By In Baseball

Catfish, Kitty and the power of timing

Just a thought that came across while working on No. 46 on my all-time baseball list — you might be able to figure out who he is reading this one. Or not, I don’t know.

* * *

So, I started thinking a little bit about baseball and history and how timing sways and guides what we see. The players judged to be the best in baseball history, for instance, are the ones who dominate their particular time and space. I guess that’s obvious. Ty Cobb played in a time when hitting for the best average was how you defined great hitting, and he hit for the best average. Ruth played in (and in many ways created) a time when power was the defining quality of greatness. Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax dominated an era of high mounds and low scoring. Mariano Rivera dominated an era when the one-inning reliever was treasured and exalted.

Thing is: Sometimes there are illusions of timing.

Jim Kaat and Jim Hunter are not of precisely the same time. Kaat was born 7 1/2 years before Hunter and made his major league debut roughly six years earlier. But Kaat played every single year that Hunter was in the Major Leagues. They were both very good in 1974 and 1975. They faced each other eight times as starters. First time they faced, 1967, Kaat was one of the best pitchers in the game, Hunter was developing, and they each threw nine shutout innings, Kaat’s Twins won in the 10th.

The last time they faced, 1975, Hunter was the richest free agent ever, an established superstar, and Kaat was an aging lefty succeeding on craft and verve. Hunter gave up six, Kaat seven.

Four years later, Hunter’s last year in the big leagues, they were teammates with the Yankees for a few months. Kaat relieved eight times, some successfully (On June 22, Hunter threw six shutout innings, Kaat added two more, as the Yankees beat the Indians), some not. The last time they shared the stage, Hunter gave up 10 hits and four runs against Kansas City, Kaat relieved him and promptly gave up a home run to Darrell Porter.

Point is they were of generally the same era. They shared similar talents — they pitched a lot of innings, stayed around the plate, relied on their command. They even shared a first name and a cat-related nickname. And yet … we don’t think of them the same way. Jim Hunter is in the Hall of Fame. Jim Kaat is not. Jim Hunter won a Cy Young Award. Jim Kaat did not. Jim Hunter made what was seen as crazy money, Jim Kaat did not.

This is the power of timing.

* * *

Jim Hunter was a country boy from North Carolina. You might know that when he was a senior in high school, his brother shot him in a hunting accident. He lost a toe and had a slight limp for the rest of his life. Hunter was deeply concerned that it would hinder his baseball career. As it turned out, he caught a lucky break that probably didn’t seem all that lucky in the moment — the Kansas City A’s crackpot owner Charlie Finley decided he just had to have Jim Hunter, injury or not.

Finley signed Hunter and almost immediately told the kid he needed a flashy nickname. He would be known as “Catfish.” Finley had a lot of bad ideas in his life — a live mule mascot, making the baseballs orange, a never-ending hunger to move his teams, a Poison Pen award given to the writer who ticked off Finley most — but it turned out that the nickname idea was a pretty good one. Catfish Hunter was a lot more noticeable than Jim.

Catfish never played a game in the minor leagues. Well, the A’s were terrible and so he was one of the team’s best pitchers more or less from Day 1. He ha a pitching maturity that doesn’t come along often. His stuff did not wow anybody, and he would get banged around a bit now and again. But he was durable, reliable, a good athlete and he could stay out of the hitting zone. The A’s remained bad in Kansas City and Catfish Hunter was their All-Star two straight years.

Then when he was 22 the team moved to Oakland — another break for his career. The team moved into an extreme pitchers ballpark with acres of foul ground and a mound that felt somewhat higher than he Golden Gate Bridge. His first year there, he pitched the first American League perfect game in almost 50 years.

Then when he turned 25 — another break. Charlie Finley’s A’s, a joke for so long, became a great baseball team. Hunter had something to do with this, of course, but it was more about the arrival of Vida Blue, the coming of age of Reggie Jackson and Sal Bando plus the persistent proficiency of Bert Campaneris and Joe Rudi and Rick Monday and Rollie Fingers.

