If there is any case to be made for Jim Kaat over Tommy John - and I'm not saying that it's a good one - it's that perhaps at his peak Kaat was better. They each had three 20-Win seasons, but Kaat had two worth 7+bWAR, while John had none worth more than ~5.5. In 1966 Kaat Led the AL in Wins (with 25, only one other pitcher had 20 and he had an ERA of almost 4!), as well as innings, starts, CG, BB/9, K/W and was in the top few for a bunch of other stuff but didn't get a single CYA vote because there was only one MLB Cy Young Award at the time and Sandy Koufax was still Sandy Koufax, though he wouldn't be for long. If there had been an AL CYA in 1966, Kaat would likely have won it easily.
Of course, if you give him credit for that you also have to give demerits for his bad seasons, and Kaat had more of those, too. Kaat had eight seasons with a negative bWAR, compared to just two for John. Kaat maybe gets credit for all those Gold Gloves and for winning a World Series, something Tommy John never did, but that's about it.
Tommy John never came especially close to winning a CYA, even if he did get votes every year from 1977-80, although he probably was a little better than Mike FlanAgan in '79, yeah, dat's the ticket!
Still, in terms of overall career value, there really is no way to make a case over John for Kaat. They are at best equals, and realistically John is modestly better overall. But with that, and with Tommy Joh's influence as a pioneer in pitcher health, his impact can hardly be overstated. Sure, he didn't do the surgery. Jackie Robinson didn't sign himself to a contract either, but we still give him credit for his success after Branch Rickey chose him to be the first. Tommy John should get that kind of credit, too.
Great, great piece, Joe. John was such a great pitcher. He would seemingly soft toss his way along year after year, killing rally after rally after rally with that crazy double play-inducing sinker.
But I remember when Tommy John pitched for our Indians. The team, of course, let him go after his sophomore season, which saw him go 2-9. Gabe Paul - the architect of some of the worst trades in franchise history - traded him and Tommy Agee (later of the Miracle Mets) and two-time All Star catcher Johnny Romano basically to get Rocky Colavito back, well after he'd lost the glitter he had when Frank Lane traded him away. Seeing Tommy John dominate as a White Sock and a Yankee all those years was a bitter pill for Cleveland fans to swallow.
So Tommy John never started a game 7 of a playoff Series. Of course, he was never on a team in a Game 7, so we will never know.
However, in 1977 in the NLCS (only a 5 game series), the Dodgers thought enough of him to start him in Games 1 and 4 (he was the pennant clinching winning pitcher in Game 4 tossing nine innings 1 run ball). BTW, HOF Don Sutton was the Dodgers choice for Game 2.
In the WS John only pitched Game 3, but since the Series ended in Game 6, it seems LIKELY he would have been the Dodgers choice to start Game 7 had they made it that far.
In 1978 in the NLCS, he was the Game 2 starter and threw a 4 hit shutout (almost a Maddux, 106 pitches). The Dodgers won in 4, so no Game 5, but it seems likely he would have started G5 if necessary (HOF Don Sutton started G3).
In the WS, he was the G1 starter and the G4 starter It seems pretty likely he would have also been the G7 starter, but again the Dodgers lost in 6.
In 1980, he started G3 of the ALCS.
In 1981, he started G3 of the ALDS, G1 of the ALCS and G2 (7 innings of no run ball) and G6 of the WS (4 innings of one run ball).
In 1982, he won G1 and lost G4 of the ALCS.
I suspect the idea that he wasn't an ace came about from his years with the Yankees, where he wasn't their ace (they had Guidry who was clearly their ace), but he was the ace of the 1977-78 Dodgers who won pennants both years. And I think the Angels traded for him in 1982 at the trade deadline to bolster the TOP of their rotation, not the bottom.
To take this a little further, let’s compare. Tommy John career WAR 61.6, W-L 288-231, ERA 3.34, SO 2245, CG 162, shutouts 46; Playoff record: 6-3, 2.65, 14 games…Herb Pennock (45.0, 241-162, 3.60, 1227, 249, 35; WS record 5-0, 1.95, 3 saves, 4 rings)…Catfish Hunter (40.9, 224-166, 3.26, 182, 42, 2012, 1 CY); Playoffs: 9-6, 3.26, 5 WS rings)…I think Hunter and Pennock belong as aces in their respective eras both of whom were stellar in the postseason. John had more impressive regular season stats than either of them, pitched very well in the postseason and finished 2nd in CY voting twice. His teams made it to 3 WS, but came away empty, even though John did his part. There are several other comparisons that can be made (Kaat is a good one), but the point is John should have been elected years ago! And don’t even get me started on Curt Schilling!!!!
