Mike Mussina

[Captain Cold Nose]

"where is Pedro?"

Good call. Pedro is .692 with 209 wins (93 losses).

But less than 3000 innings pitched, part of the criteria used in the search, as Paul Wendt poited out.

I don't think anyone is going to legitimately question Pedro's candidacy.

[steve rogers]

The distinction between a Hall-of-Famer and a "first ballot" Hall-of-Famer is a total canard. Either you belong or you don't. The only thing that ought to determine whether it's on the first ballot is the strength of competition you face the year you debut. And with each voter able to name ten players on their ballot, even that isn't sufficient excuse.

YES!!!! Whenever I want to point out the utter stupidity of the Hall Of Fame voters the first thing I mention is George Brett. He's my favorite player ever so I use him but you can use anyone similar to him. Brett received 96% of the vote. That means 4% of the voters didn't vote for him. 1 in 20 of those morons decided that they werent going to vote for George Brett. I would really like that explained to me.

If a guy's a Hall Of Famer he's a Hall Of Famer. If you really want a good laugh go take a look at this:

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/...ll%20of%20fame

How Woody Paige still has a job is a mystery for the ages.

Scott

[Captain Cold Nose]

YES!!!! Whenever I want to point out the utter stupidity of the Hall Of Fame voters the first thing I mention is George Brett. He's my favorite player ever so I use him but you can use anyone similar to him. Brett received 96% of the vote. That means 4% of the voters didn't vote for him. 1 in 20 of those morons decided that they werent going to vote for George Brett. I would really like that explained to me.

If a guy's a Hall Of Famer he's a Hall Of Famer. If you really want a good laugh go take a look at this:

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/...ll%20of%20fame

How Woody Paige still has a job is a mystery for the ages.

Scott

It's only been fairly recently that 95 and even 90% would regularly get reached on a yearly basis. Last twenty years or less.

[whoisonit]

If you really want a good laugh go take a look at this:

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/...ll%20of%20fame

Very funny. Reminds me of alot of people, not just the stat guys.

[Brad Harris]

where is Pedro?

Excuse me. That was 210 wins min. I didn't want Moose's 250 to be the min. wins required for the list.

Pedro has between 200-209 wins, as does Andy Pettitte for that matter.

[jalbright]

merged the most recent Mussina thread with an older one.

[Crawford's Wheels]

First timer here.

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been covered, but I can't see how Mussina - if elected - can go in wearing a Yankee cap. Desite playing on better teams once he went to NY, his decade in Baltimore is all around more impressive.

I struggle with the idea of Mussina going in ahead of Blyleven or even Schilling. Good pitcher, but not HOF material, in my opinion.

[White Knight]

Bumping this up for his recent 20 game win season.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do you think Mussina was great, though? To me, that's what the Hall is for. There have been certain benchmarks throughout the ages - 300 wins, 500 homers, 3,000 hits - that have guaranteed entry, but still, i think a guy should be great. For instance, i look at a guy like Don Sutton, who won 300 but was never great, in my estimation. On the other side, you have Pedro, who won't win 250 but was GREAT.

I don't see how you can win 300 games, especially with wins totals what they are now, and not be great.

You can win 300 games and not be spectacular. I'll say this for Nolan, the Overrated; he was a spectacular pitcher. No-hitters and strikeouts; that's the stuff of legends. They obscured the piles and piles of walks he gave up, but those walks contributed to his rather mediocre winning percentage. Baseball, however, is not a spectacle, and longevity is a sign of greatness. That a pitcher can hang in the game long enough to win 300 is, to me, prima facie evidence of greatness, even if the 300 wins is the only credential for the HOF the pitcher puts forward.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I don't see how you can win 300 games, especially with wins totals what they are now, and not be great.

You can win 300 games and not be spectacular. I'll say this for Nolan, the Overrated; he was a spectacular pitcher. No-hitters and strikeouts; that's the stuff of legends. They obscured the piles and piles of walks he gave up, but those walks contributed to his rather mediocre winning percentage. Baseball, however, is not a spectacle, and longevity is a sign of greatness. That a pitcher can hang in the game long enough to win 300 is, to me, prima facie evidence of greatness, even if the 300 wins is the only credential for the HOF the pitcher puts forward.

Mussina does not need 300 wins to be classified as great, even. He was a top-5 starter in his league for quite some time. He never cracked the big four, but he's only a couple of places behind them. Definitely top 10 for his era and that's pretty great.

[Bravesfan1984]

Mussina does not need 300 wins to be classified as great, even. He was a top-5 starter in his league for quite some time. He never cracked the big four, but he's only a couple of places behind them. Definitely top 10 for his era and that's pretty great.

There is a difference for me at least between great and HOF great. A lot of baseball players play that are great but few are HOF great.

[abolishthedh]

This is a bitter pill to swallow, and he may yet make it with a couple of solid seasons, but I say no as of today.