The A’s won 101 games that year — Hunter was credited with 21 of those victories, his first 20-win season. The A’s won the World Series each of the next three seasons. Hunter won 21, 21 and 25 and took home a Cy Young Award. This was a time when pitcher wins was more or less everything in pitching analysis. With four 20-win seasons in a row, Hunter was widely viewed alongside of Tom Seaver and Jim Palmer as the best pitchers in baseballs. He probably wasn’t quite in that group — he was probably more in the group with other superb pitchers like Luis Tiant and Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven and, yes, even Jim Kaat. But winning 20 every year for one of the most successful teams in baseball history made him somewhat larger than life.

And, yes, this led to another break — he was at the peak of his value just went baseball’s structure ripped at the seams. Free agency came at the perfect moment. Hunter signed a record-breaking five-year, $3.35 million deal that boggled everybody’s mind including Hunter’s. He had perhaps his best season in 1975 for an ascending Yankees team, finished second in the Cy Young voting, and though it was really his last good season — his seemingly indestructible arm finally wore down — he did pitch in the next three World Series for New York and was widely viewed as someone who put the Yankees over the top.

At 33, he was done. All those innings he pitched — he AVERAGED 277 innings a season from 1967 to 1976 — wrecked his arm. He had injury after injury and he retired at 33. From a pure baseball legacy standpoint, this left his Hall of Fame case perhaps a touch short from a numbers standpoint but it probably helped his case from a visual standpoint. Nobody saw him pitch as an old man. He stayed young in the memory.

When Hall of Fame time came around, Catfish Hunter caught his final baseball break. Hunter’s career numbers do not demand Hall of Fame recognition. Because he barely pitched after age 30, he won 224 games, which does not shout Hall of Fame. His 3.26 career ERA, his 2,012 strikeouts, his one Cy Young Award — these are certainly good but the baseball writers almost NEVER elect similar pitchers:

— Catfish Hunter: 224 wins, 2012 strikeouts, 3.26 ERA (YES)
— Orel Hershiser: 204 wins, 2014 strikeouts, 3.48 ERA (NO)
— Rick Reuschel, 214 wins, 2015 strikeouts, 3.37 ERA (NO)
— Vida Blue, 209 wins, 2,175 strikeouts, 3.27 ERA (NO)
— Tommy John, 288 wins, 2,245 strikeouts, 3.34 ERA (NO)
— Luis Tiant: 229 wins, 2,416 strikeouts, 3.30 ERA (NO)
— Jerry Koosman, 222 wins, 2,556 strikeouts, 3.36 ERA (NO)
— Mickey Lolich, 217 wins, 2,832 strikeouts, 3.44 ERA (NO)
— Kevin Brown, 211 wins, 2,397 strikeouts, 3.28 ERA (NO)

And so on. Perhaps the only similar pitcher to get elected by the BBWAA into the Baseball Hall of Fame was Don Drysdale (209 wins, 2.95 ERA, 2,486 strikeouts is not THAT similar)… and it happened for generally the same reasons. Timing. The truly great pitchers of the 1960s — Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax and, last, Juan Marichal — were all elected to the Hall of Fame by 1983. And then there was a six-year gap before the great 1970s pitchers (Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Jim Palmer) would start appearing on the ballot.

Drysdale caught that six-year gap and was elected in 1984. Hoyt Wilhelm, who had been languishing on the ballot for seven years, made it the next year. Jim Bunning fell just a handful of votes short in 1988. That was the right time for borderline pitchers.

And the most celebrated pitcher in that six-year gap? Yep. Catfish Hunter. He received 54% his first year, 68% his second and was elected his third — a startlingly easy road to the Hall for a guy with such a borderline case. Was he the best pitcher to come up in the gap? Maybe not. By WAR, Bunning, Wilbur Wood and Lolich all were more productive pitchers over the lengths of their careers. But the writers liked Catfish. Timing is everything.

* * *

OK, now Jim Kaat. He was a left-handed pitcher who sprouted eight inches in high school, gained some heat on his fastball and purposely signed for LESS MONEY with the Washington Senators than he could have received from another team. Why? Well, he signed in 1957, the last year of the Bonus Rule — that was the rule that said if a player signed for more than $4,000 he had to be carried on the major league roster for two full years. Kaat’s father, John, was a smart man and he told Jim that he needed to develop in the minor leagues.

“My Dad,” Kaat would say, “wanted me to have a long career.”