Tommy John should have been elected during his time on the ballot. He needed an advocate or two among the voters. At least he passed knowing he changed the game.
I guess I find it sad that TJ’s passing becomes a time to debate his merits for the Hall. I really dislike the single yes-no framework for our remembrance of every pretty good player. The plaque room is my least favorite part of Cooperstown. He - and many others - is so much more.
I’m old enough to remember him from the LaSordians. Between his heavy sinker, Happy Hooten’s knuckle-curve, and Don Sutton’s scuffball the infield had to be ready.
But John really hit his stride as an old man “throwing” 80 mph fastballs and slow looping curves for the Yanks and Angles. He’d toss a grapefruit, then a croquet ball, maybe even the Coyote’s Acme anvil. Batters always made contact and never hit it far. Fielded his position well, and had a great pickoff move.
Tommy was a type of pitcher that we saw in the 70s and 80s with some frequency. Every team had a Mike Boddicker or Larry Gura or Frank Tanana. Guys who threw slow, slower, and slowest but got outs. I’ll miss him as a great exemplar of that dead style.
There are several hundred plaques in Cooperstown where a kid with only a small knowledge of baseball would need to read it in order to understand his (or her, because there is one) role in baseball history. Very few kids coming to Cooperstown would need an explanation for a plaque with Tommy John on it. You might say that for Bonds or Clemens or Rose, but an explanation for why they don't have plaques could be really easily understood. For John you're talking about small arguments about WAR, not issues of fundamentally following rules.
There seems to be an assumption here that he changed the game for the better. If they don't invent this surgery, do pitchers keep pushing spin rates and does max effort pitching evolve?
I honestly don't know, but it feels like an interesting question.
Could not agree more with your analysis of Tommy John.
One sentence struck me: “You’d hear voters say things like, “If you needed to win a Game 7, would you pitch one of these guys?’”
The pitcher I immediately thought of, well, after Koufax of course, was a pitcher who many indicted did not belong. I disagreed. That pitcher was Jack Morris because of his famous game Seven duel with John Smoltz.
Not sure about Morris. One game makes headlines, but it’s the smallest possible sample size. Koufax would be an obvious choice to pitch a Game 7, but would Morris do it again?
Morris of course had an overall postseason record that was rather pedestrian. Why does 1991 count but not 92? Why ‘84 but not 1987?
To me, saying one would want Morris for a hypothetical future Game Seven is like saying that for your G7 right fielder, instead of Frank Robinson or Henry Aaron or Roberto Clemente or Tony Gwynn or Aaron Judge you’d rather have Joe Carter.
An event need not be repeatable to be wonderful, but just because it was wonderful doesn’t make it repeatable.
Tommy John deserves his share of the credit and it should put him over the top. I didn't always feel that way, but it occurred to me that we don't apportion credit in the way that some do in this case. People will say "well, *somebody* was going to do it first". Sure, but he had to have the guts to have a risky surgery. He had to work his butt off to get back. He had to do well after he did. If it had been somebody else, it might have set things back for years.
Nobody says "hey, you know Neil Armstrong didn't build the rocket". Nobody says "well, somebody was going to be the first African-American in MLB".
He was the right person at the right time and that's what we celebrate.
On the Cubs/Cards broadcast today the ESPN guys were saying John wasn’t just a guy who was operated on and did the rehab; he was part of conceiving the idea for the surgery; asking if they can transplant hearts, why not ligaments. That’s a big deal if true.
Thanks, Joe. As a young Yankees' fan in the 1980s, I really enjoyed watching Tommy John pitch and compete. He truly made an impact on the game and your analysis is spot on. He'll be missed. All the best to his family, friends, and teammates.
If there is any case to be made for Jim Kaat over Tommy John - and I'm not saying that it's a good one - it's that perhaps at his peak Kaat was better. They each had three 20-Win seasons, but Kaat had two worth 7+bWAR, while John had none worth more than ~5.5. In 1966 Kaat Led the AL in Wins (with 25, only one other pitcher had 20 and he had an ERA of almost 4!), as well as innings, starts, CG, BB/9, K/W and was in the top few for a bunch of other stuff but didn't get a single CYA vote because there was only one MLB Cy Young Award at the time and Sandy Koufax was still Sandy Koufax, though he wouldn't be for long. If there had been an AL CYA in 1966, Kaat would likely have won it easily.
Of course, if you give him credit for that you also have to give demerits for his bad seasons, and Kaat had more of those, too. Kaat had eight seasons with a negative bWAR, compared to just two for John. Kaat maybe gets credit for all those Gold Gloves and for winning a World Series, something Tommy John never did, but that's about it.
Tommy John never came especially close to winning a CYA, even if he did get votes every year from 1977-80, although he probably was a little better than Mike FlanAgan in '79, yeah, dat's the ticket!
Still, in terms of overall career value, there really is no way to make a case over John for Kaat. They are at best equals, and realistically John is modestly better overall. But with that, and with Tommy Joh's influence as a pioneer in pitcher health, his impact can hardly be overstated. Sure, he didn't do the surgery. Jackie Robinson didn't sign himself to a contract either, but we still give him credit for his success after Branch Rickey chose him to be the first. Tommy John should get that kind of credit, too.
I couldn’t agree more! Well said, Joe!
The man had nearly as many wins post-surgery (164) as Koufax (165) for his entire career. That's gotta count for something, right!?!
Great, great piece, Joe. John was such a great pitcher. He would seemingly soft toss his way along year after year, killing rally after rally after rally with that crazy double play-inducing sinker.
But I remember when Tommy John pitched for our Indians. The team, of course, let him go after his sophomore season, which saw him go 2-9. Gabe Paul - the architect of some of the worst trades in franchise history - traded him and Tommy Agee (later of the Miracle Mets) and two-time All Star catcher Johnny Romano basically to get Rocky Colavito back, well after he'd lost the glitter he had when Frank Lane traded him away. Seeing Tommy John dominate as a White Sock and a Yankee all those years was a bitter pill for Cleveland fans to swallow.
Tommy John should be in the Hall of Fame.
“Be Home Blyleven” is the best Chris Berman nickname ever :-)
So Tommy John never started a game 7 of a playoff Series. Of course, he was never on a team in a Game 7, so we will never know.
However, in 1977 in the NLCS (only a 5 game series), the Dodgers thought enough of him to start him in Games 1 and 4 (he was the pennant clinching winning pitcher in Game 4 tossing nine innings 1 run ball). BTW, HOF Don Sutton was the Dodgers choice for Game 2.
In the WS John only pitched Game 3, but since the Series ended in Game 6, it seems LIKELY he would have been the Dodgers choice to start Game 7 had they made it that far.
In 1978 in the NLCS, he was the Game 2 starter and threw a 4 hit shutout (almost a Maddux, 106 pitches). The Dodgers won in 4, so no Game 5, but it seems likely he would have started G5 if necessary (HOF Don Sutton started G3).
In the WS, he was the G1 starter and the G4 starter It seems pretty likely he would have also been the G7 starter, but again the Dodgers lost in 6.
In 1980, he started G3 of the ALCS.
In 1981, he started G3 of the ALDS, G1 of the ALCS and G2 (7 innings of no run ball) and G6 of the WS (4 innings of one run ball).
In 1982, he won G1 and lost G4 of the ALCS.
I suspect the idea that he wasn't an ace came about from his years with the Yankees, where he wasn't their ace (they had Guidry who was clearly their ace), but he was the ace of the 1977-78 Dodgers who won pennants both years. And I think the Angels traded for him in 1982 at the trade deadline to bolster the TOP of their rotation, not the bottom.
