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.

[Chadwick]

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.

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? 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.) 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? 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).