Fred McGriff: Hall of Famer?

Jim Kaat: 283-237, 3.45 ERA, 2,461 strikeouts, 1.259 WHIP, 108 ERA+, 45.3 WAR, led the league in complete games once, innings pitched once, walks per nine innings twice, hits allowed four times, wild pitches twice and hit batsmen twice.

Tommy John: 288-231, 3.34 ERA, 2,245 strikeouts, 1.283 WHIP, 111 ERA+, 62.3 WAR, led the league in winning percentage twice, hits allowed once and wild pitches once.

Don Sutton: 324-256, 3.26 ERA, 3,574 strikeouts, 1.142 WHIP, 108 ERA+, 68.7 WAR, led the league in ERA once, WHIP four times, hits per nine innings once, strikeouts per walk three times and earned runs allowed once.

I'd say the 1,000 more strikeouts, substantially lower WHIP and better league-leading totals would suggest that yes, Sutton was measurably better than Kaat or John. John should be in the Hall of Fame, though.

 

I'd take that bet.

 

When Dale Murphy stops making kids and starts making commercials for Tom Emanski he can have my vote.
Until then ...

 

The most surprising thing about John and Kaat is that neither ever got remotely to getting in. I don't think either ever got any more than 35 percent of the vote.

 

I don't see much of a case for Jim Kaat beyond his Gold Gloves.

 

It's hard to have a strong opinion on either. I think both were seen as compilers. Neither one did much during the second half of their careers. John had a nice stretch in the late 70s, but that was really it.

I think if you look at starters from that era, Jenkins and Blyleven are the only starters in the HOF who didn't get 300 wins. Jenkins really wasn't a borderline guy though...

Was Blyleven considerably better than John or Kaat? I don't know... But the best case for John and to a lesser extent Kaat, is that Blyleven got in. I don't think that's enough for either of them to get in. We'll see when the get to the veteran's committee.

 

I don't know about your overall baseball knowledge. I do know you could learn a thing or two about the era when Babe Ruth played.

 

For the record, I know that Ruth was far better than everyone else in his era. The point was that a lot of hitters in the '20s have inflated stats. Do you think Rogers Hornsby would bat .650 today like he did then? I sure don't.

 

Rogers Hornsby hit .650? Wowzers!

 

I'd like to hear the case for Tim Raines one more time. Why is it OK to be a cokehead but not a steroid user?

 

That's an easy one: Because cocaine is used as a recreational drug, like alcohol, while steroids are for performance-enhancement. The PED prohibition is not the result of a moral panic about employees using drugs in general. It is justified strictly based upon its effect on the game itself.

 

For those who missed it, here is the link to the thread Dick and I are making reference to. And no, your statements do not show any real understanding that Ruth was far better than everyone else in his era. There is a valid point to be made regarding inflated statistics in the '20s, but you didn't even come close to making it.

You wrote: "Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs in an era when every tom, dick, and harry in baseball was batting .430 with 46 home runs and 148 RBIs. Exagerration, but slightly."

That exagerration is far more than slight.