View Poll Results: Is Mike Mussina a Hall of Famer?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    120 83.33%
  • No

    24 16.67%
Page 21 of 52 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 1030

Thread: Mike Mussina

  1. #401
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,909
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by gman5431 View Post
    Suprised by the overwelming support on Mussina now. I guess his first 20 win season has upped his support from 50-60 range to 90+. I still see him on the outside.

    G Rizzle
    Hey, someone has to keep Bravesfan company.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  2. #402
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    6,308
    Blog Entries
    8
    Mussina and Palmer have a lot in common.

    Mussina -- 270 wins; Palmer -- 268.

    Both were Orioles; Palmer for his whole career, Moose for the first half (and most of his best seasons).

    Both were cerebral right-handers with an assortment of pitches and superb command.

    Both generally had great winning percentages; both were quite durable despite reputations for picking up a lot of little dings.

    It's a sensible comparison.

    The big difference is obviously that Palmer had 8 20 win seasons and pitched many more innings per season. This is an era effect, mostly...

    The other big difference is the Cys...but a lot of that is a combination of the win total (stemming from usage) and the quality of the teams they played for.

  3. #403
    Hes a first balott hall of famer who will get over 90% of the vote. The only question now is whether he will end up bieng one of the best ever.

  4. #404
    Quote Originally Posted by bambambaseball View Post
    Hes a first balott hall of famer who will get over 90% of the vote. The only question now is whether he will end up bieng one of the best ever.
    Top 40 or 50. I'm not so sure about 90%. No awards, no rings, no records, no career earmark milestones.
    Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

  5. #405
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by nerfan View Post
    True. You and I obviously have different standards of "great". I define "great" as a season over 140 ERA+ for a starter. Mussina has had four of these years. By comparison, Juan Marichal had 4, Bob Gibson had 4. Of course Gibson had a "historic" season, which I define as over 170 ERA+. Gibson exceeds that by 88 points in 1968. But I digress. Four years of greatness put together with "very good" (120 ERA+) is a Hall of Famer.
    Gibson had a couple cy young awards and more 20 win seasons. I do not believe Marichal should be in the hall of fame so i will not comment on him.

  6. #406
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike90 View Post
    Are you saying that because Palmer received more help from his defense?
    Correct. Palmer recieved more defensive help than any HOF pitcher since Mordecai Brown. With an average defense, Palmer's ERA+ would be closer to 120 than the 127 it is. Now 3,900 IP and a 120 ERA+ is still a well-deserved HOFer, but far, far different than 3,900 IP and a 127 ERA+.

    The 20 win seasons are defintitley a function of era, and Mussina should not be penalized for that.

    Innings pitched? Despite playing in the hardest era to accumulate innings, Mussina will come close to matching Palmer's career total - and will probably surpass his BF total (assumption here - feel free to fact check me), which is more important than IP anyway.

    Playoffs? Palmer's teams were much better than Mussina' teams, but Palmer also pitched better in the playoffs than Mussina. Hard to make a distinguishing comparison there.

    Cy Youngs? Palmer may not have won any either without his ERA being mightedly supressed by his other-wordly defenses. Some of those incredible all-time infields saved him upwards of 20 runs a few seasons!

    Better? As of right now, I would take Palmers' playoff rercord, 3,900 IP and 120 ERA+ to Mussina's playoff record, 3,500 IP and 122 ERA+. It is close, however. A few more solid Mussina season, and that will change.
    Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 10-20-2008 at 03:36 PM.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  7. #407
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    6,308
    Blog Entries
    8
    Gibson had five 20 win seasons.

    Marichal had six 20 win seasons.

    However:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    Why because he has some more wins and a 20 win seasons. He still is not shown he is a HOF player.
    So, 20 win seasons don't matter anyway.

    Career wins do, though:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    I want a pitcher who wins the most games. If you have two players with the same amount of losses you would take the one with more wins. The difference between there era is not really that much.
    Let's note, this applies to other players too...from the thread on Schilling:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    Schilling only has 216 wins. If he has like 250 then I could see that. If you put Schilling in you might as well put David Wells in. Wells has more wins and a better winning percentage.
    Marichal: 244 wins
    Gibson: 251 wins
    Mussina: 270 wins and counting.

    Marichal: .631 winning percentage
    Gibson: .591 winning percentage
    Mussina: .638 winning percentage through 2008

    So who's the best player? Gibson looks bad...a few more wins than Marichal, but a much, much worse winning percentage.

