His lack of a Cy Young hurts, but if baseball had an award for each league in 1966, he probably would have won it. The award was given to Koufax that year.
What do you think, yes or no?
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
Kitty played in a era where teams went with four-man rotations and starters regularly threw 250+ innings a year. Kaat ddid it just seven times in his 25 years.
1966 was, by far, Kaat's best year; he won 25 games and threw almost 305 innings yet a guy names Koufax won the Cy Young Award. Koufax played just 12 years and topped 250 innings in a season four times.
Other Hall of Fame hurlers from Kaat's era include Fergie Jenkins, who had nine consecutive seasons of at least 270 innings pitched and 10 overall in which he tossed at least 250; Tom Seaver, 10 seasons of at least 250 innings pitched; Bert Blyleven, nine seasons of 250+ innings pitched; and Bob Gibson and Jim Palmer, eight seasons of 250+ innings pitched.
All of these pitchers played fewer seasons than Kaat. And Kaat was never considered the "ace" of his staff like those HoF pitchers were.
Kaat won 283 games in 25 seasons. That works out to just over 11 wins a year. That's a total worthy of the Hall of Very Good, not the Hall of Fame.
jim h
Agreed Kaat definitely has the stats to be in the HOF.
curtisports2
No. He went a mediocre 48-50 after 1975 and what he did before that was very good, but not Hall-worthy.
conley39
I think he was close, but not a Hall of Famer.
David
I'm a big fan of Kitty, especially his years with the Senators/Twins. I hope some day that the Veterans Committee will see fit to induct him. BTW, lack of a Cy Young doesn't hurt him. Take a look at year by year Cy winners. Dozens of them will never get inducted. OTOH, Nolan Ryan never won a single Cy. Didn't hurt him.