12 Days of Twinsmas: #9 Frank Viola

Workhorse is a great description of Frankie Viola. 10 straight seasons of at least 200 IPs, he was basically guaranteed to make 35 starts every season. Once he figured out that changeup, he really came into his own. I was bummed when he left, but that was a fine trade for the Twins in bringing back Aguilera (one of the best relievers in Twins history) and Tapani (who was another workhorse who had his best year at the right time to help the team win a title).

Viola had Tommy John back closer to the dark ages of the procedure; now, with his bulldog attitude and modern methods I bet he would have been able to make that comeback and have a longer & better run in his late 30's. Fun pitcher, interesting guy. Always happy when he comes back to MN and ducks in for a Twins broadcast.

I'm enjoying reading the lists, but...

• No. 10 Kaat: 15 yrs., 190-159, 3.34 ERA, 133 CG, 23 SHO, 3014.5 IP, 1851 K, 1.231 WHIP, 110 ERA+, 12 Gold Gloves, HOF (largely based on his success as a Twin). 
• No. 9 Viola: 8 yrs., 112-93, 3.86 ERA, 54 CG, 10 SHO, 1772.2 IP, 1214 K, 1.295 WHIP, 111 ERA+, 0 Gold Gloves. 2 HOF votes before falling off.
  • Viola does have a Cy Young, but in Kaat's best year by ERA+ (1966) there was only one Cy across the majors and voters only listed one person. Some guy named Koufax was the unanimous choice. Kaat was, however, No. 5 in the MVP voting that year. Viola was 10th in the MVP the year he got the Cy. 

I think you've got those two in the wrong order.

(And if I'm guessing correctly on the remaining eight, I'm thinking I'm going to suggest you missed another pitcher better than Viola, but I'll hold off on that comment. ?)

Enjoying the list, bringing back some great memories.  Thank you.

21 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

I'm enjoying reading the lists, but...

• No. 10 Kaat: 15 yrs., 190-159, 3.34 ERA, 133 CG, 23 SHO, 3014.5 IP, 1851 K, 1.231 WHIP, 110 ERA+, 12 Gold Gloves, HOF (largely based on his success as a Twin). 
• No. 9 Viola: 8 yrs., 112-93, 3.86 ERA, 54 CG, 10 SHO, 1772.2 IP, 1214 K, 1.295 WHIP, 111 ERA+, 0 Gold Gloves. 2 HOF votes before falling off.
  • Viola does have a Cy Young, but in Kaat's best year by ERA+ (1966) there was only one Cy across the majors and voters only listed one person. Some guy named Koufax was the unanimous choice. Kaat was, however, No. 5 in the MVP voting that year. Viola was 10th in the MVP the year he got the Cy. 

I think you've got those two in the wrong order.

(And if I'm guessing correctly on the remaining eight, I'm thinking I'm going to suggest you missed another pitcher better than Viola, but I'll hold off on that comment. ?)

Viola had a much better peak than Kaat, plus the Cy Young plus the World Series Championship with the Twins. You mention Kaat's 131 ERA+ in 1966, but Viola did that or better 3 times with the Twins in his 8 years. 1984 = 131, 1987 = 159, 1988 = 154. Viola's peak 5 years with the Twins produced 24.6 bWAR vs. Jim Kaat's best 5 years at 15.5 bWAR and his entire 15 year career with the Twins at 31.1 bWAR. Quite frankly, Frank Viola was just a much, much better pitcher than Jim Kaat. Kaat made it to the HoF, but I wouldn't have supported it. He belongs in the Hall of Good, one step above the Hall of Pretty Decent like Jack Morris.

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Viola had a much better peak than Kaat, plus the Cy Young plus the World Series Championship with the Twins. You mention Kaat's 131 ERA+ in 1966, but Viola did that or better 3 times with the Twins in his 8 years. 1984 = 131, 1987 = 159, 1988 = 154. Viola's peak 5 years with the Twins produced 24.6 bWAR vs. Jim Kaat's best 5 years at 15.5 bWAR and his entire 15 year career with the Twins at 31.1 bWAR. Quite frankly, Frank Viola was just a much, much better pitcher than Jim Kaat. Kaat made it to the HoF, but I wouldn't have supported it. He belongs in the Hall of Good, one step above the Hall of Pretty Decent like Jack Morris.

Clearly it's a peak vs. longevity question on Viola vs. Kaat, but even "peak" is subject to interpretation. Viola's peak is driven by three years. His fourth-best season by ERA+ was 110 and he only had five seasons where he was even above league-average. Kaat had six years above 110 and another six when he was above league average. 

Said another way, Viola only had three years when he was better than what Michael Pineda has been over his Twins' career. I don't say that to disparage Viola -- he made a great contribution to the franchise. But to talk about "all-time great" for a 60-year franchise, I think you need more than two great and one really good season. If a peak that short is sufficient, one could argue for Shane Mack over Viola. And certainly Bob Allison.

PS: I suspect we could have the same type of "peak vs. longevity" conversation when I see Brad Radke and Jim Perry omitted. But hey, it's all in good fun and reminiscing. ? 

4 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Viola had a much better peak than Kaat, plus the Cy Young ...

Hey, not trying to beat a dead horse, Bean, but I just caught this. As I noted in my first post, in 1966 there was only one Cy Young across both leagues and voters just listed one person on their ballots. Koufax got all 20 votes.

We'll never know, obviously, but I'm guessing that if they were using the later pattern of separate awards and a 5-3-1 ballot, Kaat likely would have won the AL award easily. Using the stats they paid attention to at the time...

• He won 25 games. McLain won 20, Wilson 18 and no one else had more than 16.
• He was sixth in ERA, but the leader only went 12-10, followed by guys with 13, 13, 11 and 14 wins.
• He was second in strikeouts, just 20 behind the leader, who went 9-8.
• He pitched 40 more innings than anyone else in the league.
• He had 19 complete games and no one else had more than 14.
• He beat the aforementioned McLain and Wilson in ERA, strikeouts, innings and complete games.

While that didn't get him any Cy Young votes over Koufax, he did finish fifth in the MVP voting, the only pitcher in the top 10. 

It's hard to tell with 1962, where NL pitchers (led by Drysdale) got all 20 votes. There wasn't a dominant AL pitcher, but Kaat was third in WAR (meaningless then) and top six in wins, ERA, innings, strikeouts, innings, complete games and shutouts (tied for first), but he probably would have gotten some support.