    However, Gibson is the only one who won a Cy Young. (Two, actually)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    ...

    While it may not be neccisary to win it seems the standard is that you need a Cy young to be a Hall of Famer
    But wait!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    I think Marichal should of won in 1968. Even though Bob Gibson had a lower era Marichal had more wins. Marichal also finished 5th in mvp that year. In 1966 he finished 6th in the mvp voting. He really should have finished higher many years in the top 5 Cy Young but only the Cy Young winner is shown.Marichal has a better career era then Mussina and has much more twenty win seasons.
    So if Marichal deserved a Cy Young, but didn't get it, he doesn't deserve the Hall of Fame. Because, well, two wrongs make a right, I suppose. If I follow the reasoning...

    We've sure learned that Bob Gibson was good-for-nothing, though. He doesn't compare favorably to David Wells except for the Cy Youngs that he probably didn't even deserve. (You've got to figure if one is tainted, they both are.)

    Setting Gibson aside for the moment, then...Mussina, for his career, got much more Cy Young support than Marichal. Marichal, throughout his career, never got a first place Cy Young vote, not a single one, and only appeared on one Cy Young Ballot ever, in 1971, in 3rd place. Now the truth can be told: Juan Marichal was obviously an overrated bum. Thank goodness the BBWAA voters left us the clues to reveal this sublime truth.

    Mussina got three first place votes, so far..., and he appeared on enough ballots to get 0.91 Cy Young "Win Shares" for his career (vs. 0.01 for that pathetic noodle-arm Marichal).

    So clearly, by this measure, Mussina is better than Marichal! Neither of these tomato cans ever won a Cy Young, of course, but Mussina came much, much closer, you see.

    So Mussina is better than Marichal, and Marichal is better than Gibson, because Marichal deserved the Cy in 1968, a season other deluded fools have allowed themselves to be tricked into believing was one of the best ever. But Gibson was only 22-9! That's not great...just good.

    It's all so very confusing, such circular arguments and logic...it's probably better if we keep them all three of them out of the Hall of Fame. We wouldn't want to lead posterity to think any of these guys were worthy of note.
    Last edited by Cougar; 10-20-2008 at 06:57 PM.

  8. #408
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,909
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    Gibson had a couple cy young awards and more 20 win seasons. I do not believe Marichal should be in the hall of fame so i will not comment on him.
    What? In what universe does Juan Marichal not belong in the HOF? What, six 20 wins seasons is not enough? He led the 1960s in wins (191). He was one of the dominant pitchers of his era.
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 10-21-2008 at 09:10 AM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  9. #409
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    Gibson had a couple cy young awards and more 20 win seasons. I do not believe Marichal should be in the hall of fame so i will not comment on him.
    BravesFan1984, which of these following pitchers do you think belong in the Hall?
    - Jack Morris
    - Catfish Hunter
    - Denny McClain
    - Bret Saberhagen
    - Don Sutton
    - Bert Blyleven
    - Pete Vuckovich

  10. #410
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    3,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    Top 40 or 50. I'm not so sure about 90%. No awards, no rings, no records, no career earmark milestones.
    Yeah, there is no way he gets 90 %. He isnt even in my top 50 pitchers off all time. Too many almosts. He has been durable and had multiple season where he was ONE OR the top pitchers in the league but never was THE man. He will be first ballot but it will be closer to 75% then 90% IMO.

    G Rizzle

  11. #411
    Quote Originally Posted by gman5431 View Post
    Yeah, there is no way he gets 90 %. He isnt even in my top 50 pitchers off all time. Too many almosts. He has been durable and had multiple season where he was ONE OR the top pitchers in the league but never was THE man. He will be first ballot but it will be closer to 75% then 90% IMO.

    G Rizzle
    I would love to hear the names of 50 pitchers that were better than Mike Mussina.
    Last edited by Mike90; 04-13-2009 at 05:10 PM.

  12. #412
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Gibson had five 20 win seasons.

    Marichal had six 20 win seasons.

    However:



    So, 20 win seasons don't matter anyway.

    Career wins do, though:



    Let's note, this applies to other players too...from the thread on Schilling:



    Marichal: 244 wins
    Gibson: 251 wins
    Mussina: 270 wins and counting.

    Marichal: .631 winning percentage
    Gibson: .591 winning percentage
    Mussina: .638 winning percentage through 2008

    So who's the best player? Gibson looks bad...a few more wins than Marichal, but a much, much worse winning percentage.

    However, Gibson is the only one who won a Cy Young. (Two, actually)



    But wait!!



    So if Marichal deserved a Cy Young, but didn't get it, he doesn't deserve the Hall of Fame. Because, well, two wrongs make a right, I suppose. If I follow the reasoning...

    We've sure learned that Bob Gibson was good-for-nothing, though. He doesn't compare favorably to David Wells except for the Cy Youngs that he probably didn't even deserve. (You've got to figure if one is tainted, they both are.)

    Setting Gibson aside for the moment, then...Mussina, for his career, got much more Cy Young support than Marichal. Marichal, throughout his career, never got a first place Cy Young vote, not a single one, and only appeared on one Cy Young Ballot ever, in 1971, in 3rd place. Now the truth can be told: Juan Marichal was obviously an overrated bum. Thank goodness the BBWAA voters left us the clues to reveal this sublime truth.

    Mussina got three first place votes, so far..., and he appeared on enough ballots to get 0.91 Cy Young "Win Shares" for his career (vs. 0.01 for that pathetic noodle-arm Marichal).

    So clearly, by this measure, Mussina is better than Marichal! Neither of these tomato cans ever won a Cy Young, of course, but Mussina came much, much closer, you see.

    So Mussina is better than Marichal, and Marichal is better than Gibson, because Marichal deserved the Cy in 1968, a season other deluded fools have allowed themselves to be tricked into believing was one of the best ever. But Gibson was only 22-9! That's not great...just good.

    It's all so very confusing, such circular arguments and logic...it's probably better if we keep them all three of them out of the Hall of Fame. We wouldn't want to lead posterity to think any of these guys were worthy of note.
    So you are saying because Mussina has more career wins he is better. Mussina also has more career wins then Pedro Martinez. THat does not mean he was a better player.

  13. #413
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    So you are saying because Mussina has more career wins he is better. Mussina also has more career wins then Pedro Martinez. THat does not mean he was a better player.
    I believe Cougar was citing your position, not presenting his own.

  14. #414
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    782
    If career wins were important Bert Blyleven would be in already. If they do not put him in I really doubt Mussina is going to make it.

  15. #415
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike90 View Post
    I would live to hear the names of 50 pitchers that were better than Mike Mussina.
    I can name some from this era

    Clemons
    P Martinez
    Glavine
    Smoltz
    R Johnson
    Schilling
    Maddux
    Rivera

  16. #416
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    I can name some from this era

    Clemons
    P Martinez
    Glavine
    Smoltz
    R Johnson
    Schilling
    Maddux
    Rivera
    I agree with all of those. Name 42 more, and you've proved your point.

  17. #417
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    If career wins were important Bert Blyleven would be in already. If they do not put him in I really doubt Mussina is going to make it.
    3 points I want to make about the above statement:
    1) Blyleven easily meets Hall of Fame standards, and should have been inducted a long time ago.
    2) Blyleven reached 61% in the hall of fame voting last year meaning the majority of the voters feel he is worthy. It's unlikely that Blyleven won't reach 75% within the the next few years.
    3) Mussina has 97 less losses than Blyleven. Win-loss records mean a lot to sportswriters, and Mussina's record (270-153) is one of the greatest in history.

  18. #418
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravesfan1984 View Post
    If career wins were important Bert Blyleven would be in already. If they do not put him in I really doubt Mussina is going to make it.
    Career wins are important. But not a single voter focues on just one number. Nor does anyone in this forum despite you picking single numbers out of everyone's discussion points and using that as your argument against them.
    Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

  19. #419
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,901
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    Career wins are important. But not a single voter focues on just one number. Nor does anyone in this forum despite you picking single numbers out of everyone's discussion points and using that as your argument against them.
    Are you sure that applies to the individual you directed the comment at as well? Given the level of insight he has given into his thinking process (such as it is), I'm honestly unsure what you say isn't true of him.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  20. #420
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    Are you sure that applies to the individual you directed the comment at as well? Given the level of insight he has given into his thinking process (such as it is), I'm honestly unsure what you say isn't true of him.
    I was speaking of this forum on general. I would have to include him when speaking of this forum, wouldn't I?
    Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

Page 21 of 52 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •