Mussina and Palmer

[Old#5fan]

BUT BECKETT HAS ALREADY WON 20 GAMES!!!!!!!!:cussing::cussing::angryfire:

I love how some folks love to minimize the fact that Mike Mussina (alleged HOF candidate) has NEVER won 20 games in a season his entire FABLED career! Granted, many lessor pitchers have achieved at least one 20 game winning season over their career such as Rich Helling and Steve Barber for example, and I certainly don't espouse they were better overall than the Fabled Mussina. However, I will state they are both proof positive that attaching at least ONE 20 game winning season to a starting pitcher's career shouldn't be all that difficult much less impossible as in the case of the FABLED Mike Mussina.

ERGO: Mussina should get a huge amount of negative points for never achieving a feat that many lessor and even mediocre pitchers have accomplished. In fact, I think it is just one example of why the FABLED Mike Mussina should not make the HOF, not ever, short of maybe next season he wins a Cy Young, 20 games and throws a No hitter while helping the Yankees win the WS!:laughlol: Truly elite HOF caliber pitchers don't need excuses for almost achieving the higher standards required of greatest. They don't need excuses because the actually achieve the standards that set them apart and make them stand out, as in 20 wins seasons, Cy Youngs, ERA titles, No hitters, etc.

Mussina has not even once hit 20 wins, not even once threw a No-hitter, not even once won a Cy Young, and not even once won a WS game. Now, each item taken individually would not disqualify him but when viewed collectively, I think it can overwhelmingly be argued he simply isn't elite but rather a very good pitcher who was fortunate in his durability and lack of serious injury that allowed him to sustain such a long career. Otherwise, he was not exceptional at all, just very good. One also must consider that he was within very close distance of achieving all of the notable achievements that most HOF starting pitchers share. Yet he FAILED!

[DrungoHazewood]

I love how some folks love to minimize the fact that Mike Mussina (alleged HOF candidate) has NEVER won 20 games in a season his entire FABLED career! Granted, many lessor pitchers have achieved at least one 20 game winning season over their career such as Rich Helling and Steve Barber for example, and I certainly don't espouse they were better overall than the Fabled Mussina. However, I will state they are both proof positive that attaching at least ONE 20 game winning season to a starting pitcher's career shouldn't be all that difficult much less impossible as in the case of the FABLED Mike Mussina.

I love how some folks love to minimize the fact that Greg Maddux (alleged HOF candidate) has never won 25 games in a season his entire FABLED career. Granted, many lessor pitchers have achieved at least one 25 game winning season over their career such as Steve Stone and Boo Ferriss for example, and I certainly don't espouse they were better overall than the Fabled Maddux. However, I will state they are both proof positive that attaching at least ONE 25 game winning season to a starting pitcher's career shouldn't be all that difficult much less impossible as in the case of the FABLED Greg Maddux.

[DrungoHazewood]

Taking it to another level...

I love how some folks love to minimize the fact that Jim Palmer (alleged HOF candidate) has never won 24 games in a season his entire FABLED career. Granted, many lessor pitchers have achieved at least one 24 game winning season over their career such as LaMarr Hoyt and Ron Bryant for example, and I certainly don't espouse they were better overall than the Fabled Palmer. However, I will state they are both proof positive that attaching at least ONE 24 game winning season to a starting pitcher's career shouldn't be all that difficult much less impossible as in the case of the FABLED Jim Palmer.

[Old#5fan]

I love how some folks love to minimize the fact that Greg Maddux (alleged HOF candidate) has never won 25 games in a season his entire FABLED career. Granted, many lessor pitchers have achieved at least one 25 game winning season over their career such as Steve Stone and Boo Ferriss for example, and I certainly don't espouse they were better overall than the Fabled Maddux. However, I will state they are both proof positive that attaching at least ONE 25 game winning season to a starting pitcher's career shouldn't be all that difficult much less impossible as in the case of the FABLED Greg Maddux.

When I read a post like this I am at a loss for words at the sense or need to post it. If you disagree with my viewpoint on Mussina, fine. However, I don't get this type of response. It just seems sort of trite.

So now I am going to give you one of my straight from the heart posts because you deserve it. A while back on this thread I claimed to the astonishment of many that Mike Mussina would have been the 5th starter on the Orioles team that featured 4 twenty game winners in McNally, Palmer, Cuellar, and Dobson. I was ridiculed by you but given a logical and very polite rebuttal by Frobby which I did not dispute where he espoused that Pat Dobson was no where near the pitcher that Mussina is/was. I actually agree with that, yet I hold to my belief that had Mussina the ability to be time traveled back to that team and pitch that year I would bet the farm he would have at most won 19 games.

The reason I hold this belief, is the guy simply chokes when he gets close to a chance at something great (defined by what most of us who are reasonable baseball fans and who value traditional accomplishments view) as in a 20 win season, a no-hitter, or perfect game, an ERA title, or a Cy Young. Mussina is the ultimate last minute choker who time and time again proves why he isn't great or elite. He is indeed very good and that is it. If there was a sort of purgatory for Near HOF - Very Good but not Great players, Mike Mussina would be the charter member! Now if you personally feel the HOF ought to be watered down to include guy's like Mussina than you need to start arguing for Bert Blyleven, Dennis Martinez, Vida Blue, Ron Guidry, and a few others who ought to be included before your golden boy.

[Avsfan]

The shear fact that you choose to ignore every factual and logical thing thrown at you over numerous occasions, is enough grounds to totally throw the polite responses out the window.

If you're not going to respect people's evidence, and blow it off as false...than you don't deserve the respect of getting a non-smartass response to any of your posts.

[DrungoHazewood]

Mussina is the ultimate last minute choker who time and time again proves why he isn't great or elite.

That's the kind of thing that a) isn't true and b) would get you punched in the nose if you said it to the guy you're accusing.

Now if you personally feel the HOF ought to be watered down to include guy's like Mussina than you need to start arguing for Bert Blyleven, Dennis Martinez, Vida Blue, Ron Guidry, and a few others who ought to be included before your golden boy.

Pitchers worse than Mike Mussina have been inducted into the Hall of Fame on a regular basis since the 1940s. Blyleven and Mussina both quite clearly surpass the current standards the Hall has established. Martinez, Blue, and Guidry aren't in the same county, not nearly to that level. So, I don't understand your point.

[Frobby]

I hold to my belief that had Mussina the ability to be time traveled back to that team and pitch that year I would bet the farm he would have at most won 19 games.

The reason I hold this belief, is the guy simply chokes when he gets close to a chance at something great (defined by what most of us who are reasonable baseball fans and who value traditional accomplishments view) as in a 20 win season, a no-hitter, or perfect game, an ERA title, or a Cy Young. Mussina is the ultimate last minute choker who time and time again proves why he isn't great or elite.

OK, let's look at this.

As I see it, Mussina would have had a very good chance to win 20 games in 1994, 1995 and 1996. In 1994, he was 16-5 after only 24 starts in early August, with 10-11 starts remaining. Unfortunately for him, the baseball strike happened, robbing him of an extremely good shot at a 20-win season. No choke there.

In 1995, the season started 18 games late due to the strike. Mussina won 19 games that year, including the last three starts of the year, in which he threw 3 complete games and allowed a total of one run. No choke there.

In 1996, Mussina had won 19 games by mid-September. He pitched poorly three straight times, and went into his final start of the year still needing one more win to get 20. He pitched a terrific game in which he went 8 innings and allowed 1 run on 4 hits, and threw 117 pitches, and he left the game leading 2-1. Armando Benitez came in for the 9th and blew the save and Mussina's 20-win season was lost. No choke there. (Anticipating your argument that Mussina should have stayed in the game to try to preserve his 20th win for himself, I should add here that since the O's were going to the playoffs that year, Davey Johnson would have been insane to leave Mussina out there to pitch the 9th inning.)

So, the bottom line here is that bad luck, not choking, cost Mussina three 20-win seasons. By the way, Mussina has been a great September pitcher in his career, pitching to a 2.87 ERA, the lowest of any month of the year. Hardly the performance of a choker.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you of how well Mussina pitched for the O's in the 1997 playoffs. I might have to remind you, though, that Mussina twice has saved the Yankees from playoff elimination -- once outdueling Barry Zito 1-0 when the Yankees were down 0 games to 2 in a best-of-five, and once rescuing Roger Clemens from a bases loaded, nobody out situation in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS against the Red Sox, in the first relief appearance of his career.

I think the worst you can say about Mussina is that he has had terrible karma in his career. He's been far from a choker.

[ledzepp8]

I love how some folks love to minimize the fact that Greg Maddux (alleged HOF candidate) has never won 25 games in a season his entire FABLED career. Granted, many lessor pitchers have achieved at least one 25 game winning season over their career such as Steve Stone and Boo Ferriss for example, and I certainly don't espouse they were better overall than the Fabled Maddux. However, I will state they are both proof positive that attaching at least ONE 25 game winning season to a starting pitcher's career shouldn't be all that difficult much less impossible as in the case of the FABLED Greg Maddux.

I don't agree with Oldfan that Mussina is a borderline HOFer or not one at all. But it has to mean something that there isn't one starting pitcher in the HOF that has never won 20 games in a season (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I did a quick check on Baseball Reference). I definitely think Mussina is a HOFer but it's those types of things that will make voters think a little and also it is those types of things that lead people to put him below a pitcher like Jim Palmer or his own peers.

While people want to dismiss 20 win seasons these days (and wins are not completely controllable by the pitcher), the HOF caliber pitchers of today and the pitchers on a HOF track are still getting their 20 win seasons. Sure it's harder, but it's something that is still being done and it has to mean something that Mussina never has done that.

[Frobby]

I don't agree with Oldfan that Mussina is a borderline HOFer or not one at all. But it has to mean something that there isn't one starting pitcher in the HOF that has never won 20 games in a season (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I did a quick check on Baseball Reference). I definitely think Mussina is a HOFer but it's those types of things that will make voters think a little and also it is those types of things that lead people to put him below a pitcher like Jim Palmer or his own peers.

While people want to dismiss 20 win seasons these days (and wins are not completely controllable by the pitcher), the HOF caliber pitchers of today and the pitchers on a HOF track are still getting their 20 win seasons. Sure it's harder, but it's something that is still being done and it has to mean something that Mussina never has done that.

I think you have a fair point here. However, it has only been since the early 80's that the 4-man rotation went the way of the dodo bird. 20-game winners are getting more rare all the time. Heck, not a single pitcher won 20 games in 2006, and in the NL, the league leader won 16 games!

The simple fact is that winning 20 games today requires you to win 57-60% of your starts. In the 1970s it only required you to win 50% of your starts. The chances are very good that Jim Palmer, and a number of other HOF pitchers, never would have won 20 games if they had started only 33-34 times a year, instead of 39-41 times a year.

By the way, when Mussina won 19 games in the strike-shortened 1995 season, he led the league in wins.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think you have a fair point here. However, it has only been since the early 80's that the 4-man rotation went the way of the dodo bird. 20-game winners are getting more rare all the time. Heck, not a single pitcher won 20 games in 2006, and in the NL, the league leader won 16 games!

The simple fact is that winning 20 games today requires you to win 57-60% of your starts. In the 1970s it only required you to win 50% of your starts. The chances are very good that Jim Palmer, and a number of other HOF pitchers, never would have won 20 games if they had started only 33-34 times a year, instead of 39-41 times a year.

By the way, when Mussina won 19 games in the strike-shortened 1995 season, he led the league in wins.

That's the point of my mocking posts before.

There was a time in the 1940s when all, or almost all HOF pitchers had won 30 games in a season. There was a time in the 1800s when 40 wins wouldn't come close to leading the league. There was a period in the 1930s-1950s when regular rotations were very hard to maintain, and even the best pitchers wouldn't start 35 games a year - so guys like Whitey Ford would top out at 17 or 18 wins.

If you're not going to adjust for the conditions throughout history, then you have to conclude that all of the best players who ever lived have been dead for a century. Jim Palmer's raw, unadjusted career numbers don't hold a candle to dozens of pitchers from the 1800s. There are 19th century pitchers with better records than Palmer who aren't in the Hall, and have never been seriously considered (See Bob Caruthers).

[Old#5fan]

The shear fact that you choose to ignore every factual and logical thing thrown at you over numerous occasions, is enough grounds to totally throw the polite responses out the window.

If you're not going to respect people's evidence, and blow it off as false...than you don't deserve the respect of getting a non-smartass response to any of your posts.

Since I don't even vaguely recall even reading even one of your posts previously, why should I value what you have posted here in the least? :scratchchinhmm:

Apparently I missed the memo that I must bow to your supreme superiority over me and relegate myself to simply falling in the fetal position and calling it a day because you say so.

As far as me respecting other people's evidence you apparently either are very subjective and biased against me for some unknown reason or just totally missed the post where I aknowledged Frobby's very respectful assertion about what he considered my very incorrect view comparing Pat Dobson to Mike Mussina. At the risk of being redundant, I will once again post that he convinced me to aknowledge Mussina is a better overall pitcher than Dobson.

BTW Frobby did that without being rude, smart, condescending or arrogant.

Just to let you know, I don't respond well to that type of behavior from anyone, in person, or on the Internet. I do respond quite well to a respectful difference in opinion. I also don't respond well to posters who only focus on other posters "style" of posting as if they have some sort of superior standard that must be met. I don't do that and have little good for those who do when the point of sites like this is to talk baseball, not try to impress each other or form grade schoolish cliques. That is certainly not what I signed up for. If that is what you are all about though, save yourself the trouble and just put me on ignore!

So take that for what it is worth if it means anything to you which I highly doubt.:rolleyestf:

[ledzepp8]

I think you have a fair point here. However, it has only been since the early 80's that the 4-man rotation went the way of the dodo bird. 20-game winners are getting more rare all the time. Heck, not a single pitcher won 20 games in 2006, and in the NL, the league leader won 16 games!

The simple fact is that winning 20 games today requires you to win 57-60% of your starts. In the 1970s it only required you to win 50% of your starts. The chances are very good that Jim Palmer, and a number of other HOF pitchers, never would have won 20 games if they had started only 33-34 times a year, instead of 39-41 times a year.

By the way, when Mussina won 19 games in the strike-shortened 1995 season, he led the league in wins.

I agree that it is somewhat harder to win 20 games in a season, but let's not act like it's not still done (and I'm not saying you are Frobby). In the past 20 years, 1988-2007, the AL has only had 3 years where there was no 20 game winner: 1994, 1995, and 2006. The NL has only had 4 years where there was no 20 game winner: 1994, 1995, 2006, and 2007. 1994 and 1995 obviously were strike shortened seasons. Over those 20 seasons, the AL had 39 20 game winners and averaged 1.95 per year. The NL had 33 20 game winners and averaged 1.65 per year.

These are all of the active leaders in wins with at least 200 and I would presume that these would all be considered peers of Mike Mussina and raging from not a HOFer to borderline to most definitely a HOFer.

Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Curt Shilling, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Andy Pettite. The only one of those peers that doesn't have a 20 win season is Kenny Rogers (and Mike Mussina). Now I don't think that Kenny Rogers is a HOFer, nor do I think Jamie Moyer, Curt Shilling or Andy Pettite are. But pitchers are still winning 20 games in a season with pretty good regularity (obviously not like they were in years gone by). It's has to come into the discussion with Mussina, and that was my main point. It will be a first when he makes the Hall because as far as I could tell, no starter in the HOF has no 20 win seasons.

[Frobby]

I think this has been a pretty good debate, not that anyone's mind has been changed.

As to the Hall of Fame, it is not as select a club as some would like it to be. There are 71 pitchers in the Hall. Mussina is better than a fair number of them. If you believe Mussina should be out, then really you believe the Hall should be quite a bit more selective than it has been over the years. It's fine with me if someone wants to take that position.

To me, there are five contemporary pitchers who had superior careers to Mussina's -- Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, and Martinez. Except for the questions about Clemens' steroid use, I'd say all five of those are locks for the Hall of Fame.

Mussina is in the next tier down, along with Curt Schilling and John Smoltz. I can see good arguments for putting Mussina first, second or third among that group. And there are reasonable arguments for drawing the HOF line above them, below them, or somewhere in between them.

All the other active pitchers are below the line (Moyer, Wells, Pettitte, Rogers) or simply haven't played long enough yet to know if they will sustain success long enough to merit entry to the HOF (Halladay, Santana, Webb, Sabathia and others).

[Frobby]

I agree that it is somewhat harder to win 20 games in a season, but let's not act like it's not still done (and I'm not saying you are Frobby). In the past 20 years, 1988-2007, the AL has only had 3 years where there was no 20 game winner: 1994, 1995, and 2006. The NL has only had 4 years where there was no 20 game winner: 1994, 1995, 2006, and 2007. 1994 and 1995 obviously were strike shortened seasons..... But pitchers are still winning 20 games in a season with pretty good regularity (obviously not like they were in years gone by). It's has to come into the discussion with Mussina, and that was my main point. It will be a first when he makes the Hall because as far as I could tell, no starter in the HOF has no 20 win seasons.

Good post. The first thing I want to point out is that this entire line of reasoning could be moot two weeks from now, because Mussina has 17 wins and four starts remaining. If he wins three of those, this part of the discussion is over.

The second thing is, I feel pretty strongly that Mussina should not be penalized for the fact that two of his best two seasons were in the years that were cut short by the baseball strike. As you pointed out, nobody won 20 games in those years. In 1994, Mussina finished 2nd in the league with 16 wins despite missing 10-11 starts due to the strike. In 1995, he led the majors in wins with 19 despite missing 3-4 starts due to the strike. The odds are extremely high that he would have won 20 at least once, and probably twice, but for the strike. I don't think that should be held against him.

Having said all that, obviously the fact that he hasn't won 20 is on a lot of people's minds.

[ledzepp8]

I think this has been a pretty good debate, not that anyone's mind has been changed.

As to the Hall of Fame, it is not as select a club as some would like it to be. There are 71 pitchers in the Hall. Mussina is better than a fair number of them. If you believe Mussina should be out, then really you believe the Hall should be quite a bit more selective than it has been over the years. It's fine with me if someone wants to take that position.

To me, there are five contemporary pitchers who had superior careers to Mussina's -- Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, and Martinez. Except for the questions about Clemens' steroid use, I'd say all five of those are locks for the Hall of Fame.

Mussina is in the next tier down, along with Curt Schilling and John Smoltz. I can see good arguments for putting Mussina first, second or third among that group. And there are reasonable arguments for drawing the HOF line above them, below them, or somewhere in between them.

All the other active pitchers are below the line (Moyer, Wells, Pettitte, Rogers) or simply haven't played long enough yet to know if they will sustain success long enough to merit entry to the HOF (Halladay, Santana, Webb, Sabathia and others).

I think this is a pretty fair assessment and is why some people were reluctant to put Mussina on the same level as Palmer no matter how identical their W/L records are. I agree though, good debate.