Ripken and Palmer called some of most overrated players of all time

[OFFNY]

Wow, you have an even lower opinion of HoF voters then I do if you think that a stat as useless as winning percentage will play a part.

Makes you wonder how Nolan Ryan got in. (.526)

I agree with your general sentiment regarding the relevance of a pitcher's W-L records (as would Jeremy Guthrie and a host of other pitchers), but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was useless. It can be deceptive ....... a pitcher can be significantly better or significantly worse than his W-L record might indicate, but I think that throwing it out the window completely as a judging factor is too extreme.

[Can_of_corn]

I agree with your general sentiment regarding the relevance of a pitcher's W-L records (as would Jeremy Guthrie and a host of other pitchers), but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was useless. It can be deceptive ....... a pitcher can be significantly better or significantly worse than his W-L record might indicate, but I think that throwing it out the window completely as a judging factor is too extreme.

Actually I do not find winning percentage to be a useless stat in judging a potential HoF inductee. I do find it useless how he was using it. I think comparing a pitcher's winning percentage to his team winning percentage is at least slightly illuminating.

[OFFNY]

Actually, I do not find winning percentage to be a useless stat in judging a potential HoF inductee. I do find it useless how he was using it. I think comparing a pitcher's winning percentage to his team winning percentage is at least slightly illuminating.

Oh OK, thanks. My bad.

[Can_of_corn]

Oh OK, thanks. My bad.

It isn't your bad, I didn't clarify it in my original post. I felt that it would add a degree of complexity that wasn't helpful. You were within bounds to question my earlier statement.

[Hallas]

Do we really indict Mussina for not being one of the top 4 pitchers in an entire generation?

So he's the 5th or 6th best pitcher over a 20-25 year period. And all of the guys ahead of him all happened to have peaks at the same time. That really just makes him unlucky more than it makes him a non-HOF pitcher.

Considering they elect 2-3 guys every year (or 50-75 people over that period), being the 5th best pitcher over that time period should put him squarely in the first-ballot category.

[crissfan172]

Do we really indict Mussina for not being one of the top 4 pitchers in an entire generation?

So he's the 5th or 6th best pitcher over a 20-25 year period. And all of the guys ahead of him all happened to have peaks at the same time. That really just makes him unlucky more than it makes him a non-HOF pitcher.

Considering they elect 2-3 guys every year (or 50-75 people over that period), being the 5th best pitcher over that time period should put him squarely in the first-ballot category.

I think the debate is more over whether he gets in on the 1st ballot or not. I don't believe (I could be wrong) that many think he shouldn't get in.

1st ballot...2nd ballot...14th ballot...

Who really cares?

[RHall31]

I am no stats geek and don't know the understanding of the new stats to compute this kind of data but it would be interesting to see how Mussina would have done if he had pitched in Palmer's time and vice versa......

Interesting scenario for sure. One has to wonder just how much better Palmer could have been if he was only required to go 6-7 innings. Palmer completed over half his games throughout much of his career. Would he have been able to dial it up more, had better stuff, if he wasn't used for such extended outings year after year? Would his ERA or +ERA have been much lower if he could've gone harder for shorter stints like Mussina? We'll never know, but an interesting point none the less.....

[Basketeer]

BR is written by fans, most of whom have zero journalism experience. Their articles are terribly written (grammatically and substance). I don't put much stock into anything they say.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Interesting scenario for sure. One has to wonder just how much better Palmer could have been if he was only required to go 6-7 innings. Palmer completed over half his games throughout much of his career. Would he have been able to dial it up more, had better stuff, if he wasn't used for such extended outings year after year? Would his ERA or +ERA have been much lower if he could've gone harder for shorter stints like Mussina? We'll never know, but an interesting point none the less.....

I saw something once (I think Posnanski mentioned it in one of his Blyleven blog posts) where a stat guy decided to see what would happen if you placed Blyleven on the same teams Palmer played on and vice versa. It's been a while, and of course there are so many variables involved with something like that, but the basic outcome was that Blyleven would have finished with well over 300 wins while Palmer likely dropped into the 220-230 range.

[Frobby]

Sorry I don't buy that Moose is underrated or a first ballot guy. You can make a case that Palmer was the best pitcher of his generation, Mussina wasn't even the best pitcher on his team in New York.

.

I just want to address this point. First, Palmer was not always the best pitcher on his teams. McNally, Cuellar, Flanagan, McGregor and Stone all had seasons as Orioles' top dog during Palmer's career. Second, Mussina's best years were before he even got to New York. Even so, I believe he led the Yankee staff in ERA four of his eight seasons there. So the argument that Mussina wasn't the best pitcher on his team in NY doesn't really fly with me.