Mussina does not make my HOF ballot

[DrungoHazewood]

Sure he was a very good and durable pitcher for a long period of time but so was Jim Kaat who won 16 Gold gloves had 3.45 era with over 2400 k's and 283 wins and he's not in the HOF.

This is where careful analysis of the two pitchers reveals a lot. Mussina was 23% better than his leagues in allowing runs. Kaat 8% better. Mussina was selected to six All Star games to Kaat's three (and there were two games a year for part of Kaat's career). Mussina received Cy Young votes in 9 different seasons, Kaat in just one. Mussina finished in the top ten in wins nine times to Kaat's seven. Mussina finished in the top 10 in ERA 11 times to Kaat's three. And all of that put into context leads to Mussina compiling 84 rWAR to Kaat's 45. The JAWS metric which averages career and peak value had Mussina ranked 28th among all starters, right next to Fergie Jenkins and Nolan Ryan. Kaat is 101st, next to Roy Oswalt and Jerry Koosman. Mussina laps him, it's not even close.

But I'm quite sure none of this will sway your opinion one iota.

[Old#5fan]

You asked if he had led the league, I showed where he had.

All I was doing was saving you the thirty seconds it would have taken to do the search yourself.

Your welcome.

My apology for being rude. You are right. I do thank you.

[Old#5fan]

I

This is where careful analysis of the two pitchers reveals a lot. Mussina was 23% better than his leagues in allowing runs. Kaat 8% better. Mussina was selected to six All Star games to Kaat's three (and there were two games a year for part of Kaat's career). Mussina received Cy Young votes in 9 different seasons, Kaat in just one. Mussina finished in the top ten in wins nine times to Kaat's seven. Mussina finished in the top 10 in ERA 11 times to Kaat's three. And all of that put into context leads to Mussina compiling 84 rWAR to Kaat's 45. The JAWS metric which averages career and peak value had Mussina ranked 28th among all starters, right next to Fergie Jenkins and Nolan Ryan. Kaat is 101st, next to Roy Oswalt and Jerry Koosman. Mussina laps him, it's not even close.

But I'm quite sure none of this will sway your opinion one iota.

No it doesn't because despite all that 3.45 era ( and he even pitched longer and still managed a better ERA ! ) To me that is a better gauge. That metric doesn't change.

[weams]

Yeah that is an absurd comparison as Daniel Cabrera was a borderline or marginal major league who ended up in a Mexican League which is probably where he belonged in the first place. And you act like Steve Carlton was a bad pitcher just becaused he walked a lot of people also. Next thing you know you will be claiming Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle are bad HOFers becausev they led the league in strikeouts or struck out as many times in a season as Mark Reynolds or Chris Davis. Totally out there in leftfield. Yet you tout borderline candidates like Mussina who belongs where he is right now when it comes to Cooperstown.

Daniel Cabrera grew six inches one off season. As a major leaguer. Strange pituitary disorder. Or something.

[DrungoHazewood]

I

No it doesn't because despite all that 3.45 era ( and he even pitched longer and still managed a better ERA ! ) To me that is a better gauge. That metric doesn't change.

It changes all the time, because runs scored change all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with the pitchers themselves. I suppose you think that most of the best pitchers of all time pitched around 1915, because the league ERA was under 3.00.

[POR]

I

No it doesn't because despite all that 3.45 era ( and he even pitched longer and still managed a better ERA ! ) To me that is a better gauge. That metric doesn't change.

Just to confirm you are saying that an era in Kaats era (60s and 70s) is the same as an era in Mussina era (90s and 00s).

[weams]

Just to confirm you are saying that an era in Kaats era (60s and 70s) is the same as an era in Mussina era (90s and 00s).

It's a Christmas miracle.

[Old#5fan]

Just to confirm you are saying that an era in Kaats era (60s and 70s) is the same as an era in Mussina era (90s and 00s).

Probably even tougher to have an

ERA that low back the as the starters pitched further into the fame as a rule as you didn't have all this 6 inning quality start horse crisp nor all these relief specialists to help up your win totals!

[Frobby]

I

No it doesn't because despite all that 3.45 era ( and he even pitched longer and still managed a better ERA ! ) To me that is a better gauge. That metric doesn't change.

