BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Sherman: MUSSINA: COOPERSTOWN VOTE WILL BE A HALLUVA DECISION (RR)

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

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Sherman: MUSSINA: COOPERSTOWN VOTE WILL BE A HALLUVA DECISION (RR)

You mean it’s NOT because “Camden Yards is a bandbox!” (turns off Waldling tape loop…resumes tepid sexual thoughts concerning Hal Reniff)

I will not play naive here. The AL, because of the presence of the DH, was over-inflated in this period with illegal performance enhancers and runaway offense. Muscles swelled and so did ERAs. To further increase the degree of difficulty, the unbalanced schedule returned in 2001, so pitchers were forced to see divisional monsters over and over again.

Most pitchers cracked under that assault. Mussina won 270 games. But would he have won more if the game were clean? Would he have won 20 a few times? I don’t think it is coincidence that he finally won 20 in what is perceived as the cleanest season in years despite his now pedestrian 87-mph fastball. What if the sport were cleaner when he was throwing 93-mph darts?

I am thinking about that now. I am a tough voter who for a long time saw Mussina as just shy of the Hall borderline. Then he went out and had a season that he didn’t even see coming in spring, which got me contemplating the steroid issue. And now - enjoy retirement, Mike - I have five years to weigh what that all means to me.

Repoz Posted: November 20, 2008 at 11:42 AM | 184 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: hall of fame, history, orioles, steroids, 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 2 pages 1 2 >

1. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM (#3012908)

This was a surprisingly good column by Sherman.

Look, Mussina is who he is. He did not have as great a peak as some of his contemporaries (the Pedros, Rogers, Gregs and Randys of the world). He still had a pretty good peak and had sustained excellence over a long period of time.

His counting stats are actually well positioned historically (I've been looking at them through 2008, and frankly, I do think Moose would have looked better with one or two more seasons climbing up in wins, IP and Ks, but he is well positioned all over the place).

Perhaps some writers needed to point to the big 300 win stat to vote for him as a HoFer. If that's the case, I think that Moose's retiring on top sort of helps his case, because any good writer (as pointed out in the Murray Chass MVP column) likes stories, and Moose retiring after his first 20 win season (i.e., when he clearly was an elite pitcher) is a heck of a story (which will surely go well with the writers).

2. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 01:18 PM (#3012921)

I guess only Moose didn't have 'roided-up hitters hitting <u>for</u> him.

3. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: November 20, 2008 at 01:28 PM (#3012925)

Mussina's a Hall of Famer. Not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, and there are some eligible players more deserving, but he fits in better with the group that's in the Hall better than he does with the group that's not in.

4. The Original SJ Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:13 PM (#3012938)

If someone is a hall of famer, it doesn't matter if they are a first ballot or a last ballot hall of famer. Some people don't vote for players their first year, believing they are not "first ballot HOFers."

These people are stupid.

5. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:30 PM (#3012948)

He still had a pretty good peak and had sustained excellence over a long period of time.

What is he the 10th best pitcher of mid 90's to late 00's? Is that a Hall of Famer? Doesn't seem like it. Certainly behind:
Roger
Maddux
Pedro
RJ
Mariano
Smoltz
Glavin
Hoffman
Schilling

Some will say he is better than Schilling or the RP's, I would disagree I think. Is 9th best pitcher of his loosly defined generation a Hall of Famer? My guess is probably not. But having that many top level hall of famers in one generation is probably unusual. Since I would consider the top 5 inner circle or close types.

6. TomH Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:44 PM (#3012955)

If Moose does NOT make the Hall, it will be because writers did a lot of dancing around his W-L record; which is not all that likely. #5 above makes a very solid point (peer comparison), but my guess is when it's all said and done, having 119 more wins than losses will be a ticket to enter in most minds.

7. Jon T. Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:46 PM (#3012956)

I think he's better than Hoffman

8. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:46 PM (#3012957)

What is he the 10th best pitcher of mid 90's to late 00's? Is that a Hall of Famer? Doesn't seem like it. Certainly behind:
Roger
Maddux
Pedro
RJ
Mariano
Smoltz
Glavin
Hoffman
Schilling

To me, he's 5th on that list. No matter how great Mariano is/was, if I was drafting #1 in next year's draft and there was a guaranteed Mussina clone, and a guaranteed Rivera clone, I'd pick the Mussina clone w/o thinking twice. A great starter is just so much more rare and valuable.

I think Moose and Smoltz would have almost identical numbers if Smoltz always been an SP. I give Moose an edge b/c being an effective starter for 4 years is harder than being a good (not great) closer, and there is a chance Smoltz would have broken down sooner if he didn't go to the pen.

I think Mussina has a quality edge on Glavine (and could easily match or better his career numbers if he wanted to hang around), and a huge quantity edge on Schilling.

At the end of the day, I think all 10 should probably be HoFers.

9. DKDC Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:50 PM (#3012960)

What is he the 10th best pitcher of mid 90's to late 00's?

National League pitchers don't count. Mussina was the best (or second best if you prefer Rivera).

10. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:51 PM (#3012961)

Some will say he is better than Schilling or the RP's, I would disagree I think. Is 9th best pitcher of his loosly defined generation a Hall of Famer? My guess is probably not. But having that many top level hall of famers in one generation is probably unusual. Since I would consider the top 5 inner circle or close types.

Who cares where he ranks among pitchers of his generation? His career happened to overlap with 4 of the greatest starters in history. That shouldn't be held against him.

In any event, I think he's pretty comparable to Glavine, and maybe a tick above Smoltz and Schilling.

EDIT: And, to be clear, I think everyone on that list should be in the HOF.

11. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:04 PM (#3012971)

I guess only Moose didn't have 'roided-up hitters hitting for him.

That's kind of what Sherman implies, which is silly, but high offense levels do have an effect on starter wins, since starters need more pitches to get through an inning in high offense eras and therefore don't stay in games as long, and therefore don't have as much of a chance to get a decision. The other factor at play here is the push-button bullpens.

Of course, the way around this "problem" is to ignore wins completely, like the voters should be doing in the first place. (Gratned, over a career wins become more representative of performance level, but we still have other metrics that are far better. Hell, just eyeballing ERA+ and innings tells you more than career wins does.)

12. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:05 PM (#3012973)

I'd love to see the argument for Hoffman being a better player than Moose.

I don't think Hoffman's a HOFer, of even close to one, and by the time this new generation of closers finishes up, he'll be the 4th best one at best. He has one season with an ERA+ over 200 (Mo's career ERA+ is 199) as a closer, that's not impressive.

13. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:06 PM (#3012974)

What is he the 10th best pitcher of mid 90's to late 00's? Is that a Hall of Famer? Doesn't seem like it. Certainly behind:
Roger
Maddux
Pedro
RJ
Mariano
Smoltz
Glavin
Hoffman
Schilling

Added bonus: he'll end up competing against almost all (possibly all) of these guys on the ballot. He and apparently Maddux are retiring this off-season, so will join the ballot in 2014. That'll depress Mussina's totals. There's a good chance Clemens will still be on it due to 'roids. In the next 2-3 years, Johnson, Martrinez, Glavine, Smoltz, Hoffman, Riveria, and Schilling will retire. Hell for all I know 1-2 might also be gone this off-season.

Mussina could end up being the Luis Tiant of his generation. Tiant had 10-11 consecutive ballots were he was in direct competition with at least one 300-game winner. By the time they all went in, he was practically out of time.

I see him going to the VC.

14. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:11 PM (#3012975)

Some will say he is better than Schilling or the RP's, I would disagree I think.

Um, yes, at least for the relievers. Putting Rivera ahead of Mussina on value is bad enough, but Hoffman??

Kevin Brown belongs somewhere on that list instead of Hoffman.

Is 9th best pitcher of his loosly defined generation a Hall of Famer? My guess is probably not.

Why not? There are more teams in the league now.

15. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:11 PM (#3012976)

Isn't there a good chance that Glavine and Smotlz could both retire this offseason too? If Mussina is on the ballot with those three, I'm betting that the writers will just choose to honor Maddox, Glavine, and Smoltz together (it's just too good a story for them), and let Mussina wait it out for at least another year.

16. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:20 PM (#3012982)

There are some other considerations working against Mussina that are reasonable things to consider. I obviously, need to think about this some more as I would suggest we all do but generally speaking I think at first blush I would vote against.

There are 6 pitchers in the modern era who I think of as comperable to Mussina:
Blyleven
Jenkins
Gibson
Marichal
John
Palmer

Four are in the Hall, two are not. Blyleven, is on the cusp John didn't get close. The 4 Hall of Famers, only Marichal had to wait.

There are some thing seperating the Ins from the Outs here, though and unfortunatly I think those things likly will work against Mussina as well.
1. I don't believe at first glance and based on gut Moose peak is really on par with Marichal, Gibson, Palmer or Jenkins. The strike really hurt him in 94, but I refuse to give up 'woulda" credit for a self inclicted wound.

2. Mussina's playoff record is more of mixed bag than Palmer, Gibson(obvi) and is partly an unfair comparison. Jenkins not got the chance, and Maricial has a much more limited experience but not really enough for it to enter my calculus. I Mussina, was playoff career was really barbelled, in that he had great outings and lackluster outings. Coupled with a mediocre won loss record. I don't think his playoff career helps or hurts his case much, in all i'd give him a slight positive.

3. Not much black ink. A traight he shares with John and Bert, but not the others.

4. Not thought of as a top pitcher of his generation. Only 1 top 3 Cy finnish.

I guess in summary I would say he strikes me as fitting better with the BB/John group than with the other 4. But all in all, he seems like an extremly boarderline case. Which at the end of the day means you can't get it wrong.

17. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:34 PM (#3012994)

Four are in the Hall, two are not. Blyleven, is on the cusp John didn't get close. The 4 Hall of Famers, only Marichal had to wait.

First, I don't see John as comparable to Mussina. And neither shows up on the other's comps list.

Second, Blyleven _should_ be in, so that's not a reason to keep Mussina out. (And above it seems you're talking about what _should_ happen, not what _will_ happen.)

So that leaves 5 of 5 on your list -- throwing out John -- that are or should be in the Hall. And even if we include John, that's 5 of 6, which would be a very strong argument for Mussina. Even your 4 of 6 would be a strong argument.

3. Not much black ink. A traight he shares with John and Bert, but not the others.

Mussina pitched in a larger league than all of the six pitchers on your list. Any serious analysis simply _has_ to take that into account.

4. Not thought of as a top pitcher of his generation. Only 1 top 3 Cy finnish.

Come on. You cut it off at "top 3," thereby throwing out EIGHT seasons in which he finished between 4th and 6th in the Cy voting. You can't be serious.

Also, he was a five time all star.

I don't think it's accurate at all to claim that he wasn't thought of as a top pitcher.

18. flournoy Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:36 PM (#3012995)

Kevin Brown belongs somewhere on that list instead of Hoffman.

He does. Unfortunately, he will receive the same treatment in the Hall of Fame voting that he routinely gets in lists of great pitcher from this generation.

19. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:36 PM (#3012996)

How is John comparable to Mussina?

20. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:42 PM (#3013004)

re: #8

Smoltz was a better post season pitcher, and Schilling was a MUCH better post season pitcher.

I shouldn't have included Hoffman I don't think. I was going off the top of my head.

Rivera, clearly has a better case than Mussina. I don't know why anyone would waste bandwidth on the discussion.

21. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:44 PM (#3013006)

Come on. You cut it off at "top 3," thereby throwing out EIGHT seasons in which he finished between 4th and 6th in the Cy voting. You can't be serious.

In most seasons, aren't the guys who finished between 4th and 6th the recipients of amounts between 1 and 3 votes? When you get down to that level, it's a lot like giving credit to a guy for receiving a single 8th place MVP vote. Breaking it down, over those 8 seasons in which he finished between 4th and 6th, he received 3 first place votes total. In the last 4 of those top 6 finishes, he received a total of 6 3rd place votes. In only one of those seasons did the voting go deeper than 6th place.

EDIT: I'm not claiming that he's not a deserving candidate for the hall, but just that no one really considers a fourth, fifth, or sixth place finish in the Cy Young voting as a serious factor in determining whether a guy is hall-worthy.

22. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:47 PM (#3013010)

I came up with my list of comperably by searching for pitchers with 250-290 wins and ERA+ above 110. John is clearly the worst pitcher on my list. I don't use BR similar players, as it doesn't adjust for era.

Second, Blyleven _should_ be in, so that's not a reason to keep Mussina out. (And above it seems you're talking about what _should_ happen, not what _will_ happen.)

So that leaves 5 of 5 on your list -- throwing out John -- that are or should be in the Hall. And even if we include John, that's 5 of 6, which would be a very strong argument for Mussina. Even your 4 of 6 would be a strong argument.

I don't even know what this means.

23. Repoz

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:48 PM (#3013012)

From Sherman's blog...

Having said all of that, I still begin this process with Mussina slightly on the wrong side of the Hall borderline. He exists in what in my mind has become the gulf between greatness and immortality. The ballot is generally made up of players of this ilk. When you are a voter, you are essentially always judging the line where greatness ends and immortality begins. You look at Dave Parker and Bert Blyleven, Jim Rice and Dave Concepcion, Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly. These players all had careers anybody would sign up for at age 10. The question you are forced to ask as you examine your ballot is who took the next step to transcendence. I think this has become too much of a statistical decision. We live in an age when the numbers are more advanced, more capable of creating a complex dossier on a player.

But we also live in an age in which we get to see more games than ever (thank you, baseball package). And I think the first read about a player's candidacy - before you get to the stats as a further barometer -- should be a gut one: Am I watching a Hall of Famer? Am I watching someone who is more than great, someone who deserves to be put in a place where only the greatest of the greats are housed? That is why I do not hesitate with John Smoltz and Curt Schilling, whose win totals may pale to Mussina, but who made me feel this way while watching them in their prime: If a game were to be played tomorrow for my life, I would be as comfortable with either Smoltz or Schilling pitching that game as anyone I have ever watched.

Mussina could be facing a ballot that has Maddux, Smoltz and Schilling all on it. And we are going to ask this question with Mussina: When you watched him did you feel like you were watching one of the greats of the greats?

24. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:50 PM (#3013015)

Rivera, clearly has a better case than Mussina. I don't know why anyone would waste bandwidth on the discussion.

But you weren't talking about who "has a better case." You were talking about value.

And quality is obviously relevant to that discussion -- but so is quantity. Mussina has 3500 innings, while Rivera has just 1,000.

25. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:50 PM (#3013016)

MHS,

I would hope you'd agree that the writers would almost certainly vote Mussina in if he reached 300 wins.

Since he's retiring 30 short, then the WAY in which he is retiring (arguably at a very high competitive level) will impact how the writers view him, so in a way, Mooses is being very smart by retiring in the way he's retiring.

(An exmaple is today's Rob Neyer's column, where he points out how UNIQUE this is).

26. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:52 PM (#3013018)

What is he the 10th best pitcher of mid 90's to late 00's? Is that a Hall of Famer? Doesn't seem like it. Certainly behind:
Roger
Maddux
Pedro
RJ
Mariano
Smoltz
Glavin
Hoffman
Schilling

Certainly not. You've got the big 4 (Clemens/Maddux/Pedro/Johnson), and then a clear divide. My ranking has Glavine a little ahead of everyone else, and then you have a bunch of pitchers who could be ranked any way in Smoltz/Mussina/Schilling/Brown. So he's tied for sixth. Which, in an era of 30 teams, is obviously a HOFer.

Hoffman is a joke as a choice; Rivera has been incredibly dominant, but I don't know how you rank a guy who pitches in such a limited role ahead of starting pitchers.

27. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:52 PM (#3013020)

When you watched him did you feel like you were watching one of the greats of the greats?

To answer Sherman (Yes, I know, pointless), I feel like Moose absolutely came off as one of the greats this year. There was an art to the way he pitched this year and it technically stunning. It was the culmination of a great career's knowledge coupled with an incredible instinct for pitching and absolute, no doubt about it Hall of Fame control. If you're going by the feel and the aura of Moose, I think this year, a veritable story book ending to a long and fantastic career, put him well over the edge.

Numbers wise, I agree, he's around the border area, but I want him in because he's one of my favorites.

28. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:57 PM (#3013021)

But you weren't talking about who "has a better case." You were talking about value.

I dont' think I used the word value. Though I said best. I was speaking for a hall of fame perspective, which is why I included Hoffman. Though later I said I shouldn't have included him, but that was mostly to get away from this being a hoffman discussion.

And quality is obviously relevant to that discussion -- but so is quantity. Mussina has 3500 innings, while Rivera has just 1,000.

yes, and post season and leverage and the view that he is the greatest ever at his position. Blah blah blah... closer isn't a position. Rivera will wlak into the hall of fame. Which is why he is ahead of Mussina on the list.

DS, I agree with your post entirely.

29. Kyle S at work Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:58 PM (#3013022)

Smoltz desperately wants to come back - I think he will. Sheehan made a pretty good case for him, too -- he hasn't had one ineffective season (ERA+ below 100) since 1988. Since 1995, his worst single season ERA+ is a 127 (although several of those years were injury shortened and he missed all of 2000).

Mussina vs Smoltz is interesting. A few months back, I used Dan's XLS tool to convert his relief seasons into starter seasons. His career stats go to 261-168, 3805 innings, 1064 BBs, 3357 Ks, and a 126 ERA+. For comparison sake, Mussina's actual stats are 270-153, 3562 innings, 785 BBs, 2813 Ks, 123 ERA+. Superficially, they are very close (ignoring the record, Bizarro Smoltz is one strong 240 IP, 140 ERA+ season ahead). Now, Moose never won a Cy Young and Smoltz did, so that's a point in Smoltz's favor. Also, Smoltz had a superior post season record: 207 IP of 2.65 ERA versus 139 IP of 3.42 ERA.

Add all that up, and I think Smoltz is a little bit ahead. But I've been hugely biased ever since Smoltz signed a card for me at a (since closed) sporting goods store when I was 9 years old, so take that with a grain of salt :)

30. JL Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:59 PM (#3013023)

In most seasons, aren't the guys who finished between 4th and 6th the recipients of amounts between 1 and 3 votes?

This year, fourth in the AL had 10 votes, while fifth and sixth had 3 votes each. In the NL, fourth through six had 55, 10 and 9 votes respectively. Not sure if this is normal, but it gives some context.

31. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:01 PM (#3013028)

yes, and post season and leverage and the view that he is the greatest ever at his position. Blah blah blah... closer isn't a position. Rivera will wlak into the hall of fame. Which is why he is ahead of Mussina on the list.

Yes; Rivera will walk into the Hall.

But he hasn't been better than Mussina. Mussina was able to start games and pitch a lot of innings at a high level in those starts. Rivera couldn't, or, at least, didn't.

32. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:01 PM (#3013029)

Cowboy Popup,

I fully agree with your comment, and that's why I am rather downbeat about Moose's retirement: watching him pitch this year was tremendous fun, and I would have loved to have seen him do it again for at least one year (heck, if Mussina had decided to become his generation's Moyer, he might have well ended up in the 350 win range....).

33. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:03 PM (#3013033)

This year, fourth in the AL had 10 votes, while fifth and sixth had 3 votes each. In the NL, fourth through six had 55, 10 and 9 votes respectively. Not sure if this is normal, but it gives some context.

Aren't you quoting points, and not votes? Also, in the NL, fourth through sixth had 10, 9, and 4 points respectively.

34. 185/456(GGC) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:03 PM (#3013034)

This is my type of thread. Thanks guys.

35. John DiFool2 Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:06 PM (#3013035)

Added bonus: he'll end up competing against almost all (possibly all) of these guys on the ballot.

Then there's the upcoming Great Crowded Ballot Clusterf*ck to think about too. Might seem unthinkable now, but there's a possibility that he might not even reach the 5% threshold one year.

36. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:07 PM (#3013037)

So whats your point? Your quibbling. I think Sherman above explained why I had Mussina behind Schilling and Smoltz. Using Sherman as a proxy for HOF voters seem reasonable. I see no compelling evidence to change the view I expressed in 5 and 13. That Mussina should be viewed as the 9thish best Hof candidate from his era. I'm sorry if I wasnt more clear originally.

37. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:07 PM (#3013039)

John, I don't think there is any risk of him going Bobby Grich or Dwight Evans on us.

38. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:08 PM (#3013042)

Forget about the uninteresting, done-to-death debate about WHETHER he gets in, which hat will he wear IF he gets in?

39. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:10 PM (#3013044)

I fully agree with your comment, and that's why I am rather downbeat about Moose's retirement

Yeah, I'm pretty bummed, it's been a while since a ballplayer quit and it bugged me this much. All the way back to Mattingly maybe. I was really hoping that he could do what he did last year for a little while longer, it was so enjoyable to watch and it was really thrilling as a longtime Moose fan to do what he did.

40. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:11 PM (#3013045)

Forget about the uninteresting, done-to-death debate about WHETHER he gets in, which hat will he wear IF he gets in?

I said this in the other thread. It should be the O's on merits, but the tenures are probably sufficiently close in time that the Hof will probably give him the choice, if he so desires. I have no idea where he stands on that particular call, though he strikes me as a guy who wouldn't give a rat's ass.

41. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:14 PM (#3013047)

I think Moose has a pretty good relationship with the Yanks and it's management while I don't believe he's a fan of Angelos. I think that if the Hall leaves it up to him, which they probably willl because as SoSH notes, the numbers are close enough, Moose will pick the Yanks. I could easily see him picking the O's though.

I hope the Yanks sign him up as some kind of pitching coach soon, even if it's just as a spring training instructor.

42. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:15 PM (#3013050)

John, I don't think there is any risk of him going Bobby Grich or Dwight Evans on us.

Well, the HOF voters only get a maximum of 10 votes per ballot, and the most that they're likely to induct in any single season is about 4 guys. Who's the list of people who will be eligible over the next decade? We've got all the pitchers listed above, as well as guys like Lee Smith, Trammel, McGwire, Jack Morris, Alomar, Blyleven, Rice, Biggio, Bagwell, McGriff, Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Andre Dawson, Rickey, Larkin, John and Julio Franco (both will draw some votes), Palmeiro, Galaragga, Larry Walker, Bonds, Piazza, and so on - and that's just the guys who are currently retired who are likely to stick on the ballot at or above the 5% mark. Once the active players start moving on to that list too, it's not unreasonable to think that a situation could arise where significantly more than 10 worthy candidates are on the ballot at once.

43. sotapop Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:18 PM (#3013052)

Almost not worth posting, because most of us are coming down the same way, but... that list of pitchers is almost unfair. Clemens, Maddux, RJ and to a large extent Pedro aren't just the best of the 1990s or so, they're elite in post-war baseball and the first two (setting aside complications on Clemens' character) are virtually inner-circle. I guess you can't help but look at Moose alongside them, but it's almost unfair -- you might as well throw in Cy and Grove as yardsticks.

Smoltz, Glavine and Schilling are the non-demi-god starters in the list, and Mussina stacks up pretty well with them -- even better if you consider league strength.

That said, I don't think writers will make any of those distinctions. But they probably will remember Mussina as a good guy, classy and an occasional source, and enough will give him the "might have been" credit for going out on top. That may make all the difference and I hope so; he's been a favorite since I used to schlep it from DC to Camden Yards back in the mid-90s.

44. Philippe Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:23 PM (#3013055)

Interesting discussion. Two points:

Rivera is sui generis. He will go in the Hall as arguably the greatest closer of all time. His election has nothing to do with the quality of starters of his era, and he's not in competition against them.

An interesting thing about Mussina is that while he's maybe the 9th best starter of his generation, it is one of the best generation ever for great starters (along with the 1900-1910 crowd). Not really his fault. If you compare him with the previous generation (i.e. the Jack Morris crowd), he just blows everyone away. He's a way better pitcher than probably 10 guys who are already in the Hall. The number that really helps him is his winning percentage, which isoutstanding for someone with almost 300 wins. OK, he pitched for good teams, but it makes his positives stand out a lot more than Blyleven's for example.

45. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:24 PM (#3013056)

Some of those players will be elected before Mussina is on. Ricky, Biggio, Bagwell, Rice, Piazza so they aren't concnerns. By Franco's will beon for 1 season and 1 season only. I expect Walker, Big Cat, Raines, Edgar and McGriff will fall off quickly as well. And BB will be off ballot one way or the other. So really Moose competition for votes will be:

Smith (who might get in before)
Trammel
Morris
Roberto
Dawson
Larkin
Bonds
McGwire
Palmeiro

I don't think Moose will have any troubel getting 5% because a lot of the voters just aren't goingto vote for 3 of those guys.

46. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:28 PM (#3013059)

I expect Walker, Big Cat, Raines, Edgar and McGriff will fall off quickly as well.

I suppose this year will be telling to see which way his vote heads, but I have a hard time seeing Raines falling off the ballot completely.

47. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:29 PM (#3013061)

I suppose this year will be telling to see which way his vote heads, but I have a hard time seeing Raines falling off the ballot completely.

Didn't he clear 20% in the voting this year? I can't see him easily falling off either. I'm also thinking that McGriff will stick on the ballot for a while as he's viewed as a "clean" slugger.

48. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:31 PM (#3013062)

I see no compelling evidence to change the view I expressed in 5 and 13. That Mussina should be viewed as the 9thish best Hof candidate from his era. I'm sorry if I wasnt more clear originally.

There are two problems with ranking him 9th. First, it's hard to separate the Brown/Smoltz/Mussina/Schilling cluster; people can argue it various ways but I'm not sure the distinctions between them are very meaningful. (And you still haven't agreed that Brown belongs on the list.)

Second, if you're now back to the view you expressed in 5, you've still got the two relievers ahead of him. You've made noise about backing off with regard to Hoffman, but mainly (you've admitted) that was just so as to get away from this being a Hoffman discussion. So it seems that you still think Hoffman is better than Mussina. I'm not really sure where to go with that.

As to the less surreal notion of putting Rivera ahead of Mussina, the difference between them in quantity is 2500 innings. I don't think you realize how huge that is. It's almost the length of Andy Pettitte's entire career.

49. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:33 PM (#3013064)

Raines will not fall off the ballot completely. Since the institution of the 5% rule, no one who ever got anywhere near 23% (Raines's mark last year) has fallen off. I think the max is around 12%, by Sparky Lyle.

50. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:34 PM (#3013065)

Rivera is sui generis. He will go in the Hall as arguably the greatest closer of all time. His election has nothing to do with the quality of starters of his era, and he's not in competition against them.

Completely agree.

51. Randy Jones

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:45 PM (#3013073)

Rivera is sui generis. He will go in the Hall as arguably the greatest closer of all time.

It's arguable?

Edit to add: I hope Mussina makes the HoF because I think he deserves it and he is one of my favorite players, but it would not be a travesty if he didn't.

52. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:48 PM (#3013077)

Ray, I don't think you realize I was ranking them BEST in terms of best hall of fame case.

That Mussina should be viewed as the 9thish best Hof candidate from his era. I'm sorry if I wasnt more clear originally.

So it seems that you still think Hoffman is better than Mussina. I'm not really sure where to go with that

If I could have drafted either Hoffman or Mussina, I would have taken Mussina. I agree he has been "better" in the sense that he has been more valuable.

But clearly, based on the Hall of Fame standards I believe Hoffman has a better case and is more likly to be elected. I don't understand why you can't seem to grasp that, I understand why orginally in 5 you were confused as I was ambiguous. But since then I thought I cleared that up.

(And you still haven't agreed that Brown belongs on the list.)

Mostly, because I don't see what it has to do with the price of tea in China. I believe Brown has a worse hall of fame case than Mussina. Brown went out on such a ridiculously bad note he has no chance of getting in the hall of fame, unless its 40 years from now. I see no reason to respond to it.

53. 185/456(GGC) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:49 PM (#3013078)

Where's Dial to chime in about Billy Wagner?

I'd be interested to see if someone did an analysis of pitcher's similar to the way that Michael Schell did for hitters. Unfortunately, I am probably not the man for the job.

54. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:49 PM (#3013079)

It's arguable?

I would imagine that would depend on if you said reliever or closer. Using the term closer, I think makes it not arguable really. But if you said reliever, then I think it is.

55. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:51 PM (#3013080)

I don't think Moose will have any troubel getting 5% because a lot of the voters just aren't goingto vote for 3 of those guys.

Other guys likely to draw at least some HOF consideration who will probably retire over the next 5 years, who Mussina will also have to compete with:

Abreu
Damon
Giambi
Guerrero
Ordonez
Ortiz
Pettite
Posada
Manny
Renteria
I-Rod
Rolen
Sheffield
Thome
Frank Thomas
Sosa
Delgado
Edmonds
Luis Gonzales
Griffey
Andruw Jones
Chipper Jones
Tejada

While a lot of these guys don't have a realistic shot at making it, they'll still be drawing votes. When combined with the already retired group, and the group of previously identified pitchers, there are going to be a lot of very crowded ballots, and we'll probably see some legit guys get bumped off the ballot.

56. Randy Jones

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:52 PM (#3013082)

I would imagine that would depend on if you said reliever or closer. Using the term closer, I think makes it not arguable really. But if you said reliever, then I think it is.

Agreed, but he said closer in the post I quoted.

57. flournoy Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:53 PM (#3013084)

Who is going to be viewed as part of the next generation of top starters that we'll argue about in ten years?

Roy Halladay, Jake Peavy, Brandon Webb, C.C. Sabathia, Tim Hudson, Roy Oswalt, Carlos Zambrano, Dan Haren... maybe Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Good pitchers all, but easily a weaker group. I'm sure I missed several.

58. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:57 PM (#3013089)

Good pitchers all, but easily a weaker group. I'm sure I missed several.

You missed Mark Buehrle, for one. Don't feel bad, Buehrle is almost always skipped on any list of current starters with nice resumes.

59. Randy Jones

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:59 PM (#3013092)

Roy Halladay, Jake Peavy, Brandon Webb, C.C. Sabathia, Tim Hudson, Roy Oswalt, Carlos Zambrano, Dan Haren... maybe Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

Good pitchers all, but easily a weaker group. I'm sure I missed several.

There's this guy on the Mets. He was traded to them last year. There was a lot of press about it...

60. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:02 PM (#3013097)

Good pitchers all, but easily a weaker group. I'm sure I missed several.

I know I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd throw Johan on that list too.

Edit: Beaten to the punch!

61. wickedwitch Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:03 PM (#3013098)

Orioles fans have very mixed opinions of Mussina. Some think he's a traitor and despise him, while others still love the guy. But every single one I talked to believes he's a HoFer. These are the people who watched him every 5 days for 10 seasons.

62. flournoy Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:03 PM (#3013100)

I always forget about Mark Buehrle, and the White Sox in general. I should not have missed Santana. Those two help out the group to be sure.

63. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:05 PM (#3013102)

If I could have drafted either Hoffman or Mussina, I would have taken Mussina. I agree he has been "better" in the sense that he has been more valuable.

Ok; then we agree.

But clearly, based on the Hall of Fame standards I believe Hoffman has a better case and is more likly to be elected. I don't understand why you can't seem to grasp that, I understand why orginally in 5 you were confused as I was ambiguous. But since then I thought I cleared that up.

Ok, I understand you now. Though I still see Mussina as having the better case, if we're talking about who _will_ go in.

I believe Brown has a worse hall of fame case than Mussina. Brown went out on such a ridiculously bad note he has no chance of getting in the hall of fame, unless its 40 years from now. I see no reason to respond to it.

Why are we obsessing over how a player "went out" when trying to reasonably assess the value of his career and even how he will be viewed by the electorate?

Anyway, he didn't really go out on such a horrible note. He had a bad 75 innings at age 40 and then hung them up. A year earlier he failed to save the Yankees in Game 7 of the famous/infamous 2004 ALCS. And I think he punched a wall somewhere in there towards the end of the season. I seem to also recall that he was listed in that stupid Mitchell Report. Even so, it wasn't exactly a Roger Clemens Flameout.

His biggest crime appears to be that he was not a big fan of the media. As to his stat line, he didn't have enough wins, which will kill his chances in the eyes of the voters, but shouldn't.

64. Jack Keefe Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:06 PM (#3013104)

Who is going to be viewed as part of the next generation of top starters that we'll argue about in ten years?

Hey you mist Jack Keefe and I would punch your nose except I four give you of course you are thinking I will pitch another 20 or 25 Years.

65. Mister High Standards Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:19 PM (#3013109)

Why are we obsessing over how a player "went out" when trying to reasonably assess the value of his career and even how he will be viewed by the electorate?

I'm arguiing that the perception of how he went out. Maybe he won't get support for another reason, that I don't yet understand. But he won't get the support, the end of his career had no buzz.

I agree Brown should be a strong candidate. He is at the top of a list that includes Steib, John, Key, Cone, Saberhagen of guys who I think should get more support then they ever seem to. But I don't believe Kevin Brown will get siggnifigant hall of fame support. Not in the ball park with the 9 guys I mentioned in #5.

66. Juan V Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:21 PM (#3013114)

Johan?

EDIT: What all above said.

67. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:30 PM (#3013119)

It's Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Unit, Mariano, and Glavine. That's it folks. It's supposed to be an exclusive group of greats, not a collection of greats and 'were good for a long times'.

Yeah, I know someone will rip me for Glavine but 300 wins, 2 Cys, 6 top 3 Cy finishes, five 20 wins seasons...even I, the ultimate small-Haller can't figure a way to keep that out.

68. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:32 PM (#3013121)

I'm arguiing that the perception of how he went out. Maybe he won't get support for another reason, that I don't yet understand. But he won't get the support, the end of his career had no buzz.

I agree he won't get significant -- actually, I think he'll barely get any -- support. But the writing was on the wall for him before his final year or two. He was never going to get any support anyway, barring a late 30s resurgence.

69. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:34 PM (#3013126)

It's Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Unit, Mariano, and Glavine. That's it folks. It's supposed to be an exclusive group of greats, not a collection of greats and 'were good for a long times'.

Yes. And the others qualify as greats, under the standards that have been established.

70. Rally Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:38 PM (#3013132)

Roy Halladay, Jake Peavy, Brandon Webb, C.C. Sabathia, Tim Hudson, Roy Oswalt, Carlos Zambrano, Dan Haren... maybe Josh Beckett and John Lackey.

I like Halladay, Sabathia, and Oswalt out of that group.

71. GEB4000 Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:56 PM (#3013143)

Mussina was just a very good pitcher who never had any big years. The only way he was going to get in was by winning 300 games.

72. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:59 PM (#3013148)

Mussina was ridiculously good in the ’97 playoffs, a fact forgotten by many because the Orioles fell short of the World Series. This should be considered when analyzing his postseason resume.

73. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 06:08 PM (#3013157)

I like Halladay, Sabathia, and Oswalt out of that group.

Doesn't Oswalt keep talking about retirement at a young age?

FWIW, I'd take out Oswalt (as I don't think he'll run up the counting stats due to early retirement), and add in Webb.

74. Randy Jones

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 06:10 PM (#3013160)

From his ESPN chat going on right now:

Doug (NY): Moose a HOFer?

Keith Law: (1:07 PM ET ) For me, yes.

75. CrosbyBird Posted: November 20, 2008 at 06:16 PM (#3013166)

First, it's hard to separate the Brown/Smoltz/Mussina/Schilling cluster; people can argue it various ways but I'm not sure the distinctions between them are very meaningful.

A lot is going to depend on how much you weigh peak vs. career. Brown and Schilling don't just have better peaks, but remarkably better peaks.

Smoltz is much closer. His best seasons aren't as good as Mussina's, but he has a sustained run of excellence. Mussina is the hardest pitching case I can imagine for the HOF. I keep switching between thinking he should be in and thinking he should be out.

I feel like there are five ways to get into the hall of fame.

1) You can have an extraordinary peak and extraordinary career value. These guys are inner-circle; they are always easy, easy selections. Greg Maddux.
2) You can have an extraordinary peak and a solid career length. Kevin Brown.
3) You can have an extraordinary career length and a solid peak. Tom Glavine.
4) You can have career length or peak so historically great that it makes up for low peak value or relatively short career relative to the average "legitimate" HOF player. Sandy Koufax. Don Sutton (borderline HOF IMO).
5) You can have a very good peak and very good career length, plus something that distinguishes you greatly from the pack. These are the most difficult cases. I think Smoltz and Mussina are both in this category.

Smoltz should get some credit for being effective as a starter and reliever, and also for his CY award, milestones like 3000 K, 8 All-Star appearances, hitting, and playoff performance. Mussina should get some credit for being a fantastic defensive player, and for the quality of his league and division. Both did benefit from having pretty good run support.

I like Smoltz better than Mussina, but the line is very fine between them. I don't think it's so fine for Schilling or Brown (who have peaks that are eye-poppingly good) or Glavine (with over 800 more innings).

It's very hard to reasonably put Mussina ahead of Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, RJ, Glavine, Brown, and Schilling. It also isn't clear that in 2013 that there won't be a few more pitchers clearly better than him (Santana, Webb, and Peavy come to mind, but I'm sure we can find a few others). I wouldn't suggest that Mussina isn't a tad unlucky to be playing at the same time as so many all-time greats, but his relative lack of dominant seasons has to count for something.

76. 185/456(GGC) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 06:28 PM (#3013180)

I feel like there are five ways to get into the hall of fame.

1) You can have an extraordinary peak and extraordinary career value. These guys are inner-circle; they are always easy, easy selections. Greg Maddux.
2) You can have an extraordinary peak and a solid career length. Kevin Brown.
3) You can have an extraordinary career length and a solid peak. Tom Glavine.
4) You can have career length or peak so historically great that it makes up for low peak value or relatively short career relative to the average "legitimate" HOF player. Sandy Koufax. Don Sutton (borderline HOF IMO).
5) You can have a very good peak and very good career length, plus something that distinguishes you greatly from the pack. These are the most difficult cases. I think Smoltz and Mussina are both in this category.

Before The Politics of Glory didn't Bill James use a similar two letter code to classify HOFers? (AA, AB, BA, etc.) I'm pretty sure that I read it somewhere, but I couldn't find it when I looked through my pile of Abstracts.

77. CrosbyBird Posted: November 20, 2008 at 06:42 PM (#3013191)

Before The Politics of Glory didn't Bill James use a similar two letter code to classify HOFers?

It's very possible, although if so, probably coincidental. The only thing I remember reading on the HOF by James is The Politics of Glory.

78. winnipegwhip Posted: November 20, 2008 at 06:46 PM (#3013195)

Sometimes defining moments help a player and I hope the writers remember it was Mussina on the hill in Game 3 of the 2001 ALDS in Oakland (the Jeter play game). More importantly and probably less remembered is if it wasn't for Moose the Red Sox would have beaten the Yankees in 2003. Moose came in to relief Clemens who had loaded the bases with none out. Already down 4-0 and not pitching in his comfort zone (being a relief pitcher) Moose succeeded where he had no margin for error. I believe if even one Red Sox run scored that game would have been done. Getting those 3 outs were as important as any hit in that game. It wasn't just surviving but it gave the Yanks and their fans something to build some momentum on.

Sad to see it end Moose. You are a Hall of Famer in my book.

79. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: November 20, 2008 at 06:51 PM (#3013200)

Mussina vs Smoltz is interesting. A few months back, I used Dan's XLS tool to convert his relief seasons into starter seasons. His career stats go to 261-168, 3805 innings, 1064 BBs, 3357 Ks, and a 126 ERA+. For comparison sake, Mussina's actual stats are 270-153, 3562 innings, 785 BBs, 2813 Ks, 123 ERA+. Superficially, they are very close (ignoring the record, Bizarro Smoltz is one strong 240 IP, 140 ERA+ season ahead). Now, Moose never won a Cy Young and Smoltz did, so that's a point in Smoltz's favor. Also, Smoltz had a superior post season record: 207 IP of 2.65 ERA versus 139 IP of 3.42 ERA.

Of course, Bizarro Smoltz doesn't exist - Actual Smoltz, who produced less value by being in the pen, does.

80. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 06:56 PM (#3013204)

Of course, Bizarro Smoltz doesn't exist - Actual Smoltz, who produced less value by being in the pen, does.

Of course, that has to be balanced by the knowledge that most members of the BBWAA vastly overestimate the value provided by a closer.

81. 185/456(GGC) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 06:58 PM (#3013206)

(M)ost members of the BBWAA vastly overestimate the value provided by a closer.

If that were the case, wouldn't Lee Smith be in the Hall of Fame?

82. DL from MN Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:05 PM (#3013215)

> What is he the 10th best pitcher of mid 90's to late 00's? Is that a Hall of Famer?

It should be. You're talking about an era with 30 teams where every team has a 5 man rotation. Using half the roster (12 man staff) and more than half the payroll on pitching is commonplace. There's 150 slots for starting pitchers yearly - 180 if you include closers. Are you only going to put 13 position players in the Hall from this era?

Mussina should be a mortal lock for any decent Hall. The discussion of where to draw the line should be somewhere below Andy Pettitte in my opinion. David Cone, Kevin Appier, Chuck Finley, David Wells, Billy Wagner - these are the true borderline cases. Calling Mussina or Kevin Brown or Trevor Hoffman a "borderline" candidate improperly frames the whole discussion.

83. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:05 PM (#3013216)

If that were the case, wouldn't Lee Smith be in the Hall of Fame?

Or Smith is so overvalued that he should be off the ballot already? Or has he already dropped off?

84. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:07 PM (#3013218)

Mussina was just a very good pitcher who never had any big years.

Not sure if you're talking about some other Mussina, but the one who pitched in the majors had plenty of big years. He didn't have All Time Great seasons, but that is simply not the standard for election.

85. DL from MN Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:14 PM (#3013221)

> If that were the case, wouldn't Lee Smith be in the Hall of Fame?

2007 vote totals
Blyleven 47.7%
Lee Smith 39.8%

I'd put them both in but Lee Smith is more borderline.

86. flournoy Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:14 PM (#3013222)

I've always considered myself a proponent of a very big Hall of Fame, but even I don't think Kevin Appier belongs in the discussion. I think Andy Pettitte is squarely below the line.

87. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:18 PM (#3013225)

If that were the case, wouldn't Lee Smith be in the Hall of Fame?

He's been on the ballot for 6 years, and never pulled less than 36% of the vote. That's probably overestimating the value that he provided to his teams.

88. 185/456(GGC) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:22 PM (#3013235)

2007 vote totals
Blyleven 47.7%
Lee Smith 39.8%

No kidding. I heard so much about other candidates like Rice, Blyleven, Morris, and Raines that I either forgot this or never noticed it.

89. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:36 PM (#3013252)

Yes. And the others qualify as greats, under the standards that have been established.

Grade inflation is indeed everywhere. Mussina never won a Cy, meaning no one every considered him the best pitcher in his league (much less the game), and only once cracked the top 3 in the voting. There is no greatness there. He was very good and he lasted. That's it. Somewhere along the line, the HOF decided that was good enough for them and it's a shame.

90. DL from MN Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:37 PM (#3013253)

> I think Andy Pettitte is squarely below the line.

I doublechecked and I guess I'd still put Pettitte below the line at the moment but he's not done yet. He has made a good case so far.

If Mussina's out then clearly so are Roberto Alomar, Jim Thome, Chipper Jones, Mark McGwire, Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor. Heck, Jeff Bagwell would be a marginal case.

91. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:38 PM (#3013256)

most members of the BBWAA vastly overestimate the value provided by a closer.

The BBWAA has elected more closers than starting pitchers in the last decade.

They've given more votes to closers than centerfielders -- that's not just the last 10 years, that's going all the way back to 1936.

92. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:39 PM (#3013257)

Lou Whitaker

The writers already decided that he was out, at least until he hits the Veteran's committee.

93. Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:40 PM (#3013259)

Mussina vs Smoltz is interesting. A few months back, I used Dan's XLS tool to convert his relief seasons into starter seasons. His career stats go to 261-168, 3805 innings, 1064 BBs, 3357 Ks, and a 126 ERA+. For comparison sake, Mussina's actual stats are 270-153, 3562 innings, 785 BBs, 2813 Ks, 123 ERA+. Superficially, they are very close (ignoring the record, Bizarro Smoltz is one strong 240 IP, 140 ERA+ season ahead). Now, Moose never won a Cy Young and Smoltz did, so that's a point in Smoltz's favor. Also, Smoltz had a superior post season record: 207 IP of 2.65 ERA versus 139 IP of 3.42 ERA.

The fact that Bizarro Smoltz managed to walk 279 guys in 240 innings (Nolan Ryan-esque) and put up a 140 ERA+ proves that the Bizarro MSM is right -- sometimes it's really about intestinal fortitude. Well, and the record 544 K's probably doesn't hurt.

94. winnipegwhip Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:41 PM (#3013261)

I heard that Mussina tried to get on with Toronto. When Riccardi asked Gaston for his opinion, Cito replied that he would never use him and he would just rot in the bullpen.

95. Randy Jones

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:43 PM (#3013265)

Grade inflation is indeed everywhere. Mussina never won a Cy, meaning no one every considered him the best pitcher in his league (much less the game), and only once cracked the top 3 in the voting. There is no greatness there. He was very good and he lasted. That's it. Somewhere along the line, the HOF decided that was good enough for them and it's a shame

Really? That's your argument? At the very least, go back and take say Mussina's 3 best years and compare them to the CYA winners each year to see if he beats any of them. Otherwise you are saying that he doesn't deserve to be in the HoF because his career overlaps with 4 of the top 10-15 greatest pitchers ever. Unless you think the HoF should only have about 30-40 people in it and should remove people over time so that number never grows, then your argument is fine.

96. SoSH U at work Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:44 PM (#3013268)

I heard that Mussina tried to get on with Toronto. When Riccardi asked Gaston for his opinion, Cito replied that he would never use him and he would just rot in the bullpen.

I take it Moose still flew to Toronto anyway.

97. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:51 PM (#3013278)

Grade inflation is indeed everywhere. Mussina never won a Cy, meaning no one every considered him the best pitcher in his league (much less the game), and only once cracked the top 3 in the voting. There is no greatness there. He was very good and he lasted. That's it. Somewhere along the line, the HOF decided that was good enough for them and it's a shame.

First, awards voting is really only useful as a gauge of what a small, largely uninformed subset of people thought about a player in individual seasons relative to other pitchers as his career progressed. If you're trying to evaluate Mussina's career on merit and you're looking to awards voting, you're just flat misguided. We don't need people like Murray Chass to tell us how good Mussina was relative to other pitchers in the league.

There is no logical requirement that a pitcher win a Cy, or finish in the top three, in order to be great. That is simply not the standard. Greatness is some combination of quality, quantity, peak, and career, relative to league and compared against other Hall of Famers and non. Construct your argument based on that and it'll be taken seriously. Until then, not so much.

98. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:56 PM (#3013283)

Grade inflation is indeed everywhere. Mussina never won a Cy, meaning no one every considered him the best pitcher in his league (much less the game), and only once cracked the top 3 in the voting. There is no greatness there. He was very good and he lasted. That's it. Somewhere along the line, the HOF decided that was good enough for them and it's a shame.

"Somewhere along the line" being within a few years of the HOF's creation.

At no point has the HOF ever decided that peak value was all that counted, nor has the HOF ever been limited to the best player in the game. Mussina, as we've talked about above, is somewhere between 5th and 10th best pitcher of his era. That era has twice as many teams as earlier eras, which means that we're talking about the equivalent of the 3rd - 5th best pitcher in the game from earlier eras of baseball. The HOF has always inducted more people than that.

BTW, while nobody did consider Moose to be the best pitcher in the league, your first argument is flawed; the Cy measures the pitcher who had the best year, not the best pitcher in the league.

99. RJ in TO Posted: November 20, 2008 at 07:58 PM (#3013284)

First, awards voting is really only useful as a gauge of what a small, largely uninformed subset of people thought about a player in individual seasons relative to other pitchers as his career progressed.

Didn't you make the observation upthread that Mussina finished between 4th and 6th on the Cy Young ballot on 8 occasions, in order to partially support your position that Mussina was thought of as a top pitcher?

100. Ray (CTL)

Posted: November 20, 2008 at 08:04 PM (#3013288)

First, awards voting is really only useful as a gauge of what a small, largely uninformed subset of people thought about a player in individual seasons relative to other pitchers as his career progressed.

Didn't you make the observation upthread that Mussina finished between 4th and 6th on the Cy Young ballot on 8 occasions, in order to partially support your position that Mussina was thought of as a top pitcher?

Yes. I'm not seeing the contradiction.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Sherman: MUSSINA: COOPERSTOWN VOTE WILL BE A HALLUVA DECISION (RR)

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics