Maybe Moose had better bullpens than the others? I'd think having Rivera at his back for a significant number of games would increase his W/GS a bit.

HAs anyone figured out Fibonacci Win Points for this generation of pitchers? It's not the be all or end all, but it's a fun little pseudo-stat.

Pitchers active in 2008, by Fibbo win points (top 25):
Greg Maddux 345
Randy Johnson 326
Mike Mussina 289
Tom Glavine 285
Pedro Martinez 261
Andy Pettitte 223
Jamie Moyer 201
Curt Schilling 199
Kenny Rogers 191
John Smoltz 186
Tim Hudson 165
Roy Halladay 152
Roy Oswalt 151
Bartolo Colon 144
Johan Santana 132
Aaron Sele 120
Mike Hampton 117
C.C. Sabathia 116
Tim Wakefield 116
Freddy Garcia 112
Kevin Millwood 111
Mark Mulder 108
Jason Schmidt 108
Mark Buehrle 106
Barry Zito 100

Thanks, JPWF13. Asssuming I did it right, I have Clemens and 403 and Kevin Brown at 192.

The Mussina HoF really illustrates how high the bar for HoF starting pitchers has become over the years, both in the reality of BBWAA voting and in the perception of most fans (even a lot of Primates, it seems). Look at the four HoF numbers on Baseball Reference (Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF Standards, HOF Monitor). Throw in Top 10 Cy Young/MVP finishes. See how Mussina and Blyleven rate against guys like Murray, Winfield, and Molitor -- no doubt first ballot HoFers all. Very very similar.

But the hitters have pretty shiny round numbers. Not that there's anything particularly valuable about 3000 hits qua 3000 hits, 500 HRs qua 500 HRs, or 1500 runs or RBIs qua 1500 runa or RBIs. Baseball celebrates those numbers because they're round and because they have celebrated them historically. In reality, those numbers are special because they don't get celebrated that often ... i.e., we know that a player hitting those milestones is ranking among the top 20 or 25 hits collectors or home run hitters or top 50 or so run producers in history. But we don't celebrate pitchers who hit the top 20 or 25 or 50 in wins or strikeouts or innings among all pitchers post-1900 (which seems a fair cutoff to avoid comparing apples to bowling balls), because those celebrations would take place at like 263 wins or 2,588 strikeouts. We stick with the round and historically celebrated numbers. It seems odd to compare Mussina and Byleven to hitters who were slam dunk HoFers, but the only reason those guys were slam dunk HoFers is that baseball hitting records have worked out neatly over time so that the top 25 or 50 of a category hit that level at a nice even number that has historically been celebrated. If Murray, Winfield, and Molitor maintained their ranking in all hitting statistics but the historical scale was different and there were no magic numbers, we'd (well, the BBWAA and mainstream fans would) be having the same arguments about them that we have about Mussina and Byleven -- "He never won a Cy Young/MVP," "He doesn't feel like a HoFer," "Nobody ever bought a ticket just to see him play."

I'll repeat what I say in Blyleven threads ... if pitching statistics had traditionally been counted hexidecimally, and writers and fans could drool over a guy's 10 win seasons and wonderful 100 win and A00 strikeout career, starting pitchers would then get representation in the HoF commensurate with hitters.

"You could argue that Pedro deserves to go ahead"? Argue? I would hope nobody has to make an argument that Pedro runs circles around Mike Mussina.

That's a false era-oriented argument. Mussina would get his ass pulled out of the game when the older pitchers would stay in and sometimes lose. He also had more run support playing for the Yankees and the Orioles.

BD
Pitchers do have a nice round and shiny number (300 wins) that Mussina has a good shot at attaining, but he doesn't want to get to it. I don't see many hitters quitting at 2,700 hits or 470 HRs. Mussina just did that and in the long run that's going to hurt him because Hall of Famers don't quit when they are close to a milestone like 300 wins.

because Hall of Famers don't quit when they are close to a milestone like 300 wins.

Al Kaline would like a word with you.

Pitchers do have a nice round and shiny number (300 wins) that Mussina has a good shot at attaining, but he doesn't want to get to it.

It's a nice round and shiny number that, what, 16 pitchers have attained post-1900, 11 have attained since WWII, and is getting much more difficult to attain in today's game, what with bullpen specialization, added emphasis on protecting valuable arms, and the overall offensive uptick in the game. Meanwhile, the latter makes the hitter milestones easier and easier to attain -- 3000 hits has been achieved 11 times and 500 homers has been achieved 10 times, just since 1990.

At this pace, in a generation, we'll be enshrining guys who are 80th on the all-time hit and home run list because they hit the shiny numbers, and passing over starting pitchers who are 30th to 40th or better since 1900 in wins, innings, and strikeouts because they don't seem like HoFers. (Hell, we're doing the latter already with Blyleven.) That doesn't make sense to me.

Mussina would get his ass pulled out of the game when the older pitchers would stay in and sometimes lose.

I would guess you're probably right, although you'd have to actually compare his IP/GS to those other guys before knowing for sure.

EDIT: Looks like you are, although it's a little closer than I thought.

IP/GS
Mussina 6.64
Sutton 6.94
Seaver 7.38

EDIT2: Just for fun:
Schilling 7.06
Maddux 6.76
Johnson 6.84
Pedro 6.69
Glavine 6.47

If Mussina had won at the same rate in Seaver’s 647 starts, he’d have retired with 326 wins. That would have tied him with Eddie Plank for 13th all time, and not only would no one have suggested he didn’t belong in the Hall,

Why even bother if you are going to do crap like this? He didn't make those starts so why pretend he did? Maybe he would have had better counting numbers if he had pitched in a four man rotation or maybe his arm would have balked at the workload. There's no way to know, so why are you trying to give him extra credit as if he could easily have pitched in a four man rotation?

The whole thing reads like: "I think Mussina is a HOFer, but since his numbers don't make it a slam dunk case, I'm going start pulling assumptions out of my ass".

At this pace, in a generation, we'll be enshrining guys who are 80th on the all-time hit and home run list because they hit the shiny numbers, and passing over starting pitchers who are 30th to 40th or better since 1900 in wins, innings, and strikeouts because they don't seem like HoFers. (Hell, we're doing the latter already with Blyleven.) That doesn't make sense to me.

This is an excellent point. As the game has moved to higher scoring levels, standards for pitching should be going down, and standards for hitting should be going up.

This is an excellent point. As the game has moved to higher scoring levels, standards for pitching should be going down, and standards for hitting should be going up.

The latter at least appears to already be happening.

Fibbonacci Win points, post 1947, top 50:
Roger Clemens 403
Greg Maddux 345
Warren Spahn 327
Randy Johnson 326
Tom Seaver 294
Whitey Ford 293
Mike Mussina 289
Jim Palmer 287
Tom Glavine 285
Steve Carlton 274
Pedro Martinez 261
Juan Marichal 254
Don Sutton 249
David Wells 226
Bob Gibson 225
Andy Pettitte 223
Gaylord Perry 219
Tommy John 217
Fergie Jenkins 216
Phil Niekro 215
Jack Morris 215
Bob Lemon 206
Early Wynn 206
Dwight Gooden 205
Nolan Ryan 202
Jamie Moyer 201
Jim Kaat 200
Curt Schilling 199
Robin Roberts 195
Kevin Brown 192
Kenny Rogers 191
Bert Blyleven 190
Bob Welch 190
Ron Guidry 190
Dennis Martinez 189
Luis Tiant 188
Catfish Hunter 187
John Smoltz 186
Sandy Koufax 186
David Cone 186
Jimmy Key 183
Lew Burdette 178
Dave McNally 177
Orel Hershiser 172
Vida Blue 166
Tim Hudson 165
Mike Cuellar 164
Jim Bunning 163
Milt Pappas 162
Allie Reynolds 161

FWIW it would be unprecedented for someone with a career W-L like Mussina to fail to get in the HOF

Ok different list, W-L% determined by pythag, assume 1 dec per 9ip, Fibbonacci Win Points (Top 55):

Roger Clemens 405
Greg Maddux 352
Tom Seaver 308
Randy Johnson 307
Warren Spahn 277
Gaylord Perry 277
Phil Niekro 265
Bert Blyleven 264
Pedro Martinez 260
Steve Carlton 256
Bob Gibson 250
Jim Palmer 249
Nolan Ryan 235
Tom Glavine 234
Whitey Ford 226
Fergie Jenkins 221
John Smoltz 218
Robin Roberts 217
Curt Schilling 210
Kevin Brown 209
Juan Marichal 208
Don Sutton 208
Mike Mussina 207
Tommy John 199
Don Drysdale 195
Hoyt Wilhelm 193
Jim Bunning 179
Billy Pierce 179
Jim Kaat 172
Rick Reuschel 169
Dave Stieb 168
Luis Tiant 166
Dennis Eckersley 166
Jerry Koosman 162
Bret Saberhagen 162
David Cone 161
Sandy Koufax 161
Chuck Finley 157
Frank Tanana 153
Early Wynn 153
Larry Jackson 151
Jimmy Key 151
Bob Lemon 150
Kevin Appier 148
Dennis Martinez 146
Curt Simmons 146
Charlie Hough 145
Steve Rogers 143
Orel Hershiser 141
Andy Pettitte 138
Bob Friend 137
Jamie Moyer 137
David Wells 136
Milt Pappas 135
Jack Morris 134

I went to 55 to include Morris (at the bottom)- looked at this way Mussina is no longer a slam dunk- he's in a gray area- it's Blyleven that stands out- every pitcher of reasonably similar quality is in or will be in. You have to go all the way down to Brown with 209 for someone I'm confident will not get in ever.

This is an excellent point. As the game has moved to higher scoring levels, standards for pitching should be going down, and standards for hitting should be going up.

Yeah, but it's harder to lower standards than raise them ... well, at least for something like the HoF. And part of the "problem" is that the pitching standards have already been raised by the great class of 60s/70s pitchers. "Modern" pitchers didn't get to 300 wins anymore and nobody but Walter Johnson got to 3,000 Ks. Those weren't milestones, they were magical numbers. They were numbers which meant you had an argument as the greatest pitcher since at least Walter Johnson.

Then you have 6 guys top 300 wins and another 6 top 250 and 9 guys top 3,000 Ks. Suddenly those aren't magical numbers, they're milestones if not nearly minimal requirements. And all pitchers since have been held to those standards (which aren't very old).

Mussina's other problem is that he's come along in the second modern era of great pitching. He may be no better than the 8th or 9th best starter of his "generation". That's been enough to keep Blyleven, John and Kaat out. Sure, maybe 300 wins shouldn't be a milestone and it's harder to reach in a 5-man rotation -- but 4 of his contemporaries made it or soon will. Sure, 3000 Ks is nothing but a nice round number -- that 6 of his contemporaries had no trouble passing.

I have no problem with Mussina in the HoF but let's not pretend he's not a fairly borderline case.

we'll be enshrining guys who are 80th on the all-time hit and home run list because they hit the shiny numbers, and passing over starting pitchers who are 30th to 40th or better since 1900 in wins, innings, and strikeouts because they don't seem like HoFers.

I see what you're saying but given there are twice as many position players as starting pitchers and given the much higher injury/collapse rate of starting pitchers, we would expect at least twice as many position players as pitchers in the HoF.

And, as mentioned earlier, it seems pretty clear that hitting standards are rising ... although I think 3,000 hits will always be a lock.

I'm not sure 3000 hits is a lock. Bet Palmeiro doesn't make it, though I suppose everyone will blame steroids if he doesn't.

I'll certainly blame steroids if Palmeiro doesn't get into the Hall of Fame.

In fact, let's do it right now. Rafael Palmeiro will not get into the Hall of Fame, and the reason is because he is one of the few players deemed guilty of enhancing his performance chemically.

AGREE / DISAGREE

PICK ONE

In his case, there's even a positive test for the voters to use against him, and it occurred after his finger-waving performance in congress. I'll agree - he never gets in.

Even before that, he was facing an uphill battle. After it, he's cooked.

Yes, the positive test sealed his fate.

I'll certainly blame steroids if Palmeiro doesn't get into the Hall of Fame.

HoF standards for position players are becoming ridiculously harsh.
Quite a few MSM types argued that Palmeiro was a fringe candidate even before the steroids scandal broke.
Now there's lots of talk about Frank Thomas (!) being a bubble guy.
Extra long careers and inflated counting stats are becoming mandatory. The same folks who ripped Biggio for playing out the string will probably, without even a hint of irony, leave Bagwell off their ballots for not having had the chance to do the same...

AGREE / DISAGREE

I'll agree, Peter.

OK, let's go with Wayland Flowers and Madame for the block...

If 300 wins used to be your magic Hall of Fame number, you need to lower it. I'm not a big fan of magic numbers but I'd go with something like 250...

I like this. It's an easy concept for the writers to grasp. In the era of four-man rotations, 300 wins was excellent. In this era of five-man rotations, the bar should be 300*4/5=240. "240 is the new 300."

Quite a few MSM types argued that Palmeiro was a fringe candidate even before the steroids scandal broke.

It's the old, "he never seemed like a HOFer to me" argument.
Palmeiro is, considering his career #s and averages- surprisingly light on black ink- he led the league in hits, runs and 2bs one year (1991)
He's got a TON of gray ink.

As a hitter he's very close to Dave Winfield- he's played in a higher offensive era so Palmeiro's raw numbers look better- but they're very close- Winfield had a bit more defensive value of course.

Assuming Palmeiro was never linked with steroids you would have to think that he'd get in- even if it took him 2-3 ballots, eventually some voters could no longer justify not voting for Palmeiro while voting fro someone with inferior #s.

I like this. It's an easy concept for the writers to grasp.

Really? What I would expect is that most of them will just take such a change as further proof of the game's decline, and it'll produce a bunch of tirades like "These guys get more time off to rest, have better bullpens, aren't expected to complete their games, and they still can't last long enough to get to 300 wins? Pussies, the lot of them. Back in my day, we'd never heard of pitch counts, or Tommy John surgery, or short relievers, and if a manager tried to take you out of the game before the 37th inning, you had to kill his wife to regain your honor.", and so on....

I'll certainly blame steroids if Palmeiro doesn't get into the Hall of Fame.

In fact, let's do it right now. Rafael Palmeiro will not get into the Hall of Fame, and the reason is because he is one of the few players deemed guilty of enhancing his performance chemically.

AGREE / DISAGREE

PICK ONE

His steroid test certainly sealed his fate. Without that I think he would have, and should have made it into the HoF. He was a gem of consistency and productivity, and a fine fielder to boot. Too bad he didn't confine himself to Viagra.

I see what you're saying but given there are twice as many position players as starting pitchers and given the much higher injury/collapse rate of starting pitchers, we would expect at least twice as many position players as pitchers in the HoF.

I'd argue both that a 2:1 ratio is a bare minimum, given the importance of starting pitching (off the top of my head, I'd say about 40% pitchers and 60% position players sounds right), and that the much higher injury/collapse rate of starting pitchers is all the more reason starting pitchers with long stretches of very, very good-ness are deserving of enshrinement -- for that reason alone, one could argue that the Blylevens and Mussinas deserve the benefit of the doubt much more than the Murrays, Winfields, and Molitors. It don't work out that way though.

At any rate, slightly less than 2:1, as you are arguing, would work too ... in the last 10 years, we're looking at 11 position players, 1 starting pitcher, and 3 relief pitchers. No starting pitchers voted in since 1999. And who goes in after the 4 to 8 guys discussed in the Mussina threads? If, hypothetically, Santana stays on a HoF path, he'll be pitching another 10 years or so, get inducted around 2025. Who goes in before that, even hypothetically? Halladay's probably got the best odds (can't see Hudson or Oswalt holding up), and he's only at 131 wins at age 31. So between Ryan in 1999 and Santana in 2025, five starting pitchers are shoo-ins, and you can argue three (four with Brown) before you turn to way out there hypotheticals like Halladay.

Yeah, but it's harder to lower standards than raise them

The current BBWAA standards will induct FIVE starting pitchers in between 1999 and 2025. (Actually, that's best case... I don't know if Pedro qualifies under their current standards.) If that's not enough to shock them into "lowering" their standards (in a manner that puts them in line with the hitters' standards), then I don't know what will.

I like this. It's an easy concept for the writers to grasp. In the era of four-man rotations, 300 wins was excellent. In this era of five-man rotations, the bar should be 300*4/5=240. "240 is the new 300."

why?
This era of 5 man rotations has seen a wave of 300 game winners.

Pitchers may not be winning 20 games as much- but they are staying effective for more years

# of seasons, pitchers age 40+ 162 ip ERA+ 100 or higher:
1980-2008: 38
1950-79: 7
1930-49: 8

(Actually, that's best case... I don't know if Pedro qualifies under their current standards.)

Three Cy Young awards, over 200 wins, over 3000K, and a career ERA under 3.00 (as well as 5 ERA titles). He qualifies under their peak standards - there's no way that he doesn't get elected within his first two tries.

Really? What I would expect is that most of them will just take such a change as further proof of the game's decline, and it'll produce a bunch of tirades like "These guys get more time off to rest, have better bullpens, aren't expected to complete their games, and they still can't last long enough to get to 300 wins? Pussies, the lot of them. Back in my day, we'd never heard of pitch counts, or Tommy John surgery, or short relievers, and if a manager tried to take you out of the game before the 37th inning, you had to kill his wife to regain your honor.", and so on....

Excatly. To me, you can't talk about how we need to lower standards necessarily, because that just leads to negative comparisons to the "real men" and "old timers." Flip it on them. To me, you say to the BBWAA, "Look, you like wins and strikeouts? Bert Blyleven and Mike Mussina are in the top 25 of wins and top 20 in strikeouts post-1900, and they're most likely still going to be in, worst case, the top 30 in both come 2020. Top 30 in the two most F***ING important pitching categories in 120 F***ING years of baseball. How is that not in again? How does that not feel like a Hall of Famer again?"

Three Cy Young awards, over 200 wins, over 3000K, and a career ERA under 3.00 (as well as 5 ERA titles). He qualifies under their peak standards - there's no way that he doesn't get elected within his first two tries.

OK, I'm being overly dramatic. I'll say this though ... who will get in with a higher % of the vote -- Pedro or Glavine?

OK, I'm being overly dramatic. I'll say this though ... who will get in with a higher % of the vote -- Pedro or Glavine?

They will vote for PEDRO!

Excatly. To me, you can't talk about how we need to lower standards necessarily, because that just leads to negative comparisons to the "real men" and "old timers." Flip it on them. To me, you say to the BBWAA, "Look, you like wins and strikeouts? Bert Blyleven and Mike Mussina are in the top 25 of wins and top 20 in strikeouts post-1900, and they're most likely still going to be in, worst case, the top 30 in both come 2020. Top 30 in the two most F***ING important pitching categories in 120 F***ING years of baseball. How is that not in again? How does that not feel like a Hall of Famer again?"

Careful - if you try that, you'll get the response that Tanana (as an example) is still 54th all time in wins (removing 19th century guys puts him around 40th all time), and 21st in K's, and surely you don't think that Tanana is a HoFer, do you?

And that is how this effects Frank Tanana.

off the top of my head, I'd say about 40% pitchers and 60% position players sounds right),

That's nuts. 4 out of every 10 HOFers should be pitchers? The HOF has what, 250 members elected for playing? You're saying that 100 of them should be pitchers? I think that would blow way past Mussina and Brown and dip into Rick Reuschel/Sal Maglie/Ron Guidry territory.

surely you don't think that Tanana is a HoFer, do you?

If he thinks 40% of HOFers should be pitchers he does. Frank Tanana is easily a top 100 pitcher.

If he thinks 40% of HOFers should be pitchers he does. Frank Tanana is easily a top 100 pitcher.

That's fine, and he may be, but if you try to pitch that to any BBWAA member who isn't a blood relative of Tanana, they'll laugh themselves sick.

In fact, let's do it right now. Rafael Palmeiro will not get into the Hall of Fame, and the reason is because he is one of the few players deemed guilty of enhancing his performance chemically.

AGREE / DISAGREE

AGREE 100%. He gets doubly hurt by being consistently great but unspectacular in an era of spectacular achievement. 3020 hits, 569 HR without a 50 HR season or a .325+ season and only one 200 hit season leaves people without a defining image of Palmeiro.

Careful - if you try that, you'll get the response that Tanana (as an example) is still 54th all time in wins (removing 19th century guys puts him around 40th all time), and 21st in K's, and surely you don't think that Tanana is a HoFer, do you?

F--- Frank Tanana ... does he have 100 hexidecimal wins? Didn't think so!

OK, so I'll elaborate ... Blyleven and Mussina are with Murray, Winfield, and Molitor ... they got up the charts by stringing together many years of very, very good, All Star-level performance. Ton of value in that. Tanana and Harold Baines will have to find their advocates elsewhere.

That's nuts. 4 out of every 10 HOFers should be pitchers? The HOF has what, 250 members elected for playing? You're saying that 100 of them should be pitchers? I think that would blow way past Mussina and Brown and dip into Rick Reuschel/Sal Maglie/Ron Guidry territory.

Well, four out of ten-players are pitchers (actually closer to 5 now days with the 12-man pitching staff).

And pitching does account for about 40% of value to a team (Assuming 50-50 run scoring run prevention, 80-20 pitching-defense).

Why would 40% be absurd?

3020 hits, 569 HR without a 50 HR season or a .325+ season and only one 200 hit season leaves people without a defining image of Palmeiro.

Perhaps you don't remember his Viagra ads.

Well, four out of ten-players are pitchers (actually closer to 5 now days with the 12-man pitching staff).

And pitching does account for about 40% of value to a team (Assuming 50-50 run scoring run prevention, 80-20 pitching-defense).

What % of All Star selections are pitchers? 40%?

The HOF has what, 250 members elected for playing? You're saying that 100 of them should be pitchers?

That's assuming that I think the HoF should have 250 members enshrined right now. If it were 200 ... 80/120, yeah, that's probably a little pitcher-centric. But I can't see pitcher representation dropping under 30%. What's the Hall of Merit, out of curiosity?

Well, four out of ten-players are pitchers (actually closer to 5 now days with the 12-man pitching staff).

And pitching does account for about 40% of value to a team (Assuming 50-50 run scoring run prevention, 80-20 pitching-defense).

Why would 40% be absurd?

Well, because the back end of the rotation and middle relievers are more fungible than position players. They may as a whole provide 40% of the value, but a good portion of that value is spread among dozens of players every year. A 4th starter, a middle reliever, a mop up man is not going to get into the HOF whereas a starting position player can.

I may be totally off base here, but I think your average position player provides much more value individually than the average pitcher, and the expansion of the pitching staffs only exacerbates this.

What % of All Star selections are pitchers? 40%?

That's not an apt analogy. All stars are chose for a myriad of reasons, and "stardom" is not the highest on the list.

That's assuming that I think the HoF should have 250 members enshrined right now. If it were 200 ... 80/120, yeah, that's probably a little pitcher-centric. But I can't see pitcher representation dropping under 30%. What's the Hall of Merit, out of curiosity?

63/234 = 27%. This includes Caruthers, Rogan and Dihigo as pitchers, John Ward as a position player.

I do think that's a bit low, BTW.

I think that would blow way past Mussina and Brown and dip into Rick Reuschel/Sal Maglie/Ron Guidry territory.

Just saying that HOM voters think one of those things is not like the others. I don't think Maglie or Guidry ever got votes (I might be wrong), while Reuschel did finish 29th in our 2008 election, with 132 points produced by 9 votes.

Reuschel > Guidry, eh? It's not anything I ever thought of before; possibly because I mix up Rick and Paul as well as Rick Rhoden.