If Mussina wins 20, is he a shoe-in for the Hall?

[Old#5fan]

There are plenty of pitchers who have no-hitters that aren't in the Hall. There are also many other pitchers with one 20 win season that aren't in either.

Multiple no-hitters or multiple 20 win seasons gets you points with the writers, not one.

300 wins is arguably more difficult to attain now with 5 man rotations versus 4 man rotations of the past.

Longevity coupled with dominance and/or consistency gets you points with the voters as well. Doesn't Mussina have something like 17 consecutive 10+ win seasons, an AL record? Should he play a few more years he could very well extend that streak.

Pitching for a team such as the Yankees with their high powered offense and garnering double digit wins doesn't seem like all that much of an accomplishment to me. Actually his win record with the Orioles is more impressive. All you need to do is look at Andy Pettite as a Yankee and you can see he is easily much more of a HOF candidate than Mussina if you compare what they have done with the same team.

[ElToro75]

Pitching for a team such as the Yankees with their high powered offense and garnering double digit wins doesn't seem like all that much of an accomplishment to me. Actually his win record with the Orioles is more impressive. All you need to do is look at Andy Pettite as a Yankee and you can see he is easily much more of a HOF candidate than Mussina if you compare what they have done with the same team.

I was partially agreeing with you on the longevity, but I was saying that longevity alone doesn't get you points with the voters.

The voters have the only opinions that actually matter, and those opinions obviously vary. When making the argument that a player will or will not be inducted into the Hall, you ultimately will have to compare stats, awards, post season performance, etc. with how the voters have historically voted. To me that is the best gauge as to if a player gets in or not. Is it a flawed system? Yes, but it is the system that is in place.

Whether a player should get in is a completely separate discussion.

[Mark Carver]

There are plenty of pitchers who have no-hitters that aren't in the Hall. There are also many other pitchers with one 20 win season that aren't in either.

Multiple no-hitters or multiple 20 win seasons gets you points with the writers, not one.

300 wins is arguably more difficult to attain now with 5 man rotations versus 4 man rotations of the past.

Longevity coupled with dominance and/or consistency gets you points with the voters as well. Doesn't Mussina have something like 17 consecutive 10+ win seasons, an AL record? Should he play a few more years he could very well extend that streak.

What! You mean that Rick Helling and his 1998, 20-7 season for the Rangers isn't a shoe-in for the HOF? Darn!

[Old#5fan]

What! You mean that Rick Helling and his 1998, 20-7 season for the Rangers isn't a shoe-in for the HOF? Darn!

That is actually an argument against Mussina. If a medicore pitcher like Helling can produce a 20-7 season, how come Mussina never could? It kind of works both ways on this.:laughlol:

[Mark Carver]

That is actually an argument against Mussina. If a medicore pitcher like Helling can produce a 20-7 season, how come Mussina never could? It kind of works both ways on this.:laughlol:

Well, maybe it's because of lack of run support by the offense when he pitches... such as -

2000 - Orioles - 3.71 runs scored per game when he started with a 3.79 ERA = 11-15 record

2001 - Yankees - 4.53 runs scored per game when he started with a 3.15 ERA = 17 - 11 record

[ElToro75]

That is actually an argument against Mussina. If a medicore pitcher like Helling can produce a 20-7 season, how come Mussina never could? It kind of works both ways on this.:laughlol:

So by your argument, someone who produces one mile stone (20 win, cy young, etc) is better than someone who is consistently real good but never has a "magical season"?

So I guess all the one hit wonders of the world that reached number one on the charts were much better than the Greatful Dead then ehh? The Dead never had a #1 one song.

[Old#5fan]

So by your argument, someone who produces one mile stone (20 win, cy young, etc) is better than someone who is consistently real good but never has a "magical season"?

So I guess all the one hit wonders of the world that reached number one on the charts were much better than the Greatful Dead then ehh? The Dead never had a #1 one song.

No, not at all. Of course Helling isn't as good as Mussina over his career. However, his career best season is better than any of Musina's which is kind of a negative against Mike. In other words, for a true HOF performer, it should not have been an impossible task to win 20 games at least once during his career, especially with the Yankees with that offense behind him. All the more showing that Mussina is just a very good pitcher over a long period of time. Longevity and being very good should not equate to greatness. If he won a Cy Young or two, was a consistent All-star nominee, lead the league in ERA, or even hurled a no-hitter or two, it would all make his selection pretty much a done deal despite the lack of a 20 win season, However, when you look at the big picture, I don't think he cuts it. Much like his career highlights, he is almost going to be good enough to be considered great but not quite there.:laughlol:

[DrungoHazewood]

Of course Helling isn't as good as Mussina over his career. However, his career best season is better than any of Musina's which is kind of a negative against Mike.

I'm going to have to make up a new way to describe this kind of silliness. This is a new low even for you. You're actually, really, in this universe, saying Rick Helling's 20-win year where he had a 4.41 ERA was better than any year Mike Mussina ever had? Really? :eektf:

It's times like this that have me doubting that you are who you say you are. No sober human baseball fan could believe that.

[Old#5fan]

I'm going to have to make up a new way to describe this kind of silliness. This is a new low even for you. You're actually, really, in this universe, saying Rick Helling's 20-win year where he had a 4.41 ERA was better than any year Mike Mussina ever had? Really? :eektf:

It's times like this that have me doubting that you are who you say you are. No sober human baseball fan could believe that.

As far as wins go a 20-7 record is pretty darn good. I would bet that won and loss percentage would be in the top 200 of all time with a minimum of 30 decisions. (Not talking about the ERA, just the wins and losses.) I mean you want to emphasize Mussina's total wins as a big deal, then so are Helling's wins in that season which are simply more than any Mussina accomplished in any single season.

[Mark Carver]

No, not at all. Of course Helling isn't as good as Mussina over his career. However, his career best season is better than any of Musina's which is kind of a negative against Mike.

Huh!?!?!?! Remember 1994, the strike shorthend season, in which Mussina only had 24 starts, and still put up remarkable numbers. You think Rick Helling's best is better than Mussina's? Helling in 1998 was league average with a potent run scoring machine behind him. That's why he won 20 games that year. And that's the only reason. Helling didn't even sniff the CYA voting that season... the dumb writers put Perdro Martinez and his lowly 19 win season and David Wells 18 win season ahead of him in 1998 in the CYA. I'll just post 2 of Mussina's seasons that were better than Helling's 1998 season...

1998 - Rick Helling - 20-7, 4.41. ERA (107 ERA+), 1.327 WHIP (21st in MVP voting)

1994 - Mike Mussina - 16-5, 3.06 ERA (165 ERA+), 1.163 WHIP (20th in MVP, 4th in CYA voting)

1992 - Mike Mussina - 18-5, 2.54 ERA (157 ERA+), 1.079 WHIP, (21th in MVP, 4th in CYA voting)

The more that I think about it... Wow!, Just, Wow!

[Old#5fan]

Huh!?!?!?! Remember 1994, the strike shorthend season, in which Mussina only had 24 starts, and still put up remarkable numbers. You think Rick Helling's best is better than Mussina's? Helling in 1998 was league average with a potent run scoring machine behind him. That's why he won 20 games that year. And that's the only reason. Helling didn't even sniff the CYA voting that season... the dumb writers put Perdro Martinez and his lowly 19 win season and David Wells 18 win season ahead of him in 1998 in the CYA. I'll just post 2 of Mussina's seasons that were better than Helling's 1998 season...

1998 - Rick Helling - 20-7, 4.41. ERA (107 ERA+), 1.327 WHIP (21st in MVP voting)

1994 - Mike Mussina - 16-5, 3.06 ERA (165 ERA+), 1.163 WHIP (20th in MVP, 4th in CYA voting)

1992 - 18-5, 2.54 ERA (157 ERA+), 1.079 WHIP, (21th in MVP, 4th in CYA voting)

The more that I think about it... Wow!, Just, Wow!

20-7 is better than 16-5 by my math when it comes to wins and losses. I do grant you that 18-5 is pretty much the same, but again, it just shows that if a mediocre pitcher like Helling could get a twenty win season, why couldn't a proposed HOF pitcher like Mussina not easily do it? I don't wanna hear excuses. He just didn't get it done period. The HOF isn't about almost getting it done, you have to actually DO IT!

[Mark Carver]

20-7 is better than 16-5 by my math when it comes to wins and losses. I do grant you that 18-5 is pretty much the same, but again, it just shows that if a mediocre pitcher like Helling could get a twenty win season, why couldn't a proposed HOF pitcher like Mussina not easily do it? I don't wanna hear excuses. He just didn't get it done period. The HOF isn't about almost getting it done, you have to actually DO IT!

Hmmmmm....

20-7 in 33 starts in a 162 game season

16-5 in 24 starts in a 112 game season

.... I'll take the 16-5 in the strike shortened season any day.

[ElToro75]

No, not at all. Of course Helling isn't as good as Mussina over his career. However, his career best season is better than any of Musina's which is kind of a negative against Mike. In other words, for a true HOF performer, it should not have been an impossible task to win 20 games at least once during his career, especially with the Yankees with that offense behind him. All the more showing that Mussina is just a very good pitcher over a long period of time. Longevity and being very good should not equate to greatness. If he won a Cy Young or two, was a consistent All-star nominee, lead the league in ERA, or even hurled a no-hitter or two, it would all make his selection pretty much a done deal despite the lack of a 20 win season, However, when you look at the big picture, I don't think he cuts it. Much like his career highlights, he is almost going to be good enough to be considered great but not quite there.:laughlol:

No-hitters, perfect games, hitting for the cycle, etc. are anomalies of the game. Their is no way to predict if/when a player will be able to accomplish one. There are some HOF'ers who have never accomplished any of those. Does that mean that say, Aubrey Huff (who has hit for the cycle) is better than any HOF member who hasn't done so?

If you truly feel that a pitcher like Helling has one season better than any of Mussina's that it would discredit his HOF chances, then there it no point even debating b/c I don't think anyone can follow the logic of that actually being true.

[Old#5fan]

No-hitters, perfect games, hitting for the cycle, etc. are anomalies of the game. Their is no way to predict if/when a player will be able to accomplish one. There are some HOF'ers who have never accomplished any of those. Does that mean that say, Aubrey Huff (who has hit for the cycle) is better than any HOF member who hasn't done so?

If you truly feel that a pitcher like Helling is better than Mussina then there is no point even debating b/c I don't think anyone can follow the logic of that actually being true.

I never said whatsover that Helling was a better pitcher than Mussina. EVen where you quoted me I explained that so where you are getting that from I haven't the foggiest. What I did state that if even a mediocre pitcher like Helling could have a 20 win season it doesn't bode well for Mussina and his HOF chances when it is pointed out he has never done what virtually every starting pitcher now in the HOF has done and usually numerous times!!!

[ElToro75]

As far as wins go a 20-7 record is pretty darn good. I would bet that won and loss percentage would be in the top 200 of all time with a minimum of 30 decisions. (Not talking about the ERA, just the wins and losses.) I mean you want to emphasize Mussina's total wins as a big deal, then so are Helling's wins in that season which are simply more than any Mussina accomplished in any single season.

Well speaking of winning percentages, all time Mussina currently ranks 40th in Win %, 39th in wins (assuming he gets 6 more this season to finish with 19 wins for '08, that puts him at 34th, assuming he gets 30 more between now and when he retires that ranks him at 24th all time)

He also ranks 22nd in K/9, 21st in strike outs (and he stands a decent chance to get 3,000 - one of your famous milestones required)