You're kidding, right? ERA varies hugely from one era to another. Ryan pitched from 1959 to 1983. In that period, the league ERA was as low as 2.98 (1968) and never higher than 4.67 (1979). When Mussina pitched, the lowest league ERA was 4.32 (1992) and it was as high as 5.39 (1996). A 3.68 ERA in the years Mussina pitched is much better than a 3.45 ERA in the years Kaat pitched. That's a large part of what ERA+ is all about -- it adjusts for when you played and where you played.

[Old#5fan]

You're kidding, right? ERA varies hugely from one era to another. Ryan pitched from 1959 to 1983. In that period, the league ERA was as low as 2.98 (1968) and never higher than 4.67 (1979). When Mussina pitched, the lowest league ERA was 4.32 (1992) and it was as high as 5.39 (1996). A 3.68 ERA in the years Mussina pitched is much better than a 3.45 ERA in the years Kaat pitched. That's a large part of what ERA+ is all about -- it adjusts for when you played and where you played.

I understand that Mussinas era compared to his peers is better than Kaats compared to his but that aside 3.45 is s better number than 3.68 or whatever Era Mussina has .

[Old#5fan]

As I've said before, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. I apologize for insulting all of the horses out there.

You have no horse in this conversation so spare the disparaging remarks if you don't have something useful to say please.

[weams]

You're kidding, right? ERA varies hugely from one era to another. Ryan pitched from 1959 to 1983. In that period, the league ERA was as low as 2.98 (1968) and never higher than 4.67 (1979). When Mussina pitched, the lowest league ERA was 4.32 (1992) and it was as high as 5.39 (1996). A 3.68 ERA in the years Mussina pitched is much better than a 3.45 ERA in the years Kaat pitched. That's a large part of what ERA+ is all about -- it adjusts for when you played and where you played.

As I've said before, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. I apologize for insulting all of the horses out there.

Ignore List

This is a list of users you wish to ignore. To add a user to your ignore list, go to your User CP and in the left Nav Panel under Miscellaneous, select [buddy / Ignore Lists], type the username you wish to ignore in the Ignore List blank and click [update Ignore List]

Posts from users that you are ignoring are hidden from view when logged into the forums.

[DrungoHazewood]

I understand that Mussinas era compared to his peers is better than Kaats compared to his but that aside 3.45 is s better number than 3.68 or whatever Era Mussina has .

At some point you have to do the work to understand what's going on. Your arguments infuriate so many because you simply won't go read up on the basics. I think everyone would be better off if you did. I don't mean to be insulting, but it's hard to have a decent conversation when one person isn't even talking about the same things, not even starting from the same baseline.

And I'd like to have a decent conversation.

[Old#5fan]

At some point you have to do the work to understand what's going on. Your arguments infuriate so many because you simply won't go read up on the basics. I think everyone would be better off if you did. I don't mean to be insulting, but it's hard to have a decent conversation when one person isn't even talking about the same things, not even starting from the same baseline.

And I'd like to have a decent conversation.

Well ok I get that the number value of different eras ERA isn't directly comparable for many reasons so I now see that. But win totals, innings pitched and strikeouts, etc., would seem to be. I think the dh was only in play during the middle to latter part of Kaat's career but he also had to bat before the dh which required additional energy and wear and tear. So I do think he is similar to Mussina in that he pitched a long time was the best at fielding his position and was a very good pitcher just not quite as outstanding when compared to Gibson, Koufax, seaver, Palmer, Marichal, Bunning, etc .

[Frobby]

Well ok I get that the number value of different eras ERA isn't directly comparable for many reasons so I now see that. But win totals, innings pitched and strikeouts, etc., would seem to be. I think the dh was only in play during the middle to latter part of Kaat's career but he also had to bat before the dh which required additional energy and wear and tear. So I do think he is similar to Mussina in that he pitched a long time was the best at fielding his position and was a very good pitcher just not quite as outstanding when compared to Gibson, Koufax, seaver, Palmer, Marichal, Bunning, etc .

I think this is a fair enough analogy, though I still think Mussina ranks higher than Kaat on any reasonable list. I really don't mind the argument that Mussina shouldn't get in, even though I disagree. It all boils down to where you draw the line. Just don't try to tell me you'd put Andy Pettitte in the Hall.