Jim signed for less and reported to Superior, Nebraska to begin his career. After he broke a finger, Kaat found himself watching the way Whitey Ford pitched … and he started fooling around with how he gripped the baseball. He discovered a hard sinking fastball that would guide the rest of his career. Best we know, only one pitcher in baseball history — Kaat’s contemporary and, in some ways, duplicate Tommy John — coaxed more double play ground balls.

Kaat struggled controlling that sinking fastball and untamed slider at first — he led the league in hit batters and wild pitches his first two full seasons. But in time he developed a marvelous consistency. He would metronome his way through the next decade and a half. He hit some highs. He could have won 20 in 1962 and again in 1965 but ended with up 18 instead. In 1965, he started three games in the World Series, beating Koufax the first time but losing to Koufax shutouts the next two.

Kaat’s easy motion, his quickness off the mound, his deadly pickoff move and his reliability always inspired managers to use him in multiple roles. He was almost never JUST a starter. In his long career, he only had one full season where he did not have a relief appearance. To contrast that, in Hunter’s prime years — from 1970 to 1977 — he made exactly one relief appearance total.

The one year Kaat was a full-time starter, 1966, he led the American League in starts, complete games, wins, innings pitched and fewest walks per nine innings. He almost certainly would have won the American League Cy Young Award that year except … there was no American League Cy Young Award that year. That was the LAST YEAR that only one Cy Young was given out, covering both leagues. The Cy went to National Leaguer Sandy Koufax, unanimously. Timing.

It was just Jim Kaat’s destiny to be overlooked. He spent most of his career in hitters’ ballparks so he never had a dazzling ERA. He won 20 three times but it could have been five or six. He threw 300 innings twice, 260-plus innings another five times, but it seemed liked everybody was throwing a lot of innings back then. He was good for teen wins every year, even though he spent the 1970s playing for mediocre teams, and he ate innings like they were doughnuts, and for his troubles they gave him a pat on the back and the Gold Glove every season.

Kaat had his last full season as a starter when he was 39 years old … but unlike Hunter his arm was still sound. So he pitched another five years as a reliever. This had the adverse affect of Hunter’s early retirement. On the one hand, Kaat was able to tack on some numbers to his career total — he finished with 283 wins and almost 2,500 strikeouts — but it also left an indelible image of Jim Kaat as an old many trying to trick his way past hitters.

And it did one more thing: It put Kaat on the Hall of Fame ballot in 1989 — PRECISELY when the unprecedented wave of great 1970s pitchers became eligible. In a time when many still judged pitchers by the number of games they won, Kaat had 283 wins — a Hall of Fame number, 62 more victories than Hunter. But it didn’t matter. While Hunter was being compared with Bunning and Andy Messersmith and Lew Burdette and Mickey Lolich and the like Kaat found himself compared with 300-game winners like Gaylord Perry and Tom Seaver and Phil Niekro and Don Sutton and Steve Carlton. Kaat never came close to election.

* * *

Was Jim Kaat a better pitcher than Catfish Hunter? That’s a tough one. WAR — particularly WAR as calculated by Fangraphs — says decidedly “Yes.”

Baseball Reference
Kaat: 45.3 WAR
Hunter: 36.6 WAR

Kaat: 69.4 WAR
Hunter: 33.3 WAR

Baseball fans on the Baseball Reference Fan Elorater also give Kaat a decisive victory rating, at last check, Jim Kaat as the 31st best pitcher of all time and Catfish as 110th.

Bill James, in the Historical Baseball Abstract, had them in a virtual tie — he ranked Catfish the 64th best pitcher, Kitty at No. 65.

I think it’s very close. Hunter had so many subtle advantages that it’s difficult to get past that Take 1975. That year, Hunter went 23-14 with a 2.58 ERA in 328 innings for a good Yankees team. Kaat went 20-14 with a 3.11 ERA in 303 innings for a lousy White Sox team. It looks like Hunter was the markedly better pitcher. But WAR ranks them about even — Hunter was pitching for a better team with a better defense in a better pitcher’s park with better run support.

What does it come down to? Well, even if you give Hunter the edge for his top three seasons — and it’s very, very close at the top end — Kaat has five or six seasons on top of that better than Catfish. Kaat’s career just goes much deeper. And it’s hard to say that his ability to pitch at the big league level for 10 years longer than Hunter should hurt his Hall of Fame case.

But the point is not really Kaat or Catfish. The point is that whenever we judge baseball players’ careers — or most other things — it’s all but impossible to get beyond the timing. Catfish Hunter was given many advantages, including a catchier nickname. He had great timing. He’s in the Hall of Fame. Jim Kaat’s timing was just a little bit off. He never received even 30% of the Hall of Fame vote.

47 Responses to Catfish, Kitty and the power of timing

  1. DM says:

    My guess is that this implies Koufax at #46…..unless it doesn’t 🙂

  2. oira79 says:

    Timing, and narrative. Charlie Finley started Hunter’s career by giving him a narrative. Narrative got Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame. Kaat never had a narrative.

  3. Ciderbeck says:

    Jim Kaat continued to evolve with the times. He did a great job as an analyst shifting over to the blogosphere:

    Also, since we’re talking names, I have long, long wondered where the family name “Kaat” comes from. Just an awesomely aesthetic looking last name.

  4. DM says:

    By the way….an interesting question would be: who do people think the best fielding pitcher of all time is? Guessing most would choose either Kaat or Greg Maddux, although there could be others.

  5. Marco says:

    Timing – Enter Omar Vizquel

    If he’d played a little earlier (when short stops were supposed to win gold gloves and hit a little) he’d be a lock. Instead he played when Jeter and Nomar and A Rod did.

    • Simon says:

      Agreed that with very good timing, his narrative could have been different. But there are also other bad timing situations he could have ended up in. If his prime had overlapped with Ozzie Smith in the NL, he could have ended up with 0 gold gloves instead of 9, and as a result would probably be even more overlooked than he was.

    • Theo says:

      I disagree. He got great timing. He was never compared to Fernandez/Trammell/Smith/Ripken in the late ’80s or the Tejada/Nomar/Jeter/Arod group in the late ’90s. He hit that sweet middle point. If he was a few years earlier, his peak neatly lines up with the other four to put him in a fourth/fifth place. If he was a few years later, his peak lines up with the later group, again leaving him fourth/fifth best among direct contemporaries. Instead, people get to assert things like he “bridged the gap” between the two (or, depending on the narrative, throw out Tejada and Arod if it means they get to bump up Omar a few spots). In his timing, he’s much more similar to Hunter than he is to Kaat.

  6. David Fenkel says:

    Interesting analysis, Joe. I am a believer in advanced metrics, and fully recognize that Kitty was a comparable pitcher to Cat – and maybe superior in some ways. However, what seems to get lost in some of the HOF debates, and similar discussions about certain players places in history is that baseball is a form of entertainment. Some players get a justifiable boost because they were stars and more famous than some of their contemporaries.

    To me, Reggie Jackson and Joe Namath are prime examples of athletes whose place in history is justified by their “fame” – even more so than by their numbers. Catfish may be another one. Perhaps your nickname point fits this narrative.

    Catfish does get a boost, historically, for having been a top starter on the championship A’s teams of the ’70s. He later brought his star to New York, and, as you note, was outstanding in ’75. He was good in ’76, leading the Yanks to their first pennant in 12 years. Injuries hampered the rest of his career, but he did contribute mightily to the ’78 comeback with a terrific second half, and a Series-clinching win over the Dodgers. Ron Guidry (the star of ’78) says the Yanks never would have won that year without Catfish.

    It may be unfortunate that Kaat pitched for mediocre-bad teams most of his career, but that is part of his narrative, and it hurts him in comparison to Catfish. By the way, Kaat was a good pitcher, and a great announcer. I miss him on Yankees broadcasts. I hope he does get into the HOF some day – as a Frick Award winner.

    • murr2825 says:

      Seconded. I loved listening to Kaat as a Yankee analyst; articulate, knowledgable, knew when to talk and when to shut up. He was a great pitcher, too, and I still have hopes the Veteran’s Committee will induct him someday.

    • Patrick Bohn says:

      The problem is, comments like this: “Was Jim Kaat a better pitcher than Catfish Hunter? That’s a tough one. WAR — particularly WAR as calculated by Fangraphs — says decidedly “Yes.” are false.

      A higher WAR does not equal a better player

      • Xao says:

        Which would be why Joe wrote “It’s a tough one” instead of “yes”.

        • Patrick Bohn says:

          My point is, Joe is making a statement about WAR that isn’t true. If Pete Rose has a higher WAR than Joe DiMaggio, but five of the top six seasons by WAR between the two of them belong to DiMaggio, then who, according to WAR, is the “better” player?

          • Ian R. says:

            If you define “better” as “better at his peak?” then it’s DiMaggio. If you define “better” as “had a more valuable career,” then it’s Rose – playing in more games than anyone else counts for something, and DiMaggio’s career wasn’t all that long.

            Either way, WAR gives you an answer. It’s not the be-all, end-all of answers, but it’s an answer.

  7. EnzoHernandez11 says:

    I was thinking Koufax, too. Great as he was, his timing was beyond perfect: 1960s, Dodger Stadium, glamor team, great teammates, three rings.

    Of course, there are many ways to be lucky. Push Bert Blyleven’s career back ten years and he’s off the Hall of Fame ballot well before the age of sabremetrics arrives.

    • NRJyzr says:

      Don’t forget the strike zone rule change in 1963. Just the thing for a power pitcher with a big overhand curve.

    • Bill M says:

      If Blyleven’s career is pushed back ten years those ten years are off the high mound & he faces far fewer DH’s, so maybe his wins & especially strikeouts go way up, or at least up ‘enough’.

      • NRJyzr says:

        If you keep him on the Twins, he experiences their 1960s peak, as well, which nets him more wins from the better offense behind him.

        If Blyleven, Kaat, or Tony Oliva had played for NY, they’d be regarded as gods, instead of “fringe” or non-deserving candidates.

  8. MikeN says:

    #46 is Art Monk?

  9. MikeN says:

    You left out the bonus earned by having the cool nickname. Didn’t help Fred McGriff though.

  10. Steve says:

    My guess is that if Kaat played his entire career in New York or Los Angeles, that 283 win career would have been legendary.

    • Carl says:

      Not sure abobut that Steve. Tommy John played the majority of his career in either Los Angeles (Dodgers, Angeles) and NY (Yankees) and his 288 wins are not legendary.

      Kaat was a very, very good pitcher who was an accumulator. With bettre timing he probably would have gone in the HoF.

    • Tom Flynn says:

      You hit it on the head Steve! The only real difference between Kaat and Hunter is the Yankee factor.

  11. Carl says:

    Hi E-migo Joe,

    As a type-1 diabetic who dreamed of the majors in the late 1970s, Hunter’s retirement because of his diabetes made me Clemenate him. The same “injury” helped him with the sportswriters though the same way Kirby Puckett received extra HoF votes despite marginal HoF stats.

  12. BigSteve says:

    Yeah but Bob Dylan didn’t write a song about Jim Kaat.

  13. David says:

    Just one quick thing: Keep in mind that the B-R WAR number doesn’t include fielding as a pitcher. For most pitchers, that’s not going to move the mark too much. For Kaat… well, if it affects anyone, Kaat’s the guy it affects. So the gap is almost certainly larger than portrayed on B-R.

  14. BobDD says:

    I think the tipoff might be having a great nickname, in which case I predict Yogi.

  15. ely says:

    i’d like to correct an inaccuracy in your fine article:

    “this led to another break — he was at the peak of his value just went baseball’s structure ripped at the seams. Free agency came at the perfect moment.”

    catfish didn’t become a FA because free agency “came” — an arbitrator declared him a free agent because finley didn’t pay him in accordance w/ his contract. the “coming” of free agency and the messerschmidt decision came later.

    but of course, having an owner like charlie not pay up as agreed was, for catfish, “another break”!

    • NevadaMark says:

      And still another break. If Finley had tried that contract shit just a few years earlier, his case would NOT have gone to an independent arbitrator. The business would have been arbitrated by that paragon of fairness, the Bowie of Kuhn. And I can just about guarantee that Hunter wouldn’t have been no free agent. Sure, he would have got his money and Finley would have been fined but that is where it would have ended. Man, that Catfish caught a ton of breaks!

  16. I only remember the tail end of Kaat’s career, when for the life of me I couldn’t figure out how he got anybody out. He had a no-windup delivery, and he worked fast—get the ball and throw it—so it looked like he was pitching batting practice. He could get hit too, being a pitch to contact type of pitcher, not striking out many guys, but getting lots of ground balls, so it helped that he fielded his position well. With his no windup delivery, nobody was quicker to the plate, and he had a quick pick-off move as well, so it was just about impossible to run on him, which also helped, given his penchant for giving up hits. He was one of those lefties who seemed to hang around forever, regardless of stuff.

    In short, Jim Kaat was about as dull a pitcher as I’ve ever seen. And yet, as I look back, I only wish more pitchers were like Kaat—work fast, throw strikes, give your fielders something to do. Keep it simple, keep it moving, don’t beat yourself, take whatever role they give you. Guys like that are always valuable. No wonder he stuck around for so long.

  17. Will3pin says:

    That 1970 Twins pitching staff (Perry, Kaat, Blyleven, Tiant!) is a fun “what-if?” group. Certainly a ton of potential in that rotation – it’s a veritable “who’s who” of pitchers of waiting in the foyer in Cooperstown.

    Twinkies were swept by the Orioles in the playoffs that year (as they were in ’69). The O’s were certainly a juggernaut with their vaunted trio of McNally, Cuellar, Palmer, but the Twins had a formidable team and staff too.

    In ’69, Kaat was 14-13 and was a top 3 starter on that staff, yet in Game 3 versus the Os, Billy Martin started Bob Miller. Was Kaat hurt? Curious that Kaat didn’t pitch a single inning in the ’69 playoffs.

    Good piece on Kaat in Hardball Times:

    • Tom Geraghty says:

      Another good piece on Kaat’s 1972 season:

      He was on pace for a career year (20-25 wins, ERA near 2.00) in July when he broke his hand and missed the rest of the season. May have cost him 10-15 wins.

    • NevadaMark says:

      I don’t think he was hurt. Calvin Griffith asked Billy Martin why Kaat didn’t start and Billy, employing his legendary tact, told him “Because I’m the bleepity- bleep manager”, or words to that effect. Billy got canned shortly thereafter. So perhaps it was simply managerial incompetence.

      In 1970 Kaat did get a chance to start against the O’s in the championship series but was knocked out in the third inning.

  18. robert magee says:

    check Kart Sept 67. Pitches 65 innings in an intense pennant race, wins 7-8 cgs, relieves and is putting out Boston in the penultimate game W/first place on the line when his arm blows out his arm.

    different narrative if that Sept led to another Twins pennant.

  19. Brent says:

    Hmm, those extra 5 years cost Kaat the HOF perhaps, but they also netted him a World Series ring with the Cards in 1982, the only one he won. I wonder whether he thinks that was worth it?

  20. Jim Norman says:

    Catfish Hunter is the only pitcher in the last 50 years to amass 200 wins by the time he was 30. I think this was a significant factor in the way he was viewed.

  21. Herb Smith says:

    Agreed. Part of the Catfish allure was that he was viewed as an “ace.” We ball fans tend to categorize pitchers into subsets, and guys like Catfish and Jack Morris benefit from that. Also, Catfish was the ace of a team that won 3 straight World Series. That’ll always be a big deal, but in the ’70’s, that was particularly huge, with TV just starting to broadcast Series games in prime time.

    In Reggie’s auto-bio, he talks a lot about the fact that Catfish was viewed by his fellow A’s in exactly the same way he was viewed by the public; as the team ace, as THE guy you want starting the biggest game of the year.

    Still, it’s interesting that career just wasn’t THAT good. But when you add it all up (the great nickname, the Perfect Game, the Cy, the 5 rings, the mustache, the no b.s./gamer attitude, the fact that he was always in the headlines and/or pitching on television in October) it equals…


  22. Dave says:

    I think next on the list will be Jim Palmer. Also pitched in the same era, with similar Ks as the pitchers mentioned, but with more wins and lower ERA. The perfect timing was to have Brooks Robinson play behind you in your prime years, pitch for six World Series participants.

    • DM says:


      I’d be shocked if Palmer’s this high on the list. He’s a reasonable candidate for top 100, and I think he’s a reasonable candidate for top 25-30 pitchers, but this is way too high on the list for him when you consider Joe’s methodology. Even with the 20 win seasons and Cy Young awards, I suspect it won’t be nearly enough.

  23. Richard Aronson says:

    The typos: “it seemed liked everybody was throwing a lot of innings” s/b like, not liked.

    “image of Jim Kaat as an old many trying” s/b man, not many

    I love your writing, but sometimes it makes me sad to consider how many players had bad luck be a major influence in how they are remembered, starting of course with many Negro League greats who were denied the main stage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *