BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: WSJ: Barra: Mike Mussina, Businesslike Baseball Great

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

WSJ: Barra: Mike Mussina, Businesslike Baseball Great

Lally? Neyer? Clearing the dishes? What am I back at John’s Pizza?

To make the case for Mr. Mussina in the Hall of Fame, start with winning. His 270 victories against 153 defeats are good for a won-lost percentage of .638, tied with Hall of Famer Jim Palmer for 10th among pitchers with 3,000 or more innings pitched. He won at least 11 games for 17 consecutive seasons. Baseball historian Richard Lally, editor in chief of the Web site BaseballLibrary.com, says that “Mussina would earn my vote for the Hall of Fame because of his consistent excellence. A lot of people haven’t mentioned his name with other pitchers of his era such as Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens because he hasn’t been so overpowering, but he’s pitched at a high level for just as long as any of them.”

Mr. Lally cites a statistic by Sabermetrician Lee Sinin—RSAA, or Runs Saved Against Average, which measures the amount of runs that a pitcher saved vs. what an average pitcher would have allowed. By that yardstick, Mr. Mussina is in very good company indeed: Just four pitchers in all of American League history—Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens and Pedro Martinez—are ahead of Mike Mussina. No. 6, by the way, right after Mr. Mussina, is Whitey Ford.

Repoz Posted: November 25, 2008 at 01:32 PM | 4 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, History, Hall of Fame, Sabermetrics, NY Yankees

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.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. John DiFool2 Posted: November 25, 2008 at 03:34 PM (#3015456)

Mussina's best argument is (or rather will be) that he will end up being the protypical 21st century starting pitcher candidate. I know that saying that 300 game winners are an endangered species is a viewpoint which attracts derision on this site, but most of the long-term trends in the game are working against 300 game winners, and it is a silly HoF standard anyway, even if my hypothesis doesn't turn out to be true (as CC & Johan both win 300 in 2020 or thereabouts). Mussina will end up looking better, not worse, as his eligibility clock starts ticking, when the best starters of this generation end up retiring with 250 wins.

2. salvomania Posted: November 25, 2008 at 04:27 PM (#3015499)

I never liked those RSAA-type Sinins stats because they're ranked "all-time" but there's no accounting for context.

I would find it more impressive if someone in the '60s---rather than someone in the current era---had 20 RSAA in a given year. It would be much easier to rack up larger RSAA today than in, say, 1912, so Mussina's position on any list of this type means only that he pitched effectively for a long time, not that his career should be considered comparable to those pitchers of yore.

3. GEB4000 Posted: November 25, 2008 at 08:00 PM (#3015728)

I don't know what it is about Mussina that make reasonable statheads like Barra go insane. Mussina is not comparable to Jim Palmer. Palmer had eight twenty-win seasons in a nine-year period. He won 3 Cy Youngs. Pitched on multiple world championships. His Baseball Reference Black Ink score is 41 (35th highest). Palmer was a great pitcher. That's why he's in the Hall.

Then Barra starts comparing Mussina to Koufax. INSANE! Koufax's Black Ink score is 78 (12th highest). Mussina's score is 15 (141st highest).

If you look at Mussina's comps in Baseball Reference, the guys who are in the Hall are guys who have had big years. Hubbell won two MVP's. Marichal won 25 or more games three times. Their Black Ink score's were at least two to three times higher than Mussina's.

The Mussina belongs in the Hall of Fame crowd is going to have to come up with a new argument and stop comparing him to clearly superior pitchers.

4. Kiko Sakata

Posted: November 25, 2008 at 08:24 PM (#3015767)

I don't know what it is about Mussina that make reasonable statheads like Barra go insane. Mussina is not comparable to Jim Palmer.

Context.

Mussina pitched 18 years (17 full), started 536 games, pitched 3,526.7 innings, with an ERA+ of 123, a won-lost record of 270-153, and 8 seasons with 17 wins or more.

Palmer pitched 19 seasons (15-16 full), started 521 games, pitched 3,948 innings, with an ERA+ of 126, a won-lost record of 268-152, and 8 seasons with 20 wins or more.

How are those two careers not similar? The differences are all in the context in which they pitched. Palmer pitched more innings because starters pitched more innings which, in turn helped him win more of his starts. Among Jim Palmer's teammates who won 20 games in a season were Steve Stone, Scott McGregor, Mike Flanagan, Wayne Garland, Mike Torrez, and Pat Dobson. Palmer won 20 games 8 times because he played for very good teams with excellent defenses (which help his 126 ERA+) in an era and for a manager who let his starters pick up lots of wins. A 20-win season in the 1970s was probably about as impressive as a 17-win season in this decade.

If you compare Palmer within the context of his times to Mussina within the context of his times, they're very similar pitchers.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

WSJ: Barra: Mike Mussina, Businesslike Baseball Great

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics