Jack Kralick?
I’ve been doing some work on pitchers, since Christmas; have a long list of short articles that I am hoping to write based on the work. But in the process of doing that work, I have noticed that, according to Baseball Reference, the leading American League pitcher in WAR for 1961 was. . . .wait for it, wait for it. Jack Kralick. Actually, I am not sure that Jack Kralick is the goofier one; it may be that the goofier one is Don Cardwell. Baseball Reference says that the best pitcher in the National League in 1961, the best pitcher in the majors, even better than Jack Kralick, was Don Cardwell.
Now, I always liked Jack Kralick. He was a pretty good pitcher, a lefty in the mold of Larry Gura and Gio Gonzalez; for that matter, I always liked Don Cardwell and Larry Gura and Gio Gonzalez, too, but I had a special affinity for Jack Kralick because I was listening to the entire game on the radio when he pitched his no-hitter, and he had a perfect game going until he walked George Alusik with one out in the 9th inning, and there had not been a regular-season perfect game in the majors, at that time, since 1922, and I knew this, and I knew that Kralick had a perfect game going although the announcers didn’t mention it, and I was SUPER into the game. I was listening to history, man. There were bottle rockets going off in my bloodstream.
Anyway, the notion that Jack Kralick was the best pitcher in the American League in 1961 would come as a surprise to Jack Kralick, if he was still with us, and as an absolute stunner to Mrs. Kralick. We’re going to have to re-carve his headstone. Whitey Ford went 25-4 in 1961 and was, at the time, generally regarded as the best pitcher in baseball. Of course in the modern world we don’t rely on the Won-Lost record, so there’s that, and Kralick was pitching in a hitter’s park, so there’s that, and also, there was a real shortage of genuine top-flight pitcher seasons in 1961. Kralick was 13-11 with a 3.61 ERA. He pitched 242 innings, which was 8th in the league, and gave up 257 hits, which was second in the league. He gave up 21 homers, struck out 137 batters and walked 64. These are all very ordinary numbers for him; actually, they are all very ordinary numbers for anybody. There are a lot of pitchers who have those kind of numbers. Why Baseball Reference selected Kralick—or Cardwell, in the National League—why B-R is nominating these gentlemen as the best pitchers in their leagues, not really apparent.
Here is a short stat summary of the best pitchers in each league in 1961. . .I’ll list the top 16 in each league, American League first:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
H
|
R
|
ER
|
SO
|
BB
|
SV
|
ERA
|
Whitey
|
Ford
|
39
|
283
|
25
|
4
|
.862
|
242
|
108
|
101
|
209
|
92
|
0
|
3.21
|
Luis
|
Arroyo
|
65
|
119
|
15
|
5
|
.750
|
83
|
34
|
29
|
87
|
49
|
29
|
2.19
|
Frank
|
Lary
|
36
|
275
|
23
|
9
|
.719
|
252
|
117
|
99
|
146
|
66
|
0
|
3.24
|
Jim
|
Bunning
|
38
|
268
|
17
|
11
|
.607
|
232
|
113
|
95
|
194
|
71
|
1
|
3.19
|
Don
|
Mossi
|
35
|
240
|
15
|
7
|
.682
|
237
|
97
|
79
|
137
|
47
|
1
|
2.96
|
Ralph
|
Terry
|
31
|
188
|
16
|
3
|
.842
|
162
|
74
|
66
|
86
|
42
|
0
|
3.16
|
Juan
|
Pizarro
|
39
|
195
|
14
|
7
|
.667
|
164
|
73
|
66
|
188
|
89
|
2
|
3.05
|
Steve
|
Barber
|
37
|
248
|
18
|
12
|
.600
|
194
|
102
|
92
|
150
|
130
|
1
|
3.34
|
Bill
|
Stafford
|
36
|
195
|
14
|
9
|