The main reason is The Blyleven Mystery. I cannot in good conscience vote Mussina in while Blyleven remains out. Had Blyleven had better teams, let alone the quality of teams that Mussina has had for the majority of Mussina's career, then Bert would have had well more than 300 wins and probably a higher postseason profile.

Staying on the topic of Mussina, he has been underappreciated as a big game pitcher, he has handled himself with class, he's been consistent, and he has put it all together without ever wasting his talent. The last point is made in comparison to Schilling, and so I would have no trouble voting Mussina in while Schilling remained out. Its likely I will revisit this thread in a couple of years.

[Mike90]

This is a bitter pill to swallow, and he may yet make it with a couple of solid seasons, but I say no as of today.

The main reason is The Blyleven Mystery. I cannot in good conscience vote Mussina in while Blyleven remains out. Had Blyleven had better teams, let alone the quality of teams that Mussina has had for the majority of Mussina's career, then Bert would have had well more than 300 wins and probably a higher postseason profile.

Staying on the topic of Mussina, he has been underappreciated as a big game pitcher, he has handled himself with class, he's been consistent, and he has put it all together without ever wasting his talent. The last point is made in comparison to Schilling, and so I would have no trouble voting Mussina in while Schilling remained out. Its likely I will revisit this thread in a couple of years.

Can't you vote for both Blyleven and Mussina? The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Bravesfan1984]

Can't you vote for both Blyleven and Mussina? The two are not mutually exclusive.

Mussina is better though. He has a better win percentage.Blyleven only has 30 more wins then losses. I do not think either will make it though.

[White Knight]

Mussina is better though. He has a better win percentage.Blyleven only has 30 more wins then losses. I do not think either will make it though.

If Moose retires now, I fear you may be right. He'll come close, but I can't see him getting more than 65% of the vote.

[Mike90]

If Moose retires now, I fear you may be right. He'll come close, but I can't see him getting more than 65% of the vote.

I'm pretty sure Mussina would make the Hall if he retired after this season. Sports writers love win-loss record, and no one with a record close to being as good as 270-153 hasn't been enshrined. His 1st 20-win season has taken at least one foolish (IMO) argument against his election off the table.

Blyleven should be in the Hall, but there's that hangup about win-loss record; he's only 37 games above .500, so he can't be great. Meanwhile, Nolan Ryan (32 games above .500) sails in with over 98% of the vote because he reached the 300-win mark and threw a freakish amount of strikeouts.

[Bravesfan1984]

I'm pretty sure Mussina would make the Hall if he retired after this season. Sports writers love win-loss record, and no one with a record close to being as good as 270-153 hasn't been enshrined. His 1st 20-win season has taken at least one foolish (IMO) argument against his election off the table.

Blyleven should be in the Hall, but there's that hangup about win-loss record; he's only 37 games above .500, so he can't be great. Meanwhile, Nolan Ryan (32 games above .500) sails in with over 98% of the vote because he reached the 300-win mark and threw a freakish amount of strikeouts.

That is great but neither 270 wins nor 20 games is a standard for HOf entrance. Most players who have 270 wins or more have at least something else that show that they are a HOfer like a Cy Young.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That is great but neither 270 wins nor 20 games is a standard for HOf entrance. Most players who have 270 wins or more have at least something else that show that they are a HOfer like a Cy Young.

There are three pitchers with more than 270 wins that are not in the HOF; Bert Blyleven, Tommy John, and Jim Kaat. There are asterisks for each one:

Kaat would have won the AL Cy Young Award in 1966 had there been such an award. There was not; there was only one Cy Young Award handed out for all of MLB until the very next year, and the 1966 award went to Sandy Koufax.

Tommy John has an extremely truncated career. He was a tough luck pitcher with the Chisox, but posted excellent ERAs, even for the time. If you take John's record from 1972 on (the year he joined the Dodgers), he is 204-120. His career was further truncated by his elbow injury, but he had his best seasons after the surgery. We would say, in this instance, that John has a "peak value" case; his three 20-win seasons all came in his post-Chisox period.

John was also shafted, at least somewhat, in CYA voting. He finished second in CYA voting twice. In 1977, John finished second to Steve Carlton, which was somewhat defensible. In 1979, John finished second to Mike Flanagan, and that vote is far less defensible:

1979 American League Cy Young Award 
BR Bullpen: Find or enter more info for this award (what's this?)

                          1st           Max        |       Season Results 
 Rk Name             Team Place Points Points Share|  W-L   IP  ERA   WHIP  SO SV
+--+----------------+----+-----+------+------+-----+------+---+-----+-----+---+--+
  1 Mike Flanagan     BAL   26    136    140  0.97 | 23-9  266  3.08  1.19 190   
  2 Tommy John        NYY    1     51    140  0.36 | 21-9  276  2.96  1.21 111   
  3 Ron Guidry        NYY    1     26    140  0.19 | 18-8  236  2.78  1.16 201  2
  4 Jim Kern          TEX    0     25    140  0.18 | 13-5  143  1.57  1.13 136 29
  5 Mike Marshall     MIN    0      7    140  0.05 | 10-15 143  2.65  1.26  81 32
  6 Jerry Koosman     MIN    0      5    140  0.04 | 20-13 264  3.38  1.33 157   
  7 Dennis Eckersley  BOS    0      1    140  0.01 | 17-10 247  2.99  1.19 150   
  7 Aurelio Lopez     DET    0      1    140  0.01 | 10-5  127  2.41  1.15 106 21

I don't see it. I don't see, apart from the fact that the O's won the pennant and Flanagan won 2 more games (23 to 21) that Flanagan should have received all but 2 first-place votes. This is a case of voting for a guy that was on the right team.

Then there's Blyleven, who had the best career of all three, but often played on losers, so his W-L record is the least impressive.

[highpockets]

That is great but neither 270 wins nor 20 games is a standard for HOf entrance. Most players who have 270 wins or more have at least something else that show that they are a HOfer like a Cy Young.

Mussina (let alone Blyleven) brings a lot more to the party than 270 wins. At 122, he's 88th in adjusted ERA+ or about 100 places higher than Steve Carlton at 115. He's 61st in batters faced, despite pitching in the limited pitch-count era. Take a look at his leader board on baseball-reference and check out some of his career rankings. When someone's that good for that long, he's HOF great.

Look, I hate the guy: He went over to the dark side and he owns, owns, the Red Sox. His motion from the stretch makes me want to punch him. But give the devil his due.

[Mike90]

That is great but neither 270 wins nor 20 games is a standard for HOf entrance. Most players who have 270 wins or more have at least something else that show that they are a HOfer like a Cy Young.

Well, as I've pointed out an annoying amount of times, Mussina has finished in the top 6 in Cy Young voting 8 times, not including this season where he will almost certainly be mentioned. Also, just because he hasn't won the award doesn't mean he hasn't deserved it. He has a pretty good argument for being the best AL pitcher in 1992, '94, and '01 (actually, I probably wouldn't have given him the award any of those years, but how many pitchers who have been 2nd best in a league 3 times and had as many other outstanding seasons as Mussina's had been kept out of the hall?).

Blyleven has finished top-10 in ERA 10 times and top-10 in ERA+ 12 times. He has thrown 4970 innings, 3701 strikeouts, and 60 shutouts. He was also awesome in the postseason. He is not just relying on his wins.

[highpockets]

That is great but neither 270 wins nor 20 games is a standard for HOf entrance. Most players who have 270 wins or more have at least something else that show that they are a HOfer like a Cy Young.

Let's just look at the WL record, as most writers usually do, and see if that's enough:

For a non-HOF pitcher with 250+ wins, the highest WL average is Jack Morris's .577. Mussina's is .638.

For a modern non-HOF pitcher with a .630+ WL average, the most wins is Ron Guidry's 194. Mussina has 270.

There is no eligible modern starter with a WL record remotely similar to Mussina's who is not in the Hall of Fame. His WL record is basically the same as Carl Hubbell's--with an extra 17-1 season thrown in.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Let's just look at the WL record, as most writers usually do, and see if that's enough:

For a non-HOF pitcher with 250+ wins, the highest WL average is Jack Morris's .577. Mussina's is .638.

For a modern non-HOF pitcher with a .630+ WL average, the most wins is Ron Guidry's 194. Mussina has 270.

There is no eligible modern starter with a WL record remotely similar to Mussina's who is not in the Hall of Fame. His WL record is basically the same as Carl Hubbell's--with an extra 17-1 season thrown in.

If Braves1984 doesn't accept this, I'll wonder about him even more. That's pretty compelling evidence to me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let's just look at the WL record, as most writers usually do, and see if that's enough:

For a non-HOF pitcher with 250+ wins, the highest WL average is Jack Morris's .577. Mussina's is .638.

For a modern non-HOF pitcher with a .630+ WL average, the most wins is Ron Guidry's 194. Mussina has 270.

There is no eligible modern starter with a WL record remotely similar to Mussina's who is not in the Hall of Fame. His WL record is basically the same as Carl Hubbell's--with an extra 17-1 season thrown in.

Guidry has only 170 wins; he's 170-91 lifetime.

If Guidry actually had 194 wins, I think he'd be in the HOF. He'd certainly be a stronger candidate.

[highpockets]

Guidry has only 170 wins; he's 170-91 lifetime.

If Guidry actually had 194 wins, I think he'd be in the HOF. He'd certainly be a stronger candidate.

My bad. I was looking at pitchers in a couple of windows. I think you're right. Sam Leever was no Ron Guidry.

[Fuzzy Bear]

My bad. I was looking at pitchers in a couple of windows. I think you're right. Sam Leever was no Ron Guidry.

While most pitchers with 170 wins are not HOF material, I think Guidry rates, and deserves more consideration that he's received. I certainly view Guidry as greater than Leever.

I've certainly gotten blurry-eyed and confused looking at multiple windows in the past.