User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.9239 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
20 wins(triggering possibly an undeserved Cy Young if NY makes the post-season?) this season would also help his chances if he doesn't make it to 300.
Next.
I think he should wear an O's uniform, since he had more great seasons there. But I'm guessing if he pitches a couple more seasons with the Yankees they'll put him in a Yankees cap, especially if he wins a ring.
Had his best years in Bawlmer (though he's had some very good years in NYC), but NYC is the bigger spotlight. He's spent the same amount of time in both. IMO it's a tossup.
How likely is that, though? You can't win a ring if you don't make the playoffs. Maybe you're counting on a trade to the Rays at some point? /troll
The tenth pitcher is Rivera, and then we close the door.
It's not trolling this year. Weird, huh?
Or BBTF-themed crossword puzzles?
Who are the rest?
I like quizzes!
1. Glavine
2. Maddux
3. Clemens
4. Smoltz
5. Johnson
6. Schilling
7. Mussina
8. Pedro
9. Damn. I'm drawing a blank. I bet it's someone obvious, too.
Clemens
Maddux
Glavine
Pedro
Randy
Schilling
Smoltz
Brown
Mussina
I thought of Brown, but I guess I don't think he has much of a shot.
I only wish this was trolling. But hey, the Red Sox finished 3rd in the division and won the WS the next year! 2009 is our year baby!
I'm guessing he had a brain-fart though, and that #9 was Eckersley. Kevin Brown for the Hall is a really tough sell, if that's what you're trying to make. Honestly, I also think that Mussina is a tough sell. I guess this runs counter to what most people here think, but I don't think he deserves to be voted in by the writers even if he does get to 300 wins, unless he can manage to pull another season or two like this one out of his ass.
As far as I'm concerned, Mussina is Brett Saberhagen on better teams and without a couple of truly fantastic seasons.
Indeed he is. His two years of leading the league in Wins is the credential the BBWAA is likely to be most impressed by. And Wins alone, as we have seen with Morris and Blyleven, is not all it takes. Blyleven may finally be inducted, but if 287 plus two rings and umpteen shutouts and strikeouts hasn't impressed the voters much, I don't see much of anything about Mussina at the moment to interest them.
Mussina's actually pretty comparable to Don Sutton in some ways, isn't he? Many years in the top eight or ten starters in the league, with a few in the top four or five, no CYAs, no World Championships, decent but not thrilling postseasons. At that level, it clearly does take the magic #300 to put a pitcher into the Hall. [Edit: and by this I mean the actual Hall, not any personal Hall of mine. I am not sure I care a lot either way, myself, which is about the definition of a borderline "PHOF" candidate ...]
Yes. Of course, with the election of Sutter, he's probably in. But I wouldn't vote for him because I think pitchers with 1,000 innings shouldn't be in, unless they're Mariano Rivera. (I'm not thrilled with Rivera's lack of innings, by the way, but I don't think he can be kept out given his incredible quality; other people aren't bothered at all by his lack of innings, but I am.)
Those whose careers centered on the 90s. I'm trying to distinguish from the 00s crop of Webb, Santana, Halladay, Oswalt, etc. since it's too early to tell on them.
Yeah, that's the nine.
I think having pitched in New York will help Moose considerably. Minneapolis, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh don't make much of a resume for Blyleven. He was largely unimpressive in Anaheim at the end of his career.
He also had 60 starts before Mussina was even in the bigs (age-wise).
There's some value in tacking on 800 league-average innings to a career (which was basically the difference between the two going into this season), but I don't think it's enough to differentiate between a hall-of-famer and a non-hall-of-famer. A couple more good-to-great seasons might make the difference, but not being an average pitcher.
I have a lot of respect for Sabes, if he could've still healthy into his 30s, he'd have a really solid shot at a Hall of Fame career. But the idea that team quality is the only thing seperate them is insane. There's no other word for it.
But a couple more seasons of being an average pitcher on a good team just might get him to 300 wins and 3,000 strikeouts.
You may want to check your math.
Isn't that exactly what Moose's 2006 and 2008 are?
One difference is that I'd probably actually rank Mussina as the 8th-best pitcher of his generation, whereas Blyleven is clearly better than some of the 1970s pitchers who made the Hall of Fame (Hunter, Sutton, probably Ryan, arguably Jenkins and/or Palmer).
I used to think that Mussina was just outside the Hall, but I now think he's over it. Partly this is because he's improved his case and, with his resurgence this year, 2007 is looking like it could have just been a bit of a fluke bad season more than the beginning of the end for him. And partly I fell into the trap that I think the BBWAA will fall into of simply forgetting and/or not realizing just how good he is/was.
I think he deserves to be in, but I have a lot of trouble seeing the BBWAA electing him, given their track record with Blyleven and some more recent guys (Stieb, Saberhagen), and given the pitching competition he's likely to face when he starts appearing on BBWAA ballots.
(EDIT: Yikes. That is one hell of a run-on sentence.)
The big difference is that Palmer competed for attention with Seaver, Carlton and Sutton, whereas Mussina competed with Clemens, Maddux, Pedro and Randy Johnson (not to mention the other four). You can make a plausible argument that all of the four best of the 90s pitchers were better than the best of the 70s pitchers, Seaver.
In the recent Edgar thread, a number of posters seemed to think that league average seasons shouldn't help a HOF resume.
I disagree.
From a sabermetric standpoint this is a good comparison. But from a traditional/BBWAA standpoint, there's no comparison. Palmer won 20+ games 8 times, won 3 Cy Young awards with 3 other top-3 finishes. He even had a 2nd and 6th place finish in MVP voting. Oh, and he pitched in 6 World Series (he pitched in every World Series the Orioles have ever played in). You're not going to win any BBWAA converts by comparing Mike Mussina to Jim Palmer (sort of like trying to convince people that Blyleven was better than Nolan Ryan).
Yeah, that's insane.
I understand the desire to honor peak, but you have to some credit for the other stuff.
Yeah, a caller suggested this comparison to Chris Russo and Russo's head almost exploded as he went through the number of 20-win seasons Palmer had, etc.
Of course, Russo is also the guy who thinks that ARod is having "let's face it, a terrible year," so take the above for what it's worth. The odd thing about Russo's impression of ARod's season is that it doesn't even make sense from the traditional perspective of BA/HR/etc. But a caller told Russo that Michael Kay thinks that ARod has a large number of "tack on home runs" this year, so Russo's been parroting that.
Russo then told us that Jeter is not off the hook either, as Jeter is having "just as bad" a year as ARod.
You can't make it up.
Hall of Merit perspective: he's definitely got a shot with us. Every time his name surfaces on one of our threads, the sense emerges that he's qualified, maybe strongly qualified. He'll be eligible on our 2011 ballot, sooner than everyone else in posts 17 and 18 above.
Does the HOM have a rule and/or a consensus on whether it's okay to adjust stats for steroid users? I know y'all don't allow for an outright BAN, and I know y'all elected McGwire pretty easily, if I'm remembering correctly, but is it considered kosher to maybe knock a point or two off of Brown's ERA+ because he was named in the Mitchell Report?
(note: I'm not arguing the rightness/wrongness of doing so, I'm just curious what the HOM does.)
It seems like he's coming up short in big situations because he is, so it's hard to blame media morons for harping on it.
I disagree.
That thread actually convinced me I'm a big Hall guy. I would reward awesome peak. I'd reward high peak combined with longevity and I'd reward extreme longevity. Hence, Koufax doesn't bother me nor does Sutton. They're different, but I think both are clear HOFers. Hell, I think Julio Franco should be considered (not necessarily voted in). If you can hang around being productive for a long time, even if you never had a high peak, it may not be intrinsically valuable to a team but it is to me, a fan. Is Maddux a so-so pitcher this year? Yes, but I enjoy it because I'm a fan of his. I'm excited he's still playing. If someone managed to play for 25 years with a peak not far above average and was below average for a good bit of the 25 years, I might even favor their election. I understand this isn't a widely shared sentiment.
If anything, widespread stats allow MSM to point out stats like those posted in #48. "Sure, this guy is hitting .340/40/120, but only .242 with runners in scoring position."
He's been a dud all year with the bases loaded (.393 OPS).
SEVEN AT BATS!!!
Well, then it's kind of silly for Russo to say that he is. If you want to argue that maybe ARod's season should be considered merely "very good" instead of "excellent," since he hasn't had the good fortune to luck into his best production with men on base and such, that's one thing. But to claim he's having a terrible year, as Russo is doing, is just dumb.
35 PAs.
Nothing wrong with .869 (actually it's .859). You'd rather he were able to control his luck a little better, but, then, that's why it's called "luck," and you learn to live with it. His 1.108 OPS isn't meaningless, by the way (not that you are contending that, but I thought I'd state it myself for emphasis).
My god. It's 8 PAs.
*8 PAs.*
I blame the media morons for being media morons. It's one thing to notice the random splits and say, well, maybe the value he's produced isn't _quite_ as good as it looks.
So then he's an A- instead of an A. Big whoop. He's still not a D.
What part of Palmer's context do they not get? He's pitching on a club that wins 95 games per year in non-strike years. He, and two other starters, usually get 37-38 starts. Winning 20 with the O's of the late 60's-early 80's was kind of like hitting 40 homers in Coors- a lot of pitchers who were the equivalent of Dante Bichette did it. Here's the list: McNally (4), Cuellar (3), Dobson, Torrez, Garland, Flanagan, Stone, McGregor, Boddicker. The equivalent list for Mussina reads: Clemens (1), Pettitte (1).
I totally agree. There are all shapes of careers that should be awarded with HOFness.
I am starting to come around on Jim Abbott.
I don't subscribe to the idea that longevity should get someone into the hall of fame. I think they should actually have to be good. Thus, I look at the years when they were good and years that they were bad (where it's not an obvious situation at the front or tail of a career, which I tend to think of at the team's fault and not the player's) and ignore the years when they were average. It's not the 'hall of slightly above-average for a very long time.'
Consistency is good, but IMHO, only 2 of Mussina's last 6 seasons have done anything to help his hall of fame case in MY book. I realize that the actual voters mostly don't see it the way I do, and will probably induct him no matter what if he gets to 300 wins.
The "boost from the defense," certainly. Palmer won two ERA titles and finished second two other times. Mussina has one second-place finish. Many thinking writers will look beyond Wins (where the team context is pretty clear) to ERA, but then perhaps not see that ERA itself has a strong team component.
So Mussina will have Jack Morris's problem: nice Wins total and W%, but mostly for good teams; and that 3.68 career ERA, which doesn't look very good compared to John Smoltz, let alone Clemens, Maddux, or Martinez.
You have to go down to Bob Caruthers 218-99 (269 points) to find an eligible pitcher not in- and after him, Tony Mullane 284-220 (224 points).
Among those pitchers whose entire career took place after 1901, Tommy John has the best career record of the eligibles not in 288-231 (217 points).
Moose's CAREER W-L is clearly well within established HOF standards.
Next, Moose has 3502 IP and an ERA+ of 122
the following are pitchers with 3000+ IP and ERA+ over 115 who are NOT in the hall (name followed by ERA+ followed by IP).
Roger Clemens 143 4916.2
Randy Johnson 137 3980.2
Greg Maddux 132 4954.2
John Smoltz 127 3395
Kevin Brown 127 3256.1
Curt Schilling 127 3261
Silver King 123 3190.2
Eddie Cicotte 123 3223.1
Mike Mussina 122 3502.2
Carl Mays 120 3021.1
Will White 120 3542.2
Billy Pierce 119 3306.2
Jim McCormick 118 4275.2
Tony Mullane 118 4531.1
Bert Blyleven 118 4970
Tom Glavine 118 4409.1
Wilbur Cooper 116 3480
Chuck Finley 115 3197.1
Charlie Buffinton 115 3404
The only players better than Moose both in ERA+ and IP are getting in (or would have gotten in absent PED allegations).
He is, I presume, going to end up with a significant IP advantage over Brown, Schilling, Smoltz, King, Cicotte (banned anyway), Mays, White, Pierce...
Basically the precedent for keeping Moose out is going to boil down to Mullane and Blyleven.
Even with all that I think that unless he finally gets a 20 win season, or reaches 300- he's not getting in.
And yes, it's very, very silly for Russo to claim A-Rod is having a terrible year. But considering the source, it's probably not even one of the top 100 stupid things he's said in the past 24 hours.
If he provided value to his teams, I don't see why they wouldn't count for something.
And how many of those guys were voted in by the Veteran's Committee? The in-out debate really needs to be limited to who's gotten in on the 15-year vote these days, as the Hall has been reconfigured. A lot of guys who got in when the Vet Committee was all chummy wouldn't get in anymore.
And it's not the 'hall of supremely high peak' or 'hall of amazingly abnormally talented' or 'hall of highest VORP' either.
It's the hall of fame. Someone who managed to be a significant onfield baseball presence for 25 years would fit that, IMO.
Following up on Bob, the "Orioles Way" was to win with "pitching and defense". Note, "pitching" comes first. Nobody held Palmer's win totals against him, because the reason that the Orioles won 95 games a year when he was pitching for them was because of their incredible starting pitching (and defense) (to be clear, this is the MSM explanation; not an argument I'm making - the mere fact that Mike Torrez, Wayne Garland and Steve Stone were part of that "incredible starting pitching" says all that needs to be said).
I think it's sort of akin to when Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz were all in their prime down in Atlanta. People gave Smoltz full credit for his 15 wins per year even though they were won for teams that were winning 95+ games per year, because Smoltz was seen as part of the reason why they were winning 95+ games as opposed to just being along for the ride.
Back in the 1970s, if the announcing team was bored, and began talking about team hitting as a whole, they would say that such and such a team was a good hitting team- BASED ON BATTING AVERAGE-
The Orioles of the 1970s had an above average offense- by runs scored- just about every single year- but usually had a team batting average below league average. Ergo, the pundits would say they were not a very good hitting team.
Baseball people/announcers/columnists did recognize the concept that some pitchers would look better or worse on some teams than others- Palmer was not one of those pitchers so labeled. (Tommy John was- the MSM opinion was that John needed a good team behind him to win)
I think those Braves teams did have better pitching than the 1970s Orioles- the 1970s Orioles (in context) were usually better offensive and defensive teams.
Uh, NO. You even have the quote wrong. The complete quote is "pitching, defense, AND A 3 RUN HOMER." And there was never any priority in that ordering. Starting from 1966, here's the Orioles finish in AL offense: 1,4,3,2,1,1,7,3,9,7. The years they won, it wasn't just good. It was often the best in the league.
You see those 7 9 and 7? That's 1972, 1974 and 1975. They were # 1 in defense in '72 and '75, #2 in '74. The Orioles offense was equally as important to the Oriole Way. Weaver's darn clear on that point in his book.
Earl Weaver understood it. The mainstream media of the 1970s didn't.
The first time I ever heard a connection between Weaver, the Orioles and the "Three Run Homer" was during a weekend game of the week back in the early/mid 70s - one announcer said that the Orioles were all about pitching and defense- the other said, you forgot about the three run homer- teh first one said, rather sarcastically, forgot about that, but what else are you gonna say about your offense when you're near last in hitting and you can't run.
By that he meant batting average- everyone back then knew "hitting" = "batting average" -
Back then a lot of people took Weaver's "3 run homer" comments rather humorously- he was deadly serious about it, and the MSM types who thought it was a joke were morons- but I didn't know that until later.
There is, I think, one big difference between Moose and Bert in MSM terms: not only does Blyleven not have 300 wins, but his winning percentage is not very good. Moose, on the other hand, has a W% of .637. Even if he doesn't reach 300, I can see writers giving him credit for his %.
I want to say something in defense of some of the claims made in the Edgar thread. If you actually looked at the mathematics of the proposals, instead of the rhetoric, no one was claiming that league average seasons had no relevance for HOF voting purposes, merely that they had less than a straight wins above replacement (WAR) calculation would indicate. For instance, four average seasons (2 WAR) would seem to be equal to one Pujols season (8 WAR), but according the the proposals there, Pujols' season would count twice as much for HOF purposes as the four average seasons. That seems eminently reasonable to me.
One final point: Brett Saberhagen is in the Hall of Merit.
So you would put a player with a 25 year career with an OPS+ of 100 every season into the Hall?
I respect that position, but happen to disagree with it completely. In my view, you get fame from being outstanding at at least some aspect of the game. That's why I don't think pure 'value' should be the major HOF criterion.
Otherwise I think you'd have to weight a 160 OPS+ player who earns $1 million in a year more than a player who has the same stats who earns $4 million
In comment #63, Gaelan wrote "I stand by the point that while being average has value there is nothing great about it and it shouldn't add to a player's case. And if it doesn't add to the case there is no reason why the lack of average seasons should hurt a case." So, yes, Gaelan seems to quite explicitly be arguing that "league average seasons have no relevance for HOF voting purposes."
One could argue that "longevity" is an "aspect of the game" and being able to maintain one's performance for 25 years would suggest that one was "outstanding" at it.
Roger Clemens's case is sui generis, but no one doubts that he was a great pitcher.
Johnson and Maddux: easy first ballot.
Let me skip over Smoltz, Brown, and Schilling for now, and come back to them.
Silver King, Will White, Jim McCormick, Tony Mullane, and Charlie Buffinton all pitched before 1893 when there was a pitcher's box instead of a mound and the game was just unimaginably different. 3000 innings isn't all that long a career when 500 or even 600 IP in a season isn't unusual. And King and Mullane were predominantly AA pitchers - the lesser league. I like McCormick the best from this list, while others might opt for Mullane. We haven't elected any of these five to the Hall of Merit.
Eddie Cicotte: If the Hall of Fame wasn't going to elect Joe Jackson, they sure as hell weren't going to elect Cicotte. Unforgiven.
Carl Mays: the killer of Ray Chapman doesn't catch any PR breaks. (We haven't elected either Cicotte or Mays to the HoM, but both draw scattered votes still.)
Billy Pierce: we did elect him to the Hall of Merit; he's probably in our bottom quartile.
Bert Blyleven: should be in, and not bottom quartile, either. Reasonably comparable to Gaylord Perry.
Tom Glavine: will be in.
Wilbur Cooper: probably not.
Chuck Finley: no.
So how many of Smoltz, Brown, Schilling, and Mussina would you take for your Hall of Fame? I don't think it would be hard around here to find posters whose answer is "all of them."
I disagree.
I am more of a peak guy when it comes to hitters -- though I kinda require 1B/LF/RF/DH to have long careers as well -- but much more a career guy when it comes to pitchers. In particular, I'm much more favorable to a long string of good not great seasons among starters. Koufax and Pedro are probably the only exceptions I'd make (and Pedro's career has now lasted long enough it's not longer a pure peak argument).
That said, I am uncomfortable when we start getting low on the list of "best of" for a given era. Now for starters, 8 out of an era doesn't seem like too many given how many starting pitchers there are. But once you start getting down to 4th or 5th best 1B of a "generation" I start to get a bit antsy almost no matter how good the numbers are (which isn't to say I wouldn't vote for such a player).
And I too am having trouble deciding how to adjust for current pitcher usage. I know it's never been stable. I know some of it is coming of age as a fan during the great 70s pitching era. There's no issue with guys like Clemens or Maddux of course -- plenty of wins, innings, starts, etc. But Schilling is only 95th on the career list of IP; he's only 8th on the active list (which doesn't include Clemens or Brown). And he's a pitcher who's had some big IP seasons.
And it's getting worse. Roy Oswalt would be fairly lucky to reach Schilling's IP totals; the 29 year-old pitcher with the 4th most IP is Kyle Lohse! (It's actually not a bad total of 1316 but c'mon, Lohse?) Buehrle's a good bet to rack up 3500+ IP but that's about it.
What do we do if even the best pitchers throw only 180 innings a year, if between college and/or being developed slowly to delay FA, most pitchers don't even debut until 23-24, etc? Are we gonna say that 2700 innings is now good enough for the HoF?
I'm not saying we shouldn't -- I'm usually arguing that today's lower in-game and in-season workloads might be extending the number of seasons and not changing career value that drastically -- but it sure doesn't sit easy with me. Surely there's a breaking point where some guy has a "long" and "excellent" career by the standards of his day but we just say "not good enough."
The "we'll never see another 300 winner again" stuff is of course silly, but part of the reason starting pitchers don't win as many games in this era (aside from the 5-man rotation) is because they don't go as deep into games, due to (A) the higher offensive levels, (B) the over-specialization of bullpen roles, and (C) the bizarre obsession with the number 100 when it comes to pitch counts.
Well, all the pitchers in a particular game are operating in the same run environment, so this is only relevant to wins for Mussina in the sense that if it takes more pitches to get through an inning due to the higher offense, he'll come out of the game sooner.
But judge saves as the poor statistic it is, I don't see why Trevor Hoffman doesn't deserve to be in. I mean, if Bruce Sutter and Rollie Fingers are in - and if you think they both SHOULD be in -- I cannot for the life of me figure out why Hoffman shouldn't get in.... or does he not count as a '90s pitcher'?
Whats the alternative? No more pitchers in the HOF?
I think the HOF should continue to recognize the best players. If there are pitchers who are clearly great players, who were the best of their era, but who also don't measure up what _used to be_ the number of innings a long time pitcher would pile up, they should still go in the HOF.
I mean, we don't continue to measure IP totals compared to the 1880s.
I don't think Sutter should be in.
The BBWAA standards for relievers are evolving, and given that we're now electing 1000-inning relievers to the Hall, we're at the point where if Johan Santana's career ended today (1469 IP, 142 ERA+) he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell at the Hall, but someone like Trevor Hoffman (978 IP, 144 ERA+) would. That's an insane outcome, but that's where we are.
And many of the same people who whine that DH's are "one-way players" don't see any issue with electing today's relievers, who are the pitching version of glorified utility players. If ARod came in as a late-inning pinch hitter and only stayed in the game for an inning, would he be a Hall of Famer?
Given the circumstances in which he left Baltimore, I'm guessing he goes in as a Yank or not at all.
I take the point - and yes, Hoffman is going to be lucky to finish with 1000 innings... but if Hoffman isn't a HOFer, then I think after Rivera goes -- we're probably done elecing relievers to the HOF, no? I'm not saying Hoffman is on the same level as Rivera, but that is an ERA+ of 144, he does have a better than 4 to 1 BB to K rate, and BS stat they may be, saves are still the best equivalent to wins by an SP that we have. I'm not saying he's inner circle - and I think it's moot, because the writers will love the "entire career" angle, not mention what... 4 top 5 CYA fnishes (sure, you can argue they weren't deserved, but the same guys will be HoF voting).
The HoF is going to be opening its doors to an awful lot of 1000 IP pitchers in our lifetime.... we may as well start recognizing some sort of bar for such an animal. I don't think that bar is -- or will be -- Rivera.... that's an awfully high bar.
Yes, and that's a great argument for disregarding saves, as far as I can tell.
I don't look at saves or wins when evaluating pitchers.
Of course, over time, wins start to mean something, but they're still vastly inferior to the other metrics we have.
All saves do that is of any use to me is indicate usage patterns.
Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But my point is that if he manages to get to 300 and 3,000 he will be voted in. Period. Our personal preferences for peak or longevity, large or small hall, etc, etc, won't enter into it at all. And it won't matter if he gets there with two more good seasons or four more bad ones. 300 wins and 3,000 strikeouts will be automatic. Sure, there will be a spate of "he never did x, y, or z" articles, but they won't persuade >25% of the voters to turn their nose up at 300 and 3,000.
If he were an outstanding defensive SS, I would.
In fairness by the time they got to the math I was long gone. Still, I stand by that point. Being average should not get you into the hall of fame.
I don't see that at all. If he puts up 200 IP next year of a 100 ERA+, that has value. And maybe someone feels that he's just on the border, but that pushes him over. What's wrong with that? Why should that season not count towards his HOF case?
Even moreso if he were to put up a 120 or 140 ERA+.
If he strings together 3 more seasons of 180 IP and 120 ERA+ and wins 15 games, you don't think it matters?
ugh.
It wouldn't be surprise me if Mussina expresses a desire to be inducted as a Yank, but in the end, it's not his choice.
Maybe. Or only the top 1-2 of a "generation". You do know that it will be about 15 years between starters elected to the HoF (Ryan 1997). There's likely to be a substantial gap following this next set.
Who knows how things will evolve, but suppose we go to Chuck Tanner's dream of 3 3-inning pitchers per game? We still gonna elect the best ones?
More likely the dawn of the 6-man rotation with still only 6 IP per start. The top starters might hit 170 IP.
We don't elect great platoon hitters (yeah, I doubt there are any who even remotely qualify). But we wouldn't is my point. So far middle relievers aren't being elected. It's not clear "pure" DHs will be elected.
The basic point is that, at some point, it's possible starting pitchers will be contributing so little to their team's success as to not be worthy of the HoF.
I mean, we don't continue to measure IP totals compared to the 1880s.
Well, yeah, we kinda do. Single season totals are much different now of course but most of those guys pitched few seasons. Maddux, Clemens and Glavine are all in the top 30 of career IP. Maddux has a pretty good shot at the 5000 IP mark this season and a shot at the top 10 if he pitches next season. 10 of the top 30 are from the 70s and they're the ones today's pitchers are really being compared to. Randy Johnson is at #41, Jamie Moyer's at #55 (but unlikely to move up unless he pitches next season).
Anyway, 37 guys have pitched 4000+ innings. Yes, 15 of those 37 spent at least half their career pre-1920 so there's a definite difference. Then again, 11 of them retired between 1983 and 1993. With Clemens, Glavine, Maddux and soon Johnson, this will have been the 3rd most populous era of 4000+ IP pitchers. (Moyer and Mussina have very outside shots)
By the way, if you look at the games started list, it's mostly "modern" guys with 5 active (if you include Clemens) in the top 25. Today's guys (seem to) get more career starts, fewer decisions per start but, I think, somewhat higher win %s (at least among the top guys). It seems unlikely they'll maintain a high enough performance level to last long enough, but Javier Vazquez and John Garland are on track for about 650 starts with a shot at 700. A healthy Buehrle probably gets 600+.
Where I think the modern pitcher might be in trouble is that, I think, they are starting their careers later or being "babied" at younger ages. Oswalt didn't have a full season until age 24. He's 30 now and will have about 240 starts. Brandon Webb will be at about 230 (and only 1550 IP) at age 30.
As to 300+ wins, historically, while not a guarantee, 600-650 starts is pretty much all you need. But with lower decision rates today, I'd shoot higher, around 650. So far Oswalt wins about half his starts so he could do it in 600; but Webb so far has won only about 43% so he'll need about 700 starts. (Yes, team quality has a lot to do with that.) Buehrle is about the same as Webb. Poor Javier Vazquez is gonna need about 840 ... more than Cy Young! :-)
The Mussinas of the world will give us some idea of how far down the writers are willing to start setting the bar. To date, they've elected very few guys with fewer than 3800 IP and almost none below 3500. They've got Schilling, Smoltz (though he'd have passed 3500 if not for the years as a closer ... assuming he'd stayed healthy anyway), Kevin Brown below and Mussina just over (though another year or two will put him well over). I think Schilling and Smoltz are in but both cases have extras (postseason, closing). Brown is out. Pedro will be in but he'd have gotten the Koufax exemption anyway.
Being average at age 39, or at age 21 (not talking about Moose specifically), when most players either have already retired or haven't gotten to the bigs left is absolutely indicative of greatness and should absolutely add to a HOF case.
Ya think?
The basic point is that, at some point, it's possible starting pitchers will be contributing so little to their team's success as to not be worthy of the HoF.
If ALL hitters were platooned, analogous to the current pitching environment, and the best in the league were hitting 25 HR a year due to limited PA, I think we'd continue to elect hitters.
There will be pitchers worthy of the HOF. The best in the game deserve to go, even if their usage drops more.
Although I think usage will go up, if it varies from this point.
If you had a 70-year old player or something like that, then I could see it. Longevity isn't really a skill, though, is it? You can't train for it, specifically. I'm also dubious that it is an 'aspect of the game' considering a game is 2 hours long and a season 162 games long. If each season were 1620 games long over 10 years, and a team couldn't change its roster, then a better argument could be made that longevity was an important aspect of the game.
It was a trained skill for Julio Franco to be playing at 48.
Conversely, pitching 98 mph isn't a skill that I can train myself to do. If you consider longevity to be luck in the genetic lottery, pretty much every MLB player hit the genetic jackpot. Other than Pedroia, of course.
Longevity is most clearly a skill. I said 25 years for a reason. Lots of guys put in 15 years. Only a few reach 20 and what, a handful?, reach 25.
Staying in the lineup is a skill as well.
Unless I'm forgetting somebody obvious, four pitchers have had 25-year careers: Ryan, Kaat, Hough, and John. 25% Hall of Famers is pretty good, but obviously longevity alone is no guarantee of greatness as opposed to very-goodness.
He's not, but OTOH if Mussina had fully come to terms with his decreased velocity a few years ago the way he has this year, he almost certainly would have been seen as a surefure HOFer already, as opposed to one who's still seen as being on the margin.
But now that he seems to have made the adjustment, it'll be interesting to see how long he can prolong his resurrection as a control/craft pitcher, as opposed to the control/craft/power pitcher that he was for so long. If he keeps himself healthy, he may very well still have another few good years left in him. Better late than never.
I don't buy this. Sure, many (most?) players who were average at 21 or 39 ... or put those ages at whatever young/old extreme you want ... are "great." But we say that because they have this 10-17 year run of greatness in between 22 and 38 and it's that run of greatness that puts them in HoF.
The point of course is obvious -- not that anyone has to agree with it. But Maddux hasn't been a great pitcher since 2002. He was a HoFer (in my book) if he'd never pitched after that. Similarly he was a very good, not great pitcher prior to 1992 -- those add to his HoF case but still aren't necessary in my mind. Maddux is an HoFer because he was undeniable great from 1992-2002. Obviously those seasons had plenty of value, helped his team and they help make his case as "inner circle" ... but they don't make him an HoFer.
Now I'm not pure peak, especially with pitchers. Those average-good seasons a player has do add to their case but mainly to distinguish them from the guys who have equally good peaks but without the durability value. And that mainly only plays a significant role for borderline cases. So yes, when comparing Mussina to, say, Dave Stieb, those extra 600 IP and 114 starts (and counting) put Mussina ahead.
Stieb came back at age 40?
Anyway, like I said, I do value durability for starters -- I can't really tell you why it seems more valuable there than among hitters. And yes, that might well mean I'd be more comfortable with Mussina in the HoF than, say, Santana if he were to retire in a year or two (seems unlikely :-) even though Santana's peak would be superior.
(Note, for HoF purposes, I think of "peak" as being 8-10 years or so.)
Although I think usage will go up, if it varies from this point.
I don't necessarily disagree with that although it would buck the very long historical trend. But we are certainly at a point where starter usage can't significantly decline (at least not without increased reliever workloads). My guesses as to the changes we might see in order of likelihood:
1. adding a 26th roster spot and the basic trend continuing
2. 6-man rotations but pushing starters up to 6.5-7 IP/start
3. 13-14 man staffs, really crappy benches, change to the DH rule or even elimination of the DH
4. 4-man rotations with starters kept in the 5-6 IP/start range (and 8-9 man bullpens)
#4 probably makes the most sense to me but I just don't think anyone will have enough guts to stick to a 4-man rotation in today's game. In practice they'd likely be 4.5 man rotations with a swingman picking up 15 or so starts a year.
You'd better believe it is.
Jim Rice wishes he'd had it.
Please, stop saying this. Do you have ANY evidence to back up your assertion? Were you saying this following Mussina's 06 season? Did you then change your tune following 07?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main