I think Dave Stieb is more overlooked than Mussina. I'm not even sure that people revere Marichal as much as Posnanski thinks they do.

Wow, someone thought a Dennis Miller joke was funny?

Juan Marichal had some of the greatest run support of any pitcher in history. He's up there with Allie Reynolds and Don Newcombe.

I like Miller, Harold. But I haven't really been following his career lately.

As Moscow Hiding said on another Mussina thread, the Moose is sort of in between in a lot of ways. He has better rate states than some extreme-long-career guys like Carlton or Spahn (some of whom had much higher dominant peaks). He has higher counting totals than some of the dominant high-peak shorter-career guys, Pedro Martinez or Curt Schilling for instance. He has half of a lot of possible cases. It really does come down to the size of one's Hall; if it includes Stieb and Blyleven and Saberhagen (or Rube Marquard, Jesse Haines, and Vic Willis) then Mussina ought to be in, for sure.

Personally, I'm kind of surprised that people even need to ask.

As Moscow Hiding said on another Mussina thread, the Moose is sort of in between in a lot of ways. He has better rate states than some extreme-long-career guys like Carlton or Spahn (some of whom had much higher dominant peaks). He has higher counting totals than some of the dominant high-peak shorter-career guys, Pedro Martinez or Curt Schilling for instance. He has half of a lot of possible cases.

Which is exactly the same as Blyleven. Mussina's case really is the same as Blyleven's. When you look at his career and compare it to an average Hall-of-Famer, Mussina's better - but that's partly because he's got more wins than Sandy Koufax and Hal Newhouser and because he's got a better ERA+ than Nolan Ryan and Don Sutton.

I described Blyleven once as a guy who has fewer wins than guys who made the Hall of Fame based on how many games they won (Sutton, Niekro), fewer Cy Young votes than guys who made the Hall based on their awards (Koufax, Palmer), fewer 20-win seasons than guys who made the Hall based on 20-win seasons (Hunter, Jenkins), and fewer strikeouts than the only guy who made the Hall of Fame based on his strikeouts (Ryan). Mussina's the same way. He also, like Blyleven, suffers from being (perceived as) clearly worse than a fairly large number of contemporaries - Clemens, Maddux, RJ, Pedro, Glavine, Schilling, Smoltz (*). So, as Bob says, it comes down to Hall-size. Is the 8th-best starting pitcher of his generation good enough to make the Hall of Fame?

(*) I think that Mussina is clearly viewed as inferior to Schilling and Smoltz by current HOF voters. I think that he probably has a case that he's at least their equal (as well as perhaps Glavine). In terms of who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, Kevin Brown would also make the same list; I think he's going to be all but ignored in actual Hall of Fame voting, though.

Personally, I'm kind of surprised that people even need to ask.

My thoughts exactly. It was obvious three seasons ago and should only be more obvious now. He has every single quality that a HoF pitcher must have.
The only arguments against him being in the HoF are tangentially related, at best.

He has higher counting totals than some of the dominant high-peak shorter-career guys, Pedro Martinez or Curt Schilling for instance

Mussina's peak is better than Schilling's. Mussina's everything is better than Schilling's.

Mussina's peak is better than Schilling's

But Schilling has those gaudy W-L records and the postseason heroics and the 300K totals and a horse-like number of starts and IP for his era, last guy to complete 15 games, that kind of thing. Writers are going to perceive Schilling as quite a bit more dominant in his best seasons, and they will have a certain point.

Schiling 2001-04 went 74-28 in 910 IP / 126 GS with 1006 K and a 151 ERA+. Mussina 1992-95 went 67-25 in 806 IP / 113 GS with 504 K and a 139 ERA+. You could probably choose a few other four-year spans that would be nearly as good for Mussina, of course (and with higher counting totals, because of the strike), but MM clearly has had the better career, that's not the issue here. Schilling for that brief stretch looks extremely impressive (the more so because he missed much of the 2003 season).

In terms of who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, Kevin Brown would also make the same list; I think he's going to be all but ignored in actual Hall of Fame voting, though.

That's my pick for destined to be most overlooked guy of this generation. If Moose doesn't make the Hall (unlikely, I think), he'll at least spend 15 years on the ballot. Brown will make a quick exit, I'm afraid.

Mussina's peak is better than Schilling's. Mussina's everything is better than Schilling's.

Not sure I agree - they look fairly similar. ERA+ for seasons with 162+ IP:
Mussina
163,157,145,142,137,134,132,129,129,129,125,109,103,100,98,96
159,157,150,150,143,142,135,134,134,124,120,99
Schilling

In 2007, Mussina also had ERA+ 87 for 152 IP, Schilling 122 for 151 IP. Schilling has 135 relief appearances, 81 GF, 22 SV. Mussina has one relief appearance.

Mussina has career length over Schilling, but except for each pitcher's #1 season, Schilling takes the peak (when judged only by ERA+.) There's also the postseason. Moose has been good, Schilling's been better. In total, I see them as quite similar HOF candidates right now, with Mussina likely adding to (or subtractiong from) his resume and Schilling probably done.

Any Hall of Fame that finds room for Catfish Hunter and Dennis Eckersley ought to find a place for Mike Mussina.

Unless it's the Awesome Droopy Mustache Hall of Fame. Then, sorry Mike, yer out!

Not sure I agree - they look fairly similar. ERA+ for seasons with 162+ IP:
Mussina
163,157,145,142,137,134,132,129,129,129,125,109,103,100,98,96
159,157,150,150,143,142,135,134,134,124,120,99
Schilling

6.5% of Mussina's runs allowed have been unearned.
4.9% of Schilling's runs allowed have been unearned.

It's not huge, but any ERA based comparisons between the two underestimate Schilling.

It's not huge, but any ERA based comparisons between the two underestimate Schilling.

Actually, I could argue this backwards - Schilling has been the beneficiary of better defense behind him, which has helped him as a pitcher.... (granted, nobody forced Mussina to sign with the Yankees and have Jeter be his SS, but that's not usually how we look at these things).

Actually, I could argue this backwards - Schilling has been the beneficiary of better defense behind him, which has helped him as a pitcher....

That would be a difficult argument to make. Schilling's low unearned run totals have little to do with his defense and more to do with his particular style of pitching (high K, low walk, flyball over groundball) and the era (fewer errors scored).

FWIW, Mussina also score pretty well historically on this count as well. Brown, on the other hand, rates poorly against those two, no surprise for a groundball pitcher who didn't strike out as many and walked more guys than Schilling and Moose.

You lost me.

How does being a flyball-over-groundball pitcher not entail that the defense behind the pitcher had something to do with that pitcher's ERA?

(i.e., I can see how it's more difficult for a pitcher's defense to screw up with FBs vs. ground balls, but isn't that precisely my point? - that Schilling having less unearned runs partially showS him having a better defense behind him).

NOTE: I am crystal clear that being a high K, low BB pitcher means that the pitcher has more control over the outcome of each AB.

How does being a flyball-over-groundball pitcher not entail that the defense behind the pitcher had something to do with that pitcher's ERA?

Because we're not talking about Schilling's ERA. We're talking about the number of unearned runs he's allowed.

Flyballs are less likely to be turned into errors than ground balls, thus fewer errors behind him. (Also, while having good flycatchers behind him would certainly benefit him in terms of preventing earned runs, it wouldn't do much to lower his UE run count.)

Strikeouts are less likely to be turned into errors than grounders.

A paucity of walks means there are fewer runners on base to benefit from an error.

Modern scorekeepers granting hits if the degree of difficulty is anything above .01 means there are fewer errors commited overall.

Add it up and you've got the pitcher with the lowest rate of unearned runs to earned runs in baseball history, and none of it dependent on the quality of defense behind him.

How does being a flyball-over-groundball pitcher not entail that the defense behind the pitcher had something to do with that pitcher's ERA?

Because if by "defense" you intend to refer to those things outside the control of the pitcher, then "being a flyball-over-groundball pitcher" doesn't qualify. Schilling didn't give up more fly balls than Kevin Brown in his career by luck or because he was blessed with better fielders. He did so because his pitching style/repertoire produced fly balls - which don't generate fielding errors - while Brown's style/repertoire produced ground balls - which do generate fielding errors.

Think of it this way: ERA measures the number of runs a pitcher would give up if everybody fielded 1.000 behind him. On fly balls, most fielders really do field something very close to 1.000 anyway, so for a fly-ball pitcher, his ERA is going to be very close to what his RA would be with a typical defense behind him. But on ground balls, a typical fielder is only going to field 0.960 or 0.970 or some such (probably even lower). So, for a ground-ball pitcher, his ERA is going to be lower than what his RA would be, even with very good fielders, who nevertheless still make some errors on ground balls. ERA under-values extreme flyball pitchers like Schilling and over-values extreme groundball pitchers like Brown.

(note: this has very little to do with Mussina who has a relatively low number of unearned runs allowed in his career)

JRVJ, I think the idea is that flyball 'outs' are much more reliably converted into outs than groundball 'outs'. That is, outfielders don't drop flyballs very often, but infielders bobble and miss throws relatively often.

I'm not sure how accurate that is, or how important.

I understand your argument, but I am not convinced.

Let's put aside Ks, BBs and modern scorekeepers, as I don't think we're in disagreement there.

My question is: if you are a flyball pitcher, you should have less chance of errors being committed by your fielders than if you are a groundball pitcher (or more of a flyball pitcher than a groundball pitcher, since FB/GB is a spectrum).

So I can see how being a flyball pitcher would DECREASE the amount of UNearned runs a pitcher ends up with (at least as compared to a pitcher more on the groundball side of hte spectrum).

However, FBs still have to get caught and GBs still have to be fielded cleanly, so surely there is some component in there that is atributable to the actual quality of the defense behind the pitcher....

So I can see how being a flyball pitcher would DECREASE the amount of UNearned runs a pitcher ends up with (at least as compared to a pitcher more on the groundball side of hte spectrum).

Yes. That's it. Obviously defense ALSO matters, but if Pitcher A allows fewer unearned runs than Pitcher B and Pitcher A has a higher flyball ratio than Pitcher B, then we can't say anything definitive about the relative defenses behind Pitchers A and B without additional information.

Yes. That's it. Obviously defense ALSO matters, but if Pitcher A allows fewer unearned runs than Pitcher B and Pitcher A has a higher flyball ratio than Pitcher B, then we can't say anything definitive about the relative defenses behind Pitchers A and B without additional information.

You are right in that we can't say anything definitive until we closely study the actual defenses behind Pitchers A and B.

However, seeing as how Mussina has had Jeter behind him for 8 years, suffice it to say that I am somewhat non-objective about the matter.... :-)

However, FBs still have to get caught and GBs still have to be fielded cleanly, so surely there is some component in there that is atributable to the actual quality of the defense behind the pitcher...

As Kiko and I both noted, the fact that Schilling is the best all-time in preventing UE runs should not obscure the fact that Moose was among the best ever in the same category. So while arguing for Schilling's superior defense, you'd also have to be acknowledging that Moose pitched in front of superior defenses, which I don't think is your contention. Edit: Which your post 22 confirms.

However, seeing as how Mussina has had Jeter behind him for 8 years, suffice it to say that I am somewhat non-objective about the matter.... :-)

As I said parenthetically above, this really isn't a particularly appropriate sidetrack when we're talking about Mussina. If anything, I think he's above average in terms on unearned runs allowed (certainly historically, but I think even given that he's a modern player).

This always comes up in a big way when people start comparing Curt Schilling and Kevin Brown, because (a) Schilling was probably the foremost flyball pitcher of his era, (b) Brown was probably the foremost groundball pitcher of his era, and (3) they have the exact same career ERA+ (127), so things like how much you debit a pitcher for unearned runs becomes crucial in how you compare these two guys. It's a much lesser point in Schilling's favor relative to Mussina.

I'm not even sure that people revere Marichal as much as Posnanski thinks they do.

Non-Sabr fans seem to fall into two camps with regard to Marichal (those old enough to at least vaguely remember him)

1: Great pitcher look at those W-L records, 26-9, 25-8 YOWZA!
2: He's a bum, he should have been thrown out of baseball and jailed/deported (The Roseboro incident)

Then why do we consider ERA+ rather than RA+ generally?

Then why do we consider ERA+ rather than RA+ generally?

Two thoughts:

1, it's more easily accessible. It's right there at BBRef.

2, for most pitchers, their RA+ will probably be in line with their ERA+. It's only when comparing the extremes, Schilling v. Brown, where it's worth looking behond ERA+.

Too bad nobody's logged zone data for the last 20 years or so. By the time they're actually eligible for the Hall of Fame, tRA might be available for most of those years and we won't have to make silly arguments like that a guy had fewer unearned runs because of the defense behind him (even though the defense behind the pitcher has a MUCH greater effect on the number of EARNED runs he gives up, since the sure-handedness of a defender makes up but a small percentage of most players' defensive values).

If you look at the defense-independent statistics, it seems pretty clear that Schilling was the better pitcher. Personally, for me, they were both relatively borderline cases as of a few years ago, but they've probably pitched their way in by now. They're both in the category where I might wait a year or two to stick them on my ballot, depending on who else was available at the time.