straight 20+win seasons and the fact that he helped lead two different teams to 5 World Series titles has to be taken into consideration. True, it could be argued that he was possibly helped more by the teams he played on that he helped his teams, but we will never know. Had he never been elected, though, people would be arguing now about his being kept out of the Hall.

[leecemark]

--Hunter was the best pitcher on one of the best teams of all time - and it was a team which won primarily because of pitching. Maybe he wasn't significantly better than contemporaries like Tiant and Lolich (and Kaat and John or as good as Blyleven) who aren't in. He still isn't a bad selection. All those guys would be reasonable choices and Hunter makes it, at least partly, to represent those A's teams. Reggie Jackson was the only slam dunk Hall choice on those teams and 3 (with Fingers) for three World Championships isn't a bad ratio. Kind of how I feel about Tinker-Evers-Chance. Somebody won all those games and deserves credit for it.
--I'd group him with guys like Hoyt, Pennock, Ruffing and ahead of Haines, Marquard and Chesbro. He didn't last as long, but was defiantely as good (or better than) as Wynn and Sutton. He is a long way down the road, but he will get my BBF vote when the time comes.

[KHenry14]

I'm a little biased here, the Cat was a fave of mine during his A's glory days. With that said, he was the clear leader of that pitching staff that won 3 titles and he deserves a lot of credit for those wins. Plus, I don't think it's a coincidence that we he found himself as an accidental free agent, that the Yanks jumped at the chance to get him. Mark said it best, somebody won those games. Add in a perfect game to the mix and you have a special guy.

It's interesting to me that there is even a question about whether Catfish even deserves entry into the HOF. Before I came to this board I'd never heard of his entry being questioned. I understand the arguments against him, but I think a lot of the questions disregard the bad teams that he played on before 1971. He's one of those guys who never played a second of minor league ball, and his early career reflects that too.

With that said, I feel he easily qualifies for the HOF and I'm glad he made it in his lifetime.

KH14<--who saw Catfish pitch some games that were the equivalent of an artist working on a canvas. I always thought Orel Hersheiser pitched like him.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm a little biased here, the Cat was a fave of mine during his A's glory days. With that said, he was the clear leader of that pitching staff that won 3 titles and he deserves a lot of credit for those wins. Plus, I don't think it's a coincidence that we he found himself as an accidental free agent, that the Yanks jumped at the chance to get him. Mark said it best, somebody won those games. Add in a perfect game to the mix and you have a special guy.

It's interesting to me that there is even a question about whether Catfish even deserves entry into the HOF. Before I came to this board I'd never heard of his entry being questioned. I understand the arguments against him, but I think a lot of the questions disregard the bad teams that he played on before 1971. He's one of those guys who never played a second of minor league ball, and his early career reflects that too.

With that said, I feel he easily qualifies for the HOF and I'm glad he made it in his lifetime.

KH14<--who saw Catfish pitch some games that were the equivalent of an artist working on a canvas. I always thought Orel Hersheiser pitched like him.Maybe his 104 ERA+

[KHenry14]

I have no doubt that his numbers like ERA+ aren't very good. Catfish used to give up a lot of homeruns, like 39 in 1973, but that's partly a function of him being a control pitcher. Heck, he went 21-5 with 3 shutouts in 1973 too, so it doesn't look like things like ERA+ hurt his performance too much. :D

KH14<---who's posting a quote from Steinbrenner for the first time in his life:

"Catfish Hunter brought respectability to the Yankees. Without him, we would never have been world champs. If he never pitches another ball, he has been worth every cent." - New York Yankees Owner George Steinbrenner

[HDH]

Catfish was a very good pitcher in a special era where there were many good pitchers. There was Jim Kaat, Jim and Gaylord Perry, Mickey Lolich, Jim Palmer, Wilbur Wood pitching every 2-3 days, Luis Tiant, Nolan Ryan, Vida Blue, and later Bert Blyleven in the AL. There was Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Tommy John, Don Sutton, and Phil Niekro in the NL. The most parity at any time; almost every game paired pitching giants. However, if I had a voting share, he would not have had my vote. I remember Hunter's career was cut short dueo a shoulder tear in the middle of the 1976 season. My HOF is stricter than the one in Cooperstown. The only pitchers I would have would be Carlton, Gibson, Seaver, and Ryan.

[The Commissioner]

My HOF is stricter than the one in Cooperstown. The only pitchers I would have would be Carlton, Gibson, Seaver, and Ryan.

Not even Palmer from that era qualifies in your H.O.F.?

[Aegis]

Maybe his 104 ERA+

This is something I mentioned in another thread; I like ERA+ a lot as a stat, but it doesn't always give you the quick-and-easy summary that it's otherwise capable of.

[Catfish27]

--Hunter was the best pitcher on one of the best teams of all time - and it was a team which won primarily because of pitching.
Excellent point! The Oakland A's of the early '70s and Yankees of the mid to late '70s weren't exactly the Big Red Machine in terms of offensive production. Most would argue that the Reds that had Bench, Morgan, Concepcion, and Geronimo in the center of the diamond were much better defensively as well.

Another factor that many people overlook is that when Catfish joined the Kansas City A's at the age of 19, the A's were best known for providing the Yankees with some of the talent that fueled their success through the '50s and early '60s--Roger Maris, Bobby Shantz, Clete Boyer, Ryne Duren, Ralph Terry, Hector Lopez to name a few--rather than winning championships.

Not that he was necessarily a better pitcher than Jim Palmer, but I wonder how many more games Catfish would have won if he'd began his career with the Orioles rather than the A's. The Orioles of those years were outstanding in the 3 major facets of the the game: pitching, offense, and defense.

KC/Oakland
1965 59-103
1966 74-86
1967 62-99
1968 82-80
1969 88-74
1970 89-73

Baltimore
1965 94-68
1966 97-63
1967 76-85
1968 91-71
1969 109-53
1970 108-54

It wasn't until 1971 when both teams won over 100 games and met in the playoffs that the teams reached a level of parity. Of course it could be argued that at 19 years of age Hunter may not have even made the major league squad if he'd been in the Baltimore organization. (Palmer is only 6 months older than Hunter; reach your own conclusions.)

Like Hunter, Palmer debuted in 1965. Palmer won 15 games with the champion Orioles in 1966, but only pitched 92 innings in 1965, 49 in 1967, and 0 in 1968. Meanwhile, Catfish was a workhorse pitching 133, 177, 260, 234, 247, and 262. There are those that think that pitching so many innings at a young age, and possibly the 328 innings with 30 complete games pitched in 1975 with the Yankees, contributed to the arm problems that plagued him during the last 3 years of his career that ended at age 33.

Catfish was elected based on the dominance he demonstrated during is prime years, 1970-1977, and his success in post season play rather than a long career filled with statistical milestones by someone like Nolan Ryan. The fact that he was a great guy, well-liked by fans, teammates, and the press didn't hurt his electibility, either.

I don't think it's a question of whether Catfish belongs in the Hall, I seriously doubt that anyne who played with or against him would argue that, it's a question of whether some of his contemporaries--Bert Blyleven, Tommy John, Mickely Lolich, Luis Tiant--do as well.

[RuthMayBond]

Excellent point! The Oakland A's of the early '70s and Yankees of the mid to late '70s weren't exactly the Big Red Machine in terms of offensive production.

Catfish was elected based on the dominance he demonstrated during is prime years, 1970-1977, and his success in post season play rather than a long career filled with statistical milestones by someone like Nolan Ryan.

I don't think it's a question of whether Catfish belongs in the Hall, I seriously doubt that anyne who played with or against him would argue that, it's a question of whether some of his contemporaries--Bert Blyleven, Tommy John, Mickely Lolich, Luis Tiant--do as well.1) The 76 & 77 Yanks led their league in adjusted Batter Runs. The 72 & 73 A's were one short of leading their league in adjusted Batter Runs.

2) Hunter wasn't that dominant in '70 or '76 or '77 (or even '73). He must have got a LOT of run support. In 70, he had a 3.81 ERA two years removed from the lowest offensive time in probably fifty years.

3) If there's a question of whether Blyleven or HUnter belongs, check the non-support Blyleven got. Bert was better

[J W]

Catfish used to give up a lot of homeruns, like 39 in 1973, but that's partly a function of him being a control pitcher.

Eh? :confused: If a control pitcher is on his game, I would think he'd give up less HRs than a power pitcher on his game. Maybe I've got things backwards.

[Catfish27]

1) The 76 & 77 Yanks led their league in adjusted Batter Runs. The 72 & 73 A's were one short of leading their league in adjusted Batter Runs.

2) Hunter wasn't that dominant in '70 or '76 or '77 (or even '73). He must have got a LOT of run support. In 70, he had a 3.81 ERA two years removed from the lowest offensive time in probably fifty years.

3) If there's a question of whether Blyleven or HUnter belongs, check the non-support Blyleven got. Bert was better
1. I don’t know what Adjusted Batter Runs are so I cannot comment on that.

2. a. Well, I guess that's how you define "dominant". I meant the entire period, not individually dominant years. I probably should have narrowed it to 1971-1975 when Catfish won 21 or more games each season.

b. I'll admit that his 1973 ERA of 3.34 is on the high side, and that is largely attributable to the 39 HR he allowed that year. However, his won-loss record of 21-5, despite missing nearly a month after he fractured his right thumb fielding a ground ball off the artificial turf in Kansas City during the All-Star game, is very impressive. He also managed to pitch 256 innings in 36 starts, 11 of them complete games, despite the injury.

If Catfish was a couple of runs ahead, he didn't care if he gave up a solo homerun. His main concern was to throw strikes so he could go deeper in the game and save some wear and tear on the bullpen. The Oakland Raiders had a motto, "Just win baby!" I think the baseball team with whom they shared the Coliseum had very much the same motto.

Did he receive a lot of run support that year? I suppose he did on occasion, but of the five games where he allowed 5 or more earned runs (he never allowed more than 6 in any game) he was only 2-2 with one no decision. One of the wins was a 6-5 victory over Gaylord Perry and the Cleveland Indians in which he pitched 9 innings. The other was a 11-8 win over Rudy May and the California Angels; Catfish allowed 6 runs in 6 1/3 innings but the bullpen didn’t have much success, either, allowing 2 runs in 2 2/3 innings.

The A’s scored a total of 10 runs in his 5 losses. (I’m not certain how many of those runs were scored while Catfish was still in the game.) Looking over the scores and his peformance in his 10 no decisions, in two of which he didn't allow a run, I'd say he probably would have been 5-5 or maybe 6-4. Would 26-10 be categorized as dominant?

Catfish got off to a slow start in 1973 with one loss and 4 no decisions in his first five starts, and after his start on May 29th he was only 5-3. He finished with a flurry, however. After May he went 16-2, his only losses coming on August 9th in a 5-3 loss to Jim Bibby of the Texas Rangers (Bibby had no-hit the A’s on July 30th) and 4-1 to Bert Blyleven and the Minnesota Twins.

Of course Catfish was at his finest in the post season. He beat Dave McNally 6-3 in game #2 of the ALCS and Doyle Alexander 3-0 in the deciding game #5. The A’s won 3-2 in game #3 of the World Series against Tom Seaver but Catfish had a no decision after allowing only 2 runs in 6 innings. With the A’s down 3 games to 2 and the Series on the line, Catfish outpitched Seaver 3-1.

Was 1973 a dominant season for Catfish? From June through October it most certainly was.

c. 1970 was only two seasons removed from 1968, true, but the lgERA was 2.83 in 1968 compared to 3.53 in 1970. (Source baseball-reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com).) Those knowledgeable in baseball history know that MLB lowered the height of the mound from 15” to 10” after 1968, the so-called “Year of the Pitcher”, to increase offense. The American League took it a step further in 1973 by adding the Designated Hitter.

3. Bert Blyleven was good, often very good, for a long period of time. I recall he was particularly known for his curveball. His candidacy suffers, however, from having won 20 games only once.

Overall, his career won-loss percentage at 287-250 isn’t very impressive. Is that attributable to playing for some lackluster teams? I’m not certain what his teams’ overall won-loss pct. was during Blyleven’s career, but I do know that he was only 12-5 in 37 starts (20 no decisions!) with the champion Pirates in 1979. That’s probably attributable to the fact he only completed 4 games. Blyleven’s post season record is pretty good, though. He was 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA in 8 starts with Pittsburgh (1979) and Minnesota (1970, 1987).

Was Blyleven better? He certainly had a longer career, but he never demonstated a 5-year period of dominance the way that Catfish did.

[Catfish27]

Eh? :confused: If a control pitcher is on his game, I would think he'd give up less HRs than a power pitcher on his game. Maybe I've got things backwards.
I'm afraid you do have it backwards. If a batter is certain a pitcher is around the plate, he knows he can stand in there with relative confidence that the pitch will be around the strike zone. On the other hand if the pitcher is a bit wild, as power pitchers tend to be, he's not going to be quite as comfortable or able to guess where the pitch might be located.

Consider Nolan Ryan, the ultimate power pitcher. Ryan struck out a lot, walked a lot, and yielded very few home runs. Ryan yielded only 321 HR in 5386 IP (0.54 per 9 IP) and never more than 20 in a single season. Remember Mitch "Wild Thing" Williams? His career wasn't nearly as distinguished as Ryan's, yet allowed only 49 HR in 691 1/3 IP (0.64 per 9).

Catfish, on the other hand, allowed 374 HR in 3449 1/3 IP (0.98 per 9) while Fergie Jenkins, a contemporary control pitcher with whom Catfish was most often compared during his career, allowed 484 HR in 4500 2/3 IP (0.97 per 9).

[ElHalo]

--I'd group him with guys like Hoyt, Pennock, Ruffing and ahead of Haines, Marquard and Chesbro. He didn't last as long, but was defiantely as good (or better than) as Wynn and Sutton. He is a long way down the road, but he will get my BBF vote when the time comes.

I'd certainly rank Haines, Marquard, and Chesbro at the bottom (though I do feel Chesbro actualy belongs, because I'm a sucker for the big season), with Pennock, Hoyt and (I'd say) Gomez as guys who are in because of their great teams... but I've always thought of Ruffing as about an average HoF'er.
In my view, Ruffing and Ford (and Rivera, in the future) are the only Yankee pitchers who truly deserve Hall status.

[RuthMayBond]

Was Blyleven better? He certainly had a longer career, but he never demonstated a 5-year period of dominance the way that Catfish did.If Hall membership should be based upon a 5-year period

[ElHalo]

If Hall membership should be based upon a 5-year period

As it rightly should.

[Catfish27]

If Hall membership should be based upon a 5-year period
Obviously Hall of Fame election is based on more than just a 5-year period. The requirement is a career of 10 years or longer. (See the Rules for Election (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers%5Fand%5Fhonorees/rules.htm).

If people don't think Catfish deserves election, they're entitled to their opinion. However, the votes that count--75% or more of the eligible members of the BBWA in 1986--felt that he did. :D

[RuthMayBond]

If people don't think Catfish deserves election, they're entitled to their opinion. However, the votes that count--75% or more of the eligible members of the BBWA in 1986--felt that he did. :DThankfully, the committee has never made any mistakes :laugh

[mac195]

Catfish Hunter was the Jack Morris of his day. Known as a big "winner", he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Had either pitched for last place teams, neither would be given much thought as candidates. Rather one is in and the other has a stubborn support system behind his candidacy.

I agree. Hunter's Oakland teams were very good, offensively and especially on defense. Look at the numbers from 1973:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt//1973OAK-A.shtml

Hunter cannot take credit for that. Had he played on mediocre teams, his career winning % would also have been mediocre, and he would never have gotten much support for the HOF.

[Freakshow]

For the defenders of Hunter I have two challenges:

1. Show me one year when he was the best player for a division champ.

2. Show me one season when he was the league's best pitcher.

[Catfish27]

For the defenders of Hunter I have two challenges:

1. Show me one year when he was the best player for a division champ.
Since when does a pitcher have to be the best player on a division-winning club to be considered a Hall of Famer? :confused:

Since 1956 when the Cy Young Award was created--it’s been awarded in both leagues since 1967--Sandy Koufax (1963, 1965, 1966) and Bob Gibson (1968) are the only starting pitchers to have won the MVP and Cy Young Awards in the same season for pennant-winning clubs and later been elected to the Hall of Fame. Rollie Fingers (1981) and Dennis Eckersley (1992) both qualify but they're relief pitchers.

Roger Clemens, 1986 AL MVP and Cy Young on the pennant-winning Boston Red Sox, is a lock for the HOF unless he were to be banned from baseball ala Pete Rose. Even so, he had strong support from Jim Rice (#3 in MVP voting) and Wade Boggs (only #7 despite leading the league in Batting Avg., On-Base %, Hits, Base on Balls, and being 5th in Runs Scored.)

Don Newcombe was league MVP and Cy Young in 1956 but he isn't in the Hall, nor are Denny McClain (1968), Vida Blue (1971), or Willie Hernandez (1984); Hernandez was a relief pitcher. Ron Guidry came very close (1978 Cy Young, #2 in MVP voting). All were on pennant-winning clubs.

Jim Palmer (1973 Cy Young, #2 in MVP voting behind Oakland's Reggie Jackson) was on a division winner, so he could be considered a pitcher who was a divison-winning team’s best player, although his team did not win the pennant. While the 1973 Orioles (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1973.shtml) lacked a single outstanding player besides Palmer, they did have very strong starting (Mike Cuellar, Dave McNally) and relief pitching (Grant Jackson, Bob Reynolds, Eddie Watt), defense (Brooks Robinson, Mark Belanger, Bobby Grich, Paul Blair), and a solid core of players up and down the lineup (Rich Coggins, Tommy Davis, and Al Bumbry put up the best offensive numbers).

Naturally, a division-winning team does not when on the strength of a single pitcher. If that were the case, the Phillies would have handily won the pennant behind Steve Carlton's outstanding performance (27-10, 1.97 ERA, 30 CG) in 1972. Instead they finished in the cellar.

What about Hall of Fame pitchers who don’t fit this description?

With teammates like Yogi Berra (1951, '54 & '55 MVP), Mickey Mantle (1956-57 MVP), Roger Maris (1960-61 MVP), and Elston Howard (1963 MVP), I don't think Whitey Ford (1961 Cy Young) was ever the best player on one of his many pennant-winning Yankee teams. In 1958 Ford wasn't even the best pitcher on the Yankees, Bob Turley was. In 1964 Ford finished well behind in the MVP voting (#21) to Mantle (#2), Elston Howard (#3) and Bobby Richardson (#17).

Warren Spahn (1957 Cy Young) finished behind Hank Aaron (1957 MVP, #3 in MVP voting in 1958 to Spahn's #5).

Don Drysdale (1962 Cy Young) was out voted by Maury Wills (1962 MVP), and in other years by Sandy Koufax (1963, 1965, 1966 MVP).

Even on the hitting-weak Go-Go Sox of 1959 Early Wynn (Cy Young) was out voted by Nellie Fox (MVP).

How does Catfish compare?

Catfish played on 7 division winners, 1971-74 & 1976-78, but with players like Vida Blue (1971 Cy Young and MVP), Joe Rudi (#2 in MVP voting in both 1972 and 1974), Reggie Jackson (1973 MVP), Sal Bando (#3 in MVP voting in 1974), and Thurman Munson (1976 MVP) there was always a teammate who received more MVP votes than he. Catfish was #6 in MVP voting in 1974, and #10 in 1973 despite the injury mentioned in an earlier post.

Catfish's performance had started to tail off by 1977 when the Yankees had four players in the top 10 MVP candidates (Graig Nettles, Sparky Lyle, Thurman Munson, and Reggie Jackson). The Yankees finished 3rd in 1975 when Catfish won 23 games, but Munson finished #7 in the voting while Catfish was voted #12.


2. Show me one season when he was the league's best pitcher.
Catfish was the AL Cy Young Award winner in 1974 when he led AL in wins, ERA, BB+H/9 IP, and was in the top 10 for several other statistical categories.


If you guys are trying to get me to flex my research skills, you're doing one heck of a job! :D

[pacewon]

Catfish was the AL Cy Young Award winner in 1974 when he led AL in wins, ERA, BB+H/9 IP, and was in the top 10 for several other statistical categories.


But he didn't ask when Catfish won a Cy Young, he asked when Catfish was the best pitcher in his league. In 1974, Gaylord Perry had a higher ERA+ than Hunter, threw more innings, allowed fewer hits, struck more batters out, had a higher K/9, and completed more games.

[Freakshow]

Since when does a pitcher have to be the best player on a division-winning club to be considered a Hall of Famer? :confused:


Good research. But the challenge remains, since your conclusion agrees with mine, that Hunter never was the best player for a division champ.

In the case of a short-career player like Hunter it's vital to his argument to show a period of dominance, of extremely high value. One simple measure of this is Did he ever lead his team to a championship. Hunter never did. Again, it supports the notion that those impressive W-L records were a natural by-product of having a great supporting cast.

Among the pitchers you cite, Drysdale is the only one whom you would need to ask this question of, since the others had longer careers and are clearly superior to Hunter. Like Hunter, Drysdale has frequently been challenged as to whether he belongs in the Hall.

As for being the league's best pitcher, pacewon is exactly right. 1974 is one of those years when the Cy Young voters clearly got it wrong.

[RuthMayBond]

If Catfish was a couple of runs ahead, he didn't care if he gave up a solo homerun. His main concern was to throw strikes so he could go deeper in the game and save some wear and tear on the bullpen.You sound like it was a bad bullpen. First he had Fingers, Lindblad and Knowles. Then starting in '75 he had Lyle and Tidrow and then Gossage. I should be so unlucky

[RuthMayBond]

As ElHalo likes to do, let's talk about peak. Hunter never had a peak ERA+ better than 141. He only had three years better than 114 :eek:

[ElHalo]

As ElHalo likes to do, let's talk about peak. Hunter never had a peak ERA+ better than 141. He only had three years better than 114 :eek:

You'll never hear me call Hunter a deserving HoF'er.

[mac195]

As ElHalo likes to do, let's talk about peak. Hunter never had a peak ERA+ better than 141. He only had three years better than 114 :eek:
Going by ERA+ is actually being too generous with Hunter because it doesn't take the superior defenses he had into account. Put him on a merely average defensive team for his career, and his ERA+ probably would have been under 100.

[KHenry14]

For the final word on this we need a quote from one of the finest baseball minds to ever manage a team Morris Buttermaker


(to Amanda) "Who do you think you are? Catfish Hunter?

If Buttermaker thought Catfish was great, who are we to argue?? :D

KH14

[ElHalo]

In fairness to Catfish, he does rank eighth among all post-deadballers in WHIP. The seven guys ahead of him:

Pedro Martinez
Juan Marichal
Sandy Koufax
Tom Seaver
Hoyt Wilhelm
Greg Maddux
Curt Schilling

[RuthMayBond]

In fairness to Catfish, he does rank eighth among all post-deadballers in WHIP. The seven guys ahead of him:

Pedro Martinez
Juan Marichal
Sandy Koufax
Tom Seaver
Hoyt Wilhelm
Greg Maddux
Curt SchillingBut you win games with runs, and Catfish must have given up some long hits

[Freakshow]

But you win games with runs, and Catfish must have given up some long hits
Exactly right. Despite enjoying home parks that were favorable to pitchers, Hunter had the highest HR rate of any long-career pitcher of his era.

Most HR per 9 innings, 1965-79, minimum 1800 IP:

.98 Catfish Hunter (3449)
.97 Fergie Jenkins (3812)
.93 Marty Pattin (1949)
.91 Steve Renko (1949)
.91 Luis Tiant (3136)
.87 Ross Grimsley (1862)
.85 Jim Slaton (1896)
.85 Jim Lonborg (2464)
.85 Mickey Lolich (3264)
.84 Pat Dobson (2119)

[RuthMayBond]

Exactly right. Despite enjoying home parks that were favorable to pitchers, Hunter had the highest HR rate of any long-career pitcher of his era.

Most HR per 9 innings, 1965-79, minimum 1800 IP:

.98 Catfish Hunter (3449)
.97 Fergie Jenkins (3812)
.93 Marty Pattin (1949)
.91 Steve Renko (1949)
.91 Luis Tiant (3136)
.87 Ross Grimsley (1862)
.85 Jim Slaton (1896)
.85 Jim Lonborg (2464)
.85 Mickey Lolich (3264)
.84 Pat Dobson (2119)surprising that a dumb stathead like me would have guessed that. That's why I use WHIP but it can be tricky

[rich]

What exactly is the point with the grouping of the top 10 pitchers in giving up homers per 9 innings? It's like saying an NBA team gives up the most dunks. A dunk is worth 2 points, same as a lay up. A HR is obviously worth 1 run. By the way, this group who gives up all these big flies was a COMBINED 222 games OVER .500!

[Freakshow]

What exactly is the point with the grouping of the top 10 pitchers in giving up homers per 9 innings? It's like saying an NBA team gives up the most dunks. A dunk is worth 2 points, same as a lay up. A HR is obviously worth 1 run. By the way, this group who gives up all these big flies was a COMBINED 222 games OVER .500!
Follow the discussion. A listing of pitchers leading in WHIP was presented to show us that Catfish Hunter was an elite pitcher. A consideration of the whole picture may lead to other conclusions. Part of this picture is how often batters went deep on him.

The analogy is to look at the list of batters leading in OBP (the mirror stat for WHIP). Mark Hargrove had a .396 OBP but this does not make him an elite player. Likewise, a low HR rate doesn't preclude a player from being a superstar and an effective offensive player (e.g. Ashburn).

So, Hunter looks great by WHIP, but his high HR rate tends to counteract this. That's the point.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Obviously Hall of Fame election is based on more than just a 5-year period. The requirement is a career of 10 years or longer. (See the Rules for Election (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers%5Fand%5Fhonorees/rules.htm).

If people don't think Catfish deserves election, they're entitled to their opinion. However, the votes that count--75% or more of the eligible members of the BBWA in 1986--felt that he did. :D

The HOF is biased toward pitchers that had multiple big seasons, and Catfish had those. (I think that's a wise bias, too; despite outward similarity in career totals, Don Drysdale was better than Milt Pappas, an example Bill James has pointed out.) He was an extreme control pitcher who threw strikes. He won 20 games five times in a row. But he did more than that.

Catfish Hunter was pitching in the major leagues, racking up an 8-8 record, at age 19. At 22, he threw a perfect game. Catfish Hunter was a major league pitcher at a very young age, and survived six years with an extremely confused A's organization (before Dick Williams came along) to develop into a star pitcher.

I can think of few pitchers with five 20 win seasons in modern baseball history who are NOT in the HOF. In fact, I can't think of any. I can think of NO pitcher with the kind of accoutrements to the kind of career Hunter had (perfect game, Cy Young Award) that is not in the HOF. Hunter is a highest common denominator case; not an absolute one, but few pitchers who did what he did are outside the HOF.

[538280]

I can think of few pitchers with five 20 win seasons in modern baseball history who are NOT in the HOF. In fact, I can't think of any. I can think of NO pitcher with the kind of accoutrements to the kind of career Hunter had (perfect game, Cy Young Award) that is not in the HOF. Hunter is a highest common denominator case; not an absolute one, but few pitchers who did what he did are outside the HOF.

The perfect game is nice, but that doesn't get you into the HOF. That's only one game. The Cy Young is nice too, but lots of pitchers nowhere near the HOF have won the Cy Young. And Catfish probably didn't deserve that anyway, he won a lot of games that year which probably blinded the writers, who always place a ton of stock in wins. They shouldn't. Wins are almost entirely team dependant, and the case of Catfish Hunter is a perfect one. His career ERA was only 4% above average, yet his winning percentage was .574. I think that's a clear case of a pitcher getting great run support, and Catfish certainly did pitch for great teams (A's and later Yankees dynasty).

Also, he pitched for great teams with very good defenses behind him, so likely if you adjust for the defenses behind him a bit his ERAs very well may come out below average. BP has his DERA at 4.42. I'm not sure if that's below average or not, but either way I'm sure that it's not a HOF type number.

He had big seasons? He had big seasons in wins, that's it. His best ERA+ are 141, 140, 134, after that he had no season above 112. He had many seasons when his ERA was below league average. However, thanks to his run support, he was still almost winning 20 games in many of those seasons.

Basically, Hunter was a pitcher whose whole reputation for being great came almost entirely from his teammates. When you try to get a handle on what Catfish alone did, you find that is wasn't all that much. He shouldn't be in the HOF.

[soberdennis]

If Hall membership should be based upon a 5-year period
If it is not, then Sandy Koufax would never have gotten in. Hunter's career was longer than Koufax's. They both had a 5 year span wear they were the dominant pitcher in the game. But Hunter was actually better than Koufax early in his career. ( The early Koufax, not the Koufax of 1965-66)
I have no problem with either of these great pitchers being in the HOF.

[Yankwood]

Once again, I'll have to point out that Catfish didn't care about his ERA. Don't get lost in those numbers. With a good sized lead Catfish was smart. "I was just throwin' strikes" he used to say. Consequently, he gave up the home run or two when leading late in games. Put him in close low scoring games and you know why he used to win a lot, and why he deserves to be in the Hall. If you'd seen him, you would know what I meant.

[soberdennis]

Once again, I'll have to point out that Catfish didn't care about his ERA. Don't get lost in those numbers. With a good sized lead Catfish was smart. "I was just throwin' strikes" he used to say. Consequently, he gave up the home run or two when leading late in games. Put him in close low scoring games and you know why he used to win a lot, and why he deserves to be in the Hall. If you'd seen him, you would know what I meant.
Robin Roberts gave up more Homers than anyone. he is in the HOF. Considering the teams he played for, I think Roberts deserves to be there.

[Yankwood]

Robin Roberts gave up more Homers than anyone. he is in the HOF. Considering the teams he played for, I think Roberts deserves to be there.He also pitched 300+ innings a season. Robin Roberts was tougher than a nickel steak.

[538280]

Once again, I'll have to point out that Catfish didn't care about his ERA. Don't get lost in those numbers. With a good sized lead Catfish was smart. "I was just throwin' strikes" he used to say. Consequently, he gave up the home run or two when leading late in games. Put him in close low scoring games and you know why he used to win a lot, and why he deserves to be in the Hall. If you'd seen him, you would know what I meant.

He didn't care about his ERA? So, he didn't care about allowing runs? I understand some pitchers take a bit off their fastball in certain parts of the game, but I'm sure Catfish would have been smarter to not throw a pitch that might possibly be a HR.

Anyway, even his independant (not wins) peripheral stats (outside of ERA) aren't very good, and they certainly aren't HOF caliber.

[Yankwood]

He didn't care about his ERA? So, he didn't care about allowing runs? I understand some pitchers take a bit off their fastball in certain parts of the game, but I'm sure Catfish would have been smarter to not throw a pitch that might possibly be a HR.

Anyway, even his independant (not wins) peripheral stats (outside of ERA) aren't very good, and they certainly aren't HOF caliber.I understand that your experience is somewhat limited but when a seasoned pitcher is given a 3 or 4 run lead, rather than playing around, trying to pick spots and hit corners and maybe walk a couple guys, he was basically "throwin' strikes". And I could go through what I said all over again but I won't. And I don't know much about "independant peripheral stats" or whatever but I know Catfish knew how to not let a game get away while he sealed the deal on a win. ;)

[RuthMayBond]

112% of average run support didn't hurt either

[125osprey]

from Catfish27:

Remember Mitch "Wild Thing" Williams? His career wasn't nearly as distinguished as Ryan's, yet allowed only 49 HR in 691 1/3 IP (0.64 per 9).

Yes, I remember Mitch.

[Matthew C.]

If you are a pitcher that doesn't walk many, strikes out a lot of batters, and can prevent some balls in play from being hits (if you believe that sort of thing like me), then you can give up more homeruns than the average pitcher and still be very good. For guys like Curt Schilling, Bert Blyleven and Fergie Jenkins you can still be great if you are good enough at preventing guys to reach base and score the other ways mentioned.

If you are not great at striking out guys, walk too many batters, and get singled to death all over the place, if you give up a lot of dingers too, you are going to suck.

If you have slightly above average walk and K rates, but are way above average not giving up homeruns, you can also be a great pitcher.

Hunter had good walk rates, decent K rates, very good BIP BA rates, and a horrible HR/9 inning rate. That is why he was statsiticaly a slightly above average pitcher with an ERA+ at only 4% better than the league average. If he didn't give up homeruns at the rate he did, with the team he had behind him, Hunter would have been phenomenal.

Take any pitcher's ERA+, and you can search and find out why it is what it is. Why does a guy with such a great WHIP have such an average ERA+ at 104? Could it be the massive amount of homeruns and extrabase hits given up? Hmmmmmmm? Why do guys like Lefty Grove and Tom Glavine with WHIPs around 1.30 have ERA+'s over 120? Could it be the great homerun and extrabase hit rates? Hmmmmmm.

Yes Robin Roberts is a Hall of Famer even though he gave up all of the homeruns. Why? He didn't allow nearly as many runs as the normal pitcher during his innings-filled career. No, Hunter does not deserve election because he gave up almost as many runs as the average pitcher of the era (with a great defense behind him in a pitcher's park). How they gave up their runs is irrelevent to me.

By the way, don't underestimate the cummulative importance of wild pitches, hit batsmen, balks, and holding runners, things not described by WHIP. These little "secondary" bases add up to a lot over the course of a season or career.

[Gee Walker]

Beautiful picture, 125osprey.

I just did a rough and dirty coverage of the 1973 season when Catfish went 21-5, to see if he was just "throwin' strikes" at the end of the game. A pitcher shouldn't be penalized for giving up late runs that don't affect the outcome of the game, in my opinion.