To take this a little further, let’s compare. Tommy John career WAR 61.6, W-L 288-231, ERA 3.34, SO 2245, CG 162, shutouts 46; Playoff record: 6-3, 2.65, 14 games…Herb Pennock (45.0, 241-162, 3.60, 1227, 249, 35; WS record 5-0, 1.95, 3 saves, 4 rings)…Catfish Hunter (40.9, 224-166, 3.26, 182, 42, 2012, 1 CY); Playoffs: 9-6, 3.26, 5 WS rings)…I think Hunter and Pennock belong as aces in their respective eras both of whom were stellar in the postseason. John had more impressive regular season stats than either of them, pitched very well in the postseason and finished 2nd in CY voting twice. His teams made it to 3 WS, but came away empty, even though John did his part. There are several other comparisons that can be made (Kaat is a good one), but the point is John should have been elected years ago! And don’t even get me started on Curt Schilling!!!!
Tommy John should have been elected during his time on the ballot. He needed an advocate or two among the voters. At least he passed knowing he changed the game.
Dead right joe
I guess I find it sad that TJ’s passing becomes a time to debate his merits for the Hall. I really dislike the single yes-no framework for our remembrance of every pretty good player. The plaque room is my least favorite part of Cooperstown. He - and many others - is so much more.
I’m old enough to remember him from the LaSordians. Between his heavy sinker, Happy Hooten’s knuckle-curve, and Don Sutton’s scuffball the infield had to be ready.
But John really hit his stride as an old man “throwing” 80 mph fastballs and slow looping curves for the Yanks and Angles. He’d toss a grapefruit, then a croquet ball, maybe even the Coyote’s Acme anvil. Batters always made contact and never hit it far. Fielded his position well, and had a great pickoff move.
Tommy was a type of pitcher that we saw in the 70s and 80s with some frequency. Every team had a Mike Boddicker or Larry Gura or Frank Tanana. Guys who threw slow, slower, and slowest but got outs. I’ll miss him as a great exemplar of that dead style.
Great reply and well written.
Thanks.
There are several hundred plaques in Cooperstown where a kid with only a small knowledge of baseball would need to read it in order to understand his (or her, because there is one) role in baseball history. Very few kids coming to Cooperstown would need an explanation for a plaque with Tommy John on it. You might say that for Bonds or Clemens or Rose, but an explanation for why they don't have plaques could be really easily understood. For John you're talking about small arguments about WAR, not issues of fundamentally following rules.
There seems to be an assumption here that he changed the game for the better. If they don't invent this surgery, do pitchers keep pushing spin rates and does max effort pitching evolve?
I honestly don't know, but it feels like an interesting question.
Could not agree more with your analysis of Tommy John.
One sentence struck me: “You’d hear voters say things like, “If you needed to win a Game 7, would you pitch one of these guys?’”
The pitcher I immediately thought of, well, after Koufax of course, was a pitcher who many indicted did not belong. I disagreed. That pitcher was Jack Morris because of his famous game Seven duel with John Smoltz.
Not sure about Morris. One game makes headlines, but it’s the smallest possible sample size. Koufax would be an obvious choice to pitch a Game 7, but would Morris do it again?
Morris of course had an overall postseason record that was rather pedestrian. Why does 1991 count but not 92? Why ‘84 but not 1987?
To me, saying one would want Morris for a hypothetical future Game Seven is like saying that for your G7 right fielder, instead of Frank Robinson or Henry Aaron or Roberto Clemente or Tony Gwynn or Aaron Judge you’d rather have Joe Carter.
An event need not be repeatable to be wonderful, but just because it was wonderful doesn’t make it repeatable.
Tommy John deserves his share of the credit and it should put him over the top. I didn't always feel that way, but it occurred to me that we don't apportion credit in the way that some do in this case. People will say "well, *somebody* was going to do it first". Sure, but he had to have the guts to have a risky surgery. He had to work his butt off to get back. He had to do well after he did. If it had been somebody else, it might have set things back for years.
Nobody says "hey, you know Neil Armstrong didn't build the rocket". Nobody says "well, somebody was going to be the first African-American in MLB".
He was the right person at the right time and that's what we celebrate.
On the Cubs/Cards broadcast today the ESPN guys were saying John wasn’t just a guy who was operated on and did the rehab; he was part of conceiving the idea for the surgery; asking if they can transplant hearts, why not ligaments. That’s a big deal if true.
Thanks, Joe. As a young Yankees' fan in the 1980s, I really enjoyed watching Tommy John pitch and compete. He truly made an impact on the game and your analysis is spot on. He'll be missed. All the best to his family, friends, and teammates.