.609
|
168
|
65
|
58
|
101
|
59
|
2
|
2.68
|
Hoyt
|
Wilhelm
|
51
|
110
|
9
|
7
|
.563
|
89
|
35
|
28
|
87
|
41
|
18
|
2.29
|
Camilo
|
Pascual
|
35
|
252
|
15
|
16
|
.484
|
205
|
114
|
97
|
221
|
100
|
0
|
3.46
|
Tom
|
Morgan
|
59
|
92
|
8
|
2
|
.800
|
74
|
31
|
24
|
39
|
17
|
10
|
2.35
|
Jack
|
Kralick
|
33
|
242
|
13
|
11
|
.542
|
257
|
101
|
97
|
137
|
64
|
0
|
3.61
|
Chuck
|
Estrada
|
33
|
212
|
15
|
9
|
.625
|
159
|
91
|
87
|
160
|
132
|
0
|
3.69
|
Mudcat
|
Grant
|
35
|
245
|
15
|
9
|
.625
|
207
|
118
|
105
|
146
|
109
|
0
|
3.86
|
Billy
|
Hoeft
|
35
|
138
|
7
|
4
|
.636
|
106
|
37
|
31
|
100
|
55
|
3
|
2.02
|
Statistics at times can do an amazing job of hiding the underlying truth, but this may be a record. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a case in which "the truth" was THAT well hidden in the statistics, except possibly in the National League in the same year:
First
|
Last
|
G
|
IP
|
W
|
L
|
WPct
|
H
|
R
|
ER
|
SO
|
BB
|
SV
|
ERA
|
Warren
|
Spahn
|
38
|
263
|
21
|
13
|
.618
|
236
|
96
|
88
|
115
|
64
|
0
|
3.01
|
Jim
|
O'Toole
|
39
|
253
|
19
|
9
|
.679
|
229
|
101
|
87
|
178
|
93
|
2
|
3.09
|
Stu
|
Miller
|
63
|
122
|
14
|
5
|
.737
|
95
|
41
|
36
|
89
|
37
|
17
|
2.66
|
Joey
|
Jay
|
34
|
247
|
21
|
10
|
.677
|
217
|
102
|
97
|
157
|
92
|
0
|
3.53
|
Sandy
|
Koufax
|
42
|
256
|
18
|
13
|
.581
|
212
|
117
|
100
|
269
|
96
|
1
|
3.52
|
Johnny
|
Podres
|
32
|
183
|
18
|
5
|
.783
|
192
|
81
|
76
|
124
|
51
|
0
|
3.74
|
Lew
|
Burdette
|
40
|
272
|
18
|
11
|
.621
|
295
|
131
|
121
|
92
|
33
|
0
|
4.00
|
Bob
|
Purkey
|
36
|
246
|
16
|
12
|
.571
|
245
|
118
|
102
|
116
|
51
|
1
|
3.73
|
Don
|
Drysdale
|
40
|
244
|
13
|
10
|
.565
|
236
|
111
|
100
|
182
|
83
|
0
|
3.69
|
Mike
|
McCormick
|
40
|
250
|
13
|
16
|
.448
|
235
|
99
|
89
|
163
|
75
|
0
|
3.20
|
Stan
|
Williams
|
41
|
235
|
15
|
12
|
.556
|
213
|
114
|
102
|
205
|
108
|
0
|
3.91
|
Joe
|
Gibbon
|
30
|
195
|
13
|
10
|
.565
|
185
|
85
|
72
|
145
|
57
|
0
|
3.32
|
Don
|
Cardwell
|
39
|
259
|
15
|
14
|
.517
|
243
|
121
|
110
|
156
|
88
|
0
|
3.82
|
Jim
|
Brosnan
|
53
|
80
|
10
|
4
|
.714
|
77
|
34
|
27
|
40
|
18
|
16
|
3.04
|
Bob
|
Gibson
|
35
|
211
|
13
|
12
|
.520
|
186
|
91
|
76
|
166
|
119
|
1
|
3.24
|
Ray
|
Sadecki
|
31
|
223
|
14
|
10
|
.583
|
196
|
100
|
92
|
114
|
102
|
0
|
3.71
|
Don Cardwell, the guy who is 15-14 with a 3.82 ERA. . . he is the best pitcher in the league, actually the best pitcher in the majors, according to Baseball Reference WAR.
So if we could re-do the Cy Young vote with the Jacob deGrom chorus in full voice, would Cardwell and Kralick come out on top? We’re all pretty well used to surprises in the stats by now, right?
We’re used to surprises in the stats, but not THIS surprising. If there is a statistical pathway toward the conclusion that Baseball Reference wants us to reach, it would seem to me that it would be a very narrow and treacherous path. You would have to buy ALL of their assumptions. I hope Tom or somebody can get on here and tell me either (a) yes, we really believe that Kralick and Cardwell were better than Ford and Lary and Bunning and Spahn and O’Toole and Koufax, and here’s why, or (b) Uh oh; somebody typed a "40" where there was supposed to be a "4" and caused all of the measurements to go haywire. I’m a stats guy, you know? I’m used to mistakes. If it isn’t a simple mistake, I’m not quite sure I am ready to go that far.