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

[Old#5fan]

The '92 Pirates would have been pretty solid with Mussina. Who knows - maybe they win the World Series, their free agents don't leave, and the Pirates become the team of the 90's with Mussina and Bonds leading the way. Mussina could have had 300 wins already!

Sure, do you also believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Abominable Snowman?:laughlol:

[DrungoHazewood]

I agree with all of this. Mussina couldn't hold Palmer's jock. Palmer was an elite pitcher - an all time great.

I think there's a bit of a halo effect here. Palmer was great, but he was very much a product of his era and his team. If he'd played for Mike Mussina's teams and Mike Mussina's defenses you would probably have a radically different opinion of him.

Say what you will about different era's, but you also have to account for the fact that the league was smaller - which deepens the talent pool (there were less fringe players in the game).

I couldn't disagree more strongly. In 1975, at the height of Jim Palmer's career, there were 24 major league teams. The US population was something like 210 million. Today there are 30 major league teams and about 300 million Americans. Without even considering the vastly expanded foreign talent pool there are fewer MLB players per American today (one per million) than in 1974 (one per 875,000).

Once you consider the added talent from Asia, Australia, and various Latin American and South American countries it's not even close. For today's MLB to have a similar player-to-population ratio as 1975 they'd have to add six or eight teams.

[McLovin]

In Mussina's 18 major league seasons, he's had an ERA lower than Palmer's career ERA of 2.86 ONCE.

[TakebackOPACY]

How many winning teams did Blyleven pitch for as opposed to Mussina? You seem to be taking that important aspect out of consideration entirely.

This may be a fair point. With all due respect, I'm not sure that it's fair of you to consider the factors that are out of Blyleven's control but not consider the factors that are out of Mussina's control. e.g. no 20-win season, but robbed of his best chance during the strike years; no staple post-season moment, but robbed of some by lack of run support and/or bullpen support.

Personally, I don't think a player should need those arbitrary accomplishments. But many with votes apparently do. As for 300 wins, Feinberg suspects Mussina may retire after this year (source: his newest book). And Mussina's brother suspects he may retire after this year as well (source: a pre-season blog on WNST about watching potential swan song seasons in 2008). Both those sources are from the past off-season, though.

[Hallas]

In Mussina's 18 major league seasons, he's had an ERA lower than Palmer's career ERA of 2.86 ONCE.

Their ERA+ are remarkably similar (Palmer is 126, Mussina is 122). That would indicate that, adjusting for era, they performed at a similar rate, with Palmer being only marginally ahead (with the aid of a legendary defense.)

I'm not going to knock Palmer because he's a deserving HOFer but so is Mussina. He's also proven to be a workhorse in an era where workhorses are not the norm. (He's 4th among active players in CGs and SHOs.) I find the "20 wins" threshold to be completely arbitrary and not relavent to his HOF candidacy, especially considering that he was the league leader in wins on one occasion and was #2 3 other seasons.

[DrungoHazewood]

You know who's a fairly decent comp to Mike Mussina? Whitey Ford. From the time he came up in 1950 through 1960 Casey Stengel was his manager. Casey ran a pitching staff according to the standard practices of the 1930s and 1940s. In other words, anyone could be called upon to start, and a strict four-man rotation was impossible due to train travel and frequent rainouts and doubleheaders. So nobody, including The Chairman of the Board, could make more than about 30 starts a year. In fact, Ford's career high in games started through his age 31 season was 33.

A lot like he'd been pitching in a five-man rotation.

And the results? ZERO 20-win seasons from the pitcher who was arguably the best pitcher of the 1950s.

Then Casey left, Ralph Houk took over, started pitching Whitey every four days, and he wins 25 games in 1961, 24 more in '63.

Not all of the details are the same, and all comps like this break down at some level. But that's the effect useage patterns have on pitchers. They can turn a guy from a perennial 17-game winner into someone whose pitching line looks a lot like Jim Palmer in his prime.

[Old#5fan]

You know who's a fairly decent comp to Mike Mussina? Whitey Ford. From the time he came up in 1950 through 1960 Casey Stengel was his manager. Casey ran a pitching staff according to the standard practices of the 1930s and 1940s. In other words, anyone could be called upon to start, and a strict four-man rotation was impossible due to train travel and frequent rainouts and doubleheaders. So nobody, including The Chairman of the Board, could make more than about 30 starts a year. In fact, Ford's career high in games started through his age 31 season was 33.

A lot like he'd been pitching in a five-man rotation.

And the results? ZERO 20-win seasons from the pitcher who was arguably the best pitcher of the 1950s.

Then Casey left, Ralph Houk took over, started pitching Whitey every four days, and he wins 25 games in 1961, 24 more in '63.

Not all of the details are the same, and all comps like this break down at some level. But that's the effect useage patterns have on pitchers. They can turn a guy from a perennial 17-game winner into someone whose pitching line looks a lot like Jim Palmer in his prime.

You might have an argument except you are forgetting one major thing?:scratchchinhmm: What about all of Mussina's main competition for entering the HOF who were busy racking up 20 game winning seasons unlike what was an impossibility for not-so mighty Mike?:laughlol: I mean your theory might hold water if other top pitchers like Shilling, Wells, Pedro, Maddox, Glavine, Johnson, Smoltz, Hentgen, Morris, Dennis Martinez, and Blyleven could't do it. Heck even vastly inferior types like ole Rich Helling were able to garner a 20 win season! How could these pitchers gain 20 win seasons under the same conditions? Hint, they might be better or more talented possibly?:clap3: Under your theory that should be virtually impossible because not-so-mighty Mike Mussina didn't do it nor did Whitey Ford due to not having the opportunity!:laughlol:

[Old#5fan]

Isn't that a similar factor when comparing, say, Mussina to Palmer? Palmer had some all-time great defenses behind him. I don't think the Yankees have been very good defensively since Mussina has been there.

Maybe not but they score a lot of runs, much more than the average team.

[Mark Carver]

In Mussina's 18 major league seasons, he's had an ERA lower than Palmer's career ERA of 2.86 ONCE.

I guess you don't think that league and ballpark effects don't matter when it comes to ERA? How else do you factor in the differences between to the era that each player played in? ERA + does take that into effect, so...

Jim Palmer top 5 ERA+ = 169, 156, 154, 143, 134

Mike Mussina top 5 ERA+ = 163, 157, 145, 142, 138

[McLovin]

I guess you don't think that league and ballpark effects don't matter when it comes to ERA?

Yes, you're right - I don't think that league and ballpark effects don't matter when it comes to ERA. Well said, and good point now that you mention it.

But I still think Palmer is in a different class than Mussina.

[DrungoHazewood]

You might have an argument except you are forgetting one major thing?:scratchchinhmm: What about all of Mussina's main competition for entering the HOF who were busy racking up 20 game winning seasons unlike what was an impossibility for not-so mighty Mike?:laughlol: I mean your theory might hold water if other top pitchers like Shilling, Wells, Pedro, Maddox, Glavine, Johnson, Smoltz, Hentgen, Morris, Dennis Martinez, and Blyleven could't do it. Heck even vastly inferior types like ole Rich Helling were able to garner a 20 win season! How could these pitchers gain 20 win seasons under the same conditions? Hint, they might be better or more talented possibly?:clap3: Under your theory that should be virtually impossible because not-so-mighty Mike Mussina didn't do it nor did Whitey Ford due to not having the opportunity!:laughlol:

What I'm saying is that winning 20 is only somewhat correlated to how well you've pitched. It also involves run support, defensive support, how you're used, and a hundred other factors. When you pitch your whole career in a five-man rotation it gets that much harder.

From 1950, when Whitey Ford broke in, until 1960 major league pitchers had 63 twenty-win seasons. None of them by Whitey Ford. What does that say about Ford? To me it (combined with his other numbers) says he was a heck of a pitcher, a HOF pitcher, but circumstances conspired against him in his quest to win 20. Certainly doesn't mean he was less of a pitcher.

[Hallas]

You might have an argument except you are forgetting one major thing?:scratchchinhmm: What about all of Mussina's main competition for entering the HOF who were busy racking up 20 game winning seasons unlike what was an impossibility for not-so mighty Mike?:laughlol: I mean your theory might hold water if other top pitchers like Shilling, Wells, Pedro, Maddox, Glavine, Johnson, Smoltz, Hentgen, Morris, Dennis Martinez, and Blyleven could't do it. Heck even vastly inferior types like ole Rich Helling were able to garner a 20 win season! How could these pitchers gain 20 win seasons under the same conditions? Hint, they might be better or more talented possibly?:clap3: Under your theory that should be virtually impossible because not-so-mighty Mike Mussina didn't do it nor did Whitey Ford due to not having the opportunity!:laughlol:

Or maybe you're ridiculous for pinning one player's HOF candidacy solely on whether he was able to accrue 20 wins, despite the fact that that he was one of the best pitchers in baseball for many seasons throughout the '90s and early 2000s.

[RShack]

Yes, you're right - I don't think that league and ballpark effects don't matter when it comes to ERA. Well said, and good point now that you mention it.

But I still think Palmer is in a different class than Mussina.

Palmer was a very special guy in various ways.

Mussina can be not-Palmer and still deserve his place in the HOF.

[ElToro75]

I sort of agree with you on this. The only, and I repeat ONLY way Mussina gets into the HOF is by achieving the 300 win total and that is mainly due to his longevity and great fortune not to have spent a lot of time on the DL during his career overall along with the fact he pitched most of his career for winning teams. In this manner, and only in this manner does a very good player attain the Hall because he had the great fortune to be able to sustain his very good career over an above average span of time. However, when you analyze this type of career, then why hasn't Dennis Martinez and Bert Blyleven made it? It seems like both of them have suffered unfairly due to not having played on winning teams througout the majority of their career like Mussina has. Hence they didn't have as many opportunies to pick up a win as they lacked the team around them to do it!

Sure it is but Mussina is never going to compare well to Palmer. Not many pitchers do other than those well entrenched in the HOF beyond any doubt. I picked Blyleven to compare to Mussina because he can't seem to get in the HOF, nor has Dennis Martinez. However, had they both played on better or more teams win winning records during their career (like Mussina) maybe they would have topped 300 wins easily. I just don't think 300 wins by itself is hall worthy without some of the other common HOF denominator hallmarks that Mussina doesn't possess, yet Martinez and Blyleven do, like a perfect game (Martinez) and a 20 win season (Blyleven).

Aren't we contradicting ourselves a little here? Does 300 hundred get you in or not? If not, name me one retired player with 300 wins who is not in the hall of fame?

So let me ask you this, if Mussina wins one more game in one of his 19 win seasons in your eye he is then a HOF'er? If so, how can one measly game, or a few outs in his almost perfect game, over the course of a career make a player worthy of the Hall or not?

BTW, a perfect game is not a HOF denominator hallmark. It's been done only 17 times in the entire history of the game.

[Mark Carver]

Is this true?

According to Tim McCarver, there has not been a single pitcher since 1900 to finish his career more than 100 games over .500 and not make the Hall of Fame. Mike Mussina is currently at 111 games over .500. While it’s not a lock he can keep himself above this mark, his history–just one losing season–indicates that he may very well be able to. His won-loss percentage is currently .635, good for 41st on the all-time list. It’s difficult to predict what the % itself means for the Hall of Fame, since it’s better than pitchers like Greg Maddux and CY Young, but essentialy the same as Doc Gooden’s, but McCarver’s statistic is enough to give you something to chew on.