I set up standards as such: if the A's were ahead by 4 or more runs in the 6th inning or later, and Catfish was still pitching, how many of these harmless runs did he give up? A four run lead in the sixth is by no means a safe lead, but a good pitcher should always be able to hold it.

Catfish never blew any of his big leads that year.

On May 5, he gave up two runs to the Indians in the 9th.
On June 6, he gave up 1 run to the Brewers in the 7th.
On June 23, he gave up 1 run to the White Sox in the 6th.
On July 6th, he gave up 2 runs to the Orioles, both in the 6th and 7th.
On August 28th, he gave up one run to the Red Sox in the 8th.
On September 22nd, he gave up 2 runs to the White Sox in the 8th.

Removing these 11 runs (all assumed to be earned...) from his record, his ERA would drop from 3.34 to 2.95. His actions cost his team NO games.

The "throwing strikes" theory gets mixed reviews for this year. If he was deliberately trying to shorten the game, his strategy worked out. But it didn't send his ERA into Tom Seaver territory when you take those runs out, either.

[Matthew C.]

Beautiful picture, 125osprey.

I just did a rough and dirty coverage of the 1973 season when Catfish went 21-5, to see if he was just "throwin' strikes" at the end of the game. A pitcher shouldn't be penalized for giving up late runs that don't affect the outcome of the game, in my opinion.

I set up standards as such: if the A's were ahead by 4 or more runs in the 6th inning or later, and Catfish was still pitching, how many of these harmless runs did he give up? A four run lead in the sixth is by no means a safe lead, but a good pitcher should always be able to hold it.

Catfish never blew any of his big leads that year.

On May 5, he gave up two runs to the Indians in the 9th.
On June 6, he gave up 1 run to the Brewers in the 7th.
On June 23, he gave up 1 run to the White Sox in the 6th.
On July 6th, he gave up 2 runs to the Orioles, both in the 6th and 7th.
On August 28th, he gave up one run to the Red Sox in the 8th.
On September 22nd, he gave up 2 runs to the White Sox in the 8th.

Removing these 11 runs (all assumed to be earned...) from his record, his ERA would drop from 3.34 to 2.95. His actions cost his team NO games.

The "throwing strikes" theory gets mixed reviews for this year. If he was deliberately trying to shorten the game, his strategy worked out. But it didn't send his ERA into Tom Seaver territory when you take those runs out, either.

It depends on how close the games were. If the A's had a 4 run lead and Hunter gave up 2 runs, like on three of the games listed, then all of a sudden the opposing team was only 2 runs behind. Hunter's homerun tendencies could have cost him several of games that were well in hand without the homeruns.

[Yankwood]

I'll be the first guy to agree with anyone here that won-lost record doesn't mean everything. However, here's a real simple test for all the guys who think that won-lost record means nothing. Show me all the all time great starting pitchers who have losing lifetime records. My guess is, it's a pretty short list.

[Matthew C.]

I'll be the first guy to agree with anyone here that won-lost record doesn't mean everything. However, here's a real simple test for all the guys who think that won-lost record means nothing. Show me all the all time great starting pitchers who have losing lifetime records. My guess is, it's a pretty short list.

Hey, despite my questions about Hunter, I agree. I have always brought up the high correlation between pitchers having a lot of wins, and having good rate stats. I have also contended that if a player has a lot of wins, there is a logical explanation of it, and randum luck is not as big of a factor in win totals as many think. However, team defense, run support, and playing in a pitcher's park is one of the things that can help determine the number of wins a pitcher has. Hunter benefited from these factors. And it wasn't even like Hunter had a great winning % or anything. Despite the teams around him and the park he played with in Oakland, his career winning% is what, .560 - .570% or so? I don't think Hunter's win totals or winning% is what Hunter fans should be pointing out when making their case.

[Naliamegod]

I understand that your experience is somewhat limited but when a seasoned pitcher is given a 3 or 4 run lead, rather than playing around, trying to pick spots and hit corners and maybe walk a couple guys, he was basically "throwin' strikes". And I could go through what I said all over again but I won't. And I don't know much about "independant peripheral stats" or whatever but I know Catfish knew how to not let a game get away while he sealed the deal on a win. ;)

How does this justify his low ERA+? There are other pitchers who got big leads and probably eased up a bit but still had higher ERA+.

[538280]

And I don't know much about "independant peripheral stats" or whatever but I know Catfish knew how to not let a game get away while he sealed the deal on a win. ;)

And he "didn't let the game get away" by giving up a HR??? I'm sorry, I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand how that is supposed to defend his very low ERA+.

[Yankwood]

And he "didn't let the game get away" by giving up a HR??? I'm sorry, I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand how that is supposed to defend his very low ERA+.Well, I tried twice. That's enough.

[yankillaz]

If Catfish Hunter is in, there are several pitchers that also deserve the induction. Let's see how those fare.