Mussina a Hall of Famer?

[frankpembleton]

I've been trying to decide whether or not Mussina is a sure-fire hall of famer. As of now, is he definitely in?

If he does get in, does he go in as an Oriole or Yankee?

What does everyone think?

[square634]

I definitely don't think he is a sure-fire hall of famer. He is borderline (mostly because of the lack of a cy young or 20 win season), so I think it will depend on how he does at the end of his career.

Edit: I seem to remember Drungo posting a sabermetric article a while ago that said that from a statistical standpoint he should get in. It could have been about Curt Schilling, though, I'm not sure.

[Brady9Fan]

I agree...I don't think he's a shoe-in.

He had better numbers with the O's. I think he jumped ship due to many reasons, one hoping that he would definitely have a World Series ring. I always hoped that he'd grow weary of the Yankees, due to really nothing happening with his career. I would love for him to come back to Baltimore & finish his career here. Plus, if he still lives in PA, he would be near his home.

Maybe a few years back in an O's uniform would bring back some of his numbers. We have a better starting rotation than the Yanks, & that could always look good to the O's. Plus with the addition to Moose, maybe we could attract some outside attention from free agents.

[Boy Howdy]

Unless Mussina loses more than he wins from here on out, I believe he'd be the only pitcher in baseball not to get a plaque in Cooperstown (if they don't vote him in) to have at least 100 more wins than losses.

Thaty makes me say he'll get in. Deservedly.

[ChaosLex]

He may get in, but he'll probably have to wait a long, long time.

[Leitch]

"Only pitcher with x stat not in the hall of fame" type arguments aside, I think Moose should be HOF. Spent his whole career pretty much post home-run explosion, and half of it in a bandbox, and still gave you 220 innings and 200 strikeouts and a 3-ish ERA like every year.

Six 9+ WARP3 seasons, three of them are 10+. Career 122 WARP3, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that if he'd spent his whole career here he'd be the best Oriole pitcher ever.

[mweb]

"Only pitcher with x stat not in the hall of fame" type arguments aside, I think Moose should be HOF. Spent his whole career pretty much post home-run explosion, and half of it in a bandbox, and still gave you 220 innings and 200 strikeouts and a 3-ish ERA like every year.

Six 9+ WARP3 seasons, three of them are 10+. Career 122 WARP3, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that if he'd spent his whole career here he'd be the best Oriole pitcher ever.

Yeah, i think he's a HOF'er, and by a decent margin. However, I'm not confident he'll be voted in due to the lack of a 20 win season and/or Cy Young award.

[Leitch]

Yeah, i think he's a HOF'er, and by a decent margin. However, I'm not confident he'll be voted in due to the lack of a 20 win season and/or Cy Young award.

I agree, and it looks like 300 is out of reach at this point. He'll probably end up a Bert Blyleven for a new generation.

[Boy Howdy]

I agree, and it looks like 300 is out of reach at this point. He'll probably end up a Bert Blyleven for a new generation.

While Blyleven won 287 games, he also lost 250. Mussina would need a lot of 5-19 seasons to get there.

[Leitch]

While Blyleven won 287 games, he also lost 250. Mussina would need a lot of 5-19 seasons to get there.

Meant as in "Obvious HOF snub based solely on W/L record that makes BBWAA look awful"

[twocentsworth]

I don't think he is a hall of famer. No 20 win seasons and no world series ring seals it for me. If he does, it should be as an Oriole. What is his Oriole record, compared to his Yankee record?

[frankpembleton]

So what do you guys think the chances of him going in as an Oriole are? I think he is sure-fire in the hall as well....

[66-70-83-??]

I don't know if he is worthy ?? I do not think he is a "sure fire" HOF'er. He may be a HOF'er but by no means is he a slam dunk.

FWIW, Mark Mussina (Mike's younger brother) was being interviewed one morning last week by Drew on WNST. He was asked if he thought his brother was a HOFer. Mark thinks Mike still needs to have a few more good seasons to get closer to 300 to have a decent shot.

Mike was very good for a long time. But, was he "great" ?

I guess it depends on who you ask. He is definitely a borderline case.

[Mark Carver]

I don't think he is a hall of famer. No 20 win seasons and no world series ring seals it for me. If he does, it should be as an Oriole. What is his Oriole record, compared to his Yankee record?


In 1995 and 1996 he definnately won 20 games, unfortunately the bullpen blew the leads when he left the games and never got the wins.

[mweb]

I don't know if he is worthy ?? I do not think he is a "sure fire" HOF'er. He may be a HOF'er but by no means is he a slam dunk.

FWIW, Mark Mussina (Mike's younger brother) was being interviewed one morning last week by Drew on WNST. He was asked if he thought his brother was a HOFer. Mark thinks Mike still needs to have a few more good seasons to get closer to 300 to have a decent shot.

Mike was very good for a long time. But, was he "great" ?

I guess it depends on who you ask. He is definitely a borderline case.

Yes, he was great in '92, '94, '95, and '01, borderline great in about 4 other seasons.

He's been in the top 6 in the AL in ERA 9 times, 4 of those being top 3. 7 times in the top 5 in wins including 1st once. 10 times in the top 5 in WHIP, 6 of those in the top 3. 8 times in the top 6 in k's/9.

[twocentsworth]

In 1995 and 1996 he definnately won 20 games, unfortunately the bullpen blew the leads when he left the games and never got the wins.

If the bullpen blowing the leads count as wins, the 2007 Orioles would be in first place now and Bedard and Guthrie would have 15 wins each. Mussina never got 20 wins.

[geschinger]

I think he's deserving but not sure that he'll get in (at least not initially) w/o a few more good years to pad the win totals. It's unfair but I think many (and many voters will) see him as the almost guy.... Almost won twenty games, almost threw no-hitters, almost won a CY Young, almost won 300 games, etc... In other words, almost a HOF.

[Sports Guy]

Just to add to what MWeb and Lietch said...He threw 200 innings 10 times and just missed out on an 11th.

He has also been a solid postseason pitcher and was dominant in 1997.

I think Mweb is right...The lack of 20 win seasons, Cy Young award and WS ring(thus far) may keep him out.

I think he needs to get to 250 wins...20 wins is much tougher to get now than it was years ago, so maybe that won't be held against him too much but i suspect it will.

[mweb]

Just to add to what MWeb and Lietch said...He threw 200 innings 10 times and just missed out on an 11th.

He has also been a solid postseason pitcher and was dominant in 1997.

I think Mweb is right...The lack of 20 win seasons, Cy Young award and WS ring(thus far) may keep him out.

I think he needs to get to 250 wins...20 wins is much tougher to get now than it was years ago, so maybe that won't be held against him too much but i suspect it will.

Well he has 244 now, so he should easily get 250.

[66-70-83-??]

Yes, he was great in '92, '94, '95, and '01, borderline great in about 4 other seasons.

He's been in the top 6 in the AL in ERA 9 times, 4 of those being top 3. 7 times in the top 5 in wins including 1st once. 10 times in the top 5 in WHIP, 6 of those in the top 3. 8 times in the top 6 in k's/9.

I know he was.

I meant his overall career.

Blyleven had some great years, Morris was the greatest pitcher in the AL for a decade and they aren't in.

I like Mussina but I just don't know if he has done enough for the majority of the voters.

[Sports Guy]

I know he was.

I meant his overall career.

Blyleven had some great years, Morris was the greatest pitcher in the AL for a decade and they aren't in.

I like Mussina but I just don't know if he has done enough for the majority of the voters.
No he wasn't and BB should be in.

I think Moose should be a shoo-in personally but i think it will be tough for him to get in.

I hadn't realized he was as close to 250 as he is...He may need more like 270+ to get in.

[geschinger]

No he wasn't and BB should be in.

I think Moose should be a shoo-in personally but i think it will be tough for him to get in.

I hadn't realized he was as close to 250 as he is...He may need more like 270+ to get in.

I think Moose will eventually get in but depending on when he hangs 'em up relative to Maddux and Clemens it could take years. Next to guys like that his resume looks thin although I do agree that it should be enough.

[Sports Guy]

I think Moose will eventually get in but depending on when he hangs 'em up relative to Maddux and Clemens it could take years. Next to guys like that his resume looks thin although I do agree that it should be enough.

Tough to get a read on how long he can pitch for as well.

He has always been a relatively healthy pitcher...Stays in good shape and has a strong work ethic.

He could conceivably hang on for another 3-5 years IMO. His K numbers are way down this year and maybe that means he is almost done, since he is 38...Or maybe he is just having an off year becaus ehe has had injury issues.

Tough to say....He was very good last year but, at his age, he could be done at any time.

However, if he is able to finish strong and bounce back next year, maybe he can finish his career in the NL or something and pad some of his stats and perhaps, go to a team where maybe he can win a title.

I guess he has an outside chance at 300 wins but he would probably have to pitch another 3-4 years to really have a shot.

[Frobby]

He's borderline, and how he finishes his career will be important. If he continues to pitch as he has so far this year through this season and the next, he may fizzle out just short of the finish line. But if he rebounds, has a winning record by the time this year is over and again next year and gets to, say, 265 wins in the process, I think he has a very good shot. If you look behind Moose, once he passes 250 wins, it could be a long time before anyone else passes that mark:

Mussina (38) 244
Wells (44) 235
Moyer (44) 225
Schilling (40) 213
Rogers (42) 210
Martinez (35) 206
Smoltz (40) 203
Pettitte (35) 192
Wakefield (40) 163

Due to injuries and/or age, none of those guys are sure things, and beyond them everyone is 100+ wins away. So 250 is going to be looking pretty good by the time Mussina has been retired for 5 years.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Wow, how does Schilling have only 10 more career wins that Smoltz? He must have really played on some putrid teams.

[Leitch]

Anyone who wants a bittersweet trip down memory lane should watch

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/baseballs_best/mlb_bb_gamepage.jsp?story_page=bb_97alcs_gm3_balcl e

That game totally typifies Mussina's Orioles career.

[Eli Eon]

I've been trying to decide whether or not Mussina is a sure-fire hall of famer. As of now, is he definitely in?

If he does get in, does he go in as an Oriole or Yankee?

What does everyone think?


Unless he suddenly does something astonishing late in his career that he has yet to do (win a Cy Young, 20 games, pitch a no-hitter, or pitch his team to several World Series wins including a series clincher), I would say no way should he be included in the HOF. If you review his career he should be known as "Mr. Almost" where he has almost done great things but has none of the things above that most HOF pitchers have one of more of. To put him in with guys like Roger Clemens, Jim Palmer, Tom Seaver, etc. would weaken the HOF. In short he was a very good but not great pitcher. The HOF is for greatness not almost great players.

[Frobby]

Unless he suddenly does something astonishing late in his career that he has yet to do (win a Cy Young, 20 games, pitch a no-hitter, or pitch is team to several World Series wins including a series clincher), I would say no way should he be included in the HOF. If you review his career he should be known as "Mr. Almost" where he has almost done great things but has none of the things above that most HOF pitchers have one of more of. To put him in with guys like Roger Clemens, Jim Palmer, Tom Seaver, etc. would weaken the HOF. In short he was a very good but not great pitcher. The HOF is for greatness not almost great players.

Mussina is already better than numerous pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame. There are 26 pitchers in the Hall of Fame who have fewer wins than Mussina; 34 who have a lower ERA+ than Mussina; 51 who have a lower winning percentage than Mussina. The fact that he is not as good as some Hall of Famers isn't the issue.

[NJOriolesFan]

He was 16-5 in 1994 in a strike-shortened 115 game season. He also had 19 wins and led the league in 1995 in a 144 game strike-shortened season. Those are essentially 20-win seasons even though he didn't hit the magic number. He is a Hall-of-Famer, especially since he is better than many that are in, there aren't many that are better than him and not in and there are not many that will come after him and put up better numbers due to the way starting pitchers and bullpens are used today.

[Eli Eon]

Mussina is already better than numerous pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame. There are 26 pitchers in the Hall of Fame who have fewer wins than Mussina; 34 who have a lower ERA+ than Mussina; 51 who have a lower winning percentage than Mussina. The fact that he is not as good as some Hall of Famers isn't the issue.

Big deal, he's pitched well for a long period of time. So what? That to me, sure doesn't mean he is necessarily worthy of the HOF. What has he done that was particularly outstanding like most HOF pitchers? Heck, Dennis Martinez had a lot of wins and pitched a long time and even had a perfect game. Under your scenario maybe he should get in ahead of Mussina? In my view Martinez was also a very good but not great pitcher. I personally don't feel Mike Mussina is or ever was a truly great pitcher either. He was very good, and almost made it to greatness at various times but never quite got there despite numerous opportunities to prove he was elite enough to be HOF material.

Sorry, I just don't see it, just as I don't think Dennis Martinez is hall worthy either and unfortunately played on lesser talented teams which probably hurt his winning percentage much more in comparison to Mussina. I think Curt Schilling will stand a better chance of making it than Mussina, as he was a great pitcher who was far more dominant than the overated Mussina during essentially the same time frames.

Schilling won't have the longevity stats of Mussina, but the HOF is not primarily about longevity. To put it simply, Schilling was a geat pitcher and dominated by showing it whereas Mussina was just a very good pitcher who has hung around a long time. If they had an "Almost HOF" Mussina, Dennis Martinez, Dave McNally, and guys like Boog and Ken Singleton would populate it. That is where Mike Mussina fits in best, with that crowd, not elite Hall of famers like Warren Spahn, Bob Feller, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Tom Seaver, and Jim Palmer to mention a few!Those guys were far superior to Mike Mussina or Dennis Martinez, just like Frank Robinson was superior to Ken Singleton and Eddie Murray to Boog! If you can't see the difference I don't know how else to convince you!

[pappybird]

Well, there are HOF'ers with lesser numbers than Moose , so I think he does have a shot in that regard....he's had some very memorable games as an O, but he really hasn't done anything remarkable since he became a MFY .....

I just don't see him getting in unless he's voted in by the veterans committee years down the road.....unless he rejoins the O's just in time for a W/S run and pulls an '83 Jim Palmer or is the hero in Game 7 of both the LCS and W/S . :D

[Leitch]

Sorry, I just don't see it, just as I don't think Dennis Martinez is hall worthy either and unfortunately played on lesser talented teams which probably hurt his winning percentage much more in comparison to Mussina. I think Curt Schilling will stand a better chance of making it than Mussina, as he was a great pitcher who was far more dominant than the overated Mussina during essentially the same time frames.

How do you define "dominance" and "greatness" exactly?

[frankpembleton]

What about the second part of the question...if he does get in, would he go in as an Oriole or a Yankee?

[Eli Eon]

How do you define "dominance" and "greatness" exactly?

Schilling has won two World Series championships, the first was in 2001 with the Arizona Diamondbacks where he went 22-6 with a 2.98 ERA and went 4-0 with a 1.12 ERA in the playoffs. In the 2001 World Series the Diamondbacks beat the New York Yankees in seven games. Schilling shared the 2001 World Series MVP Award star with teammate Randy Johnson. He and Johnson also shared Sports Illustrated magazine's 2001 "Sportsmen of the Year" award. In 2002, he went 23-7 with a 3.23 ERA. Both years he finished second in the Cy Young Award voting to Johnson.The second World Series championship was in 2004 with the Boston Red Sox, who came back from a three-game deficit against the New York Yankees in the ALCS. Because of this, Schilling is considered a "big-game pitcher."


Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Schilling has won more than 20 games in a season at least three times, and possibly lead the league in ERA, and we all know how great he was in the World Series. The guy was a dominant pitcher in his era, not almost great or dominant like MUssina and Martinez, who I think are very comparable although an edge could be given to Dennis because of his perfect game. Mussina came within one strike of his I believe but didn't make it. (Just another example of why he's not quite there to be considered a great HOF worthy pitcher).

[Frobby]

Big deal, he's pitched well for a long period of time. So what? That to me, sure doesn't mean he is necessarily worthy of the HOF. What has he done that was particularly outstanding like most HOF pitchers? Heck, Dennis Martinez had a lot of wins and pitched a long time and even had a perfect game. Under your scenario maybe he should get in ahead of Mussina? In my view Martinez was also a very good but not great pitcher. I personally don't feel Mike Mussina is or ever was a truly great pitcher either. He was very good, and almost made it to greatness at various times but never quite got there despite numerous opportunities to prove he was elite enough to be HOF material.

Sorry, I just don't see it, just as I don't think Dennis Martinez is hall worthy either and unfortunately played on lesser talented teams which probably hurt his winning percentage much more in comparison to Mussina. I think Curt Schilling will stand a better chance of making it than Mussina, as he was a great pitcher who was far more dominant than the overated Mussina during essentially the same time frames.

Schilling won't have the longevity stats of Mussina, but the HOF is not primarily about longevity. To put it simply, Schilling was a geat pitcher and dominated by showing it whereas Mussina was just a very good pitcher who has hung around a long time. If they had an "Almost HOF" Mussina, Dennis Martinez, Dave McNally, and guys like Boog and Ken Singleton would populate it. That is where Mike Mussina fits in best, with that crowd, not elite Hall of famers like Warren Spahn, Bob Feller, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Tom Seaver, and Jim Palmer to mention a few!Those guys were far superior to Mike Mussina or Dennis Martinez, just like Frank Robinson was superior to Ken Singleton and Eddie Murray to Boog! If you can't see the difference I don't know how else to convince you!

No, I understand the points you are making. But even within the Hall of Fame there are levels of "eliteness," so the fact that Mussina isn't comparable to, say, Warren Spahn, doesn't mean Moose shouldn't be in.

You cannot lump Mussina in with Dennis Martinez, as Mussina was far better. But let me compare both of them with Marichal, who you seem to have no problem including.

Mussina: 245-141, .635 winning pct., 3.67 ERA, 123 ERA+, 5-time all-star, 6-time Cy Young vote-getter.

Martinez: 245-193, .559 winning pct., 3.70 ERA, 106 ERA+, 4-time all-star, 5-time Cy Young vote getter.

Marichal: 243-142, .631 winning pct., 2.89 ERA, 122 ERA+, 9-time all-star, 1-time Cy Young vote getter.

Explain to me why Marichal was so much better, other than the fact that he played at a time when ERA's throughout baseball were better and when teams routinely used only 4 starters instead of 5. His total wins, winning percentage and ERA+ are all basically identical to Mussina's. He never won a Cy Young, and he never won a post-season game.

I could certainly argue that Marichal was slightly better, but it's pretty tough to argue that one is clearly in the Hall of Fame while the other is clearly out.

As to Schilling, all I can say is that you seem to prefer guys who had brief periods of dominance over guys who never quite got to that peak. Fine, that's your preference. I won't argue against Schilling.

I wonder if you would feel differently about Mussina if there had never been a baseball strike in 1994 and 1995. In '94 Moose went 16-5 and the strike robbed him of about 10 starts. In '95 he went 19-9 and the strike robbed him of at least 3 starts. If there had been no strike, Moose is probably a 2-time 20-game winner, instead of being labeled as a guy who never won 20. (Which, to me, is irrelevant anyway since winning 17 games in a 5-man rotation is equivalent to winning 20 in a 4-man rotation.)

[Eli Eon]

No, I understand the points you are making. But even within the Hall of Fame there are levels of "eliteness," so the fact that Mussina isn't comparable to, say, Warren Spahn, doesn't mean Moose shouldn't be in.

You cannot lump Mussina in with Dennis Martinez, as Mussina was far better. But let me compare both of them with Marichal, who you seem to have no problem including.

Mussina: 245-141, .635 winning pct., 3.67 ERA, 123 ERA+, 5-time all-star, 6-time Cy Young vote-getter.

Martinez: 245-193, .559 winning pct., 3.70 ERA, 106 ERA+, 4-time all-star, 5-time Cy Young vote getter.

Marichal: 243-142, .631 winning pct., 2.89 ERA, 122 ERA+, 9-time all-star, 1-time Cy Young vote getter.

Explain to me why Marichal was so much better, other than the fact that he played at a time when ERA's throughout baseball were better and when teams routinely used only 4 starters instead of 5. His total wins, winning percentage and ERA+ are all basically identical to Mussina's. He never won a Cy Young, and he never won a post-season game.

I could certainly argue that Marichal was slightly better, but it's pretty tough to argue that one is clearly in the Hall of Fame while the other is clearly out.

As to Schilling, all I can say is that you seem to prefer guys who had brief periods of dominance over guys who never quite got to that peak. Fine, that's your preference. I won't argue against Schilling.

I wonder if you would feel differently about Mussina if there had never been a baseball strike in 1994 and 1995. In '94 Moose went 16-5 and the strike robbed him of about 10 starts. In '95 he went 19-9 and the strike robbed him of at least 3 starts. If there had been no strike, Moose is probably a 2-time 20-game winner, instead of being labeled as a guy who never won 20. (Which, to me, is irrelevant anyway since winning 17 games in a 5-man rotation is equivalent to winning 20 in a 4-man rotation.)

True, and if he had made one more great pitch he would have had a perfect game but he didn't do it. The facts are you don't put anyone in the HOF for what they coulda, woulda, shoulda, or mighta done! As far as Marichal had he played on the caliber offensive teams like Mussina has with the Yankees and Orioles of 1996-1997 he may have been a 30 game winner he was that good.

I saw all three of these guys pitch and Mussina and Martinez are much more comparable than Mussina and Marichal. So if Dennis Martinez makes the HOF than I would say Mussina would have a shot, but personally I don't think either one is good enough, and I disagree with you that Mussina was a far better pitcher than Martinez. Had Martinez been able to pitch with the Yankees his winning percentage most likely would have been comparable to Mussina. His ERA and everything else is virtually identical. His only problem was he played for lesser teams. So did Marichal which is what makes his stats so much better and stand out. Marichal never won a post season game most likely because he never had a chance to pitch in any.

[Mackus]

He's definitely a Hall of Famer.

[Eli Eon]

He's definitely a Hall of Famer.

Orioles HOF I agree. Same with Dennis Martinez. No way either is worthy of the main HOF. I would bet money neither makes it. As far as a big game pitcher, I would take
Schilling or even David Wells anyday over the overated Mussina.

[Frobby]

I saw all three of these guys pitch and Mussina and Martinez are much more comparable than Mussina and Marichal. So if Dennis Martinez makes the HOF than I would say Mussina would have a shot, but personally I don't think either one is good enough, and I disagree with you that Mussina was a far better pitcher than Martinez. Had Martinez been able to pitch with the Yankees his winning percentage most likely would have been comparable to Mussina. His ERA and everything else is virtually identical. His only problem was he played for lesser teams. So did Marichal which is what makes his stats so much better and stand out. Marichal never won a post season game most likely because he never had a chance to pitch in any.

You are losing a lot of credibility here because you don't check your facts before shooting from the hip.

1. ERA+, which measures a pitcher's ERA compared to the average ERA of his league and makes adjustments for what ballpark he pitched in, is a much better measure than raw ERA.

Mussina: 123 ERA+
Marichal: 122+
Martinez: 106 ERA+

2. The Oriole teams that Mussina played on were, in general, not very good, and certainly far inferior to the ones Martinez pitched for. Martinez pitched for the Orioles from 1976 to partway through the 1986 season. They won a World Series (1983), won another AL pennant (1979), had a 100-win season (1980), and had 10 winning seasons in those 10+ years. He then played for the Expos, who had 6 .500 or better seasons in the 8 years he was there. Them he played for the Indians for 3 years and they were a dominant team during his tenure, going to the 1995 world series and winning a division title the next year. He finished with a year in Seattle when they had a winning record and a year with the perennial division champion Braves. So in those 21 years Martinez played on 2 losing teams. Mussina played on losing Oriole teams in 1991, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000 -- most of his career with the Orioles. As to Marichal, he played with the Giants from 1960 to 1973. In that entire span they had ONE losing season (1972). He then had one year cups of coffee with the Red Sox and Dodgers when they were very good. So let's review:

Martinez played on 2 losing teams in 21 years.
Marichal played on 1 losing team in 15 years.
Mussina played on 6 losing teams in 17 years.

In that context, Mussina's .631 winning percentage is more impressive than Marichal's identical winning percentage and far, far outshines the .559 winning percentage amassed by Martinez.

3. Needless to say, you are wrong that Marichal never pitched in the postseason. He pitched in the 1962 world series (the Giants lost) and lost a game in the 1971 playoffs. Frankly, he pitched well both times, but that is beside the point. The point was that if one of the criticisms of Mussina is that his team never won a world series, the same is true of Marichal.

So the next time you make an argument, how about basing it on fact, not top-of-the head impressions that are just flat-out wrong?

The thing is, I don't disagree with you at all that Marichal belongs in the Hall of Fame, and that Martinez does not. But you undercut your better arguments a lot when you just make stuff up.

By the way, I do think there are good, fact-based arguments that Marichal should rank ahead of Mussina, though it is debatable. Those arguments would be:

1. 9 all-star appearances for Marichal compared to 5 for Mussina.
2. 3 seasons of 25+ wins (led the league in 2 of those years), which even after adjusting for 4-man vs. 5-man rotation, were arguably more impressive than any single season Mussina had. (Mussina led the league with 19 wins in 1995, a year in which teams played only a 144 game schedule due to the strike.)
3. Won the ERA title in 1969; Mussina never won one.

Arguments in Moose's favor:

1. 6 gold glove awards (none for Marichal).
2. Will end his career with more wins, perhaps significantly more depending on how his career finishes out.
3. Very memorable performance in the 1997 playoffs in which he beat Randy Johnson twice, struck out 41 batters in 29 innings and pitched 8 innings of 1-hit shutout ball in the deciding game, which the O's lost in extra innings.

[Eli Eon]

You are losing a lot of credibility here because you don't check your facts before shooting from the hip.

1. ERA+, which measures a pitcher's ERA compared to the average ERA of his league and makes adjustments for what ballpark he pitched in, is a much better measure than raw ERA.

Mussina: 123 ERA+
Marichal: 122+
Martinez: 106 ERA+

2. The Oriole teams that Mussina played on were, in general, not very good, and certainly far inferior to the ones Martinez pitched for. Martinez pitched for the Orioles from 1976 to partway through the 1986 season. They won a World Series (1983), won another AL pennant (1979), had a 100-win season (1980), and had 10 winning seasons in those 10+ years. He then played for the Expos, who had 6 .500 or better seasons in the 8 years he was there. Them he played for the Indians for 3 years and they were a dominant team during his tenure, going to the 1995 world series and winning a division title the next year. He finished with a year in Seattle when they had a winning record and a year with the perennial division champion Braves. So in those 21 years Martinez played on 2 losing teams. Mussina played on losing Oriole teams in 1991, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000 -- most of his career with the Orioles. As to Marichal, he played with the Giants from 1960 to 1973. In that entire span they had ONE losing season (1972). He then had one year cups of coffee with the Red Sox and Dodgers when they were very good. So let's review:

Martinez played on 2 losing teams in 21 years.
Marichal played on 1 losing team in 15 years.
Mussina played on 6 losing teams in 17 years.

In that context, Mussina's .631 winning percentage is more impressive than Marichal's identical winning percentage and far, far outshines the .559 winning percentage amassed by Martinez.

3. Needless to say, you are wrong that Marichal never pitched in the postseason. He pitched in the 1962 world series (the Giants lost) and lost a game in the 1971 playoffs. Frankly, he pitched well both times, but that is beside the point. The point was that if one of the criticisms of Mussina is that his team never won a world series, the same is true of Marichal.

So the next time you make an argument, how about basing it on fact, not top-of-the head impressions that are just flat-out wrong?

The thing is, I don't disagree with you at all that Marichal belongs in the Hall of Fame, and that Martinez does not. But you undercut your better arguments a lot when you just make stuff up.

By the way, I do think there are good, fact-based arguments that Marichal should rank ahead of Mussina, though it is debatable. Those arguments would be:

1. 9 all-star appearances for Marichal compared to 5 for Mussina.
2. 3 seasons of 25+ wins (led the league in 2 of those years), which even after adjusting for 4-man vs. 5-man rotation, were arguably more impressive than any single season Mussina had. (Mussina led the league with 19 wins in 1995, a year in which teams played only a 144 game schedule due to the strike.)
3. Won the ERA title in 1969; Mussina never won one.

Arguments in Moose's favor:

1. 6 gold glove awards (none for Marichal).
2. Will end his career with more wins, perhaps significantly more depending on how his career finishes out.
3. Very memorable performance in the 1997 playoffs in which he beat Randy Johnson twice, struck out 41 batters in 29 innings and pitched 8 innings of 1-hit shutout ball in the deciding game, which the O's lost in extra innings.

Okay, your research proves me wrong. I was going by memory and did not realize that Marichal pitched in the post season. I still think he is and always will be a superior pitcher to Mike Mussina. However, regarding Martinez, I also think he may have been a long reliever early in his career whereas Mussina was always a starter (not 100% sure of this) and if so that would have a bearing on his having fewer wins and a lower winning percentage (possibly). I concede I was way wrong on his playing with lesser caliber teams than Mussina. However, I do wonder about their comparative run support. I just think those two (Martinez and Mussina) are very similar pitchers and comparable. In fact, I think Martinez may have a better shot at getting the HOF as he did pitch a perfect game, which is quite a feat.

[Frobby]

Okay, your research proves me wrong. I was going by memory and did not realize that Marichal pitched in the post season. I still think he is and always will be a superior pitcher to Mike Mussina. However, regarding Martinez, I also think he may have been a long reliever early in his career whereas Mussina was always a starter (not 100% sure of this) and if so that would have a bearing on his having fewer wins and a lower winning percentage (possibly). I concede I was way wrong on his playing with lesser caliber teams than Mussina. However, I do wonder about their comparative run support. I just think those two (Martinez and Mussina) are very similar pitchers and comparable. In fact, I think Martinez may have a better shot at getting the HOF as he did pitch a perfect game, which is quite a feat.

I think I have said enough on this topic, but to answer one question you had, Martinez did occasionally pitch in relief (562 starts vs. 130 relief appearances, including 76 with the Orioles). His last year with Atlanta he was primarily a reliever. However, Mussina has pitched fewer starts (562 to 493) and fewer innings (3999.2 to 3310.2) while racking up the same number of wins.

[BustaJ2632]

I did a little research on this for this same debate on another board. I don't know stats as well as a lot of you guys, but I understand basic milestones for pitchers, and I decided to see how Mussina's career stacks up to every other pitcher (besides Negro Leaguers) in the Hall of Fame right now.

Obviously there are other important factors, but I looked at 20-win seasons, World Series victories and records in those World Series, overall wins, no-hitters, and Cy Young Awards.

Mike Mussina: 0 World Series victories, 244 wins, 0 20-win seasons, 0 no-hitters, 0 Cy Young Awards.

Grover Cleveland Alexander (20 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1926 when he went 2-0), 373 wins, 9 20+ win seasons.
Chief Bender (16 seasons): 3 World Series victories (1910, 1911, 1913 with a combined 5-2 record), 212 wins, 2 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Three-Finger Brown (14 seasons): 2 World Series victories (1907, 1908 with a combined 3-0 record, 2 complete games, and a 0.00 ERA), 239 wins, 6 20+ win seasons
Jim Bunning (17 seasons): 224 wins, 1 20+ win season, 2 no-hitters (1 perfect game)
Steve Carlton (24 seasons): 2 World Series victories (1967, 1980, 2-0 in 1980 World Series), 319 wins, 6 20+ win seasons, 4 Cy Young Awards
Jack Chesbro (11 seasons): 198 wins, 5 20+ win seasons (41 wins in 1904)
John Clarkson (13 seasons, pre-World Series): 328 wins, 6 30+ win seasons (seasons of 53 and 49 included), 1 no-hitter
Stan Coveleski (14 seasons): 1 World Series victory (3-0 in 1920), 215 wins, 5 20+ win seasons
Dizzy Dean (12 season): 1 World Series victory (2-1 in 1934), 150 wins, 4 20+ win seasons
Don Drysdale (14 seasons): 3 World Series victories (1959, 1963, 1965, combined 3-1 record), 209 wins, 2 20+ win seasons, 1 Cy Young Award
Dennis Eckersley (24 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1989, 1 save), 197 wins, 390 saves, 1 20+ win season, 1 no-hitter, 1 Cy Young Award
Red Faber (20 seasons): 1 World Series victory (3-1 in 1917), 254 wins, 4 20+ win seasons
Bob Feller (18 seasons): 1 World Series victory (0-2 in 1948), 266 wins, 6 20+ win seasons, 3 no-hitters
Rollie Fingers (17 seasons): 3 World Series victories (1972, 1973, 1974 with 2-2 combined record and 6 saves), 114 wins and 341 saves, contributed to 1 no-hitter, 1 Cy Young Award
Whitey Ford (16 seasons): 6 World Series victories (5-4 in 1950, 1953, 1956, 1958, 1961, 1962), 236 wins, 1 Cy Young Award
Pud Galvin (15 seasons pre-World Series): 364 wins, 10 20+ win seasons (2 over 40), 2 no-hitters
Bob Gibson (17 seasons): 2 World Series victores (5-1 in 1964, 1967), 251 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter, 2 Cy Young Awards
Lefty Gomez (14 seasons): 5 World Series victories (6-0 in 1933, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939), 189 wins, 8 20+ win seasons
Burleigh Grimes (20 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-0 in 1932), 270 wins
Lefty Grove (17 season): 2 World Series victories (1929 and 1930, 2-1 in 1930), 300 wins
Jesse Haines (19 seasons): 2 World Series victories (1926 and 1934, 2-0 in 1926), 210 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Waite Hoyt (20 seasons): 3 World Series victories (3-0 in 1923, 1927, 1928), 237 wins, 2 20+ win seasons
Carl Hubbell (16 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-0 in 1933), 253 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Catfish Hunter (15 seasons): 5 World Series victories (5-2 in 1972, 1973, 1974, 1977, 1978), 224 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 perfect game no-hitter, 1 Cy Young Award
Ferguson Jenkins (19 seasons): 284 wins, 7 20+ win seasons, 1 Cy Young Award
Walter Johnson (21 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-2 with 2.25 ERA in 1924), 417 wins, 12 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Addie Joss (9 seasons): 160 wins, 4 20+ win seasons, 2 no-hitters including 1 perfect game
Tim Keefe (14 seasons pre-World Series): 342 wins, 6 30+ win seasons
Sandy Koufax (12 seasons): 2 World Series victorise (2-2 in 1959, 1965, no World Series ERA over 1.50 in 4 World Series appearances), 165 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 4 no-hitters including 1 perfect game, 3 Cy Young Awards
Bob Lemon (15 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-0 in 1948), 207 wins, 7 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Ted Lyons (21 seasons): 260 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Juan Marichal (16 seasons): 243 wins, 6 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Rube Marquard (18 seasons): 201 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Christy Mathewson (17 seasons): 1 World Series victory (3-0 with 3 CG SHOs in 1905), 373 wins, 13 20+ win seasons, 4 30+ win seasons, 2 no-hitters
Joe McGinnity (10 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-1 in 1905), 246 wins, 8 20+ win seasons
Hal Newhouser (17 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-1 in 1945), 207 wins, 4 20+ win seasons, 2 MVP awards
Kid Nichols (16 seasons, mostly pre-World Series): 361 wins, 11 20+ win seasons including first 10 seasons in big leagues
Phil Niekro (25 seasons): 318 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Jim Palmer (19 seasons): 3 World Series victories (3-0 in 1966, 1970, 1983), 268 wins, 8 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter, 3 Cy Young Awards
Herb Pennock (22 seasons): 3 World Series victories (3-0 in 1923, 1927, 1932), 240 wins, 2 20+ win seasons
Gaylord Perry (22 seasons): 314 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter, 2 Cy Young Awards
Eddie Plank (17 seasons): 2 World Series victories (2-2 in 1911, 1913), 326 wins, 8 20+ win seasons
Old Hoss Radbourn (12 seasons pre-World Series): 309 wins, 9 20+ win seasons including a 59-win season, 1 no-hitter
Eppa Rixey (21 seasons): 266 wins, 4 20+ win seasons
Robin Roberts (20 seasons): 286 wins, 6 20+ win seasons
Red Ruffing (22 seasons): 6 World Series victories (6-1 combined in 1932, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1941), 273 wins, 4 20+ win seasons
Amos Rusie (10 seasons, pre-World Series): 246 wins, 8 20+ win seasons, 4 30+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Nolan Ryan (27 seasons): 1 World Series victory (0.00 ERA in 1.2 innings in 1969), 324 wins, 2 20+ win seasons, 7 no-hitters
Tom Seaver (20 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-1 in 1969), 311 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter, 3 Cy Young Awards
Warren Spahn (21 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-1 in 1957), 363 wins (most by any lefthander), 13 20+ win seasons, 2 no-hitters, 1 Cy Young Award
Bruce Sutter (12 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-0, 2 saves in 1982), 300 saves (led the league 5 times), 1 Cy Young Award
Don Sutton (23 seasons): 324 wins, 1 20+ win season
Dazzy Vance (16 seasons): 1 World Series victory (0.00 ERA in 1.1 innings in 1934), 197 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Rube Waddell (13 seasons): 193 wins, 4 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter (game shortened after 5 innings)
Ed Walsh (14 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-0 in 1906), 195 wins, 4 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Mickey Welch (13 seasons pre-World Series): 307 wins, 9 20+ win seasons
Hoyt Wilhelm (21 seasons): 143 wins, 227 saves, 1 no-hitter
Vic Willis (13 seasons): 1 World Series victory (0-1 in 1909), 249 wins, 8 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Early Wynn (23 seasons): 300 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 Cy Young Award
Cy Young (22 seasons, half pre-World Series): 1 World Series victory (2-1 in 1903), 511 victories, 15 20+ win seasons, 3 no-hitters including 1 perfect game, Cy Young Award named after him.

Obviously no-hitters are the least important of my criteria, although I think had Moose completed a couple of his (especially a perfect game), that would have been a major plus, considering that he probably had a 20-win season taken away by the strike. But he was 4 wins away in 1994, and I personally refuse to assume that many wins.

Every single starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame has a 20-win season. And all except Sutton have two, and Sutton also compiled 300 victories. Eckersley, who spent a good amount of time as a starter, also has one 20-win season.

In other words, I know these are basic statistics and not the SABR stuff a lot of you guys are great at analyzing, but Mike Mussina fails to live up to these basic pitching benchmarks on all counts. And every single starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame does not fail.

He most certainly can finish strong and get in...I am not at all discounting that. But if he retired at the end of this year, or spent only a couple more mediocre seasons, I cannot personally put him in a class with these pitchers.

Add to that the fact that he will likely be retiring at the same time as so many other great pitchers (see the "Which of these pitchers belong" thread) and I think that will work against him in the short-term, at least.

[Eli Eon]

I think I have said enough on this topic, but to answer one question you had, Martinez did occasionally pitch in relief (562 starts vs. 130 relief appearances, including 76 with the Orioles). His last year with Atlanta he was primarily a reliever. However, Mussina has pitched fewer starts (562 to 493) and fewer innings (3999.2 to 3310.2) while racking up the same number of wins.

Yeah, but as a reliever you don't always have the same opportunity for a win as a starter. For example how many of those relief innings by Martinez were in long relief (four or more innings) where normally the starter got knocked out and the chances of the long man picking up a win are logically not going to be all that good?

I think fewer wins could actually be meaningless under this scenario as a measure of Martinez versus Mussina, simply because he didn't have the same opportunity to garner a win as Mussina has as always pitching as a starter. Then again, perhaps I am just biased as I like Martinez better as he didn't go become a MFY!

[Frobby]

Yeah, but as a reliever you don't always have the same opportunity for a win as a starter. For example how many of those relief innings by Martinez were in long relief (four or more innings) where normally the starter got knocked out and the chances of the long man picking up a win are logically not going to be all that good?

I think fewer wins could actually be meaningless under this scenario as a measure of Martinez versus Mussina, simply because he didn't have the same opportunity to garner a win as Mussina has as always pitching as a starter. Then again, perhaps I am just biased as I like Martinez better as he didn't go become a MFY!

I'm missing your point. Forget Martinez's 130 relief appearances. Apart from that, he made 562 starts, to Mussina's 493. So, he has 69 extra starts plus 130 relief appearances, but the same number of wins.

[Frobby]

I did a little research on this for this same debate on another board. I don't know stats as well as a lot of you guys, but I understand basic milestones for pitchers, and I decided to see how Mussina's career stacks up to every other pitcher (besides Negro Leaguers) in the Hall of Fame right now....

Every single starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame has a 20-win season. And all except Sutton have two, and Sutton also compiled 300 victories. Eckersley, who spent a good amount of time as a starter, also has one 20-win season.

In other words, I know these are basic statistics and not the SABR stuff a lot of you guys are great at analyzing, but Mike Mussina fails to live up to these basic pitching benchmarks on all counts. And every single starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame does not fail.

You make a very strong point, one that I expect the HOF voters will weigh when they consider Mussina. However, the way starting pitchers are used has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. The pitchers who will be retiring about now are really the first ones who played their entire career in the era of the 5-man rotation, and very heavy use of relief pitchers.

Look at it this way: in a four man rotation a pitcher will start 40 times a year. If he wins half the games he starts, he wins 20 games. Nowadays, in a five man rotation, starters get only 32-34 starts a year. If they win half, that's 16-17 wins.

Then there is the complete game phenomenon. It used to be common for really good starters to rack up 20 complete games or more, all of which resulted in a decision for the starter, one way or the other. But now, even great starters often have 5 or fewer complete games, and as a result, a lower percentage of their starts result in decisions one way or the other. Fewer decisions = fewer wins.

Hence, last year there wasn't a single 20-game winner in MLB, and the National League had no pitcher who won more than 16 games!

In fact, assuming Mussina achieves 250 wins, he may be the last pitcher to do that for a very, very long time. The players behind him are either probably too old to reach 250 or are so far away from that figure that it would take 7-10 years to reach that plateau, if they ever do:

6. David Wells* (44) 235
7. Jamie Moyer* (44) 225
8. Curt Schilling (40) 213
9. Kenny Rogers* (42) 210
10. Pedro Martinez (35) 206
11. John Smoltz (40) 203
12. Andy Pettitte* (35) 193
13. Tim Wakefield (40) 164

(nobody else is over 150)

So, eventually the 20-win criterion is going to go the way of the dinosaur, and 250 wins will be viewed in much the way that 300 wins is looked at today. I doubt Mussina gets in on the first ballot, but eventually his candidacy is going to look very good.

[Eli Eon]

You make a very strong point, one that I expect the HOF voters will weigh when they consider Mussina. However, the way starting pitchers are used has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. The pitchers who will be retiring about now are really the first ones who played their entire career in the era of the 5-man rotation, and very heavy use of relief pitchers.

Look at it this way: in a four man rotation a pitcher will start 40 times a year. If he wins half the games he starts, he wins 20 games. Nowadays, in a five man rotation, starters get only 32-34 starts a year. If they win half, that's 16-17 wins.

Then there is the complete game phenomenon. It used to be common for really good starters to rack up 20 complete games or more, all of which resulted in a decision for the starter, one way or the other. But now, even great starters often have 5 or fewer complete games, and as a result, a lower percentage of their starts result in decisions one way or the other. Fewer decisions = fewer wins.

Hence, last year there wasn't a single 20-game winner in MLB, and the National League had no pitcher who won more than 16 games!

In fact, assuming Mussina achieves 250 wins, he may be the last pitcher to do that for a very, very long time. The players behind him are either probably too old to reach 250 or are so far away from that figure that it would take 7-10 years to reach that plateau, if they ever do:

6. David Wells* (44) 235
7. Jamie Moyer* (44) 225
8. Curt Schilling (40) 213
9. Kenny Rogers* (42) 210
10. Pedro Martinez (35) 206
11. John Smoltz (40) 203
12. Andy Pettitte* (35) 193
13. Tim Wakefield (40) 164

(nobody else is over 150)

So, eventually the 20-win criterion is going to go the way of the dinosaur, and 250 wins will be viewed in much the way that 300 wins is looked at today. I doubt Mussina gets in on the first ballot, but eventually his candidacy is going to look very good.

Of that group I would rate these ahead of Mussina, Wells, Schilling, Pedro, Smotz, and possibly Petitite. I would rate these below, Moyer, Rogers, amd Wakefield.

[Sports Guy]

I did a little research on this for this same debate on another board. I don't know stats as well as a lot of you guys, but I understand basic milestones for pitchers, and I decided to see how Mussina's career stacks up to every other pitcher (besides Negro Leaguers) in the Hall of Fame right now.

Obviously there are other important factors, but I looked at 20-win seasons, World Series victories and records in those World Series, overall wins, no-hitters, and Cy Young Awards.

Mike Mussina: 0 World Series victories, 244 wins, 0 20-win seasons, 0 no-hitters, 0 Cy Young Awards.

Grover Cleveland Alexander (20 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1926 when he went 2-0), 373 wins, 9 20+ win seasons.
Chief Bender (16 seasons): 3 World Series victories (1910, 1911, 1913 with a combined 5-2 record), 212 wins, 2 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Three-Finger Brown (14 seasons): 2 World Series victories (1907, 1908 with a combined 3-0 record, 2 complete games, and a 0.00 ERA), 239 wins, 6 20+ win seasons
Jim Bunning (17 seasons): 224 wins, 1 20+ win season, 2 no-hitters (1 perfect game)
Steve Carlton (24 seasons): 2 World Series victories (1967, 1980, 2-0 in 1980 World Series), 319 wins, 6 20+ win seasons, 4 Cy Young Awards
Jack Chesbro (11 seasons): 198 wins, 5 20+ win seasons (41 wins in 1904)
John Clarkson (13 seasons, pre-World Series): 328 wins, 6 30+ win seasons (seasons of 53 and 49 included), 1 no-hitter
Stan Coveleski (14 seasons): 1 World Series victory (3-0 in 1920), 215 wins, 5 20+ win seasons
Dizzy Dean (12 season): 1 World Series victory (2-1 in 1934), 150 wins, 4 20+ win seasons
Don Drysdale (14 seasons): 3 World Series victories (1959, 1963, 1965, combined 3-1 record), 209 wins, 2 20+ win seasons, 1 Cy Young Award
Dennis Eckersley (24 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1989, 1 save), 197 wins, 390 saves, 1 20+ win season, 1 no-hitter, 1 Cy Young Award
Red Faber (20 seasons): 1 World Series victory (3-1 in 1917), 254 wins, 4 20+ win seasons
Bob Feller (18 seasons): 1 World Series victory (0-2 in 1948), 266 wins, 6 20+ win seasons, 3 no-hitters
Rollie Fingers (17 seasons): 3 World Series victories (1972, 1973, 1974 with 2-2 combined record and 6 saves), 114 wins and 341 saves, contributed to 1 no-hitter, 1 Cy Young Award
Whitey Ford (16 seasons): 6 World Series victories (5-4 in 1950, 1953, 1956, 1958, 1961, 1962), 236 wins, 1 Cy Young Award
Pud Galvin (15 seasons pre-World Series): 364 wins, 10 20+ win seasons (2 over 40), 2 no-hitters
Bob Gibson (17 seasons): 2 World Series victores (5-1 in 1964, 1967), 251 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter, 2 Cy Young Awards
Lefty Gomez (14 seasons): 5 World Series victories (6-0 in 1933, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939), 189 wins, 8 20+ win seasons
Burleigh Grimes (20 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-0 in 1932), 270 wins
Lefty Grove (17 season): 2 World Series victories (1929 and 1930, 2-1 in 1930), 300 wins
Jesse Haines (19 seasons): 2 World Series victories (1926 and 1934, 2-0 in 1926), 210 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Waite Hoyt (20 seasons): 3 World Series victories (3-0 in 1923, 1927, 1928), 237 wins, 2 20+ win seasons
Carl Hubbell (16 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-0 in 1933), 253 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Catfish Hunter (15 seasons): 5 World Series victories (5-2 in 1972, 1973, 1974, 1977, 1978), 224 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 perfect game no-hitter, 1 Cy Young Award
Ferguson Jenkins (19 seasons): 284 wins, 7 20+ win seasons, 1 Cy Young Award
Walter Johnson (21 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-2 with 2.25 ERA in 1924), 417 wins, 12 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Addie Joss (9 seasons): 160 wins, 4 20+ win seasons, 2 no-hitters including 1 perfect game
Tim Keefe (14 seasons pre-World Series): 342 wins, 6 30+ win seasons
Sandy Koufax (12 seasons): 2 World Series victorise (2-2 in 1959, 1965, no World Series ERA over 1.50 in 4 World Series appearances), 165 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 4 no-hitters including 1 perfect game, 3 Cy Young Awards
Bob Lemon (15 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-0 in 1948), 207 wins, 7 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Ted Lyons (21 seasons): 260 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Juan Marichal (16 seasons): 243 wins, 6 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Rube Marquard (18 seasons): 201 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Christy Mathewson (17 seasons): 1 World Series victory (3-0 with 3 CG SHOs in 1905), 373 wins, 13 20+ win seasons, 4 30+ win seasons, 2 no-hitters
Joe McGinnity (10 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-1 in 1905), 246 wins, 8 20+ win seasons
Hal Newhouser (17 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-1 in 1945), 207 wins, 4 20+ win seasons, 2 MVP awards
Kid Nichols (16 seasons, mostly pre-World Series): 361 wins, 11 20+ win seasons including first 10 seasons in big leagues
Phil Niekro (25 seasons): 318 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Jim Palmer (19 seasons): 3 World Series victories (3-0 in 1966, 1970, 1983), 268 wins, 8 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter, 3 Cy Young Awards
Herb Pennock (22 seasons): 3 World Series victories (3-0 in 1923, 1927, 1932), 240 wins, 2 20+ win seasons
Gaylord Perry (22 seasons): 314 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter, 2 Cy Young Awards
Eddie Plank (17 seasons): 2 World Series victories (2-2 in 1911, 1913), 326 wins, 8 20+ win seasons
Old Hoss Radbourn (12 seasons pre-World Series): 309 wins, 9 20+ win seasons including a 59-win season, 1 no-hitter
Eppa Rixey (21 seasons): 266 wins, 4 20+ win seasons
Robin Roberts (20 seasons): 286 wins, 6 20+ win seasons
Red Ruffing (22 seasons): 6 World Series victories (6-1 combined in 1932, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1941), 273 wins, 4 20+ win seasons
Amos Rusie (10 seasons, pre-World Series): 246 wins, 8 20+ win seasons, 4 30+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Nolan Ryan (27 seasons): 1 World Series victory (0.00 ERA in 1.2 innings in 1969), 324 wins, 2 20+ win seasons, 7 no-hitters
Tom Seaver (20 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-1 in 1969), 311 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter, 3 Cy Young Awards
Warren Spahn (21 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-1 in 1957), 363 wins (most by any lefthander), 13 20+ win seasons, 2 no-hitters, 1 Cy Young Award
Bruce Sutter (12 seasons): 1 World Series victory (1-0, 2 saves in 1982), 300 saves (led the league 5 times), 1 Cy Young Award
Don Sutton (23 seasons): 324 wins, 1 20+ win season
Dazzy Vance (16 seasons): 1 World Series victory (0.00 ERA in 1.1 innings in 1934), 197 wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Rube Waddell (13 seasons): 193 wins, 4 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter (game shortened after 5 innings)
Ed Walsh (14 seasons): 1 World Series victory (2-0 in 1906), 195 wins, 4 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Mickey Welch (13 seasons pre-World Series): 307 wins, 9 20+ win seasons
Hoyt Wilhelm (21 seasons): 143 wins, 227 saves, 1 no-hitter
Vic Willis (13 seasons): 1 World Series victory (0-1 in 1909), 249 wins, 8 20+ win seasons, 1 no-hitter
Early Wynn (23 seasons): 300 wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 1 Cy Young Award
Cy Young (22 seasons, half pre-World Series): 1 World Series victory (2-1 in 1903), 511 victories, 15 20+ win seasons, 3 no-hitters including 1 perfect game, Cy Young Award named after him.

Obviously no-hitters are the least important of my criteria, although I think had Moose completed a couple of his (especially a perfect game), that would have been a major plus, considering that he probably had a 20-win season taken away by the strike. But he was 4 wins away in 1994, and I personally refuse to assume that many wins.

Every single starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame has a 20-win season. And all except Sutton have two, and Sutton also compiled 300 victories. Eckersley, who spent a good amount of time as a starter, also has one 20-win season.

In other words, I know these are basic statistics and not the SABR stuff a lot of you guys are great at analyzing, but Mike Mussina fails to live up to these basic pitching benchmarks on all counts. And every single starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame does not fail.

He most certainly can finish strong and get in...I am not at all discounting that. But if he retired at the end of this year, or spent only a couple more mediocre seasons, I cannot personally put him in a class with these pitchers.

Add to that the fact that he will likely be retiring at the same time as so many other great pitchers (see the "Which of these pitchers belong" thread) and I think that will work against him in the short-term, at least.

The question is, do they look at the strike shortened seasons and say, well he likely wins 20 those years?

And, as bullpens are used more and more, wins and losses are more out of the pitchers hands now more than ever.

So, i don't think 20 wins becomes as important.

[Frobby]

Of that group I would rate these ahead of Mussina, Wells, Schilling, Pedro, Smotz, and possibly Petitite. I would rate these below, Moyer, Rogers, amd Wakefield.

Have you voted in the poll I set up? See here: http://www.orioleshangout.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1971

You are in a small minority in thinking Wells is better than Mussina, per the poll results so far. Schilling and Mussina are running neck and neck. I didn't include Pettitte in the poll because I had to limit it to 10 candidates and he has fewer wins than the others I included.

[BustaJ2632]

You make a very strong point, one that I expect the HOF voters will weigh when they consider Mussina. However, the way starting pitchers are used has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. The pitchers who will be retiring about now are really the first ones who played their entire career in the era of the 5-man rotation, and very heavy use of relief pitchers.

Look at it this way: in a four man rotation a pitcher will start 40 times a year. If he wins half the games he starts, he wins 20 games. Nowadays, in a five man rotation, starters get only 32-34 starts a year. If they win half, that's 16-17 wins.

Then there is the complete game phenomenon. It used to be common for really good starters to rack up 20 complete games or more, all of which resulted in a decision for the starter, one way or the other. But now, even great starters often have 5 or fewer complete games, and as a result, a lower percentage of their starts result in decisions one way or the other. Fewer decisions = fewer wins.

Hence, last year there wasn't a single 20-game winner in MLB, and the National League had no pitcher who won more than 16 games!

In fact, assuming Mussina achieves 250 wins, he may be the last pitcher to do that for a very, very long time. The players behind him are either probably too old to reach 250 or are so far away from that figure that it would take 7-10 years to reach that plateau, if they ever do:

6. David Wells* (44) 235
7. Jamie Moyer* (44) 225
8. Curt Schilling (40) 213
9. Kenny Rogers* (42) 210
10. Pedro Martinez (35) 206
11. John Smoltz (40) 203
12. Andy Pettitte* (35) 193
13. Tim Wakefield (40) 164

(nobody else is over 150)

So, eventually the 20-win criterion is going to go the way of the dinosaur, and 250 wins will be viewed in much the way that 300 wins is looked at today. I doubt Mussina gets in on the first ballot, but eventually his candidacy is going to look very good.

Frobby, I've had this argument with friends in real life and at least a few other times on the interwebs, and I must admit that you make the best argument I've heard for Mussina's inclusion.

However, I must say that I disagree with the point about Mussina's 250+ wins eventually equaling the pitchers of the past's 300 wins. Mussina's career has more or less paralleled Clemens, Maddux, and Glavine, all with 300+ wins (assuming that last one for Tommy). With the addition of Glavine, only 23 men will have ever won 300 games, so 3/23 (13%) will have played in the time of Mussina. So while Adam Loewen's 250 wins may look as impressive as Glavine's 300, I don't think Mussina's do.

Now that said, I recognize that there are more than 23 pitchers in the Hall, so clearly there are plenty who never reached 300 wins. However, here is where I believe milestones like 20-win seasons or strong postseason performances that led to a World Series come into play.

Here are the vitals of Mussina's contemporaries who we are considering:

Roger Clemens (24 seasons so far): 2 World Series victories (2-0 in 1999, 2000), 351+ wins, 6 20+ win seasons, 7 Cy Young Awards
Greg Maddux (22 seasons so far): 1 World Series victory (1-1 in 1995), 340+ wins, 2 20+ win seasons, 4 Cy Young Awards
Tom Glavine (21 seasons so far): 1 World Series victory (2-0 in 1995), 299+ wins, 5 20+ win seasons, 2 Cy Young Awards
Randy Johnson (20 seasons so far): 1 World Series victory (3-0 in 2001), 284+ wins, 3 20+ win seasons, 2 no-hitters (1 perfect game), 5 Cy Young Awards
David Wells (21 seasons so far): 2 World Series victories (1-0 in 1992, 1998), 235+ wins, 1 20+ win season, 1 no-hitter (perfect game)
Curt Schilling (20 seasons so far): 2 World Series victories (2-0, ERA a little over 1 in 2001, 2004), 213+ wins, 3 20+ win seasons
Pedro Martinez (15 seasons so far): 1 World Series victory (1-0, 0.00 ERA in 2004), 206+ wins, 2 20+ win seasons, no no-hitters but took one into the 10th inning in 1995, 3 Cy Young Awards
John Smoltz (19 seasons so far): 1 World Series victory (ummm....not good in 1995), 203+ wins, 154 saves, 1 20+ win season, 1 Cy Young Award
Kevin Brown (19 seasons): 1 World Series victory (also not that great in 1997), 211 wins, 1 20+ win season, 1 no-hitter

I know we mentioned Moyer and Pettitte, but I don't think they're issues yet. Moyer I really don't see how he could get in, and Pettitte's postseason record undoubtedly would count heavily in his favor should he continue for another few productive years. But just for the heck of it, Pettitte has 2 20+ win seasons, as does Moyer.

So again, your argument does more than most to sway me, but I'm just not swayed that easily. Maybe, as someone else said, it's because he left us for the Yankees. But of all the Hall of Famers, and all his true contemporaries who are comparable, Mussina strikes me as at or very near the bottom. 20-win seasons and 300 (or 250) wins may soon be a real rarity, but the best pitchers of Mussina's era have reached the 20-win milestone, and Schilling, Martinez, and Smoltz have areas of their career that make up for their overall lack of wins (postseason, Koufax-esque dominance, and great relieving, respectively). I'd personally put Mussina ahead of Wells and Brown, but even they have 20-win seasons and no-hitters to their credit...I know, not the most advanced of stats, but things that show up on everyone's plaque.

[mweb]

I don't think 20 win seasons or world series appearances or victories is a good way to judge a pitcher at all. It's not Mussina's fault he hasn't won a title. As far as 20 wins seasons go, my boy Kevin Brown had the 22nd best season ever in terms of ERA+, he started 32 times and pitched 233 innings, yet only went 17-11. I'll take that season over Wells' 2000 season where he went 20-8 with an ERA+ of 121 in 229 innings and 35 starts. Yet, with the way Busta is rating pitchers, Wells had the better year. Better than Pedro's 285 ERA+ year as well where he only made 29 starts, won 18, and pitched 217 innings.

BTW, Busta, what about the shortened '95 season? Moose would have gotten 3-4 more starts only needing 1 more win. If there wasn't a strike, and Moose had two 20 win seasons and won 1 more game in '96 to end up with 3 20 win seasons, would he be a HOF'er in your mind? How about if on top of that, the voters gave him a Cy Young or two because he got 20 wins?

Mussina was top 3 in league wins 4 times, including 1st once, he also had 4 other top 8 finished. But again, I'll take ERA+ and innings pitched over wins anyday.

[BustaJ2632]

I don't think 20 win seasons or world series appearances or victories is a good way to judge a pitcher at all. It's not Mussina's fault he hasn't won a title. As far as 20 wins seasons go, my boy Kevin Brown had the 22nd best season ever in terms of ERA+, he started 32 times and pitched 233 innings, yet only went 17-11. I'll take that season over Wells' 2000 season where he went 20-8 with an ERA+ of 121 in 229 innings and 35 starts. Yet, with the way Busta is rating pitchers, Wells had the better year. Better than Pedro's 285 ERA+ year as well where he only made 29 starts, won 18, and pitched 217 innings.

BTW, Busta, what about the shortened '95 season? Moose would have gotten 3-4 more starts only needing 1 more win. If there wasn't a strike, and Moose had two 20 win seasons and won 1 more game in '96 to end up with 3 20 win seasons, would he be a HOF'er in your mind? How about if on top of that, the voters gave him a Cy Young or two because he got 20 wins?

Mussina was top 3 in league wins 4 times, including 1st once, he also had 4 other top 8 finished. But again, I'll take ERA+ and innings pitched over wins anyday.

As I said before, I don't understand these sorts of stats as well as a lot of people on this board, you being one of the better ones. And I know that they are becoming more widespread in baseball. To be honest, I don't know what ERA+ is. I know I didn't see "ERA+" on a single plaque last weekend. Maybe these sorts of things will show up on the plaques of the future, but I think it's a little bit much to discount old standards that I threw out there, seeing as how every single Hall of Famer stacks up to them.

As for your question, I would answer it this way. I'm willing to credit him with a 20-win equivalent in 1995, seeing as how he was just one win away. It also helps that his 19 wins led the league that year. Four wins are too many for me to assume in 1994. And he could have gotten that 20th win in his last start of 1996, but he could have gotten it in a lot of other starts, too. In the end, he had a 162-game season to work with that year and did not win 20 games, so I give him no credit just because the bullpen blew that one game.

IF we were living in an alternate universe where he had 3 20-win seasons, perhaps a Cy Young or two, AND the 250+ wins he will finish with, then yeah, I'd put him in there. As I also said, I certainly am not discounting the fact that he could get in anyway. But seeing as how things actually turned out, I personally do not think he belongs as it stands now.

[mweb]

As I said before, I don't understand these sorts of stats as well as a lot of people on this board, you being one of the better ones. And I know that they are becoming more widespread in baseball. To be honest, I don't know what ERA+ is. I know I didn't see "ERA+" on a single plaque last weekend. Maybe these sorts of things will show up on the plaques of the future, but I think it's a little bit much to discount old standards that I threw out there, seeing as how every single Hall of Famer stacks up to them.

As for your question, I would answer it this way. I'm willing to credit him with a 20-win equivalent in 1995, seeing as how he was just one win away. It also helps that his 19 wins led the league that year. Four wins are too many for me to assume in 1994. And he could have gotten that 20th win in his last start of 1996, but he could have gotten it in a lot of other starts, too. In the end, he had a 162-game season to work with that year and did not win 20 games, so I give him no credit just because the bullpen blew that one game.

IF we were living in an alternate universe where he had 3 20-win seasons, perhaps a Cy Young or two, AND the 250+ wins he will finish with, then yeah, I'd put him in there. As I also said, I certainly am not discounting the fact that he could get in anyway. But seeing as how things actually turned out, I personally do not think he belongs as it stands now.

ERA+ - the ratio of the league's ERA (adjusted to the pitcher's ballpark) to that of the pitcher. > 100 is above average and < 100 is below average. lgERA / ERA

Here's a link to the career leaders in ERA+:http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERAplus_career.shtml

You're not going to see stats such as ERA+, EQA, RC/27, WARP3, etc because most people don't know much or anything about them.

The old standards are very flawed. Going by AVG, hits, RBI, ERA, Wins, etc is not as good as OBP, OPS, EQA, VORP, RC/27, WARP3, ERA+, K/BB ratio, etc, which reflects a players peformance more accurately.

Now wins, over the course of a career, is rather reflective of how good a SP was, however I don't get the point in judging a player based on how many 20 win seasons they had. The difference between 19 wins and 20 wins is the same as between 20 and 21, it should be treated that way.

And I certainly don't get judging a player based on that when comparing them to guys who pitched in a different era when wins were much easier to come by.

Concerning your last comment, I just don't get that. So if there was no strike, and Mussina won 6 more games during a 3 season stretch, or if he just got a little more lucky with run/bullpen support and ended up with 3 20 win seasons, he'd suddenly be a much better pitcher even if he pitched exactly the same way?

And Cy Youngs, All Star selections, MVP's, Gold Gloves, etc are also quite flawed because the people who vote on them screw them up all the time. Now if the awards are justified, that's great, otherwise, for me, it makes more sense to figure out who deserved the awards on my own. But I wouldn't hold it against a guy too much for not being the best pitcher in his league any years. Sometimes a guy is just unfortunate because when they have a Cy Young caliber year, someone else has an even better year. Plus, consistently being among the top 5-10 pitchers in your league is a great accomplishment even wiithout a Cy Young.

With all that said, I don't think Moose is a no brainer HOF'er by any means. His peak is not that good for a HOF'er, and he's not ending his career that strongly. But he was often great, usually very good, and almost always at least good until this year.

[BustaJ2632]

Concerning your last comment, I just don't get that. So if there was no strike, and Mussina won 6 more games during a 3 season stretch, or if he just got a little more lucky with run/bullpen support and ended up with 3 20 win seasons, he'd suddenly be a much better pitcher even if he pitched exactly the same way?


Yes...I really don't know what else to say...I just am of the opinion that there are magic numbers in baseball. As I said, I'm willing to credit Mussina with the 1995 season, but you can assume a game here and there for a lot of players....they just didn't get them. A Hall of Fame pitcher probably has some 19 win seasons on his resume, but he also managed a few 21's or even better. As I said, I find it a little too easy to just blame Mussina's 19-win 1996 season on the bullpen. He also lost 11 games. His ERA of 4.81 was the worst of his career to date. Had he won one of those other games, he wouldn't have to blame his lack of a milestone on the bullpen.

Thanks for filling me in on ERA+.

[mweb]

Yes...I really don't know what else to say...I just am of the opinion that there are magic numbers in baseball. As I said, I'm willing to credit Mussina with the 1995 season, but you can assume a game here and there for a lot of players....they just didn't get them. A Hall of Fame pitcher probably has some 19 win seasons on his resume, but he also managed a few 21's or even better. As I said, I find it a little too easy to just blame Mussina's 19-win 1996 season on the bullpen. He also lost 11 games. His ERA of 4.81 was the worst of his career to date. Had he won one of those other games, he wouldn't have to blame his lack of a milestone on the bullpen.

Thanks for filling me in on ERA+.

Ok, so in this case, I guess you care more about a pitcher's luck more than how well he actually pitched.

[BustaJ2632]

Ok, so in this case, I guess you care more about a pitcher's luck more than how well he actually pitched.

I don't get your point....I'm willing to credit him a win in 1995, but I think 4 wins is entirely too many to assume in 1994. Maybe you mean the luck of there being a strike, but even without a strike, maybe he doesn't pitch well down the stretch. We don't know. He had a very good season in 1994, but I'm not willing to credit him with a magic number type season. And 1996, despite it being the closest he came to 20 wins, didn't have anything to do with luck, if you read what I'm trying to say. He had an ERA close to 5...his next highest ERA in Baltimore was 4.46 in 1993, and his next highest ERA period was 4.59 in 2004. In his 11 losses, the Orioles scored 7, 8, 9, 2, 3, 2, 0, 9, 0, 3, and 3 runs. At least four of those games should have been wins, but he didn't pitch well. Only two of these losses were "quality starts." It's not about luck. He didn't pitch well enough to win 20 that season. We can disagree on whether or not 20 wins should matter, but don't go blaming his failure to achieve that mark on the bullpen or a lack of run support.

EDITED TO ADD: In 1996, he had only 6 no-decisions. Without any evidence, I'd guess that this is below average for a typical season these days, certainly not above average. In those 6 NDs, he had 3 quality starts. The Orioles had the lead when he left in 3 of those games, and the Orioles won 3 of those games (including the last one, in which they held the lead when he left and won in 10 innings). Seems pretty even to me.

[mweb]

I don't get your point....I'm willing to credit him a win in 1995, but I think 4 wins is entirely too many to assume in 1994. Maybe you mean the luck of there being a strike, but even without a strike, maybe he doesn't pitch well down the stretch. We don't know. He had a very good season in 1994, but I'm not willing to credit him with a magic number type season. And 1996, despite it being the closest he came to 20 wins, didn't have anything to do with luck, if you read what I'm trying to say. He had an ERA close to 5...his next highest ERA in Baltimore was 4.46 in 1993, and his next highest ERA period was 4.59 in 2004. I his 11 losses, the Orioles scored 7, 8, 9, 2, 3, 2, 0, 9, 0, 3, and 3 runs. At least four of those games should have been wins, but he didn't pitch well. Only two of these losses were "quality starts." It's not about luck. He didn't pitch well enough to win 20 that season. We can disagree on whether or not 20 wins should matter, but don't go blaming his failure to achieve that mark on the bullpen or a lack of run support.


That isn't my point at all. I'm not talking about Mussina here. My point is wins in an individual year involve a lot of luck. They're not a good measure of how a pitcher actually pitched. Run support, bullpen support, and defensive support have a lot to do with how many wins one gets, yet the pitcher has basically no control over that.

Mussina's 1996 season is a great example of that, thanks for mentioning it, he won 19 games while just being slightly above average for 36 starts. He had more wins that year than plenty of pitchers who pitched better than him. He also had more wins that year than in other years where he pitched quite a bit better. So Moose was lucky to get 19 wins that year. The example I brought up earlier of Wells vs Brown/Pedro is another great example of that. Wells was good that year, but Pedro and Brown had some seasons that were much much better, yet they failed to win 20 games in the seasons I speak of. With your system, Wells season is being viewed as being better. So you're rewarding the pitcher who had more luck instead of the pitcher who actually pitched better.

[BustaJ2632]

Fair enough...I understand your points, I really do. And like Frobby, you've made more sense than many I've argued this issue with. I agree - I don't think that the year with the most wins is necessarily the best season for a particular pitcher. I also don't want to imply that my "system" suggests that 20-win season or two alone is enough for the Hall of Fame...Rick Helling isn't exactly first-ballot material.

But every Hall of Famer and every contemporary of Mussina who garners consideration have had seasons where they put up those win totals, whether they were the best seasons they had to offer or not. Almost all of them have done it at least twice. I don't think that's purely luck or coincidence. And not all of these seasons came on great teams, but Hall of Fame pitchers are good enough to win anyway. There are a lot of great pitchers who aren't and don't belong in the Hall of Fame. Mussina, in my opinion, is one of those.

[mweb]

You make a good point about all the pitchers in the HOF having at least two 20 win seasons. However, I think Frobby's point really takes away from yours. But then again, I just don't care much about win totals in individual seasons, Mussina has pitched great in multiple seasons, it's not his fault he never got to 20. He's currently 48th in career wins, and will likely end up in the top 40, maybe even top 30. If wins is your thing, that's quite impressive, especially considering the era. Only 5 pitchers who were born after 1950 have 250 wins or more. Moose should become the 6th, and like Frobby said, probably the last for awhile unless Pedro can stay healthy.

Bottomline, I will evaluate how he did at preventing runs, not how well his teammates did in helping him win 20 games.

[Frobby]

You make a good point about all the pitchers in the HOF having at least two 20 win seasons. However, I think Frobby's point really takes away from yours. But then again, I just don't care much about win totals in individual seasons, Mussina has pitched great in multiple seasons, it's not his fault he never got to 20. He's currently 48th in career wins, and will likely end up in the top 40, maybe even top 30. If wins is your thing, that's quite impressive, especially considering the era. Only 5 pitchers who were born after 1950 have 250 wins or more. Moose should become the 6th, and like Frobby said, probably the last for awhile unless Pedro can stay healthy.

Bottomline, I will evaluate how he did at preventing runs, not how well his teammates did in helping him win 20 games.

Of course I agree with your analysis. But in terms of how I think the vote WILL go (as opposed to how I would vote), I think it's going to take quite some before voters are willing to give up the 20-win criterion. After Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson and Pedro are already in the HOF, and a few years go by with no serious new pitcher candidates on the horizon, the voters will begin to give Moose a harder look. He's clearly behind those guys in the pecking order.

[mweb]

Of course I agree with your analysis. But in terms of how I think the vote WILL go (as opposed to how I would vote), I think it's going to take quite some before voters are willing to give up the 20-win criterion. After Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson and Pedro are already in the HOF, and a few years go by with no serious new pitcher candidates on the horizon, the voters will begin to give Moose a harder look. He's clearly behind those guys in the pecking order.

I agree. I have little confidence in the voters to get things right when it comes to borderline type guys. Sometimes there's guys who have a decent case, yet don't even get enough votes in their first year to remain on the ballot.

[66-70-83-??]

You make a good point about all the pitchers in the HOF having at least two 20 win seasons. However, I think Frobby's point really takes away from yours. But then again, I just don't care much about win totals in individual seasons, Mussina has pitched great in multiple seasons, it's not his fault he never got to 20. He's currently 48th in career wins, and will likely end up in the top 40, maybe even top 30. If wins is your thing, that's quite impressive, especially considering the era. Only 5 pitchers who were born after 1950 have 250 wins or more. Moose should become the 6th, and like Frobby said, probably the last for awhile unless Pedro can stay healthy.

Bottomline, I will evaluate how he did at preventing runs, not how well his teammates did in helping him win 20 games.

You seem to put a lot of stock into ERA/ERA+. Isn't ERA also team dependent ? The pitcher doesn't control what happens to batted balls.

I have been told many times by hardcore stat guys that ERA isn't a good stat to measure pitchers.


And Cy Youngs, All Star selections, MVP's, Gold Gloves, etc are also quite flawed because the people who vote on them screw them up all the time.

I disagree. Just like the HOF voting, the voters get it right most of the time.

No system is perfect. The game isn't perfect. That is part of the fun of it.

Do you really want a completely objective "cut and dry" system that determines exactly who gets in the Hall of Fame (or wins the Cy Young, MVP, etc) ?

That would be boring.

Baseball, because of all the variables in comparing players (from different teammates, different parks, post season opportunites, injuries, playing for different managers, etc) lends itself to great debates. Who is better (Brown vs Schilling, for ex) depends on who you ask ? You say Brown, I say Schilling. We are both right !

Baseball is a team game where the object of the players is to help their team win. Game situations on occasion will dictate a pitcher or batter sacrificing his individual stats for the good of the team.

Therefore, the old fashioned, flawed "counting stats" are important stats because they show who actually did get the opportunities on the field, made the most of them and did help their team win real games.

Any individual statistic, in isolation, is worthless. Some of the newer SABR translated stats are good. But, they are only part of the discussion, not the end of it.

[mweb]

You seem to put a lot of stock into ERA/ERA+. Isn't ERA also team dependent ? The pitcher doesn't control what happens to batted balls.

I have been told many times by hardcore stat guys that ERA isn't a good stat to measure pitchers.



I disagree. Just like the HOF voting, the voters get it right most of the time.

No system is perfect. The game isn't perfect. That is part of the fun of it.

Do you really want a completely objective "cut and dry" system that determines exactly who gets in the Hall of Fame (or wins the Cy Young, MVP, etc) ?

That would be boring.

Baseball, because of all the variables in comparing players (from different teammates, different parks, post season opportunites, injuries, playing for different managers, etc) lends itself to great debates. Who is better (Brown vs Schilling, for ex) depends on who you ask ? You say Brown, I say Schilling. We are both right !

Baseball is a team game where the object of the players is to help their team win. Game situations on occasion will dictate a pitcher or batter sacrificing his individual stats for the good of the team.

Therefore, the old fashioned, flawed "counting stats" are important stats because they show who actually did get the opportunities on the field, made the most of them and did help their team win real games.

Any individual statistic, in isolation, is worthless. Some of the newer SABR translated stats are good. But, they are only part of the discussion, not the end of it.


Pitchers do have some control over balls in play, and generally, over the course of a career, the luck mostly evens out. ERA+, just like wins, is a better stat to look at when evaluating someone's entire career instead of one season, because much of the luck is removed.

Yeah, the voters get it right most of the time with the HOF, but that's only because it's obvious most of the time. I don't think they get the gold glove award right most of the time though, and even the MVP and Cy Young awards may not be right most of the time.

Producing at a good rate with the new SABR stats help teams win real games too. I wouldn't say any stat in isolation is worthless at all, but yes, obviously using many stats is the best way to go.

[Eli Eon]

As I said before, I don't understand these sorts of stats as well as a lot of people on this board, you being one of the better ones. And I know that they are becoming more widespread in baseball. To be honest, I don't know what ERA+ is. I know I didn't see "ERA+" on a single plaque last weekend. Maybe these sorts of things will show up on the plaques of the future, but I think it's a little bit much to discount old standards that I threw out there, seeing as how every single Hall of Famer stacks up to them.

As for your question, I would answer it this way. I'm willing to credit him with a 20-win equivalent in 1995, seeing as how he was just one win away. It also helps that his 19 wins led the league that year. Four wins are too many for me to assume in 1994. And he could have gotten that 20th win in his last start of 1996, but he could have gotten it in a lot of other starts, too. In the end, he had a 162-game season to work with that year and did not win 20 games, so I give him no credit just because the bullpen blew that one game.

IF we were living in an alternate universe where he had 3 20-win seasons, perhaps a Cy Young or two, AND the 250+ wins he will finish with, then yeah, I'd put him in there. As I also said, I certainly am not discounting the fact that he could get in anyway. But seeing as how things actually turned out, I personally do not think he belongs as it stands now.

Excellent post, and I agree with it 100%. Not too many posts on the OH I have ever stated that about.;)

[Ironusher]

No !!!!!!!!!!

[DrungoHazewood]

Mike Mussina was a better pitcher than Jim Palmer.

How's that for tossing a hand grenade and walking away?

[Sports Guy]

Mike Mussina was a better pitcher than Jim Palmer.

How's that for tossing a hand grenade and walking away?

Drungo...Do you believe this?

I am not saying i agree or disagree with you but i would like to see your argument.

Where does Bill James have Moose ranked?

[Boy Howdy]

Just to flavor the discussion, here's how Mussina's fared in Cy Young voting

1992 - 4th place (2 first place votes)
1993 - n/a
1994 - 4th place (1 first place vote)
1995 - 5th place
1996 - 5th place
1997 - 6th place
1998 - N/A
1999 - 2nd place
2000 - 6th place (tied)
2001 - 5th place
2002 - N/A
2003 - N/A
2004 - N/A
2005 - N/A
2006 - N/A

[NJOriolesFan]

Drungo...Do you believe this?

I am not saying i agree or disagree with you but i would like to see your argument.

Where does Bill James have Moose ranked?


I think the last thing Bill James published would have been 5 years ago. As far as Win Shares go, Palmer had 318 and Musina had 248. As far as WARP-3, Palmer was 103.2 (with 5 seasons above 9) and Mussina is 123.2 (with 6 seasons above 9).

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo...Do you believe this?

I am not saying i agree or disagree with you but i would like to see your argument.

Where does Bill James have Moose ranked?

Eh, probably not, but I can make a plausible argument. Actually, a darn good argument. It's a heck of a lot closer than most Oriole fans would care to admit.

I do think that in the same context - ballpark, rotation size, era, defense - there isn't much difference between the two.

[Sports Guy]

Eh, probably not, but I can make a plausible argument. Actually, a darn good argument. It's a heck of a lot closer than most Oriole fans would care to admit.

I do think that in the same context - ballpark, rotation size, era, defense - there isn't much difference between the two.

To be honest with you, i agree with you.

You will never get the old time Orioles fan to admit it though.

[DrungoHazewood]

To be honest with you, i agree with you.

You will never get the old time Orioles fan to admit it though.

Palmer's career high in wins was 23. If he'd pitched his entire career in a five-man rotation with a 12-man bullpen there's a darn good chance he never wins 20.

[Boy Howdy]

I wonder how many Mussina would've won with Weaver screaming at him to stay in the game because he was better than everybody out in the bullpen.

[Sports Guy]

Palmer's career high in wins was 23. If he'd pitched his entire career in a five-man rotation with a 12-man bullpen there's a darn good chance he never wins 20.

Not to mention 2 strike shortened seasons, both of which Moose had a good chance of winning 20 in if it were a full season.

I don't think people understand just how good Mussina was...Hell, i have always thought he was a HOFer but not until recently, when i read some of the stuff on here and looked at some of his stats myself, have i thought he was in the discussion with great pitchers(as in guys that are upper tier HOFers).

Drungo, do you think it is a stretch to say that Moose could be a top 25 pitcher ever?

[DrungoHazewood]

Not to mention 2 strike shortened seasons, both of which Moose had a good chance of winning 20 in if it were a full season.

I don't think people understand just how good Mussina was...Hell, i have always thought he was a HOFer but not until recently, when i read some of the stuff on here and looked at some of his stats myself, have i thought he was in the discussion with great pitchers(as in guys that are upper tier HOFers).

Drungo, do you think it is a stretch to say that Moose could be a top 25 pitcher ever?

Yes, that is a stretch. But I don't think Palmer is there, either. They're both top ~100, and that's nothing at all to sneeze at. That's great.

[Sports Guy]

Yes, that is a stretch. But I don't think Palmer is there, either. They're both top ~100, and that's nothing at all to sneeze at. That's great.
Didn't James have Palmer in the top 20?

[mweb]

Didn't James have Palmer in the top 20?

He had him 18th in his Baseball Abstract. He did not have Mussina ranked in his top 100 after the 2000 season.

I think his ratings are off in this regard, but he does factor influence on pennant races, so that had to bump Palmer up some.